Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 30

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} deleted. the wub "?!" 12:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Kuro5hin}}

• Delete, category has no chance for expansion. Only contains the main article and article for the creator of the website. --- RockMFR 21:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Recury 03:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 12:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename/merge to :Category:Ohio State University faculty --Kbdank71 13:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Ohio State University academic faculties and staffs}}

• Delete or rename Upmerge Appears to have been added by non-native speaker ("faculty" and "staff" in this sense are indeclinable mass nouns, though I suppose they could take a plural when used across different universities). I have no objections to renaming to :Category:Ohio State University faculty and staff, if there are any actual articles about non-faculty staff members at OSU. But if there aren't, then the expansion to include "staff" seems unnecessary and over-wordy. Trovatore 20:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rename Upmerge to :Category:Ohio State University faculty --- RockMFR 22:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What's the point of including the word "academic"? Is there some other sort of faculty at OSU? :Category:Ohio State University faculty already exists, and has since June (whereas the category under discussion is new). --Trovatore 23:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• The category adds an unnecessary layer. Upmerge to :Category:Ohio State University faculty. - EurekaLott 00:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Eureka. Recury 03:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename. Re: Trovatore: Of course there are other sorts of faculty. The janitorial faculty come to mind, as well as the administrative faculty. -Toptomcat 03:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Janitorial faculty? Never heard such a term. Do they use it in England, maybe? Anyway, I don't think "Ohio State University faculty" is ambiguous in context. I agree with EurekaLott's "upmerge" (which is effectively "delete", because :Category:Ohio State University faculty is where the articles were before yesterday). --Trovatore 04:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename Sorry, my bad. I worked on this for several hours and became tired: just coping and pasting did not pay attention to the context. I personally would take Category:Ohio State University academic faculty and staff. The key reason that I put academic in there is to distinquish from athletic coaches. As you may see in the list of any University faculty, there is only athletic coaches listed in there. There is no room to put academic faculty and staff. I would place staff' in there because I do not want the list is limited to only faculty.--06:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment there are 65 categories in :category:Faculty by university in the United States, and not one of them uses "academic". I really don't see the point. If someone wants to add Terry Donahue to :category:University of California, Los Angeles faculty, it would strike me as a little silly, but not worth making the already-long category name longer just to exclude him. As for "academic staff" -- are there really many of those who are going to get bios? If they do, it'll probably be for non-academic reasons, and if it does turn out to be for academic reasons, we could probably stretch a point and put them in the "faculty" cat. --Trovatore 18:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Well, uh actually, no, I don't think we should stretch a point in such a case. But what would such a case consist of? A teaching assistant who makes some breakthrough? What's the hurry to categorize him by school? Wait till he gets his degree, which won't be long, and then categorize him as an alumnus of the school, or as faculty wherever he gets hired. --Trovatore 05:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Upmerge to :Category:Ohio State University faculty, per adjusted nom. (Note: :category:American University faculty and staff is the only category of :Category:Faculty by university in the United States that has "and staff".) - jc37 00:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. the wub "?!" 12:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Reviewed requests for unblock}}

• As the category says, "This category is intended to allow administrators to easily locate users who have requested that a block placed on them be lifted." Since the category has thousands - literally thousands - of entries, nobody can "easily locate" anything in it. It has no use as a reference work, unless I'm missing something fundamental. It breaks WP:DENY by providing another place for User:REDVERS MUST DIE and the like to have their name in lights. It is meant to be regularly cleared but isn't. It requires an extra step in an already over-worked system. It is process for process sake. I have other reasons for wanting this category gone but these will do for now. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: it was created along with {{tl|unblock reviewed}}, to complement {{tl|unblock}} and :Category:Requests for unblock. The idea was that recently reviewed requests would be kept here, so that another admin could come along and review them again. Of course that was the intention, and if the actual practice doesn't match that, then the category isn't necessary. --bainer (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not useful. >Radiant< 10:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Hiding Talk 21:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: speedily withdrawn. David Kernow (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

:Category:Subnational entities in Europe to :Category:Subnational divisions of Europe

• Rename. User:David Kernow added cfd to this category, but I'm unable to find any discussion. Anyway, I feel that "division" is a clearer indication of what the category contains. Dagnabit 14:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Apologies; this category was one of a number recently proposed but then withdrawn pending ongoing discussion at WP:WPCSub and related articles, but I forgot to comment-out/remove the tags!  Will now do so. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

----

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:Category:I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here! to :Category:I'm a Celebrity, Get Me out of Here!

• Rename, the article for the show is at I'm a Celebrity, Get Me out of Here!. Extraordinary Machine 14:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy, surely? Grutness...wha? 00:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy rename as above. -Toptomcat 03:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Rename - since it's just a comma : ) - jc37 20:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's yet another useless category that just lists who was in the show. The show article or a list page can do that. RobJ1981 17:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and listify - As above, this category is better suited as a list. In general it's a bad idea to have seperate categories for cast lists for individual movies and television shows (doing so can eventually lead to many, many categories per actor page). A list would also allow for other information such as character name and first appearance date, etc. Dugwiki 17:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy rename as above. And I suggest that anyone reading the input by Dugwiki on this subject also has a look [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_29#Actors_by_television_series_subcategories here]. Rgds, - Trident13 17:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks like category-cruft to me. --Trovatore 15:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listify. Hiding Talk 21:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:Category:China manufacturers to :Category:Ceramics manufacturers

• Rename, This whole section needs some work, as the terms Ceramics/Pottery/China are intermingled to make a confused categorisation. However, this particular category just seems to stick out as the most obvious one to rename. The term China these days is more commonly used to refer to the country, and use of the term Ceramics over Pottery covers a larger number of manufacturers, while still remaining encyclopedic. Rgds, Trident13 14:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure I could support this one. I understand the problem you are describing, but I'm not convinced that this is confusing. Maybe if presented as a solution to the complete problem I could support it. Vegaswikian 21:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to something different. 'China' is a specific and special type of ceramic, no? Perhaps 'Manufacturers of China?' That seems at least marginally less confusing. -Toptomcat 03:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for your comments. I agree that the whole section (ie - everything that covers Cereamics/Pottery/China) needs a review to become more encyclopedic. Personally I would go for Ceramic, and this covers both Pottery and China, and other forms of the clay moulding/glazing art form. What about Maunfacturers of Ceramics, as the start of a whole rename of these various areas to use the term Ceramics versus pottery or China? Rgds, - Trident13 18:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom as start of review suggested by Trident13. David Kernow (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Rename, This could easily cause problems for people looking for Chinese manufacturing articles.Slavlin 21:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Move :Category:China manufacturers under :Category:Ceramics manufacturers under :Category:Ceramics. There should be no confusion with Chinese manufacturing. This provides the structure that many seem to be suggesting above. Once these are grouped and split based on the total picture, they can be cleaned up by those involved in ceramics. I don't see us changing a very specific and completly accurate name without a very strong need. Vegaswikian 19:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks - geat comment which I fully agree with. At the moment the whole sequencing/navigation in that area is more confusing than encyclopedic - and once we have a direction, agree that it shouldn't need to change again. Rgds, - Trident13 10:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 13:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:Delete, The main article is a disambiguation page, always a bad sign. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP, Nominators reasons are frivolous, this category has many articles that fit the +cat criteria. MapleTree 13:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What exactly is this category going to feed into? Seems a specious grouping to me.--Mike Selinker 15:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Mike Selinker. -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 19:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The main article does not exist. Vegaswikian 21:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 03:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The main article is a disambig, sure, but not like a disambig for two completely different people happening to share the same name: everything on the disambiguation page is at least loosely related to the same concept (the abrupt and violent end of the world) -Toptomcat 03:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Move List of doomsday scenarios into this category. Calwatch 04:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No coherent grouping involved, the Domesday book has nothing to do with the violent end of the world, for instance. --tjstrf 16:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Listify and Delete. Note: Listify List of doomsday scenarios and Self-referencing doomsday argument rebuttal to the Doomsday dab page (the rest are already listed). - jc37 20:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. See also #Category:Human extinction. --Dhartung | Talk 12:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} already renamed/merged as nominated --Kbdank71 13:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:Category:Awards and decorations of the British military to :Category:Awards and decorations of the British armed forces

• Rename, I propose that this category be renamed Awards and decorations of the British armed forces. British military is not a common term of description - the usual term (in the UK, and UK defence establishment at least) is the British armed forces. Making this change also brings the UK category into line with the naming conventions established for its sister armed forces such as Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand - all of which follow the Awards and decorations of the XXX armed forces style. Xdamr^talk 13:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per Xdamr's reasonable-sounding rationale. David Kernow (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 13:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Unaccredited seminaries and theological colleges}}

• Delete, I created this months back not knowing really what a category was or its intent. I also created Category:Unaccredited Christian universities and colleges, which is basically the same thing. This category is too narrow for usage. Such as religious institutes, universities, and schools are listed even though the category is for seminaries and theological colleges. More importantly we have Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning which includes all unaccredited schools and is a very important category. By deleting religious/theological subsections of unaccredited it gets rid of ambiguity of diploma mills, like Almeda University that claim to be religious, but are more of a business than a religion service. If at all possible I'd like to speedy it. We have less than 80 unaccredited school articles, and we should just keep them in one unaccredited category. Arbusto 09:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

: Delete, I can't really add anything, Arbusto summed it up very nicely. Mgroop 15:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. >Radiant< 10:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - jc37 20:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} already deleted --Kbdank71 13:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::Category:2006 Oscar predictions

WP:NOT a crystal ball. Perhaps this ought to be speedied. — CharlotteWebb 07:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is a blatantly bad idea for a category. Besides which I didn't think the reviews were that great for All the King's Men (2006 film) and where's United 93? "g"--T. Anthony 07:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete So.. WHOSE predictions are we talking about? Wow, horrible category. SubSeven 08:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

: [The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} speedy delete per WP:NOT. David Kernow (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)]

• I've reopened this because the category appears to not be deleted. I'd say David was entirely correct to delete this, I'm only reopening this so that people don't overlook it. Delete. >Radiant< 10:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Re not deleted: Strange... I think I listed it in the correct area... Thanks anyway for scooping it up, David Kernow (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - another opinion-based category crying out for citations, references and such. - jc37 20:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as speculation. --Metropolitan90 08:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as this is complety out of line for Wikipedia. Nominees would be fine, but not predictions.Slavlin 21:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:Category:Famous crocodiles to :Category:Famous crocodiles and alligators

To match :category:fictional crocodiles and alligators. Alligators are crocodilians but they're not quite crocodiles.--Mike Selinker 05:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - perhaps we should drop the "famous"? - jc37 06:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Let's leave that for later, given all of its peers in :Category:Famous animals. This may be one case where famous is appropriate. We need somehow to distinguish them from the taxonomical cats, as these are meant for individual animals. ×Meegs 08:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Indeed. You're gonna need some verboten word--"famous," "notable," "named," whatever--to keep the Taco Bell chihuahua out of :category:Dogs.--Mike Selinker 15:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, should be part of :Category:Crocodiles. We should avoid the word "famous" in category names. >Radiant< 10:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename - I think this is a good exception to the rule about "famous". Also, :category:Famous animals and sub-cats appear to be well managed. - jc37
• Keep and Rename. The only way I see to get around using famous would be to use some term like "crocodilian individuals", which really doesn't make much sense and sounds like a category for Were-crocs. --tjstrf 22:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename all. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)