Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 7 December 9 >

December 8[edit]

Category:Crime in Kosovo[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 --Kbdank71 17:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only contained one article Trafficking of women in and from Kosovo which I, quite justifiably, recatagorzied into Category:Kosovo and Category:Sex crimes. After that, the category was empty. While it is possible that, if we get an editor devoted to writing about Kosovo, eventually he/she will write so much that it will require, not just a Crime in Kosovo article but so many seperate articles that a catagory would be helpful, I think this is unlikely, and, in any case, would require so much effort that the effort of recreating the catagory would be neglible. Therefore, Delete(for now) JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for reaons given. Carina22 15:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until there is a sufficient number of articles to justify the category. The category is not inheritly bad, it's just that it's better to make one or two articles (for now) accesible via more obvious cats. --dcabrilo 07:11, 15 December 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.

T.J. Litafik[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 listed at WP:AFD --Kbdank71 17:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: T._J._Litafik feels more like a resume than a article. no outside references or outside material. {Jabencarsey 20:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

Shouldn't this go to AfD, not here? It doens't seem to be a catagory... JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
yeah this should be on WP:AFD. BL kiss the lizard 23:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I listed it in afd so this entry serves no further purpose here. - Bobet 17:02, 9 December 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.

Ethnic groups by country[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 17:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: That "in country" be established at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) as the guideline of how to name categories that have a scope of collecting ethnic groups by country, and that existing categories that use the wording "of country" be renamed to use the wording "in country".

Currently categories that group ethnic groups by country mostly have "of country" in their name. For example, Category:Ethnic groups of Canada. However, there currently is no listed guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) of how such ethnic groups by country categories should be named. For several reasons, I am proposing that ethnic groups by country categories be named "in country", such as Category:Ethnic groups in Mexico. This proposal has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories), with all commenting Wikipedians in favour of the change. Arguments in favour of the proposal are as follows.

The existence of some ethnic groups, such as indigenous peoples, pre-date the formation of the countries that they are now located in. For example, see the First Nations or Inuit in Canada, or the Awá in Brazil. If the ethnic group existed prior to the formation of the country, then the word "in" is more accurate than the word "of", and avoids implying belonging. A Google search also confirms that generally "in" is more widely used than "of" in describing ethnic groups by country. See Google searches for "ethnic groups in Australia" vs. "ethnic groups of Australia", and "ethnic groups in France" vs. "ethnic groups of France".

The choice of "in" instead of "of" in regard to ethnic groups and political entities has also been made through debate or has not been objected to for several articles and categories including Aboriginal peoples in Canada, Indigenous peoples in Brazil, Indigenous peoples in the United States, List of ethnic groups in Laos, List of ethnic groups in Vietnam, Category:Native American tribes in Arizona, Category:Native American tribes in Florida, and Category:Native American tribes in Wisconsin.

Lastly, an additional reason in favour of the use of "in country" expressed by a commenting Wikipedian at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories) is that: 'I prefer "in" over "of", but not because of any politically correct issues over historicity. There are a number of ethnic groups who as of today are not confined to a single country, such as the Iriquois, Rroma, Tutsi, and Punjabi. Such groups can't really be described accurately by the preposition "of", but "in" is accurate.' [1]

As per the above, the following renamings are proposed:

--Kurieeto 18:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all as proposed. I particularly agree with the last point, of which Oromo and Somali people are also good examples. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • * Rename all. Makes total sense. Individual ethnic groups often cross boundaries, especially, but not exclusively, Indigenous peoples. Luigizanasi 21:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom, though I'd hate to be the one who has to do it... --Dvyost 21:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Mayumashu 01:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per the last point. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I am quite unconvinced by the arguments made, but the proposal is popular. Carina22 15:22, 11 December 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.

Hills of the regions of England[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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: There's no real reason to subdive by region, *everything else* English is categorised simply by county. Most of these categories contain only Hill of X-shire sub-categories. They (and teh few remaing hills from counties without such categories) should all go directly into the main Category:Mountains and hills of England. Grinner 15:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The UK categorisation is complex enough already and only a few bureaucrats think in terms of regions. Carina22 21:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not needed or useful Rhollenton 23:01, 10 December 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:Sex 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 delete --Kbdank71 17:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly people who are widely acknowledged to have sex appeal. Of course one could add names indefinitely. Rudolph Valentino, Charles Chaplin, and Harold Lloyd once wet a lot of knickers and sold movie magazines by the cartload, but you won't find them in this category now. Sic transit gloria mundi (whoever she was). Pointless category. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Previous discussions: #1 #2. — Instantnood 15:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Biased category. Rachel Bilson isn't in it. Golfcam 17:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's better as a list so that it can be explained why they're considered symbols, and where and by who. --Vizcarra 00:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vizcarra. Although that list had better be well-cited from the beginning, or it would end up hardly different from articles on ethnic sterotypes, for example. --Idont Havaname 02:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or add all physically attractive celebrities to the category. An annotated, cited list of people who are known first and foremost as sex symbols would be somewhat uesful. -Sean Curtin 06:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The analogy with category:gay icons (which has survived multiple CFD listings) is striking. I would find it absurd for Marilyn Monroe to be categorized as a gay icon but not as a sex symbol. I would favor deleting most culturally based categorizations if there were a mass nomination. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is little reason to accept that the failure of those nominations reflected the true consensus as the range of people who chose to vote was patently skewed towards those likely to vote keep. CalJW 09:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. Make sure all the entries already have a link to the list of sex symbols, and are included there. Or else don't delete. — Instantnood 14:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Much too arbitary. Carina22 15:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 63.20.87.156 16:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reflects fashion more than fact. CalJW 09:55, 15 December 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.

Mountains of the United States and Yukon[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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:31, 16 December 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:Verities of Rice to Category:Varieties of rice[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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A misspelling. It had only one article (Basmati), and I already recategorized it. — A.M. 09:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(must resist making comment about Condilisa and the truth...) rename. BL kiss the lizard 23:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming. Note for other voters and closing admin: I have moved this to the Speedy renaming section of this page; it seems to be a simple typo fix. --Idont Havaname 02:45, 9 December 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:Fictional daimyo[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 --Kbdank71 17:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only contains one article. -Sean Curtin 06:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP can be significantly expanded. Perhaps a template:popcat? There are tonnes of notable fictional daimyo, now that manga is a worldwide phenomenon. 132.205.45.148 21:26, 12 December 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:Fictional engineers, Category:Fictional inventors, Category:Fictional scientists[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 keep --Kbdank71 18:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although these aren't completely redundant, there is a very high degree of overlap, especially between the engineers and inventors categories. Merge all three into a new category, such as Category:Fictional scientists and engineers. -Sean Curtin 06:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all 3 Different things. That's why there are three different words. Scientists is massive already. Golfcam 17:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but if the other two categories are fully applied, they'll be just as massive. Try going through the contents of all three and counting the characters who belong in two or sall three of these categories. By my count, almost half of these characters should go into two or more of these categories if they're all kept separate. -Sean Curtin 06:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Put the characters into more than one if necessary. The present system matches the categories for real people, but a combinted category wouldn't. Rhollenton 23:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a problem. Carina22 15:22, 11 December 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:Barbie Templates[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 --Kbdank71 18:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only contains one template - and would we ever need a category for these templates at all? -Sean Curtin 06:29, 8 December 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:Chipmunks albums[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 --Kbdank71 18:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See instead Category:Alvin and the Chipmunks albums. The list of albums is already on the main Alvin and the Chipmunks article. -Sean Curtin 06:00, 8 December 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:Mysore cricketers[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 redirect as nominated --Kbdank71 18:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No need for this as the category Category:Karnataka_cricketers is already around. The Mysore team was renamed to Karnataka in around 1973 Tintin 04:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even that is fine with me. I just want to ensure that some cricketers from there end up in one category and others in the other one. Tintin 13:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Warning notice: The category Category:Color was changed with a category redirect by an anonymous user of 130.159.254.2 (talk · contribs). --AllyUnion (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make into redirect per jguk. Sam Vimes 23:00, 9 December 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:Foo state highways or Category:Foo state routes or Category:State highways in Foo all capitals[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 --Kbdank71 18:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is because any highway in California (for example) can be a California state highway, but the purpose of these categories is to hold articles named "California State Route 213". All categories are located in Category:State highways Also, it was proposed when this was an attempted speedy that we use the actual designation (see below for details). Note: This debate is written up, but categories are still tagged with the speedy tag. They will be fixed tomorrow.

Proposed names (bold indicates where the title differs from Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads):

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry about the delay... I got nominated for RFA so I didn't get to tagging... tomorrow I'll fix it though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All categories have now been tagged. Again I apologize for the delay. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. But note that even Illinois as a whole isn't consistent. Sometimes it's Illinois State Route 64. Sometimes it's U.S. Route 20. Sometimes it's U.S. Highway 20. Sometimes it's Illinois Highway 64. I'm sure it's like that for other states, too. --Rob 16:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're going with whatever the DOT calls them... if it's not whatever the list says above go ahead and note it here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold off/oppose/whatever. I think we should talk about this for a while to figure out (a) what the DOT actually does call them and (b) how to format them. For instance, New York is always Route XX. There is another issue too, relating not just to the categories but to the articles. Disambiguation is typically done with parentheses, but most highway articles list the state first. I have recently moved the New Jersey Routes to for instance Route 29 (New Jersey), as it is almost always called Route 29 (officially it is State Highway Route 29, but even NJDOT usually calls it Route 29). It is never called New Jersey Route 29 except when disamgibuating from adjacent states. I have also created a buttload of redirects to help out. (I now realize that this makes it harder to switch to another naming convention - that was not my intent.) Closely related is what to call the list (List of New Jersey State Routes or List of State Routes in New Jersey?) and the category (Category:New Jersey State Routes or Category:State Routes in New Jersey?). (The "State" is added in these as a compromise between the common name and the ambiguity of "Routes" - could be bus routes or any number of other things; maybe State Highway Routes would be better.) I'm going to start on Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/U.S. state highway naming conventions to coordinate what the states use and so we can discuss naming conventions. --SPUI (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Hawaii, it should either be Category:Hawaii State Highways to match all our other categories about Hawaii, or Category:Hawaiʻi State Highways (using an ʻOkina not an apostrophe); but not Category:Hawai'i State Highways as proposed. But I agree with SPUI that the rename should be held off until it's decided what convention we're using to name them. Also, Category:State Routes in New Jersey would need a rename if we're following the format of the renames here. --Mairi 01:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. From the naming conventions on categories (and everything else, come to that): Standard article naming conventions also apply; in particular, do not capitalise regular nouns. As per the article, state highway is a common noun. There's nothing to suggest that "<state> state highway" has any other status (other than when it occurs in the name of a particular road). Wikipedia has no policy for capitalising words for emphasis, wikiproject preference, or for "disambiguation". If "<state> state highway" is going to be misconstrued in the way that Rschen suggests (which seems to me an unlikely, if not tortuous, reading) then rename to "State highways of/in <state>". Claims that the capitalised form is overwhelmingly the more common, or even that the particular phrases are that common in the first place, don't seem to stand up. See User_talk:Rschen7754/Highway_Capitalization; other than wikipedia mirrors, titles and headings, the lower case form seems if anything the more common. California law defining these calls them "State routes", not "State Routes": how much more official do you want than that? Not that the policy is "official names" or "official capitalisation", either. it's common names, and stylistically correct caps. BTW, why was this ever listed as a speedy? Alai 03:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To begin, SPUI has used speedys to fix capitalization before on highway categories, and I figured that I could do the same since this is capitalization. Also I need to fix that caps page, I left it abandoned for the last few weeks as other matters were drawn to my attention (notably the TFDing of {{Routeboxint}}.) I'm considering just bypassing everything and going for a Wikipedia precedent to forego all of these smaller debates. For now it looks like this debate will be put on hold for a while as we sort the whole highways department out... but yeah. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I think that this should ultimately end up at a naming conventions page, for the sakes of clarity, and a bit of democratic centralism. Alai 04:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least in New Jersey, the Route is capitalized - see wikisource:1927 New Jersey State Route renumbering. That's probably one more thing to be sure of, and another reason to work out a general policy rather than a rule saying "state A is B", as we don't have enough information about many states. By the way, I don't remember listing any highway categories for speedy, though I may be wrong. --SPUI (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From the speedy debate:[edit]
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:Attractions and Landmarks of Mumbai[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 --Kbdank71 18:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an awkwardly named category and it contains a very mixed bag of articles. I have subcategorised the Mumbai menu and everything in here is now in one or more clearer categories: parks, buildings and structures, geography, visitor attractions (which may be almost the same thing, but is a simpler name), culture. I don't think this is needed, and it is miscapitalised in any case. Delete Rhollenton 02:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Duplicate. Carina22 15:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irregular category name. Sumahoy 16:52, 13 December 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:Societies by nationality to Category:Society by nationality[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 as nominated --Kbdank71 18:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Badly named, should not be plural. Sounds like it should contain Category:Norwegian debating societies and Category:Ethiopian Chess societies. Should be singular like Category:Education by country. MeltBanana 01:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Sounds fine to me. Societies is the plural of society and many category names are plurals. Education is not a good comparison. Rhollenton 02:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Rhollenton. --Idont Havaname 02:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but not to Society by nationality. The proposed new name is singular, while Wikipedia uses plurals for categories. Education is not a good example, because it doesn't have a plural. It should be renamed though, but to Category:Societies by country, or something like that. I also believe that the daughter categories should be renamed to "Society of foo" instead of "Fooian society." Aecis praatpaal 13:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Society by country, similarly as Category:Culture by country. Societies are associations so it is confusing as it is. --Vizcarra 23:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Society by country Abögarp 20:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Society by country. I created most of the subcategories, and I've been thinking of suggesting that. CalJW 09:58, 15 December 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:Images of U.S. Congress [edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete under CSD#G7. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this, please. I created this. But it turns out there's already Category:Congress images. Markles 01:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rhollenton 02:11, 8 December 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_December_8&oldid=1122493295"