< April 23	April 25 >

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 to Category:Fans of Gundam. —Circeus 00:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this cat, it was in article-space categories, with no links to wikipedian cats. It's badly named, and should be destroyed 132.205.45.110 19:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 08:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Scranchuse 19:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename (done by User:Cyde) Tim! 12:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Companies states manufacturing companies should be ... of country, so I have listed these automobile categories here for rename (existing 'to' categories are redirects to the 'from' categories). I have also listed the car and defunct car categories to change to automobile in line with the rest. I think they would qualify for speedy, but since there are so many I have listed them here. mattbr³⁰ 19:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:African automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Africa
• Category:Australian automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Australia
• Category:Austrian automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Austria
• Category:Belarus automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Belarus
• Category:Belgian automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Belgium
• Category:Brazilian automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Brazil
• Category:British automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of the United Kingdom
• Category:Canadian automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Canada
• Category:Czech automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of the Czech Republic
• Category:Dutch automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of the Netherlands
• Category:Egyptian automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Egypt
• Category:French automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of France
• Category:German automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Germany
• Category:Greek automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Greece
• Category:Indian automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of India
• Category:Iranian automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Iran
• Category:Italian automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Italy
• Category:Japanese automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Japan
• Category:Korean automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Korea
• Category:Malaysian automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Malaysia
• Category:New Zealand automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of New Zealand
• Category:Polish automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Poland
• Category:Russian automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Russia
• Category:South African automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of South Africa
• Category:Spanish automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Spain
• Category:Swedish automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Sweden
• Category:Swiss automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Switzerland
• Category:Thai automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Thailand
• Category:Ukrainian automobile manufacturers to Category:Automobile manufacturers of Ukraine
• Category:Car companies of the United States to Category:Automobile manufacturers of the United States
• Category:Defunct American car companies to Category:Defunct automobile manufacturers of the United States
• Category:Defunct British car manufacturers to Category:Defunct automobile manufacturers of the United Kingdom
• Category:Defunct French car manufacturers to Category:Defunct automobile manufacturers of France
• Category:Defunct Italian automobile manufacturers to Category:Defunct automobile manufacturers of Italy

Survey:

• Rename all per nom – another mattbr³⁰ special!  David Kernow 22:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all, but name the British ones motor manufacturers please. Merchbow 23:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all, as Merchbow. Ian3055 23:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. I have been doing bits and pieces of work on the company categories and these ones don't match the others. Motor manufacturers for the UK please and how about making that apply to Australia and New Zealand too? Nathcer 00:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please no Motors - all understand Automobile, & motor is too easily confused w/ engine for many other dialects of english. Bridesmill 00:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all using motors for UK, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa (and I wouldn't have a problem if that was extended to all the others except the U.S.). It isn't a question of whether American English is understood, but of whether Wikipedia treats American and Commonwealth English with equal respect as policy says it should. Bhoeble 08:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all but use car rather than the obsolescent word automobile. Malcolma 11:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be very confusing for Americans as in America cars are a subcategory of automobiles. They don't class pickups or 4X4s as cars.Carina22 15:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename using motor manufacturers for the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. It's good to see that someone took the trouble to make this long needed nomination.Carina22 15:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename using automobiles or motor, whichever is local usage. Scranchuse 19:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to local usage, which is pretty standard procedure for Wiki categories. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Tim! 11:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason. Following the recent failed attempt to get the correctly named Category:Television programmes set in Newcastle deleted, the incorrectly named category which was created to replace it should be deleted. Merge into the television programmes category and move the two or three films to Category:Newcastle upon Tyne culture or to a subcategory if anyone wants to create one. The television category should also be renamed Category:Television programmes set in Newcastle upon Tyne as there is a fairly large city called Newcastle in Australia. CalJW 18:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I have now created category:Films set in Newcastle upon Tyne. CalJW 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support NuT - I've spent many hours DABbing the Newcastles. The JPS 20:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/rename per nom. David Kernow 22:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/rename per nom. Bhoeble 08:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm afraid I started the category "Television programmes set in Newcastle", then realised it was very clumsily named so created "Newcastle in Film and TV", which seems to cover both without creating two separate categories. I would support changing "Newcastle in Film and TV" to "Newcastle upon Tyne in Film and TV", but the film category with only 3 in it seems rather pointless. Bob 12:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/rename per nom. Carina22 15:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Tim! 11:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty cat 165.189.91.148 17:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 08:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we don't categories for every year every short story came out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was relist (tag was removed on 1 May, probably why there was only one vote) Tim! 11:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unnecessary complication and perhaps unique to Pakistan (I'm half way through checking the "journalists by country" cateogories and this is the first "Journalism" category I have encountered). Pakistan has a media category, and like other countries has or can have separate categories for each branch of media. Merge. Bhoeble 16:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge per nom. Merchbow 23:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus : a very close call, but considering the strength of view of those wanting to keep the category, probably further discussion is required. Also, a lot of deletes seem to based on the inclusion of Sherlock Holmes, why not just remove him from this category? Tim! 11:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better as a list. Mais oui! 12:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I mostly created the category as a means of drawing attention to the idea in the first place. If one of it or the list must go, I'd prefer the list, which is, IMO, a mess. Lokicarbis 13:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does this deserve to have attention drawn to it? How can this be an important characteristic of Sherlock Holmes, when a Sherlock Holmes fan like me has never heard of it? Athenaeum 23:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is undoubtedly interesting info, but the fact that Philip José Farmer included these notable fictional characters originating in other works in his fiction is not one of the prime factors of their notability. On that basis, this is better as a list. Valiantis 13:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I love this category. It's a fascinating way to link characters of this era.--Mike Selinker 14:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Promotional and not a primary characteristic. Bhoeble 16:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The category is for the official PJF characters, the list will have much more than that. The characters on the list will be from more than the official source. (I am working on the list at the moment to clean it up and add more information.) Lady Aleena 17:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list can be divided into two sections. Athenaeum 23:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - lists are tiresome and visually difficult to look at, plus so many figures are considered Wold Neutonians that it would be impossible to find them. The Noble Age of Steam 22:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Especially given the threat of futher expansion. Merchbow 23:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sherlock Holmes should not be in a category based on the works of any writer other than Arthur Conan Doyle. Athenaeum 23:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nathcer 00:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete but keep and tidy the list. much more information can be put there and it can be ordered more affectively than a cat. the list as it is has information on the charachters which would not be possible in a catagory and - as implied above by Athenaeum - the charachters are important to Wold Newton, but Wold Newton is not important to the chatachters and as such adding it as a catagory to them seems odd. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Valiantis. - EurekaLott 02:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons given by User:BL Lacertae and others. Chicheley 06:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no reason to delete this category, it categorizes all the "official" family members present in PJF's literature. The list combines the characters from other cross-over fiction by a range of other authors including the Alan Moore's LEG. This category helps put together the important characters relevant within PJF's initial concept of the family. Piecraft 18:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per previous comments. Camestone 19:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've heard of many of them, but I haven't heard of Wold Newton, so the tail is wagging the dog here. It is fancruft. Scranchuse 19:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Possibly category spam. Golfcam 22:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and improve the list - I'd be happy with a link in the "see also" section to the articles, or with an appropriately sized mention of this in the main article body though. TheGrappler 19:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note people who are irresponsibly voting delete because they " haven't heard of Wold Newton" or think it's just "fancruft" should not be taken into consideration. If you're not aware or have the knowledge relating to this then I don't think their vote is worthy. This is not fancruft because it IS notable and there are if not enough links on the Net, enough books relating to Phillip José Farmer's concept which he along with others including Alan Moore used in their own works of fiction. So please be better informed otherwise don't delete a category because you're too ignorant to research or find out about the subject. Piecraft 21:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would all of those who are against this category be willing to allow for a temporary stay of execution while I look into some of your suggestions? I will reply to some of your statements now however. Lady Aleena 03:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Athenaeum, the only author of Sherlock Holmes novels I have ever read is Laurie R. King and I only have 1 Sherlock Holmes movie, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes Smarter Brother.
• Bhoeble and Scranchuse, all categories based solely on fictional universes are promotional in nature and "fancruft". (I have never heard the term fancruft before now.)
• BL Lacertae, actually as most (if not all) of the authors who wrote the original stories are dead, the only way we get new stories are through new authors. PJF is one of those new authors and is building bridges between the characters that might futher peoples interest in reading the old books. There are probably people who only know these characters through PJFs novles Tarzan Alive and Doc Savage: His Apocalyptic Life. With the characters connected though this category, those readers may pick up other books.
• Golfcam, how does this category equate to spam?
• TheGrappler, I will look into your suggestion, but if the editors of those characters are similar to Athenaeum, there will be serious resistance to adding Wold Newton material to those articles.
• Merchbow, the category is not what will be expanded, only the list. Unless articles are written about the other official members of the family, there will be no further additions to the category until PJF writes another book on the subject and places more characters in the family.
• Scranchuse, please get to know the huge world that is Wold Newton. It is quite interesting.
• Valiantis and EurekaLott, how many Star Trek and Star Wars characters have been only created by someone other than the original creator of those two franchises? How many of them are in categories related to those universes?

And last but not least, thank you to Mike Selinker and The Noble Age of Steam for supporting Piecraft and me.

Hopefully no one was offended by my remarks. - LA

• Delete To say that only people who have heard of it should vote is to propose that every decision should be left to fans, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite hosting service. Sumahoy 01:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sumahoy, I am fighting for this category though I have NEVER READ THE BOOKS which means that I am not a fan. I have not read a single book by Philip José Farmer. I am knowledgable on the subject, however. Using your logic would mean that EVERY category based on fiction should be removed. I would really love to see you try to get the Star Trek or Star Wars categories removed because they are only fiction and the articles and categories have been created by fans. You would get a lot of resistance from Dune fans if you tried to get their categories removed. I would say that those who edit articles here are fans of whatever they edit. One would almost have to be to take the time to do it. We don't get paid for our work, so why else do it if not because we enjoy the topics we edit? There are a lot of categories out there that are built solely on fandom. Do you think that they will all get deleted? I don't think so; but if you want to go through and try to get them off of here, I wish you ... Good luck! Lady Aleena 23:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Tim! 10:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of references concerned with this region and historical period prefer the description pre-Columbian over pre-Hispanic. This change would also be consistent with terminology use within related wikipedia articles and categories (see for eg. Category:Pre-Columbian cultures, Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, etc etc.) cjllw | TALK 05:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. "Pre-Columbian" the standard descriptor in Latin American studies, if I remember correctly. Regards, David Kernow 12:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 16:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename--Rockero 04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but to Category:Mesoamerica instead of Category:Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. Category:Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica is sort of OK, except there isn't much to discuss about Mesoamerica after the Spanish conquest so why not just change the category to Category:Mesoamerica and cover both Pre-Columbian and Post-Columbian Mesoamerica with a single category? --Richard 07:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete and merge to Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies --ALoan 11:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a) category is unnecessary, because all MPs for Epping Forest are linked from the list at Epping Forest (UK Parliament constituency); b) there have only been three MPs for Epping Forest since the costituency's creation in 1955; c) each individual MP has a succession box linking to the predecessor and successor MPs; d) this is the only category of the form "MPs for XXX constituency", and if it were to be replicated for other constituencies, we would have over 1,000 new categories each with very few entries. -- BrownHairedGirl 02:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename  Delete per nom; seems well-argued to me. David Kernow 12:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you mean delete? Bhoeble 16:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, so I did. Thanks!  David Kernow 22:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Valiantis 13:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Many politicians are in a surfeit of categories and as many MPs sat for several constituencies categories like this could make things much worse. Bhoeble 16:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (and if not deleted, needs to be renamed Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Epping Forest). —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.--Smerus 19:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, could be renamed as Categrory:Memebers of Parliament for Essex or something of the like.--(84.69.12.217 18:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge Tim! 10:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

England and Scotland don't have cinema categories as they were deleted since the UK has a single film industry, so Northern Ireland shouldn't have one either. In any case this is incorrectly named. Merge into category:Northern Irish culture. Bhoeble 00:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename to Category:Cinema of Northern Ireland. (I have a whole load I could say about this nomination, but as my mother is fond of saying: "if you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all". I often ignore her wise words, but I shall heed them on this occasion. Hopefully others will follow the precedent [1].) --Mais oui! 08:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. Other cinema-related cats for the individual nations of the UK were previously deleted on the same basis. Valiantis 14:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Merchbow 23:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge. I'm not sure how this is incorrectly named. But then again, I'm not sure what purpose the cat serves: my first impression was that it was meant to be a list of cinema buildings, past and present. It appears it was created to denote a Northern Irish film industry.. which is almost non-existant! --Mal 19:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Scranchuse 19:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Tim! 10:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is confused and confusing. "The arts" is a subdivision of culture. This category was created a few days ago and other countries don't have it. Merge into category:Northern Irish culture. The introduction of the term "the arts" into the category system has been a bit of a disaster in my opinion. Bhoeble 00:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge - "and" categories are rarely very happy creatures. --Mais oui! 08:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom and above. --Mal 19:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Tim! 10:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The existing title attempts to be all embracing but is actually simultaneously tautological and incomplete. "Writers" is the comprehensive term used for naming categories. Rename category:Indigenous Australian writers. Bhoeble 23:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.--cjllw | TALK 01:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 01:59, 5 May 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.