Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 8

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log

April 8 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. --Kbdank71 17:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:SI derived units of angle edit

Voting results:

"Delete" (2): Instandnood, Radiant

Consensus is to delete.

This category currently has only 1 article - Radian, and I don't think it will be populated. — Instantnood 20:07, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment Why pick on angles? Since the SI is a coherent system of units, as that term is used in metrology jargon, there should only be one unit in any Category:SI derived units of XXX, plus multiples and submultiples built with prefixes. Milliradians are in common use, and someone could write an article about them and a few more possibilities. The Category:SI derived units of time, has only microsecond and zeptosecond and a few other prefixes, but there is one major difference for that one; it is misnamed because the second is not a derived unit, it is a base unit. Whoever made these categories is just using a nonstandard meaning of "derived unit", something different from what this term normally means in metrology jargon. Gene Nygaard 23:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, categories with this few entries are pointless; should be obviated by the more generic category SI derived units. Plus, we don't even need articles on <prefix><unit> - I'd be in favor of merging the lot of those. Radiant_* 09:25, Apr 9, 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.


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 17:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Transport in Merseyside edit

Voting results:

"Rename" (1): Irate

"Keep" (1): JuntungWu

No consensus. Default is to keep.

Should be renamed to Category:Transport on Merseyside. as this is the correct usage. See Merseyside.--Jirate 10:17, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

note: I have just moved this from WP:RM Thryduulf 18:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • abstain - Merseyside is also the name of a former county, in is consistent with them, but on is the normal useage for -side areas (e.g. Tyneside, Deeside, etc). Thryduulf 18:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is because of the former county argument. JuntungWu 14:57, 9 Apr 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.


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. Categories were not nominated in good faith. --Kbdank71 17:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong-related categories with only one article edit

Contains only one article--Huaiwei 17:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Contains only one article--Huaiwei 17:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Contains only one article--Huaiwei 17:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Contains only one article--Huaiwei 17:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Contains only one article--Huaiwei 17:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment (non-vote): Wikipedia is a working in progress, and these categories are getting populated. — Instantnood 17:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Agreed. So you might do well not using this page as a place to play your games. I do not appreciate your delibrate attempt in picking only on under populated Singapore-related categories.--Huaiwei 18:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I am not playing any game. — Instantnood 19:19, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • Actions speaks louder then words. You can be sure I will be noting this habit of yours.--Huaiwei 19:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • With respect, you're both playing games, and it's not helping to write an encyclopedia. Perhaps we can try to work out your differences somewhere other than CfD? I'm sure any number of people would be willing to help, me included... -Kbdank71 20:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • I do not deny that the above 5 nominations were made in responce to his antics, and I do agree this is plain childish. I suppose the point has been made thou. On my part, I will just try my best to write more sg-related articles, hopefully more for the good of this site, and not just because someone is picking on me. I apologise for the above abuse of this page.--Huaiwei 09:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • While I don't care whether it was a response to my "antics", nor whether anything was "plain childish", please don't shift the responsibility to anybody else. I am not particularly interested in your hometown, and I have never been picking on it. — Instantnood 16:23, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
                • As I said, may I hope your actions reflect your true intentions. That you have to suddenly start shifting your attention in nominating several one-article categories above in topics which you are obviously unfamiliar with just raises suspicions on you.--Huaiwei 20:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • Don't suspect about this and that, and speculate what I am familiar with. — Instantnood 20:34, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
                • No I didnt "suspect". I read it from your own comment above. You might also do well doing as you preach too. Whatever the case, I wont think it is a good idea to embarrass ourselves in a page like this, so our petty exchanges can go somewhere else if required.--Huaiwei 11:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sufficient basis in itself for a nomination. Gene Nygaard 18:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Sure it is. Superfluous categories are a drain, which is why there is a serious policy discussion to limit their creation. I'd also suggest to Instantnood, , honestly, not as his foil, that maybe he should focus his attention on creating a few good articles, rather than constantly creating categories and stubs that end up on VfD and CfD. Categories and stubs are good and useful, but not as useful as really good content. You've made hundreds of stubs, and plenty of categories, but they wither. Backup a step and write. Set a minimum of say, five good articles, then create the category to house them and you won't be constantly seeing your creations up for deletion. SchmuckyTheCat 18:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. May I point out, that he is using this page to play his childish games of revenge against me just because I nominated several HK-related categories below, in which none of them were nominated purely because they were underpopulated. category:Hong Kong surnames is the most recent example.--Huaiwei 18:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Please be careful when you're accusing somebody. I am not only picking Singapore-related categories. — Instantnood 19:19, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • I am not retracting my accusation. Your behavior is way too obvious to be denied. I saw how you were complaining about me with your "friends" with regards to several categories I nominated, and the next moment I know, you started targeting Singapore categories. I dont think this is pure coincidence. If you think the category has room for growth, you can leave a note in the discussion page. Listing it here means it is the LAST step towards deletion. I do not consider this a "cordial" way of getting people to develop content, if that is your "kind intention".--Huaiwei 19:23, 8 Apr 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.


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 17:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fooican rivers --> Rivers in Fooican edit

More logical naming convention. Perhaps we could get a bot to do it?:

--Neutralitytalk 14:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Strongly support. -Kbdank71 14:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Generally agree. What about the inconsistence between "Rivers in Foo" and "Rivers of Foo"? — Instantnood 15:10, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please be reminded to put on the {{cfru|Target|Fooican rivers --%3e Rivers in Fooican}} tag for block renaming. — Instantnood 15:30, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Category:Rivers of Foo current logical naming convention goes the other way. Natural features use "of", man-made features use "in". Look up all the other changes in natural feature categories from about February of this year. Grutness|hello?   02:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename as per Grutness comments. RedWolf 20:55, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Revised list:

RedWolf 04:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • All the above are done except Category:Hawaiian rivers (all others on the left that still exist are pending deletion). The remaining cat should not have been in Category:Rivers and I have demoted it to Category:Rivers of the United States. The category should not be renamed as this would break the naming convention used at the state level (and no, I don't agree that the state level should follow the country level). RedWolf 05:26, Apr 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_April_8&oldid=1121862010"