Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 26

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< July 25 July 27 >

July 26

edit

Category:Norwegian royals

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Norwegian royals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Norwegian royalty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge, Into Category:Norwegian royalty, which matches all the other subcategories of Category:European royalty. Piccadilly 17:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops! I meant that to be Merge as per nomination. --BrownHairedGirl 17:36, 27 July 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.

Category:Primary school

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (empty: no merging to do). --RobertG ♬ talk 08:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Primary school (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Primary schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge, Empty duplicate of proper plural category. Usgnus 17:45, 26 July 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.

International demonyms

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename and redirect all except four Scottish demonyms which MaisOui! struck through as late nominations, and which could (should?) be re-nominated. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following are demonym categories for places outside of North America. They should be renamed to the 'People from X' format for consistency throughout the encyclopedia. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 14 for previous archived discussion regarding this type of demonym renaming, that discussion resulted in for example Category:People from Chicago, Category:People from Boston, etc. Please note that no redirects are proposed here. If you think a redirect is a good idea, such as perhaps for Category:Londoners, then please simply create it following the conclusion of this cfru proposal, if it passes, or instead note in your vote below that you are in favour of both the renamings and having redirects. Please also note that the national or sub-national entity a city is in has only been included in the following proposed renamings if the name of that city's self-category includes this detail. For example, Category:Nelson, New Zealand.

--Kurieeto 23:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Mayumashu, I've added the Scottish ones, the South African ones actually appear to be OK as the contents of Category:People by South African city are all "People from X" (Category:Capetonians is a redirect to Category:People from Cape Town). Kurieeto 14:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Out of process - struck through the 4 Scottish denonyms - You cannot just add in the 4 Scottish categories as an afterthought, 4 days after the voting began. Editors interested in the Scottish biographical articles should have just as much notice as everyone else. If you want to rename the Scottish ones then please nominate and tag them properly. Probably best to wait til this vote finishes, so you have a precedent. There is also a particular issue with them, in that they are all subcats of all-embracing "People associated with foo" categories: so the Scottish standard for these "from" cats is "Natives of foo", not "People from foo". --Mais oui! 21:41, 30 July 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.

Category:Australian aikidoka

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian aikidoka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}
  • Delete, This category contains one article, and it is about a Japanese person. ReeseM 23:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think he would define himself as an Australian.--Mike Selinker 23:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it should be empty, unless there is a different article that is actually about an Australian aikidoka. Hawkestone 10:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair 18:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 13:12, 1 August 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.

Category:Charlotteans

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was cat redirect (other demonym discussions have suggested redirect as a good way of discouraging their recreation). --RobertG ♬ talk 08:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, and has a duplicate scope of Category:People from Charlotte, North Carolina. Kurieeto 23:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect if "Charlotteans" is how people in North Carolina and/or the USA refer to them. David Kernow 23:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Charlotte, North Carolina is not well enough known in the US to have a specific nickname. Badbilltucker 13:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect there are 17,400 (YMMV) hits for Charlottean on Google, the term is definitely used locally by some people in North Carolina. Bejnar 19:17, 27 July 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.

Category:Billy West-portrayed characters

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_12#Category:Fictional_characters_by_actor_and_subcategories. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous discussion. ×Meegs 22:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous discussion. Hawkestone 10:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous. This category shows the problem with such categories. It only has 5 members, even though the Billy West article itself lists about 20 characters that he's portrayed. --M@rēino 14:24, 27 July 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.

Category:Companions of the Order of the Bath

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (btw, if you're going to say reverse merge, it might be a good idea to make sure both categories are tagged for merging) --Kbdank71 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Companions of the Bath. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:41, 26 July 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.

Category:Intelligence

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was relist here, Category:Cognitive intelligence was not tagged for the reverse merge. --Kbdank71 14:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This previously had military intelligence mixed in. I moved those things out, and now it seems to be redundant with Category:Cognitive intelligence, into which I think it should be merged to avoid future ambiguity. -- Beland 21:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Category:Intelligence is easy to find, while :Cognitive Intelligence is not, and it also seems redundant. Suggest the reverse of this merge proposal, with a disambig note left in the :Intelligence category pointing to :Military Intelligence. Outriggr 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge Category:Cognitive intelligence into Category:Intelligence and leave a {{for|military intelligence|:Category:Military intelligence}}, per Outriggr. David Kernow 18:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per David Kernow. It's the best answer for now. And give a similar pointer {{for|emotional intelligence|:Category:Popular psychology}} to help readers find their way around science and contested fringe topics. --Mereda 07:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge I have expanded the category--Tstrobaugh 17:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABIFY this category, with links to Cognitive Intelligence and Espionage. And protect this category so that nothing can be categorized in it. 132.205.45.148 23:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge Category:Cognitive intelligence into Category:Intelligence --Ancheta Wis 07:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is more to this problem. First Category:Cognitive intelligence has Artificial Intelligence items in it. Second there are Category:Artificial_intelligence and Category:Cognition that have many overlaps. There may be more that I don't know of. I think the top level category should be Category:Intelligence with some subcategories under it. I don't think AI should be mixed with HI at all. That is a possible goal in a thousand years or so but it's science fiction now.--Tstrobaugh 17:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge After discussion, Intelligence (trait) was considered the primary usage and moved to Intelligence with a disambig at the top. Artificial intelligence is properly, as it is now, a subcat within intelligence. Intelligence is properly, as it is now, a subcat within cognitition. --Nectar 01:20, 31 July 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.

Educational institutions founded in <year>

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two category pages have been created for Educational institutions founded in a given year (Category:Educational institutions founded in 1867 and Category:Educational institutions founded in 1848). These are redundant as there are already categories for this purpose, eg Category:Educational institutions established in 1867. Both "founded" categories contain no pages and the "established" categories fit into the wider establishments categories. Greenshed 21:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Usgnus 21:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Outriggr 00:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom Duja 11:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom Serge 23:15, 28 July 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.

Category:Movies that portray the 1970's

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Movies that portray the 1970's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Films set in the 1970s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename, "Films" and "1970s" per naming convention, "set in" as more accurate. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. --Usgnus 21:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename There are two existing categories for films that portray an earlier period (the 30s and the 50s). I suggest the same format thus, "1970s Nostalgia Films" would work. In fact, a "1960s Nostalgia Films" category would be a good idea.--Blm7 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is the category necessary? It would include almost all of the films released in the 1970s. --musicpvm 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless it is to be limited to films made after a certain date. I don't know if there's an elegant way to do that, and I'd still have doubts about the cat's usefulness. ×Meegs 22:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That's way too broad a category.--Mike Selinker 23:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most films are set roughly when they are made, so categories like this will have too much overlap with the categories of films by year. ReeseM 23:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per ReeseM. --BrownHairedGirl 13:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ReeseM. Carlossuarez46 22:33, 28 July 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.

Category:American dramatic actors

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American dramatic actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}
  • Delete, This is intended for dramatic film actors, so the title isn't even accurate, but it only contains two members and it is a really bad idea as most film actors have appeared in a dramatic film and actors suffer from severe category clutter. Chicheley 20:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Fang Aili talk 20:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as there are precious few notable actors who only stick to drama or comedy and thousands who routinely cross over (sometimes in the same play or movie!), making it a useless disinction.--M@rēino 20:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --musicpvm 21:46, 26 July 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.

Category:Tuning theory

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete/empty --Kbdank71 13:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tuning theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}
  • Transferred from PROD, as PROD does not and should not do categories 132.205.93.20 19:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category was indistinct from, and has been merged into, Category:Tuning — 05:39, 26 July 2006 user:Rainwarrior
I didn't know about CFD, thanks. - Rainwarrior 21:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, empty. Support merge already done. --Fang Aili talk 20:27, 26 July 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.

Category:Scary Movie actors

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 13:50, 4 August 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.

Category:Vermont state highways to Category:Vermont routes

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, Accepted naming convention for Vermont state routes is "Vermont Route X". Per category guidelines, Route has been de-capitalized and pluralized, resulting in a category name of "Vermont routes". TMF T - C 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment not sure about this, but if renamed it should be to Category:Vermont state routes or Category:Vermont numbered state routes. Vegaswikian 02:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep nearly every sibling category for the highways in each U.S. state is named 'xxx state highways'. There is no reason to change this one. Instead, those few that are named 'xxx routes' should be renamed to 'xxx state highways'. 'Highways' is clear to the world reader of WP; 'routes' is not. Thanks Hmains 05:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If this category is kept the same, then I agree that all categories named "X routes" (Maine and Massachusetts come to mind instantly) should be renamed "X state highways". --TMF T - C 16:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could support your suggestion if you can show me an official source that says Vermont lists them as state highways as their official name. Otherwise, they should remain as state routes included in State highways for the purpose of grouping like things by whatever name is used by the state. A good example of this is Category:State supreme courts. Vegaswikian 22:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Vermont state routes to match the form normally used for these categories. Vegaswikian 22:47, 27 July 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.

Category:Dopplegangers

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was category (soft) redirect; hard redirects don't work with categories --Kbdank71 13:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:Doppelgängers. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:17, 26 July 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.

Category:American Tour de France stage winners

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep/withdrawn --Kbdank71 13:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We probably don't want a cat for stage winners; there's already Category:Tour de France winners. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What does Category:American Tour de France stage winners have to do with the existence of Category:Tour de France winners? Neither is a subset of the other. By having this category, any reader can easily find the list of all American stage winners from the page of any famous stage winner (like Lance Armstrong or Floyd Landis). This is exactly the type of "expanding information" opportunities categories are supposed to provide. I created this category precisely because, I, for one, was interested in this information. Finally, it is a category/list that is sufficiently notable to have been displayed numerous times throughout this year's OLN coverage of the Tour de France. It's a notable and valuable category. Please do not delete it. Thank you. --Serge 01:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is an excellent idea. Winning a stage of the Tour is the pinnacle of many cyclists career, and definitely makes them highly notable within their own national cycling community. Even countries that have won tons of stages over the last century (France, Italy, Spain, Belgium) are very fond of all their stage winners. Concept should be extended to all relevant countries. --Mais oui! 07:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone explain to me why this would be any different than Category:Teams leading in the Super Bowl at halftime, Category:World Series Game 3 winners, Category:Wimbledon quarterfinalists, or Category:Fourth place at the Olympics? If you can, I'll vote keep. If no one can, I'll vote delete. --M@rēino 14:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I can. Stages in big cycle races are physically quite different from each other, unlike quarters of the Super Bowl or matches at Wimbledon. A cyclist is tracked by how many stages he wins, regardless of whether he wins the overall event. It is possible to win the Tour de France points competition (a separate award) by winning the most stages, rather than crossing the finish first. So a specialist in the mountain stages might well win the points competition by winning all the mountain stages, and be quite decorated for it. Whereas the football team that blows out the other team in the first three quarters and loses (say in this Dolphins loss to the Jets) is mocked mercilessly.--Mike Selinker 17:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Each stage in a stage race is a separate race. Winning a stage in one of the three grand tours, particularly the Tour de France, is considered in the cycle racing world to be a greater accomplishment than winning almost any one-day race (notable exceptions are the so-called "classics", like Paris-Roubaix). For example, look at the career results of George Hincapie, particularly 2005. There you will see stage wins listed right along with his "regular race" win. For many pro cyclists, winning a stage in the Tour de France is the greatest achievment of their careers. And, again, this is a sufficiently notable list for OLN to repeatedly display during their TV coverage of the Tour. --Serge 17:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Tour de France, unlike a football game, is actually a collection of about 25 different competitions (Overall or GC; sprint jersey; climbers' jersey; young riders; team competition; and 20 stages, all with a unique profile - time trials (short, long and team), flat, intermediate and mountain stages etc), each one of which carries very high prestige in the cycling world. Obviously, the most prestigious is to win the whole event, but out of approx 200 cyclists who start the race perhaps only about 20 (realistically far fewer) will be aiming to top "GC". The other 160-180 riders have very different goals, and for most of them a stage win in the Tour would be the highest achievement in the sport. Only the most famous 5-7 classic cycling races exceed a Tour stage win in terms of prestige. --Mais oui! 18:04, 27 July 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.

Category:Channel Four

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no objections, so convert to redirect. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:Channel 4, otherwise it will just be recreated. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:59, 26 July 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.

Category:Closed British Breweries to Category:Defunct brewery companies of the United Kingdom

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Defunct companies" is a wikistandard, as in Category:Defunct companies of the United Kingdom. It is necessary to include the word "company" because in many perhaps most cases, the company was taken over or got out of brewing to concentrate on other interests, but the brewery was sold on to another company. Carina22 14:45, 26 July 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.

Category:Russian Americans

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already a category redirect --Kbdank71 13:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:Russian-Americans, otherwise it will just be created again and again. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep as redirect but also clear out all its articles. Thanks Hmains 05:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only created it because I noticed it near the top for wanted categories :/ Stormscape 12:59, 27 July 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.

Category:Liverpool F.C. staff

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Liverpool F.C. staff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Liverpool F.C. non-playing staff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename, The existing name is imprecise. Calsicol 13:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Landolitan 16:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. except it should be Liverpool FC as per common usage in England not Liverpool F.C. which you never see outside this site. --BlackJack | talk page 20:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Casper Claiborne 13:12, 1 August 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.

Category:Liverpool F.C. managers

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 13:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Liverpool F.C. managers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}
Well, this was discussed, to some extent, on Wikipedia:Project football. I can't see what purpose a managers' category serves, on its own. ArtVandelay13 13:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have repopulated it myself. "Manager" is a distinct role and there is a very well established and hugely populated hierarchy of categories for managers. Taking Liverpool out of it does not make sense. Calsicol 14:08, 26 July 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.

Category:Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial images

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}
  • Delete, Empty category - This image category's template {{Cc-by-nc}} now redirects to {{db-noncom}}. Keeping the category around is just encouraging someone to use it WP:BEANS. BigDT 13:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BigDT. bogdan 15:36, 30 July 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.

Category:Anti-Lithuanism

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Lithuanism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}
  • Delete. The term "anti-Lithuanism" is a neologism which has zero Google hits outside Wikipedia, from where the appropriate entry was formerly deleted, if I recall correctly. That the person is "anti-Lithuanin" is an arbitrary criterion and is prone to sunder interpretations. Given my experience of dealing with Lithuanian editors, I anticipate endless revert warring over articles' inclusion to this cat. Does Battle of Vorskla qualify for this category? If not, why Armia Krajowa is there? What is next - Category:Anti-Britanism, Category:Anti-Americanism, Category:Anti-Canadism, Category:Anti-Iraqism, Category:Anti-Japonism?.. Ghirla -трёп- 10:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if there is Anti-Polonism there might be a place also for Anti-Lithuanism. As for AK, there is explanation in the article. Here's citation: "On June 23, 1944, AK troops committed a massacre of Lithuanian civilians, at Dubingiai (Dubinki)<...>The murderers chose victims according the presence of documents: for instance, if the peasants had a Lithuanian prayer-book, they were killed." If this is not Anti-Lithuanism, then what is it?--Lokyz 11:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, IMHO Category:Anti-Polonism and Category:Anti-Semitic people should be deleted as well but two wrongs (three wrongs, IMHO) do not do one right. Putting such labels is an inherently POV. In an article we can say AK commited massacre Dubingiai but they fought together in someplace and the wives of Generals X and Genrals Ys were Lithuanians... With the cats we do not have this flexibility the article either in the cat or out. Besides the words Anti-Semitism and Anti-Polonism at least exist. abakharev 13:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a divisive and misleading POV category. Calsicol 13:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as quite obvious POV name. While we're there, we should take a look at Category:Anti-Polonism too. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if article referenced article on Anti-Lithuanism is created, Delete as WP:NOR otherwise.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  15:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can you imagine Wikipedia littered with categories:anti-<insert nation/group here> for all groups and nations out there in the world? Balcer 18:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename into category:Anti-Lithuanian sentiment or something. Various anti-national sentiments are very real and I see no reason why hostile actions targeted (or allegedly targeted) against Lithuanians could not grouped into a category. Category don't "litter" wikipedia: they are introduced as a search enhancement tool because wikipedia lacks database capabilities. As for anti-Iraquism, nothing surprizing: we already have Anti-Iranianism and Anti-Persianism (btw, they overlap heavily; please intervene). `'mikka (t) 18:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suggest that it is important to distinguish between hostile actions against Lithuanians, and a notion of anti-Lithuanism. The existence of the first does not necessarily mean that the latter exists: e.g. my car may be stolen because someone wants it, and it's poor logic to label that theft as anti-BrownHairedGirlism unless here is further eveidence available. --BrownHairedGirl 13:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment banning printed books in Lithuanian language or closing schools that teach lithuanian, or even shooting people for having prayer book printed in Lithuanian is certainly the same as stealing cars because of someone's brown hair.--Lokyz 16:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sorry, but I don't agree. It's heading in that direction, but those actions are sadly a common part of the brutal process of military occupation. It doesn't neccessarily mean that Lithuanian is hated, just that the occupier is insisting on assimilation. I'm not in any way defending the brutality, but I don't believe that those anti-Lithuanian actions things necessarily add up to an ideology of anti-Lithuanianism. --BrownHairedGirl 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment of course not people are hated, just language. Liek someone said we-want-your-teritory (I'd add not your language). It's not personal - it's just business;)
Altough I'd want to know the difference between "occupier is insisting on assimilation" and "<let's rename Lithuanians to> locals are not hated" in the light of Human Rights.--Lokyz 20:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Exactly! Lithuanians are a valuable economic resource! Why would anyone hate them? (Joking, joking, don't shoot me.) --tjstrf 20:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per mikka, because Lithuanism isn't a word, but the concept is real and well-documented in the articles in that cat. --M@rēino 20:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the articles, I think one would have to be Lithuanian, and somewhat paranoid to boot, to think that anti-Lithuanian feeling as such was a major motivation with regard to most of them. Historically, when one tribe killed off another tribe and seized its land, it didn't mean they had a deep-seated prejudice, it just meant they wanted more land for themselves.ReeseM 23:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Anti-Polonism category should also be deleted imo, so it is of no value as a precedent. Hawkestone 10:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. It seems to me that this category relies the lawed reasoning of conflating a list of things done against Lithuania/Lithuanians into an ideology of anti-Lithuanianism. Acts of war (and even atrocities) may be ideologically driven, but they can also be based on simpler motives such as we-want-your-land or we-want-your-oil and we'll-kick-you-outta-the-way-or-kill-you-if-we-have-to. --BrownHairedGirl 13:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. As far as I remember I voted keep for anti-polonism, so it wouldn't be fair if I voted delete here. I wouldn't vote that way now, but what the heck. However, I believe that, contrary to anti-Polonism, the anti-Lithuanism is a complete invention, kind of Wikipedia-only term. //Halibutt 19:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV category, and an unconvincing one too. Merchbow 22:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KNewman 04:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until there is a need to categorize multiple articles relating to this subject (if any can be written). Carlossuarez46 22:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV and confrontational. Casper Claiborne 13:14, 1 August 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.

Category:AIPAC

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AIPAC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:American Israel Public Affairs Committee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename, acronym. Peta 10:05, 26 July 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.

Category:Manos: The Hands of Fate

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manos: The Hands of Fate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}
  • Delete There is no need for these eponymous categories. All their articles can be found in their eponymous articles. Having eponymous categories for individual musicals and films is a bad idea. Samuel Wantman 09:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete– as often discussed, categories filled with actors and personnel of individual films are not good. This one also contains two articles about characters in the film, but a cat is not necessary as I don't expect any more are on the way. ×Meegs 10:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Meegs. Landolitan 16:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with the rationale in general but in this case an exception should be made. None of the people in this category are notable except for their involvement with Manos. BoojiBoy 20:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They can all be put in other categories, like Category:American film actors which most are already and the others should have been. They are all linked to the film, they don't need the category. -- Samuel Wantman 07:58, 27 July 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.

Category:Rocky Horror

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rocky Horror (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}
  • Delete There is no need for these eponymous categories. All their articles can be found in their eponymous articles. Having eponymous categories for individual musicals and films is a bad idea. Samuel Wantman 09:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well, wait up here. Unlike the Manos nomination above, this one's a series. There should be a place for The Rocky Horror Picture Show, The Rocky Horror Show, Shock Treatment and Revenge of the Old Queen to go. However, the actors should be removed or placed into their own category.--Mike Selinker 12:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything is already in other categories and linked to each other. Why do they need to be in a category together as well? You can make a info box template for the series. -- Samuel Wantman 22:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The articles can contain the links. At most a template should be used, not a category. Landolitan 16:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- *Keep for the articles listed by Mike Selinker Tim! 16:59, 26 July 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.

Category:Organizations with royal patronage

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organizations with royal patronage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Organisations with Royal patronage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge and Rename to Category:Organisations with royal patronage: changing "z" for "s", and "r" for "R" does not a separate category make! And have separate UK, Canada, Martian etc subcats with the correct "based in foo" naming convention for organisations. - done. (Explanatory note: the "z" cat was originally all Canadian orgs, and then someone came along a created the "s" cat with all UK orgs, but failed to put this new UK cat into any categories, leaving it in Wikipedia no-man's land.) Mais oui! 08:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nomination. Tim! 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Given the capitalization this appears to be a desciptive rather than a proper noun. That being the case: changing from US/Canadian to British spelling is contrary to WP policies. We are left with the choice of the original editor. Perhaps the proposed change is "better" in some respects in my personal POV even, but to start "ising" the "izes" (or "oring" the "ours", or what-have-you) threatens to unleash edit wars. It's best not to muck with different spellings. Carlossuarez46 22:41, 28 July 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.

Category:Buildings and structures in India by state

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and structures in India by state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Buildings and structures in India by state or territory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Rename, The first level administrative divisions of India comprise 29 states and six union territories. Hawkestone 06:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Calsicol 13:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow 17:56, 26 July 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.

Category:Gangsta/Ghetto/ThugLife/Indastreets

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gangsta/Ghetto/ThugLife/Indastreets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}
  • Delete, I think this qualifies as a "general bad idea". ViridaeTalk 02:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think I agree. --DieHard2k5 | Talk 03:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ReeseM 04:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I would have put this category up for deletion myself, but wasn't sure of the response I'd get from a few people. —JD[don't talk|email] 11:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Landolitan 16:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know who you are talking about, and considered that but decided to put it up anyway. ViridaeTalk 01:26, 27 July 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.

Instant messengers

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename all. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all, "instant messenger" is an AOL registered trademark, and other articles using this term are being renamed, so let's also get all the categories renamed to the preferred, neutral term of "instant messaging client" -/- Warren 02:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all per nom. ViridaeTalk 04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, there's no reason not to. syphonbyte (t|c) 17:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 10:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nomination. It's not just a trademark issue, it also makes it clear that the category is about software rather than about carrier pigeons moving at the speed of light. --BrownHairedGirl 13:31, 27 July 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.

Category:Military brats

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military brats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}
  • Delete, POV term; not a defining characteristic. Only five articles but it could be enormous, including for example just about every medieval nobleman - people far too diverse for this marginal connection between them to be worthy of categorisation, Chicheley 02:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Though it is nice to see someone use "brat" in the non-insulting sense for once. --tjstrf 08:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure, this might be worth keeping. —Brat, especially army brat, is by far the most common way to describe these people in the U.S., and it is a somewhat important characteristic. If kept, it should probably be limited in scope and renamed United States military brats, or something. ×Meegs 11:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia shouldn't categorise people by parental occupation, as it is highly speculative and largely unprovable that it has a major influence on their lives. Calsicol 14:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Calsicol. This is a category useful on social networking sites but as a way of categorizing people it's rather useless. --Dhartung | Talk 10:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: brat is an inherently POV term. --BrownHairedGirl 13:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what would you say about categories like Military family, Banking family, or Musical family ? They are at least relatively NPOV. Bejnar 19:28, 27 July 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.

Category:Fabaceae

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. No objections expressed; I think the implication is that the community trusts Petaholmes on this one :-) --RobertG ♬ talk 08:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Fabaceae should be merged into Category:Legumes. Much like the grasses that are in Category:Grasses the family fabaceae is most commonly known as the legumes and the duplication of content by common and scientific names is not useful; fabaceae also has some taxonomy problems as it is officially known as both the fabaceae and leguminoseae, Category:Legumes avoids this problem.--Peta 02:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. I think this one may have gone over people's heads a bit. ViridaeTalk 01:28, 27 July 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.

Category:Entertainers who played football

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Entertainers who played football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Entertainers who played American football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename, This is what the category is for. There are other forms of football, and one of them is many times more popular than American football on a global basis. Chicheley 01:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as proposed. A similar category for "proper" football would be useful, too - for Rod Stewart, Bob Marley, Des O'Connor, Julio Iglesias et al. Grutness...wha? 02:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Sure, no problem.--Mike Selinker 02:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or listify Subject is not as encyclopedic to merit a Wikipedia category. A list article would be more appropriate. Kurieeto 08:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sports players are a form of entertainer by default, as sports events are a performance with an audience for the purpose of amusement. Or by Entertainer, do you mean Comedian? In which case, Category:Comedians who played American football is what you're after. --tjstrf 08:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or delete. The criterion is funny but hardly encyclopaedic. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, it's a decent cat. ×Meegs 10:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kurieeto. If not deleted then rename as proposed. Calsicol 14:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to prevent Category:Scientists who played badminton. --Usgnus 19:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom or per Tjstrf. This is also a definite keep; I'll even venture to say that GirlA and Usgnus don't work on the articles that are in this cat often, because I can assure you that before this category was created, we had lots of confusion caused because people tried to put these articles into the MAIN "football players" category, where they obviously don't belong since few of them are famous for their exploits in the NFL. Many of the people in this cat have become famous for entertainment based on their football experiences -- Bill Cosby's many standup routines about playing football come to mind -- so this cat is very much not trivial, but integral to a full understanding of the subject. --M@rēino 20:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivia, noting comments by Usgnus. This sets a silly precedent. --BrownHairedGirl 13:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivia, or otherwise rename. Merchbow 22:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most likely every X played Y at sometime or another, take "football" British style or "baseball" American style or "tennis" worldwide. Has nearly any able bodied person in the modern age escaped from school without having played something? And if they end up notable and on WP, they can be uselessly categorized according to the various sports, instruments, jokes, or whatever they "played" in the past. Not useful. We can have lots of categories like Category:Police officers who played tennis, Category:Labour Peers who played Monopoly, Category:Baptists who played croquet, Category:Roman Emperors who played hide and seek, Category:Porn stars who played bridge, Category:Albanian footballers who played tiddlywinks, etc. Lots of valuable information to categorize, folks! Carlossuarez46 22:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I don't agree it's trival, but even if it is, so what? What's the harm? Non-encyclopedic? Please. The whole concept of having categories is non-encyclopedic. Silly precedent? So what? What's wrong with having lots of categories? Sports players are a form of entertainer? Sure. So what? --Serge 23:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or listify per above. bogdan 19:49, 30 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_26&oldid=1144786491"