Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 27
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
March 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 Rename. - TexasAndroid 16:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lowercasing. Would speedy, but it's a merge. Unint 01:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No debate really needed; it's a pretty clear {{categoryredirect}}. Done; the bot'll take care of the moves within the hour. Bearcat 02:23, 28 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. - TexasAndroid 16:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Main article name is now Dál Riata not Dalriada; also moved List of Kings of Dalriada to List of Kings of Dál Riata. Engaged in building consensus on what to call individual rulers, but that has no obvious impact on cat name. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- rename - possibly speediable? Grutness...wha? 01:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Build your consensus first please. This looks like yet another move away from English-language spelling in the name of political correctness. "á" is not an English letter and in my opinion that means it should not be used as the primary spelling in the Engish language Wikipedia. CalJW 04:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the sources listed in the Dál Riata article, those which use Dál Riata outnumber the ones using Dalriada by about 12 to 4. If the article had better sources, the ratio would be even more strongly in favour of Dál Riata. The accepted name, verifiable fromreliable sources, is Dál Riata, which is what is used in the main article on the subject, following a discussion and vote. Regarding diacritics, we are supposed to follow what is best for readers, not to indulge the editors. (No diacritics would be much easier for me.) In any case, we already have Déisi Tuisceart, Dál gCais, Uí Néill and Cenél Conaill, to name but a few related articles with diacritics in the title. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither "Dalriada" nor "Dál Riata" are English, exactly, but both are used in authoritative English language texts. If you look at Talk:Dál Riata you'll see that I've reviewed English language popular (non-scholarly) reference books and found examples of both spellings. As far as I can see they're both correct and Wikipedia should just use one or the other and be consistent. --Craig Stuntz 13:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. --Mais oui! 22:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that the proposed name is in line with the Manual of Style. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per Craig Stuntz above. --Mal 01:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom and above. David Kernow 03:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Shouldn't be controversial. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:29, 29 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. - TexasAndroid 16:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom below. --日本穣 21:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — warpedmirror (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:48, 27 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. - TexasAndroid 16:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The preceding categories are and will not be populated because of the existance of article lists (List of Final Fantasy XI characters and List of items in Final Fantasy) that encompass all the information provided on Wikipedia for the given subjects. ~ Hibana 20:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --日本穣 21:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — warpedmirror (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:49, 27 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. - TexasAndroid 16:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mass merge request
- Category:Novels by year to Category:Books by year
- Category:2005 novels to Category:2005 books
- Category:2004 novels to Category:2004 books
- Category:2003 novels to Category:2003 books
- Category:2002 novels to Category:2002 books
- Category:1999 novels to Category:1999 books
- Category:1997 novels to Category:1997 books
- Category:1994 novels to Category:1994 books
- Category:1991 novels to Category:1991 books
- Category:1978 novels to Category:1978 books
- Category:1976 novels to Category:1976 books
- Category:1975 novels to Category:1975 books
- Category:1971 novels to Category:1971 books
- Category:1965 novels to Category:1965 books
- Category:1957 novels to Category:1957 books
- Category:1949 novels to Category:1949 books
- Category:1947 novels to Category:1947 books
- Category:1941 novels to Category:1941 books
- Category:1922 novels to Category:1922 books
- Category:1912 novels to Category:1912 books
- Category:1902 novels to Category:1902 books
Books are much more commonly categorized by year under the "Books" set than this, sporatic, "Novel" set. - TexasAndroid 20:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as the "novel" cats do seem to be severely underpopulated. Her Pegship 03:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Category:Novels by year is a subcategory of Category:Books by year. While all novels are books, not all books are novels. Only having novels as a subcategory of Category:Books by year probably isn't that useful, but I also question how useful it is to have every type of book grouped together. Perhaps the subcategories should be expanded instead? Paralleling the subcategories for writers (see Category:Writers by subject area)? -- JLaTondre 03:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Objection. Not all books are novels, as stated above, and given the massive number of books we might eventually have articles on it makes sense to subdivide them. It would be better to expand usage of the subcats (and create more) rather than delete them imho. --kingboyk 13:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all because...
because... BLEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR!!!novels are a distinct art form, and there are many, many of them that should have articles. BD2412 T 04:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC) - Strong Keep My propostion is that we keep the novels by year categories and add them as subcategories to the appropriate books by year page; eg. remove the novels that are currently on the books by year page, replacing this with a subcategory on the same page for novels published the same year. Mostly this is due to the fact that the main Category:Novels page is in serious need of some sub-division, at the moment it is a mess. -- Gizzakk 17:24, 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 Deleted by Mike Rosoft with summary of (Merged with :Category:Comedy books, contains no articles). -- JLaTondre 04:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This was voted to be merged with and under Category:Comedy books in October 2005 (log) but no one has yet deleted it. All contents were moved so it's currently empty. Her Pegship 17:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Seems to already be deleted...(^_^; --日本穣 21:22, 27 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 Not a category. - TexasAndroid 20:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is Categories for deletion. Not User pages for deletion. ^_^;; - TexasAndroid 20:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is my revenge to YOU! Since I started in the fall 2005, you have given my most problems and deleted my pages! WARNING! I would contine to delete your pages if you will contine to delete my pages! Delete. Oscaratalk 15:22, 27 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 withdrawn --William Allen Simpson
A subcategory of Category:Fictional towns and cities that contained one article, Öreskoga, which has been moved to the parent category. Depreciated and un-needed category. Delete. Proto||type 15:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Withdrawn. Proto||type 08:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've moved it back. The parent category is in obvious need of subcategorisation and there is already one other national category. Osomec 19:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Certainly the places that can be categorized by real-world country (and possibly state) should be. When we do, though, let's make the pattern "cities and towns" to match all the similar real-world categories.--Mike Selinker 03:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Withdrawn CfD, and I'll look into subcategorising the parent. Mr admin, please close as time permits. Proto||type 08:27, 28 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.