Hosta

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 delete --Kbdank71 20:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superman II ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete as nom. Category offers no criteria for inclusion. Based on its title and articles, I can only assume it is meant to be a collection of articles with any short of connection to the film Superman II. Such a connection is not something to make a category for. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild Keep, it's true the creator didn't go to much trouble over this, but still, a self-named article makes his intentions clear and I've cleaned it up a bit. On the other hand, it's directly parented by Category:Superman films so it wouldn't really be a big loss have its contents merged up a level. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category with undefined inclusion criteria. We cannot add a category for every single film an actor, writer, director, producer, best boy, gaffer, or moviegoer ever had anything to do with. Doczilla 05:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Doczilla; anything in this category should be part of an article, not a separate category. The creator of the cat has a history of arranging things his/her own way and disregarding pleas to adapt. Pegship 05:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom `'mikkanarxi 17:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Having categories for groups of films isn't a great idea, so having them for individual films is a terrible one. Calsicol 17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rarely, if ever, should select films and various persons be included in the same category. What a mess. Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 19:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• UpMerge to Category:Superman films, which also needs to have the non-film entries removed. - jc37 02:32, 2 November 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 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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People of Ghanaian descent, convention of Category:People by ethnic or national descent. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 23:47, 29 October 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 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 delete --Kbdank71 20:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communist architecture ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Unclear definition, can be very wide. Jklamo 15:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Stalinist architecture and recast scope to those buildings listed in Stalinist architecture.-choster 18:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Choster's idea would need to be implemented separately to ensure the category is not left with inappropriate contents. Honbicot 22:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There was no "communist architecture" per-se but several styles have been employed often (e.g. functionalism peaking in uniformity of panelaks). The countries themselves didn't define as communist, mere socialist (one step bellow the true communism). Narrative abbreviations picked from tabloids should be deleted automatically. Pavel Vozenilek 11:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No such type in "architecturology", hence original research. Of "communist arts" only category:Socialist realism is known to art critics, AFAIK. `'mikkanarxi 17:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per discussion. - jc37 02:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Soviet Union and China were both communist states after World War II but they had different architectures. --Ineffable3000 05:58, 3 November 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 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 if I'm reading this correctly, the decision is to keep both sets of categories. Since I don't know which articles would go into which category, someone with more knowledge of the subject will need to finish this. --Kbdank71 20:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter previously dealt with at CfD here, and addressed by Deletion Review here. The matter concerns these categories:

• Category:People from Macau and Category:Macau people to Category:Macanese people
• Category:Macau judges to Category:Macanese judges
• Category:Macau people by occupation to Category:Macanese people by occupation

and others that might arise concerning people from Macau. Despite official conventions concerning names of nationality categories, those requesting review contend that "People from Macau" and "Macanese people have very distinct meanings. Specifically, it is contended that "Macanese people" refers only to the subset of Macau's total population with mixed native and colonial parentage, see Macanese_people and the DRV. For this reason, an alternative name (People from Macau, unless there are better suggestions) may be needed, and an exemption from typical conventions is requested. I undertake this nomination as DRV closer only, so I abstain, but I do beg for the opinions of knowledgeable editors concerning the topic and our category conventions. Xoloz 15:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. - Privacy 19:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• question - by reading the articles, can it be determined what category to place them in? Hmains 05:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. By undoing the edits when the categories were merged or moved. - Privacy 22:21, 1 November 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 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 category speedily deleted. David Kernow (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_29#Category:Toho_Kaiju_that_never_meet_godzilla. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per prior category deletion. Doczilla 05:12, 28 October 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 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 delete --Kbdank71 20:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with spiritual awareness ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete or Rename Poorly named category, spiritual awarness if they can see ghosts? If I'm correct, spiritual awarness has something to do with religion, not ghosts. Either rename, or delete this category. And the fact that they can see demons or ghosts does not justify this category. It's over categorization since nearly EVERY fictional character has encountered a ghoust or demon (in Halloween specials for example) UnDeRsCoRe 15:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete poorly named, undefined category per the many other recently deleted superpower categories. Doczilla 05:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename But I'm not exactly sure to what. But this category has some value, as in most fictional worlds, the existance of ghosts and other beings of such nature is as speculative as in ours. Someone who can see something that exists in their world, but numerouse people cannot see is important. (Animedude 07:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Are you meaning like necromancers and the like?--T. Anthony 07:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Despite Animedude's comments, the category still seems ambiguous and broad. What qualifies as being able to see "ghosts and other beings"? Suppose the author is an atheist (or the setting is devoid of "real spirits"). Do fictional characters who "see ghosts" get included in this category? What if all the characters in a story can see "spiritual beings" even if they are atheists? Do all of those characters get included in this category? The gray area here is too broad. George J. Bendo 10:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too broad. I would easily support a narrower category. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous. Calsicol 17:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The discussion above convinced me. If kept, it needs a rename. (See List of comic book superpowers#Mediumship for one example.) - jc37 02:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would Category:Fictional mediums be better? Or maybe even Category:Fictional spiritual mediums to better conenside with Medium (spirituality) (Animedude 20:57, 2 November 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 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 keep --Kbdank71 20:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by university in Northern Ireland ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, and merge with parents'. Only 2 entries, and no possibility for expansion. The sub-cats should be moved directly into the parents, and this one deleted - it is an unnecessary layer in the hierarchy. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The hierarchy is messy without it - this is the parrallel category to Category:People by university in England, Category:People by university in Scotland and Category:People by university in Wales, leaving Category:People by university in the United Kingdom as a parent category for all four, with a UK wide university (Open University) as the only entrant - a very different beast from Queen's University of Belfast and the University of Ulster. Timrollpickering 15:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Timrollpickering. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Timrollpickering. Honbicot 22:41, 27 October 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 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 merge with Schoolteachers and leave {{categoryredirect}}. Suggest, however, that this redirect is to Category:Educators as not all teachers are schoolteachers...?  David Kernow (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_11#Category:Teachers_to_Category:Schoolteachers, procedural. -- ProveIt ^(talk)

• Merge and mark {{categoryredirect}} Honbicot 22:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. Merge whatever overlaps. Doczilla 05:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and mark {{categoryredirect}} Calsicol 17:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and mark {{categoryredirect}} Osomec 15:10, 2 November 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 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 20:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Freshwater fish of New Zealand to Category:Endemic freshwater fish of New Zealand

• Rename, 'Introduced freshwater fish of New Zealand' also exists - this renaming clarifies the difference . Both are grouped by Fish of New Zealand. GrahamBould 14:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Make new category, but keep this as a parent for the two cats mentioned. Grutness...wha? 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Make new category, but keep this - happy with this. But could 'Honbicot' please fix the wording above so that we can understand the point he is making. GrahamBould 08:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed Honbicot's entry - it is a duplicate of the next section discussing 'Toll bridges in Ohio', & he obviously put it here by mistake. GrahamBould 08:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Make new category, but keep this - I like the idea of having two separate categories for the New Zealand freshwater fish. George J. Bendo 10:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Non-endemic categories of fauna are better treated as lists or articles. See Category talk:Biota by country where I am trying to get some general discussion going on the issue GameKeeper 14:03, 30 October 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 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 keep. David Kernow (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Toll roads in Ohio ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, This is a silly category, as there is only 1 toll road in Ohio. Bcirker 14:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep, Hmm, yea there is only one toll road in Ohio (that Im aware of), but there seems to be a category for toll roads in each of the other states that have toll roads. So id keep it for consistency. Dman727 22:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If there are lots of whatever in the United States they need to be broken down by state, subdivision should not be left half complete, so it follows that if there is one whatever in Ohio there should be a category for whatevers in Ohio. Honbicot 22:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. David Kernow (talk) 20:19, 3 November 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 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 delete. David Kernow (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer and video game content rated by the ESRB ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Neutral, Finishing incomplete nomination. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Was forgotten in Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_14#ESRB.2C_PEGI_and_CERO_categories. Pavel Vozenilek 14:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a shop or a consumer advice service. Honbicot 22:45, 27 October 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 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 delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hungarian footballers in Spain ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unprecedented and unneeded category. Following this pattern, thousands of new, useless categories could be created, cluttering the category tree and player articles. Punkmorten 07:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, the last thing we need is another thousand categories of very little informational use. Qwghlm 09:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a thousand but probably ten thousand categories of "Footballers from country X in country Y" type are possible, and if you think about other international occupations, we are looking at millions of categories. `'mikkanarxi 17:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. this is very clearly on the road of more lists of x for x. TheRanger 14:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Hungarians in Spain are pretty notable, though. Puskas, Czibor and Kocsis escaped the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, with Puskas playing national games for Spain and Kocsis becoming a Spanish national, and Kubala was also a defector a few years earlier. Not your run-of-the-mill transfer. I think the category might be viable, but only as Category:Hungarian football migrants to Spain. (which would remove Platko.) Sam Vimes | Address me 17:35, 30 October 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 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 rename to Category:Editors of religious publications. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Editors; I'm not sure if this is trying to clasify editors based on how religeous they are, or based on what they edit. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for lack of clarity. Are they editors who happen to be religious or are they editing religion-based topics? Also, editor shouldn't have been capitalized. Doczilla 02:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and Doczilla.
  Rename to Category:Editors of religious publications per George below. David Kernow (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC), updated 23:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• do NOT merge It is a category for editors of religious publications. I will clarify this on the entry. Thanks! Pastorwayne 15:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Religious editors, convention of Category:Print editors. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The six entries currently in this category are all for Methodist clergymen who apparently were not primarily known as editors, but edited religious publications at some time during their career. As a second choice, rename to Category:Editors of religious publications. --Metropolitan90 08:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Editors of religious publications - This seems clearer than the current name. Such a category could be useful, although presumably more people should be added. George J. Bendo 10:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree: Rename to Category:Editors of religious publications much more accurate description. How does one move/rename a category?? I would do it if I knew how. Pastorwayne 12:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: You think others wouldn't? It requires admin help and it's generally recommended that some sort of discussion or agreement come about before a move. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 16:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Editors of religious publications. I also suggest that those who said merge or rename before this was suggested, to clarify their opinion, else this may result in "no consensus", and would necessitate relisting. - jc37 02:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Editors of religious publications, clearer name and useful. N.B. someone created Category:Editors of Religious publications, which has the incorrect capitalization. Mairi 22:33, 2 November 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 section.