Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 20

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< August 19 August 21 >

August 20

edit

Category:Scofield Mine Disaster

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 ∞Who?¿? 22:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted as unnecessary and useless, and unlikely to grow. Text from the stub article of same name but lowercase Scofield mine disaster mostly copied into here, and that article isn't even categorized here. Only other entry is town of Scofield, Utah, with an even shorter mention of this accident. Article was already in parent category and not in this subcategory. Gene Nygaard 22:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if needed in future can be re-created with proper caps. ∞Who?¿? 18:05, 21 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:Elton John

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 Keep. ∞Who?¿? 22:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elton John is an item, not a category. See Category:Gay_musicians for the confusion this causes Craigbutz. Article Elton John already exists. 21:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep most of the other big musicians have categories to hold all of their sub-cats "albums" "songs" etc.. Just go looking through the categories, they are easy to find. As far as the other category, his article is an article and the cat is a sub-cat, just the way it is. Although you could just put the article there and not the cat. ∞Who?¿? 23:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Who. siafu 15:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agreed. James F. (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Who. TexasAndroid 18:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above. Osomec 00:42, 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:2007 in politics

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 Keep. ∞Who?¿? 22:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted for the following reasons:

The category is empty.
The category is too far in the future to have any use currently. 2007 is 2 years away.

IanManka 18:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the five day period for votes has not expired yet, it does not appear that many people will vote on this CfD. With a tally of 1 weak keep, 1 2 keeps, and 1 strong keep (see discussion below), the consensus on this category would be to keep this article. IanManka 22:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC), later signed by IanManka 01:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC) when he updated the vote tally.[reply]
  • COMMENT it's probably a space filler to precede Category:2008 in politics 132.205.45.110 18:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak KEEP. The 2008 category has a small number of things in it, and for organizational sake I'm not sure it makes sense to keep 2008, but delete 2007. TexasAndroid 19:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This category definitely is useful and can easily be filled. A few examples:
Scottish parliamentary election, 2007
Welsh Assembly Election 2007
French presidential election, 2007
Parliamentary election in Ontario
Presidential Election in Argentina
Australian federal election, 2007

Aecis 21:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Okay then, should I put out a request to populate this category? Apparently not many articles have any current use for this category -- couldn't we just recreate it later? IanManka 22:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC) (forgot to sign)[reply]
      • Not many articles in the Category:2008 in politics have any current use either, but that's no reason to delete it. What matters is whether the category is relevant (I think it is), whether it is well-defined (I think it is), whether it can be filled (I think it can) and whether it follows the existing hierarchy (I think it does). I think the way to go forward from here is to add the 4 articles I mentioned above (Scotland, Wales, France and Australia) to the category, create articles about Ontario, Argentina and the Netherlands (we've got general elections in 2007 as well), and then (as you said) put out a request for population, in an attempt to create and/or find more articles. Aecis 11:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, then, I make the conclusion that we should keep this article now. So, I don't know how to do that with me being the nominator. Sorry about that folks. IanManka 18:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • This latest comment comes down to a withdrawal of the nomination. Besides, there have now been three votes: 1 weak keep (TexasAndroid), 1 keep (you) and 1 strong keep (yours truly). I don't think there will be many more votes before the term closes, so I think it's safe to say that there is a consensus to keep. I'm not an admin though, so I can't close the voting process. When I can find the time, I'll start creating new articles and filling the category. Is that fine with you? Aecis 18:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wow, six bullet points deep. Whenever you do find the time (no rush), you can populate the category -- it'd be perfectly fine with me. Thank you for showing me uses for this category. I didn't realize those elections would come up. Sorry for any inconvience! IanManka 22:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above. Osomec 00:43, 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:Manakins

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. ∞Who?¿? 22:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged 20 August by JohnCastle, reason redundant. Just listing here. ∞Who?¿? 18:15, 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:Natural history of china

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 to Category:Natural history of China. ∞Who?¿? 22:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the bad capitalization, it should be deleted considering the main article on Natural history even calls it an obsolete term, covered by Category:Geography of China, Category:Chinese environment and Category:Chinese culture among others. It had two entries which I switched to Geography. - choster 17:24, 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:Central to Category:Central, 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 Rename ∞Who?¿? 03:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match article name Central, Hong Kong. Tagged 17 August by Icairns, just listing here. ∞Who?¿? 17:17, 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:Weird Al Yankovic albums and Category:Weird Al Yankovic songs

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 (no change). ∞Who?¿? 22:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming to Category:"Weird Al" Yankovic albums Category:"Weird Al" Yankovic songs, respectively (note the quotation marks). tregoweth 16:12, 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.

Films by director

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 however discussion moved to unresolved for comment on renaming all in parent category to new format. Films directed by Foo. ∞Who?¿? 22:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are 11 subcats in this parent category (Category:Films by director) that imo need renaming:

Aecis 14:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all per nom, with exception to Category:Bareja films, I would think the second spelling with the diacritics would be proper. ∞Who?¿? 17:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename to Films directed by Foo as discussed below. Sorry for everyone who agreed previoulsly :) ∞Who?¿? 18:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, second what Who said. :) —Tarnas 17:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename all as per new format, below: "Films directed by..." —Tarnas 19:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Who. siafu 18:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that "films directed by" is clearer without causing any problems. siafu 22:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Who. K1Bond007 19:09, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. While the proposed format is widely used, wouldn't Category:director-directed films or Category:Films directed by director be less ambiguous? Many of these directors are also producers, actors, or screenwriters. Note Category:Films_by_star for example.- choster 19:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but not to that format. Choster's point is critical; just consider Clint Eastwood for the canonical example. I'll suggest Category:Films by director (thus implying that the Billy Wilder name is already correct. My justification for this is that "by" is the recognized English signifier for a director's work (consider the beginning of every movie: "A film by so-and-so". (see comment below) Nandesuka 23:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The credit "A film by Foo" (or the alternative, "a Foo film") is far from a univerally-recognized and favoured English signifier for a director's work, actually—indeed, it's been a very contentious issue, especially in recent years. The various Hollywood guilds (most notably the Writers' and Producers', I think) have been campaigning against it for some time, arguing it implies that the director is the sole creative influence on the film, as opposed to it being a team effort. Today, it isn't attached to all films by a longshot, and was used quite infrequently in earlier decades. (It started out reserved strictly for auteur directors, and then notable directors, and then by means of mee-too-ism it quickly spread so that every director of every bad slasher film in the 1980s wanted one.) I believe that during the last WGA strike one of demands was that it be banned altogether, and I think part of the settlement was a watered-down comprimise in which there'd be a new, more restrictive process for who gets to use it overseen by the DGA. In any case, I don't think we should perpetuate it on Wikipedia. -The Tom 01:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename according to Nandesuka and Choster. Very good points. Courtland 00:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename but not to that format. I'll echo Choster's observation as well. Category:Films directed by Akira Kurosawa, Category:Films directed by Clint Eastwood etc., while a little mouthier, is unambiguous and NPOV per my above point. We might also want to look at putting the subcats of Category:Films by star into the format Category:Films starring Sophia Loren, Category:Films starring Elvis Presley etc. -The Tom 01:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "A film by" is generally (although not exclusively) used where the director is also the writer. I have no objection to "Stanley Kubrick films", for example, where the director is a recognised autuer. But if we're going to have categories for every Hollywood hack (as is likely) then Films directed by John McTiernan would be preferable, especially, as has already been said, "Clint Eastwood films" "Robert Redford films" etc would present problems. JW 11:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add Comment - "A film by" is also used relatively rarely vis-a-vis the totality of world film product even with many non-"hacks". It has been most common in France historically, with art-house "indies" in the US, and in the past decade of commercial film as "auteurism" takes over even the conventions of crediting; but such luminaries as Eisenstein or (to the best of my memory) Hitchcock, or John Ford or Howard Hawks or Fritz Lang or Akira Kurosawa, ever had their products postured as "a film by...", in realization of the collaborative and collective nature of filmmaking 12.73.194.22 02:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but not to that format - the discussion here has convinced me that Films directed by Alfred Hitchcock is in fact the correct format. I withdraw my earlier suggestion of "Films by Alfred HItchcock". Nandesuka 13:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The consensus seems to be to renaming the categories to "Films directed by ..." Because of that, I would like to propose renaming every category in the Category:Films by director according to that format. Aecis 15:42, 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:Elections in Macedonia and Category:Political parties in Macedonia

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?¿? 22:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These need to be moved to Category:Elections in the Republic of Macedonia and Category:Political parties in the Republic of Macedonia to follow our naming convention for (FY)RoM articles. --Joy [shallot] 11:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. No argument. siafu 18:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT was that Bulgar/Slav/Skopje/FYRoM/RoM/Macedonia ever resolved? 132.205.45.110 18:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a note on the categories in question that covers the dispute. ∞Who?¿? 18:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. ∞Who?¿? 18:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. - Darwinek 09:10, 26 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:Luxembourgeois politicians to Category:Luxembourg politicians

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?¿? 22:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. "Luxembourgeois" is not an English word, and looks like some sort of political joke, since "bourgeois" has a specific pejorative meaning in English which it doesn't have in French. "Luxembourg" has no specific adjectival form in English so the category should be called Category:Luxembourg politicians. I notice that "Luxembourgish" is also used sometimes but this is very artificial. I should add that the use of the French form is inappropriate also because French is only one of Luxembourg's three official languages (the German form would be Luxemburgische). Adam 03:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fixed header and category wiki in nomination ∞Who?¿? 18:27, 21 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:Fictional gays and lesbians

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 to Category:Fictional LGBT characters

Rename. The relevant category for people is Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people, and the category should follow suit and be renamed to either Category:Fictional gays, lesbians or bisexuals or Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual fictional characters. If this is renamed, the subcategory should also be renamed accordingly. -Sean Curtin 03:44, 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:Croatian people in WWII

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. ∞Who?¿? 22:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Now defunct. All articles moved to Category:Croatian World War II people, in line with naming of other subcategories in Category:World War II people by nationality. GregorB 01:11, 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:Founders of religions or sects

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 (no change). ∞Who?¿? 22:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV. There are already categories for people associated with religions either as leaders or as notable for a religion. Some of these listedf did not found a religion, the religion was founded after they died ≈ jossi ≈ 03:20, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

delete, I think a category:founders of religions would be better. How about a category:charismatic religious leaders (see charismatic authority? Andries 06:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV, per nom. I don't think the alternate naming would be any better, unless someone has diffinitive proof on every religion. ∞Who?¿? 18:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The difference between a sect and a religion is not clear to those who study religions. --metta, The Sunborn 22:07, 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:Language-specific OS distributions to Category:Language-specific Linux distributions

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?¿? 22:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Language-specific Linux distributions. All current members of the category are Linux distributions; a broader category can be created to be the parent later; in the meantime restricting this one to Linux distributions allows it to be a clean sub-category of Category:Linux distributions. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:27, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_20&oldid=1122036535"