Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 17
February 17
[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 nominated --Kbdank71 14:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other UK cities in Category:Neighbourhoods of England uses Category:Districts of London etc. Rename to bring it in line and also more accuratly defines the content. Historically some of the content may have long ago been villages, but now they are just wards or districts Salix alba (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Sounds perfectly reasonable: "districts" does indeed accurately describe the content better than "towns and villages". --RFBailey 11:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. But not in a negative way. I agree that districts need to be included (as some already are in the category), but ask you to consider a wider picture. Category:Towns and villages in Liverpool is only one of five similar subcategories of Category:Towns and villages in Merseyside. It makes sense to have them all similarly named, but the other areas more often include towns and especially villages where a "District" category is not suitable - some "villagers" can be very proud of their status (No, I don't live in a village - but I wouldn't say no!). Consequently how about:
- Category:Districts, towns and villages in Merseyside
- Category:Districts, towns and villages in Knowsley
- Category:Districts, towns and villages in Liverpool
- Category:Districts, towns and villages in Sefton
- Category:Districts, towns and villages in St Helens
- Category:Districts, towns and villages in Wirral
- A little cumbersome, but it's consistent, covers the diversity of the region, and I can't see anybody objecting.
- A proposal for the deletion of Category:Towns in Merseyside would logically follow. -- Shrew 16:27, 23 February 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.
Companies listed on Foo Stock Exchange to Companies traded on Foo Stock Exchange
[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 don't do this. I've already moved all "traded" to "listed" do to popular support for that move, at a different discussion. — Feb. 25, '06 [07:46] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Rename: Category:Companies listed on the SWX Swiss Exchange to Category:Companies traded on the SWX Swiss Exchange; Category:Companies listed on the Euronext exchanges to Category:Companies traded on the Euronext exchanges; Category:Companies listed on the Athens Stock Exchange to Category:Companies traded on the Athens Stock Exchange
Merge: Category:Companies listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange to Category:Companies traded on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange
Under Category:Companies by stock exchange, the vast majority of categories (and the accompanying ticker templates) follow the example of the NYSE and are are listed using "traded on". There is basically no semantic difference between "listed on" and "traded on" so consistency should win out. Frankfurt is an unusual case in being listed twice, "listed" should be merged into "traded". TheGrappler 22:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I've been meaning to get around to proposing the opposite. Shares are traded on stock exchanges, but whole companies (which are what the articles are about) are listed on them. Rename all to "Companies listed on". Carina22 22:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Carina22 in favor of "listed on," although I am guilty of creating at least one "traded on" category myself. I raised it previously in the CFR of Category:Companies traded on the NYSE to Category:Companies traded on the New York Stock Exchange. - choster 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I now agree with Carina22. However, this means an umbrella nomination of all the "traded" categories. I'll do that. TheGrappler 00:58, 18 February 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 --Kbdank71 18:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially redundant with Category:Companies traded on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange and Category:Companies listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. Barely used. TheGrappler 22:10, 17 February 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 --Kbdank71 18:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hidden among a recent group rename vote was this one. It's empty and basically has a large amount of matching text at the top. Instead of renaming this empty category, I'm going to nominate it for straight deletion instead, with the intent to have the text converted to an article first. - TexasAndroid 20:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support Mayumashu 02:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The category description, however, I copied to Turkish Canadian. — Itai (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No such luck, guys. Blatant copyvio from here. Valid article to be had, if someone's willing to tackle it, but what was posted there isn't it. Also, I'm sure there must be enough notable Turkish Canadians to merit the category...but damned if I can come up with any names off the top of my head. No vote yet, but I'll change that to a keep or delete based on whether I can come up with some names in the next day or two. Bearcat 10:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'll change my vote as well if you manage to populate it. We can also get the rename from the previous CFR enacted if it gets populated. - TexasAndroid 12:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I found one Turkish-Canadian (Murat Akser). Perhaps there are more. — Itai (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'll change my vote as well if you manage to populate it. We can also get the rename from the previous CFR enacted if it gets populated. - TexasAndroid 12:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Itai has populated it. MonsterOfTheLake 19:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Submitter changing his vote, now that the category is populated. The article should also be renamed to remove the dash, as the rename already passed CFR, but was short-circutted by me when I tossed it up for CFD instead. - TexasAndroid 20:41, 21 February 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. — Feb. 24, '06 [13:18] <freakofnurxture|talk> Empty cat, same function as Category:Prime ministers. — Itai (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redund. youngamerican (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support delete TheGrappler 22:24, 17 February 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 speedily rename. — Feb. 24, '06 [13:18] <freakofnurxture|talk> Compliance with all other categories in Category:Prime ministers. — Itai (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support renaming TheGrappler 22:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, misleading as it is now. This should be speedy. Pavel Vozenilek 02:17, 18 February 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 -- TexasAndroid 20:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable; non-standard naming scheme; possible spam. JonHarder 15:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support delete TheGrappler 22:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Carina22 22:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, spam form. Pavel Vozenilek 02:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I speedy deleted as spam. Has anyone else ever seen linkspam in a category name before, or was this a first? Postdlf 02:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not yet. A pioneer. Should get a mention in museum of Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 23:01, 18 February 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 reverse merge --Kbdank71 18:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Confederate Navy categories are pretty messed up. Naval Ships of the Confederate States of America has no articles and 2 subcategories. One sub is Confederate Submarines, with a single entry. The other sub is Confederate Navy Ships, which also seems to be a subcategory Confederate States Navy, which makes a lot more sense to me. Ultimately the most useful thing would be to have Confederate Navy ships and a new subcategory Confederate Civilian ships listed under the main category Confederate States of America Thatcher131 22:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse merge: All countries with naval ships should have a 'naval ships of X' category under their 'ships of X' category. Categories for specific naval organizations, using the proper name of that org, are appropriate as sub-categories of the 'naval ship of X' category. This is primarily necessary where a country has had various navies throughout its history, or has multiple organizations using armed vessels currently, and differentiation is warranted. There are also some unique cases where it is done for other reasons. Basically some earlier CfDs hammered out the value of both the 'naval ships of Foo' categories and the 'Imperial Fooian Navy ships' categories, so there is no hard and fast rule about when you can and can't have the 'Fooian Navy ships' categories. Now, for the Confederacy, I agree, there is no real reason to have this extra break down, but since Category:Naval ships of the Confederate States of America fits the convention that matches all countries across the board, if it is to be one of the two, I would vote for that. An additional note, there are a lot of templates that have been made for the ship categories that rely on consistent category naming across the countries. Eliminating a category such as this will mess up the function of these templates. I agree that a lot of the country ship categories are still messed up--like most things in Wiki, it is a work in progress. However, having a structure that is stable has made it much easier to start categorizing the many ship articles correctly. I strongly recommend keeping the 'naval ships of' category. If you want to upmerge the 'CN ships' into it, that is fine though. Josh 07:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the Reverse merge if "Naval ships of X" is the right terminology. Accomplishes the same goal (eliminating a redundant category).Thatcher131 12:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Will someone do the reverse merge if that is the consensus or should I remove the old merge proposal and create the new one for discussion? Thatcher131 21:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No need for a new proposal, if reverse merge is the consensus, as far as I know. Josh 20:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Category:Confederate Navy ships was not tagged for merging, so I'm relisting this for another week. --Kbdank71 15:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for watching this. Should the section header be changed to " Confederate Navy ships to Naval ships of the Confederate States of America "? Thatcher131 16:08, 17 February 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 18:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pointless category, aiming to list people from the Attica region in Greece. There are other categories out there for Greece which are terribly underpopulated. Maybe this could be renamed but as it stands, it should be deleted Damac 14:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We have local categories for other countries, so why not Greece? It has 45 articles and if there are more they can be added. But it should probably be renamed to make it clear it is for people. There appear to be 8 other such categories for areas of Greece. Osomec 23:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People from Attica but kKeep a Category:Attica for the kind of articles ordinarily listed in a geographic category, such as towns and geographic features. Based on the Attica article I see about two dozen candidates.-choster 00:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]- It occurred to me that we could simply create a new People from Attica category and then cleanup both, without going through the rename process per se. - choster 07:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename and keep as suggested by User:Choster Mayumashu 02:14, 18 February 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. — Feb. 24, '06 [13:02] <freakofnurxture|talk> Delete Empty sub-category of Category:Cycling clubs Aaronw 02:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support delete TheGrappler 22:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Golfcam 21:52, 18 February 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.