Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 23
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
March 23
[edit]Category:Former Students of Lycée Louis-le-Grand → Category:Former students of Lycée Louis-le-Grand
[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 per modification. Syrthiss 15:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lowercasing. David Kernow 15:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved from speedy after comment. Vegaswikian 00:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- wouldnt that be Category:Lycée Louis-le-Grand alumni? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be... does Wikipedia have a norm for this? David Kernow 12:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per BL Lacertae. - EurekaLott 17:24, 25 March 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 listify (augmenting current list article) and delete. Syrthiss 15:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category is already half list and half category. I'd like it if we could listify the first portion and delete the category. Categorizing artists by concert/venue/music festival/etc. would certainly get messy in a hurry. - EurekaLott 22:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Create List -- I'm generally against lists, but it seems to make sense in this instance --T-rex 23:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- listify or delete. DenisMoskowitz 20:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- listify sounds good. A word of caution, though: A less comprehensive/incomplete list already exists. Would recommend replacing with this list. Xanderer 00:27, 25 March 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 suggest discuss renaming options on it's Talk page. — xaosflux Talk 05:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't imagine how this category could be helpful. At the very least it needs renaming, but I would just as soon delete it. Fightindaman 22:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WeakDelete - seems to be to broadly defined. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Delete useless catagory --T-rex 23:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unencyclopedic. ReeseM 01:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too broad a scope - RTFM, List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck", Fucking, Austria? Potentially amusing if the word 'fuck' is intrinsically amusing to you (come on, be honest), but otherwise, ehh. Colonel Tom 12:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]- I've changed my suggestion to Keep per the arguments raised by Carlossuarez46 and SilkTork below. I'm convinced. Colonel Tom 00:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm amused that someone would even think to do this, it's of no real encyclopedic value. Delete. Bearcat 09:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a BJAODN for categories? -- stillnotelf has a talk page 19:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (yes, it's going to get deleted as I am outvoted, but my $0.02 follows) We have categories that have minimal to no encyclopedic value, they provide segues to guide interested viewers to related articles: like Canadian gold medalists, Fish out of water films, Artists who committed suicide, etc., and a whole bunch more, that we're apparently keeping. Isn't that what this category does? collect related articles so that someone who wants (a) to browse related articles can do so or (b) wants a single related article and can find it quickly (perhaps not being so adept at WP's somewhat arcane naming practices). One of the biggest pluses of categories even ones of only minor or no "encyclopedic" value is the serendipity factor of looking for one thing and learning something else. Who would have thought that we have an article that lists movies by the incidence of that word (unless you happened to participate in the debate of the article's deletion a while back)? that's my 2cents. Carlossuarez46 23:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. "What grace may be added to commonplace matters by the power of order and connection." The word Fuck is not a minor word. It is a powerful and evocative word with a history and a culture that may at times be quite shocking as well as mildly amusing. It is not a word that should be swept under the carpet. A word that can cause books and records to be banned is certainly big enough to be encyclopedic. If we have articles on the word fuck then it seems vital that we have a category in which to link these articles so people may do some organised research. SilkTork 00:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the arguments of users Carlossuarez46 and SilkTork. The category is socially and linguistically notable on the English Wikipedia. -- Mareklug talk 05:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename if kept, as current name too vague. Suggest something like Category:Things using "fuck" in their name. David Kernow 12:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. If kept, the catagory needs to be tightened somewhat. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If all this category is is "Things using "fuck" in their name' then I don't think it's worth keeping. It is a child of Category:Sexual slang and Category:Profanity so perhaps it should be "Fuck-related slang terms" but that doesn't seem enough for a category either unless one of its parent categories were too large, which isn't the case. I'm keeping an open mind, but so far I don't see any reason for this category to exist. --JeffW 21:17, 30 March 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 as unused, requested by only contributor. — xaosflux Talk 02:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re-organizing categories in Wikiproject Dinosaurs, this one no longer needed. Dinoguy2 21:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - only two, possibly three dinosaurs currently fit in this category (the rest are i.s.). It can always be recreated when/if other Herrerasaurs are ever found.--Firsfron 22:07, 23 March 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.
University of Hawaii men's basketball
[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. Syrthiss 15:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple renaming request for all UH men's basketball categories:
- Category:Hawaii Warriors basketball → Category:Hawaii Rainbow Warriors basketball
- Category:Hawaii Warriors men's basketball coaches → Category:Hawaii Rainbow Warriors basketball coaches
- Category:Hawaii Warriors men's basketball players → Category:Hawaii Rainbow Warriors basketball players
Explanation: In 2000, the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa allowed its men's athletic teams to choose their own nicknames. Men's teams at the school are variously known as "Warriors", "Rainbow Warriors", and "Rainbows". The basketball team chose "Rainbow Warriors". See the UHM Warriors article for an explanation; see also the school's official athletics site. All women's teams at the school are known as Rainbow Wahine. — Dale Arnett 18:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I just created these yesterday, and didn't know this data point.--Mike Selinker 00:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I didn't know about it either until I was preparing for the football cat a few months ago. ×Meegs 16:01, 24 March 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 and merge. Syrthiss 15:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cclarke
- Comment - Moved from Speedy because of debate. - TexasAndroid 16:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Fish Out of Water Films and Category:Fish Out of Water films should be merged/renamed to the correct capitalization. Mairi 07:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; isn't "main character finds self in alien environment" a capsule plot summary of every movie? Are there any movies in which the main character just sits around in a familiar environment for two hours? (But yes, common nouns in English get lowercased. This should be speedily merged, and then we can debate deletion.) --Quuxplusone 00:17, 25 March 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 15:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-- Mareklug talk 06:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Moved from Speedy because of debate. - TexasAndroid 16:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely naming convention states that the category should in fact be renamed akin to Category:Olympic gold medalists of Canada..? --Mal 05:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're mistaken. See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for categorization of people -- we have Category:Polish athletes, Category:Ethiopian musicians, etc. -- Mareklug talk 21:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. I assume therefore, you would support my proposal that all categories regarding Northern Irish people be renamed from "Northern Ireland XXXX" to "Northern Irish XXXX" then? Thanks for the info. --Mal 08:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename as proposed. Osomec 16:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as proposed. ReeseM 01:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 16:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nomination. Sue Anne 23:09, 1 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. Syrthiss 15:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-- Citius 04:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Moved from Speedy because of debate. - TexasAndroid 16:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As with Canadain gold medalists above, this should be renamed Category:Apline skiers of the Czech Republic in accordance with naming conventions? --Mal 05:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're mistaken. See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for categorization of people -- we have Category:Polish athletes, Category:Ethiopian musicians, etc. -- Mareklug talk 21:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The proposal is in accordance with naming conventions. Choalbaton 21:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename as proposed. Osomec 16:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as proposed. ReeseM 01:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never understood why capital letters are undesireable; isn't "Adam Ant" far more impressive and laden with gravitas (sorry, Gravitas) than "Adam ant" or the frankly disquieting "adam ant", to utilize but one example? I choose not to use k. d. lang as my example, out of deference. Per policy, however, rename per suggestion. Colonel Tom 12:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- I think it's because capitals indicate the use of proper nouns, i.e. singular instances; but, as this A/alpine case demonstrates (or, off the top of my head, M/marxism, D/darwinism, etc.), this notion is under erosion. Regards, David Kernow 01:26, 25 March 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 — xaosflux Talk 02:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category has 23 entries, includes people that meet two facially unrelated criteria. To the best of my understanding, that's against policy. Besides, all the members are listed in artists and could and should be listed in Suicides as well. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 12:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 13:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Category was created in order to split up the overlarge Category:Suicides. If some entries are wrong, then remove them from the category. David | Talk 14:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above Where (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Useful subcategorisation. Doesn't increase the number of categories each article is in. Osomec 16:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; part of making Category:Suicides manageable. Samaritan 19:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Samaritan. Carlossuarez46 23:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep DeansFA 09:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Makes Category:Suicides manageable. --GreyCat 18:09, 30 March 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.