Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 1

< April 30	May 2 >

May 1

Category:Lists of people with the same name

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why anyone would want to search for an article on someone who shares their name with someone else, jguk 11:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems part of Wikipedia:Non-unique personal name. — Insta ntnood 12:14, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

The Pope Benedict page might have been quite popular these days (it even got a duplicate page), but one might want to see them as a subset of Disambiguation_pages_with_links to work on. -- User:Docu

All of the articles in this category are already (or should already be) in Category:Disambiguation. As this category is a subcategory of Category:Disambiguation, all articles should be removed from the parent category. As this category is added in Template:Disambig, a new template should be made only for "people disambiguation" pages, which includes a Category:Lists of people with the same name, and this should replace Template:Disambig on these articles. Which is a lot of work, for no obvious benefit. Or, we can Delete this category. Eugene van der Pijll 15:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose both of your suggestions would just give the same work, for no benefit to you, so we might as well keep the category? Anyways, there is an advantage in keeping {{disambig}} on all disambiguation pages and the category can also go on pages that are not disambiguation pages. We should obviously remove Category:Disambiguation from pages where it had been added directly (e.g. A. J. Cook). -- User:Docu

Delete Disambiguation servers a purpose, and can take place within the article or on a separate page. Listing "people with the same name" serves no purpose. Dystopos 17:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Disambiguation serves the same purpose. I don't see a person looking up a list of people with the same name. Gorrister 17:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Kbdank71 20:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless K1Bond007 21:20, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. meaningless --Mecanismo 08:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could have been worse - we don't have List of people with different names :) Grutness|^hello? 13:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Coming of age films

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, for correct grammar, this should be called Category:Coming-of-age films (the way it is now it means "age films that are coming" or something like that). — Timwi 09:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We do have coming of age as an article title sans hyphens. No film-specific article yet for that genre though. I see you proposed this just as a rename, but do we even need the category and can it be effectively applied? I'm curious to see a reason for keeping it. Postdlf 09:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Coming of age is correct because it stands alone. It should be hyphenated here because it is used as an adjective to modify films. — And somehow I knew someone was going to suggest the category's deletion. :) I don't mind either way. — Timwi 09:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I agree with Timwi and the "adjective" explanation. --Kbdank71 18:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This is a me-too situation. Grutness|^hello? 13:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, Timwi is correct (gosh ;-)). James F. (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Also I think it is a valid category and would be happy to vote to keep it if the question arises. -- Lochaber 13:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The cfr notice was never added to the category. I've added it now and will wait a few days before listing it below for renaming. --Kbdank71 18:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per Timwi. Paradiso 19:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Field Marshals of Germany

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 18:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An anon (83.109.129.114 (talk · contribs)) has created this category on April 30, re-categorized all articles in Category:Field Marshals of Nazi Germany and placed a {{cfd}} on the latter, but apparently without listing it here. I propose to undo this change and delete the new Category:Field Marshals of Germany: The term "Nazi Germany" is helpful to distinguish it from other periods in German history. Also, they were indeed Field Marshalls of Nazi Germany, even if not all of them were members of the NSDAP. Lupo 07:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just subcategorize Nazi Germany under Germany? There are non-Nazi-Germany field marshals of Germany of some note 132.205.45.110 17:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but does Wikipedia have articles on them? --Kbdank71 14:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Paul von Hindenburg, and the entire list at Generalfeldmarschall#Imperial Germany 132.205.15.43 23:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Middle East Airlines

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either Rename it as Category:Airlines of the Middle East, in line with the way the rest of the categories are named under Category:Airlines. In addition, the category is confusing, because there is an airline by the same name (Middle East Airlines). Alternatively, we can also Delete the category and move the entries to Category:Airlines of Asia.--Huaiwei 06:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT renaming to Airlines of the Middle East or Airlines of the Middle and Near East or Airlines of Southwest Asia. 132.205.45.110 17:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Airlines of the Middle East. --Kbdank71 18:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. good call. --Mecanismo 08:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Airlines of the Middle East. -- Lochaber 13:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The cfr notice was never added to the category. I've added it now and will wait a few days before listing it below for renaming. --Kbdank71 18:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Airlines of Caribbean and Central America

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either Rename as Category:Airlines of the Caribbean and Central America, a grammatical issue, or Delete and merge into Category:Airlines of North America. There are not many entries in the later, and it is probably better to have less subcategories than required.--Huaiwei 06:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some consider a few of the Caribbean islands South America, and the portion of Panama south of the canal is undisputedly part of South America. See bicontinental countries for details. — Insta ntnood 12:11, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Airlines of the Caribbean and Central America. --Kbdank71 20:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The cfr notice was never added to the category. I've added it now and will wait a few days before listing it below for renaming. --Kbdank71 18:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Airlines of Australasia and Pacific

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 15:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either Rename as Category:Airlines of Australasia and the Pacific (another grammatical issue), or Rename as Category:Airlines of Oceania. Shorter, and probably under less dispute?--Huaiwei 06:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no... Australia and Papua New Guinea aren't frequently considered part of Oceania (New Zealand is in oceania if you;'re a New Zealander, but in Australasia if you're an Australian). Perhaps Category:Airlines of Australasia and Oceania would be better. Grutness|^hello?

00:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Airlines of Australasia and the Pacific. --Kbdank71 20:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The cfr notice was never added to the category. I've added it now and will wait a few days before listing it below for renaming. --Kbdank71 18:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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