Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 27
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
April 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. Syrthiss 22:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many other royal houses already have categories in the form "House of", which makes things a little less mysterious. Hawkestone 23:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 08:33, 29 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 delete. Syrthiss 22:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to divide the living and the dead. Hawkestone 23:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 10:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This sort of thing is bound to happen now we have category:Living people. I predict a long term failure to control living and dead people categories, and it will be Jimmy Wales' fault. Bhoeble 13:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. David Kernow 08:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Osomec 18:02, 3 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.
- 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. (10 del/2 keep/2 abstain from deletion vote). Esteffect 23:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors have stated over time that this category (which I'd rather be CfDing than CfRing, to be honest) should be renamed per Wikipedia's usage of LGBT over gay. The category isn't exclusively for 'gays', as there is no lesbian/bisexual/transgender equivalent, and there shouldn't be more similar categories as it's all one-and-the-same (or in many cases, one-and-why-are-they-in-this-category-anyway?). Anyway, it should be renamed per Wikipedia's conventions and per some sort of anti-sexism thing. I don't know; I'm not inparticularly interested in the topic, but enough people have brought it up to warrant a CfR.Esteffect 22:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As this has become a deletion discussion, I vote delete. Esteffect 18:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose It's bad enough as it is and this makes it worse. It seems unlikely to be that the same people are icons to all these different groups. "Icons" is a lousy basis for a category anyway, no better than legends as in category:Pop legends. Hawkestone 23:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reason explained above. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 10:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete is the best option as all the other times this category has come up. But failing that, oppose rename. Bhoeble 13:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the name isn't the problem (infact, "gay icons" is arguably better defined than "LBGT icons"), it's the non-NPOV nature of the category. While some individuals are indisputably gay icons, other individuals are borderline candidates, and it becomes an issue of presenting evidence - something lists are good for but categories aren't.TheGrappler 20:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete utter POV; too trivial Mayumashu 02:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_8#Category:Gay_icons -- ProveIt (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This category defines people on the basis of the characteristics of other people, not the characteristics of the subject, and that is inappropriate. Sumahoy 17:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've stated my reasons at great length in the previous discussion that ProveIt linked to above. However, I do wonder if this is not bordering on inadvertent abuse of process to retage this same cat on CFD so soon after it was last discussed. (I say inadvertent as the proposer took no part in the previous discussion as far as I'm aware). If delete is unsuccessful then I oppose rename as the cat links to an article gay icon. "LGBT icon" is a neologism. Valiantis 01:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose name change, as this is a made-up term. "Gay icon" is a real term. I have no vote on the settled issue of deletion. --Rob 07:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: not all LGBT relate to the same "Icons" - always a matter of disputing and POV, plus it's a trivial information that can be included in the article of the "Icon" if necessary, plus what User:Sumahoy said, the "Icons" sometimes don't do anything intentionally to be an LGBT or Gay Icon and are choosen by LGBT for personal preferences. Bisco 07:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It would be good to see the back of this. It's biased and vague. Golfcam 03:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Oppose rename; This is a rehash of a closed debate -- the debate is framed in the same way as the old debate and no new facts have been added to change people's minds, it's just a hope the other side doesn't show up kind of tally. "Gay icon" is correct usage rather than the politically-correct sounding but in this context just wrong LGBT... Carlossuarez46 19:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete any xxx icons. Arniep 22:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete People should not be categorised on the basis of other people's perceptions of them. Osomec 18:01, 3 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.
- 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 deletella. Syrthiss 22:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unnecessary list that will set precedent of adding every possible event/festival/rave and having hundreds of categories associated with every artist. Themindset 21:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nominator. jareha (comments) 21:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 22:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom Golfcam 22:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral – I'm not againist it being deleted but it certainly should be renamed. Artists who have played Chochella at least SaltyWater 23:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. There's no reason to track this information outside the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival article itself. — JEREMY 03:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per the precedent of.... I forget the name now but the category for another festival I'd never heard of was previously deleted not so long ago. I generally prefer categories but as per the nom this kind of info is without doubt best kept for lists. The same would apply even for the more legendary festivals like Woodstock or Glastonbury. --kingboyk 05:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete quick before this multiplies... —Doug Bell talk•contrib 11:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 13:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator Bisco 07:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete very bad precedent. Carlossuarez46 19:15, 1 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.
- 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 merge. Syrthiss 22:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first category is redundant and should be merged into the latter. Ae-a 20:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Golfcam 22:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy merge Themindset 23:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Bhoeble 13:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. David Kernow 08:33, 29 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 rename. Syrthiss 22:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(This item has been moved from speedy renaming. It was nominated with the reason "Capitalization fix" by —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- Support Scranchuse 01:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article is at PGA Tour, but the organization officially calls itself the PGA TOUR. That having been said, I have no objection with making the category consistent with the existing article.
As long as the title of the corresponding article remains in mixed case, I officially support.— Dale Arnett 02:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC) See update below.[reply]- Note that I would be fine with changing all of the articles and categories to PGA TOUR also, but since this seemed to be the only one using PGA TOUR instead of PGA Tour, I selected it for renaming for consistency instead of all the others. But either way as long as they are consistent...I actually slightly prefer using PGA TOUR because as you point out, that's the official name. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 03:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely change this. Every newspaper and sports website (except theirs) spells it "Tour."--Mike Selinker 13:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Bhoeble 18:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Wikipedia should not be the only organisation to copy this annoying marketing gimmick. Osomec 19:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Tour is a word, not an abbreviation. Golfcam 20:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's not even an abbreviation, as the outfit uses it. The all-caps is mainly a branding exercise; I suspect that it's because they would have an easier time getting a trademark on "PGA TOUR" than "PGA Tour". — Dale Arnett 14:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE: Minor change to my vote. I now support the change as nominated. — Dale Arnett 14:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom and above; plus netiquette suggests full-word capitalization indicates shouting. Avoid windy links. David Kernow 08:33, 29 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.
Nintendo Wii 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 as per below. Syrthiss 22:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Nintendo Revolution → Category:Nintendo Wii
- Category:Nintendo Revolution games → Category:Nintendo Wii games
- Category:Cancelled Revolution games → Category:Cancelled Nintendo Wii games
Reason: The Nintendo Revolution has just been given the official name of Nintendo Wii by Nintendo. --waffle iron talk 18:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename but that was a poorly judged name change in my opinion. Bhoeble 18:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Someone went and depopulated Category:Nintendo Revolution as well as creating Category:Nintendo Wii games without moving the relevant categorizations. This is now a big mess. --waffle iron talk 19:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Why do I end up getting almost all my news via Wikipedia these days? the wub "?!" 23:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Rename to Wii per Zebov and article title. the wub "?!" 09:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Rename to Wii instead of Nintendo Wii - The name change should by Wii instead of Nintendo Wii (see Talk:Wii for information) Zebov 00:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Wii, not Nintendo Wii, see pertinent discussions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Wii. "Nintendo Wii" is a little more clarified, but simply "Wii" is the official name. Stratadrake 02:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Wii it is the official name. Jedi6-(need help?) 18:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Wii without a doubt. The Kids Aren't Alright 22:19, 2 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.
- 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 speedy delete. Esteffect 22:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty cat. Juvenile junk - Motor (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nominator. jareha (comments) 22:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. Golfcam 22:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I speedied it because, according to the edit summary on creation, it was created with a "Couldn't resist!". So it's obviously a joke category. Never had anything in it, so it meets the logical Criteria for Speedy Deletion that I use. :p Esteffect 22:44, 27 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 delete. Syrthiss 22:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian-Englishes simply isn't English, it seems to be a pretty pointless category in the first place considering it only has one page within it, but a Brazilian-English people category is a less controversial solution than simply getting rid of it altogether. Apologies for going ahead and doing most of this already, but I'm still something of a newbie in some areas of wikipedia; have come back to it to do it right. Driller thriller 14:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the renaming, but I'd be in favour of deletion if this is unlikely to grow to more than a handful of names. —Whouk (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hyphenised forms are not normal in the UK and I don't want Wikipedia to be used to introduce them. As a second choice, rename. Bhoeble 18:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The current title is not English and the proposed hyphenated title reflects an "ethnicity" naming practice that is not native to British English. These hyphenated forms are commonly used in the US; they are not commonly used in the UK. No need to import these forms on a US model. Valiantis 13:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Brazilian British people, without the hyphen. there no need to limit such an already some group to those residing in England Mayumashu 15:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What is a Brazilian British person? As "British" and "Brazilian" are primarily markers of nationality, either you are a British person (have British nationality), a Brazilian person (have Brazilian nationality) or conceivably, presuming Brazil allows dual nationality, you might simultaneously be a British person and a Brazilian person. You could of course be a British person who lives in Brazil, or indeed a Brazilian person who lives in Britain. You might of course be a British person of Brazilian ancestry, or a Brazilian person of British ancestry. Which of these count as Brazilian British people? As the term is a neologism and has no widely understood single meaning it is inappropriate as a category title. There is certainly no Brazilian British people or Brazilian Britons article that might clarify what the cat should include. Valiantis 21:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the reasons given above. These categories are pointless, either the category is too small to be worthwhile or too nebulous to be relevant. JohnJTSmith 22:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the reasons given above. Osomec 18:03, 3 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.
- 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. Syrthiss 22:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"m" in the name to be made uppercase, since Prime Minister is a title. Also main article "Prime minister" redirects to Prime Minister with uppercase. See the discussions on Category talk:Prime ministers, support is for the uppercase name change. Jay 10:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose When used to describe a specific PM, "Prime Minister" is a title, thus a proper noun and thus capitalised. When talking about prime ministers in general, "prime minister" is a common noun and thus not capitalised. The subcats by country are correctly capitalised in the form of which Category:Prime Ministers of Finland is an example because each of the people in that category held the title "Prime Minister of Finland". However, the general category does not refer to people holding a specific title so it is currently correctly capitalised. Also, I don't think the discussion you linked to amounts to a consensus of support fot this change. Valiantis 14:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with User:Valiantis. Argument makes sense. Please copy the above argument to Category talk:Prime ministers once we're done. Jay 09:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Valiantis and move the article to "Prime minister". Bhoeble 18:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, per Bhoeble. jareha (comments) 21:56, 27 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 delete. Syrthiss 22:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. There are already proper categories for Prime Ministers of India and Presidents of India. Moreover Presidents of India is a sub-category of Category:Heads of state by country. Jay 10:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Valiantis 14:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Whouk (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:37, 27 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 delete. Syrthiss 22:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Soccer Project Alpha (2nd nomination), in which all articles have been deleted. Running through its category here. - Mailer Diablo 06:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per AfD debate. —Whouk (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:36, 27 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.