Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 6 April 8 >

April 7[edit]

Category:American rock musicians by instrumet[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling counts ... ProveIt (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional characters by secret identity[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 13:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category off of a template. But I really only have issue with the category, not the template itself, so I'm bringing it here, instead of to TFS. Specifically, this is a category that only contains redirects. I can understand categorizing redirects on certain technical basis, but this is a normal content category, categorizing redirects as if they were full articles. I don't see this as particularly useful for navigation, when people don't generally end up on the redirect itself such that they would see the category. - TexasAndroid 19:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. That's a bad idea.--Mike Selinker 16:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems useful, however unusual. You can get to the category via Category:Fictional characters and it seems like a useful way to sort them. But I'm not sure if there's some technical reasons agaist it so I'm not voting for now. --JeffW 00:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should be clearer that the "bad idea" I was referring to is making an entire category based on linking from redirects, not the general concept of having secret identities categorizes. If there were real articles on Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark, I'd be all in favor of it.--Mike Selinker 04:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mike S. Second issue: what use is the template without the category? Any administrative usefulness for keeping track of this class of redirects is limited by the overzealous behavior of What links here. ×Meegs 09:17, 9 April 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

North-West Frontier Province nominations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 14:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Darwinek 07:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is not need to chnage name. Everyone knows what NWFP stands in this category. It will make category name long. --Spasage 10:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am someone and I had no idea what NWFP stands for before reading this. This is a speedy as per the criteria listed above. Valiantis 14:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were two separate categories that were merged per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 28#Category:NWFP Politicians to Category:NWFP politicians. As part of that debate, it was decided NWFP should be spelled out. NWFP may be known by most editors who contribute to this category, but not be all the readers. I certainly did not when I first saw it. -- JLaTondre 12:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Yeah, I never would have known what this meant. (So we don't have to vote five times, I condensed all these to one nomination.)--Mike Selinker 18:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I moved it here because of the objection. Standard practice is, if a speedy gets any sort of opposition or questioning comment, it drops to a full seven day nomination. There's really no rush on these. Also, thanks for combining them. I should have thought to do that myself. :) - TexasAndroid 19:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Common practice is expanding abbreviations. - Darwinek 09:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per my previous comment. Valiantis 14:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as common practice is expanding abbreviations. mattbr30 18:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Don't use abbreviations. -- Necrothesp 12:50, 11 April 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Female life peers to Category:Life peers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was No Consensous. - TexasAndroid 13:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's unnecessary to have a separate category for females. It doesn't meet the guidelines as it isn't a gender-neutral name. JRawle (Talk) 16:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. We already have many cats specifically for women and this is a cat that is likely to be of interest to the reader. -- Necrothesp 17:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the category is kept, there should be a Category:Male life peers, otherwise it suggests females are somehow inferior. JRawle (Talk) 17:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree: it just suggests that females are worthy of categorisation, in this case because they are in a minority. --BrownHairedGirl 03:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered. A gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default. Both male and female heads of government should continue to be filed in the appropriate gender-neutral role category (e.g. Presidents, Monarchs, Prime Ministers, Governors General.)
The same considerations apply here. Peers have historically been male, and until very recently, female peers were a rarity. Whatever view anyone takes on the merits of the gender of legislators, it is just as much a matter of "special encyclopedic interest" as the gender of heads of government.
--BrownHairedGirl 11:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but note "both male and female heads of government should continue to be filed in the appropriate gender-neutral role category." I only began to object to the category when the people responsible for it began to remove females from the "Life peers" category as a "redundant category". I would be happy for it to remain, as long as female peers are listed in the gender-neutral category too.
Perhaps I should add that hereditary peers were rarely female. This category only contains life peers, which has been open to males and females right from the Life Peerages Act in 1958. Perhaps a "Female suo jure hereditary peers" category would be more interesting. JRawle (Talk) 11:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Were any hereditary peers female? If there are any, I suggest that they deserve a category. You are of course right that life peerages have always been available to women, but the vast majority have been male, which is what makes the gender divide intersting.
Yes there were a few, but they weren't allowed to sit in the House of Lords. Nathcer 03:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Peerage Act 1963 gave female hereditary peers the right to sit in the House of Lords. There is still at least one, the Countess of Mar, in the House as one of the remaining hereditaries (and possibly other people I can't think of at the moment). JRawle (Talk) 12:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree that if the category is retained, these female peers should also be categorised in "Life peers". Could we add a note to the category pages to reflect this? --BrownHairedGirl 03:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note to the female peers category, and whether or not we retain the category, I'll start adding them back to Category:Life peers. JRawle (Talk) 13:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. I think it's utterly pointless to have people in both a cat and its subcat. We rarely do it, so I don't see the necessity of it here. -- Necrothesp 14:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the excerpt I posted above about female heads of state: this is one of those rare exceptions. --BrownHairedGirl 16:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't agree. Heads of state are unique - there's only one in each country at any one time. This is not the same case at all. I would rather get rid of the separate cat for female life peers than put them all in both cats. -- Necrothesp 12:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's how the Wikipedia guidelines specify it. Categories by gender should be avoided unless there's a reason for special interest in them (maybe this includes female peers, if you think they are particularly rare or special, which is the primary point of this debate). In those cases, they should still be listed in the main category too. (Reference) Categories aren't supposed to form a strict hierarchy, so it's not quite valid to say they would be in a category and its subcategory. (Reference) JRawle (Talk) 16:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are far too many female life peers for this to be worthwhile. Nathcer 03:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a useful list Jooler 16:17, 10 April 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Law Life Peers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 13:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Law lords is the normal name for these people and is fully populated. I've never seen the term Law Life Peers before. -- Necrothesp 16:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to Category:Law life peers (correct case) Isn't the idea of this category that it's a historical list of Law Life Peers? See List of Law Life Peerages. Category:Law lords is just a list of the current Law Lords. They retire at 70 and cease to be Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, but keep a seat in the House of Lords. Therefore I would suggest the categories Category:Lords of Appeal in Ordinary for current Law Lords, and Category:Law Life Peers for retired / historical ones. JRawle (Talk) 16:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This categorization needs to be thought through and certainly not just deleted. I don't like splitting small numbers into current and historical but there is some confusion as to how law lords and former law lords are viewed - they are not ordinary life peers, at least whilst active, and should therefore be separated somehow. Mtiedemann 18:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Retirement is irrelevant. It's empty anyway. Nathcer 03:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retirement is not irrelevant. If it was, there should be far more people in Category:Law lords. At present it only contains current Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. So as things stand, the current category is taking retirement into account. The second category is empty because articles were removed before it was listed for deletion.
I actually removed only two articles from the cat (the sum total of its contents), both of whom were Lords of Appeal in Ordinary! -- Necrothesp 12:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, once they retire they are no longer Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, but continue to sit in the House as a Life peer, but one created under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act rather than the Life Peerages Act. Although Law Lord is a commonly used term, it is not the correct or legal term at all, and as such is ambiguous. JRawle (Talk) 13:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's at all ambiguous, since it's the term most people use! -- Necrothesp 14:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But most people are not editing an encyclopedia! Should "Law lord" (and I mean on Wikipedia now) refer to someone who is a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, or to everyone who was created a life peer under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (whether dead, alive but retired, or a Lord of A in O)? JRawle (Talk) 18:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who was originally created a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary should be in the Law Lords cat, yes. Maybe rename it Lords of Appeal in Ordinary to solve the problem? Why on earth should the cat only contain current Lords of Appeal? -- Necrothesp 12:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that policy – one category containing all current and former Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. In that case, "Law lords" is a better name for it. It was just that in your original statement you said it was "fully populated", which I took to mean it should only contain current law lords. I'll add List of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, which contains the current ones, to the category so people can always find the list of current law lords if they so wish. JRawle (Talk) 16:40, 11 April 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Christian CCM musical groups to Category:Contemporary Christian musical groups[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 14:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian musicians, both of which include some bands, not individuals and for instance the Mormon Tabernacle Choir seems to fit none of these categories and currently is only in Category:Choir. I would suggest making Category:Christian musical groups more general in purpose and moving most of its contents to Category:Contemporary Christian musical groups with similar sorting for Category:Christian CCM musicians and Category:Christian musicians. I would suggest moving categories, CCM lists, Christian metal and Christian rock from Category:Christian music to category:Category:Contemporary Christian musical groups. Rmhermen 16:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • At least rename Category:Christian CCM musical groups → Category:Contemporary Christian music groups. Whatever other related categories are moved, merged or created, suggest (a) use of "music" rather than "musical" in names; and (b) expand any abbreviations. Regards, David Kernow 02:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Contemporary Christian music groups, and also rename Category:Christian musical groups to Category:Christian music groups. The name "Christian musical groups" suggests that the category is for musical groups whose members happen to also be Christian; the name "Christian music groups" suggests that the category is for groups that play music that falls under the category of Christian music. The former shouldn't be done, IMHO - categorization by religion should be done on the individual band members' articles, not on their band's article. -Sean Curtin 05:56, 13 April 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Touchstone films[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 13:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redundant, see Category:Touchstone Pictures films

  • Speedy delete, it's empty. Conscious 04:27, 10 April 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:United States federal banking legislation → Category:United States federal financial legislation[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep as is. - TexasAndroid 14:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I also proposed speedy-renaming Category:United States federal securities legislation → Category:United States federal financial legislation. Basically, I think these two categories, banking legislation and financial legislation should be merged into a new cateogry, Category:United States federal financial legislation. —Markles 14:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposed. Financial legislation and banking legislation, while similar, are not the same thing; articles in the banking legislation category specifically address regulation and structure of the banking system, while financial legislation deals with a variety of other topics, i.e. securities markets, etc. Paul 04:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My idea was just to lump together all related legislation, along with securities legislation. Paul is right that they are different and that Banking does have its own USC title. I'm just going along with his idea to break down Category:United States federal legislation into component subcategories by subject. Banking and insurance and securities are all different, but I think for the sake of the legislation category here, it would be helpful to group them together. I'm not wedded to the idea, though. —Markles 11:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per PaulHanson. Postdlf 02:31, 11 April 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Warhammer 40,000 planets[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 14:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles have been merged into Planets of Warhammer 40,000 as per discussion at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Planets. Localzuk (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: no longer needed --Pak21 13:45, 7 April 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Economics categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 14:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed rename of all these categories deleting the JEL code at the end. For example, replace "Financial Economics JEL:G' by "Financial Economics".

Discussed previously Categories_for_deletion#Category:Economic_Systems_JEL:P

Category:Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics JEL:Q

Category:Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting JEL:M

Category:Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth JEL:O

Category:Economic History JEL:N*

Category:Economic Systems JEL:P

Category:Financial Economics JEL:G

Category:General Economics JEL:A

Category:Health, Education, and Welfare Economics JEL:I

Category:Industrial Organization JEL:L

Category:International Economics JEL:F

Category:Labor and Demographic Economics JEL:J

Category:Law and Economics JEL:K

Category:Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics JEL:E

Category:Mathematical and Quantitative Methods JEL:C

Category:Microeconomics JEL:D*

Category:Other Special Topics (Economics) JEL:Z

Category:Public Economics JEL:H

Category:Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology JEL:B

Category:Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics JEL:R

Categories marked with * have a child with the required name. JQ 06:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per request of cat creator. --Blainster 07:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and also put the Es into lower case Bhoeble 11:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse suggestion to put Es into lower case, and more generally adopt standard Wikipedia conventions on case JQ 23:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category names should be natural--Henrygb 22:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Natural? What is natural about "JEL:H"? Perhaps you meant support. -- Samuel Wantman 00:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename per nom, and previous discussions. I suspect some of these will be minimally populated and also should be totally deleted, but that can happen later. Also support applying standard capitalization conventions. -- Samuel Wantman 00:09, 8 April 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:New England Association of Schools & Colleges to Category:New England Association of Schools and Colleges[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge. - TexasAndroid 14:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See related proposal below. There is admittedly a good deal of inconsistency at www.neasc.org (for instance, both versions are used on the same page at [1]), but the "and" is spelled out in their letterhead, newsletter, accreditation manual, and call to annual meeting among others, and the long form is preponderant in numbers. choster 05:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • rename as per nom. Bhoeble 11:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into existing category. The articles should be merged in that direction as well -- ProveIt (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:New England Association of Schools and Colleges[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was reverse merge. - TexasAndroid 14:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Hurricanes in the United States by name[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 14:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covered by Category:Historic weather events in the United States

  • Delete per above Funnybunny 03:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category:Historic weather events in the United States has 97 articles cureently. It seems reasonable to have all the hurricanes (more than a dozen articles at the moment) in a subcat, especially as in the subcat they could then reasonably be indexed by name rather than all under 'H' as they are in the parent cat. Valiantis 14:25, 8 April 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Sliding at the Winter Olympics[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 13:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still empty after 10 days of CFD. - TexasAndroid 13:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused -- ProveIt (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP category was blanked, no reason given, will repopulate. 132.205.45.110 18:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is about sliding sliders, except the category needs to be populated. I don't see a proper heirarchy for sledders. As I've just added a description for FIBT olympics... this just needs popoulating with bobsleigh, luge and skeleton. 70.51.9.222 17:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Sledding at the Winter Olympics. The parent cat is called Sledding and this seems to be the generic term for bobsleigh, luge and skeleton. Possible created by a non-first language speaker ?? Valiantis 00:28, 9 April 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Sliders at the Winter Olympics[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 13:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still empty after 10 days of CFD. - TexasAndroid 13:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused -- ProveIt (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP category was blanked, no reason given, will repopulate. 132.205.45.110 18:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is about sliding sliders, except the category needs to be populated. I don't see a proper heirarchy for sledders. As I've just added a description for FIBT olympics... this just needs popoulating with bobsleigh, luge and skeleton. 70.51.9.222 17:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Sledders at the Winter Olympics. As per my comment in the similarly named cat. Valiantis 00:29, 9 April 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Skating at the Winter Olympics[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 13:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP category was blanked, no reason given, will repopulate. I don't see redundancy, except that heirarchy was flipped on its head at some point. 132.205.45.110 18:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Catered fo elsewhere "Figure skating", "Speed Skating" yes redundant, what is this all about. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 20:04, 7 April 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:NBC/Universal Television shows to Category:NBC network shows[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge. - TexasAndroid 14:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really just a duplicate. ProveIt (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this is merge not rename.
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 page.

Category:Anaheim Angels to Category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge. - TexasAndroid 14:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This really needs to be merged. We finally have resolved the dispute on Anaheim Angels to redirect to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Having a subcategory for the Anaheim Angels is redundant. The only difference between the categories is a name change. It is really the same team with the owner, players, baseball stadium and everything else remaining the same after the name change. There is no subcategory for California Angels and Los Angeles Angels (2 other previous names of the team). PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I have no problem with this, but I would have a problem with merging the player categories. Let's not have anybody play for teams they didn't play for.--Mike Selinker 04:11, 9 April 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_7&oldid=1132343593"