Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 1

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< March 31 April 2 >

April 1

edit

Category:Titles borrowed from Shakespeare

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, although 'apathy' might be more appropriate given the number of comments. Matchups 02:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is another page, List of titles of works based on Shakespearean phrases, which is more comprehensive. Also, the List page is helpfully organized by play and could (but does not yet) provide additional context. Matchups 02:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Works better as a list. Valiantis 18:16, 2 April 2006 (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:People questioning official 9/11 story

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. - TexasAndroid 16:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final tally: 16 delete, 7 keep, with one of each tossed as invalid. - TexasAndroid 17:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, the history of 9/11 as reported by most journalists, policy experts, government officials, historians, jurists and even the suspects themselves - all this in many countries - are not just an "official 9/11 story". This category creates the impression that it has been created (today) in order to promote the so called "conspiracy theories" and is very misleading. Second, the nuanced opinions of so many individuals can be better expressed in the text. Many of these individuals have opinions on various matters and some Wikipedia articles already have 4 or more lines of categories. Is the sky the limit of categorization? gidonb 01:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nomination gidonb 01:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subjects are too loosely linked and cat is too subjective Deizio 03:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "People questioning the 9/11 Commissions account". "nuanced opinions" is not a problem, we already have List of jews and List of anarchists, and they are hardly a single monolithic block.--Striver 10:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lists are another ballgame than categories, so the comparison does not fly. Also Jews are an ethno-religious group, anarchism is an ideology. This one is neither, just an opinion. What is next? Category:People who hate when it rains all day? Striver, I hope you will reconsider your vote, as this category is very un-Wikipedian. gidonb 13:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I voted "delete." However, if this is kept, I believe "Category:People who question the 9/11 Commission's findings" is the best title for the category. --Hyperbole 07:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something.--Urthogie 11:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an accurately named category and its something people need to know about "celebrities" and their views. -- AmeriCan 18:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ripe for POV-pushing from all sides. Also the phrase "official 9/11 story" smacks of opinion. Furthermore, while this cat does not only include "celebrities", the views of celebrities on political matters are in most cases trivial and not central to their notability and therefore not an appropriate element to categorise them by. Valiantis 18:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The people questioning, their public status and their messages are increasing by the day. This is particularly so since Hollywood icons are speaking out. The relevance of their speaking out is that millions hear this message. I disagree with limiting the title to "questioning the 9/11 Commissions account" since they are not only questioning the account of the Commission, but the accounts put forth by many others, such as Rice saying that they never would have thought planes would be used as weapons but the recent FBI testimony at the Mossaoui trial indicating that they knew for years that planes could be used as weapons. Bov 19:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category simply is too broad since it probably includes well over 50% of the people in the United States. Also verification of every name included could be an issue. If we keep this, then do we need a category for every position "celebrities" take when it is different then the offical government position? Vegaswikian 20:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categorization by political opinion is silly. What's next? Category:People questioning String Theory? --Mmx1 23:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category certainly does not define a person. Joelito 00:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the category is kept, someone should get it alphabetized properly by last name. Indeed, the fact that nobody on the list is done right suggests to me that the creation and population of the list was done by a single individual. Matchups 04:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was created by a single individual, who had only 6 edits before entering the 9/11 conspiracies field, without a user page, who on top of all systematically deletes all entries from his talk page. gidonb 09:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I've done a lot of reading of the Wikipedia, but only a couple hundred small edits over the past 2 years, so I never bothered logging in. (For a time, surfing Wikipedia while being logged in was slower due to caching.) The only thing I removed from my talk page is the Ombudsman's automatic "Welcome to the Wiki" thing. Yes, the 9/11 conspiracies field is the subject matter I have an interest in, and I feel Wikipedia's coverage of this subject matter has has a lot of room for improvement. I'm not here to push a POV, I don't even have a definitive one on this subject matter. I just with Wikipedia's coverage of 9/11 would approach the depth of its coverage of South Park episodes... AlexLibman 05:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe that making this a list in an article is more in line with Wikipedia's standards than making it a category, and the afd on that article/list looks like it's going to end up "no consensus: keep." Since the list can be included in Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks, any given theorist will only be two clicks away from any 9/11 conspiracy article, and that's acceptable. Categories for political beliefs doesn't seem to be a common practice. --Hyperbole 07:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the phrase "official 9/11 story" is POV.--Jersey Devil 11:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, the category was started by one individual, myself, to get things rolling. My bad on the first name sorting, that's easy to fix. IMHO, if more and more otherwise notable people from many different fields voice support for 9/11 conspiracy theories, this category will be much easier to maintain than diluting articles like researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, 9/11 Truth Movement, etc. Only persons whose articles cite specific statements or works that question 9/11 would be added to this category, which would make it far less ambiguous than many other categories. The Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks name suggests that it should list proposed theories (or works that first proposed a specific theory), not all people holding this point of view. I agree with the name change proposals. AlexLibman 17:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. and Expand and rename to reflect what official account: Category:People questioning 9/11 commission findings or Category:People who think 9/11 commission was fulloshite or Category:People not satisfied with the huge lies contained 9/11 commission findings or something specific like that. Add in the several hundred thousand notables who have expressed their disbelief. Pedant 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uninformative POV pushing. Reader cannot know if belonging in the category means "off-handedly wondered about some little detail once" or "has devoted his life to conspiracy theories" or something in between. 9/11 conspiracycruft has a hugely disproportionate soapbox already. Non-encyclopedic conspiracy POV pushing has gotten way out of hand. Wikipedia is not a conspiracypedia. Weregerbil 18:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This category does not push a POV, it organizes people with specific inclusion criteria, like the category for Scientologists is neither a promotion of Scientology nor a hate list. If anything, it makes some 9/11 conspiracy pushers look bad by showing that instead of hundreds of notable people clearly agreeing with them, as some of them might claim, there are only dozens. AlexLibman 21:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete much as I dislike people like Gore Vidal they are not in the same Category as David Duke. 132.241.246.111 00:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Gore Vidal removed pending clearer evidence of his exact opinion. Manos: Hands of Fate is no Andrei Rublev, but they're both belong in "1966 films" category - one can look to other categories the article belongs to (and the text itself) to understand how they differ. AlexLibman 21:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to make it clear what "official" means and that this category is only for people who have a well-referenced evidence that they hold this opinion seriously and consistently. Deobfuscator
  • Keep A well know person questioning the official story of 9/11 may not be a researcher so wouldn't belong to Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 so why not have an extra category? There are a lot of great thinkers who may not be researchers but go on to important roles. For instance Václav Havel, once a poet, became the first President of the Czech Republic. I don't think these people should be underestimated. Kaimiddleton 06:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as per Deizio's critique, I removed some unverified fence sitters from the category, and made changes for stricter inclusion criteria mentioned in category description and discussion page. The category should definitely be renamed to something like "People who believe non-Muslims were complicit in 9/11", but I leave that to this committee here. I created this category because I believe that it is imperative to break up the chaotic "September 11, 2001 attacks" parent category, which mixed many different concepts, and the much-underused "Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks" category should include books, films, ideas, etc, not all notable people that agree with them - like there is a "Scientology" category for the concept and among its subcategories is "Scientologists" which lists the (otherwise notable) followers. AlexLibman 21:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "People who believe non-Muslims were complicit in 9/11" - that is a particularly inappropriate title!! Valiantis 14:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Valiantis. Lets not attack the Islam and Muslims further on this point. I think most Muslims have suffered more than enough by this mega crime made "in their name", without even being asked. gidonb 14:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only that but it makes no sense. This implies that people who for example claim the 9/11 hijackers had official Saudi, Iran, Pakistan and other primarily muslims government support cannot be included in the list whereas someone who says that there was a 20th hijacker who happens to be a non-Muslim who didn't make it for some reason will. Nil Einne 17:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ill-defined, and this trait is not category-worthy for most subjects. Also, please doublecheck your grammar before making a category and adding it to 38 articles. Rhobite 21:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I think these are all Category:Living people, who have nuanced views that a category like this can't capture. Also, such assertations need to be cited and verifiable, or else we risk problems like which happened with John Siegenthaler. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a related AfD discusion on the article. Vegaswikian 21:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename if necessary Nil Einne 17:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV. The category system is too unsubtle for this sort of usage to be appropriate. Bhoeble 15:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has shades of conspiracy theory culture, which is too prevalent on Wikipedia. Scranchuse 15:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "questioning" the government and its propaganda or not in this context boils down to patriotism. Deciding the 'patriotism' of another individual is a judgment call and is POV. GilliamJF 03:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Questioning" is vague and "offical story" is inappropriate. Nathcer 03:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. Sumahoy 14:41, 10 April 2006 (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:Ultralights

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. - TexasAndroid 16:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category and all constituent categories have been replaced by Category:Ultralight aircraft, which better explains the content. All subcategories of this category should be deleted; renaming has already taken place. Ingoolemo talk 00:02, 2 April 2006 (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:Unification Church Heresies

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. - TexasAndroid 16:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title of category belligerent and biased, created by editor who has been noted in the past for deleting VfD tags on his vanity article and for POV edits. Only article contained is full of POV and original research.--Folksong 23:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 100% unnecessary, per nom Deizio 03:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I might have suggested "rename" to Unification Church Splinter Groups, except that I think the only constituent article is going to get deleted anyhow. Matchups 00:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sumahoy 14:45, 10 April 2006 (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:Rap songs of the 1990's

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. - TexasAndroid 16:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does not fit our established categorization scheme (song year and genre are categorize4d seperately, and we as a consensus use "hip hop" and not "rap"). Created by a newbie. --FuriousFreddy 19:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. gidonb 01:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note the common misspelling in the category name: 1990s are from 1/1990 through 12/1999, yet 1990's means belonging specific to the year 1990 (e.g., 1990's rap scene was boring). gidonb 01:44, 2 April 2006 (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:Fjords of Vestland

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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled/redundant category. Author has explained mistake in an edit summary. Propose to delete. Nordby73 16:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct title was Category:Fjords of Vestfold. This comes from typing too quickly and thinking too slowly. No point in retaining, as there will never be anything to populate the category. Williamborg 18:17, 1 April 2006 (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:Hip hop 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 consensous. (No consensous on a rename, either) - TexasAndroid 16:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Hip hop singer" is a misnomer (this is a group of singers from other genres -- mostly R&B and reggae -- who frequently appear on hip-hop songs - which actually would include 70% of all R&B artists, making the selection of artists inherently POV) - and artists who hjappen to record hip hop music and other genres as well. A category like this will only seek to confuse readers, and provides little factual encyclopedic value. --FuriousFreddy 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the only reason this category would be confusing is because people are improperly placed in it. Instead of trying to delete it, perhaps it would be better to make sure guys like Nate Dogg are in it, but Reggaeton artists aren't(unless, of course, they make hip hop).--Urthogie 17:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's still too ambiguous. Category:Singers who frequently appear on hip-hop songs is clear, but wordy. --FuriousFreddy 18:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about we deal with the ambiguity by stating what can be included on the categories page?--Urthogie 19:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about we call it Category:Rapper-singers?--Urthogie 11:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Keep and deal with the ambiguity by stating what can be included on the categories page as per User:Urthogie Pedant 17:47, 3 April 2006 (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:Northern Ireland people to Category:People of Northern Ireland

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:Northern Irish people. - TexasAndroid 16:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom both to follow the adopted convention with places with similar naming challenges (see Category:People from Bosnia and Herzegovina and category:People of the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and due to prevalence for this naming over other possible ones as a google search reveals. A search for " "People of Northern Ireland" -wikipedia " gets 203,000 hits, whereas " "People from Northern Ireland" -wikipedia " gets 19,600 (of course the former includes all residents and not just British citizens with NI origins. i prefer the added flexibility - non-British citizens who have contributed to NI society should be included - but suspect a lot of users prefer to keep strict "nationality" requirements); " "Northern Ireland people" -wikipedia " gets 24,000 hits and " "Northern Irish people" gets 917 hits. i offer to nominate relevant sub-cat links should this nom go through. Mayumashu 08:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename or merge per nom and below. David Kernow 11:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative Rename as below per convention. I have reservations about the use of Google in choosing category names. --kingboyk 12:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Opinion changed per discussion. --kingboyk 21:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative Rename to Category:Northern Irish people (cat already exists!). I don't accept that there is a problem with the form "Northern Irish" as an adjective meaning "relating to Northern Ireland" - this supposed problem is why the current standard form is "Northern Ireland people". Googling "Northern Irish" (without a noun) brings up 1,740,000 hits so clearly it is a widely used "compound adjective" for things relating to Northern Ireland. (In my experience it is not mistaken for a geographical term as people use the form "of the North of Ireland" when they want to make it clear they are speaking geographically rather than politically). WP's own board for users resident in Northern Ireland and/or with an interest in Northern Ireland is called Wikipedia:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board; if anyone is in a position to determine if "Northern Irish" is an acceptable adjective then it would be the people who live there. Valiantis 15:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Northern Irish people per Valiantis. Piccadilly 16:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a problem, eg: Category:New Zealand people, although admittedly New Zealand does not have the issue of different political connotations with different terms (eg. "the North of Ireland" is far, far more than merely a geographical term: it powerfully reveals the constitutional preference of the user - a supporter of a reunited Ireland,... if you did not know). If we do rename then I support the nomination, and not the alternative rename. --Mais oui! 19:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Alt. Rename to Category:Northern Irish people as per Valiantis. --Mais oui! 09:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New Zealand people", "Northern Ireland people", etc. is poor English, misleading to all those folk visting here whose native or first language isn't English. Regards, David Kernow 23:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree (no comment on the plan here), New Zealand people is not poor English. New Zealand people is a category which aims to include all New Zealand people on wikipedia just as a Malaysian people category would aim to include all Malaysian people or the German people article aims to include German people... Nil Einne 17:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New Zealand people" treats the noun phrase "New Zealand" as an adjective. Oops. Not the greatest disaster on the planet, but something Wikipedians might strive to avoid – especially on the English Wikipedia, which must be visited by many non-native English speakers... Regards, David Kernow 18:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative Rename as per Valiantis above. Interestingly, the number of Google hits he found for the term (1,740,000) reflects roughly the actual population of the region! I digress.. the fact remains that "Northern Irish" has been shown as a particularly neutral term with the people of Northern Ireland. Various polls throughout the years have shown that, when asked to describe nationality, the term "Northern Irish" is prefered over other terms such as "Ulster", "British", "Irish", and "Scots-Irish". "Northern Ireland" is never used as an adjective in the given context, although people will often say they "come from Northern Ireland" in the same way that English people often say that they "come from England".
  • Alternative Rename to Category:Northern Irish people. What is it with this recent campaign to remove "Northern Irish" from wikipedia article titles? It makes no sense whatsoever. While we are at it, "Northern Irish" should be restored to all the other articles where it seems to have been removed.Jonto 01:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Northern Irish people. American is used in Categories. Texan is used in Categories. Canadian is used in Categories. So why can Northern Irish not be used in categories? In fact I think Northern Irish is more precise as it refers to people from the country not just people who have passed through or been involved. Ben W Bell 06:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt. Rename per Valiantis and aboves Deizio 03:57, 2 April 2006 (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:User lists

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. - TexasAndroid 16:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find it, but I suspect there is some sort of policy against putting user pages into categories and that's the sole purpose of this category. In addition, the sole article in that category is one that was copied to a user page in order to save it from being deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 19. JeffW 05:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete User pages don't belong in the main category system. Piccadilly 06:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary and likely anti-policy per above Deizio 03:59, 2 April 2006 (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.

Transport in Europe

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. - TexasAndroid 16:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The English speaking countries in Europe use "transport" and I believe that the other countries tend to use it too. Certainly the EU does and so do the governments of major European countries like France, Germany (nominated separately below and looking likely to go through at the moment) and Russia. The reason why most of the transport(ation) categories were created as "transportation in" is that most or all of the articles were created from CIA World Factbook data by an American user and his bot and the categories were made to match. Therefore rename category:Transportation in Europe to category:Transport in Europe. If this looks like going through I will tag the subcats shortly. CalJW 04:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 06:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Piccadilly 06:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow 11:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Valiantis 15:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Mais oui! 17:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. ReeseM 02:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC) - voted before but forgot to sign.[reply]
  • Keep all; they're consistently named using a perfectly valid and correctly spelled word. There's no reason to take the time and effort imposing British English on Wikipedia. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Transport in X" British English?  Intrigued, David Kernow 23:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transport in the meaning "transportation" is British English. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Hawkestone 04:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom Nil Einne 17:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Angr. Renaming the categories will create an inconsistent and arbitrary system. GilliamJF 09:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it won't it will reduce the inconsistency which already exists. ReeseM 18:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all we do not change from center to centre or vica versa. This seems to be a similar case. gidonb 02:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all Consistency on a continental basis is probably the right type of consistency to apply in this case. Nathcer 03:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all I didn't vote before because there were no oppose votes, though it is still pretty clear cut. Bhoeble 14:31, 10 April 2006 (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:Transportation in Oceania to Category:Transport in Oceania

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. - TexasAndroid 16:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The English speaking countries in Oceania (which is the great majority of them) use Commonwealth English. More than half of the population of Oceania lives in Australia, and of all the countries in the world Australia is the one for which using "transportation" instead of "transport" is most inappropriate. Rename CalJW 04:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Rename per nom. I may be a Yank, but I fully understand why "transportation" would be VERY inappropriate for Australia. — Dale Arnett 06:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Piccadilly 06:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow 11:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Valiantis 15:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. ReeseM 00:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all; they're consistently named using a perfectly valid and correctly spelled word. There's no reason to take the time and effort imposing British English on Wikipedia. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably then your preference is to impose American English on localities that do not use that dialect? Valiantis 14:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Hawkestone 04:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, should add most of Oceania's countries are commonwealth and tend use commonwealth English Nil Einne 17:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. --Darwinek 13:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Nathcer 03:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all Bhoeble 14:32, 10 April 2006 (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:Transportation in the Netherland Antilles

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. the wub "?!" 15:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled duplicate of Category:Transport in the Netherlands Antilles (with an "s" in Netherlands). Delete CalJW 04:06, 1 April 2006 (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:Ice Hockey in Spain

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. the wub "?!" 15:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original creator of the cat blanked it; since the cat already exists at Category:Ice hockey in Spain, which follows convention--Confuzion 03:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete CalJW 04:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete — Dale Arnett 06:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. David Kernow 19:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - well Hockey is a different sport to Ice Hockey so the categories aren't equivalent. If there genuinely are no articles on Hockey in Spain then it should go, but if there are some out there they should be added to it and it should be kept. Ben W Bell 06:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Per previous comment, the proposal is not about changing to Hockey, just fixing the capitalization. Matchups 00:53, 3 April 2006 (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:Pollution by country

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 consensous. - TexasAndroid 16:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While currently the category isn't being heavily used I see no reason it should go. Seems a perfectly valid category to me. Ben W Bell 06:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason for deletion has been given by proposer. It is a valid category which will fill over time. It also is a useful sub-cat of Category:Pollution for ease of navigation and to prevent clutter. Alan Liefting 02:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most of the articles in the category seem to be about local pollution, and don't have country names in them. If the category is kept, some text should be added explaining the intended use of the category, along with suggestions for subcategorization by specific country to aid in navigation. Matchups 04:25, 3 April 2006 (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:Pollution 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 no consensous. - TexasAndroid 16:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first named category only has the one subcategory and it invites POV article selection. The subject area is much better covered within the less pov and widely used Category:Environment by country system. Delete both Sumahoy 03:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete Pollution by country and merge pollution in the United States into Category:American environment, which already contains its only subcategory. CalJW 04:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per Cal. — Dale Arnett 06:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and hopefully add more countries to the hierarchy). We have a Category:Pollution; if this is a valid cat, then it is appropriate to subdivide it by country. Pollution is not a POV term; it is only in what is the appropriate political response to pollution that POV emerges. It seems to me quite reasonable to assume that someone may use WP to research the topic of pollution in a particular country. Valiantis 15:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not POV and contains NPOV pollution articles. I fail to see how factual acounts of pollution can be POV. The category will fill with time. Since many article names are not qualified with country name (eg XXXX pollution rather than XXXX pollution in YYYY country) the category system makes navigation to a specific article easier. Alan Liefting 02:34, 3 April 2006 (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:Georgetown residence halls

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. - TexasAndroid 16:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a category with the more specific, accurate name Category:Georgetown University residence halls. Mah58@georgetown.edu 02:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett 06:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of course, but even this non-deletionist wonders why there needs to be a separate article for each such hall. Matchups 01:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pedant 17:45, 3 April 2006 (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/2006_April_1&oldid=1132261692"