Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 26 August 28 >

August 27[edit]

Category:Rap/hip hop songs inspired by funk songs[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. ∞Who?¿? 23:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely non-maintainable and absolutely non-neccessary. --FuriousFreddy 22:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. That does seem quite specific. -- Reinyday, 07:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Overcategorization. siafu 18:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ∞Who?¿? 20:04, 29 August 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.

merge Category:Environment into Category:Environmentalism[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 --Kbdank71 13:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe most of Category:Environment should be merged into Category:Environmentalism, but a few topics should be merged into Category:Ecology. I can't see what the benefit of Category:Environment is in addition to the other two categories. If this goes through, Category:Environment by country and the subsequent subcategories should be renamed to Category:Ecology by country. -- Reinyday, 18:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. No argument. siafu 18:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the titled nomination, but think there should be a seperate CfD for the rest. -Splash 23:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, with the caveats mentioned by Splash. This question only deals with one cat. Nae'blis 20:35:29, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
  • Don't merge These are quite separate concepts with very different populations of articles. If anything, the merge should go the other way. The Environment is the major topic - environmentalism is just the groups trying to protect the Environment. Ecology is a subset. Vsmith 02:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ecology is not a subset. Ecology is the study of the environment. Geography is the study of land. We have Category:Geography. We do not have Category:Land. Everything that is in Category:Environment fits under "Environmentalism" or "Ecology". I would be happy to list which articles I think should be moved to each category. -- Reinyday, 14:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category: Roman Catholic musicians [edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 23:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Category:Roman Catholic actors recently sailed through CfD with broad consensus; this category should be deleted for similar reasons. Nandesuka 18:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: We divide people by occupation and nationality. Why not religion? We have a Category:Musicians by religion container for this category. I'm sorry I missed the actors vote, but this is part of a huge navigational scheme for classifying people:
People → People by occupation → Musicians → Musicians by religion → Christian musicians → Roman Catholic musicians
and: People → People by religion → Christians by denomination → Roman Catholics → Roman Catholic musicians
-- Reinyday, 21:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Note: There is also a List of Christian entertainers. -- Reinyday
  • Delete - A lot of the people in this category are dubious inclusions anyway. JW 11:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same as before (no people by religion by occupation cats). siafu 18:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is just a fairly unintersting overlap category. -Splash 23:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Reinyday. — Instantnood 13:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Political parties not allowing opposition[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. ∞Who?¿? 23:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This category currently has no members. Also, it seems like an odd way to classify parties, especially as there is already a category for single-party system partiesVino s 16:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Reinyday, 21:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 18:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the other's being used, no need for duplication. If it goes, someone may want to notify User:Wilfried_Derksen of the decision. Nae'blis 22:17:19, 2005-08-31 (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:Images containing nudity[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. ∞Who?¿? 23:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't see any rational reason for the existence of this category. The mix of images included is essentially arbitrary (the diagrams of reproductive systems being there is ridiculous). --Ngb 07:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason for the existence of this category is so people looking for nudity can find it easily. I think that is a good enough reason to delete it, but I don't think you'll prevent people from trying to make the Wikipedia navigable in this way. -- Reinyday, 07:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A perfectly reasonable category - I think I shall create Category:Images containing trees </irony>. Delete. Grutness...wha? 07:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I noticed that this is attached to Category:Nudity... 132.205.45.148 16:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete covered by Category:Nudity. I think Category:Images containing nude trees would be better. :) ∞Who?¿? 17:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT images should always be kept in a separate category, otherwise, it will overwhelm a normal category... 132.205.3.20 19:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 18:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.. Enough puritanism already. -Seth Mahoney 01:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - or add one for naked puritans. Vsmith 02:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: see also the previous polls #1 #2. — Instantnood 13:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Relevant policies: Wikipedia is not censored and Pornography. Some images should not stay, tho. — Instantnood 13:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see the relevance of those policies to this CfD. I haven't proposed the category for deletion because of 'puritanism', as User:Sethmahoney suggests above, and as you imply here by linking to these policies. I simply don't see that it has any remotely useful purpose as a category: I've yet to see anyone can give a sensible explanation of what it's for. As Grutness points about above, we don't have any other arbitrary classifications of images (no 'Images containing cars', 'Images containing dancing', 'Images containing milk') -- what makes nudity different? --Ngb ?!? 15:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Althought I can't think of any specific examples, this could serve a useful purpose. Nudity is a little different than a car or milk. I find it intresting to be able to see what articles have nude pictures and why. I suppose the only problem that could arise would be what the definition of nudity is. --The_stuart 18:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The image themselves are fine, if relevant to articles, but I don't think WP is meant as an image gallery. Someone above suggests an analogy with "Images containing trees", which I'd also vote to delete. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:00, 2005 September 3 (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:ISO C standards[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/Delete with Category:C standards. ∞Who?¿? 23:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of having separate categories Category:ISO C89 standard, Category:ISO C99 standard, Category:ANSI C standard is very good, and so is the idea of having them all listed under Category:C standards, but I don't see the point of having this intermediate category. Delete and recat the contents in Category:C standards. --Quuxplusone 04:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No argument. siafu 18:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recat. (SEWilco 17:27, 1 September 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:Marvel Comics Reformed Supervillains[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. ∞Who?¿? 23:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About half of these characters are still technically supervillains, several of them never were villains and were only manipulated into fighting the good guys once or twice, and a number of villains who reformed and then reverted to type aren't included. No way for this to stay up to date; easier to categorize characters who have definitely been villains into Category:Marvel Comics supervillains and those who have definitely been heroes into Category:Marvel Comics superheroes (if they aren't in subcategories of the relevant categories already). Also, incorrect capitalization. Delete. -Sean Curtin 04:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Australasian rugby league to Category:Oceanian rugby league[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (no change) --Kbdank71 13:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Operation: Rename
  • Reason: Scope of Category's articles and content is greater then the title allows for. Thus changing from Australasian --> Oceanian. This should also facilitate the moving of other articles into a more appropriate category. POds 01:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC);[reply]
  • Hmmm... it's a little more complex than that. Several of the countries aren't in Oceania, true (and in some which are often called Australasian the term is disliked), but Australia isn't always grouped in with Oceania, either. Category:Australian and Oceanian rugby league would cover all the bases, despite being more cumbersome. Grutness...wha? 07:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well according to wiki, Australia is in Oceania, although, a bit like the term Australasia, it may mean different things to different people. But we have the benefit of being able to tell people what it means on wiki, by a simple --> link:Oceania. I think Oceania pretty much covers it. Do we get to vote on this? Shouldn't we be using the discussion page for talking? POds 12:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC);[reply]
Talk related to possible voting is fair game here, and any comments relating to how a categoiry should be renamed is related to any possible votes. If there's no problem with the term Oceania including both Australia and PNG (which to this New Zealander sounds quite odd), then my vote would be to rename. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If there are categories, Europe and Oceania, which there would be if this renaming went a head, those looking for Australia would know to look in Oceania. Australia is known as the worlds largest island after all and it is part of the Pacific. It should be put to a vote and then the people of the world can decide... How and when is that done? POds 03:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeees, but for every person who tells you that Australia's the worldd's largest island, you'll get one who tells you it's the world's smallest continent. And if Australia is not always classed as Oceania, then that goes doubly for Papua New Guinea. And "island/part of the Pacific" could just as well mean Taiwan or Japan, and you wouldn't get many people considering them Oceanian. Having said all that, I'd agree that Category:Oceanian rugby league (note the added n) is probably the best name. Grutness...wha? 02:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Oceanian rugby league, the wiki article says that Oceania is the area we a re talking about. Grinner 19:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is there a reason why we need this broader category? Why not just have rugby leagues by country, as in Category:Australian rugby league, Category:Papua New Guinean rugby league, etc.? These could be part of Category:Rugby league by country, instead of the further subdivision of continent/region. -- Reinyday, 20:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • A fair comment, although given that some teams from new zealand and (ISTR) PNG play in the Australian league set-up, it may have a use. Separating by country may indeed be a more sensible way to go, though. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I think it began as a way to make the categories neater. In fact, I don't like the naming of categories, "Australian Rugby League" and others the like, because they are the names of organisations. I think the best way to go would be to have a set of Categories such as, "Rugby league in <Country>", like the set of articles I've started to create. Then we'd move almost all of whats in the "<Country> Rugby League" categories to the new "Rugby league in <Country>" category, except for articles and sub-categories like New South Wales Rugby League, Queensland Rugby League etc. That's what I was almost going to propose a few weeks ago, but it just seemed far too bold :). Or, we could just move those set of categories to the new proposed set. POds 02:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, it may not warrent categories such by each country as of yet because, like those countries in the pacific, there wouldnt be enough contributors to populate the categories. They'd sit dormant for quite a long time. Puting in the Region I guess cleans things up at the top level and whilst keeping all categories useful. POds 02:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok all. And i didnt notice the difference between oceania and oceanian, thanx. I've changed the above to point that way. POds 02:08, 30 August 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:Symbols in Hinduism and Category:Christian Symbols[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 23:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Hindu symbols and Category:Christian symbols, respectively. --Neutralitytalk 01:05, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Web Comics[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. ∞Who?¿? 23:59, 3 September 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_August_27&oldid=1110524254"