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 --Kbdank71 18:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I merged all the articles in this category to Bold As Love (book series) this category is now empty Melaen 22:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• sorry if I had been too bold in this merging --Melaen 22:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Honbicot 12:30, 22 November 2005 (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.

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 --Kbdank71 18:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is membership in a particular college club notable enough for a category? Gamaliel 19:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the category needs to be overhauled, and the lone article in the cat should be deleted. But there are plenty of notable CRs (Rove, Santorum, Atwater), and the organization as a whole is an important part of the main party. (Not biased because I'm a member, btw.) Anthony 19:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and I would support getting rid of all of the fraternity and college club cats. Categories should reflect something integral to the subject. As Wikipedia:Categorization states, categories should be for "subjects prominently discussed in the article." Membership in a college organization is a piece of trivia better suited for a list, such as List of College Republicans.- SimonP 00:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: agree that this should be listified. Joshbaumgartner 04:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I disagree with the idea of listifying it, as well. If a college student does for some reason deserve a Wikipedia article, it's going to be due to accomplishments that have nothing to do with group membership. Look at it this way: there's tens, if not hundreds, of members of the College Republicans here at Vanderbilt alone. Do they all deserve articles? No. If one of them does deserve an article, is membership in that organization going to be a meaningful part of that article? Not likely. Why, then, is membership in a College Republicans group acceptable as either category or list? The Literate Engineer 06:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Your argument was valid up until "Look at it this way". All Wikipedia categories and lists are assumed to only include the most noteworthy individiuals who could be put there, and while saying that a category or list is too trivial ("List of people who have vacationed in Ontario"), or has too many potential members ("Category:Brunettes"), is a valid argument against a specific list or category, saying that there would be too many members if we ignored Wikipedia's notability requirements is meaningless. You could use the exact same argument against Category:Criminals, List of Scientologists, Category:Lists of writers, List of Jews from Sub-Saharan Africa, Category:1838 deaths, and hundreds of other lists, categories, and even articles. Not every member of a group has to be significant for being a member of that group to be significant when a noteworthy enough person is one. -Silence 14:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Osomec 09:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If people are only notable for their involvement in politics at college level, their political careers don't need categorising. If they were involved in politics later on, presunably they will be in other politics categories. Carina22 19:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A person's political affiliation during college is irrelevent. -- Crevaner 22:14, 27 November 2005 (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.

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 speedy rename. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization error. I created Category:Time travel films to replace it before I remembered Categories can be renamed. I've moved all existing articles (as of this posting) from old to new category. Jeff Q (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy -- Mkill 19:48, 20 November 2005 (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.

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 18:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposed new name reflects the original intention, and it is clearer. The ambiguity of the existing name has allowed Merton College Library to creep into the category.

• Rename CalJW 18:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Historic sounds so much nicer than Defunct don't you think? That's my vote - keep STopCat 20:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is less accurate to the point of uselessness. Any library which is important enough to merit an article and opened yesterday or earlier has a claim to be historic. CalJW 13:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move the proposed name is ugly but I can't think a better one like Category:Closed libraries, Category:Extinct libraries or Category:Ex-libraries--Melaen 22:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • altought Category:Extinct libraries may be is not so bad -- Melaen 22:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • how about Category:Non-operational libraries or Category:Libaries no longer extant ? 132.205.44.134 04:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. Defunct is a perfectly good word. Osomec 09:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename category:Defunct libraries. No need for all Melaen alternative suggestions. Honbicot 12:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename category:Defunct libraries. Why is this word unpopular? It isn't slang or jargon. Carina22 19:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nominator. Bhoeble 12:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Perhaps there is a problem between extant libraries and those which no longer exist i.e. historical. This discussion smacks of pedantic frivolousness. Defunct as in meaning no longer in use DOES have unsavory connotations as even if referring to a catalogue of contents of a Library it still can be said to be functioning in its influence as in Library of Alexander of Lib. of Sir T.B... What is wrong exactly with the definition of Historic i.e no longer extant 'cos that's what they are, no longer extant, but nevertheless cannot be said to be totally defunct !!! Norwikian 08:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are confusing "Historic" and "historical". Historic does not mean "no longer existing", it means "famous or important in history or potentially so" (concise OED). Therefore it does not match the likely intentions of the creator of this category. CalJW 14:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Cal. Radiant_>|< 10:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Historic and defunct can have very different meanings or at least insenuation mainly in notability. --StuffOfInterest 13:07, 24 November 2005 (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.

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 18:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The new name will match the parent category:Construction and civil engineering companies. It allows civil engineering companies which do not actually do construction work, such as ARUP, to be included, and it is helpful to have them all together. Carina22 17:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose STopCat 20:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason? CalJW 05:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed CalJW 05:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nominator. Osomec 09:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename makes sense. Honbicot 12:33, 22 November 2005 (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.

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 consensus --Kbdank71 18:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of these was in speedy before. Australian Football League is a proper noun but I don't see how "Australian rules football" can be a proper noun any more than are Canadian football or American football. The article is not capitalised and the parent category is category:Australian rules football. Most of the subcategories do not capitalise Rules or Football. We should in any case be inconsistent.

• Category:Australian Rules Football awards --> category:Australian rules football awards
• Category:Australian Rules footballers --> category:Australian rules footballers
• Category:Australian Rules coaches --> category:Australian rules coaches

Rename all CalJW 14:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed. Carina22 17:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep STopCat 20:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. These are miscapitalized. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't. Look at the official Australian Football League website. Mostly you will see all three letters A, R & F capitalized. Stop all these unnecessary and/or incorrect changes STopCat 23:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They can spell it how they like, but wikipedia should spell it in line with normal usage. The AFL does not own the whole sport and is certainly not a lexicological authority. CalJW 05:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Australian Rules but rename Football -> football. Australian Rules football != Australian football because several codes of football are played in Australia, of which Australian Rules is one. Note that the International Australian Football Council says "Australian Rules football". And I guess, in the interests of consistency, I should suggest changing Category:Australian rules football to Category:Australian Rules football. pfctdayelise 04:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and as a side note, the News Limited Style Guide states: "Australian rules football, lower case, as with rugby league, rugby union. But cap organisations (Australian Football League, National Rugby League, the Australian Rugby Union)." Sarahe 07:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nominator and Sarahe Osomec 09:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The coaches category should be category:Australian rules football coaches (as the cfr tag in the category says) unless the intent is to include only AFL coaches, in which case it should be category:Australian Football League coaches. Nearly all the awards seem to be AFL as well - perhaps the whole capitalization issue can be avoided by using "Australian Football League x" rather than "Australian rules football x". -- Rick Block (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. Rick's comment has some merit, but it is possible in the future that there might be some new league with a different name (Packer Football League??), but we would want the articles to cover both under "Australian rules football" IanBailey ^(talk) 00:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Australian Rules but rename Football -> football. Agree with pfctdayelise luke 04:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but just football, per pfctdayelise. --bainer (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2005 (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.

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 18:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Destron" is the Japanese term for "Decepticon", so under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), we should use the term "Decepticon" throughout WP, and the category is redundant in any case.--Sean|Black 08:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename if that is right, but I know nothing about this subject. Carina22 17:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Osomec 09:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Eeh... Destrons include both Decepticons and Predacons. Not to mention that there are Japanese-exclusive characters referred to as Destrons. They've never been imported to America, so we can't say with certainity that they're Predacons or Decepticons. --Apostrophe 00:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point. However, Japan-only, toy-only (or both) characters don't deserve an article in a general encyclopedia, IMO. Hmmm, is there a TF wiki?--Sean|Black 00:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I recall that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be American-centrist. Because they're solely from Japan doesn't omit inclusion into Wikipedia. I agree on the toy-only point, however. --Apostrophe 03:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I wouldn't be adverse to having, say, List of minor Japanese Transformers characters, or whatever, I just don't think that Fire Guts Ginrai deserves an article all his own. Then again, neither does Weirdwolf, andhe appearred in the comics and the Headmasters anime.--Sean|Black 04:04, 22 November 2005 (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.

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 18:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having both Category:Solid state physics and Category:Condensed matter physics is an unnecessary duplication which can only cause confusion. CMP is a widely accepted term which is replacing the older SSP. I propose that Category:Solid state physics be eliminated and that the articles be merged into Category:Condensed matter physics. Eventually the same merger should be completed with the articles condensed matter physics and solid state physics. Alison Chaiken 08:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE the SSP page says SSP is a subfield of CMP. The CMP page says SSP is the largest subfield of CMP. AFAIK, SSP does not deal with liquids, BEC, FMC or degenerate matter... 132.205.44.134 04:44, 21 November 2005 (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.

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 19:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

more or less a copy of Category:Islamic organizations created by the author of Bay Area Shiite-Muslims Association who I think is too new to understand our categorization system. Basically, it's a semantic difference between associations and organizations chosen by whoever creates the groups. Therefore it'd be futile for us to decide which is which. I think the user created it since association is in the title of the group whose page he has created. It therefore seems to me that there is no need to have both, and I would have deleted it but I suppose it doesn't really meet any CSD. gren グレン 07:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Islamic organizations. There is no meaningful distinction between an association and an organisation. CalJW 11:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Bhoeble 12:45, 23 November 2005 (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.

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 --Kbdank71 18:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Far too vague to be useful. Gamaliel 05:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category names should not contain opinions on the sigificance of the contents. CalJW 11:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete how would this be judged? Arniep 18:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete way too judgmental Melaen 22:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Osomec 09:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Bhoeble 12:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very POV. -- Crevaner 22:16, 27 November 2005 (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.

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 speedy rename -- Rick Block (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category; obvious misspelling of Category:German government images. Andrew Levine 01:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Typo. --Vizcarra 12:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Carina22 17:11, 20 November 2005 (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.

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 --Kbdank71 18:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Useless category that duplicates the purpose of Template:DYK archive nav. Not even used on all the archival pages. It makes more sense for Wikipedia:Recent additions to be in some Wikipedia category and the archive pages not to be in any category at all. --AllyUnion (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are about 1,500 additions a day so it will never be up to date. Osomec 14:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely agree with Osomec's point. This is possible the most pointless category ever in wikipedia. -- Crevaner 22:17, 27 November 2005 (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.