Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Sheep8144402 (talk | contribs) at 14:30, 15 November 2022 (fix linter errors (38x obsolete font tags)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< September 3 September 5 >

September 4[edit]

Category:Raids to Category:Copyright law operations[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 to Category:Copyright enforcement. ∞Who?¿? 00:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category entirely consists of operations to enforce copyright regulations. 'Raids' in this context is a meaningless and confusing category name. -- Necrothesp 23:56, 4 September 2005 (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:Luxembourgian dukes[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 Delete. ∞Who?¿? 00:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user has put some of the Grand Dukes of Luxembourg here. They are already correctly categorized in Category:Grand Dukes of Luxembourg. Of course, Luxembourg was a duchy before 1815, but the proper place to categorize any articles on older monarchs would be Category:Dukes of Luxembourg.

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.

British buildings categories missing "and structures"[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 all. ∞Who?¿? 00:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see all of the following renamed "Buildings and structures in X" in line with standard policy and the majority of the British categories. This removes any doubt that things like bridges and dams may properly be included.

It then follows that category:British buildings by locality should become category:British buildings and structures by locality. CalJW 21:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we should keep these as they are. The gain from adding 'and structures' is offset by the amount of work of typing in the much longer name. If the slight inaccuracy is bothersome, the best solution would be to simply remove the bridges, which are about the only structures included. - SimonP 14:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Please reconsider your vote. There are also locks, towers, tunnels, masts, docks, piers and various other things. There is a clear policy that "and structures" is preferred. This inconsistency will bother readers for ever if it isn't corrected. And making the change will permanently reduce the amount of effort required with categorisation was there will be no need to check whether a particular category is in one form or the other or to edit twice to correct mistakes on this matter. CalJW 15:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. Consistency is valuable. Bhoeble 17:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. No argument. siafu 23:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all for sake of future development. - choster 23:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all Bhoeble 21:28, 7 September 2005 (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.

United States architecture/buildings categories[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. ∞Who?¿? 19:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's mainly the big categories in this area that have naming problems, presumably because they were set up before conventions were established. The U.S. has two categories that serve essentially the same purpose:

I would like to see both of the above merged into category:Buildings and structures in the United States, which is the standard form, and then deleted.

Also, there is just one state category which lacks that vital phrase "and structures", so rename category:Buildings in Pennsylvania as category:Buildings and structures in Pennsylvania. CalJW 20:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all Bhoeble 17:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. No argument. siafu 23:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all for sake of future development. - choster 23:24, 5 September 2005 (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.

National buildings and structures categories containing "of" rather than "in"[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 all. ∞Who?¿? 23:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are 82 national buildings and structures categories which use the word "in" and 7 which use the word "of". I would like to see this anomaly removed. Also, some of these are missing the words "and structures". A policy decision was made to include this phrase so it is clear that things like dams may be included, but it wasn't implemented across the board. Therefore change:

CalJW 19:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all Bhoeble 17:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. -- Reinyday, 22:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename all. No argument. siafu 23:11, 5 September 2005 (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:United Kingdom environmentalists[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. ∞Who?¿? 23:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only one of the 87 subcats of category:British people by occupation which is in this form, and should be changed to category:British environmentalists. I would like to think that even people who might have a personal preference for the existing form will concede that it is not worthwhile to preserve this inconsistency just to make a point. CalJW 17:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename for consistency. siafu 18:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. -- Reinyday, 22:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
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:Satellite images of the continents[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 Keep. ∞Who?¿? 19:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

that's the job of wikimedia commons commons:Category:Satellite images of the continents. there are a lot of categories like that, sometimes with only one image, see Wikipedia_talk:List_of_images#Commons_separation. --Saperaud 17:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia Commons is an editors resource. These images are also of interest to casual readers, who outnumber regular users by hundreds, probably thousands, to one. Many people place images in Wikipedia without adding them to Commons. Indeed, some images which are acceptable in Wikipedia can't be placed in Commons due to differences in copyright policy between the two. CalJW 17:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Commons = editors resource? I think you misunderstood the project. --Saperaud 15:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are loads of image categories and this is as valid as the rest. Commons does not replace sections of Wikipedia. Bhoeble 17:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Commons does not replace sections of Wikipedia" sure? At my opinion and that of nearly all Wikipedias except the English one it does exactly that, it replaces local image archives. If you think that's nothing we need it shows to me why there are so few {{Commons|}} and {{NowCommons|}} in the English Wikipedia. It explains why there are so few english Wikipedians at Commons compared to others. It shows to me that there something is going wrong here (f. e. in discussions "but it's done in the en WP" means similar to Godwins law: you have lost). --Saperaud 00:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The English Wikipedia is by far the largest, so it is a different kettle of fish. Commons is desribed as a "repository", ie a store for things that are to be used elsewhere. It is not a reference work in itself. It is a useful resource for people putting together a new Wikipedia, though they could probably find the best pictures quicker in the English Wikipedia. To me as an editor of the English Wikipedia, it is almost useless. Google image search is a much better place to look for pictures, but of course they are often copyrighted. CalJW 21:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As someone who knows about 30 Wikipedias and their local image repository I can't say the english one has the best images. It has the most ones but fewer then some others combined (if Commons-images with local copies are not counted because they get deleted there). Wikimedia Commons is one year old now, do you think it's a good solution to say "oh it's not really useful and we as english Wikipedians don't need it?" That's like if you say Wikipedia is not as trustworthy as other sources of knowledge so we don't need it. Think about two years back in time ... - I resume <>"The english Wikipedia is by far the largest and because of that it needs it's own satellite images of the continents category or things like image galleries. Links to Commons in arcticles like Continent are not important because if someone needs these images he will browse this categories, which have as a follow probably thousand times more readers."<> Some things like "many people place images in Wikipedia without adding them to Commons" are simply nonsense. If you add images to Commons AND Wikipedia you are wasting my time and that of others. We want to build a really useful image repository for hundreds of projects and our main problem has one name: english Wikipedia. --Saperaud 01:50, 11 September 2005 (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:Buildings/Monuments honoring American presidents to (undecided)[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 to Category:Buildings and monuments. ∞Who?¿? 00:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk page. Is there a {{moveoptions}} for categories? --Quuxplusone 17:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussions, be it deletion, merge or renaming, happen here on Cfd. There is also Sfd and several category projects, but the majority of discussions happen here. See Cfd How to for more info and helpful links. ∞Who?¿? 00:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Buildings and monuments". siafu 18:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Buildings and monuments" as above. Renaming is done via this page. CalJW 20:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Bhoeble 17:22, 5 September 2005 (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:Warning (song)[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 Delete. ∞Who?¿? 00:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a category for a specific song, plus the article doesn't even exist yet.

  • Delete Osomec 17:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 18:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Reinyday, 22:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
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:Believers that the Earth is flat[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 Delete. ∞Who?¿? 23:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous user categorization. I think it may be useful to get a process to speedy some of the more egregious cats made by people who like cat tags on their user page. Radiant_>|< 08:06, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, nonsense. Zoe 08:15, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, perhaps would be better if there was more than one person in the category. Breathstealer 09:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Osomec 17:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No vote, user cats seem harmless but this is just silly, and this is the second crazy category created by User:Hosterweis (see #Category:Wikipedians with big wangs). ~~ N (t/c) 17:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wikipedians with big wangs wasn't mine. I just threw my user page into it after seeing someone else who had as well. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 05:43, 5 September 2005 (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:Singapore serials[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. ∞Who?¿? 19:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Category:Singaporean television series as per most other categories in Category:Television series by country.--Huaiwei 07:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: The proposed rename would make this cat redundant with Category:Singaporean television programmes, and so should be merged into it and deleted instead. siafu 18:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: But a television programme is not neccesarily a television serial. I would think it makes more sense for this renamed cat to be a subcar of television programs as per instantnood's suggestion below.--Huaiwei 01:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Huaiwei (and continue to be a subcategory of Singaporean television programmes). — Instantnood 21:16, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename per Instantnood. *drew 08:02, 10 September 2005 (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:Baptist Churches in Singapore[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 No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 19:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Churches are not de facto notable. Zoe 07:19, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Neither are people, but category:People is unlikely to be deleted. Osomec 17:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It's a category, not an article. Obviously anything in it has to pass the notability test on its own. However, this cat only has two articles, and would be better merged into Category:Churches in Singapore. siafu 19:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I agree that this category should be merged until we have enough articles to populate it. Presently, the need isnt there.--Huaiwei 01:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- Reinyday, 22:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. I tend to think church categories should focus on the structures, not the congregations, especially as older buildings may be shared across denominations. - choster 23:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Vsion 23:14, 6 September 2005 (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:Churches in Singapore[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 Keep. ∞Who?¿? 19:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Individual churches are not de facto notable. Zoe 07:17, September 4, 2005 (UTC) Oppose

  • Strong Object. What then do you make of every single article and category in Category:Churches by country?--Huaiwei 07:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Huaiwei are you suggesting every single sub category and sub-sub category etc be deleted then, because "Individual churches are not de facto notable"? Keep, this is a dangerous precedent. --81.77.252.59 08:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neither are people, but category:People is unlikely to be deleted. Osomec 17:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Osomec. siafu
  • Keep. Churches aren't de facto notable, but enough are notable to justify a category for every country. -- Necrothesp 01:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. -- Reinyday, 22:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Necrothesp. - choster 23:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Vsion 23:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Grutness...wha? 01:40, 10 September 2005 (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:Canada-related topics[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 Delete. ∞Who?¿? 19:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between this and Category:Canada? I don't know, but that has thousands of articles, and this one only had two, which I have transferred to other categories. Delete 82.35.34.11 04:21, 4 September 2005 (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:Julius Caesar[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 Keep. ∞Who?¿? 19:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Roman history geek. I love it. I wallow in it. We have an entire nest of useful, germane, and appropriate categories related to ancient Roman history. In all of those categories, this recently-created category is the only one that I could find where a single person had a category. I would say that this shouldn't be a category, but that we should simply ensure there are appropriate wikilinks within the main Julius Caesar article (and we do). I don't feel super-strongly about this, but this seems like overcategorization. I propose we delete this category. Nandesuka 03:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Following up to myself, maybe I am simply interested in what makes a single person worthy of a category. For instance, Category:Presidents of the U.S. links (of course!) to all of the Presidents of the US. However, 6 of those presidents have categories of their own: George W. Bush, Clinton, Jefferson, Lincoln, Nixon, and Reagan. Why only them? Is it a problem that we don't have categories for the other Presidents? Or is it a problem that those categories exist? Or am I overthinking the matter and the catch-as-catch-can status quo is just fine? I'd like to solicit discussion on this. Nandesuka 03:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an easy question. It's a mixture of very prominent presidents (you missed category:George Washington) and recent presidents, which is what I would expect in a user edited encyclopedia. There is little or no doubt that all future U.S. presidents will have categories, and I dare say some more old ones will acquire them. There are quite a few other individuals with categories, and the number is rising briskly. They are much easier to skip around in for people who might not want to read a whole long article. It would be more of a surprise if Julius Caesar hadn't been the first Ancient Roman to get a category. Keep Calsicol 04:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Calsicol noted there are several individuals with categories. These tend to be created out of necessity to categorize the sub-articles that are often written about notable people. In this case we have Military career of Julius Caesar, Literary works of Julius Caesar, and Etymology of the name of Julius Caesar. In future there will almost certainly be other ancient Romans with multiple sub-articles, and they will then also need their own categories. - SimonP 04:53, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The criterion for an individual having a category to him or herself is simply in the number of notable and suitable articles that exist. It's not surprising that the most well-known person from all of Roman history has his own category (with seven articles), and if there were only one to be allowed for any Roman figure, it would be this one. siafu 19:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per siafu, I'm actually somewhat surprised we don't yet have categories for, say, Vergil. - choster 23:41, 5 September 2005 (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:Museums grouped by country[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. ∞Who?¿? 19:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for this not to be in the more standard form category:Museums by country. CalJW 00:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. No argument. siafu 19:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. -- Necrothesp 01:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Bhoeble 17:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. -- Reinyday, 22:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
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:Wikipedians with big wangs[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 Delete. ∞Who?¿? 19:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Need I give any reason? ~~ N (t/c) 00:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, with prejudice. Self-referential wikicruft. Nandesuka 03:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above Calsicol 04:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. Jobe6 04:33, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Radiant_>|< 08:06, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Link it to Special:Listusers, where it will fit right in & be kept as a form of "special software" 18:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That is seriously funny. -- Reinyday, 22:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_4&oldid=1122038578"