Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 25

< June 24	June 26 >

June 25

Category:Miami culture

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Culture in Miami --Kbdank71 14:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - to from Category:Miami culture to Category:Culture of Miami PianoKeys 22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are two common forms for such categories, "XYZ culture" and "Culture in XYZ". No reason has been given to change this one to "Culture of XYZ". Aviara 23:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Culture in Miami which appears to be the most common form and make this the standard for any culture by city category. I think we need some kind of standard. Right now this is a mix of fooian culture, culture of foo and culture in foo. I don't think I care what consensus supports, but we should have consensus to rename all of these to a single form. Vegaswikian 02:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:NAME indicates Fooian culture at the country-level, as culture is of a people and not a political entity. This suggests Category:Miami culture is more in spirit with the tree.-choster 05:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you support making that the standard for city culture categories? Vegaswikian 06:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The category names in Category:Culture by city are not standardized. Any decision regarding this category by itself really does not accomplish anything for the category tree overall. Dr. Submillimeter 08:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why my vote is to make whatever has consensus the standard. Vegaswikian 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Culture in Miami Alex Middleton 20:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Culture in Miami. There's no need to follow the national convention. Much culture found in major cities is of an international character, eg performances of foreign plays and music, and galleries full of foreign pictures. The "in" form reflects this slight distancing between city and culture. Piccadilly 17:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Euro-jazz musicians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the category is redundant and not a genre, but a national identifier. As the creator of the category I am requesting it's deletion following a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jazz#Category:Euro-jazz_musicians with others. (Mind meal 22:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nom - there is no need for this category in the absence of an article Euro-jazz and given that the musicians in question will be adequately categorized by nationality anyway. Bencherlite 04:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the nomination was not complete; I have completed it. Xtifr _tälk 09:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the category is neither effective in describing a musical genre or clearly named in describing a regional geographical category. AllyD 20:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia articles with a wrong title

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. Wizardman 18:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as recreation of the types of category deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_29#Wrong_title_categories. Tim! 18:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all This is categorization of non-content qualities in the main article. There are templates for most, if not all of these attributes (and these newly created category are being transcluded through the templates). However, the "whatlinkshere" feature can easily identify the articles containing the templates, replacing the purpose of the categories. These titles are ridiculously long, and fill up the categories box quickly. -Andrew c 20:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. "whatlinkshere" does the job fine. --21:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom - wasn't this already discussed? These are useless maintenance templates because it's not possible to fix the situation. The only effect I can see is for trivia, and to clutter up the category box below articles. Shalom ^Hello 22:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aviara 23:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete --Tellerman
Delete all per above. Doczilla 07:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all They clutter up the category box and are useless for the reasons said above. G.A.S 09:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as cat clutter. Carlossuarez46 18:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Annoying wastes of bandwidth. Postlebury 14:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mexico and the United States

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mexico and the United States to Category:Mexican-American relations

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Clarify purpose of category and consistency with the other categories in Category:United States-North American relations. Tim! 16:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for the sake of consistency and clarity. Shalom ^Hello 22:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I noted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 22#US foreign relations, this formulation is not a standard, and the parent categories would also be in need of renaming. And not to be pedantic, but since the category is shared by the two countries, why Mexican-American and not American-Mexican?-choster 05:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's pretty standard for other countries to have A-B relations (which is A and which is B is arbitrary), and the arbitrary choice between Mexico-US/US-Mexico already exists, why not Category:United States and Mexico? Tim! 19:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom--Sefringle^Talk 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Cloachland 20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jamster ringtones

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Note that the ringtones currently included are all "original" to Jamba! the wub "?!" 10:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorizing songs because a company has turned them into ringtones is trivial. Any number of songs get licensed to be turned into ringtones and they are not notable because of their ringtone status. Otto4711 16:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Jamba!. The category doesn't just contain ringtones, but it does seem to contain articles all related to the parent company. The articles are related, and I'm not sure where the articles would end up if this category was deleted (but then again, I wouldn't entirely mind if some of these articles were deleted as well). I wouldn't mind deleting this cat, but I put forth this new name for everyone's consideration.-Andrew c 17:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & as bad precedent next we'll have Category:Muzaked songs. Carlossuarez46 18:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Jamba! per User:Andrew c Luckystars 17:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Current single

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Speedy delete - Generally, articles are not sorted according to status. Moreover, the definition of "current single" seems vague; when do singles cease to be "current"? Even if a clear definition can be given, I suspect that the category will be difficult to maintain. Moreover, the category is the recreation of deleted content, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 16#Category:Current singles. Dr. Submillimeter 16:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also note the incorrectly-created redirect Category:Current singles, which should be deleted with this category. Dr. Submillimeter 16:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. No living/dead categories for songs.--Mike Selinker 17:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. NO "current" categories. Doczilla 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current categories should have something to do with electricity or water flow or not be here at all. Carlossuarez46 18:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too unlikely to be maintained accurately. Alex Middleton 20:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as recreation of deleted content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Leaders by coup

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Leaders who took power by coup --Kbdank71 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Past leaders by coup and Category:Leaders by coup to ?

Nominator's rationale: Merge/Rename - The name of Category:Leaders by coup seems to be poorly written. It should be renamed, but I have no good suggestions for a name. Since people are generally not sorted according to status on Wikipedia, the subcategory Category:Past leaders by coup should be merged into this category. (It is also unclear whether "past" means that these people are now dead or simply not in power.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a single category named something like Category:Coup leaders or, to restrict it to those who were successful, Category:Leaders who took power by coup. Otto4711 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Otto. Several former leaders are in the "current" category. I think it is already intended to be only for successful coups, so Category:Leaders who took power by coup is probably best. Johnbod 16:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about using leaders in the title. They are usually called dictators, but using that in the title seems overly restrictive. While not a great choice, would Category:Individuals who took power by coup be an improvement? To imply that these dictators are leaders almost seems to be a POV issue. Many of these could just as easily be in Category:Tyrants who took power by coup. I don't have an objection to merging and even if a better name is nor selected, a Merge to Category:Leaders by coup, or whatever consensus seems to be deciding, should happen to eliminate the past category. Vegaswikian 22:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I prefer using "leaders" to "dictators" and "tyrants", as "leaders" has a more neutral tone. I also prefer using "leaders" to "individuals", as the people who take power during coups usually go on to become the leaders. This is instead a problem with the English used to create the category name; it just looks poorly written. Dr. Submillimeter 00:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Leaders who took power by coup per Otto, although I have my doubts about whether we can objectively determine what a coup is at the edges (Pinochet, easy; Augustus? murkier still; Fujimori was elected under the country's laws perhaps he overstepped his mandate by coup but he wasn't put there by coup; and Hitler was put in one position by popular vote and took over all power through some manoeuvers that would not be inconsistent with a coup) and I guess that follow-on leaders don't belong in this category, barring a second coup or counter-coup: so Lenin (maybe) in but Stalin definitely not. Carlossuarez46 18:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Leaders who took power by coup per Otto, or delete. Dominictimms 17:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Past Olympic sports

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Past Olympic sports to Category:Former Olympic sports

Nominator's rationale: Rename - Generally, "former" is used instead of "past" for Wikipedia categories. Moreover, "former" indicates more clearly that the sports are no longer played in the Olympics. This category should therefore be renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 15:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Lugnuts 16:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Xn4 00:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Alex Middleton 20:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Definitely not defunct. Johnbod 20:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Past characters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Past Coronation Street characters to Category:Coronation Street characters

Suggest merging Category:Past Emmerdale characters to Category:Emmerdale characters

Nominator's rationale: Merge - Characters are usually not divided according to status, as the characters may return in the future (especially in soap operas, where characters disappear or reappear in the storylines frequently). Therefore, these categories should be merged into their parent categories. (Also note this previous discussion on similar categories.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge. No living/dead categories for fictional characters.--Mike Selinker 17:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. All fiction is identified in present tense.Doczilla 07:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Past

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Category:Passed events is a category for things tagged with Template:Past. However, given that so many things happened in the past, many other articles could be added to the category, making it so broad that it is useless. It should be deleted. Category:Past only contains Category:Passed events, so the two categories should be deleted together. Dr. Submillimeter 15:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also note the discussion on Template:Past at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 25#Template:Past. Dr. Submillimeter 15:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - far too broad to be useful and virtually unmaintainable should someone decide to get the bright idea to populate it with every article for any event that happened before now...or before now...or before now... Otto4711 16:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per both above. Never were the contents of a category such a let-down. Johnbod 16:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Potentially huge, and far too broad to be useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overly broad and unnecessary, and before it leads someone to create the even worse 'Category:Future events'... Terraxos 03:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per above. Doczilla 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both A merit-free random addition to the category system. Piccadilly 17:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Neverland Express Musicians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Neverland Express members, convention of Category:Musicians by band. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename.--Mike Selinker 14:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Should have checked naming convention before creating. Evil Nickname 09:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed; all should be linked from the band's article. Carlossuarez46 18:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are, and also, wouldn't that invalidate all other "musicians by band" list then as well? Evil Nickname 08:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Child prodigies

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as recreation of deleted content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Defining someone as a "child prodigy" is too subjective. Dr. Submillimeter 14:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above. Johnbod 16:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective cat. Doczilla 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective. Carlossuarez46 18:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Submillimeter Postlebury 14:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it would make sense for historical child prodigies. Pavel Vozenilek 14:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed it would, in a professionally edited encyclopedia, where the criteria could be agreed and easily enforced. In wikipedia it is too prone to misuse to be retained. Piccadilly 17:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is sadly true. Pavel Vozenilek 12:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Piccadilly 17:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:James Bond music

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the only article that isn't a soundtrack album already in Category:James Bond albums is James Bond music, which can certainly go directly in Category:James Bond. This layer of categorization to hold the albums and songs subcats is unnecessary. Otto4711 12:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having the "music" category for the "album" and "songs" subcategories is better than placing the "album" and "songs" categories in the main James Bond category. Dr. Submillimeter 14:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it better to maintain an otherwise virtually empty container category that is small and unlikely to grow? Otto4711 16:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although category might be "small and unlikely to grow" it effectively organizes articles in a common sense and user-friendly way that is helpful. Benjiboi 02:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but see the thing is, it isn't actually organizing articles. It's redundant to the albums category, because everything in it is an album. Otto4711 03:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just move all of the album articles to the album category. The solution to badly-used categories is not necessarily deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 08:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but in this instance all of the album articles are already in both the albums cat and the music cat. Again, this is sitting as an intermediate layer of categorization between the songs and albums subcats and the parent Bond cat. There is no navigational benefit in the layer. Otto4711 17:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that under the parent James Bond, there should be James Bond Music under which is Albums and Songs. That seems simple enough to me. Benjiboi 18:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under the current set-up, a reader starting from Category:James Bond wanting to read about Goldfinger (song) has to navigate through Category:James Bond music to get to Category:James Bond songs. In the absence of this category the reader gets directly from James Bond to James Bond songs. The category is a barrier to nevigation that serves no organizational purpose. Otto4711 19:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can agree to disagree, any user searching through the category for an article will find the example you state without an undue amount of extra effort whereas reducing the categorization, I feel, will make it harder for users. Benjiboi 20:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete which songs have appeared in which movies is a nightmare for the category system. A reference in the movie's article and another in the song's suffices. Carlossuarez46 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea that this is a "barrier to navigation" is entirely wrong. Following Otto's argument all categories below Category:Categories are "barriers to navigation" as they force people to make extra clicks. We have subcategories so that people can find things even if they don't know what they are called, or how to spell them, or even that they exist. People who already know about Goldfinger (song) can use the search box. Alex Middleton 21:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, my argument can't logically be extended to all categories. It's specific to this category, which serves no organizational purpose. Otto4711 12:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Otto's argument is not specific to this category and it is no better here than it would be in any of the thousands of other cases to which it might be applied. Cloachland 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is specific to this category and the vague "this could apply elsewhere" argument means nothing in the absence of a specific application to this category. Otto4711 01:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We don't need a cat of "music" to house "albums" and "songs" which could just both be direct sub-cats of "James Bond". The articles are either improperly duplicated in this category from the album category or, as Otto says, the "James Bond music" article can live in the main category. Therefore this level of category is redundant. Bencherlite 02:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Karate Kid music

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little or no likelihood of growth. Following removal of songwriters, of the remaining three entries only one is for a song written specifically for one of the films and all of the entries are interlinked with the appropriate film article through text. Otto4711 12:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining and/or trivia per many precedents. Doczilla 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Warfare by genre

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Warfare by genre to Category:Warfare by type

Nominator's rationale: Merge, this is merely a malformed partial copy of the existing category. "Genre" is not used to refer to different types of warfare, in any case. Kirill 05:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Mowsbury 11:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Johnbod 14:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Could this category have been more influenced by video games than by history books? Alex Middleton 21:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge nothing more to be said. Carom 01:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cal Bears basketball

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cal Bears basketball to Category:California Golden Bears basketball

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the corresponding athletics page (California Golden Bears), and the proper athletics name for the team. Also nominating:

fuzzy510 05:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Either the current state or this is fine with me, but your nomination should probably also include Category:Cal Bears football and its subcategories.--Mike Selinker 15:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't even notice them. Thanks for pointing that out. --fuzzy510 04:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I think the full "California Golden Bears" name is more intuitive for most editors, and, dare I say it, more encyclopedic in tone. Shalom ^Hello 22:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.