Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 1

< October 31	November 2 >

November 1

Category:Censored anime to Category:Controversially edited anime in international distribution

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 15:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Censorship has to do with government, and not all edits can be considered "censorship". Also, many times a show is controversially-edited BECAUSE of edits that have nothing to do with censorship. WhisperToMe 23:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say just delete; I don't see how the suggested rename clarifies what articles do and do not belong in it. Is the anime itself controversial, or the edits, or both? Is it anime that has been controversially edited that has also been internationally distributed? Is what you're suggesting really Category:Anime that has been subjected to controversial edits for international distribution? In that case, how is it not POV as to what edits are controversial? And controversial because of content removed due to sex? Violence? Length? All of the above? Edits made by whom? DVD distributors? Broadcasters? Theatres? All of the above? Categories should not raise so many questions; they should simply set forth an obvious and objective classification. Postdlf 01:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can this simply be populated correctly. Presumably, some anime is censored by the authorities and that can be included in this cat, no? -Splash^talk 08:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC just about all anime is censored in international distribution. I think that the entire subject is better covered in a separate article (with list) explaining what exactly was censored and why. So please creade Censorship in anime and delete this cat. R adiant _>|< 11:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete non sensical, in some countries everything is censored. If existing it would need to specify in a country it was censored, then you could end up with 100s of categories so still delete. Arniep 15:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this, it doesn't provide any useful information Ashibaka (tock)
Delete. List if necessary. siafu 20:53, 7 November 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:Murdered revolutionaries to Category:Revolutionaries

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 15:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't think this category is necessary, see below. Arniep 20:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support, if for no other reason than to avoid uselessly POV attempts to classify one revolutionary's killing as "murder" and another's as "law enforcement" or "national defense." Postdlf 02:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, overcategorization. -Splash^talk 08:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. POV and other people categories are not split by living/dead. siafu 20:57, 7 November 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:Murdered French Revolution figures to Category:French Revolution figures

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 15:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't think this category is necessary, are we going to divide it by hair colour or place of death next? Arniep 20:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support, for lack of necessity as well as the difficulty in assigning "murder" as a label to certain executions during this time period. Postdlf 02:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, overcategorization and historically difficult to get NPOV and correct. -Splash^talk 08:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. POV. siafu 21:00, 7 November 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:Transportation in Scotland to Category:Transport in Scotland

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 15:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transport is more common usage in Scotland, and for consistency with Category:Transport in the United Kingdom and all subcats of Category:Transport in the United Kingdom by locality. Vclaw 19:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Don't know how I missed this one when I looked at the Scotland menu. I really must get round to doing the mass nomination of the inappropriately named transport categories soon. I said I would do it soon weeks ago. CalJW 00:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. A {{categoryredirect}} might be useful, though, for quite a few of these. -Splash^talk 08:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No argument. siafu 21:14, 7 November 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:List of wars to Category:Lists of wars

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 speedied --Kbdank71 17:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another category full of lists. Pluralize. - TexasAndroid 19:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. -Splash^talk 08:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy on 3 Nov after 1900. «»Who ?¿?^meta 03:32, 4 November 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:List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland to Category:Lists of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland

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 speedied --Kbdank71 17:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another category full of lists. Pluralize. - TexasAndroid 18:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. -Splash^talk 08:03, 2 November 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:List of songs with personal names to Category:Lists of songs with personal names

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 Speedy rename. «»Who ?¿?^meta 04:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another category full of lists. Pluralize. - TexasAndroid 18:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. -Splash^talk 08:03, 2 November 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:List of solo cello pieces

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 upmerge --Kbdank71 15:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Single member that could easily be moved up to the parent, leaving this one empty for deletion. TexasAndroid 18:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. -Splash^talk 08:03, 2 November 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:List of radio stations in Charleston

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 upmerge --Kbdank71 15:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Single member that could easily be moved up to the parent, leaving this one empty for deletion. TexasAndroid 18:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. -Splash^talk 08:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Established Wikiprecedent for radio stations allows dedicated subcategories for major metropolitan markets (see e.g. Category:Radio stations in Cleveland, Category:Radio stations in Sacramento, Category:Radio stations in El Paso, Category:Radio stations in New York City, Category:Radio stations in Los Angeles, Category:Radio stations in Phoenix, Category:Radio stations in Minneapolis-St. Paul, etc., etc.), and the article List of radio stations in Charleston confirms that there are 18 other radio stations in Charleston that just haven't been written up yet. Move to Category:Radio stations in Charleston (the proper title for this type of subcategory) and keep. Bearcat 20:52, 3 November 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:List of Universities and Colleges in Tripura to Category:Universities and Colleges in Tripura

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:Universities and colleges in Tripura --Kbdank71 15:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See below for explanation. - TexasAndroid 18:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, but also fix the capitalization. Below? Above, surely? -Splash^talk 08:03, 2 November 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:List of Thai provincial governors

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 upmerge --Kbdank71 15:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Single member, a list that IMHO could be moved directly into each of the parent categories of this category, letting this one be deleted. TexasAndroid 18:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete per nom. -Splash^talk 08:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as category:lists of provincial governors of Thailand, and populate with lists of more provinces. — Insta ntnood 20:23, 4 November 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:List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles episodes (1987 series) to Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles episodes (1987 series)

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 15:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See below for explanation. - TexasAndroid 18:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. These aren't actually lists. -Splash^talk 08:03, 2 November 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:List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps to Category:Lists of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps

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 15:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another category full of lists. Pluralize. - TexasAndroid 18:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. -Splash^talk 08:03, 2 November 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:List of Law & Order episodes by season to Category:Lists of Law & Order episodes by season

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 15:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This one actually contains other lists, so it really only needs to be pluralized. Not sure if this qualifies for Speedy, but there's no real hurry. TexasAndroid 18:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. -Splash^talk 08:03, 2 November 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:List of Congressional Gold Medal recipients to Category:Congressional Gold Medal recipients

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 15:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See below for explanation. - TexasAndroid 18:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. These aren't actually lists. -Splash^talk 08:03, 2 November 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:List of CROs to Category:Contract Research Organizations

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 15:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to work through category names that start with "list" (singular). IMHO, this is a bad way to format category names, so I'll be tossing them up for rename to more normal category names. TexasAndroid 18:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. These aren't actually lists. -Splash^talk 08:03, 2 November 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:United States Navy ships

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 --Kbdank71 15:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From nominations several days ago, I'm seeing no major opposition to the forms given above. So here are the rest of the subcategories to get a consistent rename done. TexasAndroid 17:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opppose all Proposed names are clumsy and not normal English. CalJW 00:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Mega-sigh. I really wish, if there was opposition to this format, that it could have been voiced on the merge votes currently running on 10/26 and 10/27. As it stands, those are going to end up setting a few of the sub categories to the above format, while others get left in the old format. In the end I don't care as much about which format gets chosen, but IMHO we need to be consistent. It was the lack of opposition to the "<type ship> of Foo/Fooian Navy" that lead me to bring the rest of these up. Sigh. Sigh. Sigh. TexasAndroid 14:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most of those were country categories and these are categories for a Navy. I would have been more likely to have participated if you had grouped the nominations before. The inconsistency point does not necessarily apply as countries and navies are different things. CalJW 15:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't group them because, in the end, they were all quite dissimilar. And it was very good that I did not, because several individual ones have raised debate. Debate that would have been difficult if they were all grouped. But that said, there are 4 of them that specifically relate to the above moves. (Frigates, Destroyers, Battleships, Cruisers, on the 10/26 page) It is these that I refer to. They will result in exactly the above name pattern changes when they are closed, sometime today most likely. In them, the merge was the key point, not what name ended up being used. I suggested one name to end up with, the only other commentator opposed, with the request that the above pattern be used instead. (I originally suggested "UNS <type>", he suggested "Type of the USN".) So I changed my vote to avoid a no conscensous, and make sure the move went through. And since 4-6 were going to end up moving to the new pattern, and no comments had been made raising any problems with the new pattern, I placed the rest up in order to get everything back to a consistent pattern. My first goal in all this is to clean out the duplicate categories that were recently created. My second goal is to get thing back to a consistent naming structure. Feeling quite frustrated in all this right now. TexasAndroid 16:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike AFD, CFD doesn't get enough traffic to develop a consistent policy in this piecewise fashion. If you want a consistent policy you'd probably be better off getting input at a centralized page describing the whole of what you want to do. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all per CalJW. Postdlf 02:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all, agree with CalJW. New names are longer, less natural and add nothing of value. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all Ashibaka (tock) 01:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as per prior cfd, for consistency. --Kbdank71 17:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per prior cfd; old names are clumsy and less natural. siafu 21:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all consistant with prior cfd. Joshbaumgartner 04:05, 9 November 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.