Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 22 October 24 >

October 23

[edit]

Category:Churches of Paris to Category:Churches in Paris

[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 15:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's amend this to match it's parent category:Churches in France and the usual form for categories of man made objects. Rename Category:Churches in Paris. CalJW 23:28, 23 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.

Category:Cryptogams

[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 keep --Kbdank71 16:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete and likely misleading taxonomic term. Wyss 23:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a term in plant systematics it indeed is obsolete. However, in the real world it is still widely used (try Google). There is no alternative for it, not if you want a single category. 83.117.24.39 18:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For a 2003 top-of-the-line scientific book on cryptogams see: PROSEA 19:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
For a 2000 top-of-the-line scientific book, see Burkill
Firstly, I would disagree that the term 'cryptogams' is misleading. The word literally means hidden marriage, and refers to the fact that the gametes cannot be found without the aid of a microscope. In the seed plants (phanerogams), the male gamete is carried in the pollen while the female gamete matures in the immature seed.
Secondly, while the term 'cryptogams' is obsolete as a taxonomic term, it is still widely used as an informal grouping of plants by professional botanists. One reason it continues to be used is that seedless plants share a number of common ecological traits. As a result, many biological societies exist that focus on more than one group of cryptogams, even though the organisms thus grouped are themselves not closely related. The American Bryological and Lichenological Society is one such organization, and they hold joint field trips to see habitats with mosses, liverworts, and lichens. Also, the French Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle still has a Laboratoire de Cryptogamie as a department dedicated to the study of cryptogams. It is not unusual to find a university or museum department grouped this way.
Therefore, the category is useful and should continue to exist because it provides a single place to look up a variety of organisms that share common biological traits and are studied together by specialists in the field. -- EncycloPetey 05:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a classical systematic term, and not obselete. In floristics and other field-disciplines the terms phanerogams and cryptogams are used more than the new terminology is. It is a practical and correct separation of the higher and the lower plants. Is the term hepatics also obselete? I think not, since it is widely used. Phylogenists would prefer Marchantiopsida, but the term hepatics is much more widely used. Please do not eliminate a tradition of hundreds of years. As a bryologist i still use the old terminology, since it is a matter of one's own choice.

Cryptogams have many things in common, and do deserve a category bearing this name.1978 01:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not so much a matter of how often the term is used. The real question if the term is usable as a category. It's probably not. Not all fungi belong to the cryptogams, which makes it troublesome to make the category:fungi a subcategory of cryptogams. It is unclear whether algae are cryptogams, or just some algae. The same counts for the slime moulds.
Adding this to the fact that the category:cryptogams is not really needed (everything can be solved perfectly without it), there is no reason to implement such a category. Taka 13:47, 31 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.


Category:Biographical or vanity pages for deletion

[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 Referred to WP:TFD. «»Who?¿?meta 04:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only contains its related template, which is on TfD. Should that template go, there would therefore be no need or use for this category. So, I can't see why we need it, especially as consensus appears to be delete on the template. Delete. Wcquidditch | Talk 22:11, 23 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.

Category:Winter Holidays to Category:Winter holidays

[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 15:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-capitalized. And related to this, I'd like some comments about Category:Christmas-linked holidays. It seems a poorly-named category. An anon has been going about removing from the category pre-christian holidays that are seen by some as being predecessors in some way of christmas. I'm not sure what the best approach to this might be anymore. older≠wiser 20:02, 23 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.

Subcategories of buildings and structures in the United States

[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 15:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two subcategories of the above which use abbreviations against policy and do not use the standard word order:

Rename (the state government buildings category has already been nominated). CalJW 18:50, 23 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.

Category:Women guitarists to Category:Female guitarists

[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 15:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with Category:Female singers, Category:Female film directors, Category:Female U.S. Senators, etc., rename to Category:Female guitarists. tregoweth 18:08, 23 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.

Category:UK Parliamentary by-elections to Category:Parliamentary by-elections in the United Kingdom

[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 to Category:By-elections to the Parliament of the United Kingdom --Kbdank71 15:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of abbreviation and non-standard categorisation and standardisation of word order. Rename category:Parliamentary by-elections in the United Kingdom. CalJW 17:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Scottish by-election could be placed in the category now. You may deem the meaning of the current category to be restricted, but it is not semantically. I think it would be a very good idea to have both Westminster and Scottish by elections (as a subcategory) in the same category as they are the same type of event and involve mostly the same parties. CalJW 23:15, 23 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.

Category:UK General Election results to Category:General elections in the United Kingdom

[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 to Category:United Kingdom general elections --Kbdank71 15:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non standard capitalisation. Inappropriate abbreviation. Non-standard word order. Non-conformity with parent category. Coverage of 2005 election and doubtless all future elections extends well beyond a list of results. Rename Category:General elections in the United Kingdom. CalJW 17:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Alternative proposal Category:United Kingdom general elections. CalJW 23:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Similar objection to nomination above. Eg, see Scottish parliamentary election, 2007. A general election is "... an election in which all members of a given political body are up for election." The term "general election" is commonly applied in the Scottish media and everyday speech to the four-yearly elections to the Scottish Parliament. Thus these are "General elections in the United Kingdom". Is it the intention that they be listed in the renamed cat?--Mais oui! 20:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have ignored all but one of the many problems with the name. Please consider the alternative proposal. But I wouldn't rule out going with the original proposal and having the Scottish ones as a subcategory either. In fact I rather think I would prefer it, but the main priority must be to make some improvement to the name, rather than end up with the dreaded "no consensus" just because there are several issues involved. The articles about the Scottish elections use the term "Parliamentary election" whereas the United Kingdom ones use "General election". The blurb can explain what the category is for and contain a link to the Scottish category if you really think it is necessary. CalJW 23:15, 23 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.

Category:London parks and commons to Category:Parks and open spaces in London

[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 15:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The word "commons" is included in the name because not all open spaces in London are parks, but those which aren't parks aren't all commons either. Also the word order is not standard. Recently a set of borough by borough articles has been created using the designation "parks and open spaces". Rename Category:Parks and open spaces in London. CalJW 16:08, 23 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.

Subcategories of organizations by country

[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 15:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following are not in the standard format:

I nominated the Georgian category before and while no-one supported the current name it ended as a "no-census" over whether or not to include the word "country". It could have been placed in the "unresolved after seven days section", but it wasn't. That time I included the word country, and this time I haven't in the hope the same problem won't occur. If it does, please can it be put in "unresolved after seven days" this time?
Also, can we leave the "s" / "z" issue for another time please to make sure that the current issue gets sorted? The way this page works in practice is that if two issues are raised at the same time, often neither is resolved.
Rename all CalJW 13:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - if we're organizing by country, then Organi(s/z)ations (in/of) Fooland should be the format; if we're going by nationality, Fooish organi(s/z)ations. I'm inclined to think of organizations as country-split rather than nationality-split, which would make for a better consistency to be arrived at through a substantial reverse-rename. If there's broader support for going to a nationality-split, however, at least rename the parent to Category:Organizations by nationality. -The Tom 02:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's much better as it is. The categories are organised on state lines, but many organisations of a particular nationality operate beyond the borders of the country, and it just sounds more natural as it is. Do you intend to do anything more about this, or are you happy to risk things remaining inconsistent? CalJW 04:30, 27 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.

Category:Siberian towns

[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 15:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are Category:Siberia and Category:Cities and towns in Russia already. This category is empty. Obakeneko 09:57, 23 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.

Category:Political parties in the Falkland Islands

[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 15:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contains a) no political parties, and b) a "list" article, which contains no political parties. Doesn't seem very useful, and I understand it, the category system is there to be useful, not simply to contain the Cartesian product of every possible combination of topics. Alai 04:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is better to have fundamental categories like this for all countries and dependent territories, not just nearly all of them. CalJW 13:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary and empty category. When suitable articles emerge, this category can be recreated, but there's no reason to have it suck up resources in the interim. siafu 21:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you miss the point. The population of the Falklands is 3,000 so the candidates stand as individuals. Having this category allows anyone who is interested in politics of the Falklands to home in on this article, which is to be found in the standard place in the main menu. CalJW 00:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article does not have any information to that effect (it's rather content-free, in fact). Moreover, it should be findable from Falkland Islands, Category:Falkland Islands, or Category:Political parties in the United Kingdom (which is really the best place for it). There's only one article, and unless something changes there will only be one article, and there really is not much point in having a category for just one article, especially a category for "X in Y" with only an article that states "There are no X in Y". You could, however, make a case for a Category:Political parties of British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, and put in similarly empty lists for Gibraltar, the Pitcairn Islands, St. Helena, &c. Regardless, the current situation is quite ridiculous. siafu 00:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the article is unfinished that is a reason to improve it, not to delete it. The Falkland Islands are not "in" the United Kingdom. There is nothing wrong with one member categories which help to complete a large overall scheme. 04:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
          • It's not the quality of the article that's the problem (this discussion isn't about deleting articles, perhaps you are thinking of AfD?), it's that the fact stated in the article that create the problem: there are no political parties in the Falkland Islands. What's wrong with having "one member" categories is the same thing that is wrong with having any unnecessary categories (e.g., Category:Politicians of Mars or Category:Crushing by elephant). The category serves no useful purpose, merely sucks up resources, and cannot be populated; what reason is there to keep it? siafu 06:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CalJW. — Instantnood 11:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has one article, which begins with "Political parties in the Falkland Islands gives information on political parties in the Falkland Islands. There are no active political parties in the Falkland Islands." Yeesh, talk about useless. --Calton | Talk 04:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If any single article could merit its own category, we'd have more categories than articles on Wikipedia. The sole purpose of categories is to navigate through numerous different articles with a common feature or subject matter, not to add another useless link to a useless page. Delete Category:Elections in the Falkland Islands as well and list both List of political parties in the Falkland Islands and Elections in the Falkland Islands in "Category:Politics of the Falkland Islands". That would be more than enough; having three categories for two near-empty articles is ridiculous and beyond unhelpful. You should probably even consider merging the empty "list" article into the "Elections" article; having them on separate pages does nothing but make things twice as difficult to find and access than if they were on one. Hell, once you've gone that far, why not delete "Politics of the Falkland Islands" altogether and just put the newly-merged "Elections in the Falkland Islands" article into Category:Falkland Islands? Categories should be made in response to article demand, not in anticipation of hypothetical article demand. Plus the category clearly isn't in consistent use anyway: one would expect "Category:Governors of the Falkland Islands" and "Politics of the Falkland Islands" and various other articles to all probably be subdivided under the Politics category, but not one is. Pretty silly stuff. -Silence 22:07, 28 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.

Category:Creature Comforts

[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 15:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contains two articles: Creature Comforts and List of Creature Comforts episodes. tregoweth 04:19, 23 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.

Category:Wallace and Gromit films

[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 15:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a sparsely-populated Wallace and Gromit category; a subcat for the films is unnecessary. tregoweth 04:21, 23 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.


Category:Disused British railway stations to Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom

[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 15:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I created the category it was consistent with the category British railway stations which has since been renamed to "Railway stations in the United Kingdom". So this should be similarly re-named to maintain consistency. chowells 11:17, 23 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_23&oldid=1122128259"