Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 2
April 2
[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 no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These browsers are not Linux specific, they don't contain hooks which require any particular kernel. They are dependant on X Windows. Should probably be renamed to X web browsers or X Windows browsers, perhaps POSIX web browsers. 65.95.124.5 22:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:X Windows browsers Where (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Category:X Window System browsers would be more correct and consistent with Category:X Window System, so I'd prefer that. However, is this the correct categorization? Similar arguments apply to much Linux software (which is open-source), whether X-based or not. How is most Linux software categorized? —Blotwell 04:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As Free Software usually, with Free being the descriptor. 65.95.124.5 23:00, 4 April 2006 (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. - TexasAndroid 18:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only one member, unlikely will be added to. Arniep 21:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but only because Tahiti isn't a country or territory so I have moved Cheyenne Brando to Category:French Polynesian models. The size isn't of the category isn't an issue. Sumahoy 00:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's better. When I created this category, I wasn't sure whether Tahiti merited its own category or not. Good call.--Mike Selinker 01:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and put contents into Category:Models until we can get at least 2 people for that cat Where (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- She was an American citizen I think so she should be (someone has done it) in American models. Arniep 11:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's true, then I'm fine if we delete the entire category.--Mike Selinker 23:54, 3 April 2006 (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. - TexasAndroid 18:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only one entry, and it seems unlikely that it will grow very much (if at all). – Seancdaug 20:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow the link, it lists the subcategories. 65.95.124.5 22:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but those are subcategories of Category:Webcomics by genre, not of this. The two categories are not connected by categorization, merely by a hand-coded wikilink. – Seancdaug 22:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and move Webcomic genres to Category:Webcomics and Category:Genres Where (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2006 (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. - TexasAndroid 18:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category, and essentially redundant with Category:Comedy webcomics. – Seancdaug 20:47, 2 April 2006 (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. - TexasAndroid 17:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 20:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a speedy. Does not come close to any of the named criteria for being a speedy. Valiantis 18:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - "U.S. Route X" is the term used by AASHTO, and in this case the road was commonly known as "Route 66". --SPUI (talk - RFC) 21:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as per above. I believe this does qualify for consistency with established naming conventions as described in the criteria. If not, said criteria are in gross need of reform. — Apr. 2, '06 [21:45] <freakofnurxture|talk>
- Support as above. I originally created this category when the article was titled "U.S. Highway 66". I made a comment somewhere (possibly the talk page) about changing it, but didn't go any further. Rt66lt 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support 132.205.45.110 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per above. David Kernow 02:54, 5 April 2006 (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. - TexasAndroid 17:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"U.S. Route 66" is both the official and most commonly used name for this route. — Apr. 2, '06 [16:08] <freakofnurxture|talk>
- Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 20:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a speedy. Does not come close to any of the named criteria for being a speedy. Valiantis 18:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as above. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 21:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, see above. — Apr. 2, '06 [21:45] <freakofnurxture|talk>
- Support/Comment Same as I stated under Category:U.S. Highway 66 above. Only, to me, "communities" seems odd in reference to large cities (such as Chicago and St. Louis). I requested comments about a genereic term for cities, towns, villages, etc. on the Village Pump, and the term "populated places" was suggested. I think Category:Populated places on U.S. Route 66 would be better. This category was originally "Cities on U.S. Highway 66" and was changed to avoid the legal definition of cities.Rt66lt 00:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting thought, but people aren't going to think of that title when they edit these articles. I don't believe in forcing people to read the manual on a per-edit basis. On the other hand, though, anything that's going to be added to the category probably already has been, in which case it wouldn't matter. If we were going to use a name I'd say "Cities and towns..." would be better, or just leave it, whatever. — Apr. 3, '06 [00:12] <freakofnurxture|talk>
- SUPPORT 132.205.45.110 20:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per above. David Kernow 02:54, 5 April 2006 (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. - TexasAndroid 17:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency with User cpp-1, cpp2, etc. Gennaro Prota 19:59, 2 April 2006 (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. - TexasAndroid 17:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency with User cpp-1, cpp2, etc. Note: it would be useful for many templates to make both User c++-X and User C++-X, with an uppercase 'c', refer to the same page. Would this be possible? Gennaro Prota 19:59, 2 April 2006 (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. - TexasAndroid 17:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Encompasses both computer and video games and has correct spacing between words. ~ Hibana 02:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 20:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Objection Not eligible for speedy renaming. CalJW 14:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Support But please don't stretch the speedy renaming criteria. CalJW 20:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as proposed. David Kernow 02:55, 5 April 2006 (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 Withdrawn. - TexasAndroid 15:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, "Battlestar Galactica planets" is a sub-catagory of "Battlestar Galactica locations", however, there are 14 planet articles and only 2 location articles. Since planets are considered to be geographical locations more than objects anyway (like cities), then this category system should be simplified by removing the "planets" category and putting the articles in the "locations" category. Thank you. -- Run! 19:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This currently feeds nicely into category:fictional planets.--Mike Selinker 02:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent point. Withdraw nom. -- Run! 11:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OPPOSE clearly more planets and more locations can be added/created 132.205.45.110 20:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Mike S. ×Meegs 05:48, 4 April 2006 (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. - TexasAndroid 18:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vague, plus grossly wrong use of word "franchise", which is not a synonym for "series" (but is being used so here). Need to look for other categories with same misnomer problem as well. 12.73.196.146 01:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved from speedy. This is exactly the right use of franchise. Franchise defines more than the TV or book series. It defines the exclusive property rights to sell everything from action figures to underwear with Yoda on them. This is a modern usage of the term, and Wikipedia can be modern. Oppose.--Mike Selinker 16:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OPPOSE franchise sounds better. Or alternately, science fiction by fictional universe 132.205.45.110 20:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose - I created this category with SF media properties that span mediums in mind, and originally chose the word "millieu." It was changed to "franchise," which works better, and is more descriptive. I'm open to suggestions for a better word, but I don't think "by series name" works. There is already Category:Science fiction series, but is intended for book series. It should probably be renamed Category:science fiction book series. MakeRocketGoNow 04:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per each of the above. ×Meegs 05:50, 4 April 2006 (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.
Transport in the Commonwealth
[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. - TexasAndroid 18:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following up the transport nominations over the last two or three days these are the by country transport categories for Commonwealth countries which should be renamed to reflect local usage and are not covered by the earlier nominations. The reason why most of the transport(ation) categories were created as "transportation in" is that most or all of the articles were created from CIA World Factbook data by an American user with a bot and the categories were made to match. CalJW 04:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Category:Transportation in Antigua and Barbuda --> Category:Transport in Antigua and Barbuda
- Category:Transportation of the Bahamas --> Category:Transport in the Bahamas
- Category:Transportation in Bermuda --> Category:Transport in Bermuda
- Category:Transportation in Bhutan --> Category:Transport in Bhutan (not a member of the Commonwealth but in the South Asian Commonwealth English using zone - the Bhutanese government uses "Transport" [1])
- Category:Transportation in Botswana --> Category:Transport in Botswana
- Category:Transportation on the Cayman Islands --> Category:Transport in the Cayman Islands
- Category:Transportation in the Cook Islands --> Category:Transport in the Cook Islands
- Category:Transportation in Guyana --> Category:Transport in Guyana
- Category:Transportation in Malawi --> Category:Transport in Malawi
- Category:Transportation in Malaysia --> Category:Transport in Malaysia
- Category:Transportation in Saint Kitts and Nevis --> Category:Transport in Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Category:Transportation in Seychelles --> Category:Transport in Seychelles
- Category:Transportation in Tonga --> Category:Transport in Tonga
- Category:Transportation in Trinidad and Tobago --> Category:Transport in Trinidad and Tobago
- Category:Transportation in Zambia --> Category:Transport in Zambia
Rename all CalJW 15:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per nom. Valiantis 18:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per nom. --Mais oui! 20:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Among the people who created these categories, I count a Canadian, a Dutchman, a Trinidadian, three British, and one American, so I'm guessing the categories were created from red links already on the articles? This is a textbook example for category redirects, whatever the outcome. — Apr. 2, '06 [21:55] <freakofnurxture|talk>
- I can't see why any British person would have created these if they knew that American English is not compulsory in Wikipedia, but I think that some people don't realise that this is not just an American controlled project. But Canada has succumbed to American linguistic influences sadly. ReeseM 00:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per nom. ReeseM 00:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all; they're consistently named using a perfectly valid and correctly spelled word. There's no reason to take the time and effort imposing British English on Wikipedia. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't consistent with all the categories which already use "transport". Hawkestone 04:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename They are not correct. They are in a overseas dialect. When that dialect is that of an all too dominant power, that is cultural insensitivity of a high order. Hawkestone 04:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all--cj | talk 06:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all. David Kernow 02:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all --Terence Ong 10:00, 6 April 2006 (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. - TexasAndroid 18:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't categorise articles by what WikiProject lays claim to them. Furthermore, Category:Military of Australia covers the Australian Defence Force. cj | talk 03:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom, and because mashing people, units, and facilities into a single category will make it utterly useless in short order. Kirill Lokshin 03:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the existing Australian military categories seem fine to me. --Nick Dowling 06:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. CalJW 15:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete duplicate. ReeseM 00:44, 3 April 2006 (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.