Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 31

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< October 30 November 1 >

October 31

edit

Category:Otaku

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 --Kbdank71 21:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why this needs to exist as a subcat of Category:Anime and manga terminology when it's not really a category and there exists an article for it. Shiroi Hane 23:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP It shouldn't be under Anime-manga-terminology. However, I don't see why this isn't a valid category. It's a type of Category:Fandom. Some otaku make dojinshi. This seems to be a culture category anyways. I would expect aspects of Otaku culture in the category. 132.205.45.148 17:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Much more an anime fandom catefory than an anime category, but mis-parenting does not make it a bad category. - TexasAndroid 18:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TexasAndroid and anon, though it makes my fingers rebel to type it. siafu 20:30, 7 November 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:Concelhos of Portugal to Category:Municipalities of Portugal

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. Martin 11:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this one during my first bout of work on the Portugal category last month. For reasons which now entirely escape me as I am usually very keen on the use of English, I did not use English in this case. It should be Category:Municipalities of Portugal in line with all the other subcategories of Category:Municipalities Rename. CalJW 22:17, 31 October 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:Spanish explorers to Category:Spanish explorers and conquistadores

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see any point in having both categories - all those in Category:Spanish explorers would also fit into Category:Spanish explorers and conquistadores. CLW 19:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep explorers & conquistadores, delete explorers. These men were not mere explorers. Their goals were God, glory, and gold. They came to the Americas to create a name for themsleves and to subjugate any natives under Los Reyes Católicos and the Roman Church. They were also conqorers. The longer title is a better fit for most of them. If consensus disagrees, I would urge the creation of a cat. for both Spanish explorers and Spanish copnquistadores. Youngamerican 02:46, 2 November 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:List of haunted locations

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 14:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One entry. Would seem to duplicate Category:Paranormal phenomena and Category:Ghosts which seem to categorise spooky locations. Alternatively, rename to Category:Haunted locations -- Ian ≡ talk 15:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename, as suggested. "Phenomena" is a broad generality; "ghosts" are specific beings; "locations" are specific places, ergo something different from either of the other two. Also something quite relevant to the study of paranormality. Lack of more than one article suggests Wikiwork needed (there's ha'nted houses and castles all over the US and Europe alone), not category deletion. 12.73.194.157 15:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and list; the category has the right idea in its title. siafu 20:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Locations with alleged paranormal phenoma and populate. "Haunted" presupposes there is indeed paranormal activity, right? The Tom 20:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And "alleged" allows the inclusion of just about every location on Earth, excluding most of the oceans. siafu 22:14, 8 November 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:Joseph Campbell

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 19:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. - TexasAndroid 14:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete -- Ian ≡ talk 15:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While technically eligible for speedy, I decided to toss this one up for normal CFD instead, in case there was a possibility it could be populated. Assuming it is still empty a week from now, then IMHO it should be removed at that point. TexasAndroid 16:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's already a Category:Books by Joseph Campbell; I can't think of anything classifiable as a Campbell subtopic that wouldn't simply go there. Postdlf 01:06, 4 November 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:U.S. artists and subcats

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. Martin 13:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent naming applied to parent and daughter cat, with a mix of U.S., United States and American all being applied.

--nixie 14:10, 31 October 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:American visual art

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 19:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty cat, redundant.--nixie 14:10, 31 October 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:Vivian_Hsu

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 19:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why a single person has a category all to herself. Shiroi Hane 13:27, 31 October 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:Sex Kitten and Category:Naked ladies

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 19:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silly, redundant, NPOV - take your pick. MK2 07:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hiding talk 14:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There were no naked ladies to be seen and now I am bitter. Also as per nom. 62.25.96.183 14:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC) (Unsigned comment was by me Valiantis 16:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • The category originally included one article, Annabella Lwin, which does include a picture on a naked lady in it. Joy is restored to your life. MK2 06:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Ian ≡ talk 15:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pointless categories. Alan Liefting 21:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - silliness CLW 12:35, 6 November 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:Game websites

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 18:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created by nominator prior to full examination of categorizations in topic area; unnecessary now given existing (albeit confusing) categorization scheme. Courtland 03:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per creators request, and yes, existing cats in that area are confusing. -- Ian ≡ talk 15:43, 31 October 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:Left-handed people

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 18:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial category, we already have the much more comprehensive List of famous left-handed people for this purpose. —jiy (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as recreation. Radiant_>|< 09:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, duplication per above -- Ian ≡ talk 15:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was about to speedy as recreation, but could not find the log or cfd listing. «»Who?¿?meta 03:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEPLeft-handed people exist and there are many of them among the celebrities. (83.23.234.238 23:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • The question isn't whether they exist — it's whether they actually need a Wikipedia category to convey the fact. I'm with the delete, personally; it's frankly about as needed as categorizing people by whether they have innie or outtie belly buttons. Bearcat 10:14, 6 November 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.

British editors

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 18:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are subcatgories of Category:British writers and have been used for book editors. The categories for other ytpes of editors, such as newspaper editors and magazine editors haven't been subdivided yet. This could be recreated in the long run to hold multiple subcategories, but for the time being it would be more accurate to rename them to reflect what they contain:

Rename all CalJW 02:31, 31 October 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.

Subcategories of writers by non-fiction subject area

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 18:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two of these use "authors" rather than the usual "writers":

Rename both CalJW 02:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to more standard phrasing -- Ian ≡ talk 16:01, 31 October 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:National parks by country (second nomination) to Category:National parks

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 18:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been nominated once, and ended with no consensus. However that debate was distorted by the creation part way through of some so-called "national parks by establishment year" categories in an attempt to show that there should be other subcategories (they were actually by decade and were only populated with a token half-dozen articles). Those categories have now been deleted, and I see no reason to create any subcategories other than the national ones. Thus having the intermediate stage just wastes user time and server resources. Merge and Delete CalJW 01:08, 31 October 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:Cuisine of Catalonia to Category:Catalan cuisine

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 18:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine is a culture-related issue. Besides, most similar categories are named in this way --Joan sense nick 00:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as proposed. CalJW 01:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- Ian ≡ talk 15:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Youngamerican 14:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. CLW 12:36, 6 November 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:Jhazingha-Khaliph members

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, as the category is only useful for listing members of the band, and the band itself was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhazingha-Khaliph). — JIP | Talk 11:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category was created for set of soon-to-be-deleted articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhazingha-Khaliph. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:23, 31 October 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:Korean basketball players

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 deleted. «»Who?¿?meta 03:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Korean basketball players replaced by Category:South Korean basketball players --Rogerd 23:57, 30 October 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_October_31&oldid=1122224036"