Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 19

< August 18	August 20 >

August 19

Category:Religious founder

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 --Kbdank71 13:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious criteria stated on the Category page/ Original research ≈ jossi ≈ 21:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Description does not fit category name; should be Religious founders anyway; too narrow and also empty. siafu 22:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Empty? Why yes, I suppose it is empty. I wonder if that has anything to do with Jossi putting it up for deletion less than three hours after its creation? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know. What do you think? Is that why it's still empty? siafu 18:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly. -Splash 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
rename into category:religious founders I should have created a category:religious founder'''s'''. I disagree with Jossi's remark that the criteria are spurious and even if they are then it is not a valid reason for deletion because the criteria can be changed without having the category deleted. Detailed criteria are necessary to avoid confusion among readers and editors. Andries 06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That category does not work. You cannot have a list in which you decide who is a religion founder. Most reloigions are founded after these persons pass away and not when they are alive. ≈ jossi ≈ 17:50, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Also see discussion of Founders of religions or sects from 20 August. - choster 14:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too ambigous Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:58, 25 August 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:Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients

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 --Kbdank71 13:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listify; we don't have categories for other honours. JW 19:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We don't? Have a look at Category:Navy Cross recipients, Category:Medal of Honor recipients, Category:Members of the Order of Canada, Category:Nobel Peace Prize winners, and Category:Freeman of the City of London for other examples (some civilian, some not). --Durin 20:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and find a suitable parent cat. ∞Who ?¿? 22:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Category:Recipients of formal honors? --Durin 22:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Durin. siafu 22:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People in the Category:Navy Cross recipients are notable because they won a medal. Winning a military decoration is not the same as an "honour", which is honorary and not usually given for a particular action. The Nobel Prize is a competitive prize, the Navy Cross a military decoration, etc, they are not the same as honours that are given out on a subjective basis by a government to its friends and supporters. Do we really need to have categories for honours like this? The French honours, the British honours, knighthoods, CBEs, OBEs and all the rest? JW 22:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it's not like they just hand them out like candy either. It is one of the two civilian awards that is actually recoginized, we aren't talking about a plaque of achievement or something. I am retired military, and I am not offended by this award, and feel its notable. ∞Who ?¿? 23:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Having the category does not necessarily mean that we are saying that all recipients are made notable because they are recipients, either. That's a question for VfD. There are plenty of very notable people in the category (Gerald Ford, Ella Fitzgerald, etc.) regardless. siafu 23:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but listify too. A list could do this job better than a cat, but the cat is nice and automatic. -Splash 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this kind of categories is of dubious value. The people awarded with medals could be notable on their own and listing every medal/award as category could make articles worse. Lists, OTOH, can provide more description and don't pollute original articles. Pavel Vozenilek 02:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope so, I dont see creating an article just because they were given the award. I think the list is also a good idea, but if they already have an article, I see no difference in this cat than with the other awards cats, especially if you want to compare it to the Emmy's or something. ∞Who ?¿? 18:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind the number of honours that are available I just think this is a very bad precedent. If we allow categories for American honours then we have to do it for other countries, and many of them have much more comprehensive systems. In the British system for example, the honours are graduated, so people will get a CBE, then OBE, then KBE and so on, so a lot of people could be potentially categorised in dozens of honours categories. I would hate to think how many an ex-Prime Minister or a Field Marshal would be in. JW 11:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we apply your reasons for deletion of this category against other similar categories, then we will be deleting a huge number of categories. There's the possibility of literally hundreds of categories that would be up for deletion if we accept the above reasons you have put forth as sound reasons for deleting this category we're discussing. Category:Nobel laureates by nationality (+3 subcats), and the parent Category:Nobel laureates (+6), Category:Canadian orders and decorations (+3), Category:Recipients of formal honors (+25), Category:U.S. military honor recipients (+5). There's plenty of non-U.S. awards too, like Category:Recipients of Virtuti Militari (and there's plenty more where that came from).

Similarly, we'd need to consider the deletion of categories like Category:American League All-Stars (73 more cats)) and Category:National League All-Stars (73 more cats). That's just scratching the surface in sports honors. There's plenty more, like Category:Heisman Trophy winners, Category:Baseball awards and trophies (+3) and more.

We have to be careful in applying reasons for deletion against a single category. It is important that we understand the precedent that this decision might make; if we use your reasoning as a basis, then we could also use it as a basis for a very large set of deletions. In making a decision here, we must consider how the decision would scale and apply against similar categories. In this case, I don't think we can reasonably conclude that deletion of all of these categories would be prudent. As such, deletion of this category is not prudent either.

By the way, Winston Churchill currently has five awards/orders categories on the article. --Durin 14:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're introducing a load of categories here that aren't really related to this. The Nobel Prize is a competitive award, not an "honour" in the sense that we are talking about, and neither is Category:American League All-Stars. As for Category:Recipients of formal honors that's just an umbrella category. And as I said before, winners of military decorations (as in Category:U.S. military honor recipients) are not the same as people who have received honorary awards; they are mostly in WP only because they won that particular medal, so its the only way to categorise them.

Actually the Nobel peace prize is NOT a competitive prize, although people compete for it, it is rewarded to those who have made a monumental contribution to humanity, I seriously doubt Mother Theresa or Ghandi was hoping they would win the prize. ∞Who ?¿? 23:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not competitive in the sense of a race, but it's still a prize, and as far as I know all the Nobel prizes are given out only once a year and carry a sum of money. You still "win" a Nobel prize, but you don't win a Knighthood. JW 13:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I've no doubt Churchill would be eligible for more than five honours categories. JW 22:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the other awards and honours, if someone feels so inclined, then be bold and create the cat, if it is undesirable, it will end up here as well. Mis-categorizing or lack of a category is NOT a CFd problem, just make the change(s). ∞Who ?¿? 23:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JW: The distinction you are making is interesting. That said, I don't think it matters whether a person "earns" an award or is granted an honor (which is usually bestowed for acts, not much different than "earning" it).

We're not going to add people into Wikipedia solely based on the fact they won a Presidential Medal of Freedom. In fact, I doubt there has been or will be a winner of that medal who is not significant for other reasons, for which the honor is being bestowed (if nothing else). I'll add in more categories you're going to have to consider in this sweeping change; Category:Roughrider Award recipients, Category:Erasmus Prize winners, any number of sub categories of Category:Art awards, and same for Category:Orders and decorations.

If I might suggest, it would be better if you came up with hard criteria that applies specifically to this category being deleted. If you can't, then you need to develop a set of criteria that clearly delineates the difference between honors that are bestowed as opposed to earned, and then create a reasonable case for deleating those categories that are for honors that are bestowed and why that reasonable argument does not apply to honors that are earned. Keep in mind; you're walking in a lot of gray area. For example, being an all-star is not something you automatically get if you do x-y-z (depending on the sport). Frequently, recipients are voted upon, there is often debate about who is more worthy, and frequently people with better statistics are overlooked in favor of others with lesser stats. So, is such an all-star honor earned or bestowed? I can make a case both ways. Your task is to show why such categories would not fall under your criteria so that we can have a reasonable basis on which to delete this category we are discussing and any that are supposedly like it. I also think you need to make a clearer case for why having such categories is bad for Wikipedia. --Durin 23:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given the above discussion, don't see why this group deserves a category less than the others. Seems to me like a legitimate way to group people. TexasAndroid 19:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:57, 25 August 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:Nixon "enemies" and sub-cat Category:Original Nixon "enemies"

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 listify --Kbdank71 13:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a list (or two). JW 19:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listify both ∞Who ?¿? 22:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like the list might already exist. siafu 22:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per siafu. Pavel Vozenilek 02:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps I don't know the proper policy, but I just think it's awesome that we actually have all of the articles on the enemy list in a category! I'll (regretfully) change my vote if the policy dictates otherwise. --Zantastik talk 20:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No policy, this is a discussion and your welcome to say pretty much what you want. Especially if you have a good argument for a keep, you may persuade other users. ∞Who ?¿? 20:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. While there's no strict policy, we do have guidelines on categories, lists and series boxes (Wikipedia:Categorization among others). Which are admittedly kind of messy. But anyway the point is that the list of enemies can be better presented as a list, with added data and relations etc. R adiant _>|< 08:10, August 22, 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:Roman Catholic actors

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 --Kbdank71 13:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not very useful. Should be deleted. JW 19:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no "<religion> people by occupation" cats. siafu 22:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per siafu. -Splash 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per suggest. Pavel Vozenilek 17:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:56, 25 August 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:Leeds neighbourhoods

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 --Kbdank71 13:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the scope of this category is covered by Category:Districts of Leeds; wasn't sure, so posted here. It is empty. - choster 16:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. siafu 22:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete empty and overcategorization. -Splash 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ∞Who ?¿? 18:11, 20 August 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:Stadtteile of Frankfurt

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 nominated --Kbdank71 13:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Districts of Frankfurt. Stadtteil or Stadtteile is a German word. This is the English language Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_English_words. There are currently 40 articles in Category:Stadtteile of Frankfurt. Quite a number of them are nano-stubs with content being only "nnn is a Stadtteil of Frankfurt am Main" (plus a template). --Durin 14:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. No argument. siafu 22:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above, and note that the Districts of Leeds above allows this cat not to not need deleting. As long as stadtteile are approximately districts. -Splash 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Osomec 00:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename, Pavel Vozenilek 02:12, 20 August 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:Cold War anti-ship cruise missiles of China

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 --Kbdank71 13:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization—it would contain precisely one entry, Silkworm missile, which anyway played a far more important role in the Iran-Iraq War than any Cold War conflict. q.v. recently deleted Category:Anti-submarine weapons of Australia. - choster 05:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Already covered by Category:Weapons of the People's Republic of China and Category:Anti-ship cruise missiles. --Durin 18:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overcategorization. siafu 22:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 18:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category:Cold War anti-ship cruise missiles of the Soviet Union too. — Insta ntnood 17:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke it Hey, no anti-ship missile talk, I lived on a Navy ship.. ∞Who ?¿? 17:03, 25 August 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:Railway line in Austria

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 "Railway lines in Austria" --Kbdank71 13:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Currently does not contain railway lines, but pages for individual trains such as R 2763 which have been tagged for VfD. Admittedly, this could be integrated into Category:Railways in Austria, but I don't really see the necessity for using this as a subcategory. ~~Delete~~. Martg76 03:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant. siafu 22:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Populate, no? We must have railcruft that belongs in here? -Splash 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If it's kept, it should be speedy renamed to Railway lines. siafu 00:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least few historically notable railway lines in Austria (e.g. because of obstacles ther needed to overcome when going through mountains). Articles on them would be useful and this category (named lines) handy. The current content is inappropriate and should be moved out. Pavel Vozenilek 02:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for ÖBB and Vienna West Station, all of the 8 other pages in Category:Railways in Austria presently discuss railway lines (most of which used to be independent companies). Martg76 04:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had in mind articles like the one about Semmering. Such ones should be here. Pavel Vozenilek 03:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then let's rename and populate this category. I was just wondering if there is a policy of how big a category should be to justify subcategorization (can't find any). Martg76 16:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No fixed policy, AFAIK. Usually common sense is good enough. E.g. Category:British railway lines has easily 165 articles. Pavel Vozenilek 02:50, 23 August 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:Looking Glass Studios computer games

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 --Kbdank71 13:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename' to "Looking Glass Studios games". R adiant _>|< 08:08, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Rename per nom. ∞Who ?¿? 22:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No argument. siafu 22:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Radiant!. -Splash 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Games" has many meanings and applications (board games, card games, social games, e.g.); it is not a redundant synonym for "computer games", thus requires the qualifier for accuracy and consistency John Kilgore 03:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While John has a point, all computer games categories are named the way I suggested this one. Radiant_>|< 08:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - Since the company is extinct, the proposed rename is unambiguous: they're not going to be making boardgames. Cat names should be short. Rename. Would Category:LGS games be possible? Septentrionalis

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:Insomniac Games releases to Category:Insomniac Games

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 --Kbdank71 13:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Insomniac games". Yes, I realize that the company is named 'insomniac games' and that 'Insomniac Games games' sounds stupid, but all related categories are named "foo games". R adiant _>|< 08:08, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Renanme per nom. What about "Insomniac games²" ;-p ∞Who ?¿? 22:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No argument³. siafu 22:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak rename, I don't like this much because it allows for 'pollution' by other things to do with Insomniac Games, but all the alternatives are distasteful. -Splash 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something as "Computer games released by ..." to give more clue what it is about. Since this would be the most important category for a game long title won't hurt. Pavel Vozenilek 02:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While Pavel has a point, all computer games categories are named the way I suggested this one. R adiant _>|< 08:13, August 22, 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:Software by owner

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) --Kbdank71 13:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Software by company". R adiant _>|< 08:08, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, rename. Nandesuka 11:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. ∞Who ?¿? 22:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No argument. siafu 22:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but to something else. We already have Category:Software companies and this is a little too close I think. How about Category:Software by authoring company or something. Category:Software by company doesn't really imply authorship very directly. -Splash 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. Renaming to "software by company" leaves out all software authored or owned by non-company entities, which includes almost all freeware and shareware and much material in the open source arena. I'm not sure what the best rename might be at this point, but the suggested one is not it, unfortunately. Courtland 01:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
- That's not true. Nearly all freeware and shareware has a company or group name on it (most of them one-man virtual "companies"). However, as GRTMP suggests below, developer would be appropriate as well. R adiant _>|< 08:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Question: what is purpose of such category? I have trouble to see it. Pavel Vozenilek 02:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename into Category:Software by developer or publisher. -Sean Curtin 03:37, August 20, 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:Secret ingredients

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 --Kbdank71 13:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only two articles (which I have proposed be merged into other articles) and no parent category. I doubht we have a lot of articles about secret ingredients for obvious reasons. Delete --Sherool 17:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Misnamed at best, is this secret ingredients in alloys? Chemical cocktails? Drinking water? siafu 22:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Populate, there are lots of secret recipes.Delete per above. -Splash 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created an article Secret ingredient which mentions the subjects of the two articles in this category as part of a list of famous secret ingredients. The articles themsleves should probably be merged as proposed by Sherool. --agr 15:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Grunka Lunka Dinkety Delete. R adiant _>|< 08:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete- choster 00:45, 25 August 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:Cormorants

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 soft redirect --Kbdank71 13:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superceded by category:phalacrocoracidae through implementation of category:Birds by classification. Now empty.

Delete (technically, a rename, but everything is already moved) Circeus 00:59, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Comment Given how uncommon this word is, a redirect might be best. siafu 22:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Leave a soft-redirect is a good idea. -Splash 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Soft-redirect per Splash. Septentrionalis 21:47, 25 August 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.