Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 17: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:23, 18 May 2006

< May 16	May 18 >

May 17

Category:LBV stars to Category:Luminous blue variables

The original uses an unnecessarily opaque abbreviation, and the proposed renaming follows that of the associated article. -- Ketil Trout 23:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Luminous blue variable stars. The average person may not know that these are stars. --JeffW 23:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT LBV might be opaque, but is it more common as a initialism or spelt out? 132.205.94.75 02:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of country-related topics

This category has been superceded by Category:Lists by country. I've already made sure that all the lists in the former category are also included in the latter category. JeffW 22:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Her Pegship 13:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. David Kernow 13:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are 13

Redundant with Category:13 year old wikipedians. SCHZMO ✍ 22:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all other similar categories How is it useful to group Wikipedians by their exact age? In any case most of these are joke categories, such as Category:2 year old wikipedians and Category:Fetus wikipedians. --JeffW 23:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
of course delete all such categories - not only serve no use but impossible to maintain.--Smerus 09:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public school districts in Iowa

Redundant, Category:School districts in Iowa already exists for this purpose. Private schools do not have school districts, so it would be simpler to categorize all the school district articles under Category:School districts in Iowa. --Ted 22:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainers by age upon death

I propose deleting Category:Entertainers by age upon death and its subcategories: Category:Entertainers who died before age 20, Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 30s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 40s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 50s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 60s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 60s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 70s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 80s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 90s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 100s. This is a union category of age of death with entertainers, which provides very little added value. Should we have this per every occupation? That way leads to madness. I have gone over Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Categorization of people and neither explicitly covers this case, but it does seem to fall under Wikipedia:Trivia (though that is a guideline and not a policy). In addition, these categories group individuals in a way that is not meaningful. A vaudeville star that dies in 1911 at 55 has absolutely nothing of value in common with an actress that dies tomorrow at 59. I wasn't able to find any past CFDs on these categories, but I can't believe that someone else hasn't proposed deletion by now... JRP 18:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (I believe they've been up for deletion at least twice before, but archiving votes on multiple categories is a tricky business. Hopefully we'll get them this time.) Henry ^Flower 19:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All: Per previous unsuccessful deletion attempts. Lots of support for these and lots of people keep them updated. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All (This is a great catagory, very informative. --Josh 20:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there appears to be a small consensus to keep this category. --Ted 23:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete The information these categories provide is apparently useful to many, but I think they would be much better suited as list articles. I don't believe it to be encyclopedic to categorize deaths of those of an occupation by their age at death, but it may be encyclopedic for some occupations to have that information contained in list articles on a case by case basis, such as a List of entertainers who died before age 20. Kurieeto 23:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent. 23skidoo 00:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. See no value in these, trivial information. Conscious 05:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all It is perhaps worth noting those who died under say, 40, though probably not by a category. But a category for entertainers who died in their seventies, which will contain tens of thousands of articles one day, is just clutter. Osomec 05:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Important Categories for creating person profiles and keeping statistics. Michael David 12:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Previous debates are here and here. - TexasAndroid 13:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. David Kernow 13:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. At best the trivia of coincidences. Valiantis 13:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pittsburgh Pirates (NHL) players and Category:Pittsburgh Pirates (hockey) players

These ought to be merged. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. jareha ^(comments) 20:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE TO Category:NHL Pittsburgh Pirates players 132.205.94.75 02:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge. The majority of such disambiguator categories put the abbreviated league in parens.--Mike Selinker 06:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Automobile manufacturers by country

Nominated for discussion. Some people have proposed that some of the subcategories to this category, such as Category:Automobile manufacturers of the United Kingdom, be renamed to "Motors manufacturers" in accordance with local language usage. --Cyde Weys 17:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Consistency is important. Using local language is fine in individual articles, but when designing a site-wide categorization scheme, we need to be consistent. I think that since all of these categories describe the same thing they should be named in the same way. Additionally, "Motors manufacturers" has the disadvantage that it is rather ambiguous in other regions such as the United States, where when people hear the phrase "motors manufacturers" they're going to be thinking of motors, not cars or automobiles. While the word automobile is somewhat less common in British parlance, it is at least unambiguous. I'd also to like to point out how absurd the logical conclusion of this is. Right now we only have Category:Colors, to which Category:Colours is a redirect. But what if we actually did change the categorization scheme so that it wasn't site-wide, but rather, according to local customs? (Some colors are undeniably British) Right now we simply have Category:Automobile manufacturers by country, which contains categories of the form "Automobile manufacturers of Foo." What happens if we go to the motors manufacturers idea though? Are we going to have a separate category Category:Motors manufacturers by country with a common parent of Category:Automobile manufacturers by spelling customs also containing Category:Automobile manufacturers by country? I should hope not! In summary, site-wide consistency in the organizational scheme is more important than catering to local naming or spelling so long as no ambiguities are introduced, and in this case, I believe I have provided evidence that ambiguities are actually reduced. --Cyde Weys 17:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving to Category:Car manufacturers by country. I've lived in the UK most of my life, and to me, motor is ambiguous but probably refers to an engine. However, the term automobile is also vague - does it include motorcycles? Some people think so. Since we have a separate category Category:Motorcycle manufacturers by country, we should make the split clearer. I have no idea what the usage of car/automobile is like outside of the UK/US - can anybody enlighten me? Also, shouldn't that be Category:Motor manufacturers by country? As an aside, I think the colour/color categories don't figure here. We don't have a Category:British colors (and we probably shouldn't), so there's no problem or comparison. SeventyThree^(Talk) 19:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "car" is the usual name in australia and new zealand and proably most of the commonwealth. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Car" was already suggested and dismissed out of hand because these manufacturers are producing a lot more than simply cars - they are producing all manners of vehicles including vans and pick-up trucks, which are all automobiles, but aren't "cars". --Cyde Weys 04:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Commonwealth countries to "Motor manufacturers". There is no excuse for imposing American English, and it would be a clear cut breach of the language policy. Osomec 05:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quadrophenia actors

Actors aren't categorized by film, are they? Conscious 17:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. jareha ^(comments) 20:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; see also Dracula actors above. Her Pegship 13:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rugby logos

~~Category has been replaced by the rugby union and rugby league categories Bob 16:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)~~ Will use as a supercategory for rugby union and league logos. --Bob 17:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Syrian-Brazilians

Unused. Conscious 16:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Trincomalee

Empty. The broader Category:Trincomalee District contains 3 entries. Conscious 16:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Whopper

Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of HappyVR

These two sockpuppet categories are unused. Conscious 13:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Why not nominate them as a speedy delete {{db-catempty}} after waiting a few days to confirm they are not being used? In that case, no discussion is required. Vegaswikian 18:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strictly speaking, they don't qualify under CSD C1 because they contain some text other than links to parent categories. Conscious 05:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1914 introductions

Unused. Conscious 13:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom. Calsicol 16:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. jareha ^(comments) 20:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Think Fast 22:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Football (soccer) supporters to Category:Wikipedians who support soccer teams

Should be merged to the better named category serving the same purpose. Conscious 13:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who support soccer teams to Category:Wikipedians who support football (soccer) teams

Second item added. Rename both to Category:Wikipedians who support football (soccer) teams to avoid the appearance of giving primacy to American English. Calsicol 16:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the header to match your proposal. Merge both to Category:Wikipedians who support football (soccer) teams. Conscious 17:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE as WP is not MySpace, or GeoCities, or a dating service... 132.205.94.75 02:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Apprentice

Contrary to the category text, {{user The Apprentice}} uses no category. So it's empty. Conscious 13:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - No point in having this category; it's unencyclopedic and it's too narrow to be a useful interest category. --Cyde Weys 16:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Think Fast 22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Belfast

Empty - and duplicates Natives of Belfast Saga City 12:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Papua law to Category:Papua New Guinean Law

The country is called Papua New Guinea. Papua was just part of the country as the Australian Territory of Papua. Bduke 11:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I think this one slipped past people as several categories were renamed at once. The title is quite inappropriate. Papua was the Australian Territory of Papua before WWII. After the war it was administered jointly with the United Nations Mandate of New Guinea (the former German New Guinea). The two territories became independant as Papua New Guinea. To refer to Papua is to refer to only part of PNG. Papua can also be confused with the Indonesian Province of West Papua. --Bduke 11:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Calsicol 16:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per above. jareha ^(comments) 20:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mathematical operator templates

Empty, everything was moved to Category:Mathematical templates. Conscious 07:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Category:List of documentaries

Only contains the article with the same name. Rename to Category:Lists of documentaries or delete entirely. Conscious 07:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete As it is not very likely lots more lists will be created in the near future. Calsicol 16:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now. jareha ^(comments) 20:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:King's Counsels

Unused (contains links to two articles though, possibly it was an effort to categorize them). Conscious 07:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Category:British barristers is all that is required in this field. Carina22 09:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 --Cyde Weys 16:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who urged 68.39.174.238 to get an account

Delete. - Only one user used it.--FlareNUKE 06:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete joke category. Conscious 12:02, 17 May 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:Fictional US-themed heroes

Rename to Category:United States-themed superheroes to match the actual category contents. -Sean Curtin 05:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Outriggr 05:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per nominator. jareha ^(comments) 21:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom

Category:Vertebrates with jaws

Not a primary classifier for animals. This category can serve no purpose unless the categorization hierarchy is going to include infraphylums. Delete. Outriggr 05:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Sean Curtin 05:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Conscious 12:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:nihongo

Useless category that simply repeats the text from the main page, as well as relisting (manually) the pages that can more easily be found from this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Help%3AJapanese. The template is useful but there is no need for this category. freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ 04:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is absolutely no useful reason to keep this category. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. jareha ^(comments) 01:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Washington, DC politicians to Category:District of Columbia politicians

Two categories for same area. This one only has two sub cats, the suggested merge target has all of the articles. Leaving a cat redirect might be needed if the merge is approved. Vegaswikian 02:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose historically, the two were not coterminus so the contents of the categories would differ. Washington is a subcategory. 132.205.94.75 02:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States federal boards, commissions, and committees

This category is redundant, as Category:Independent Agencies of the United States Government already exists for the exact same purpose.

Category:Government of Washington, D.C. to Category:Government of the District of Columbia

Better accurate name. —Markles 01:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Washington, D.C. is more likely to be known as Washington, D.C. than as the District of Columbia --Think Fast 22:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose historically, the two were not coterminus so the contents of the categories would differ. Washington is a subcategory. 132.205.94.75 02:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Esterhazy

Empty category. Relevant articles are at the correct Category:Esterházy. Olessi 00:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Zoz (t) 18:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom unless someone can come up with a compelling category relating to Esterhazy, Saskatchewan. I didn't think so. ;) 23skidoo 00:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Semitic people

As has been mentioned on its talk page, this category is subjective and can be used as an attack category. Putting someone in this category is a stark outright condemnation, with no room for the subtleties that can be expressed in an article. There is such a difference between the pre- and post-Holocaust eras that it seems to me to be improper to put anyone from the pre-Holocaust era in a category which will automatically equate them with gas chamber operators in the minds of many readers. At present this category is protected, so I cannot tag it. I think this use of protection to prevent amendment to an obviously controversial category is improper and have asked for the protection to be removed. Hawkestone 00:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. As there are already categories for Nazism, Anti-semitism and this seems unnessesary and too easy to use as an attack Palendrom 02:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Crumbsucker 04:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carina22 09:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note previous cfd was no consensus. Syrthiss 19:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Asking for trouble. Paul 21:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A powder keg waiting to go off. 23skidoo 00:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. jareha ^(comments) 01:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Category:Anti-Semitism (individuals), or split between Category:Anti-Semitism (perpetrators)/Category:Anti-Semitism (victims). In case it is deleted as a result of this nomination, the articles should be restored back into Category:Anti-Semitism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest as better renaming 'Anti-Semites', perfectly good Eglish usage and less clumsy than the present name.--Smerus 09:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename per Humus.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had to think about this a bit. The given reasoning doesn't work for me. [T]his category is subjective and can be used as an attack category -- nothing necessarily subjective about it ("Do reliable sources assert this person hated Jews?"), and that it can be used as an attack category doesn't bother me much; people use Category:Jews as an attack category, big deal. Putting someone in the category isn't a condemnation, it's a statement of fact (see previous sentence). The hyperbole of the gas chamber argument doesn't add anything. So, what good arguments are there for not accurately categorizing haters of Jews as haters of Jews? Discomfort at the identification seems to be the only one. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said. Anti-Semitism is a well defined phenomenon. I don't see why Jpgordon's criteria (as per WP:RS) won't work. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Jpgordon, I would also support rename per Humus sapiens. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with any category from a nationalist point of view, several of which have been deleted. Osomec 05:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per Jpgordon --Smerus 07:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doright 08:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely. If there is evidence to back it up (quotes, actions, affiliations,...) it is very important to history and to current events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamir1 (talk • contribs)
Delete as per previous comments and also because, by including individuals from the broad sweep of history, the category is historically ignorant. It is not historically meaningful to describe people from the Middle Ages as anti-semitic; this is a modern-day value judgement. Valiantis 13:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per jpgordon above "Do reliable sources assert this person hated Jews?" GS(v) 14:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 181: / Line 181: @@
 *'''Keep'''. Absolutely. If there is evidence to back it up (quotes, actions, affiliations,...) it is very important to history and to current events. {{unsigned|Shamir1}}
 *'''Delete''' as per previous comments and also because, by including individuals from the broad sweep of history, the category is historically ignorant. It is not historically meaningful to describe people from the Middle Ages as anti-semitic; this is a modern-day value judgement. [[User:Valiantis|Valiantis]] 13:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' As  per jpgordon above "Do reliable sources assert this person hated Jews?"
+*'''Keep''' As  per jpgordon above "Do reliable sources assert this person hated Jews?" [[User:GS(v)|GS(v)]] 14:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 <!-- Please add the newest nominations to the top -->