Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 30: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:24, 31 December 2006

< December 29	December 31 >

December 30

Category:National Reality Television participants

Delete as nom. EJBanks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just keeps pilin' it on, huh? For the uninitiated, this is another bad category from a persistant and willfully ignorant user. Redundant with all the other "participants" categorized, overly, and perhaps intentionally broad, utterly miscapitalized and seemingly vandalous attempt at clutter. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I grow increasingly baffled as to why EJBanks devotes so much time to creating and sporadically populating categories when fellow Wikipedians turn right around and undo every single thing he has edited. This category is incorrectly capitalized. Category is unclear. What is "national" reality television? What kind of participants? Doczilla 10:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - very similar edits to User:BatmanFan who was eventually banned as a vandal account. CovenantD 10:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This category duplicates the categories for participants on the individual shows and Category:Reality television participants. --Metropolitan90 11:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical events in cryptography

Category:Historical events in cryptography to Category:History of cryptography

Rename, better description of the category's current content and more inline with naming conventions. Pascal.Tesson 20:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, I agree that History is more inclusive and should be preferred. --Bejnar 05:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Feminist artists

Delete. Categorization of entertainers by opinion is not encyclopaedic. -Severa (!!!) 20:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep feminism is not an opinion, its a political standing, an important one. Anti/Pro war are always mentioned in celebrity articles, anti/pro choice/life for politicians, anti-pro gay rights for religious figures. cmonqrc2006/email 23:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep but only if it's limited to artist whose work is feminist or is meant to serve feminist activism. We have Category:Latter Day Saint artists and Category:Socialist realism artists. Although inclusion does not necessarily mean notability, "Feminist artist" gets over 300 Google Scholar hits[1] and "Feminist art" gets far more.[2] That we have no article called Feminist art is likely due to a male bias here. (And I'm saying that as a totally non-feminist person, I'm nearly an anti-feminist. Still see Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hotlist of Art & Architecture/F, number 86-87, for a justification.)--T. Anthony 00:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page a rename to Category:Feminists in the arts was suggested. I'm not sure this is necessary, but I'd be good with that.--T. Anthony 00:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vague and not likely to be used with restraint. Name causes confusion between visual arts, other high arts and entertainment. Most of the categories mentioned above should be deleted as well. Twittenham 01:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too vague and an appeal for POV. At best "militant feminist artists" could be considered,and even then...Circeus 02:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category is very useful in my opinion. However, I agree that "feminists in the arts" would be a better name for the category given some of the people included. If Wikipedia does not already have an article on Feminist art, it definitely needs one. I once went to a seminar on feminist art. I will start an article as soon as I have time. Andrea Parton 06:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify. Do not categorize by opinion, which changes anyway. A list can be properly annotated with sources confirming when each person identified him/herself as a feminist. Doczilla 10:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete under CSD G7 Circeus 02:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of fictional characters on HBO television series

I created this category pretty much by mistake, and it has never been used. I was looking at a character list and one of the categories didn't quite seem to fit so creating this seemed, at the time, to be a good idea. Since then months have gone by and this category has never been used. It is really too specific to be worth making a list out of.JeffStickney 19:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reason I have listed above.JeffStickney 19:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete {{db-author}} and empty cat. ~ Bigr Tex 02:30, 31 December 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 section.

Category:Rabbits as pets

Rename from Category:Rabbits as pets to Category:Pet rabbits

Rename - to Category:Pet rabbits to be consistent with other +cats Category:Pet reptiles Category:Pet rodents Category:Pet spiders Headphonos 14:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -Severa (!!!) 20:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alien

rename as Alien (film series)--Boxnon 12:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom as honestly I'd take "alien actors" to mean "actors from another planet" and then double-take.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I can't see the benfit here, naming conventions have been followed as far as I can see. Malla nox 04:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The benefit is removing the possible confusion of The Day the Earth Stood Still with Aliens. --Bejnar 05:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Other series have involved Aliens. Some comic series have involved the Alien xenomorphs. (Does this even need a category in the first place? The title links them all anyway.) Doczilla 10:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shopping malls in Saskatchewan

I depopulated this category by merging all articles to Saskatoon per WP:LOCAL (yes, all the malls in Saskatchewan that have articles happen to be in Saskatoon). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 08:50Z

Keep as a parent category so that the articles can be reached on a by-topic basis from category:Buildings and structures in Saskatchewan (I will add it to that one). Hawkestone 15:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have made a right mess of things as I can't find the Saskatoon category. Hawkestone 15:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI: [3]. — Instantnood 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe there was some mis-communication. As I said in the nomination, I merged the articles to the article Saskatoon. Category:Saskatoon was never involved. What do you mean by "[I] have made a mess of things"? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 02:10Z
Comment: Aren't the malls in, say, Regina, not notable enough to have articles? — Insta ntnood 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, standard naming convention (X of Y), also per discussion at WP:MILHIST United States military history task force. NDCompuGeek 07:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment I suppose you meant to include 'Air Force' in the 2nd rename. Hmains 18:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks, Hmains - changed nomination to reflect your good eyes and my bad typing.... NDCompuGeek 22:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkey's Waterfalls

Category:Turkey's Waterfalls into Category:Waterfalls of Turkey

Merge, per convention. Pinoakcourt 04:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Waterfalls in Turkey and Category:Turkey's Waterfalls into Category:Waterfalls of Turkey per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Landforms. Picaroon 04:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese universities

~~Category:Chinese universities to Category:Universities in the People's Republic of China~~

Category:Chinese universities to Category:Universities in mainland China

*Rename, this category covers the PRC (and is described as "Universities in the People's Republic of China"). Note that Category:Universities and colleges in the Republic of China already exists to cover the other China. Timrollpickering 03:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Change nom per User:Instantnood. Timrollpickering 11:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This category covered universities in mainland China, until a few Wikipedians came around and fed the Hong Kong and Macau categories in. This category should be renamed category:universities in mainland China (and create category:universities in the People's Republic of China as an umbrella for the three PRC categories). This will also address the problem that some mainland Chinese universities had ceased operation before the PRC was established in 1949. — Insta ntnood 12:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute oppose a category titled Mainland China. The naming scheme has been to have the PRC named category as top-level and any administrative division (provinces, the ARs, the SARS, the municipalities, etc) with their own subcats. Mainland China is not an administrative division, it's a biased political term used to divide some parts of the country from the rest. SchmuckyTheCat 16:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KLF

rename as infopage name.WebAsset 03:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? They were often referred to as "KLF" and the "The" is cumbersome in this context I think. --kingboyk 10:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (WP:KLF)[reply]

Rename per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)#Names of bands and groups (I don't claim to understand the 5th/last nominee. Please explain/clarify?) - jc37 11:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom and naming conventions. Malla nox 04:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abercrombie & Fitch models

Delete, we've done models by company before. See June 9th discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A&F models strikes me as being the same sort of elite fraternity as Victoria's Secret models is a sorority. A&F and in particular the A&F catalogs from a few years back are very notable and controversial. Otto4711 05:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vegaswikian 06:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing is stopping making this a list and linking the list to each article. -- Samuel Wantman 07:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per many previous discussions. Listify, if wanted. - jc37 11:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clothing catalogues are not notable by any stretch of the imagination, even if they have been commented on by the trash media. Do not listify as this information does not belong in an encyclopedia. Hawkestone 15:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "trash media" like CNN and Slate? Otto4711 18:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP If this category has been made before and deleted but recreated by other poeple that means theres an interest in it and that is precedent for keeping it according to wikipedia policy. A&F models are very notable there are only about 7 of them a year and they ARE NOT CATELOGUE MODELES, A&F doesnt have a cateologue, it did for like 5 years and that was it. How would i listify it if it were deleted? well it doesnt matter if its trash media or not and whether you consider CNN or SF Gate to be trash its media and makes it notable.qrc2006/email 23:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, that means it should be Deleted as Recreation of deleted material. Circeus 02:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia. Twittenham 01:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia/overcategorization. This kind of thing is why Cindy Crawford once had over a hundred categories for her one article. Categorizing people by every individual job they ever had is impractical. Doczilla 10:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles referenced by the press

Category:Articles referenced by the press to Category:Pages referenced by the press

Rename, not all pages with this template are, in fact, articles. For example, see Image talk:Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg and Wikipedia talk:Last topic pool. Picaroon 03:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there a reason that it wouldn't be better to just have 3 separate categories, rather than rename? - jc37 11:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It must have been a thrill to see that Wikipedia was noticed by the press in the early days, but nowadays it is old hat and tracking these references is a waste of time. Hawkestone 15:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Obviously people seem to disagree, Hawk. Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2006 alone indicates that the this is a big deal. Not our place to denounce it by deleting the cat. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of Detroit alumni

Rename to Category:University of Detroit Mercy alumni, to match University of Detroit Mercy. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colleges and universities

- to Categories:to be determined by consensus

Rename some or all to a consistent name form, currently there's a mixture of "colleges", "universities", "colleges and universities" and "universities and colleges". Note that "college" has multiple meanings around the world, not always country specific. I've nominated all the non-national ones so that a full consensus can be sought. (Adding the national ones would make this list nearly four times longer! Also there are country specific criteria to handle there.) Timrollpickering 01:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking through all the categories, "Universities and colleges" appears to be the most common form (even more so when looking at the "XXX in Country" ones), so I'd recommend renaming all the ones not yet in this form to this name form, except where the category is shown to be university or college specific or where it's using an official title. Timrollpickering 01:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Complete agreement, Timrollpickering. I've often thought about this when adding institutions to Category:Closed colleges and universities, and I'm only sorry I didn't bring this up earlier myself! Long overdue change, and yes, "universities and colleges" is what we use the most. Beginning 02:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (Note to closing admin. I know how long a nomination like this takes to put on the Working page for the bots, so please drop me a message when closing and I'll produce the list for you. Timrollpickering 01:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC) )[reply]
Oppose blanket change. In the United States colleges and universities are largely the same thing, but in most other countries most colleges are emphatically and officially not universities. Craig.Scott 03:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Universities and colleges" was adopted as a term for transnational articles and categories precisely because of this difference in terminology. Virtually all of the categories that don't already use "universities and colleges"/"colleges and universities" are transnational. I opted not to list the individual country categories because of this (although these are a bit of a mess as well - some are either underpopulated or are using "universities and colleges" in the name when only containing universities). But for the ones transcending countries there needs to be consistency, at the very least in the name ordering. Timrollpickering 03:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the reasons given. If there are any that should not be renamed, simply strike the entry. I looked over the list and did not see any obvious ones that should not be here. Vegaswikian 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Many of the categories are ambiguous or confusing as they stand. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to College and University / Colleges and Universities standard, if for no other reason than alphabetical order. - jc37 11:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose above. A simple alphabetical standard will become a huge obstacle to navigability. Breaking these universities and colleges country by country is fine. One more point: with all due respect, I don't see any reason to categorise universities and colleges by religiosity in this century. - Aditya Kabir 11:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"A simple alphabetical standard will become a huge obstacle to navigability." - Please explain/clarify? - jc37 13:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: How do you propose to find particular universities from a category that features thousands of them? You'd have to know the particular names then. If that holds than the very idea of having categories becomes redundant. The longer and over burdened lists are already getting a lot of attention. - Aditya Kabir 19:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that either I'm misunderstanding you, or that you're misunderstanding the nom, or me. As far as I know, there is no request to merge any of these, just rename. And what I meant by "alphabetical" was to have "College" before "University" as the naming convention for each category name. Hope that clarifies. - jc37 21:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding I was. Apologize I do. - Aditya Kabir 03:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - even in the U.S., there is a difference between colleges (usually 4-year institutions that grant bachelors degrees with a limited subject range) and universities (usually institutions that can grant masters and doctorates in a variety of majors). However, "Institutions of higher learning" is definitely too cumbersome a category, and splitting the category into "Colleges" and "Universities" would confuse most (if not all) editors trying to get things straight. Oakland Community College (2-year), Jamestown State College (4-year), Minot State University (8+ year [doctorate]), whatever - I think renaming the categories to to "Universities and colleges" is definitely a step in the right direction. NDCompuGeek 16:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Revision - I meant to say renaming categories to "Universities and colleges of X" or "Colleges and universities of X" ("Colleges and universities affiliated with Christians", "Colleges and universities affiliated with Mormonism", "Colleges and universities of North Dakota", etc. Therefore my support would be for a case-by-case and not a blanket change.... late night last night, sorry.... NDCompuGeek 22:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all Some at least of these are better as they are, so this is the wrong approach. Twittenham 01:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ones are better left as they are? Vegaswikian 01:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 113: / Line 113: @@
 <s>*'''Rename''', this category covers the PRC (and is described as "[[University|Universities]] in the [[People's Republic of China]]"). Note that [[:Category:Universities and colleges in the Republic of China]] already exists to cover the other China. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 03:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)</s> '''Change nom per [[User:Instantnood]].''' [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 11:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''': This category covered universities in mainland China, until a few Wikipedians came around and fed the Hong Kong and Macau categories in. This category should be renamed [[:category:universities in mainland China]] (and create [[:category:universities in the People's Republic of China]] as an umbrella for the three PRC categories). This will also address the problem that some mainland Chinese universities had ceased operation before the PRC was established in 1949. &mdash; [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|ntnood]] 12:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Absolute oppose''' a category titled Mainland China.  The naming scheme has been to have the PRC named category as top-level and any administrative division (provinces, the ARs, the SARS, the municipalities, etc) with their own subcats.  Mainland China is not an administrative division, it's a biased political term used to divide some parts of the country from the rest. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 16:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 ==== KLF ====