Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 31
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < December 30 | January 1 > |
|---|
December 31
[edit]- 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 14:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty. Non-English. User's mistake. English cat is at category:Lithuanian artists. Where do you have speedy deletion here? Renata3 22:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- unused, redundant, marked as speedy... gone. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 31 December 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.
- 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 keep --Kbdank71 14:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate. category:Zootomy is the proper term and is cross-referenced. Circeus 20:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Extra comment These two categories needlessly divide otherwise identical content. One has to go, whichever doesn't really matter. Circeus 02:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not finding much of a clear precedent for the "proper term" here. Zootomy is a stub, and the link in said stub, Zootomical terms for location, is a redirect to Anatomical terms of location, the first sentence of which says: "In human and zoological anatomy (sometimes called zootomy)..." Perhaps Category:Zoological anatomy would be more appropriate? siafu 01:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Stick to words which the general reader will understand unless they are actually misleading. CalJW 19:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI am a veterinary surgeon with an enthusiasm for words and I had to go and look up what zootomy meant! The loss of Category:Animal anatomy to Category:Zootomy seems inappropriate! --Malcolm Morley 22:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC) On the other hand now I look at it closely it is the logical way to go. It is just a shame that zootomy is not going to be understood by the majority of readers. It at least needs better explanation on the category page Abstain --Malcolm Morley 23:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- see User_talk:Malcolm_Morley#Zootomy --Malcolm Morley 08:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Added link to this discussion at Category:Zootomy --Malcolm Morley 08:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Save Animal anatomy, drop or redir zootomy. I have a pretty good vocabulary and I'd never heard of zootomy before. I'm against using technical terms that only a few specialists would understand. The encyclopedia's about finding info for the masses, not hiding it. I lost the fight on oophorectomy or whatever it is and it would be too bad to further obfuscate stuff. Elf | Talk 17:36, 4 January 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 --Kbdank71 14:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was approved for deletion here, but I just realized it was never tagged for deletion. So it's being relisted for another week. --Kbdank71 17:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Too vague as per the vote. Choalbaton 20:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. - Darwinek 22:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: if I remember similar category was (for good) deleted on CfD. Pavel Vozenilek 22:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. could never really be NPOV. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Osomec 22:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, POV, mostly added to by anons. Quaque (talk • contribs) 17:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per above comments. Extraordinary Machine 19:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NeoJustin 19:35, January 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy. Radiant_>|< 21:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify. — Instantnood 22:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepSjc 09:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep User:Sevensouls 14:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I see this as difficult to use. Do we remove this entry when the person is no longer a sex symbol? What criteria makes one a sex symbol? The criteria in the category seems very subjective, so much so that any actor could qualify. Vegaswikian 01:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Too vague. If we listed all of the attractive women here, the list (fortunately) would be huge and unmanageable --rogerd 03:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This might work as a list if it was strictly grouped and had a very, very good inclusion and grouping criteria. I think it won't work that way either, though, practically. In its current state, this Has To Go. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's completely arbitrary and personal POV who would get added here, so useless category. Maelwys 15:22, 7 January 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.
merge Category:Childlove into Category:Pedophilia
[edit]- 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge "Childlove" is a euphemism for pedophilia and redundant.Homey 17:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Some editors on Wikipedia define "pedophilia" very narrowly, as being only the desire to have sex with children in s certain age range. While is is appropriate to list that particular definition in articles on the topic, categories are more useful when they are based on common definitions. Therefore, I agree that this category, which only has two entries, should be merged with Category:Pedophilia. -Willmcw 18:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Duplicate/fork. Choalbaton 20:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. "Childlove" is partisan colloquialism (Pedophile POV); "Pedophilia" is the correct term. 12.73.194.2 00:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per 12.73.194.2 Osomec 22:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per above. Benami 05:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge An attempt to introduce a pro-paedophilia term into the menu system. Yuck. Carina22 09:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- merge. NeoJustin 19:37, January 2, 2005 (UTC)
- 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 of the United States federal government to Category:Buildings of the United States government
[edit]- 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. In this case, "United States federal government" is redundant. I know it's not always redundant, but it is in this case. "Buildings of the United States government" is more accurate and clear. I suppose there could also be a category called "Buildings of government in the United States" which would also include state, local, and foreign governments' buildings" but the renaming I propose is clearly just for the government of the United States. --Markles 15:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Would there be a category specifically for buildings of the federal government? — Instantnood 17:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what Category:Buildings of the United States government would be. -Markles 18:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- With category:buildings of government of the United States as its parent? — Instantnood 18:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I'm just talking about renaming Category:Buildings of the United States federal government to Category:Buildings of the United States government. Otherwise, its contents and parent would stay the same. --Markles 18:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
- With category:buildings of government of the United States as its parent? — Instantnood 18:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what Category:Buildings of the United States government would be. -Markles 18:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom; this is redundant as as government buildings in the US that wouldn't fall under this category (excluding foreign embassies and the like), would be categorizable as "Buildings of the Illinois state government" or whatever. siafu 02:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom --rogerd 03:11, 6 January 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 to Category:Wine regions of the United States --Kbdank71 15:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per naming conventions. Should be adjective (Category:Wine regions) and that adjective should be "American". Darwinek 14:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename since it follows conventions. Bkwillwm 00:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose It should be Category:Wine regions of the United States and all the others should be amended to that format too in line with categories for administrative regions. Carina22 09:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename but Carina has a point and I would prefer the entire category renamed as she suggests. Radiant_>|< 21:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Carina22; this is geography, not culture or people. siafu 23:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Carina22 CalJW 19:08, 3 January 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 --Kbdank71 15:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary. It is a well known Japanese video game publication but doesn't need to be categorized for its "perfect game" reviews. Also, the person who created the category made it a POV with the statement: "Famitsu magazine is notorious for their harsh grading of video games." J. Nguyen 04:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. A well-known video game magazine from the birthplace of the video game. I find reviews like these fascinating; besides, we have articles opinions for best/worst movies, etc. ever. --zenohockey 06:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is difference between categories and articles. :-) If you have them intersting, just look at the Famitsu article which already listed these games. There is no need for categorization for this item because there are only a few games that obtained "perfect" scores from them. --J. Nguyen 06:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Contents might be kept as a list. -- Ze miguel 14:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. About the POV statement, it is well known their harsh grading. Quoting, To test the actual quality of the game, four notoriously tough game reviewers scrutinized Nintendogs for Weekly Famitsu, Japan's leading video game magazine. All four reviewers gave the title a top score of 10, for an amazing overall perfect score of 40. [1] Having said that Famitsu magazine is notorious for their tough game reviewers would mean the same as what is is already put in the category, and may have been considered POV as well by the nominator. As for having very few articles in a category, I have seen "valid" categories with only one article. -- ReyBrujo 17:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Useful perhaps as a list, but I don't think it's terribly useful to categorize games by their score from any particular magazine review, not to mention that it smells like advocacy. siafu 02:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Radiant_>|< 21:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Read the Famitsu article. It says the statement itself. Furthermore I would like to point out a precedent, Category:Academy Awards and it's subcategories. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:17, 9 January 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.