Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 19

< October 18	October 20 >

October 19

Buildings and structures in the United Kingdom

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 ALL. -Splash^talk 12:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some subcategories of the above which could be renamed because they don't match the others:

Category:British mosques rename category:Mosques in the United Kingdom
Category:British public houses rename category:Public houses in the United Kingdom
Category:Retail buildings in Britain rename category:Retail buildings in the United Kingdom

Bhoeble 23:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all three. No argument. siafu 18:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. These are speedy per #4 I think. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) gives Buildings and structures as speedy renames. -Splash^talk 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- None of them is actually listed in the "This guideline applies to:" section. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:53, 24 October 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:Wikipedian musicians by instrument

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 13:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:User instruments. (Also, it's not really in RFE.) Ddawson 22:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Query. Does the skin-flute count as a Wikipedian instument? After all, it's played mighty often. Category:User instruments -

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:Rugby stadiums

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 13:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category was originally created to cover stadiums used by the two different sports of rugby union and rugby league as well as some very minor rugby derived sports such as wheelchair rugby. I've created a seperate Category:Rugby league stadiums for the rugby league ones and intend to change the generic category into one reserved for rugby union stadiums under the name Category:Rugby union stadiums

Two different sports shouldn't share categories, for one thing it makes the category hierarchy unnecessarily complicated, few stadiums are used by both sports in any case most are either union or league and the minor rugby derivatives have no articles and no likelyhood of any either. GordyB 20:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

support. Actually, the "minor derivatives" do have articles, but they're listed under the main type of rugby from which they developed - rugby sixes is listed under league, and rugby sevens is listed under union. Note that one of your two proposed categories already has at least one subcategory (Category:New Zealand rugby union stadiums, itself up for renaming). Grutness...wha? 00:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They do have articles what I meant was that those under Category:Rugby such as wheelchair rugby, underwater rugby, touch rugby etc. have no 'stadium articles' and no likelyhood of any. Sevens is a different matter but comes under Category:Rugby union since it is administered by the IRB.GordyB 14:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to support a suitably-handled split, but am not qualified to suggest what that might be. So I'm just registering support if agreement on names is generally reached. -Splash^talk 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't there is any need for a split. Wheelchair rugby stadiums? I can't name even one, ditto with underwater rugby or touch rugby. These are not really spectator sports they are purely social and so really don't need articles writing about their venues. I'd suggest only creating a category in the very unlikely event that somebody actually does write an article that would require such a categoryGordyB 10:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- the split suggested is only for union and league which are two completely different sports. support BL kiss the lizard 23:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I had already created a separate category for rugby league Category:Rugby league stadiums before I put this cat up for nomination. Perhaps I should have put this cat up for a split rather than a renaming. My bad.GordyB 13:53, 22 October 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:World War II Polish destroyers

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 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category - TexasAndroid 17:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty cat as per nom. Megapixie 01:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreate later if articles are created. «»Who ?¿?^meta 07:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No argument. siafu 18:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all the empty ship cats. Strange they're empty, though. Have they always been, does anyone recall — historical inaccuracy, or something? -Splash^talk 23:50, 20 October 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:World War II German cruisers

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 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category - TexasAndroid 17:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty cat as per nom. Megapixie 01:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreate later if articles are created. «»Who ?¿?^meta 07:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No argument. siafu 18:12, 20 October 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:World War II British ships

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 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category - TexasAndroid 17:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty cat as per nom. Megapixie 01:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreate later if articles are created. «»Who ?¿?^meta 07:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though this category, and the "British ships" ones below should probably be "Royal Navy" if recreated. siafu 18:14, 20 October 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:World War II British merchant ships

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 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category - TexasAndroid 17:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty cat as per nom. Megapixie 01:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreate later if articles are created. «»Who ?¿?^meta 07:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No argument. siafu 18:54, 20 October 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:World War II British destroyers

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 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category - TexasAndroid 17:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty cat as per nom. Megapixie 01:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreate later if articles are created. «»Who ?¿?^meta 07:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No argument. siafu 18:16, 20 October 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:World War II British Victory ships

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 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category - TexasAndroid 17:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty cat as per nom. Megapixie 01:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreate later if articles are created. «»Who ?¿?^meta 07:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No argument. siafu 18:55, 20 October 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:World War II British Liberty ships

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 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category - TexasAndroid 17:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty cat as per nom. Megapixie 01:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreate later if articles are created. «»Who ?¿?^meta 07:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No argument. siafu 18:56, 20 October 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:229 births

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 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. Lists one person in the header, but I could find no article on him/her to include. Can be easily recreased if there are ever any articles for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasAndroid (talk • contribs) 17:04, 19 October 2005

Delete. Oh yes, "recrease" it if needed, never know about these wrinkly cats :) «»Who ?¿?^meta 07:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Category:229 Wikipedian births. It'll fill up fast. 12.73.195.22 12:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEANS is a dangerous road to go down. :) -Splash^talk 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No argument. siafu 19:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete empty and likely to remain so for a while. But can always be recreated. If it is recreated, it should immediately be brought here that it may be decreased... -Splash^talk 23:50, 20 October 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:Scottish-Americans

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. -Splash^talk 12:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep with massive purge: This category appears to be solely for the purpose of listing every possible person on Wikipedia that either has a Scottish name or is in some way related (in some cases hundreds of years back) to someone of Scottish ancestry. I believe this to be against the concept of What Wikipedia is not. This has also caused numerous revert wars when this category has been added to such persons as George Washington and George S. Patton. -Husnock 16:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed my vote since I was not at first aware of the large number of this ethnic group categories on Wikipedia. However, my original argument stands that this particualr category seems to be listing anyone and everyone who is any way related to someone of Scottish heritage. Adding the category should only apply to people whose Scottish heritage has been notable in thier lives, affected the type of person they are, or is notable in literature/the media/etc. -Husnock 19:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some of these hyphenated American categories have cultural value; a broad rule of thumb might be that if there is a matching article which can be considered encyclopaedic (e.g. Irish American, Italian American, African American) then this is evidence of a distinct cultural identity. I don't think many would describe the half a dozen sentences and list of names (the inclusion of some of whom is higjly debatable) in Scottish American as encyclopaedic or evident of a distinct cultural identity. Trying to assert there is a Scottish American ethnicity seems to be tendentious and therefore POV. Category:Welsh-Americans and Category:English Americans can go too! Valiantis 18:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: Deleting this category shows a clear cultural and ethnic bias. This is clearly ethnocentrism and suggests that some cultures are better or more important than others. Hmmm, sounds like ethnic cleansing/fascism. No one is suggesting deleting Italian-Americans or Polish-Americans! Truly goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. CantStandYa 20:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you're not suggesting that someone voting a category for deletion makes them a fascist or an ethnic cleanser. Thats a very serious personal attack. A s far as the other categories, they all should go in my opinion. This one has just cuased edit and revert wars problems. -Husnock 00:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I am not suggesting Italian American culture is better than Scottish American culture. I am suggesting that Italian American culture exists and can be defined (as well as any culture can be defined) whilst Scottish American culture does not exist in any definable way. [User:Valiantis|Valiantis]] 20:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  - You've obviously never been to a Scottish-American festival, eaten haggis, eaten neeps and tatties, danced the highland fling, and watched the caber toss. And these are just the visible expressions - there's no way to measure the abundant pride in a Scottish-Americans heart. I'm a son of Eire, but I respect our Scottish cousins greatly. Peckerwood 23:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Perhaps you would like to go and add information about such festivals to the Scottish American article. Valiantis 12:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be better if Americans dropped this hyphenization, but picking on the odd category for deletion is chronically biased. If you want this deleted, please nominate all the others at the same time. CalJW 20:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They all should go. How many categories are there that are like this? -Husnock 00:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scores, but I wouldn't bother nominating them all, as the chance of getting them all deleted is zero. CalJW 01:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete them all or delete none.GordyB 21:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all. What significance does having a mixed heritage have in an encyclopaedia? RedWolf 00:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a petty agenda. As a Scots-American, I'm offended by this. WhiskyWhiskers 00:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks like selective enforcement - we should have all or none - not just pick out a 1% and eliminate it. Peckerwood 02:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above comments; all like cats or none (all); agree that some cats may reflect more of a unique culture but how do you draw the proverbially line in a fair place (you don t draw the line) -Mayumashu 04:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's biased and illogical to remove certain ethnic categories and retain others. Because this particular category is thin at the moment doesn't mean it can't be expanded by interested persons. David Hoag 04:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete them all or delete none.--Mais oui! 07:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the only problem with these types of categories is inclusion standards. If someone claims that a biography has Scottish, English, Russian heritage, and they are an American, do we include them in every sub-cat? There should be strict inclusion criteria for all of these, whereas the biography article must prove that the person "celebrates" their heritage, otherwise, they are just "plain old" American. «»Who?¿?^meta 07:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the exact problem with this specific category and for the other hyphenated American categories for people with (often distant) ancestry from Great Britain. If someone were to create a suitably encyclopaedic article defining what constitutes Scottish American culture, then it would be fair enough to have a (well policed) category. There isn't one now and I doubt there will ever be one. If, for example, the user who described himself as a Scottish American were to expand the Scottish American article to a sufficiently encyclopedic level, then I might be persuaded to accept there is a meaningful S-A identity and this is a valid category. As it stands many of the people in this category have articles that make no mention of their alleged Scottish ancestry and I haven't seen one yet that makes a case for a person's Scottish ancestry being of significance to their life or work. Valiantis 20:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this category's definition is so broad to make it trivia. Having a Scottish ancestor does not have meaningful impact on the lives of most people, so it's not a useful categorization. R adiant _>|< 11:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category seems majorly unfair. Why do Scot-Americans have a special category? Why not a category for African Americans, Indian Americans, Native Americans, Japanese Americans, Cuban Americans, etc etc etc. Do you see the problem? Wikipedia should not have categories assigning ethnic and race titles to people. PLEASE DELETE! -unsigned anon user (reposted by Husnock after this was unfairly deleted by another user[1]) -20Oct05
- Many such categories do exist! Ben davison 12:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The solution to this unfairness is to create those categories. Septentrionalis 18:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is nothing stopping any User from creating any of those categories. But their absence is certainly no reason to delete the work of other Users. Be as industrious as possible!--Mais oui! 18:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was the person that so unfairly deleted this anonymous statement. Firstly, anonymous/unsigned votes don't count here, and secondly it's obviously meant to be a joke - no real wikipedian could be so uninformed about the scores of hyphenated american categories in wikipedia. Thirdly it was written in juvenile language to show that it was a joke. Even an old Peckerwood can see that. Peckerwood 23:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Anon IP votes count for VFDs, why shouldnt they count here? Also, I read the comment and it doesnt seem immature or a joke to me. It is someone expressing their opinion. -Husnock 17:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ahh, but they didn't even leave their IP address, therefore moot. Peckerwood 00:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep, define, and police. John Witherspoon belongs in the category; Reese Witherspoon probably doesn't' Robert E. Lee certainly doesn't. Septentrionalis 18:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most such ethnic subcats. -Splash^talk 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is just as valid as Irish American or Italian American, people who describe themselves as these often have other ethnic backgrounds but do not mention them because they are not seen fashionable. Wikipedia should be about fact not fashion or whim. Arniep 11:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There. Simple. Ben davison 12:11, 25 October 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:British sunken submarines

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 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, except for a page on some other deletion system. - TexasAndroid 16:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty cat as per nom. Megapixie 01:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why is such an obiously populable cat empty? Do we have a duplicate somewhere? -Splash^talk 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant with Category:Lost British submarines (psst, Splash!). siafu 02:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, thanks. Why is this now a redlink? There's really no hurry round here. -Splash^talk 01:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be. I proposed a change to the CSD awhile back and thought it was ammended. I have now ammended CSD based on no oppposition from this discussion. «»Who ?¿?^meta 23:10, 23 October 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:Soviet/Russian sunken submarines

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 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category - TexasAndroid 16:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dele. Also appears to improperly munge the Soviet Union with Russia. 12.73.194.18 19:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's nothing worse than an improper munge (although they can be fun!). Shouldn't this be lost submarines, anyway? There seems to be a great deal of inconsistency in the submarine categories... Grutness...wha? 00:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately, the existing category is also a delightful munge: Category:Lost Soviet/Russian submarines. siafu 02:09, 21 October 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:Lost Japanese submarines during World War II

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 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category - TexasAndroid 16:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty cat as per nom. Megapixie 01:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant with Category:Japanese submarines lost during World War II, though really since it has only 4 entries, I think both could be merged up to Category:Lost Japanese submarines. siafu 02:12, 21 October 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.

Subcats of Category:Theatre by country

Recent CFD regarding these was unresolved. Please continue this discussion at Category talk:Theatre by country. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category: User du-0

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 Referred to WP:TFD.

Delete - Do we really need a category of people who cannot understand 'dumbass'? I think not --Gurch 13:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep, let people classify themselves however they want, although this does seem incredibly useless. ~~ N (t/c) 13:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, keep, what the heck. Let's just make Wikipedia an encyclopedia about Wikipedians & forget all the other stuff (especially the 95% of valid subject matter which is either missing entirely or in stub form). 12.73.194.18 14:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - TexasAndroid 15:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A very immature category. -Husnock 16:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm all for users categorising themselves how they want, but this category is patent nonsense. Valiantis 18:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note, if TFD finds it as a delete, the category will be deleted with it. «»Who ?¿?^meta 07:48, 20 October 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:Queer Wikipedians

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. -Splash^talk 12:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:LGBT Wikipedians -- Ian ≡ talk 08:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (see below)[reply]
Strong keep, let people classify themselves however they want. ~~ N (t/c) 13:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as this applies to many Wikipedians of alternate sexualities who may not feel "covered" by the acronym LGBT. See queer under "contemporary usage" for more details. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary usage noted. When I nominated this there was one user in it. My main issue was, what's the point of a category with 1 item in it?. Categories are supposedly to group like items. If I were to create a Category:Big-nosed Wikipedians and added myself in it as the sole member is that OK? I suspect it'd be up for deletion quick smart. Are we just pandering to PC'ness or are we being real about building an encyclopaedia? -- Ian ≡ talk 01:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep after seeing some of the arguments here and a few more entries added to the Cat. -- Ian ≡ talk 08:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pandering to PC -- I am being precise. (To me, that's part of being real about building an encyclopedia.) If you're concerned about grouping like "items," then group all of the LGBT wikipedians into the queer category, as its definition is wider. An LGBT category is, by definition, more limited. If you don't like that resolution, try eliminating both categories and throwing us all into Category:Wikipedians of alternative sexualities or somesuch. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Just another name for the same thing. WhiskyWhiskers 00:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not. Please see queer and read all the way through. Thanks. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - A - splitting hairs. B - irrelevant. C - boring. WhiskyWhiskers 22:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. They overlap, but don't refer to the same thing (well, at least not always). -Seth Mahoney 04:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but under a different name, since there are apparently queers who don't consider themselves L, G, B, or T. Maybe Category:LGBTQ Wikipedians? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Probably best we don't invent a new term! Valiantis 15:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)~~ Oops, that'll teach me to read the article more carefully, not a new term, sorry. Valiantis 15:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is it generally assumed that "LGBT" is a subset of the broader term "Queer"? If so, might we want to keep both, but make LGBT a subcat of Queer? -The Tom 15:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be assumed, but it wouldn't quite be true. You can visualize LGBT and Queer like the classic 2-item Venn diagram (first example on the page). They overlap, but not all queers are LGBT and not all LGBT people think of themselves as queer (nor do all queers think of all LGBT people as queer). There's definitely a normative way to be LGBT and a bunch of nonnormative or antinormative ways. -Seth Mahoney 23:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Individual users are the people best placed to determine their own cultural (etc.) labels. Valiantis 15:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not merge: agree with Seth Mahoney's reasoning. Jonathunder 07:02, 24 October 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:Libraries in The Netherlands

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 deleted. «»Who ?¿?^meta 01:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no articles. presumably created in error as Category:Libraries in the Netherlands also exists and is populated. -- Ian ≡ talk 08:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (miscapitalization). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. -Splash^talk 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. siafu 02:14, 21 October 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:Steven Spielberg films

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 deleted as a recreation. «»Who ?¿?^meta 08:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no articles other than an unformatted list inserted - would appear to duplicate Category:Films directed by Steven Spielberg which exists and is populated. -- Ian ≡ talk 08:09, 19 October 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:Spanish ships of the line

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 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No parent, no articles, no point -- Ian ≡ talk 07:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete empty cat as per nom. Megapixie 01:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a point to it, but it's still empty. siafu 02:14, 21 October 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:Formula One Grand Prix

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 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category is empty AND another cat with the same purpose already exists Category:Formula One Grands Prix - speedy I think. Megapixie 06:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

template:Categoryredirect it 132.205.45.148 17:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Soft-redirect is as above. (I didn't know it got an 's' though, so I learnt something today.) -Splash^talk 23:50, 20 October 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:Right-handed people

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 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Do I really need to give a reason? RedWolf 04:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete empty cat as per nom. Megapixie 01:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overwhelmingly unencyclopedic piece of information unlikely even to be mentioned in the articles. -Splash^talk 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What now, Category:Litmus tasters? siafu 02:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as a recreation. I'm quite sure we've seen something like this before. R adiant _>|< 10:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It sounds familiar, but it's not in logs and I couldnt find CFD discussion covering it. «»Who ?¿?^meta 01:04, 22 October 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:Southeast Asian Mountains

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 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Mountains of Southeast Asia to follow naming conventions, although the current category is empty. I question whether the mountains of Asia need to be subdivided in this way (perhaps why it's been empty for over a month?) but I'm not totally opposed to it remaining at its new name. RedWolf 04:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What will be next? "Mountains of Northwest Europe"? Categories "Mountains of Vietnam" etc. are fine and sufficient. - Darwinek 21:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Empty, and most of the country categories exist anyway. NatusRoma 22:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I recall we don't do mountains by continent but I forget the reasons why not. I think this has been here before in some form or another. -Splash^talk 23:50, 20 October 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.