Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 10



Category:Universities and Colleges in Multan

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Both categories now exist, so merge for now. Category:Universities and colleges in Multan can be nominated for renaming if desired. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Universities and Colleges in Multan to Category:Universities and colleges in Multan
 * Nominator's rationale: Speedy rename Capitalization is the only difference. Pichpich (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment For consistency as most of the subcategory names of Category:Universities and colleges in Punjab (Pakistan) end in “District” both of these subcategories should be merged into Category: Universities and colleges in Multan District. Assuming that all of these subcategories apply to the whole district and not to the main city or town of course? If that is the case then Category: Universities and colleges in Rahim Yar Khan should be renamed Category: Universities and colleges in Rahim Yar Khan District and Category: Universities and colleges in Sialkot should be merged into Category: Universities and colleges in Sialkot District  Hugo999 (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Monster movies

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


 * The result of the discussion was: keep.  Rcsprinter  (gossip)  19:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Monster movies to Category:Monster films
 * Nominator's rationale: As far as I can tell, this was nominated for speedy renaming, but never processed. I don't think it's speedy-worthy, but I do agree with the rename.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with rename Change to Neutral (for the time being based on Andrzejbanas note) based on previous discussion Keep old name It was four or five years ago that using the word film was deemed preferable that movie. This category must have slipped through the cracks and there may be others out there. Thanks for catching this one MS. The arguments in the old conversation make sense as to why an exception should be allowed in this instance. MarnetteD | Talk 20:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note, I was the around when it suggested for a rename. We kept it "Monster Movies" because that's the term most often used opposed to "Monster Films". In a similar case, we aren't chaning "Road Movies" to "Road films" are we? Just something to consider. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post. Is there any chance that you can provide a link to that past conversation. If it was too long ago and/or would take up too much time to dig back please don't worry about it. One odd thing though my memory is that I have usually seen the Hope/Crosby gems as "Road Films" Oh well - I think I need to wait and see what others post before making a final decision. MarnetteD | Talk 00:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_29. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the archeological dig hope the dust and cobwebs didn't make you cough too much. I grew up with a TV station that had a Friday night twin bill of horror/monster films that they called "Creature Features". I don't think that would fly as a cat name though. Thanks again to Mike for his efforts in this too. MarnetteD | Talk 01:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * keep as is I still find the arguments from the 2006 debate convincing and relevant to today's situation. Pichpich (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Sad keep One of a handful of exceptions where "movie" is used instead of "film". Road-movie, B-movie being the others.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm certainly not arguing for "B-films," though I could imagine "Road films." Is "monster movie" trying to be something more limiting than "film with a monster in it"? I guess that if so, the genre name makes sense. If not, I'm still happier with "Monster films."--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Gemini Woman

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * gemini woman


 * Nominator's rationale: Recently created category with single entry. Do we really need to drill down to such detail? It is something else that will need monitoring across, for example, umpteen showbiz BLPs where d.o.b. is often warred over. Sitush (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * DELETE: This is not Orkut. No reason to have it as maintenance category too. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Not sure what this is, but if it's about the intersection of someone's sex and astrological sign, then it's definitely not appropriate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is completely useless since I only date Capricorns. (That and it's not a defining characteristic of people) Pichpich (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this is so vague it is useless.  And as aboveCurb Chain (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:June 9 Birthday

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Delete. C1, G4, WP:SNOW. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * june 9 birthday


 * Nominator's rationale: Recently created category with single entry. Do we really need to drill down to such detail? It is something else that will need monitoring across, for example, umpteen showbiz BLPs where d.o.b. is often warred over. Sitush (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * DELETE: This is not Orkut. Cant have 365 categories of this type. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 366, actually ;) - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete There is plenty of precedent for this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. This has been beaten to death, most recently a week ago: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_3. Pichpich (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete mounds of precedentCurb Chain (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Duplicate

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Duplicate to Category:Duplicate Wikipedia files
 * Nominator's rationale: In its current state, the name of this category gives no indication as to its status as a maintenance category. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename Maintenance categories need to be unambiguous. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename obviously but is this category still in use? Pichpich (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment isn't this populated by template? You'd need to change the template code as well. The template name itself duplicate is bad, since at first you'd think it was for duplicate articles. 70.24.247.61 (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And now I'm thinking: Why do we have duplicate? Can't we just have users tag duplicates with db-f1 and the admin review them? &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 15:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that duplicate is what you use when you find the duplicate but don't want to or don't know how to perform the cleanup task of updating the links. Pichpich (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


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