Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 20
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < October 19 | October 21 > |
|---|
October 20
[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 Speedy deleted, TFD (cat/template overlap). «»Who?¿?meta 10:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The template that put images in this category, {{NewBrunswickCopyright}} was deleted by TfD because it had problems with copyright questions and so on (see the TfD logs if interested). Thus, this category is and should remain empty, and should be deleted. -Splashtalk 23:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. BD2412 talk 00:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No argument. siafu 02:18, 21 October 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 no consensus (no change) --Kbdank71 14:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Baden" is the name of multiple places (and is, in fact, a disambig page); Baden Germany is the former kingdom which should house the articles in this category. BD2412 talk 23:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Rename for disambiguity, but it should have a comma, no? -Splashtalk 23:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I'm really not sure - the article, Baden Germany, doesn't have one, so I assumed that to be a geographic quirk (like Papua New Guinea). If I'm wrong, I'd surely go with a comma (and move the article to a title with a comma as well). BD2412 talk 00:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose rename; the majority of the places named Baden are in Germany, and most of the rest are either named after the German Baden or are mistakes. So the change doesn't disambiguate. Septentrionalis 00:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Intuitively, I'd say there should be a comma as well. The Baden article on de.wikipedia is also a disambiguation, so this definitely needs to be changed, but I'm not sure if there's some special reason why Baden Germany lacks a comma. siafu 02:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. There is definitely no reason why Baden Germany lacks a comma. For that matter, there's no reason why the article Baden Germany isn't named Baden, as per the 7-to-3 vote to move the page (see Talk:Baden Germany). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - since Baden (disambiguation) currently redirects to Baden, then an admin (hint, hint) needs to: a) delete Baden (disambiguation); b) move Baden to Baden (disambiguation) name; c) delete the resulting Baden redirect, and d) move Baden Germany to Baden (and also redirect Baden, Germany there). My suggestion to move the category will be withdrawn as moot. BD2412 talk 14:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above changes have been made. The article Baden is now about the region in Germany, and the disambig page is Baden (disambiguation), and all redirects point to what they're supposed to point to. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - since Baden (disambiguation) currently redirects to Baden, then an admin (hint, hint) needs to: a) delete Baden (disambiguation); b) move Baden to Baden (disambiguation) name; c) delete the resulting Baden redirect, and d) move Baden Germany to Baden (and also redirect Baden, Germany there). My suggestion to move the category will be withdrawn as moot. BD2412 talk 14:27, 23 October 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.
- 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 listify --Kbdank71 14:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The category title speaks for itself. Hall Monitor 23:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unencyclopedic information is the only kind that would be provided by this malnamed category (even if renamed, it would still be uninteresting). -Splashtalk 23:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify - this is appropriate for listcruft (especially since not all such characters deserve individual encyclopedia articles). BD2412 talk 00:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and list. For the fangeeks, I suppose. We always seem to have plenty of editors willing to work on such things. siafu 02:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify. So how come we don't have Category:Fictional characters burned in hell, I think that one would be easier to fill. «»Who?¿?meta 10:54, 21 October 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 delete --Kbdank71 14:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is trivial whether a footballer had a moustache or not as it doesn't affect his performance on the pitch. Also some players had moustaches at some times but not at others. Also the instructions say this is for English players only, but the name doesn't tell you that. Can we get delete this please? Honbicot 18:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and add Category:Mustached football players. The spelling, "moustache", in the original's name makes it clearly a Brit category, and this additional category will cover the American game of the same name. Categories are as relevant as all the "Wikipedian" categories stuffing this site, perhaps moreso since footballers and football players with moustaches and mustaches are highly likely to have proven skills, expertises, professional histories and public renown, making them encyclopedic topics. Wikipedians, by and large, haven't. Finally, two further categories should be established for footballers and football players without moustaches or mustaches. 12.73.198.107 23:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- we spell it moustache in Australia and New Zealand too. and in lots of other countries. BL kiss the lizard 00:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ridiculous category. CalJW 01:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. BJAODN. siafu 02:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, obviously. I would support some kind of speedy category for nonsensical cats such as this one, but I'm not sure how to word it. Perhaps keeping a list of them so we can simply delete any recreations swiftly. Radiant_>|< 10:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy delete I think we need to have a category of speedy deletes for trivial details. One possible criteria for trivial would be that all (or most) relevant items could either go in the category or its polar opposite, and the item is not particuarly rare. For instance, moustaches are not rare, but one legged football players might be. (But then, if there's only one, it also does not deserve a category.) --ssd 03:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Rename to "Category:Mustachioed football players". -Silence 02:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: silly. Jonathunder 07:05, 24 October 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 delete --Kbdank71 14:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Inherently PoV category. Used in template likely toi be deleted. DES (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is part of a proliferation of attempts by censorship that has resorted to making 'secret' templates on subpages and the like. -Splashtalk 23:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I wonder how, exactly, "offensive" can be NPOV? siafu 02:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, of course. — Davenbelle 03:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, inherently anti-Wiki. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I'm reasonably sure we've seen something like this before, in which case it can be speedied as a recreation. Radiant_>|< 10:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Don't be hatin'. -Silence 02:31, 24 October 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 Speedy deleted. «»Who?¿?meta 06:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Miscapitalized. Redundant with Category:Sleight of hand. -- Krash 13:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy. -Splashtalk 23:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy. siafu 02:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea it's speedy, saw it when nom'd, just waiting 2 days for any rebuttal, in case there is something with that title, etc. «»Who?¿?meta 10:58, 21 October 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 delete --Kbdank71 14:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Articles relocated to Category:Theatre in the United States. Category now orphaned. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then. that's delete for you non Jim Carey fans.«»Who?¿?meta 07:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Err. scratch that. Perhaps you should take a look at Category talk:Theatre by country. An ongoing discussion on how to handle these categories. «»Who?¿?meta 09:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Also, move all the articles back to this category, rename it Category:American theatre, and, delete Category:Theatre in the United States. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just tidying up. CalJW 01:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Avoid abbreviations. This has nothing to do with "American" vs. "...of the United States". Nominate the current category if you want to change it, either way we don't need this one. siafu 02:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This was the current category. It is the older of the two, it was kept a few days ago when this exact merge was rejected, and now has been unilaterally depopulated and nominated again. Not sure why Evilphoenix would make this change when we just determined there was no consensus for it. Indeed, so far the consensus at Category talk:Theatre by country, where a standard is being developed for the broad category, is going the opposite way of this proposed move. I'm not sure why we we've made more work for ourselves by moving all the articles into this category when we will likely have to move them back shortly. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The other name is better. Honbicot 16:07, 21 October 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Newly created, but would be better placed as Category:Rugby union stadiums in New Zealand, as per other building and structure categories. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My original category, no strong opinion. Support if it makes life easier.GordyB 14:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nominator (and note the related discussion slightly further up today). -Splashtalk 23:26, 20 October 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.