Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 27

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< August 26 August 28 >

August 27 edit

Category:Huddersfield, West Yorkshire edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 cat redirect --Kbdank71 19:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Huddersfield. Perhaps redirect? -- ProveIt (talk) 23:20, 27 August 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:Chinese edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 18:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already covered by Category:Chinese culture, Category:China, Category:Chinese people by occupation. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Golfcam 22:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but merge with Category:China first...?  David Kernow 01:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:China or its subcategories - Basically it's a duplicate category. "Chinese" is by definition anything from China. Merge the articles into the appropriate subcategories of Category:China Dugwiki 16:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redundant category at best. Ytny 16:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duplicate. Do not merge as most of these are not first tier subcategories and they are mostly in the appropriate categories already. Osomec 18:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category redirect to something... it seems like a likely recreation in the future. 132.205.45.148 19:43, 31 August 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:Nominalist Wikipedians edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nominalist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, Not a valid cat for modern people, refers to a medieval debate--can we now have Free Soil wikipedians?. Kmaguir1 20:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User philosophy categories are, in general, probably inessential, but me and several other editors feel this helps describe ourselves. LotLE×talk 21:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't do that. You can't be nominalists or realists in the medieval sense any more than people can be Christian Pelagians. No, no. -Kmaguir1 21:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep that in mind while I'm burning my Willard Van Orman Quine books. Yours, President of Gnosis Software, LotLE×talk
  • Speedy Keep with prejudice against nominator.--Anthony Krupp 22:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a fine category. In fact, anything where the user could reasonably think they're it is fine.--Mike Selinker 03:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems like a legitimate philosophical position to me. It's not a joke, and it does say something meaningful about the Wikipedian. --Cswrye 03:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - FWIW, when I created the user category, I had a certain ironic (but still serious) intention in mind. I have been frustrated by some overly facile use article categories; and specifically felt that they create a kind of false universality to the terms used in categories. I.e. the conflict with my actual nominalist intuitions. By creating a category of editors who don't believe in categories... well, you get the joke (such as it is). LotLE×talk 21:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep don't consider it the role of Wikipedia or Wikipedians to assert you cannot hold a certain philosophy. There are catagories based on philosophies and religions originating from various different cultures throughout history. That said probably wouldn't object to free soil wikipedians either. Addhoc 17:08, 31 August 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:Marvel monsters edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 18:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel monsters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, A pretty non-notable and not needed category. RobJ1981 19:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Marvel published a great deal of monster comics in the 1950s and 1960s. The topic would be better served by an article--and definitely deserves one. The monsters themselves, on the other hand, other than Fin Fang Foom, are mostly one-shots. -HKMarks 01:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to category:Marvel Comics monsters. I see no reason not to put It, the Living Colossus, Man-Thing, et al. in here.--Mike Selinker 03:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Changing vote to Rename per Mike Selinker -HKMarks 13:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless category definition can be fixed; if so, then Rename to Category:Marvel Comics monsters The category definition needs to be made more specific. How do you objectively tell which characters are "monsters"? Is it just "classic movie monsters", like Godzilla, the werewolf and Dracula? What about Man-Thing? And what about people who mutated into horrible forms, or who are just plain hideous or ugly in appearance? The definition currently is too open to interpretation over what constitutes a "monster" for category inclusion. Dugwiki 16:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. Category:Monsters has been deleted (several times, IIRC) for the same reason. -Sean Curtin 00:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote again to Delete... grudgingly. Poor Groot never had a chance against logic. -HKMarks 00:51, 31 August 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:Soviet Cold War surface-to-air missiles edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Soviet Cold War surface-to-air missiles into Category:Cold War surface-to-air missiles of the Soviet Union

Completing incomplete nomination by User:Aldis90. Merge, to match other subcategories of Category:Cold War surface-to-air missiles. TimBentley (talk) 19:11, 27 August 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:Prehistoric Fish edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prehistoric Fish into Category:Prehistoric fish

Completing incomplete nomination by User:128.205.91.63. Merge, capitalization. TimBentley (talk) 19:07, 27 August 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:Fitzroy Football Club players edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fitzroy Football Club players into Category:Fitzroy Lions players

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 Irish people edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 reverse merge --Kbdank71 18:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Irish people into Category:Fictional Irish

  • Completing incomplete nomination by User:Cclarke. A reverse merge would also be possible. No vote, I don't know which direction the merge should be in. TimBentley (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge as such categories usually include the word "people". Golfcam 22:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per Golfcam and English (as I understand it). David Kernow 01:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per golfcam. Tim! 08:21, 28 August 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:Employment edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Employment into Category:Labor

  • Completing incomplete nomination by User:Beland. No vote. TimBentley (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some people who labor are self-employed. Golfcam 22:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unfree labour also isn't employment. --70.72.19.133 05:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This would make the labor category to big for use besides there are enough differences in the two to keep them seperated.--Supplements 12:54, 29 August 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:Renaissance revival edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Renaissance revival to Category:Renaissance revival architecture

  • Rename, as this category is concernly solely with architecture. Hanbrook 14:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Golfcam 22:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per disambiguation. David Kernow 01:15, 28 August 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:Honourary citizens of Canada edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 already listed on August 26 Tim! 14:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Honourary citizens of Canada to Category:Honorary citizens of Canada

  • Rename, in Canadian and British English, honour and honourable is correct, but honourary is a misspelling. The "u" is often dropped when a suffix is added. Honorary and honorarium are often misspelled honourary and honourarium, as is in the case of this category. Ezeu 13:51, 27 August 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:Unusual conflicts edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 18:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unusual conflicts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, Seems a rather POV name and the criteria for inclusion are not very specific. I'm open to keeping this if a better name and clearer criteria can be determined. older ≠ wiser 12:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to provide some criteria. The idea for this cat came from reviewing articles that were related to each other, but had some odd quality to them. Some conflicts also take on folklore status, like the bloodless border wars here in the U.S. Cwolfsheep 12:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-encyclopaedic - "unusual" is a completely subjective and irrational qualification. Everything is unusual is some respect. The collective terms of reference bear no relationship to each other, but are simply framed to encompass a particular conflict or group of conflicts. And finally, as a category it serves no helpful reference purpose. Cain Mosni 15:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fundamentally POV, would be so large as to be useless if it genuinely included every conflict described as "unusual" in reputable historical works. Kirill Lokshin 18:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Golfcam 22:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague/POV/ambiguous. David Kernow 01:15, 28 August 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.

Wikipedians who required user interventions edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recommending renaming and/or merging:

Recommending deletion:

Here are some comments about the nominations. Category:Blocked Wikipedia users only has one entry, and it is a user who is temporarily blocked. There's already another category for indefinitely blocked accounts. "Doppelganger" and "imposter" mean the same thing, but the former is the term used at Wikipedia:Doppelganger account. Category:Known Wikipedian vandals only has a few entries, all of them IPs. Category:IP addresses with rotating users is currently empty except for a template, and I think that it means the same thing as Category:Shared IP. Some of these categories may have administrative purposes where renaming could mess things up, so please make note of those if that is the case. —Cswrye 06:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename with caution. These all seem right, but checking the administrative uses is paramount. As a general concept, I think "Wikipedian" should be used to define people who've ventured an identity on Wikipedia, not computers. So categories solely containing IP addresses shouldn't get the WIkipedian designation, unless that's necesary for admin purposes.--Mike Selinker 13:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I agree that this could be precarious, so I encourage everyone to point out possible problems with these renames. I also agree that categories about IP addresses should be the exception to the "Wikipedian" rule since the category is about the address itself rather than the user. --Cswrye 18:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "imposters" -> "doppelgangers". In Wikipedia terminology the two are different. An imposter is an account registered by someone to imitate another user, a doppleganger is an account registered by a legitimate user to prevent it being used by an imposter (see WP:DOPP). An account cannot be a "suspected doppelganger" - it either is or isn't. Thryduulf 17:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "doppelganger accounts" -> "Wikipedia doppelgangers". The pages in this category are not accounts used by people, they are accounts created to prevent impersonation. For example user:Thryduulf belongs in "Wikipedian" categories as I am a person; but user:ThryduuIf is an account registered to prevent someone using it to impersonate me. See WP:DOPP. Thryduulf 17:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Sorry about that. I should have read the guideline more carefully. I have changed the nominations accordingly. --Cswrye 18:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose merge "Known Wikipedian vandals" into "IP addresses used for vandalism". It is probably useful to keep user accounts and IPs separate, as the former can be indef blocked whereas the latter almost never should. Thryduulf 17:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right now, "Known Wikipedian vandals" only has IP addresses. How about if we merge the current contents of the category but keep the category itself for other purposes? I'm okay with that, but I'm not sure if the category would be used much since there are other categories for temporarily blocked Wikipedians and indefinitely blocked Wikipedians. --Cswrye 18:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Shared IP to Category:Shared IP addresses. --198.185.18.207 16:20, 31 August 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:Games from The Legend of Zelda series edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge to Category:Legend of Zelda games --Kbdank71 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Games from The Legend of Zelda series to Category:Games in The Legend of Zelda series

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:Diptera edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diptera into Category:Flies

  • Completing incomplete nomination by Berton. Merge, flies is a more common term than its order Diptera. TimBentley (talk) 03:55, 27 August 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:Families by nationality edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 reverse merge --Kbdank71 18:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Families by nationality into Category:Families by country

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:Users currently away from Wikipedia edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users currently away from Wikipedia into Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active

  • Merge - As far as I can tell, these two categories mean the same thing. —Cswrye 00:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge--Mike Selinker 13:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above Dugwiki 16:28, 28 August 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_August_27&oldid=1136105017"