< April 4	April 6 >

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. Syrthiss 13:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category should use the "in" form like its parent and children. Rename CalJW 18:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• support. -Irpen 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Mais oui! 18:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, as Northern Ireland included. David Kernow 02:37, 6 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.

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 both. Syrthiss 13:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 subcategories to be renamed in line with other sports venue categories and for consistency with the parent:

• Category:Australian rugby league stadiums --> Category:Rugby league stadiums in Australia
• Category:British rugby league stadia --> Category:Rugby league stadiums in the United Kingdom

• Rename both Choalbaton 17:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support. --Irpen 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. David Kernow 02:37, 6 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.

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. Syrthiss 13:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia naming conventions. ProveIt ^(talk) 17:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note this is merge not rename -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename Choalbaton 17:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge per nom. David Kernow 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• speedify. This is non-issue. -Irpen 18:22, 5 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.

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 - wiki is not a crystal ball. Syrthiss 13:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See below. We don't have Byzantine sites in Greece or Byzantine sites in Turkey, do we? There is nothing in the article on Trani which warrants its inclusion in the category. I looked through the hefty "History of Byzantium" which mentions dozens samples of Byzantine architecture in Italy. No Trani here. Delete frivolous and meaningless cat. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• del as per nom. --Irpen 18:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has the possibility of expansion and filling up as in all the Greek sites in... & Roman sites in .... Carlossuarez46 20:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Bysantine sites and include half of ;Category:Byzantine art; we can subdivide when (and if) necessary. I took the (unsupported) cat off Trani. Septentrionalis 05:36, 6 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.

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. Syrthiss 13:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Started by User:Attilios specifically to categorize Trani. Completely out of line with existing categorization schemes. There is nothing outstanding in Trani that warrants its categorization as "a Gothic site". If the author wants the categorization to be consistent, he needs to explain which city is a "Gothic site", "Renaissance site", "Baroque site", "Art Nouveau site", etc, etc. I'm afraid the consistent application of this criterion would plunge Wikipedia into an abyss of pointless and uninformative categorization. Paris, for instance, would have to be included into a dozen cats: it is a "Gothic site", a "Romanesque site", a "pre-Romanesque site", etc. Hence, delete. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• del as per nom. --Irpen 18:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete categorization by architecture type, rather than by cultural inroads and foundation as in Byzantine above, is not to be started. Carlossuarez46 20:52, 5 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.

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. Syrthiss 13:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Started by User:Attilios specifically to categorize Trani. Completely out of line with existing categorization schemes. There is nothing outstanding in Trani that warrants its categorization as "a Gothic site". If the author wants the categorization to be consistent, he needs to explain which city is a "Gothic site", "Renaissance site", "Baroque site", "Art Nouveau site", etc, etc. As 90% of cities in Europe may be described as "Gothic sites", the consistent application of such a criterion would plunge Wikipedia into an abyss of pointless and uninformative categorization. Hence, delete. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• del as per nom. --Irpen 18:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gothic is ambiguous (having to do with Goths? architecturally? foreboding and scary? filled with teenagers with white makeup, piercings, wearing black?) Assuming by context what is intended: categorization by architecture type, rather than by cultural inroads and foundation as in Byzantine above, is not to be started. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 5 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.

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. Syrthiss 13:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through Category:Categories for deletion, and apparently this was tagged a long time ago, but never listed here, so I posted it. Looking through it, I'd have to agree, delete. Nobunaga24 15:04, 5 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.

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. Syrthiss 13:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been cfd not prod... -- ProveIt ^(talk)

• Keep unless someone can explain why the person who orphaned it in the same edit put a tag on it to delete it because it had been orphaned. Gene Nygaard 02:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Okay, that explanation satisfies me. 13:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you're objecting to; if you could be a bit more explicit, I'll be happy to try to address your concerns. John Reid 19:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- redundant to Category:Euclidean plane geometry. Orphaned and tagged during general overhaul of all compass and straightedge-related articles. John Reid 19:58, 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.

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. Syrthiss 13:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill is in a huge number of categories even without this cluttersome trivia. This merits a list in the bow tie article perhaps, but not a category. Hawkestone 13:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as above. Hawkestone 13:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We've been down this road recently, and the result was to keep it. (Can't find the previous nomination, though.)--Mike Selinker 14:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of February 16 - Category:Famous Bow tie wearers? CLW 15:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Seems like six weeks later is too recently to revisit a nomination. Let's wait six months.--Mike Selinker 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion says that an article for deletion shouldn't be relisted immediately if the deletion fails. While that is articles and this is categories I don't see why the criteria should be different and six weeks is definitely not immediate. (And, BTW the result of the previous go around was No Concensus, not Keep). --JeffW 18:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unencyclopedic criterion. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopedic criterion. This is an encyclopedia, not a miscellany. Choalbaton 17:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Just clutter. --Irpen 18:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So what's next? Boxers or briefs? --JeffW 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and Delete. Not needed. Carlossuarez46 20:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• listify and delete. much better as a list. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a list would not make any difference as this is unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong 09:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, criterion is too unstable/subjective. And boxer briefs. - choster 00:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ListifyMayumashu 05:18, 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.

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. Syrthiss 13:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match category:American cuisine. Bhoeble 13:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Isn't there more of a case for renaming category:American cuisine to category:United States cuisine, since this would be more accurate? "America", after all, is more than just the US. CLW 13:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up a lot, and each time the conclusion is that "American" is the adjectival form of "United States." Blame us United Statesians for not coming up with a better adjective for ourselves.--Mike Selinker 14:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename As stated, "American" is the adjectival form of "United States." Choalbaton 17:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nomination. mattbr³⁰ 19:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, wouldn't "Wines of the United States", be more apropriate. To avoid confusion with someone searching for North American or South American wines? --Barberio 09:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it would not. We have been through that debate more than enough times and it seems to me that the potential for such confusion is purely theoretical. In any case, readers of the English Wikipedia should familiarise themselves with normal English usage. This is not the place to change the English language to suit the needs of Latin Americans or anyone else; we should use English as it is. Bhoeble 11:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Darwinek 13:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - Nat Krause^(Talk!)`

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. Syrthiss 13:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The former catergory is redundant if the latter category also exisits. CLW 08:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I can't tell for sure, but someone may have been in progress of moving entries from one to the other, given that one category has only items beginning with J or later, and the other is mostly A through H.--Mike Selinker 14:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note from closing admin - both cats seem to have population as of time of closing so whatever was happening when Mike made his comment appears to have completed. --Syrthiss 13:58, 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.

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. Syrthiss 14:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these entries are trivia. If trivia from every book, film, etc... gets a category, then categories become trivial. This subject is already handled quite will at Salvation Army Filmography in which I found out that in Pieces of April someone bought a suit at the Salvation Army. "What links here" can be used to find all the lists of trivia that mention a film. -- Samuel Wantman 05:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ×Meegs 07:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Articles shouldn't be classified by minor attributes or references. Bhoeble 12:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. David Kernow 17:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. -Irpen 18:19, 5 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.

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. Syrthiss 14:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the utility in conflating art movements and political movements just because they both have "movement" in their names. Perhaps this should be split into Lists of arts movements and Lists of political movements but with only three items it hardly seems worth it. JeffW 03:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best argument I can think of against this category is that until I clicked on the link, I had no idea whether "movements" was referring to artistic groups, political action groups, pieces of music or physical actions such as "hop", "skip" and "jump". If further articles can be found to file in them, then split into separate (and less ambiguously titled) political and artistic categories; otherwise delete, because this doesn't serve any useful purpose as currently constituted. Bearcat 04:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I doubt there will ever be enough of a population to warrant splitting. After deleting, the entries will be split into two different categories of lists (whoever closes this should be careful). -- Samuel Wantman 05:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. --Irpen 18:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too unfocused. David Kernow 02:39, 6 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.

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. Syrthiss 14:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Less POV title in light of no consensus to delete (see here) David Kernow 03:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. David Kernow 03:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not all of the entries match the new title, and I don't think it matches the original intention, or not all of it. It also covers progamming fiascos which didn't cause disasters in the sense of loss of life. 12:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhoeble (talk • contribs)
• Oppose. While it's true that some software engineering did cause disasters (and some of the articles in the category exemplify that),there are plenty of software engineering projects that were themselves disasters. Ed Yourdon's book Deathmarch names some as does Software Runaways; Lessons learned from Massive Software Project Failures by Robert L. Glass. Atlant (updated 7 April 2006)

• In which case, re the comments above, there seems to be the need for two categories: Category:Software engineering failures or the like; and the subcategory Category:Disasters attributed to software engineering. Regards, David Kernow 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move. No need to weaselize. --Irpen 18:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A distinction between software causing disaster and software failing to perform has been made. Is that "weaselizing"?  Curious, David Kernow 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move. There seems to be a trend toward longer and longer category names, which make the list of categories at the bottom of articles hard to read. Category names should be as concise as possible, in my opinion. And, if anything, the incidents in question are attributed to a lack of software engineering. --agr 22:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the manner in which categories are listed at the bottom of articles needs reconsideration. There seem to be too many instances where clarity, grammar and/or syntax have been sacrificed for the sake of a compressed category name. "Fatally crashed racecar drivers", "American Revolution people" (something from the sixties?), etc, etc... David Kernow 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both seem like reasonable category names to me. I think category names are like newspaper headlines, where rules of syntax are often relaxed. In the pre-computer library card catalog one was more likely to find a subject card titled "American Revolution - people" than "People Associated with the American War of Independence (1775–1783)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArnoldReinhold (talk • contribs)

• For the sake of those non-native speakers visiting the English Wikipedia, I'd be happier with "X Revolution - people", "X Revolution: People" or the like, i.e. something that doesn't treat a noun phrase as an adjective. But "fatally crashed [noun phrase]"?!  Let's take advantage of the fact Wikipedia doesn't have to use a pre-computer library card catalog approach... I'm all for trying a show/hide listing of categories one-to-a-line at the bottom of a page, akin to TOCs. Thanks for your thoughts, David Kernow 02:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The way we're going, you wouldn't get one to a line. I agree with ArnoldReinhold; succinct category names are better. Gene Nygaard 02:10, 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.