Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 11

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< August 10 August 12 >


11 August edit

Category:Bus companies in Hong Kong 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 (keep) --Kbdank71 12:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Analogous to Category:Buses in Hong Kong, swop perhaps

  • "bus companies" would be better. Merge, anyway. Radiant_>|< 10:30, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The bus companies category is a subset of the category for bus transport. — Instantnood 12:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Question Is it a common practice to keep a sub-cat like this? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like what? We have very many subcats so that is not in itself a problem. -Splash 19:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (i.e. do not rename). To rename would change the meaning when the meaning is clear as it is. Buses and the companies that run them are not the same thing. -Splash 19:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though both would probably do better under something like Category:Bus transport in Hong Kong given their low populations. siafu 22:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC) Defer in favor of CfD decision on Public transport in Hong Kong. siafu 22:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Bus operators of Hong Kong. IMHO "Bus companies" is too vague, it could refer to manufacturing companies as well as carriers. I would rename the parent and all analogous categories as well.-choster 21:51, 16 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:Dicotyledon 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 merge --Kbdank71 13:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A duplicate of Category:Magnoliopsida, which is strongly more popular. --Puzzlet Chung 07:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since those are rather obscure words, a soft cat redirect would be useful. Radiant_>|< 10:30, August 12, 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:Student Clubs at Concordia 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. Deleted before official close. ∞Who?¿? 08:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created by an anon user, not needed as notable articles for the University can go in Category:Concordia University --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, overcat. Radiant_>|< 10:30, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -Splash 19:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A quite erroneous category that could be deleted without any disbenefit.--Knucmo2 20:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 21:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 22:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Spinboy. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:30, 13 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:Pac-10 -> Category:Pacific Ten Conference 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?¿? 08:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change needed to comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms), and to be consistent with Pacific Ten Conference and Template:Pacific Ten Conference. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename, do not use abbrev. Radiant_>|< 10:30, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename. No argument. siafu 22:19, 12 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:Exotic meson 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. Deleted prior to close. ∞Who?¿? 08:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category had only one article, Exotic meson. When I reorganized the particles categories on July 25th, and asked for comments, on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics on my reorganization, and my suggestion to delete this category, and Category:Exotic baryon, I didn't get any complaints. Salsb 21:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No argument. siafu 22:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-controversial and with tacit stamp of approval from guiding WikiProject. Courtland 00:36, August 17, 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:Exotic baryon 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. Deleted prior to close. ∞Who?¿? 08:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category had only one article, Exotic baryon. When I reorganized the particles categories on July 25th, and asked for comments, on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics on my reorganization, and my suggestion to delete this category, and Category:Exotic meson, I didn't get any complaints. Salsb 21:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No argument. siafu 22:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-controversial and with tacit stamp of approval from guiding WikiProject. Courtland 00:40, August 17, 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:2005, August 2:Died 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. Deleted prior to close. ∞Who?¿? 08:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category exists only for the death of one person. Information here can be merged back to the main article for Jay Hammond, and this category removed. TexasAndroid 21:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Potential speedy, seems to me the editor meant to link to Category:2005 deaths. Radiant_>|< 10:30, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've moved the text into the Jay Hammond article, and unlinked that article from this category, leaving it now empty. TexasAndroid 16:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Reinyday, 22:29, 16 August 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:Political and economic thinktanks --> Category:Political and economic think tanks 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 --Kbdank71 13:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speed rename - think tank is 2 words. --Polynova 21:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Do not speedy and do not rename per nom. The Oxford English Dictionary [1] (subscription needed) wants it to be hyphenated i.e. think-tank. And yes, I know the article doesn't have a hyphen but that doesn't make it right! So rename to Category:Political and economic think-tanks. -Splash 19:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is the case, please put in to rename the article as well. This is a case where it's important to be consistent. siafu 22:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merriam-Webster has it as two words, not hyphenated. Is this possibly a British vs. American spelling distinction? In any case, "thinktank" is just plain wrong. --Polynova 22:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment the usage of hyphens in words varies in the word usage, as well as area; see http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000127.htm, for some examples. If you do a google search for "think-tanks", it auto converts the search to "think tanks". Also, wiki has an article think tank and think-tank redirects to it. So it would probably be better without the hypen. ∞Who?¿? 09:03, 18 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:Sport 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 Merge. Deleted prior to close. ∞Who?¿? 08:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 articles in this category were probably meant to be in Category:Sports, into which the above could be merged. -- Adam78 20:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • CategoryRedirect to Category:Sports 132.205.44.43 16:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Sports as that's clearly the intended meaning. There is some sense in a soft-redirect too. -Splash 19:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to sport, as above.--Knucmo2 21:29, 12 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:Vocalists <--> Category:Singers 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 (keep) --Kbdank71 13:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I realize that these aren't inherently the same thing (not all vocalists are singers; some are rappers, etc.), in practice they just duplicate each other. People are also often filed in one (or sometimes both) of these categories when a subcategory such as Category:Pop singers or Category:Rock singers or Category:Soul singers would be more appropriate. Suggest merging one into the other, or at least major cleanup. Bearcat 20:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge & add a cat redir. Radiant_>|< 10:30, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Major cleanup, or else, perhaps, merge both into category:vocalists and singers (or category:singers and vocalists), and keep both as redirects. — Instantnood 16:33, August 12, 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:News Agencies 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 merge into news agencies --Kbdank71 13:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the same content as Category:Wire services, so it should be merged into the latter. -- Adam78 17:54, 11 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:Dutch carthographers 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 Speedy delete. Speedied prior to close. ∞Who?¿? 08:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty; duplicates Category:Dutch cartographers. - choster 17:42, 11 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:Indigenous peoples of the United States → Category:Indigenous peoples in the United States 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 --Kbdank71 13:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because the indigenous peoples in question pre-date the formation of the country, it is more proper to refer to them as being peoples "in" that country, as opposed to being peoples "of" that country. It is preferrable to avoid any wording that may imply the belonging of an indigenous people to a state. The choice of the word "in" instead of "of" has been made for Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada and Indigenous peoples in Brazil. The use of the word "of" is best suited for categories and articles regarding continents and islands, not political entities. Kurieeto 16:31, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comment The sixth paragraph of the current Native American article establishes that not all indigenous peoples in the United States are Native Americans. See Talk:Native Americans#Indigenous peoples of the Americas for additional discussion regarding the ambiguous scope of the term "Native American". Kurieeto 23:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment:The exceptions listed are Mestizos and Zambos; are they indigenous? Septentrionalis
Good question. Mixed ethnic groups are difficult to classify, and I don't have a conclusive answer for you. As a point to consider, the Métis are a mixed ethnic group in Canada who are recognized in the Constitution of Canada as "Aboriginal peoples in Canada".
In relation to the proposed renaming, I've found that there are additional indigenous peoples in the United States who are not "Native Americans". These include the indigenous peoples in what is now the American state of Hawaii, the Native Hawaiians, the indigenous peoples in what are now American insular areas, such as the Chamorros of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, and may include the indigenous peoples in what is now Alaska, the Alaska Natives. Because the United States has territory outside of the Americas where there are indigenous peoples, the term "Native American" cannot be used to refer to all indigenous peoples within the territory of the country because the term's scope is clearly restricted to the Americas. Kurieeto 23:56, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Re question whether Mestizos and Zambos ought to be classified as indigenous peoples: the term has a specific meaning and usage as per its article, and criteria for determining membership are proposed at Category:Indigenous peoples. So, for either of these one would need to locate instances in which claims for recognition as indigenous peoples have been made for these groups, either to some governmental or international organisation, or by some indigenous peoples' organisation, etc. etc. AFAIK, in these particular instances as a unitary group such claims are not made (the terms referring to individuals with some combined heritage, the "potentially indigenous" side of which can be distinct indigenous groups eg Quiché, Lacandon etc), but rather for the "parent" group. However, I have not much looked into these particular cases, and so it is possible that such claims have in fact been made, or there is some level of regulatory distinction which associates indigenous rights or claims with these groups.--cjllw | TALK 02:57, 2005 August 15 (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:Heroes of the Three Kingdoms 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 Category:People of the Three Kingdoms ∞Who?¿? 08:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i believe that this category should be renamed to "Personages of the Three Kingdoms" because

  • While i do agree that in popular Chinese literature and culture, the people living in the Three Kingdoms period were generally known as "heroes", regardless of their achievements or characters. However, it is unacceptable to term them so here because Wikipedia is not a fiction or novel, it is academic.
  • Secondly, some people living during that period such as Elder and Younger Qiaos (see Elder Qiao and Younger Qiao) who are not considered "heroes" even in folklore are also listed under this category. Shouldn't the term "personages" be more all-encompassing then?

Noting that a CFD had previously been conducted and the decision reached was keep, i raised the issue again in the discussion page of the category on 21 Apr, but no one responded since. Therefore i now propose renaming of the abovesaid category and open it for a second round of votes. --Plastictv 13:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to "Three Kingdoms characters" (for consistency). Radiant_>|< 13:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry. Consistent with what? Please clarify. --Plastictv 14:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes no sense. It'd be like saying "World War II characters" True, Douglas MacArthur was a character, but George Marshall wasn't. 132.205.3.20 18:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, good point. Very well, I'd prefer "people" to "personages", and kind of dislike "heroes". Radiant_>|< 09:15, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename Plastictv's reasoning makes sense. TexasAndroid 14:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. "Personages" is barely a word. I don't have a better suggestion, but I don't like the nomination suggestion. -Splash 18:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why isn't "personages" a word? The next closest is "characters" but that kinda makes the people sound fictional. Especially when a lot of people are misconceived about the true history of the Three Kingdoms and the historical novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms, we should try to avoid creating ambiguity. --Plastictv 21:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Personages" makes me think of the French "personnages," not that this matters at all. ♥purplefeltangel 19:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nearly every meaning the Oxford English Dictionary gives it at [2] (subscription needed) is marked as "Obsolete". -Splash 19:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps it might suit the subject (which is China 1,800 years ago) better if we use an obsolete term? :) Well i'm just suggesting. "People of the Three Kingdoms" sounds perfectly fine, too. --Plastictv 13:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OBJECT, previous vote was to Keep. 132.205.3.20 18:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wouldn't "People of the Three Kingdoms" be better than "Personages"? JW 10:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:People of the Three Kingdoms as per JW. --Kbdank71 17:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to People or Personages. -Sean Curtin 04:55, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to People. mikka (t) 15:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to People, though it's much more hamfisted than it is in Chinese. siafu 15:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I don't have an especially strong opinion, but I slightly prefer Category:People of the Three Kingdoms. JW 19:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Run-up to a close edit

After three days with no new votes or comments coming in, i guess it's safe to say that the vote is running up to a close. Currently the decision lies between "Personages of the Three Kingdoms" and "People of the Three Kingdoms". Please cast your final votes if you wish to and then we'll conclude this vote. Cheers! --Plastictv 07:49, 17 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:Computer_gaming_clans 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 12:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

renamed to Category:Computer and video game clans. RadioActive 10:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Er, isn't a clan simply a group of players that team up? How exactly are such clans encyclopedic? Radiant_>|< 13:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC) Wait, I take that back. However, given the content of the cat, isn't the word "team" more appropriate than "clan"? Radiant_>|< 13:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, in my opinion it's a more specific term in this context. --FlooK 00:15, 17 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.

Ballistic missiles 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 -- grm_wnr Esc 23:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These are all categories for ballistic missiles that should be renamed to use the expanded form of the abbreviations:

Other ballistic missiles categories already use the expanded names exclusively, ICBMs are in Category:Intercontinental ballistic missiles and SLBMs are in Category:Submarine-launched ballistic missiles for example. -- grm_wnr Esc 12:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC) changed to Cfru modified ∞Who?¿? 06:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • Concur. Radiant_>|< 13:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename all. No argument. siafu 22:30, 12 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:Unix programs 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. Deleted prior to close. ∞Who?¿? 08:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category does not have a standardized name for software categories, which all are like Category:Windows software, Category:Free software, etc. Besides, the new Category:Unix software already has all the old entries so it should be a trivial move. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 18:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it is now redundant. Pavel Vozenilek 02:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant. siafu 22:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obsolete, though it might have been more aesthetically pleasing to have achieved this through a Rename vote/action. Courtland 00:39, August 17, 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_August_11&oldid=1122030601"