Category:Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversy[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The current name is ambiguous and there has been many controversies over US Attorneys being dismissed. I'm not strongly tied to the proposed name and maybe Bush should be a part of the name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, this one is a royal mess. The main article is currently at Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Just for starters, the word "attorneys" is clearly part of a proper name, and should therefore be capitalized. Obviously, there are other issues as well. But the name question has been raised and discussed several times on the article's talk page, with no real concensus (see this and this and this).
In light of the standard practice of naming categories consistent with the names that have been agreed upon for their main articles, do we have any choice but to deal with that first, and then come back to this? Cgingold (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sometimes when the article discussions don't result in a non ambiguous name, the category name is used as justification for renaming the article. In the discussions you listed, I did not see a real debate on what the article name should be to make it unambiguous. So, a rename here should be OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.
Category:Star Wars live-action television series[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename. When I typed that category name in, I knew somewhere in the back of my mind there was another name that was both obvious and far superior. Black Falcon has identified what that is. Darkspots (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I just added the missing parent cat, Category:Mountain climbers. Also, I'm puzzled by the following line on the cat page: "Any generally accepted list is acceptable for inclusion in this category." This should be clarified. Cgingold (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
C1? Ah! WP:CSD#Categories. Thanks, I hadn't noticed that categories could be speedily deleted. Mind you, it's almost as quick to list it here as to watch it for 4 days, and less work for the nominator. - Fayenatic(talk)15:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was:no consensus at this time. Even five articles, however, hardly justifies a category. We'll be here again I expect. Angus McLellan(Talk)15:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep - I think it's pretty clear what this category is for: people who have been street performers. Presumably, the three people you named were buskers earlier in their lives. If there's a question about that (or any other category), the usual approach is to post a question on the article's talk page; if suitable verification isn't forthcoming in a week or two, go ahead and remove the category. I'm puzzled as to why you decided to "go nuclear", TPH, instead of working on cleanup. Cgingold (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS - If you're serious about extirpating this category, you'll want to tag all 18 of the sub-categories as well. It wouldn't make sense to delete the parent and leave the sub-cats. Cgingold (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep all There can be nothing 'indiscriminate about a category with a clearly defined purpose. Read the definition of 'indiscriminate'. Hmains (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the definition for the category is clear enough when read in conjunction with the main article. This seems more like a question how to correctly apply the category to articles (i.e., questions of 'is it defining or not?') than one of the category itself being inappropriate. Good Ol’factory(talk)03:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how this category has the potential to be overused, but it certainly is a defining characteristic for a significant number of musicians: Mary Lou Lord and Graeme Kirkland, to name just two, come immediately to mind. Give it a once-over for trivia, but keep. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Telindus ist just the sponsor's name. I'm not so sure about moving the related article, too, as the team is mostly known by its sponsor's name, but since the club has existed since 1970 and the currect sponsor's name was established in 1999, renaming would make the category cover all the club's (notable) players in its history and future. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, don't underestimate the impact of such a decision since there are lots of similar articles and categories, but some clubs officially changed their names or were founded as new clubs, while others change their sponsor's names nearly annually, but also keeping the official name. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep becasue it matches the name of the main article. There is in fact a precedent in another field dealing with the issue raised. The convention is that Alumni of colleges which have merged or changed their name or status are listed as if they attended the present institution. In any event the target is unacceptable because it contains an abbreviation, which should be expanded. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 existence of one category does not necessarily justify the existence of another (see here for relevant guidance on categorising people by award). For instance, we have Category:Academy Award winners, and I would not suggest deleting that. Is the Bronze Wrangler award defining for its recipients? That is, are people remembered for being Wrangler Award winners, similar to how people are remembered for being Academy Award winners? –Black Falcon(Talk)17:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. but it does not explain why the award might be notable for those who receive it. Or to put it another way, why is it defining for the recipients. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge, There is no need for a separate category for "Luxury SUVs", especially one that has no recognized definition or that is used in an official vehicle classification system. All of the pages linked within this category are also listed under the broader category of SUV vehicles. A search for the term "Luxury SUV" in Wikipedia redirects readers to the sport utility vehicle article. Therefore, there is no need for further segregation of these vehicles, especially since the term is often applied to almost any vehicle that has some sort of "deluxe" feature, finish, or simply a higher price. The term "luxury" is widely used by marketers, but it is broad, highly variable, ambiguous, and not encyclopedic. Thanks, CZmarlin (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - Another poorly conceived (and misnamed) category, in my opinion. I might be willing to consider renaming, if there is a persuasive argument to keep as well as an appropriate name. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - A poorly conceived (and misnamed) category, in my opinion. Upmerge contents if appropriate. (Category creator has no edits in past year.) Cgingold (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vague inclusion criteria. Almost anything could be construed as a teaching tool (and I could give you the names of some of my teachers who were total tools). Otto4711 (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was:Keep. No consensus. I suggest proposing the first and last options separately, as there seemed more likelihood of consensus for those changes. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question. When Serbia and Montenegro existed as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (which I assume is what "FR Yugoslavia" means — I don't know why the proposal would propose using an abbreviation), was the common name for the country not "Yugoslavia"? If so, I don't understand the rationale for renaming the Yugoslavia ones. Good Ol’factory(talk)08:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming XXXX in Yugoslavia to XXXX in FR Yugoslavia as countries change their conventional long form of country name often and adding it doesn't really make it any clearer. Serbia and Montenegro only existed between 2003 and 2006 so I'm not convinced there is a need for a years in Serbia and Montenegro category.Tim! (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The name should conform to the current name of the country. "FR" (if retained) should be expanded. Where the name changed during a year, I would suggest the use of the new name. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC) amended Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yugoslavia as is, merge Serbia and Montenegro The name Yugoslavia should not be complicated with the FR prefix. Also, year in Serbia and year in Montenegro are very valid names. However, for the years that Serbia and Montenegro existed as a confederation, a parent category should be created. Events of the confederation should move here. Since these are (practically) all the events upmerge Serbia and Montenegro for now as proposed. gidonb (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" is NOT identical with the older socialist Yugoslavia which existed until 1991. The state was not recognized as the official successor to the SFRY at the international level. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
It's too late to include those here since they haven't been properly tagged. So just start a brand new CFD for those. Cgingold (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: I agree with the rationale for renaming. I'm wondering if the sibling categories for Kauaian, Mauian, and Oahuan royalty should also be renamed for consistency, using the "Royalty of X" formulation. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Just a suggestion, if the Cricket category is kept due to size, then theoretically Baseball can be created, Football, Basketball, etc... which I can do. Neonblak (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carlos is right. What exactly is the connection between the profession of a person and the fact hat he or she committed suicide? Garbage men who committed suicide, dentists who committed suicide, ornithologists who...I don't see any value in it, so I also tend to delete all of these subcats. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I don't have a better idea. Maybe it's the best way to prevent the parent category from becoming too large and that's the only value (on the other hand: We also have Category:Suicides by method which could be used for such a purpose. But we often don't know the suicide method.). --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.
Category:Ice hockey players who committed suicide[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename: per consensus. These are the only two sub-categories for the Category:Sportspeople who committed suicide, and, although it seems morbid really, this needs cleaning up. We need sub-cats that not only include the players, but managers, coaches, and executives as well. I would be happy to start moving these people into their specific sport, if there is a consensus for a conventional name. Category:Baseball suicides, Category:Cricket suicides are just examples. Or, just delete the existing sub-cats and just have the parent Sports suicides category. Neonblak (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per T. Anthony. Unlike Category:Cricketers who committed suicide, which has 14 articles, this one only has two. As for coaches, managers, etc. -- they can have their own category(ies), but I don't think they should be lumped in with the players, and I doubt there's enough to warrant sub-cats by sport. Cgingold (talk) 08:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment: I don't see where it violates any guideline -- perhaps you could specify that for us. But I would note that there are other magazines that have their own categories. Cgingold (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for this material and the subcat for Slate people can reside in a general journalists or online journalists category. It does not require a separate parent. Otto4711 (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.
