Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 29

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: merge. >Radiant< 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Minneapolis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:People from Minneapolis, Minnesota, convention of Category:People by city in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and per convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and per convention. Rgds, --Trident13 22:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and per convention, but just so we're clear here, the convention is that categories related to a city match the name of the city's article. Which in this case, is Minneapolis, Minnesota. Xtifr _tälk 13:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 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: merge. >Radiant< 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mica Capacitors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Capacitors, seems to be a mistake... -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 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: merge, >Radiant< 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cattle diseases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Redundant with Category:Bovine diseases, which is much older and more heavily populated. Joelmills 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Sorry, I removed the one article in this category, Verminous haemorrhagic dermatitis (cattle), before I realized that I wasn't supposed to. --Joelmills 23:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Bovine diseases as duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom Johnbod 03:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 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: rename. >Radiant< 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vietnamese professors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Vietnamese academics, convention of Category:Academics by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and per convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• support because vietnamese professor could mean a professor who teaches vietnamese. 70.55.201.213 12:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• disagree, because not all academics are professors, and we may need a cat for vietnamese professors ♥ Langtucodoc 15:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• support That's why the more inclusive one is better, people will change, and some articles wont specify, though they should .DGG 07:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because 'professor' means different things in different countries (e.g. US vs. UK), so it can mislead.
• Delete definitely Sleep On It 21:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 or categories 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 speedy delete by Stephen ('author requested'). Bencherlite 08:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protestant-related controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete This seems to be a duplicate category of Category:Anti-Protestantism, and was created while a CfD was ongoing for that category. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now, and spank on the botty for the naughty person who created it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• question Can I still do a 'delete by author' on this category as I created it? Thanks Hmains 22:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As far as I'm aware me adding a CfD template shouldn't affect that. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete subjective category with almost meaningless title. Doczilla 01:04, 30 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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: upmerge, except for pythagoreans. >Radiant< 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete including all subcategories, except for Category:Pythagoreans. Mostly an unnecessary intersection. (Also see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 11#Category:Astronomers by religion.) —Ruud 21:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to appropriate religion categories, e.g. Category:Christian mathematicians to Category:Christian people, Category:Atheist mathematicians to Category:Atheists and Category:Hindu mathematicians to Category:Hindus. I agree that the intersection between religion and mathematics is in most cases non-defining (and where not it could be covered in an article or list) ... but the articles concerned should not lose their religious categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge as described by BrownHairedGirl - The equivalent categories for other people in academic positions (such as astronomers) have been deleted. This category tree is generally the only one that separates people who study a non-religious subject by their religion. For many of these mathematicians, religion has been either of minor or no importance to their careers. Carl Friedrich Gauss is a good example; his article does not even mention religion at all. I can identify many more examples if necessary. Note that some of these mathematicians are clergy, but these categories' vague names leave them open to interpretation, so people whose religion is irrelevant to their research are placed in these categories. Also note that I discussed nominating this category tree for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, and the nomination generally had the support of people who participated in the discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 22:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect on Gauss. In the Personality section there is, "Gauss was deeply religious and conservative." In addition to that Wikipedia articles often fail to mention anything personal on mathematicians or scientists. Augustin Louis Cauchy's religiosity was not mentioned in his article until I added it even though, in his case, it was pretty significant to his career. (He had professional difficulties because he was deemed to pious or preachy, depending on what you read)--T. Anthony 09:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per BHG, as non notable intersection, see also September 12th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or upmerge except for Category:Pythagoreans. Category:Persian mathematicians, Category:Egyptian mathematicians, and Category:Arab mathematicians should stay, but only under Category:Mathematicians by nationality, not under Category:Muslim mathematicians where they are listed now. —David Eppstein 22:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Eppstein above. There are better things to categorize mathematicians by than their religion. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I guess I'd tolerate the upmerge or at least I find this better than what's been done in the past. In the past there's been a tendency to just delete which has led to people who were clergy or writers of religious tracts becoming religiously uncategorized. (This happened with the scientist one as I remember having to add "Catholic" or "Christian" to articles on clergy when it was deleted. For pertinent examples here Michael Stifel and Samuel Vince have "Christian mathematician" as their only Christian cat) Still it seems like there really was an Islamic mathematics because their prohibition on images led to their artists working on geometry or something. Escher studied the examples in Spain.--T. Anthony 00:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There really was an Islamic mathematics, or at least that is one of the standard names to refer to mathematics from the medieval Islamic world, but not all the mathematicians who contributed to it were Muslims. So e.g. having Category:Persian mathematicians (generally from that era) as a subcategory of Category:Muslim mathematicians leads to miscategorization. —David Eppstein 04:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per BHG. (Deleting per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference is okay too.) Doczilla 01:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge as suggested by BHG above. (And a good point about the Pythagorians.) Dugwiki 17:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge as suggested by BHG. Rgds, --Trident13 22:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge. Will be a loss on Srinivasa Ramanujan, but not elsewhere. Even Pascal was a mathematician or a Catholic, not both at the same time. The relevant category for Cauchy is Category:Royalist or perhaps bien-pensant - and we should remember that his party spirit blighted other careers too, when his friends were in power. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge and delete subcats. Unrelated intersections by ethnicity and religion have been deleted in the past. Nationality is ok, to a point though. Sleep On It 21:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as absurd and non-defining. Keep Pythagoreans, this is used IRL. Pavel Vozenilek 23:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 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: rename. >Radiant< 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Disaster movies to Category:Disaster films

Nominator's Rationale: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Categorization uses [[Category:(Genre) films]]. —Viriditas | Talk 20:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. We've gone through this one before. Despite the preference for "films" for most such categories, "disaster movies" is the WIDELY used term for these. Wikipedia is not supposed to redefine the language. Doczilla 01:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The accepted naming convention using films is linked above; Genre categories do not use "movies". Also, I can provide contemporary and reliable uses of the term "diaster film" (not to mention the article Disaster films) in reliable film criticism, for example Cineaste. Wikipedia is not redefining the language, but using the most appropriate and accurate terms. The WPFilm categorization scheme (linked above) is consistent. "Movies" is not used to categorize film articles. —Viriditas | Talk 01:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Both terms are widely used, so no need to breach our conventional naming structure, but keep Category:Disaster movies as a category redirect.
  244,000 ghits for for "disaster movie", versus 113,000 ghits for for "disaster film", so no order-of-magnitude difference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Disaster movie" is the conventional term everywhere. Haddiscoe 09:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per the findings of Viriditas and BrownHairedGirl . Cop 633 13:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match main article The main thing is that the category and its main article should use the same phrase. In this case the main article is Disaster film, so the category should likewise be Category:Disaster films. Alternatively, you could rename the article to Disaster movie and keep the category as Category:Disaster movies. Either option is fine, so long as in the end the two use the same phrase. Dugwiki 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The article was controversially moved during a previous dispute and should be restored to the correct name. It is of no value as a precedent for misnaming this category. Piccadilly 20:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if you believe the correct name is "Disaster films" then you should probably change your opinion to "support" or "rename." I'm not quite seeing how your comment indicates opposition to calling the category "Disaster films." Otto4711 00:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - there is no reason to break with convention here. The genre categories are called "films" and this one should be renamed per convention and to match its lead article. Otto4711 00:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per convention. -Sean Curtin 06:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per BrownHairedGirl and especially per Dugwiki who has put his finger on the crux of the matter, IMO. Xtifr _tälk 13:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It is in the correct place for this genre of movies since this is what they are called. There is no guideline for anything other then specific films, and there is no need for a guideline. Yes the main article has a different name but only after a disputed move and only weak consensus to fix the article name so it has remained in the wrong place. Vegaswikian 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 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: delete. >Radiant< 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Three's Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the articles within the category are extensively interlinked through the text and "see also" sections. The category is unnecessary for navigating the small volume of material. Otto4711 19:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to be an unnecessary eponymous category. Dugwiki 17:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there is no logical reason not to categorise articles related to Three's Company together in this fashion. Tim! 16:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 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: delete. >Radiant< 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bernard Cornwell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - all three articles categorized here are easily accessible through the eponymous article. The sub-cats are each in their appropriate category tree and the category is not needed for purposes of navigation. Otto4711 18:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The original intent in creating this category was to tie the author's books and characters together, as well as any other articles not fitting into the 2 subcategories. The other two articles listed under the category (Faulconer County and Faulconer Legion) are not actually as readily accessible through the author's article as they appear (they are not mentioned on his article space), and are relevant to an older series that is not readily apparent given the current prominence of the author's main series (the Sharpe series) and the Warlord Chronicles. BrokenSphere 22:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like the two articles can easily be linked through the section on the series in Cornwell's article. Otto4711 22:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OK. The section re. the Starbuck Chronicles was modified to mention the Faulconer Legion; Faulconer County aside from its introduction in the first book is marginal to the rest of the series as it goes on. --BrokenSphere 23:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If it makes any difference, I am not going to contest the category deletion further. --BrokenSphere 23:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Sphere's logic, which we hear repeatedly, doesn't change Wikipedia's preference. Doczilla 01:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Rgds, --Trident13 22:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 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: merge. >Radiant< 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sindarin-language films to Category:Fictional-language films

• Merge - small category with no potential for growth. There is not a wide-spread sub-categorization scheme dividing fictional-language films by language (the only other sub-cat is for Star Trek films). Otto4711 15:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom Johnbod 21:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 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: rename. >Radiant< 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Esperanto films to Category:Esperanto-language films

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - this is the only sub-cat of Category:Films by language, including Category:Fictional-language films, that doesn't follow the "Foo-language films" naming construction. Otto4711 15:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Renameper nom Johnbod 21:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 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: delete. An important distinction with "Friday the 13th" is that there are way more of those. >Radiant< 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scary Movie films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the films are all extensively interlinked with each other through the articles and through navtemplates and infoboxes. See similar deletions for categories for Stuart Little, Charlotte's Web and Poltergeist films. Otto4711 14:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there is no logical reason not to categorise the films together. Tim! 16:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sequels and prequels are not treated this way ..typically. Sleep On It 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per such categories as Category:Friday the 13th films.--Mike Selinker 04:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 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: rename. >Radiant< 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Scary Movie to Category:Scary Movie characters

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - the articles in the category are both for characters. Otto4711 14:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 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: delete. >Radiant< 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:"Movie" films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, as categorization by name. Films which contain the word "Movie" in their title. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - overcategorization by name. Otto4711 14:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SqlPac 15:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Johnbod 21:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names. Doczilla 01:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Doczilla. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 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: merge. >Radiant< 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Mexico State University football players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:New Mexico State Aggies football players, duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Per nomination. Neonblak 17:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 or categories 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 delete - empty as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 56 ZIP codes. WjBscribe 01:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cross-namespace nomination. Please discuss it at the main nomination. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 13:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No reason given for deletion. The fate of an article is of no relevance to the existence of a category. Piccadilly 20:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piccadilly, Snowolf asked that interested editors discuss the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 56 ZIP codes; no reason was given here because the whole tree of articles, templates and this category is being discussed there. --Iamunknown 19:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - After the articles are deleted, then this category could be speedy deleted as empty. Dr. Submillimeter 23:34, 1 May 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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: delete. >Radiant< 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Carradine family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cassidy family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Clooney family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cojuangco family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Compton-Pelissier-Reed family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Coppola family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Crosby family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Culkin family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cusack family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - as with innumerable categories named for families, these are unnecessary. The articles are all extensively interlinked with other family members and the categories do an inadequate job of explaining the family relationships between people with a variety of surnames. Otto4711 12:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. SqlPac 15:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Doczilla 01:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Category:Coppola family had a family tree added that makes it quite encyclopedic. This information should be saved elsewhere if the category is deleted. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest putting the family tree into an article called Coppola family tree and locating it in Category:Family trees. I agree the information should be preserved, in an article. Otto4711 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Cojuangcos are very significant political and economic families in the Philippines. I will do my best to define the family relationships. Although even Filipinos already now how they are related to each other. They're like the Kennedys.--203.160.168.84 04:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC) forgot to sign in.--Jondel 12:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify, is your opinion concerning just the Cojuangco family? Otto4711 16:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh yes, just Cojuango--Jondel 12:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all "family" categories. Sleep On It 21:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 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: consensus unclear, suggest renominating along with similar categories. >Radiant< 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:NUTS 2 statistical regions of the European Union to Category:NUTS 2 statistical regions

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, also used in non-EU countries. Docu 08:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question didn't we have a similar CfD very recently? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite, the above proposal wasn't included: Cfd:2007_April_20#Category:NUTS_Statistical_Regions_of_Europe. -- User:Docu
• Rename to Category:Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics 2 statistical regions or some such. Abbreviations are to be avoided and this is one that is clearly not well know. Vegaswikian 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming for now. Vegaswikian's proposal should really be made as a group nomination for Category:NUTS statistical regions of the European Union and its all subcats, to maintain consistency (and in any case I think that the resulting names are just too long). Docu's proposal has some merits, but it breaks consistency, and I read at Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics that "The standard was developed by the European Union, and thus only covers the member states of the EU in detail", so although the "of the European Union" suffix has a point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For the suffix to have a point, shouldn't there be a NUTS by ASEAN, e.g.? Then we would need it differentiate from Category:NUTS statistical regions of the ASEAN? -- User:Docu
    • Reply good point, but isn't that an argument for renaming all the subcats of Category:NUTS statistical regions of the European Union by removing the EU suffix? That's a change which would make sense to me, so I'd suggest withdrawing this nom and changing them all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 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: merge. >Radiant< 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Louisville Colonels (AA) players to Category:Louisville Colonels players

• Merge, Same team, the American Association folded and the team moved over to the National League in 1892 until 1899. Since the team name did not change, there is no need to have different categories. Will help reduce category clutter. Neonblak 01:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.