Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 9
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
February 9
[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The result of the debate was keep/withdrawn --Kbdank71 15:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
empty category, redundant with Confederate Navy Ships. Thatcher131 22:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Keep and populate. There were ships of the Confederacy which weren't navy ships. Also, 'Ships of Foo' categories are the base of the ship categorization by country and deleting a country's base 'ships of X' category makes it very difficult to maintain consistent structure. Being as so many ships are still not correctly categorized, I would like to see this category remain, until we can be more sure that there aren't articles which warrant it's existance. Josh 07:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point, I withdraw the proposal.Thatcher131 12:41, 10 February 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 --Kbdank71 15:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
empty except for empty sub category, redundant with "Ships of the Confederate States of America". Thatcher131 22:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no argument, Confederate States of America is the proper name I guess. Josh 07:32, 10 February 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 --Kbdank71 15:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
empty category, redundant with "Confederate Navy ships" Thatcher131 22:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete empty and redundant. Josh 07:44, 10 February 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 15:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The category was created in June 2004 and contains truly obscure languages, as expected. The reasons why I do not like it are:
- It is more-less duplicate of List of esoteric programming languages. While the list could provide some helpful details inside, browsing the category gives a reader no hint at all.
- It is prone to misuse (case of Magik programming language yesterday [1]). Such misuse his harder to catch for the category than for the list. I suggest to keep only the list to avoid duplication and decrease maintenance burden. Pavel Vozenilek 21:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep moving lists to categories make them more self-maintaining, and lead readers to like subjects. This category currently has over 80 articles in it. xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:54, 10 February 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 --Kbdank71 15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ended up being superseded by the more general "History of Fashion" category. Also, the original creator of the category gave it a name appropriate to her vision of hundreds of little articles on individual years ("1841 in fashion", "1842 in fashion", and so on etc. etc.), and that isn't going to happen (see History of Western fashion). So Delete Churchh 20:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and list under Category:Events by year --Vizcarra 18:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obsolete and poorly conceived in the first place. Vizcarra, did you know that it was empty and contains no "events"? Postdlf 05:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I did. Postdlf, did you know that there are thirteen articles and four categories named "Year in fashion" in Category:History of fashion? --Vizcarra 06:58, 17 February 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 SPEEDY DELETE as this category was created by mistake. JIP | Talk 12:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This cat was probably accidentally created by someone who intended to create the Wesnoth article. Said article exists by now, and is part of the parent cat. The Wesnoth cat can safely be deleted. Shinobu 14:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. CalJW 15:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --† Ðy§ep§ion † 19:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom, is vacant. xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:55, 10 February 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 move to WP:SFD --Kbdank71 15:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following the creation of new stub categories, particularly Category:Amphibian stubs, this category is now restricted to reptiles, a fact which should be reflected in its title. Stemonitis 13:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this proposal needs to be discussed at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion instead of here. - EurekaLott 20:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- you believe correctly. Take this to WP:SFD BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:34, 9 February 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.
Sports in the United States by state
[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 15:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. The subcategories of Category:Sports in the United States by state should be renamed to Category:Sports in STATE. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 12:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Who's this helping? It's very clear what these categories mean, and we're using them all the time as is.--Mike Selinker 15:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This will help these categories be consistent with the other subcategories of the Category:Categories by state of the United States subcategories. In this case, in particular, it may not be clear to a reader whether an article in Category:Wisconsin sports pertains to the state of Wisconsin or to the University of Wisconsin. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 16:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted. I'm not opposing it, but it seems like a lot of work for an administrator for a pretty minor area of confusion.--Mike Selinker 16:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The changes won't have to be done manually. Merchbow 23:35, 10 February 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 --Kbdank71 15:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant POV fork by (now indefinitely banned) user to add tangentially related articles. Included a long list of tangentially related articles, which I've taken the liberty of trimming considerably. Delete, period. Calton | Talk 11:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Poorly conceived use of categories. -Will Beback 21:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Poorly conceived and a bad precedent. - Longhair 22:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We shouldn't have categories for tangential relationships. --Allen 23:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Mikker ... 00:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. As above, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for all of the above reasons. Postdlf 03:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete The user fundamentally misunderstood how categories work. He added about sixty tangential articles to the regular TS category and then created this placeholder when I reverted him (to much gnashing of teeth). Marskell 10:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify. OK. Pinky lost the EXACTLY how-he-may-use-a-catagory contest by you hair-splitters. Note how NOT ONE OF YOU has thought to suggest "Listify". That reveals something about this particular group of voters, does it not? It does. The information is true, related to her and already exists in Wikiepdia. Being forced to use "What Links Here" is a disservice to the reader because that presentation of the data is filled with very distracting "Talk" page references and is not sorted. As the rest of you are taking the 10 seconds out of your busy day to easily supress this information, I will thwart your efforts by doing the listification work required. Note how SlimVirgin and Marskell choose to express a unecessary sense of urgency and thereby betray their emotion involvement in the subject matter. That has now been noted. You see, a "speedy delete" should be reserved only for categories that make people make uncomfortable and therefor be detrimental to the august reputation of Wikipedia. I am getting a little concerned about whether those two have sufficient objectivity to be constructively involved in the editing of the TS article, but I do not want to make any conclusions hastily, so I am still willing to reserve judgement, but not for much longer. See List of Terri Schiavo-related articles. Easy navigation: Go to TS page, to category and to list. Voila! Have a nice day.-- User:TulsaGal 12:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the post above was originally created by and modified by {{User{67.127.58.57}} -- that is, Pinktulip (talk · contribs), the indefinitely banned creator of the category. --Calton | Talk 01:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that my attempts to listify have already been deleted! You kids are so despirate to be "nice to Terri". Terri's dead folks. Why not remember what she did to us in the USA? How about this folks: http://home.earthlink.net/~amorrow/ts_index.html . Go try to "vote that off the island". (and do remembr to childishly snipe back at me that it is already off the island). It is just a little more work for those who want complete information. The "indefinitely banned" Andrew William Morrow. -- 68.122.238.38 14:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Longhair I worry more about the precedent..are we going to have major and minor categories for everything? ugh! IMHO, I would expect someone to nom. the List_of_Terri_Schiavo-related_articles for deletion as self-reference articles tend to get smacked on WP. Carlossuarez46 20:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just note: This has been a special case ONLY because of the Timothy Marskell's insistance on owning this article and imposing his very narrow Canadian and un-Democratic views upon this strictly USA-internal affair. -- 68.121.101.234 09:23, 12 February 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 to Category:Annie albums --Kbdank71 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A whole category to the connect one minor artist with her two albums, at best there will be a few albums more but that would be it, i just think it's very redundant and should just be deleted. Boneyard 09:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:Annie albums and put it under Category:Albums by artist.--Mike Selinker 15:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Mike Selinker --Vizcarra 18:02, 16 February 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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- THE RESULT OF THIS DEBATE IS NOT CLEAR, ACCORDING TO User:MPS. Being that I was the last to comment and nobody responded to the suggestion that we "Rename to Category:Media by United States region" I will assume that this is the result of the debate. I will begine merge to Category:Media by United States region MPS 23:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Newly-created category duplicates existing category. - EurekaLott 07:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this kind of category should be child of "media by country". Current structure "regional media" -> "media by country" feels absurd to me. I would prefere the word regional since it covers both cities and larger areas of distribution. Pavel Vozenilek 23:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepRename to Category:Media by United States region Surely Media in Washington DC would cover media in the region encompassing Northern Virginia and the Capital Beltway... and DC is a District -- not a city. You are going to have articles on media by Metropolitan Statistical Areas such as Media in Minneapolis-St. Paul which is two cities in two states. Ditto Media in Kansas City (KCMO/and KCK). Category:Regional media takes this into account. Category:Media by city does not. The brits have a funny understanding of city being distinct from town and village, so you would have to consider that as well. Re: a parent-child relationship I don't see anything wrong with Media in Richmond, Virginia being categorized by Category:Media in the United States but I don't think it's true that all regional media articles have to have a country attached to them for instance, Category:Media in Taiwan would cause a revert war if we had to attach a country to it due to the China/Taiwan thing. MPS 00:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While categories by city and by region are both part of Wikipedia nomenclature, the regional media category is neither. It's a poorly-defined category that attempts to lump cities and countries together. The by city categories, in general, do not strictly refer to municipalities, but rather to metropolitan areas. - EurekaLott 07:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why aren't we discussing Category:Media by metropolitan area? I think that's the compromise. MPS 08:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also why not rename the category to Category:Media by region. That's was the intent of the category in the first place. Northern Michigan comes to mind as a region that has lots of media without a major metro area. You could pretend that Media in Traverse City would be appropriate, but Media in Northern Michigan is, IMHO, the article to create. MPS 08:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The categories need to merged because the articles they include all cover the same ground: media outlets by city. Dividing them into two categories only serves to confuse readers. If at some point in the future sufficient articles exist about media by other geographic regions, a category can then be made for them. - EurekaLott 22:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, so you delete your category, I'll delete my category, and we'll transfer articles to a category that makes sense. The ground they cover is not cities. I disagree that Washington DC is a city. I disagree that Minneapolis/St Paul is a city. My category allows for future development of media articles to include rural regions where media is aggregated outside one metro area. What's the answer? MPS 00:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The categories need to merged because the articles they include all cover the same ground: media outlets by city. Dividing them into two categories only serves to confuse readers. If at some point in the future sufficient articles exist about media by other geographic regions, a category can then be made for them. - EurekaLott 22:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also why not rename the category to Category:Media by region. That's was the intent of the category in the first place. Northern Michigan comes to mind as a region that has lots of media without a major metro area. You could pretend that Media in Traverse City would be appropriate, but Media in Northern Michigan is, IMHO, the article to create. MPS 08:43, 15 February 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 --Kbdank71 14:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing category. Might be better as a list. - EurekaLott 05:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (and listify if the creator desires). I love wordplay, but any category that requires the word "optimally" in its description seems shaky.--Mike Selinker 15:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - talk about obscure. JW 22:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as obscure; I also have some difficulty in that are only English versions of the places considered; Galicia (the Polish one) is not so spelled by any language nearby but happens to be so in English thus creating a link with the Spanish region which is thus spelled in Spanish, but perhaps not in Gallego. Ditto for Georgia (near Russia) vs. Georgia (near Alabama). Interesting wo(r)ld play. not a proper category :-) Carlossuarez46 21:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—categories should not be anti-disambiguation pages. Postdlf 05:21, 17 February 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EZLN is the Spanish acronym for the Zapatista Army of National Liberation. Descendall 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – There are no other uses for EZLN on wikipedia. EZLN points to Zapatista Army of National Liberation.--Vizcarra 07:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Wikipedia categories are usually more formal; they don't refer to the United States as the USA or the Soviet Union as the USSR, USA and USSR are much better known acronyms than EZLN. EZLN isn't even English. --Descendall 12:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support in line with conventions against use of abbreviations. CalJW 15:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 16:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom, the abbreviation is far more confusing, even if it only has one meaning. Josh 20:22, 14 February 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 to Category:British Asian politicians --Kbdank71 15:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recently went through the same process with Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom which was moved from Gay British MPs or something similar. Basically, this creates an awkward subset of the parent Category:British MPs and a wider category would be more useful, linking into politicians at other levels of UK politics, those who have been unsuccessful and to the articles on the subject. Please note that I have suggested IN rather than the FROM used in the LGBT example - the key notable factor is that they are active in the UK, almost all were born outside the UK. Mtiedemann 00:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it necessary to include both British and United Kingdom in the category name? - EurekaLott 05:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps Category:British Asian politicians would be more appropriate then? Mtiedemann 10:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:British Asian politicians. Use of both British and United Kingdom is redundant. CalJW 15:46, 9 February 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.