Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 3
August 3
[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 see WP:SFD --Kbdank71 14:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this is redundant to Category:Radio programme stubs because both say "To add an article to this category, use {{radio-stub}}". Only Category:Radio programme stubs was created first. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind. I speedy deleted it since it was already deleted as per Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/Deleted/July 2005#Category:Radio stubs (no template). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion nomination should have been at SFD, not here, anyway. Grutness...wha? 11:54, 4 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Content moved to Category:Native Americans' rights activists. jengod 23:17, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy renamed as a typo fix. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:30, 4 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am wrong, but this category seems too broad and rather superfluous. Hall Monitor 22:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Far too broad to be useful. --Howcheng 22:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete well the only 2 articles are of "hot girls" so I guess it doesn't mean smoking hot. ;) ∞Who?¿? 22:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm the one who made it, and I'm currently adding additional articles to it. 67.174.230.30 23:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I confirm every article's placement into this category through careful research. 67.174.230.30 23:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of the above two statements have no bearing on whether it ought to be a category in an encyclopedia. (Delete)- Centrx 00:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I'm saying we need this cat, but I can pretty much only think of one or two people notable for smoking; George Burns and Jackie Gleason, but I seriously doubt its worth mentioning. ∞Who?¿? 01:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely you don't mean to forget William B. Davis? siafu 22:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Winston Churchill, Fidel Castro... (oh, but still delete the thing). Grutness...wha? 03:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I'm saying we need this cat, but I can pretty much only think of one or two people notable for smoking; George Burns and Jackie Gleason, but I seriously doubt its worth mentioning. ∞Who?¿? 01:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of the above two statements have no bearing on whether it ought to be a category in an encyclopedia. (Delete)- Centrx 00:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV --JB Adder | Talk 01:16, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Too broad for a category. Might as well categorize people who are bald, wear moustaches, wear toupees. under 5' tall, etc. RedWolf 01:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete (RedWolf: there was once a category of people wearing toupees, really) Pavel Vozenilek 02:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this extracts no encyclopedic information from the articles. -Splash 02:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Way too broad of a trait to categorize. – flamurai (t) 08:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, too broad K1Bond007 20:34, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No argument. siafu 22:55, 4 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Although such a category could be seen as inherently POV and/or non-maintainable (isn't almost everything famous part of pop culture?), if it must exist, it needs to be renamed to Category:American pop culture. --FuriousFreddy 21:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Far too broad to be useful. Any category which contains both Frank Lloyd Wright and Jennifer Wilbanks is pretty much useless, sorry. Gamaliel 21:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For the same reasons as Gamaliel --Rogerd 22:08, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Way too vague. No clear criteria. Ronald Reagan? -Willmcw 23:06, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons of vagueness. Hall Monitor 23:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for now. If those reasons are valid, then why do we have Category:Pop culture which is even more vague? At least this category is narrowing the focus to one culture. Are you also suggesting that Category:Japanese pop culture should be deleted? Looking in Category:Pop culture shows that this suggested categroy should simply be renamed and kept. If that is not an option, then someone needs to do a major overhaul of parent category. Or do we just need to add a brief description of what the category includes? Vegaswikian 23:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, too vague. tregoweth 00:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unless it develops some criteria. Laci Peterson? Meet the Parents? What?
- Delete. I found this because I was heading to the category to speedy-rename it, but I agree that it's much too broad to be useful. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles can be selected as various aspects, representations of American Pop Culture. Think of TV programs such as VH-1s I love the 80's, which highlight various aspects of American Pop Culture, sports, music, movies, news of the day. These are highlights - both profound and sublime (Frank Lloyd Wright and Jennifer Wilbanks). And yes as Vegaswikian notes, if this category is removed or adjusted, than all other regional pop culture categories must also be overhauled (IE Category:Japanese pop culture). I believe this category can both elevate and string together various aspects of American culture (IE - helps to explain WHY a given piece of content is posted on Wikipedia), reflecting watermarks of American society.
I believe if this category stays representative, and not broadly inclusive, it can be a very important category to keep and maintain. And I strongly hope it will be. Mend it, don't end it. :) -- Barrettmagic 10:50, August 4, 2005.
- Delete, too broad to extract anything further from the article. -Splash 20:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The spirit and purpose behind this category seem both very good, but discussing the existence of a national popular culture, as well as finding a few fine exemplars, are different from categorizing every cultural object as either included or excluded. I can't see a way to do this without resorting to POV. We already have Category:American culture to serve as a blanket on american cultural subcats also. A convincing argument (and category description) could change my mind, however. siafu 23:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and Comment - perhaps the definition of Pop Culture, as posted on Wikipedia, might illustrate the importance of this category and its representative nature across various media and icons: Popular culture, or pop culture, is the vernacular (people's) culture that prevails in any given society. The content of popular culture is determined by every day interactions, needs and desires, the cultural 'moments' that make up our everyday lives. It may include practices such as knitting, cooking, chopping wood, storytelling, playing cards and throwing or kicking a ball. In modern and postmodern societies, popular culture in large part is influenced by industries that disseminate cultural material, for example the film, television, anime, manga and publishing industries, as well as the news media. But popular culture cannot be described as just the aggregate product of those industries; instead, it is the result of a continuing interaction between those industries and the people of the society who consume their products. -- Barrettmagic 17:00 3 August, 2005 (UTC).
- Despite the attempt, that doesn't seem very illustrative at all. As written, it could include just about anything at all. siafu 00:01, 5 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.
Proposed mergers
[edit]The following categories had merge tags on them. I'm converting them into CFD nominations without offering any opinion. -- Beland 20:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 suspend until category titles discussion is complete --Kbdank71 14:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for merger with Category:American scientists.
- Comment Is Category:American scientists specific to USA, or is it a broad category extending over the whole of the Americas? --JB Adder | Talk 01:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Suspend for Category titles discussion. ∞Who?¿? 01:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong way round - American scientists should have its contents moved to United States scientists and then should be deleted. I certainly don't support making America mean the United States. Secretlondon 22:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- American already means "of the United States" in conventional English, whether you like it or not. Support the proposal. Osomec 03:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Suspend per Who. siafu 23:03, 4 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.
- 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 14:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for merger with Category:Shamanism.
- support. --Heah (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. There is a far more common definition of mediator than a shaman. siafu 23:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as {{categoryredirect}}. — Instantnood 14:41, August 5, 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.
- 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 (keep) --Kbdank71 14:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for merger with Category:Lists by country.
Support merge, country related topics are not what the category includes, only listss.--Zxcvbnm 00:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Keep I have merged all the subcategories and this page should be kept as it is.--Zxcvbnm 00:23, 4 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.
- 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 (keep) --Kbdank71 14:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for merger with Category:Archbishops.
Comment: Are there any archbishops who are not Roman Catholic, say, of the Anglican Church? — Instantnood 14:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)- Oppose. Should be coexisted with category:Anglican archbishops, category:Eastern Orthodox archbishops and category:Lutheran archbishops. — Instantnood 14:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Instantnood. siafu 17:32, 6 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.
- 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 (keep) --Kbdank71 14:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for merger with Category:Polish journalists.
- Oppose. These are two very different occupations. A publicist works for a client, often a celebrity or corporation, to get favorable publicity or quell negative publicity. A journalist works for a news organization. The two occupations are sometimes at cross-purposes. Maurreen (talk) 03:09, 10 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.
- 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 14:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for merger with Category:Filipino cuisine.
- Merge. No argument. siafu 23:06, 4 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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 14:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for rename to Category:Infantry divisions by nationality.
- Rename. No argument. siafu 23:07, 4 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.
- 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 14:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for merger with Category:Building projects.
- Merge. No argument. siafu 23:12, 4 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.
- 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 14:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for merger with Category:Computer file formats.
- Keep. Looking over the articles in each, these are neither sufficiently identical nor is one sufficiently empty to warrant merging. siafu 23:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, there should be correspondence between file formats and their extensions. Radiant_>|< 15:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 09:05, 9 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.
- 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 14:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for merger with Category:Computer and video games in production.
- Support merge to "Computer and video games in production"
but dependent on outcome of Cfd nom of Category:Computer and video games in production.K1Bond007 22:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC) Suspend until resolution of nom cited by K1Bond007. siafu 23:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Merge now that other CfD is over. siafu 15:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Other CfD is complete with a no consensus, so this one can continue. I'll concur with merge. --Kbdank71 15:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge. Given the pattern set out by the parent category Category:Computer and video games, Category:Future games should be merged into Category:Computer and video games in production.
- Support merge. I support the merge. Should the template {{future game}} be changed now or later? ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:19, 2005 August 9 (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.
- 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 (keep) --Kbdank71 14:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for rename to Category:Basque myths and legends.
I strongly disagree with the suggestion that this category be merged with Category:Basque myths and legends. In the first place, this deity category is linked to the Category:Deities by culture. It also lists gods of ancient Iberia, before the ethnogenisis of the Basques per se. --Briangotts (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the former, I definitely agree. Regarding the latter, I've put up a request that the other category be renamed to include the earlier Iberians as well. -Sean Curtin 05:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I think if the myths and legends category were created, this should be a subcat of that one. But definitely not renamed--Briangotts (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that's already been done. Duh. --Briangotts (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if the myths and legends category were created, this should be a subcat of that one. But definitely not renamed--Briangotts (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have some evidence that the Basques had gods so named?
- Do you have some evidence about Iberian religion and its relation with a Basque religion?
- For example, have you checked Jose Miguel Barandiarán or Julio Caro Baroja or some authority on Basque anthropology?
- --Error 23:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Basque myths and legends was just deleted yesterday via this CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 26#Category:Basque myths and legends. --Kbdank71 20:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore. I didn't see that CfD. I vote for renaming as Category:Basque myths and legends. --Error 23:38, 4 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.
- 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 (keep) --Kbdank71 14:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for merger with Category:Basque and Iberian deities.
- Whoever nominated this must have missed the Cfd here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 26#Category:Basque myths and legends This category was just created yesterday. --Kbdank71 20:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Much better cat name than any of the others suggested. siafu 23:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore. I didn't see that CfD. I vote for renaming as Category:Basque myths and legends. I don't see the justification for meddling together Basques and Iberians. --Error 23:33, 4 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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 14:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see these changed to the same format at the other 45 subcategories of Category:Sports venues by country, that is to Category:Sports venues in the United Kingdom and category:Sports venues in Canada. Osomec 15:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 23:28, 4 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This category is presently empty. Category:Atheists has 17 articles; so there is no need to break it up. The function of the cat, therefore, is supplied by the joint presence of Category:Atheists, or its subcats, and one of the subcats of Category:Scientists. In brief, category clutter. Septentrionalis 14:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Septentrionalis. --Kbdank71 14:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. -Splash 20:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 23:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. feydey 02:20, 9 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.
- 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 14:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to separate this from Category:Delaware River; should be all in one category like I had it. --SPUI (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and delete. ∞Who?¿? 11:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur. Radiant_>|< 12:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. -Splash 20:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, Pavel Vozenilek 02:01, 4 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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to something clear like Category:Dangerous spiders. Gdr 04:22:57, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
- Dangerous? As in, poisonous, I assume? Otherwise the distinction between 'dangerous' and 'non-dangerous' sounds entirely arbitrary to me. Radiant_>|< 12:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Poisonous spiders. --Kbdank71 14:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmm. Poisonous sounds like you have to eat them. Venomous? How many spiders carry weak venoms, I wonder? Do we really mean "lethally venomous to humans"? (Is today CfD Biology Rename Day?) -Splash 20:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmm indeed. Most spiders have venom of some sort, and are dangerous if you're a fly. Certainly delete this category; possibly rename as something like "spiders harmful to humans", as I think that's what was being aimed for here. Joyous (talk) 00:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Rename, but mostly listify. -- Visviva 15:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename and list, per Visviva. siafu 23:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify sounds good. Radiant_>|< 09:36, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Rename and list, per Visvia. --Lexor|Talk 12:13, August 10, 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Misspelled duplicate of Category:Achaearanea. Gdr 04:10:22, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
- Speedy rename. Radiant_>|< 12:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect if possible; delete otherwise. --JB Adder | Talk 01:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- This is speedy category. Pavel Vozenilek 02:02, 4 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Categories named after species epithets. There is no such thing as "tepidariorum". The species is always given as Achaearanea tepidariorum. Similarly for the others (Latrodectus mactans, Heteropoda venatoria, Phoneutria nigriventer). Gdr 04:10:22, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
- Delete all. Single species are article topics, not categories. siafu 23:41, 4 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Misnamed duplicate of Category:Sparassidae. Gdr 04:20:10, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
- Comment I'm assuming there is a project that categorized all the seperate genus of these? I agree that more information could be added to each one, but roughly one article and one pic per cat at the moment. Other than that, delete as dup. ∞Who?¿? 11:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No project is involved. These categories belong to a personal scheme of User:Patrick0Moran. He has placed a number of articles about species of spiders into a category for each major Linnean rank (up to class). He can probably explain the scheme better than I can. I don't have an opinion about whether the scheme is good or bad; the categories I've nominated don't fit into his scheme; they are just mistakes. Gdr 12:31:18, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
- Redirect if possible; delete otherwise. --JB Adder | Talk 01:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Per me, above. siafu 23:43, 4 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Misnamed duplicate of Category:Heteropoda. Gdr 04:20:10, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
- See above. ∞Who?¿? 11:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect if possible; delete otherwise. --JB Adder | Talk 01:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Same. siafu 23:43, 4 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just misnamed. 04:20:10, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
- Delete . I assume there is no dup or need for this cat? ∞Who?¿? 11:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It was intended to be the category of articles about the species Heteropoda venatoria. But even if it were appropriate to have a category for such a small subject area, it wouldn't be appropriate to abbreviate the genus, because there might be other genera with a species named venatoria. Gdr 12:31:18, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
- Redirect if possible; delete otherwise. --JB Adder | Talk 01:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. How many articles are there for any one species (excluding those in the genus homo, which we like to write about so much). siafu 23:39, 4 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Misnamed duplicate of Category:Liphistiidae Gdr 04:30:08, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
- See above x2. ∞Who?¿? 11:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect if possible; delete otherwise. --JB Adder | Talk 01:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. siafu 23:44, 4 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Misnamed duplicate of Category:Heptathela Gdr 04:30:08, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
- See above x3. ∞Who?¿? 11:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect if possible; delete otherwise. --JB Adder | Talk 01:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. siafu 23:44, 4 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Category is inherently POV. Who says whether a sports star reached their potential? Agentsoo 01:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Radiant_>|< 12:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete POV that is also neologistic, or vernacular at best. -Splash 20:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Worthless cat, POV, and some of the choices shouldn't be in the category in the first place... Klitschko was a title holder. Anthony 21:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Don't Delete There's a justifiable reason for every person that made that list. Klitschko was expected to be the "next" great heavyweight and with his losses to Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster his weak chin was exposed. Justified. And even Klitschko has acknowledged that he feels he hasn't lived up to the high expectations set by the media and himself. Now who else on the list isn't supposed to be there? StockMail
- Rename it sports flops. StockMail
- Delete as inherently POV. Joyous (talk) 00:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No argument. siafu 23:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it. It's really not that serious. There's way too much overanalyzing. StockMail
- 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a misuse of categories by putting two discrete classifications together in a single category where two separate categories, that is Category:Free software and Category:Linux software are more appropriate, both information-theoretically and practically. A more practical, specific symptom of this erroneous classification is that this category contains numerous articles that run on many platforms other than Linux; none such software is "Linux software", which is an error in meaning besides. The categorization error of this becomes more apparent when this erroneous categorization scheme is extended, so that under such a scheme such software would go under Category:Free Linux software, Category:Free BSD software, Category:Free HP-UX software, etc., all of which would also be under the category Category:Free software, when a more appropriate categorization would be under the two Category:Free software and Category:Unix software. A similar symptom occurs if it is decided to split free software article categorization into multiple categories of Category:GPL Software, Category:BSD license software, Category:Apache license software, etc. Whether this is desirable or not, it is nevertheless a reasonably discriminated categorization, but doing so would, under the principle applied to create Category:Free Linux software, mean that numerous categories Category:GPL Linux software, Category:BSD license Linux software, etc. would be created. There are many more possible examples of such practical problems. Such a profusion of practical problems is merely a symptom of erroneous "putting like with unlike" and planar specificity rather than flexible graph specificity, in the vein of the Wikipedia:Categorization example of "Category:Musicians whose first name starts with M", but is more easily demonstrated than ideal theory of it. Suffice it to say that there is no such thing as "free Linux software", insofar as the term "free Linux software" is considered a unit; it makes sense to describe a thing as "free Linux software", for in a description it is understood that each of these words is distinct, but it makes no sense to classify a thing as "free Linux software" where it is possible to classify it by its distinct units. - Centrx 01:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' over-categorization. ∞Who?¿? 11:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, overcat. Radiant_>|< 12:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm persuaded by the nomination. -Splash 20:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- unsure delete: perhaps categorisation of SW should be discussed and some guidelines created. It feels as perennial topic. Pavel Vozenilek 02:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 23:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A case of overcategorisation which contains false entries ie. not specifically Linux Software. --Khalid hassani 18:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not sure I understood the reasoning abowe (wich is why I won't vote at this point), but if I happened to be looking for Linux software that is free (ignoring for a moment that the Wikipedia is not a "price guide"), then surely a "Free Linux software" category would be more usefull than having to look though two seperate categories. One with ALL free software, and one with ALL Linux software (well, all that there are articles about anyway). Isn't this a bit like saying that having for example "American novelists" is overcategorisation because we already have "Novelists" and "American writers" (sorry if that's a inapropriate example, but it would seem to be an example of putting "like with unlike" as Centrx put it)? My apologies if I misunderstood Centrx'es reasoning, the language got slightly to technical for me it seems. --Sherool 01:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : At the moment, nearly 99% of free software runs on Linux and free software tend to be platform agnostic, so this category is largely redundant, perhaps that in 5 years we will have say, enough Windows specific free software, but at the moment this is not the case. Another problem is that we don't delete this category, soon we will have, Free BSD Software, Net BSD Software, Free Amiga OS Software, Free Be OS Software you see my point. There is already a Category:Free Mac OS software and I have listed it for deletion too. --Khalid hassani 13:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Aaah! ok I get it now, seeing as free(ware) software are usualy available for every major OS (and the few that doesn't are too few to justify seperate categories) the content of these categories would be virtualy identical to "Free software", and therefore they are redundant . Then I agree (though at some point something like "Freeware exlusively for <OS>" might be justified). Sorry for the trouble. I just found the nominators "rant" somewhat confusing. The mixing like and unlike stuff realy threw me off and I was left with the wrong impression. Reading VfD's at 03:00 in the morning probably didn't help either :-O --Sherool 18:02, 8 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.
- 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 (keep) --Kbdank71 13:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Already covered by Category:Anatomy. Unnecessary duplication. Anatomy of animals already covered by Category:Zootomy. Alex.tan 01:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete merge any stragglers.∞Who?¿? 11:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well in light of the remarkable display of actually reading the article :) I have to go along with Radiant on this one.. Keep 22:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer the term 'human anatomy'. Radiant_>|< 12:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- If I understand "Alex.tan", only humans have anatomies, and everything else has a zootomy??
- Sorry, but no. To cite our own article on Anatomy, "Anatomy (from the Greek anatome, from ana-temnein, to cut up), is the branch of biology that deals with the structure and organization of living things. It can be divided into animal anatomy (zootomy) and plant anatomy (phytonomy). Major branches of anatomy include comparative anatomy, histology, and human anatomy." Radiant_>|< 20:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Radiant. siafu 23:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - was going to put it up for CfD but Alex.Tan beat me to it. Most of knowledge is derived from human anatomy and when we mention words such as "leg" or "arm" we refer to human anatomy. It is also reduncdant practically. Zootomy and plant anat are minor branches of anatomy. The overwhleming use of anatomy is in human terms. Also it is incredibly difficult to sort out organisation when every anatomy article has two possible categories to place in, which people will place in different categories. PhatRita 14:04, 7 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. I created this without realizing that it was already covered under Category:Football (soccer) competitions --Howcheng 22:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect if possible; delete otherwise. --JB Adder | Talk 01:29, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I'll explain myself here. Some people (a select few, I admit) will look for a 'Leagues' category instead of a 'Competitions' category, because it's what they're used to thinking of as a football competition. It's a simple case of terminology.
This explanation also holds for the nom below. --JB Adder | Talk 01:34, August 4, 2005 (UTC)- Comment: Well, "competitions" also includes the various tournaments and cups, so it's a little more expansive than just "leagues". --Howcheng 05:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll explain myself here. Some people (a select few, I admit) will look for a 'Leagues' category instead of a 'Competitions' category, because it's what they're used to thinking of as a football competition. It's a simple case of terminology.
- Comment However, it could be a sub cat of competitions, with a knockout competitions sub cat created to sit alongside. Hiding talk 09:16, 4 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. I created this without realizing that it was already covered under Category:English football competitions --Howcheng 22:46, 3 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.