Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 23: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:26, 24 April 2006

< April 22	April 24 >

April 23

Category:Fictional smokers

This category is far too broad. There are likely hundreds of thousands of fictional characters who are smokers in the period between the widespread popularization of tobacco and before the social taboos and regulatory restrictions on smoking in the late 20th century. And even then, these taboos and regulations largely felt in the United States - in other cultures e.g. France, Spain - smoking widespread in real and fictional life. Bwithh 00:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but the U.S./rest of the world contrast isn't very accurate. Bhoeble 00:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename to Category:Fictional characters who smoke. However, whether large or small, not sure how useful this category might be in an encyclopedia. Regards, David Kernow 00:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islamic geographers

Found as a speedy with the reason, moved to Muslim geographers. Cat was not empty Vegaswikian 22:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the history of mathematics Islamic mathematics refers to the mathematics practiced in the Middle East between c. 600 and c. 1600. I assume that would also apply to geography and that these categories would therefore not be equivalent (for example, an Islamic geographer stricly speaking would not have to be a Muslim). —Ruud 22:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Banks of Scotland

Whilst in the past it may have been useful to separate Scottish banks, the situation today is that in the vast majority of cases a bank being Scotish changes nothing. In fact the vast majority of Scottish banks have major businesses in England, eg Royal Bank of Scotland, Bank of Scotland and Clydesdale Bank (trading as Yorkshire Bank). Delete Ian3055 21:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is part of User:Mais oui!'s endless campaign to stop anything being classified as British. Bhoeble 00:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Specimen images

Pages under here would fit better under one of the subcategories of Category:Images by scientific discipline. There is no need to merge since there is only one element which I already added to Category:Biology lists. JeffW 21:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foreign Korean companies

This category seems to be intended to disparage Korean companies which have allowed themselves to fall into the hands of foreigners. Delete. Nathcer 21:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom. Ian3055 22:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mountain monuments to Category:Mountain monuments and memorials

Relisting from April 13, based on a decision furhter down that day to combine the Memorials and Monuments cats into one supercat. I wasn't sure whether the mountain ones were sufficiently different that they should have their own cat or be upmerged instead just into M&M category. Syrthiss 20:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:US mountain monuments to Category:Mountain monuments and memorials

see above. Syrthiss 20:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian surnames to Category:Indian Family Names

there's two cat with the same subject. --Dangerous-Boy 19:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 19:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually shouldn't it be the other way around? the others are Category:Japanese surnames etc. Williamb 12:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - the other way round is better. at any rate, this is no speedy Mayumashu 13:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, chinese and korean have it as family names instead of surnames, so that's why I picked it. it was 2 against 1. --Dangerous-Boy 22:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North Alabama Landmarks

Delete overcategorization. This is an unnecessary division of Category:Alabama landmarks, which only has 23 articles in its base (I haven't checked to see how much of that is overlap). Though some state landmark categories do have subcategories for significant cities (e.g., Category:Landmarks in New York City), and North Alabama is (I presume, at least) a recognized region of the state, subcategorizing in this case is not helpful and not needed, especially considering that the article North Alabama has little content aside from a list of included communities. There is no indication that the region so defines its contents that the landmarks are better identified by region rather than the state as a whole (in contrast to NYC landmarks being identified with that city specifically). And it's always too bad when such categories are created in lieu of fleshing out the substance of an article. Postdlf 18:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per excellent nom. Turnstep 00:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belgian tennis tournaments to Category:Tennis tournaments in Belgium

Category:German tennis tournaments to Category:Tennis tournaments in Germany

I suggest the the convention for tennis tournaments should be the same as for tennis by country. ie. "Tennis tournaments in Foo. The possessive is not really appropriate when 90% plus of the competitors in a tournament may be non-nationals. Choalbaton 18:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename both per my nomination. Choalbaton 18:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename' per nom. Seems logical. Turnstep 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bondage programming languages

Controversial and overly vague category. By the definition, it includes just about every standard programming language, since portable languages have a poor interaction with the operating system, and just about every programming language before 1980 and most of them afterwards are single paradigm languages. The name is unclear and not NPOV, since it's an implicit criticism.--Prosfilaes 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Choalbaton 18:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The name is traditional. It was even referenced on the Comparison_of_Pascal_and_C page until somebody took offence that I linked it -- and no I didn't add the original reference. I don't appreciate having my user page edited to distort this vote, and an ad hominem attack pasted on the Category:Bondage programming languages page. Resorting to such vote-distortion tactics is quite dishonest. All votes above mine were made while my user page and the catagory page were both vandalized. AlbertCahalan 18:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, it's not traditional; I've only ever heard of bondage-and-discipline languages as the Jargon file calls them, and that's never included C, Fortran, Prolog, etc., all of which are included in your name. Even if it is traditional, we still don't need a category the equal of Macintrash. I didn't resort to such tactics, nor did they influence my posting here.--Prosfilaes 18:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The Jargon file can provide the official definition, with category members being adjusted to match. I support a rename to the longer "bondage-and-discipline language" term if others agree. The four examples given there are Pascal, Ada, APL, and Prolog. AlbertCahalan 19:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. I would argue that neither APL or Prolog are ostensibly general-purpose in this sense. More importantly, I would argue that Ada is demonstratably adaquate for system programming; there is no way to resolve that debate in an WP:NPOV manner.--Prosfilaes 23:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The page edits you refer to were made prior to the page submitted for deletion. The reference you cite on the Comparison_of_Pascal_and_C page were added by you (and removed by me). Derek farn 21:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I appreciate the point, and the humor, I don't think catagories should be jokes. Another name-space maybe. As for ever encountering the term outside the Jargon File, I agree. New to me in the real world. Not enough reason to keep given the POV inherent in the term. Eveny if I agree with a good part o fthe POV. ww 20:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the points made by User:Ww. I have spent the 28 years writing compilers and static code analysis tools and have never encountered this term. I think it was made-up by the original author of the page who has a misplaced sense of wikipedia 'humor'. Derek farn 20:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently POV category name. The Jargon File entry is a piece of satire, not a definition of a technical term. Henning Makholm 20:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Nathcer 21:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't be properly defined. I think type-checking is absolutely necessary in a language so any language that lacks it is an attempt to "enforce an author's theory of ‘right programming’" (quoted from Jargon file). - DNewhall 21:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fruit and vegetable characters

Kind of a rediculous category--I don't see it ever being very useful. Perhaps some day we may end up needing a category for VeggieTales characters, but not all fruit and vegetable characters. authraw 17:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting. Arniep 17:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not unclear or overlarge. It could be interesting to study anthropomophic fruit and vegetables; it's as useful as the articles it connects.--Prosfilaes 17:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is based on a primary characteristic so it is okay. Choalbaton 18:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Turnstep 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Characters known by surname

Huge possible scope, ultimately pointless. Arniep 15:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bhoeble 15:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 00:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Turnstep 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Solar System bodies formerly considered planets

This category currently contains 6 entities including Moon and Sun. The scope of this cat is much better suited to a list, such as list of Solar System bodies formerly considered planets. The category is proposed for deletion. Kurieeto 14:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exactly when were the Sun and the Moon ever considered planets? Stop war! 17:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Through most of recorded history I believe, but delete anyway. Choalbaton 18:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too small, specific, and finite. Turnstep 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lowlands on Mars

This category was created in October of 2005. After half a year it contains one article, and is therefore viewed as excessive categorization at this time. Proposed for merge with parent, Category:Topography of Mars. Kurieeto 13:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Turnstep 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AV Idols

A redirect to Category:Japanese porn stars. Not used by any article. --minghong 09:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nathcer 21:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused cat. Turnstep 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Corporate misbehavior

I hope this is the last of these redundant anti-corporate categories. This might have been an exercise in anti-corporate activism - bombing Wikipedia with a whole load of redundant categories on almost the same subject. Caravaca 09:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Inappropriately pejorative. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Choalbaton 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smacks of activism. Nathcer 21:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Corporate scandal

Potential content should go under scandals, business ethics or anti-corporate activism. Whoever created this didn't seem to be aware that there were already adequate and well-developed categories elsewhere. Or redirect? Caravaca 09:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Inappropriately pejorative. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Choalbaton 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smacks of activism. Nathcer 21:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unethical business practices

Anything here would be better under business ethics. Caravaca 09:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - articles in this +cat should not be moved out. Caravaca has already moved the articles out without waiting for a vote or consensus, I am going to put them back now SirIsaacBrock 13:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Inappropriately pejorative. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Choalbaton 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smacks of activism. Nathcer 21:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unethical accounting practices

Anything here would be better under accounting and business ethics. Caravaca 08:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - articles in this +cat should not be moved out. Caravaca has already moved the articles out without waiting for a vote or consensus, I am going to put them back now SirIsaacBrock 13:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Inappropriately pejorative. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Choalbaton 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smacks of activism. Nathcer 21:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Corporate crime

Part of a series of categories with little or no content; redundant Caravaca 08:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Choalbaton 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smacks of activism. Nathcer 21:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Corporate Abuse

Part of a series of categories with little or no content; redundant. Caravaca 08:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Inappropriately pejorative. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Choalbaton 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smacks of activism. Nathcer 21:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Episcopal cathedrals of the United States to Category:Episcopal cathedrals in the United States

Should be "in the United States" as per convention. Merchbow 04:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename per nom. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Strong Women

Several similar, populated categories (female bodybuilders, female powerlifters, strongwomen, fitness & figure competitors) already exist. This category is redundant without adding anything new of significance. fbb_fan 03:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Merchbow 04:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Turnstep 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muscular Women

Several similar, populated categories (female bodybuilders, female powerlifters, strongwomen, fitness & figure competitors) already exist. This category is redundant without adding anything new of significance. fbb_fan 03:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Merchbow 04:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Turnstep 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ====[[:Category:Banks of Scotland]]====
 Whilst in the past it may have been useful to separate Scottish banks, the situation today is that in the vast majority of cases a bank being Scotish changes nothing. In fact the vast majority of Scottish banks have major businesses in England, eg Royal Bank of Scotland, Bank of Scotland and Clydesdale Bank (trading as Yorkshire Bank). '''Delete''' [[User:Ian3055|Ian3055]] 21:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' per nom. This is part of [[User:Mais oui!]]'s endless campaign to stop anything being classified as British. [[User:Bhoeble|Bhoeble]] 00:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 ====[[:Category:Specimen images]]====