Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 24

< October 23	October 25 >

October 24

Category:Political party leaders

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 14:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only incorporates UK party leaders. Rename to Category:Political party leaders in the United Kingdom. -Sean Curtin 23:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move the contents to the category suggested above, and populate with political party leaders of other countries. — Insta ntnood 11:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC) Rename as category:leaders of political parties, move the UK-related content to category:leaders of political parties in the United Kingdom. — Instantnood 17:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose rename as per Instanood. However, I think the national subcats should be Political Party Leaders of Foo. (The alternative would be Fooian Political Party Leaders, however, this would imply that Party Leader X was a Fooian, rather than the leader of a party that operated in Foo. This would be problematic in the case of political parties whose raison d'être was to dispute that they were Fooian (so, for example Gerry Adams is a party leader of the United Kingdom, but would (I assume) reject that he was a British party leader). Valiantis 13:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about "leaders of political parties in Foo"? (Aren't Northern Ireland people Britons too? :-D) — Instantnood 07:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Presumably it would then be better to rename the higher cat to Category:Leaders of political parties. This is slightly more elegant English (IMO). As political parties by country take the form "X in Foo" then this might be preferable. As for the subcats by nationality, as they don't yet exist we can't yet debate renaming them to anything :-) (As to the nationality of people in Northern Ireland, legally they have British nationality, but around 40% of them would probably not describe themselves as British other than in this narrow sense. From your smiley, I assume you know this, but just to be clear...) Valiantis 14:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've changed my vote. (As for Northern Ireland.. yes I got some similar figures from the Britons and British articles). — Insta ntnood 17:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; move as Instantnood suggests. Note that currently this category doesn't just include UK party leaders - eg. Lee Wing Tat, Ma Lik are included. --David Edgar 14:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and move content as per Instantnood. Valiantis 18:54, 30 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:World War II American aircraft carriers

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 20:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, very similar to the empty ship cats from Oct 19. Duplicates the function of Category:World War II aircraft carriers of the United States, which is not empty. Does not follow the naming convention for ship cats. TomTheHand 19:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No argument. siafu 22:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with reasoning. Joshbaumgartner 00:34, 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:Mountains of Belgium

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 20:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are no mountains in Belgium, whether defined by geological form or by height. Consequently, the category is empty. Category:Geography of Belgium is suitable for the few notable hills that exist. -- David Edgar 16:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barring massive geological upheaval. siafu 22:14, 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.

Category:REITs → Category:Real estate investment trusts

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 14:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No abbreviations - note that article is also called Real estate investment trust -- DocendoDiscimus 15:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. No argument. siafu 22:15, 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.

Category:Commodity exchanges → Category:Futures exchanges

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 14:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To use more general term, as in Futures exchange and List of futures exchanges. In fact, most futures exchanges in this category are not commodity exchanges. -- DocendoDiscimus 15:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please see talk page of Commodiey exchanges for a rebuttal to the nomination. --Kbdank71 16:11, 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:Banks in Mexico → Category:Banks of Mexico

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 14:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same as all other categories in Category:Banks by country -- DocendoDiscimus 15:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. No argument. siafu 22:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and add as the convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:45, 25 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:Banks in South Africa → Category:Banks of South Africa

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 21:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same as all other categories in Category:Banks by country -- DocendoDiscimus 15:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Could have done these two as a joint listing. siafu 22:17, 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.

Category:Characters in the StarCraft universe → Category: StarCraft characters

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 20:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Less to type and fits in with the rest of the Computer and Video game characters subcats --Dangerous-Boy 07:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Astounding that there are so many articles in this category while so many more important topics are floundering. siafu 22:19, 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.

Category:Buildings in Moscow to Category:Buildings and structures in Moscow

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 20:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the usual form for such categories, which is unambiguously inclusive of bridges, towers etc. CalJW 01:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. No argument. siafu 22:20, 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.

Category:Berlin education to Category:Education in Berlin

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 20:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to usual format for education categories: Category:Education in Berlin. CalJW 01:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. No argument. siafu 22:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (although as a resident of Berlin the cynic in me says "delete, as there is no education in Berlin"). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC) Actually, this category appears to be largely redundant with Category:Universities in Berlin. If that were renamed Category:Universities and colleges in Berlin it would not exclude the Fachhochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Berlin and the Hochschule für Musik Hanns Eisler. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a medical school and doubtless there will be more articles soon. CalJW 04:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charité is a university hospital and so could also go into Category:Universities in Berlin. Compare this category with Category:Education in Germany--the latter is not a list of institutions of higher learning in Germany; it contains articles about the state of education in Germany. Category:Berlin education, on the other hand, is practically redundant with Category:Universities in Berlin. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you imply it is not redundant now, and it will become less so in the future, as articles will doubtless be written about schools in Berlin in the future. category:Education in Berlin is sure to exist in the future and it can also exist now. CalJW 18:22, 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:Urban public parks in Paris to Category:Parks and open spaces in Paris

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 20:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is unnecessarily exclusive. It should include Champ de Mars, which hasn't been placed in it so far because it often isn't classified as a park. It doesn't match the name of its lead article. I nominated "London parks and commons" for a similar renaming earlier. "Parks and open spaces" seems to be the best option because parks are the main type of place in question, but the other items in the general subject area come with all sort of designations. Only "open spaces" emcompasses all of them. Rename category:Parks and open spaces in Paris. CalJW 00:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which lead article are you referring to? Also, it appears that Champ de Mars is included in the category, and the only "precedent" I could find is List of parks and gardens in Paris which uses a slightly different name. siafu 22:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to that list, which should perhaps be renamed. I think all or nearly all of the "gardens" other than the Jardin des Plantes are really public parks; they have simply been deemed to be "gardens" in that list if they have the word "jardin" in their name, but it is not used in the same way as the English "garden". And the Jardin des Plantes was in the category before I looked at it. It is an open space and I don't want to make the category name even longer. I added Champs de Mars myself. I have categorised all 200 articles which were in the main Paris category. A gardens subcategory can always be created later, but I doubt it will be necessary. CalJW 00:03, 25 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:Airports of the Paris region

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 20:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary - there are only two airports in Paris. — ceejayoz ^talk 00:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually there are no airports in Paris, which is the reason for the name, which matches category:Airports of the London region. I should think there are also some small private airports in the region apart from the main two, but it doesn't really matter. The Paris menu was a mess and I am sorting it out. Before the airports were lost in a list of 200 items. CalJW 00:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CalJW, but possibly rename. If the map I have in front of me is correct, there are about a dozen airports in the Paris region. Aecis 16:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Rename to "Airports of Ile-de-France", or something to that extent. Aecis 11:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a third article, and given the industry of the airport enthusiasts, I'm sure we'll have articles about all the others before long. CalJW 17:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are 8 departments in Île-de-France, and according to fr:Liste des aérodromes français, there are a total of 28 airports in these 8 departments. I think this is more than enough for a separate category. Aecis 17:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CalJW. siafu 22:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as category:airports in Paris as per Wikipedia:naming conventions (categories). Paris is not a région but a département. — Instantnood 18:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You miss the point. There are no airports in Paris and there never will be. CalJW 04:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Umm.. what about category:airports in the Paris region, with an intro telling that the word region here refers to the metropolitan area (to match with others like London) instead of the (administrative) région? — Insta ntnood 14:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Each département in France has at most about 6 airports. So why not use the régions as standards of categorization instead of the départements? Aecis 10:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. None of the airports of Category:Airports of Washington, DC are in Washington DC either. The point of the category is that these airports serve Washington DC, not that they are geographically in the political border. SchmuckyTheCat 14:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remame to Category:Airports serving the Paris area. This would solve the Washington D.C. problem also. It would still be valid for the places that had airport both within the the city limits and outside like NYC. If someone adds text in the body of the French categories to say that they cover the regions that should solve all of the issues. If we agree, then all of the existing categories can be renamed to match. Vegaswikian 17:47, 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:Paris train stations to Category:Railway stations in Paris

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 20:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename in line with the parent category category:Railway stations in France and the usual practice for railway station cateogories. CalJW 00:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. No argument. siafu 22:25, 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.