Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 27
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < January 26 | January 28 > |
|---|
January 27
[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 delete from orbit. Syrthiss 23:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Offensive and divisive. Delete. Owen× ☎ 23:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Important and useful category, nothing devisive about giving a compliment--Ghgfhfhfdh 00:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's only contribution is creating and using this categroy. Owen× ☎ 00:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Personally, I'd regard it as an insult :-) Bluap 20:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Offensive and POV. --W.marsh 00:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say delete too. I am not too sure how I got picked to be in this category, I suppose I'm honoured, but it isn't the most accurate or NPOV thing in the world. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, as it is horribly POV. Who decides what is really American? One example: Why are the New York Yankees included, and not the Boston Red Sox? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pov and not useful. Bhoeble 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ditto Robdurbar 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, created by the sockpuppet of a banned user, only serves to inflame. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the creator is really a banned user, this should be speedied under CSD:G5. Owen× ☎ 00:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete pure disruption Derex 00:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- eradicate a serious attempt to critique this inanity would be correspondingly all the more inane. I will instead contemplate my navel. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know the source, but I'm somewhat flattered about being a recipient of the "Real American" barnstar. [1] Academics are often derided as "pinko" and "un-American." So, I like getting postive feedback from a "real American" from time to time. While I like my award, I have to vote "delete" because of clear Wikipedia categorization policies that categorizes be used only for the purposes of helping to write an encyclopedia. 172 | Talk 03:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete divisive. Sumahoy 04:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but with congrats to 172 for his award. JamesMLane t c 08:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or merge with CAT:Fake americans. Radiant_>|< 09:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- max rspct leave a message 19:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Travb 22:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom. Catamorphism 00:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. helohe (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Very POV and offensive to me, as I am confident would not make the cut. Compare "Real Christians" (or "Real Muslims"), "Real Men" (or "Real Women'). Horrid. Deaconse 21:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The hell? Delete, ASAP. -- Scott eiπ 06:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with extreme prejudice. AnonMoos 18:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Radiant, 'the hell?' per Scott Burley. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or rename to Category:True Scotsmen. Postdlf 21:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Who set this up??? Carlossuarez46 22:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'd be vaguely curious to know what constitutes the difference between a "Real American" and a "not-real American", though I have a sneaking suspicion that if somebody actually told me, I'd probably regret asking. Bearcat 01:23, 1 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. Syrthiss 23:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm a staff member at OC ReMix (see bottom), so I'm looking for a speedy deletion if possible. We only had a handful of albums, which I felt didn't need a category, so a while back I made a template instead and only just recently depopulated this category. Thank you. - Liontamer 21:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Bhoeble 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination Robdurbar 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 21:29, 29 January 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 Hoaxes in science. Syrthiss 23:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category is a strange (and far from complete) mix of weird research, real scientific fraud and jokes. They have nothing real in common and therefore this is not a real category. In addition, the word 'hoax' is certainly not applicable for denominating scientific fraud or disputed research. I suggest deletion, especially since for scientific fraud (this most important one of the subjects) there is already the article Scientific misconduct— Cpt. Morgan 21:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or rename. If these are properly in Category:hoaxes there should be a subcategory for them. Sumahoy 04:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename or delete, maybe "Hoaxes in science" is better. Radiant_>|< 09:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to "Hoaxes in science" as Radiant suggested. The category has been abused for cases of fraud, but there are some articles that are neither fraud nor misconduct, e.g. Sokal Affair, SCIgen, or Dihydrogen monoxide hoax. Algae 10:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I second keeping or renaming it now that the scientific fraud articles have been removed and related categories have been made: Category:Scientific misconduct and Category:Scientific scandals. Cpt. Morgan 10:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep, it is useful as a research tool to see what's happened before. Carlossuarez46 22:37, 30 January 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. Syrthiss 23:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A pointless and completely unnecessary category of no use whatsoever that just adds clutter to categorisation systems. — Dunc|☺ 20:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This will be a very long and very useless list otherwise. Cpt. Morgan 21:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I added the category because it seemed like a good idea to help see the collaberation between Wikipedia articles and Wiktionary. There are a lot of categories that add signifantly more clutter.--
MaxTalk (add) • Contribs 18:14, 28 January 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:Boy Scouts of America controversy and Category:Boy Scouts of America controversies to (he didn't say what)
[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 delete both. Syrthiss 22:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These were both replaced by Category:Contentious issues about the Boy Scouts of America because users felt "controversy" wasn't quite the right word. Rlevse 13:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Rlevse --Naha|(talk) 17:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as replaced, .02 Chris 18:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above. --JohnDBuell 23:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Rlese. This is what the scouting Project folks want. --Bduke 12:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in favor of more accurate category -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Rlese, Scouting Project. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 21:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Scott eiπ 06:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Danthemankhan(talk)
17:58, 30 January 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. Syrthiss 22:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both emptied, blanked, and partially afd'd by Rlevse. Listing here so that they get dealt with. Neutral. —Cryptic (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Since there are apparently no controversies... Cpt. Morgan 21:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it looks like the articles formerly listed in these categories are now in the awkwardly-named Category:Contentious issues about the Boy Scouts of America. - EurekaLott 22:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Do you have a better name? Users felt "controversies" was quite appropriate. Rlevse 13:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, overcat. Radiant_>|< 09:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If you bother to read the talk on Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America, you'll see people wanted the category renamed. I don't see how you can claim there are no controversies as the articles (which have no other cat grouping to group them together, BTW) cover topics on BSA's stands on homosexuality, the Dale case, etc. These are all relevant to the Scouting WikiProject. Rlevse 13:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Rlevse, for now. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting needs to make the final decision. --Naha|(talk) 17:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per the agreed guidelines on the Scouting WikiProject. Chris 18:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above. --JohnDBuell 23:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above. --Bduke 12:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Rlevse -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per the agreed guidelines on the Scouting WikiProject, Rlese. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 21:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the WikiProject. -- Scott eiπ 06:37, 30 January 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.
Coastal towns
[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 all. Syrthiss 22:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Coastal towns of Canada --> Category:Coastal towns in Canada
- Category:Coastal towns of Estonia --> Category:Coastal towns in Estonia
- Category:Coastal towns of France --> Category:Coastal towns in France
- Category:Coastal towns of Brittany --> Category:Coastal towns in Brittany
- Category:Coastal towns of Hong Kong --> Category:Coastal towns in Hong Kong
- Category:Coastal towns of Italy --> Category:Coastal towns in Italy
- Category:Coastal towns of Abruzzo --> Category:Coastal towns in Abruzzo
- Category:Coastal towns of Campania --> Category:Coastal towns in Campania
- Category:Coastal towns of Lazio --> Category:Coastal towns in Lazio
- Category:Coastal towns of Liguria --> Category:Coastal towns in Liguria
- Category:Coastal towns of Macau --> Category:Coastal towns in Macau
- Category:Coastal towns of the Marche --> Category:Coastal towns in the Marche
- Category:Coastal towns of Puglia --> Category:Coastal towns in Puglia
- Category:Coastal towns of Tuscany --> Category:Coastal towns in Tuscany
- Category:Coastal towns of Pakistan --> Category:Coastal towns in Pakistan
- Category:Coastal towns of Balochistan --> Category:Coastal towns in Balochistan
- Category:Coastal towns of Sindh --> Category:Coastal towns in Sindh
- Category:Coastal towns of the United States --> Category:Coastal towns in the United States
- Category:Coastal towns of California --> Category:Coastal towns in California
- Rename all. Naming conventions for cities, towns and other settlements is "in" not "of". - Darwinek 12:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 15:45, 28 January 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. Syrthiss 22:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discordant with all the other categories in Category:Towers in the United States. Rename Merchbow 05:39, 27 January 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. Syrthiss 22:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The odd one out in its category. Rename Merchbow 05:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom, matches policy. Josh 08:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename - Darwinek 12:08, 27 January 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. Syrthiss 22:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A follow up to the item below. Squares which are open as public parks can stay in it. The proposed name matches the others in Category:Parks in the United States
Rename Merchbow 05:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn See below. Merchbow 12:37, 27 January 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. Syrthiss 22:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contains 4 squares (added by yours truly). Should match up with the others in Category:Streets and squares by city.
Rename Merchbow 05:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Oppose, In Philadelphia, the term square, in general usage, rarely refers to a street but to a park, see Town square. Also the names of the streets that even surround these squares are rarely all named, if at all, after the square, from which they take their name, the only two major, if that can even been said, exceptions to this are Rittenhouse and Washington Square, but this only refers to the streets on the Southern and Western borders of the square. Their are also several other squares that have yet to have articles abut them they are not associated with streets, i.e. Weccacoe Sq, Head House Sq., Independence Sq. (not Independence Mall). --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Merchbow 12:36, 27 January 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. Syrthiss 22:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I claim the honor for this irony. Radiant_>|< 03:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stronge merge. Yay. -Silence 03:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If anybody can figure out how I can vote in favour of this proposal without inherently placing myself in the category, mark me down for that. Otherwise...*sigh* merge. Bearcat 03:52, 1 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 with modifications (per vegaswikian). Syrthiss 22:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Ronald20 01:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose In Australia "network" and "station" mean different things. If this is an all U.S. category maybe it could be called Category:Independent television networks in the United States. ReeseM 02:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. It covers stations and not networks and it covers 3 countries. So maybe split into
- Oppose per Vegaswikian. Postdlf 16:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Networks and stations are not the same thing. Furthermore, by the very definition of "independent" in the context of television, it would be impossible for any television-related entity to be simultaneously "independent" and a "network", because "independent" means "not associated with a network". I could potentially support Vegaswikian's alternate proposal. Bearcat 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Bearcat. I'd also support Vegaswikian's proposal. - Hinto 03:17, 1 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. Syrthiss 22:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More standard name, in line with Wikipedia administrators. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 05:07, 27 January 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.