Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 13
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
August 13
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 as category redirect --Kbdank71 17:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as category redirect to Category:Biuro Szyfrów. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Redirecting categories creates that annoying circular entry. Appleseed (Talk) 22:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are thinking of the #REDIRECT method, which doesn't work on categories. I changed the category so you can see what {{Category redirect}} looks like, but as I understand it, the patrol bot only runs if the last edit was by an admin. -- ProveIt (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way, I don't think it's a useful redirect. It only adds clutter. Appleseed (Talk) 23:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as redirect Of course it is a useful redirect. I don't now how to type ó except by cutting and pasting it, and that must be true of hundreds of millions of English speakers. Choalbaton 00:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as redirect per nom and above. David Kernow 07:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as redirect per nom and above. Wimstead 11:15, 16 August 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Chemikal Underground albums, convention of Category:Albums by record label. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. --musicpvm 02:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 07:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Carina22 17:31, 17 August 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Genie Award winners for Best Actor. -- ProveIt (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. David Kernow 07:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Osomec 19:05, 16 August 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 regarding 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 listified to List of former towns or villages gained city status alone --Kbdank71 17:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The category is for former Japanese villages or towns that managed to become cities without merging with another town or village in order to gain city status. We should either kill it or think of a descriptive name. So far I haven't been able to come up with one. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Much better covered by a list. Osomec 20:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify per Osomec. David Kernow 07:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify as above. --Dhartung | Talk 09:00, 14 August 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 regarding 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 17:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Set of four confusing homoglyphic categeories. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Category:Polish historical voivodeships (14th century-1795) as redirect to Category:Polish historical voivodeships (14th century–1795)
- Keep Category:Polish historical voivodeships (1921-1939) as redirect to Category:Polish historical voivodeships (1921–1939)
- Keep Category:Polish historical voivodeships (1945-1975) as redirect to Category:Polish historical voivodeships (1945–1975)
- Keep Category:Polish historical voivodeships (1975-1998) as redirect to Category:Polish historical voivodeships (1975–1998)
- Delete all four, Appleseed (Talk) 21:17, 13 August 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Andhra cuisine. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. --musicpvm 02:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. David Kernow 07:09, 14 August 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 regarding 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 16:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as category redirect to Category:Transport in Australia. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as redirect per nom. David Kernow 07:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the first thing I thought of when I saw "Transportation in Australia" was the other sort. This isn't a trivial case for a redirect as there is ambiguity. Note the wording on Transportation (disambiguation). Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Angus McLellan. Transportation means something completely different from what is intended here in an Australian context, so the redirect is inaccurate. Wimstead 11:16, 16 August 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 regarding 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/merge to Category:Islamic conquests --Kbdank71 16:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not a good idea. If kept, at least rename to Category:Muslim conquerors. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, religion is not really linked to conquest in any meaningful way, so there's no need to combine the two in one category. Kirill Lokshin 15:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is simply not true in this case, as Islam was founded by a warrior leader and expanded primarily by conquest, but I'm not sure whether the category is a good idea or not. Choalbaton 20:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Many religions expanded by conquest, but that's really beside the point. Something like Category:Military leaders of the Islamic conquests (to match the existing Category:Islamic conquests and its children) might be a good idea; but the current naming would allow anyone who was both Muslim and a conqueror (Saddam Hussein, for example) rather than limiting it to those people whose role in the expansion of Islam through conquest is of historical interest. Kirill Lokshin 23:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not besides the point at all. Conquest was of the essence for the development of Islam from the beginning in a way that is fundamentally different from all other major religions. I was pointing out this fundamental fact to help out in the debate. I did not vote keep, but you are pushing me towards doing so. Choalbaton 00:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Many religions expanded by conquest, but that's really beside the point. Something like Category:Military leaders of the Islamic conquests (to match the existing Category:Islamic conquests and its children) might be a good idea; but the current naming would allow anyone who was both Muslim and a conqueror (Saddam Hussein, for example) rather than limiting it to those people whose role in the expansion of Islam through conquest is of historical interest. Kirill Lokshin 23:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is simply not true in this case, as Islam was founded by a warrior leader and expanded primarily by conquest, but I'm not sure whether the category is a good idea or not. Choalbaton 20:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete isn't the expansionist period of Islam better documented elsewhere on Wiki? Presumably there's an article somewhere that consists of more than a single name--a category of names drawn from History_of_Islam could be useful. If there isn't a better existing substitute, then keep, rename, and expand
(And yes, of course Islam had a period focused on conquest. Documenting that is no more "not a good idea" than including articles about the Crusades.)
Dybryd 22:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Merge with Category:Islamic conquests which already contains military leaders. Neither category is populated enough as yet to be worth splitting. If the decision is to keep, then it should be renamed to the correct spelling. Mike Christie 00:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Mike, otherwise rename to "Muslim conquerors" or delete. David Kernow 07:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as this is such a potential catch-all. --Dhartung | Talk 09:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Mike C. Mereda 15:54, 17 August 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.
Category:Asian-Scots
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 16:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Asian-Scots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete, its referenced Asian-Scots and New Scots articles have never existed, the Category:New Scots was renamed to Category:Immigration to Scotland. I cannot find any verifiable self-references to the term Asian-Scots, it seems to be another "wikipedianism" contrary to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) policy ... based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors. --William Allen Simpson 13:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - you are quite wrong. Asian-Scots is a very common designation in Scotland, used by the Asian community to refer to themselves. New Scots is also widespread: it is even used in the name of a prominent campaign by the Scottish Executive (the govt). --Mais oui! 13:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples of usage:
- BBC - "...with Casim (Atta Yaqub), an Asian Scot, torn between his traditional family and... "
- Centre for Human Ecology - “Our children are growing up here. Their approach to life is different from ours. The youth hate the label ‘ethnic’. They are ‘Asian-Scot’ or ‘African-Scot’.”
- East Renfrewshire Council Housing Management Data - Asian Scot; Black Scot; White Scottish; White Other etc
- IndianRishta.com Dating Website - "Lively, fun-loving, good-looking Asian Scot!"
- I see that you were the category creator.
- I'm referring to the actual people now in the category. Not a single one has a verifiable self-reference to the term "Asian-Scot".
- The exhibit "Portrait Of The New Asian Scots At National Library Of Scotland ..." is pictures of people in (mostly) Indian subcontinent garb doing Scottish things; but the words are "New Asian Scots", different word order, different punctuation. Not a standard reference.
- The Housing Council data has multiple variants of the name, such as "Asian Scottish". Note the lack of a hyphen.
- “New Scots: Attracting Fresh Talent to Meet the Challenge of Growth”? That's just the name of an initiative (like, "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!", or "Yes! M!ch!gan"), because folks like my second cousins studied at University of Edinburgh and then left for jobs in England (and the US). It's not an official ethnic classification. "Asian-Scot" (or even "Asian") doesn't appear in it.
- Examples of usage:
- Comment - there is also the book The New Scots: The Story of Asians in Scotland, by Bashir Mann, John Donald Publishers, 1992. --Mais oui! 15:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nom. And "New Scots" is being used in those examples to mean "new to Scotland"; it's not synonymous with being Scottish and Asian, as the category page suggests. JW 22:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mais oui!, common enough in the Scotsman and the Herald and not unknown on the BBC. That said, I wouldn't be too upset by a delete and recategorisation in Category:Scottish people; Category:British Asians is clearly not an alternative. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Asian American sets the precedent.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep stop the drive to delete all ethnic people categories.
Deleting these categories does not change the fact that there are all these ethnic/national mixed people in the world. Thanks Hmains 23:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all hyphenated-ethnic categories. Identity politics run amok. KleenupKrew 03:11, 19 August 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.
All categories containing the phrase "TurboGrafx 16"
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The correct name of the video game console is "TurboGrafx-16" with a dash. There are various categories containing this phrase, and they really should all be renamed so that they contain the dash (and the capital G, if there are any cases where the G isn't already capital).
- Rename per nom, whoever it is. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:TurboGrafx 16 to Category:TurboGrafx-16 -- ProveIt (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:TurboGrafx 16 games to Category:TurboGrafx-16 games -- ProveIt (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:PC Engine/TurboGrafx 16 emulators to Category:TurboGrafx-16 emulators -- ProveIt (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Osomec 19:06, 16 August 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.
Category:Luminous blue variables
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 16:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Luminous blue variables (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete, Empty and duplicates the populated 'Luminous blue variable stars' category Saga City 09:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Saga City. Mike Christie 15:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a categoryredirect. Though personally I find this title better than the one being used at the moment. 132.205.93.19 01:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as category redirect. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:43, 14 August 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.
British "ethnic" categories round 4
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 16:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Argentine-British people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Grenada-British people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Japanese British people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Malaysian British people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Pakistani British people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete, more variants on previously deleted categories. Should match Category:British Asians word ordering. No verifiable self-references as these ethnicities.
- Delete these useless POV categories. Honbicot 10:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep unless replaced by other categories for people of 'F00 origin, now citizens of Britain' Thanks Hmains 02:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep but rename to "British people of Fooian descent" as "hyphenated Britons" do not exist to any wide extent as communities or collective identities. these sorts of pages abound for other countries on wikipedia and a vote done a while back to eliminate all "ethnicity" category pages resulted in a stalemate. Mayumashu 04:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom. Descent is mostly irrelevant to notability. Hawkestone 18:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is far too much misuse of ethnic categories on American bios, they tend to multiply and it would be better to remove them altogether. Chicheley 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wimstead 11:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per Chicheley. KleenupKrew 03:10, 19 August 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.
Category:Fools
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. the wub "?!" 15:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Fools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
- Delete Unnecessary/inappropriate category. Possible vandalism. Posted by new user whose contributions have been questionable. — NMChico24
02:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Delete per nom. --Credema 07:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, foolish idea for a category. -/- Warren 08:38, 14 August 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.
Category:Category:Patrick Macnee and Honor Blackman songs
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 16:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Patrick Macnee and Honor Blackman songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete, Unnecessary category with one single article. Since Macnee and Blackman never recorded any other songs together, there will only ever be one single article. 23skidoo 02:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nominator. -/- Warren 08:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Either keep or split into category:Patrick Macnee songs and category:Honor Blackman songs, for which it is possible for more articles to be created. Regardless, category:Songs by artist doesn't care how many articles are in its subcategories, because all songs need an artist category.--Mike Selinker 17:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. To my knowledge, "Kinky Boots" is the only commercially released recording Macnee ever made. Honor Blackman did record an album, only one, and the songs on there are mostly NN material that is unlikely to have song articles created. Maybe there's a policy that's been changed, but just like disambiguation pages, it's my understanding that a category must have a minimum number of items -- or at least the potential to have said minimum -- in order to be viable. 23skidoo 04:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From the category:Songs by artist page: "Please note that all single-artist song articles should have subcategories here, regardless of how many songs the artist has recorded."--Mike Selinker 19:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't. It has been established that one category articles are acceptable. Carina22 17:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. To my knowledge, "Kinky Boots" is the only commercially released recording Macnee ever made. Honor Blackman did record an album, only one, and the songs on there are mostly NN material that is unlikely to have song articles created. Maybe there's a policy that's been changed, but just like disambiguation pages, it's my understanding that a category must have a minimum number of items -- or at least the potential to have said minimum -- in order to be viable. 23skidoo 04:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Based on information given this is a legitimate and appropriate category . Carina22 17:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Split per Mike. --kingboyk 16:35, 18 August 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.
Category:Controversial albums
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 16:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Controversial albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete, Too broad and subjective. Catergories for "Controversial" books, video games, and films have also been deleted. Crumbsucker 02:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, very subjective. --musicpvm 03:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Osomec 20:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per musicpvm. --Ted87 04:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. the wub "?!" 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Too subjective, and it doesn't help that calling your own album "controversial" to gain publicity is a fairly common PR ploy. Dugwiki 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Hawkestone 10:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Too subjective. --kingboyk 16:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above KleenupKrew 03:09, 19 August 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved from speedy with a suggested new name of Category:Price comparisons. Vegaswikian 00:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reinyday, 23:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Price comparison services which is a better name and actually describes what it included in the category. Category:Price Comparison is not very descriptive. Vegaswikian 00:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Price comparison services Honbicot 10:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any non-Internet price comparison services...? David Kernow 07:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sort of yes, but they are merely phone services that use the internet sites. (e.g. 118118/PriceRunner partnership). Not sure if there are any other examples. Blowski 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Price comparison services Carina22 17:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Price comparison services Blowski 23:23, 20 August 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.