Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 7
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
October 7
[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 both to Category:Territorial disputes of the United States. ∞Who?¿? 07:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing, as far as I can tell. The latter being the much more populated category. TexasAndroid 21:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Bhoeble 12:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge both to Category:Territorial disputes of the United States. "Territorial" is better, as disputes over islands, e.g., might not necessarily by well characterized as "boundary disputes". Boundary dispute currently redirects to territorial dispute, as well. siafu 04:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:Territorial disputes of the United States. (SEWilco 19:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Merge to Category:Territorial disputes of the United States. Although, most of these are disputes between U.S. states and between the U.S. and other countries, as one might think at first glance. older≠wiser 01:03, 13 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 Merge. ∞Who?¿? 07:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Proper pluralization. TexasAndroid 18:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and delete per nominator. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. I think this should be a speedy. siafu 04:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If one twin becomes famous, is Category:Twins proper usage? (SEWilco 19:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Yes. Although such a person is an individual "twin", the category includes many such people - hence, "twins". -- Rick Block (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as nominated. (SEWilco 04:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- I may be wrong, but I would personally expect Category:Twins to contain articles that discuss both members of a set of twins in a single article, like the Olsen twins or Tegan and Sara. I think it unnecessarily trivial to categorize people as twins if only one of the twins actually has a Wikipedia article. Bearcat 02:41, 13 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. ∞Who?¿? 07:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the one below covers "almost" everyone, this one closes the last loophole. The "A" is for Asexual. Make it go away, please. TexasAndroid 16:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per category below. CalJW 04:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 04:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it approaches Category:Universe. (SEWilco 19:52, 10 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. ∞Who?¿? 07:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me to be a WP:POINT violation. Someone had a problem with the existance of Category:LGBT Wikipedians, and so created a parallel category adding H for Heterosexual to the list. Even if it's not a WP:POINT violation, it's meaningless, as is covers almost everyone. TexasAndroid 16:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This whole "Wikipedian" categorisation system is self-indulgent. Wikipedians aren't important, it is Wikipedia that matters. CalJW 04:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 04:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Meaningless under several meanings of "meaning" and "less". (SEWilco 19:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete, please. Gerrit CUTEDH 12:44, 11 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. ∞Who?¿? 07:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personal category. Do we really want users to start categorizing their subpages? - TexasAndroid 16:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete unencylopedic, not a useful cat. ∞Who?¿? 20:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. CalJW 04:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy. Let's not let this take up any more cycles than it already has. siafu 04:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. (SEWilco 19:52, 10 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. ∞Who?¿? 07:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. Hard to judge what this was supposed to be for. TexasAndroid 16:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to have been created for users who are experts in skimboarding. The *-1 part parallels the language levels. Aecis 22:45, 7 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. ∞Who?¿? 07:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. Appears to have been a vanity/spam article in category form before being blanked several weeks back. TexasAndroid 16:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Bhoeble 13:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Capitalization, pluralization, population, justification. siafu 04:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: If there appear enough articles it becomes needed it can reappear with proper naming. (SEWilco 19:52, 10 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 Keep. - Rick Block (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of consitency and clarity. Ezeu 14:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. If we're referring to cities like Chicago as Chicago, Illinois in article titles, then this is a no-brainer. siafu 04:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per convention. (SEWilco 19:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- I hate to pick nits, but the consensus on "people from city" categories has actually been evolving in the opposite direction. "People from city" was the original form, but most such categories were moved specifically by a CfD vote to the adjectival form. See Category:American people by city, which is predominantly in the "Toledoans"/"Fresnans"/"Chicagoans" form. So this vote is actually going against the established consensus. Keep or provide a better reason why we should arbitrarily reverse a convention that's actually been hammered out by CfD itself. Bearcat 02:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. the people from categories are for states, the conventions for cities are those stated by Bearcat. ∞Who?¿? 07:26, 15 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:Australasian rugby league competitions to Category:Oceanian rugby league competitions
[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. ∞Who?¿? 07:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The parent category went through cfr a while back, and is now Category:Oceanian rugby league. This category therefore needs renamed to restore consitency. Grinner 14:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Many of the competitions that would be in this category aren't in Australasia. Grutness...wha? 05:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Consistancy is always vital.GordyB 13:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Consistency is always vital. (SEWilco 19:52, 10 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. ∞Who?¿? 07:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Overspecific cat, Canadian academics is fine. People move around too much for this to be a useful category. Fawcett5 12:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 04:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now, if applicable articles grow something can then appear. (SEWilco 19:52, 10 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 to Category:Writers of Ontario. ∞Who?¿? 07:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Overspecific cat, Canadian writers is fine. People move around too much for this to be a useful category. Fawcett5 12:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Writers of Ontario and move the writers from the above (Category:Ontario academics) to this one. siafu 04:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Writers of Ontario; proper add of cat always OK. (SEWilco 19:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- There seems to be a general (although not universal) consensus in favour of province-specific or state-specific subcategories for cultural groupings such as writers or musicians. I don't personally favour it unless there's a very specific reason to view the provincial/state culture as a distinct phenomenon in its own right, and not just a geographically-defined subset of the nationwide cultural norm. (Frex, there isn't a definable culture of "Ontario writers" that's distinct in any meaningful way from the culture of "Manitoba writers", but there is a definable and unique culture of "Quebec writers".) So...while my personal preference would be for the delete, as long as Wikipedia consensus is favouring this type of grouping I have to vote for the rename on the grounds that there's no valid reason for Ontario to be treated differently than any U.S state which already has its own subcategory in Category:Writers by state. Bearcat 02:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hehe, wow, now that's a vote :) ∞Who?¿? 07:14, 15 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. ∞Who?¿? 07:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All other IoW related categories refer to things on the island - rename to Category:Rivers on the Isle of Wight. Grutness...wha? 08:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as proposed. CalJW 04:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 17:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename: Wight on. (SEWilco 19:52, 10 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. ∞Who?¿? 07:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - miscapitalized and useless; contained only one article that was placed into another parent category. Hibana 03:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Whatever. (SEWilco 19:52, 10 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. ∞Who?¿? 07:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename category:Museums in the Czech Republic as per conventional style. CalJW 03:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Rename - Darwinek 15:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per convention. (SEWilco 19:52, 10 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. ∞Who?¿? 07:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clear enough, but not the ideal choice of category name. It only contained one article when I came across it, but there are some Prague neighbourhoods that could be added, and I expect there is further room for expansion. Rename category:Neighbourhoods in the Czech Republic. CalJW 03:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per nom TexasAndroid 11:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 18:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename but isn't spelling "Neighborhoods" more common in this Wikipedia? (SEWilco 19:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Perhaps, but that isn't relevant. American and Commonwealth English have equal status, and it is a near certainty that it is British English that is taught in the Czech Republic. CalJW 08:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have proof of that, or just another assumption? British English would seem to have far less value in a Europe increasingly self-enwrapped in postmodern American culture and customs, political disagreements notwithstanding. 12.73.198.178 02:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but that isn't relevant. American and Commonwealth English have equal status, and it is a near certainty that it is British English that is taught in the Czech Republic. CalJW 08:56, 11 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. ∞Who?¿? 07:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Czech Republic is another country where there is no official distinction between cities and towns in seems. This category includes everything from Prague down. In this situation normal practice is to rename to avoid confusion. So
- rename category:Cities and towns in the Czech Republic. CalJW 02:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per nom TexasAndroid 11:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename - Darwinek 15:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 18:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. (SEWilco 19:52, 10 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. ∞Who?¿? 07:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need this category - there's a good list of guest stars on Arrested Development (TV series). Also if every actor had a category for every show they guest starred on, well.. it would be a lot of categories. Rhobite 00:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh there is no way I'm letting you delete this I worked long and hard to edit every single page and I don't need my work being destroyed. Only shows that have a strong following should be mentioned. I think that this is a very well known show just doesn't have the audience but to delete this work I did which included going through everything is rediculous Jack Cox 00:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Jack, please see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Also, when you edit, it says "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." You've already agreed to submit to this kind of group review iof your work. Jdavidb (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We cannot have a category for every show and/or every actor. Just think how unweildy articles would be for each actor, each show, and each movie! And there's no sense doing such categories for some of them, and even if we went that route we could never establish standards for which ones were notable enough to have categories. Also, please see the CFD for Category:Hilary Duff movies. Jdavidb (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: While we cannot have a category for every show and or actor. This show is still one of the best known around and though it suffers from Low Ratings it is still a cultural phenomenom. I'm arguing here why the O.C. which is watched by just as many people as Arrested Development is given the ability to have it's own category yet a show like this cannot. Jack Cox 00:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see a source for your assertions that this show is one of the best known around and that it is a cultural phenomenon. Jdavidb (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "the O.C."? Could you please link to the article? I do not believe any show should have a category. Jdavidb (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm saying that the show is watched by at least 7 million people. It's a show that has a lot of celebrity guest-stars on it. It has won Emmy Awards while shows like The O.C. have not yet the O.C. has it's own category. It's not a cultural phenomenon, but any show that has gotten high profile guest stars like Charlize Theron, Liza Minelli, Richard Simmons, Jim Cramer which says on his article that he has technically entered "Pop Culture" now. That's why I say it's a phenom. This show is going to have a cult following. Just like Family Guy. Jack Cox 02:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't know what the O.C. is. Jdavidb (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you think that perhaps that suggests you really aren't in a position to judge the standing of televisions shows? I'm British and I don't even have a television, but I still know what the O.C. is! CalJW 02:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you miss the part where I said no show should have a category? Jdavidb (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with Category:The O.C. or Category:Arrested Development (TV series). Nor is there anything wrong with Category:Arrested Development characters or Category:The O.C. characters. But we're not talking about those categories - I have a problem with putting actors in a category simply because they did a brief appearance on a TV show. The O.C. has no comparable category to Category:Actors and actresses appearing on Arrested Development. This nomination isn't a personal reflection on you or your work, and I'm a big fan of the show. I just don't think this category is necessary or beneficial. Rhobite 02:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep But these categories should only be for main cast I should think. CalJW 02:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think we really want Actor in Show categories. TexasAndroid 11:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per reasons already cited.
Category:Regular cast of Arrested Development (or similar better-named cat) would be acceptable in my opinion.Valiantis 13:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I've thought again. I don't even believe a "Regular Cast" cat is appropriate (nor the suggestion that the existing cat be used only for the regular cast). One of the main purposes of a category is to group people/places/things which have something in common but which won't already be interlinked by a common page in the article space. The articles on the regular cast will all presumably link to Arrested Development (TV series) which is the perfect place to list the regular cast, a category for regular cast will just duplicate content that can be held in the article on the TV show. Valiantis 16:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A weak Keep - With some shows, like The Simpsons or Saturday Night Live, guest stars are a big part of the show and deserve some mention. Arrested Development is on the border of this, but as long as the work's already been done, we might as well keep it. MK2 03:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ridiculously granular category. With the Simpsons, at least, there's a certain status attached to guesting on the show -- Tony Blair has said that it's the only thing he's ever done which has drawn comment from his kids -- but this is just another sitcom. --Calton | Talk 23:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as overcategorization. I'm even suspicious of the Simpsons category, but this is clear. -Hapsiainen 15:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This would be better as a list. siafu 18:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless we develop a Seven Degrees From Bart Simpson policy. (SEWilco 19:52, 10 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. ∞Who?¿? 06:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There was only one article in this category and it was better suited to be in the Communism category anyway. Since there are no longer any articles in this category, it is not needed and therefore should be deleted. Solarusdude 19:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 18:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in practice. (SEWilco 19:52, 10 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.