Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 19

< May 18	May 20 >

May 19 edit

Category:Sex Symbols 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 rename --Kbdank71 15:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Improper capitalization. Move to Category:Sex symbols. --Tabor 23:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this qualify for speedy? --Kbdank71 17:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. R adiant _* 09:51, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm moving this back out of Speedy, because I think we need to discuss whether this category should exist at all. This category is meant to hold celebrities that are considered sex symbols - current members include Johnny Depp and Marilyn Monroe. It's a somewhat POV categorization (personally speaking, neither of these two examples really do it for me), and doesn't seem all that useful, either. I would like to suggest deletion, rather than renaming. --Azkar 18:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - delete. -Sean Curtin 01:48, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV although a list might work as a replacement. RedWolf 06:01, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Convert to list. The notion of a "sex symbol" depends on the particular culture. I don't think it's POV to have a list or category that take a label that is generally non-controversial and indexes it here. Such non-controversial status doesn't apply to things like "terrorist organization"; when someone in a culture is labeled as a "sex symbol" there usually isn't the hue and cry that arises from the label being controversial. Courtland 14:35, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
Keep - the analogy with category:gay icons (which has survived CFD listing) is striking. Perhaps I'm showing my age, but I find it absurd for Marilyn Monroe to be categorized as a gay icon but not as a sex symbol. I actually find most culturally based categorizations somewhat dubious and would favor deleting all of them, but that is not what this vote is about. -- Rick Block 01:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second your perception of absurdity :) Courtland 02:40, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Convert to list this will allow a short note to appear to describe why the entry is a sex symbol. Beta m (talk)
Listify. R adiant _* 09:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
It's been seven days, and I don't see a consensus. As such, we're supposed to keep, however, the original nomination wasn't for a delete, it was a rename to fix capitalization. It seems silly to keep in that case, so would anyone mind if I just renamed it for now, and someone can renominate it for deletion or listing later if they want to? --Kbdank71 13:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's safe to assume that this still qualifies for speedy renaming. --Azkar 14:21, 26 May 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:New Zealand 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 rename --Kbdank71 13:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be renamed Category:Politics of New Zealand as per almost every other equivilant category, for consistency.--Cyberjunkie 16:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. Yup. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 20 May 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:Rochester, Category:St. Cloud, Category:La Crosse-Eau Claire 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 13:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first two were meant to be for semi-major metropolitan areas in Minnesota, although both of those city names are fairly common (I've created new state-specific categories) The third one baffles me, as both cities are in Wisconsin and some distance from each other. —Mulad (talk) 16:24, May 19, 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:Locations in New Zealand 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 13:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this utterly confusingly named category when I first arrived in Wikipedia. The way NZ geography items are split up lists them all by type of thing (town, waterfall, cave, whatever) and by place (whichever region of the country they are in). Unfortunately, instead of grouping the latter in a nice tidy Category:Regions of New Zealand, I blew it and named it as it appears above. Please allow me to do the decent thing and rename this the way it should have been named originally! Grutness...wha? 14:31, 19 May 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:Universities and colleges by nationality and subcategories, Category:Women's universities and colleges 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 13:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent with the parent category, Category:Colleges and universities. These should be Category:Colleges and universities by nationality and Category:Women's colleges and universities, respectively. Most subcategories of Category:Universities and colleges by nationality need renaming to Category:Colleges and universities in (Fooland) to match convention. -Sean Curtin 03:52, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

"College" is a very US-centric term; using it first is probably mildly contentious. If almost all of the lower categories would need to be changed, wouldn't it be better to move the parent to "Universities and colleges"? James F. (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all of the lower categories will need to be changed regardless of which name is chosen; there's no consistency among the 'by nationality' subcategories. -Sean Curtin 01:41, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
It's not so much that it's US-centric, it's just that it's very confusing. In the US, a college is pretty much the same thing as a university. In the UK, a college is a section of a university. In Australia and New Zealand, it's more likely to be either a high school, or a tertiary institution that is somehow inferior to a university (like a polytechnic). I'd recommend avoiding the word altogether if possible. Grutness...wha? 13:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Would "University" be very widely understood in the US, CA, AU, NZ, etc. to mean what it does in the UK? If so, why not just use that? James F. (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree with James F. Change the parent. (although nothing is going to get changed if some categories aren't marked as cfd). --Kbdank71 13:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Grutness. Perhaps an alternative term should be used altogether. "Tertiary institutions" might suffice, but then that may be to broad. Perhaps the best option is to drop "college" from the categories (and created sub-categories if necessary).--Cyberjunkie 17:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Tertiary institutions" might be confusing, what about "Tertiary schools" or "Tertiary education institutions"? NOTE: If we do this, I suggest for consistency, that Middle and High Schools be grouped into "Secondary schools", and grade/grammar/elementary schools be labelled as "Primar schools" 132.205.44.134 00:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- University is the degree giving tertiary, College could be anything in Canada. (most likely a post-secondary instutition) 132.205.44.134 00:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Given the concerns over the name, perhaps we should just end this CfD and put Category:Colleges and universities itself on CfD? -Sean Curtin 01:41, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Sean has a point. I would support 'university' for the name, as that is the only one (afaik) that has roughly the same meaning internationally. I've never heard the term 'tertiary education' other than on this Wiki, and while I could infer its meaning I do find it somewhat obscure for us non-Americans. Radiant_* 07:31, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  - Actually, I'm speaking from an Australian perspective, and the term is particularly common in Australasia - I assumed its use extended far beyond this region. And it does somewhat; the World Bank and other organisations use the term, as does Wikipedia, which uses it as the formal term for the colloquial 'higher education' (see Tertiary education). I support the following structure: Parent:Tertiary institutions --> Sub:Tertiary institutions by country --> Sub-Sub:whatever institution-types exist in that country.--Cyberjunkie 13:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the previous discussion (from Jan. 2005) at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Universities and colleges by nationality. Besides "colleges" and "universities", there are Grandes écoles, Fachhochschulen and other types of institutions which really can only be squeezed into the "college and university" terminology with a fair bit of force. My suggestion is Category:Institutions of higher education as the top category, Category:Institutions of higher education by country for the by-country category, and then either Category:Institutions of higher education in Ruritania or whatever is most suitable for each country/educational system, for the country-specific level. Uppland 13:07, 21 May 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.