< September 10	September 12 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. Kbdank71 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the deletion of the following categories

Category:Players who have played for Celtic and Rangers

Category:Players who have played for Everton and Liverpool

Category:Players who have played for Dundee and Dundee United

Category:Players who have played for Heart of Midlothian and Hibernian

Nominator's rationale: There was once an article about rivalries such as these which was deleted at AFD. A very similar category was deleted before as per this CFD. I think that if these rivalries are truly notable then they will have separate articles such as Second City Derby and accompanying lists of players. This is just category cruft. Woodym555 20:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions.
• Keep for now - the anonymous nominator has not demonstrated a need to delete, & if he is unaware of Old Firm, Major football rivalries, Local derbies in the United Kingdom, Merseyside derby, & Edinburgh derby probably knows little about the subject. Johnbod 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response, my signature was included in the small tag. This could have been seen in the history of the page but i have moved it to my rationale for clarity. Along with another user, i maintain the Aston Villa F.C. articles and know about how rivalries can be quite fierce. (Bring on the Blues ;). If these players truly are notable for playing in these derbies, then they should be listed at those derby articles. Where does it end? For your information, this was discussed at the WT:WPF page beforehand. Thanks Woodym555 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per precedent; Woody is right, these players are best listed at the relevant derby article than as a category. For info, Woody is a well informed editor on football topics. Number 57 21:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - These categories should be kept as a list in the relevant derby articles. Daemonic Kangaroo 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the Everton/Liverpool, Dundee/United and Hearts/Hibs ones, but weak keep for the Celtic/Rangers one. The situation is a little different for these two clubs as the religious divide is more than nominal with this pairing, and for a while even the idea of a Catholic playing for Rangers or a protestant playing for Celtic was unthinkable, let alone the idea that one player could play for both teams. As such it has a higher notability than the other combinations. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Each is a fairly unique category with a dozen or so players belonging to each and is of interest to warrant its inclusion alongside the derby page. If we're going to start deleting this, we might as well delete categories like 'West Ham defenders' and 'West Ham captains', which offer far less interesting information IMO. Fedgin | Talk 07:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These categories refer to proper derbies rather than national rivalries as in the Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_1#Category:Players_who_have_played_for_FC_Barcelona_and_Real_Madrid case, therefore I don't believe that it can be used as a precident because of this distinction. The information is interesting and useful, if it is decided that the categories be deleted, the information should be retained elsewhere in Wikipedia to prevent its loss, in the relevant derby articles or in a list of players who...... articles. I believe that the categories should be kept as the information is well presented and accessible. King of the North East (T/C) 11:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point, albeit obviously not very explicitly, was that this information should be in list form in the respective Derby articles if they are indeed notable. Merseyside derby#Switching Sides is a good example of how it can be well presented and how it can be accessible. I don't think that a category is a good place to present this information. Woodym555 14:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Category:Players who have played for Celtic and Rangers, and delete others per Grutness, who rightly attributes greater notability to the Celtic-Rangers rivalry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the Old Firm is indeed very notable. I think the information could be better represented in list form though. A separate section in the Old Firm game along the same lines as Merseyside derby#Switching Sides would be better than a category. Woodym555 14:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like Woody, I think that this information should be retained as a list rather than as a category. If you look at the South Coast derby article, you'll see an example of what I have in mind. Furthermore, the categories are not complete. The list in the Merseyside derby article includes 18 players whereas the Liverpool/Everton ocategory includes 10 players (one of whom is not listed in the article). Daemonic Kangaroo 14:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did wonder about this before !voting, and actually changed my mind several times before pressing the save button. I am not an enthusisatic deletionist, and categories fulfil some useful purposes which lists don't, but I am persuaded by Mike Selinker's argument about the unhelpful precedent this would set. Vote changed below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. This is a pathogen category, because it sanctions Category:Players who have played for the Yankees and Red Sox, Category:Players who have played for the Cowboys and Redskins, and dozens of other such intersection categories. There are rivalries everywhere.--Mike Selinker 15:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. per Mike Selinker who said it oh so well. Carlossuarez46 02:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Mike Selinker. (Changing my !vote per discussion above). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, per precedent; my idea of the things is these categories are an excessive form of categorization. --Angelo 21:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: bad precedent, appropriate for list at best. I assume that these are footballer categories? If so, then if kept (or listified), the name should make that clear, as my first reaction was to wonder who might have played for both the Boston Celtics and the New York Rangers. Xtifr _tälk 23:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Mike Selinker's argument sounds like WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTANDSHOULDNTEXIST which is not too much more valid of an argument than WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS :-). (in fact if you take logic, I believe that is the contrapositive of the argument OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which means it is equally invalid). Anyway, have you ever heard of people dying because of the Yankees - Red Sox rivalry? (see Sicilian derby). Have you ever heard of 2 baseball teams refusing to trade players to each other for more than 35 years because of a rivalry (that would be Liverpool/Man Utd - see Gabriel Heinze)? The Old Firm derby in particular is a legitimate historical conflict (Catholic vs. Protestant for example) and football derbies (not to mention non-derby matches, like Man Utd/Roma last season for example) have caused many riots and quite a few deaths. Maybe I have just not been alive long enough to remember, but when is the last time Redskins and Cowboys fans caused a riot after a game? (and I have been a Redskins fan for, I dunno, about 10 years now). 130.58.227.234 16:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those all sound like great arguments for having articles about some of these rivalries. But I don't see how it justifies the categories! And actually, "otherstuffexists" (or doesn'texist) is considered a better argument at CfD than at any other XfD debate, since categories are used across wide ranges of articles and are supposed to be fairly consistent, to maximize their utility as a tool for finding articles. Also, "otherstuffshouldn'texist" is a completely different and much better argument than "otherstuffdoes/doesn'texist"; in fact, it's one of the standard counterarguments to the latter, along with "otherstuffshouldexist". Xtifr _tälk 18:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete all as unnecessary cruft - if anything this is better served by a list as the definition of "played" (First-team matches? Youth matches? Do friendlies count?) varies so much. Qwghlm 16:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. --cjllw ʘ TALK 16:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is Commons:Category:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions in Wikimedia Commons, I think it's enough. OsamaK 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why pick on this, Osama, of all the hundreds of map categories? Johnbod 20:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Timeshifter 21:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, while I can understand categorization in local languages in non-English languages this feels like an excessive duplicate of commons. Not that I oppose nor support it since I am at a state of universal indifference towards the issue. -- Cat ^chi? 21:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The deletion arguments are bizarre: categories on commons exist to categorise material there, and categories on wikipedia exist to categorise material on wikipedia. Category:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions includes several maps, and appears to fulfill a useful purpose. In any case, so far as I can see, there are many other map categories duplicated on commons. I do hope that we aren't going to return to the situation earlier this year where any category with "Kurd" in its name seemed to end up at CfD with some odd justification which was nearly always rejected.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  All of those maps (except Image:Ancient Kurdistan.gif, which should be moved to commons) are already on commons. The K.U.R.D. argument is only in your mind. -- Cat ^chi? 14:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  White Cat, you are putting the cart before the horse. If the maps are moved to commons, then we won't need a category; but as long as the maps are on wikipedia, the category is needed. As to the Kurd issue, you know that we have had several spates why you nominated lots of Kurdish categories for deletion, and the question remains: why is this map category nominated for deletion, but not any others? What distinguishes this category from other map categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 08:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BHG. Carlossuarez46 02:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BHG. Gareth E Kegg 12:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, unused and now-empty cat. They probably shouldn't have been emptied, but they don't seem to be problematic examples. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indirect OMM

Nominator's rationale: All the articles in this category were merged intoCategory:Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine.Bronayur 18:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Four pre-emptied categories in a row here! Johnbod 01:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, unused and now-empty cat. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Direct OMM

Nominator's rationale: All the articles in this category were merged intoCategory:Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine.Bronayur 18:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, unused and now-empty cat. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bodywork

Nominator's rationale: All the articles in this category were merged into the article Massage.Bronayur 18:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, unused and now-empty cat. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poems in Death of a Naturalist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All the articles in this category were merged into the article Death of a Naturalist. Calliopejen1 16:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename plural fix. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Economic research institute to Category:Economic research institutes

Nominator's rationale: Plural for categories related to multiple institutes, per similar categories for other types of research organisation. Bastin 15:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename per nom (as creator). Name yesterday simply created in error and different from the other cats, some of them even created by myself;) --Tikiwont 16:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge both to Category:Fleets of the Royal Navy. Kbdank71 20:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:British fleets to Category:Royal Navy fleets

Nominator's rationale: Merge, The two categories are practically identical; once that's been done, the category should, according to WPMILHIST conventions, be renamed Fleets of the Royal Navy. Buckshot06 15:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to new Category:Fleets of the Royal Navy - why mess about? Johnbod 15:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But how do I do that? Buckshot06 18:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just vote here, the admins/bots do it. Johnbod 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I register again (if I need to), I would like that to happen. Buckshot06 21:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Fleets of the Royal Navy. As i stated on the WT:MILHIST talk page, i agree with the merge. As discussed earlier i think it would need a sentence about the history at the top such as: This is a category containing the Fleets of the Royal Navy from its formation through its various forms before the Acts of Union 1707 created the United Kingdom and the formation of the Royal Navy as it is known today. Woodym555 21:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to what, woodym? Johnbod 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Fleets of the Royal Navy. Category:Fleets of the United Kingdom would be inaccurate because the UK has only existed for 300 years. The Navy has existed in various forms since about the year 1200. Certainly one fleet, the Channel Fleet has been around since 1600, 100 years before the Acts of Union 1707. Putting it in a category including the title United Kingdom would therefore be inaccurate. Similarly the Britain category is also inaccurate in that Great Britain is a fairly contentious title. Origianlly the Scots and the English had separate Navies, therfore Great Britain would have to include both Navies. Royal Navy can include the disclaimer at the top about various forms and the merging of the Scots Navy in 1707. Hope that clears up my reasoning. Thanks Woodym555 22:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A name would have been fine. Johnbod 03:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection: is Britain/the UK/whatever really the only country with a Royal Fleet or a Royal Navy? Because if not, then the suggested names seem extremely ambiguous. Remember, this is an international encyclopedia, which merely happens to be written in English. I have this sneaking suspicion that Margrethe II just might have a fleet and navy of her own, as might some others. The fact that you island-dwellers can't figure out what to call your own country/ies is not our problem! :p  ;) p.s. "British" is widely used for categories and articles in Wikipedia, despite the fact that a few people (including some of my kinsmen) are disgruntled by it. Xtifr _tälk 09:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other Navy called The "Royal Navy" in English, and no other term is commonly used within naval circles for the British/United Kingdom/whatever Navy. See Royal Navy (disambiguation), Royal Australian Navy, Royal Canadian Navy (to 1968) etc. So there is no ambiguity here. Johnbod 14:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll srike my objection for now, without prejudice to renew if I should happen to find evidence contradicting those claims (which I'm not particularly expecting to do). As long as we're consistent in our usage, I'm pretty happy. Xtifr _tälk 20:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Fleets of the Royal Navy per Johnbod and Woodym555. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Formerly proprietary software. Kbdank71 19:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Liberated software to Category:Free and open source software that was formerly proprietary

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Liberated" is a POV and florid term which doesn't adequately describe the topic. Chris Cunningham 13:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose with comment: I think "liberated" is a pretty succinct word for software that had restrictions but now doesn't. The details are described on the category page. If it is to be renamed, "Category:Free software which was formerly proprietary" would be a better new name. It's equally description, is shorter, and is less redundant. --Gronky 14:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's succinct, but it's also POV (we allow "free software" because Stallman branded it as such, not because it's a normative description) and it isn't descriptive (unless you happen to have heard the FSF's rationale). I think "and open source" is necessary because of projects like Helix which have been "liberated" but aren't generally described as free software. Chris Cunningham 15:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked to contradicts your assertion. Helix is indeed free software according to the article, released under two FSF approved free software licences. (Some parts remained proprietary, but this is normal - the same was the case for OpenOffice.org, Mozilla, Java, Quake, and just about every other large software project that has been liberated.) --Gronky 18:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Proposed name is too unwieldy; some middle course is needed. Johnbod 15:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One middle course might be to merge to Category:Free software. Does it really need to be in a separate category just bcause it was once proprietary? Xtifr _tälk 01:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Assuming there is a a need, rename to Category:Formerly proprietary software which would be a subcategory of Category:Proprietary software. The respective articles should then also be in Category:Free software or Category:Open source software or wherever appropriate according to to their actual status.--Tikiwont 10:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: open-sourcing a proprietary software is often used when the software is abandoned or as a desperate way to counter low sales. The term "liberated" is misleading in these cases. IMHO the whole category should be deleted since it is about a detail and not about a defining characteristic. Pavel Vozenilek 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Formerly proprietary software (Category:Former proprietary software?). This would also include software released to public domain (the only kind of software that is really free, some would say). GregorB 13:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename both to Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United Arab Emirates. Kbdank71 19:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Golf courses in the United Arab Emirates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Golf clubs and courses in United Arab Emirates, convention of Category:Golf clubs and courses by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge. Convention is to use the ungrammatical form? -choster 22:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per Choster. Johnbod 01:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, we should merge both into Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United Arab Emirates to match Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United Kingdom and Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok with that Johnbod 00:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both to the grammatically correct and consistent name offered by ProveIt, Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United Arab Emirates. Xtifr _tälk 23:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge, then delete as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swimming sonic characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters, not distinguishing. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and WP:OCAT#Trivial intersection or narrow. I do have to say that I was intrigued by the idea of sonic (lower-case "s") characters. I'm almost disappointed to find out that it's supposed to be "Sonic". Xtifr _tälk 08:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Entries to be sorted (as far as possible) into more specific deaths by type subcats. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths from natural causes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No one ever dies from natural causes, I suggest that the people in this category be included their respective death categories. Gareth E Kegg 10:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No one ever dies from natural causes, so how did Ingmar Bergman and the other 48 people in this cat die then? Lugnuts 11:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not per nom. I'm struggling to see the need for this category, which could end up thousands strong. Johnbod 15:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The people in this category died from specific conditions, for which natural causes is a bracket used to denote an not entirely unexpected death. The natural causes should be ascertained, and then categorised. Gareth E Kegg 16:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Is this encyclopedic? For historical figures you would theoretically end up with a vast Category:Died from imbalance of the humours etc. Johnbod 16:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean put into categories from Category:Deaths by type of illness. Gareth E Kegg 17:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. although i disagree with nom, as everyone dies of natural causes.--emerson7 | Talk 19:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Natural causes" is a catch-all term typically used when a person of advanced age, typically 80 or over, dies of routine causes. In other words, it means "death from old age". If the cause of death is not routine, it's already covered by existing cats, such as Category:Deaths from emphysema. szyslak 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is unweildy/unmanageable and also POV.Ryoung122 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if it made sense in the biological sense, this fact does not make a person notable. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 00:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If we should have a category containing - I wouldn't say all, like the nom Emerson7, but the vast majority of everyone notable ever died- this would be the biggest cat ever. To me, this looks like a prank. Greswik 14:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a useful navigation aid; include categories for the various specific conditions that could be called "natural causes." (I have added some of them.) --orlady 14:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Repurpose as a maintenance category. Park the stiffs here if no cause of death is immediately determined or announced, then as more information becomes available recategorize them to something more specific. Otto4711 16:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dripping with sympathy. ;-) Carlossuarez46 02:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the cause is unknown, we should categorize as cause-unknown rather than assuming "natural" causes. Xtifr _tälk 18:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete natural, unnatural, supernatural is POV: some say no one dies of natural causes, another may say that everyone dies of natural causes. It's also trite and euphemistic. Carlossuarez46 02:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant, slightly crude comment : that reminds me of another death euphamism. A doctor told me once that "died quietly at home" in an obituary typically means "died on the toilet taking a dump, and boy, was it a mess when the bowel muscles completely relaxed". Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per (the aptly-named) Rich Uncle Skeleton. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 11:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vague, excessively broad, useless category. Wryspy 05:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete as ill-defined and vague. The corresponding cat for imgs to be upmerged to Category:Automobile images. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Classic vehicles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Subcategory: Category:Classic vehicles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete The term "classic car" has many meanings. Depending on who you talk to, it means (1) a car eligible for recognition by the Classic Car Club of America or similar organizations, (2) any car made before about 1980, per the automobile history eras, of which there are more specific eras, or (3) "a great old car". The first would be better served by a more specific title, such as "Cars recognized by the Classic Car Club of America", though I wouldn't support such a category per WP:OCAT. The second could potentially include all pre-1980s cars, which would be so large that navigation would be impossible. The third would obviously be inherently POV. This category is ambiguous, inherently subjective and serves no useful navigation purpose. The existing "automobiles by year" categories and the more specific automobile history era cats are far more useful. szyslak 09:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per extensive reasoning by nom, and also because I believe this is essentially a recreation. I'm reasonably sure we've deleted a classic cars category at least once already. The images sub-cat should probably be merged into another vehicle images category. Otto4711 14:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Otto Johnbod 21:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because of inherent ambiguity in the name. Pavel Vozenilek 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - like the term supercar, classic is a term people will fight endlessly over what is and what isn't, therefore an easy target for edit wars. Willirennen 17:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the nominator, of the three possible meanings:
  1. a car eligible for recognition by the Classic Car Club of America or similar organizations, - this is difficult because we'd have to make a list of organisations to trust - and that is in itself a POV decision. If we wanted to do this, we should add categories like: "Cars recognised as classics by the CCCA" - which would be crystal clear.
  2. any car made before about 1980, per the automobile history eras, of which there are more specific eras, - indeed, we should refine the category per automobile history eras and end up with 'antique cars' (>25yrs old - a legal definition in many countries (certainly across the EU, USA, Australia and Japan) to exempt cars from various taxes and to grandfather them in to modern roadworthiness laws), 'prewar' (cars made before 1948), etc. I'm not concerned about the size of the category - it's better that these things have some kind of categorization than none at all.
  3. a great old car - Definitely far too POV to be usable - except of course for the Mini - which is indisputably a classic :-)

It's a vague term and vague terms shouldn't be categories because admission or rejection from a category is a black and white thing...there is no way to express that admission is a grey area. If we put a car into the 'Classic' category then people will read "Wikipedia says this car is a classic - so it must be"...when in fact, it's maybe only just marginally a classic. SteveBaker 17:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Foreign language warning templates to Category:Non-English user warning templates

Nominator's rationale: We seem to have two categories for warnings in languages other than English (they should all be translated to the language in question eventually - anyone who speaks Amharic, Danish, Farsi, Croatian, Lithuanian, Somali, Swedish, Turkish, or Vietnamese, your help is appreciated). I think "non-English" is a better name than "foreign", so I suggest the merger go in that direction. Picaroon (t) 01:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Johnbod 01:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus to delete. Rename to less ambiguous Category:Burials at Oak Grove Cemetery, Delaware, Ohio. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burials at Oak Grove Cemetery, Delaware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category not needed for non-notable cemetery. Notice that Oak Grove Cemetery and Oak Grove Cemetery, Delaware do not exist, nor is it even listed at List of cemeteries. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose (ie keep) There are already several occupants of this category suggesting that the cemetery might be notable (Google finds quite a few hits). Eg there is a UM Bishop. In any case it should be upmerged to Category:Burials in Ohio rather than deleted. -- roundhouse0 17:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, but possibly rename. I don't find these categories very useful and I don't see place of burial as a notable attribute, but a June 21 CfD for Category:Burials and subcats was closed as a "keep", and I don't see any reason to treat this cemetery as an exception. However this webpage clarifies that the cemetery is in Delaware County, Ohio rather than in the state of Delaware. The current name implies to me that it is in the State of Delaware, so wouldn't it be better renamed as Category:Burials at Oak Grove Cemetery, Delaware, Ohio? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename too per BHG. -- roundhouse0 11:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Burials in Ohio per Roundhouse0 (mildly preferred) or Rename per BHG. I don't think place of burial is generally a defining characteristic, though I realize some people are obsessed with the topic. I generally think this sort of thing is better handled with lists and/or broader categories, but if we are going to keep it, then a less misleading name is clearly called for. Xtifr _tälk 18:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.