Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 4

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< August 3 August 5 >

August 4

edit

Category:United States class aircraft carriers

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 19:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States class aircraft carriers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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.

Canary Islands categories

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 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename, prefix Canary Islands with "the". Tim! 18:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy) rename all per nom. (However, does anyone else find "Political parties in [a country]" rather than "Political parties of [a country]" a little odd...?)  David Kernow 23:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC), +query 03:18, 6 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.


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, by overwhelming consensus. El_C 09:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Allegedly anti-Semitic people

edit

Category:Allegedly anti-Semitic people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, POV magnet, like Category:Anti-Arab people, but with extra "allegedly" POV. What counts as a credible allegation? —Ashley Y 17:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per Ashley Y. --BrownHairedGirl 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete altough at times such allegations may be discussed in the article, I fail to see why this should form the base for a category. As the nom implies in his question, it is just too fuzzy. gidonb 22:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Ashley Y -- weasel words tend to attract POV. --Gutza T T+ 22:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete ridiculous! I would like to the A-S people cat deleted as well. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per the attempt to rename Category:Anti-Semitic people previously: if weasel words in articles are bad, they are much worse when applied to category names. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete For the love of God delete! It's Ludicrous! as is Anti-Semitic people, Anti-Arab people etc! who made us judge and jury??!? or instead delete that POV rule! --Yas121 22:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in general agreement with the reasons given above. - Jmabel | Talk 22:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quite rediculous for an encyclopedia. Kaldari 22:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The category cannot be, by definition, neutral; it is exposing one of the POVs only. Unlike Category:Anti-Semitic people, I don't think this deserves a place. This is one of the things that semantici Wikipedia might do for us in the future, but it ain't as if we can't live without it. Taragüí @ 08:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Heptor talk 09:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, So many people fall under this category. Oftentimes there is controversy, speculation, and/or conspiracy behind their anti-Semitic actions, words, affiliations, etc. Louis Farrakhan, for example. As well as many, many others. Shamir1 03:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper Taragui.--Mantanmoreland 15:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. Utterly ludicrous. Just zis Guy you know? 16:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The closest I'd recommend venturing to this category would be one set aside for "Self-Proclaimed Anti-Semitic People". Otherwise this cat becomes a weapon.--Beware of Cow 17:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Inherently subjective category LaszloWalrus 00:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete, POV pushing Matthew Fenton (contribs) 23:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This could be a useful category for future reference. Allegedly, these people are against Israel and it's presence in the world. If they have done things considered hateful that was news worthy, let this be the category to classify such individuals (as alleged of course). Could prove useful in future articles on middle-east conflicts. JungleCat talk/contrib 05:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I know you had good intentions with this, Stivertigo, but it just doesn't work. "Allegedly anti-Semitic"? Sorry, but it doesn't sound very encyclopedic. I suggest if people have been accused to just detail it in their bios, but we don't need a separate cat. Aaрон Кинни (t) 19:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Avi 05:54, 7 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:Users involved with WikiProject Tropical cyclones

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 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users involved with WikiProject Tropical cyclones to Category:WikiProject Tropical cyclones participants

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:Governors of RBI to Category:Governors of the Reserve Bank of India

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 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding [abbreviations] as usual. --Mereda 17:01, 4 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 by Wikipedia status nominations

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 17:49, 11 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.

Anonymous Wikipedian categories

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 17:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure "Static" would be really true for all of them, what about "Established IP users" or something like that? 68.39.174.238 17:03, 5 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:Intelligence

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 Category:Cognitive intelligence into Category:Intelligence --Kbdank71 17:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This previously had military intelligence mixed in. I moved those things out, and now it seems to be redundant with Category:Cognitive intelligence, into which I think it should be merged to avoid future ambiguity. -- Beland 21:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Category:Intelligence is easy to find, while :Cognitive Intelligence is not, and it also seems redundant. Suggest the reverse of this merge proposal, with a disambig note left in the :Intelligence category pointing to :Military Intelligence. Outriggr 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge Category:Cognitive intelligence into Category:Intelligence and leave a {{for|military intelligence|:Category:Military intelligence}}, per Outriggr. David Kernow 18:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per David Kernow. It's the best answer for now. And give a similar pointer {{for|emotional intelligence|:Category:Popular psychology}} to help readers find their way around science and contested fringe topics. --Mereda 07:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge I have expanded the category--Tstrobaugh 17:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABIFY this category, with links to Cognitive Intelligence and Espionage. And protect this category so that nothing can be categorized in it. 132.205.45.148 23:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge Category:Cognitive intelligence into Category:Intelligence --Ancheta Wis 07:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is more to this problem. First Category:Cognitive intelligence has Artificial Intelligence items in it. Second there are Category:Artificial_intelligence and Category:Cognition that have many overlaps. There may be more that I don't know of. I think the top level category should be Category:Intelligence with some subcategories under it. I don't think AI should be mixed with HI at all. That is a possible goal in a thousand years or so but it's science fiction now.--Tstrobaugh 17:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge After discussion, Intelligence (trait) was considered the primary usage and moved to Intelligence with a disambig at the top. Artificial intelligence is properly, as it is now, a subcat within intelligence. Intelligence is properly, as it is now, a subcat within cognitition. --Nectar 01:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Category:Cognitive intelligence was not tagged for the reverse merge, so I'm relisting this for another 7 days. Original discussion here. --Kbdank71 14:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge, with disambiguation links to Category:Espionage, Category:Military intelligence and Category:Cognition. -Sean Curtin 21:39, 5 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:Traditionalist Catholics

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 no consensus --Kbdank71 17:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Traditionalist Catholics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Luxembourg artists

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 Foo from Luxembourg --Kbdank71 17:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Luxembourg artists to Category:Luxembourgian artists
Category:Luxembourg politicians to Category:Luxembourgian politicians
Category:Luxembourg painters to Category:Luxembourgian painters
Category:Luxembourg art to Category:Luxembourgian art
Category:Luxembourg football clubs to Category:Luxembourgian football clubs

Comment. I'm all in favour of adopting the standard of 'People from Foo', but that isn't the standard currently adopted, and I don't think that anyone is seriously proposing that it be adopted in the near future. Currently, the categories for people by nationality use the adjectival form, and to create an exception for Luxembourg seems a tad off; cities are one thing, but countries are something else.
Furthermore, that list is simply wrong; 'Luxembourgian' is the standard in both British and American English. The only dictionary that I have found that gives 'Luxembourg' as an adjective also gives 'Luxembourgian': Cambridge bilingual. Furthermore, having read extensively on Luxembourg, I can't say that I've found one book or source that consistently uses 'Luxembourg' (some consistently use 'Luxembourgian', some 'Luxembourgish', but never 'Luxembourg'). The CIA has a lot to answer for. Bastin 12:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
People from Finland make a sharp distinction between "Finnish" (pertaining to the Finnish language) and "from Finland" (the country). The 6% Swedish-speaking minority in Finland refuse to call themselves Finnish. Extrapolating from this, "from COUNTRY" is the less problematic pattern. --LA2 12:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, it would be. However, 'Luxembourgian' is not a language; the analogy explains only why 'Luxembourgish' should not be used as the national adjective. Bastin 12:58, 5 August 2006 (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:Central

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 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Glasgow Subway tube stations

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 17:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Glasgow Subway tube stations to Category:Glasgow Subway stations

  • Rename, "Subway tube station" would be like saying "subway subway" station. You wouldn't say "London Underground tube station". Besides, the term "tube" isn't used in Glasgow. RFBailey 09:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Chicheley 13:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. the wub "?!" 09:57, 6 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:ABC 5

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 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ABC 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Associated Broadcasting Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A notice of this discussion has been added to the Filipino Wikipedians notice board. --Howard the Duck 07:57, 4 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:Bird Pokémon

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 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bird Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Amalgam Comics supervillain teams

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 no consensus --Kbdank71 17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Amalgam Comics supervillain teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, Amalgam was a short lived comic imprint. There doesn't need to be a category for it's teams. RobJ1981 04:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ViridaeTalk 04:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This parallels category:Amalgam Comics superhero teams nicely. Given its special place between DC and Marvel, both of which have a similar subcategory, this seems harmless.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Above. Also, For such a short lived imprint, it had a surprisingly large stable of teams, because of the way each one shot was written as though it were in the middle of an already established series. -That's why I did your work 05:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A cat with two entries that won't ever have any but two entries. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Amalgam Comics entries are being expanded constantly and I'm sure that in the future this category will house more than two entries. -Meweight 03:26, 8 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:Pages containing IPA

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 17:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages containing IPA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • This category is metadata and should not be present in the article space without a compelling reason, and I can come up with none. There was a previous CFD in 2004 which kept the category, however I think a second look is worthwhile. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to the same category being populated with talk pages, but even that seems like a waste of time. As it stands it should be deleted. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is similar to Category:Templates using ParserFunctions. It may come in useful some day if for some reason some change needs to be made automatically to all IPA-using pages (for instance, if the official IPA standard changes and all the pages need to be updated accordingly, although this is quite unlikely), and it isn't doing any harm. --ais523 15:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It has a substantial difference from the template you mention, in that it appears as part of the encyclopedic content. It disrupts the encyclopedic purpose of the category section, which is to "[list] all the categories to which the topic of the page belongs." (from WP:CAT) To achieve a professional, reliable appearance we should strive where possible to present a complete, clean encyclopedia article; this goal is disrupted to whatever extent our maintenance processes intrude onto the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, it appears that there is {{IPA}}; without knowing much about it, I would think that the "what links here" of that template could be used in the contingency you describe. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on that, conditional delete, conditional on an alternative being provided (like the IPA template). --ais523 12:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, self-referential and potentially limitless - ideally all articles will contain IPA. Just zis Guy you know? 19:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please no! It is useless to most people, and achieves nothing other than to make us feel ignorant. ReeseM 01:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-referential and untidy. ReeseM 01:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or provide alternative, I've been going through this category last month or so from A toward Z seeing if I can edit any of the pages that contain IPA (I'm on W right now) and in the process found several pages worth my improvement and monitoring. If there's another way of going through such pages in a similar way, then the category is redundant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aeusoes1 (talk • contribs) .
    • There are many alternatives, including the template's "what links here," or using a bot to move the category to the talk page (where many other meta-categories reside). Christopher Parham (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Aeusoes, I think that the list at Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:Infobox Language/IPA notice mentioned above should provide what you need. - EurekaLott 14:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this useless category before it grows. Osomec 14:17, 10 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:Surname pairs

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; empty --Kbdank71 17:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surname pairs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, arbitrary and totally useless. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. David Kernow 04:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CrazyRussian. ViridaeTalk 04:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain - I created this category mostly for fun. I don't think it's entirely useless, but I have no strong argument for keeping it either. To "listify" would be ok with me. I thought lists were something that belonged to Wikipedia's early days, and that they had been replaced with categories and WikiProjects. Are there any policies for how to create and name lists? Should I just go on to create list of surname pairs? --LA2 09:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify Lists haven't been abandoned; for instance, see Wikipedia:Featured lists! I'm not entirely sure the list would survive AfD (WP:NOT indiscriminate), but it would probably survive if something encyclopaedic was written along with it about surname pairs. --ais523 15:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Don'tlistify, another fine pair :-) Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CrazyRussian. See Wikipedia:Categories vs. lists, LA2, but in this case I think that WP:NOT applies. What use does this serve, apart from amusement? --Dhartung | Talk 09:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, the category is now emptied and can be removed. No list was created to replace it. It's gone. --LA2 09:57, 5 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:Bear vs. Shark

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 16:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bear vs. Shark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:British Colonial Flags

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 16:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Colonial Flags to Category:Flags of British overseas territories
Relisted from July 25. Most flags in the category link to the Commons, so suggest straightforward rename as above. (Prefixing "Images of" seems unnecessary.)  David Kernow 00:30, 4 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_4&oldid=1128196865"