Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 9

< December 8	December 10 >

December 9

Category:Ships of the Royal Australian Navy

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 19:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Duplicate of correct Category:Royal Australian Navy ships. Joshbaumgartner 22:54, 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.

Categories: Basque Mexicans, Castilian Mexicans, Catalonian Mexicans, Galician Mexicans

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 14:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are not needed. >>> Sagitario 22:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. informative, populated, fit scheme of ethnic cats - catalon people are ethnically distinct from spanish, as are galicians - Mayumashu 04:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ as per Mayumashu's comments, and, in many ways, for the same reasons that it's worth distinguishing between English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish. - N (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep I am changing my vote to strong keep because I do not think it is appropriate to remove useful information for the sake of consistency with other categories. I have no personal involvement with these categories, but if they include people that are known to have family heritage specific to these regions, then they should be sub-categorised into these categories (even if the articles are also kept in the main Spanish category). - N (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Mayumashu and Nzd. --Vizcarra 20:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We dont need those categories, it is true that catalon, basque or andalusian people have differences (language for instance) but they all share many things: nationality, religious faith, shared language (people in Barcelona speak Català but also Spanish), they also share cultural and traditional origins and backgrounds so they all can be categorized as Spanish Mexicans. It is also true that we distinguish between English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish but in most of the cases in wikipedia or outside we dont make subethnics of an ethic group, lets say, in India there are more than 20 languages spoken but we only distinguish one ethnic origin: Indian Mexicans, or what about China, we only have Category:Chinese Mexicans even when China is a multiethnic society. Well, thats my POV about this, but in case everybody votes for keeping then i will strongly recommend to think and check twice before categorizing anyone on this cats. If find ridiculous to have one person as Catalonian Mexican and also as Castilian Mexican!! (Ana Colchero) That makes nosense.

--Abögarp 15:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, in Mexico there are no ethnic distinctions really. That is exactly why we need this categories. Because information about national or ethnic origin is lost into the melting pot that is Mexico. Basques, for example, do not have the same ethnic origin as the rest of Spain and their language is not a romance language. The boundaries of Basque Country historically is not constrained by the boundaries of Spain but extends into France. Galicians are more Portuguese (culturally, ethnically and their language). Spain is nothing more than a federation of autonomous communities which used to be kingdoms, and in spite of Francisco Franco and his attempts to homogenize these regions and suppress their individual languages these regions are very different, Catalonia feels closer to Paris as it does to Madrid in many senses. The fact that Portugal is a different country and Galicia and Catalonia are not is more a matter of chance. In many ways Galicia, Castile and Catalonia can be differentiated more than England, Wales and Scotland. I do not think we could possibly break down the Category:Chinese Mexicans into regional groups, simply because that information is not as readily available as the information about Spain. --Vizcarra 18:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Those categories are silly. First of all, Vizcarra's arguments are absurd. Basques are not ethnically different from most Spaniards per se (that's a pseudo-nationalistic myth [1]) and even if they were, the fact that someone carries a Basque family name is not a proof of ethnicity. For centuries, Mexicans have adopted all sorts of family names for many reasons, including Catholic conversion, adoption, and archaic colonial practices. Every single natural son born in Mexico before the 20th century (and trust me, there were MANY before birth control and public welfare) had been given a capricious family name chosen by a priest which had nothing to do with his/her ethnicity. Every single Native American baptized by the Catholic Church was given a Spanish last name (give or take Andalusian, Castilian, Basque, Galician and even Sephardic, and those were MILLIONS). By using a family name as proof of ethnicity among Mexicans, even people like Benito Juárez, a pure blood Zapotec indian president would be classified as a Spanish-Mexican or Castilian-Mexican, which is totally absurd. And even if one in their lineage was an immigrant, the fact that they have been mixing for so long in a country like Mexico (were mixed marriages among all sorts of people have been the std since the 16th century) leaves your ethnic difference claims pretty much useless. Ruiz 20:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think you read my arguments before calling them absurd, which is a habit of yours. I never did once mention surnames. In fact, everybody in these categories has been included because of their birth of birth of their parents, not because of last name. Your arguments about the Basques do not agree with the wikipedia Basque people. And if we were to categorize ethnicities based on people with pure blood all categories would disapear. --Vizcarra 20:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- See for example Category:Catalan scientists --Vizcarra 20:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I DO read your arguments and I DO read your cheap edits. And I stay behind my comments: you classify people based solely on a family name. Here are some of your "contributions": an Irish Arsenio Farell, a German Enrique Krauze, a German José Woldenberg, a German Jesús Silva Herzog Flores. Ruiz 18:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the title of the CfA, German or Irish-Mexican categories are not included. There is not a single person added to the categories for CfD that has been added based on a last name. Also read Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks guideline "your cheap edits". --Vizcarra 07:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, these are distinct nations of origin. --Mais oui! 20:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. Redundant. Overemphasises differences of extremely doubtful significance for the individuals concerned. CalJW 09:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I commented on this before with Vizcarra and he/she complained about there being divided categories for British Americans (Category:English Americans, Category:Welsh-Americans, Category:Scottish-Americans) and wanted to do the same with Category:Spanish Mexicans. I explained that the reason is because England, Wales and Scotland are actually nations (or constituent countries) within the United Kingdom. Why do you think they have their own national football teams (UEFA) instead of just one UK national football team? The same thing with the international beauty pageants, there's girls individually representing England, Wales, or Scotland. That's not the case with Spain. ---> Sagitario 15:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"He/she"? How many female Davids do you know? If you are going speak for me (I don't know why on Earth you would) you may want to add my response to your remarks. One of them for example, was that Spanish Mexicans does not provide much information, since most Mexicans do have Spanish blood. Catalonian/Basque/Galician does provide more information. --Vizcarra 22:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's no excuse for creating those un-needed categories, Spain isn't like the UK. By the way, i'm the one who told YOU that most Mexicans already have Spanish blood and that the people in Category:Spanish Mexicans should be at least 1/4 Spanish descent or more. About you being a he or a she... I could care less what you are. ---> Sagitario 14:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"unneeded" is POV. Most Mexicans have at least 1/4 sure. You may as well add the entire Category:Mexican people to Category:Spanish Mexicans. --Vizcarra 03:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vizcarra: and what sort of "blood" is the "Spanish blood"? How do you sort the "Spanish blood" from the Castilian or the Catalonian "blood" among Mexicans? Ruiz 18:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I mention blood anywhere. I mentioned origin. --Vizcarra 03:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I completely agree with Abögarp, Ruiz, and Sagitario, not only are these categories not needed, they are also ridiculous. --- Can-mex 22:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

500 edits required prior to voting, see Ammendment and being a sockpuppet that only showed up to this discussion to support Sagitario after a five-month hiatus. --Vizcarra 22:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strike out of Can-mex's vote removed. There is no such policy general policy, it was for one specific vote. However Can-mex's account is marked as a suspected sockpuppet. Osomec 14:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons mentioned. Osomec 14:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete are there communities in Mexico where they try to keep these ethnic identities "pure" (I doubt it!)? Arniep 17:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the category doesn't mention purity, but origin. --Vizcarra 03:57, 19 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:Mythical pederastic relationships

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 19:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Badly named. Haiduc 19:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not needed. Bhoeble 21:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless category. Soltak | Talk 21:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Rhollenton 23:00, 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:Pederastic relationships

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 19:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Badly named. Haiduc 19:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not needed. Bhoeble 21:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless category. Soltak | Talk 21:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Rhollenton 23:00, 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:Drag Bike

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 19:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category does not fit in with the hierarchy. Furthermore, it contains only one article, one which probably shouldn't be in here. The creator of this category seems to be a confused anonymous user, probably a newbie. Aecis ^praatpaal 19:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not needed. Bhoeble 21:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything relevant can go in Drag racing, which is a more suitable name. - N (talk) 00:01, 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 redirect warning: Category:Color & Category:Colour

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 at Category:Color --Kbdank71 14:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

130.159.254.2 (talk · contribs) misused the {{categoryredirect}} template to move everything in Category:Color to Category:Colour. Please confirm or deny whether the change is valid. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Colour helohe 10:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not valid. A previous CfD for this was held on November 8th. 130.159.254.2's move was done not long after the CfD, and was done without first discussing it on CfD. --Interiot 15:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Keep at Colour The previous CFD came down one vote on the side of Cat:Colour, but the closing admin overruled and merged to Cat:Color on the basis that Colour only had one article in it. As I pointed out shortly afterward, however, User:DreamGuy had removed several articles from Cat:Colour while the CFD was ongoing. - SoM 16:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm having problems finding specific DreamGuy edits that involve category moving, could you point some out? --Interiot 17:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Category removing (from pages that were dual-catted during the CFD). I never looked through all the pages since I don't usually bother with UK/US spellings for a reason (i.e., this sort of mess), but [2] was one such instance. - SoM 17:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that Jachin's original edits [3] [4] were more incorrect. I also made some edits to revert Jachin's changes [5], and they also inadvertantly had the effect of removing articles from Category:Colour, but the edits weren't intended to disrupt the CfD discussion. It surprised me that the CfD's closing comments were based on then-current contents of Category:Colour rather than on the discussion that had taken place. I think the least messy way to interpret this is that Jachin intended to start a CfD discussion, a discussion subsequently took place, the result was "no consensus" and, for the meantime anyway, no changes should take place. --Interiot 19:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I know this is going against the convention of the prior CfD, but I would say move to Color. Most of the articles in Category:Colour are titled this way - Color theory, Color scheme, Color fixers, etc. --Idont Havaname 18:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Color per Idont Havaname. It seems at the very least incredibly odd to have the category name spelled differently than the majority of articles that populate it. Soltak | Talk 21:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Color per Idont Havaname. Per the category, The main article for this category is Colour which redirects to color! So everthing seems to say it should be moved. Vegaswikian 23:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Color, because that's the name that the main article uses. -Sean Curtin 07:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note, a move to color is would be placing the {{categoryredirect}} template at Category:Colour to point to Category:Color. --AllyUnion (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Color per Idont Havaname. If anybody wants to rename color, they should post it on WP:RM (keep in mind that it was already posted on RM once). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP at Colour and permanently VProtect the category redirect at color 132.205.45.148 21:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE someone exchanged the categoryredirects while this disccusion was going on. 132.205.45.148 21:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - NOTE Good. Soltak | Talk 23:56, 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:Verities of Rice to Category:Varieties of rice

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 19:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename Bhoeble 21:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC) (not my nomination)[reply]
Speedy rename - N (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename - Wezzo 10:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 00:10, 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:Queen's University to Category:Queen's University, Canada

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 14:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for the same reason given in the next nomination. -Mayumashu 04:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - N (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T RENAME the main article is Queen's University. The main article does not include ", Canada", and neither should the category. It should be kept consistent.--Greenmind 10:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nominator. Osomec 14:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The main article should also be renamed. There's a Queen's U disambiguation page, and other post-secondary institutions with the same or similar name. 209.202.119.248 15:25, 18 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:Queen's alumni to Category:Queen's University, Canada alumni

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 14:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to a more formal name that will avoid any confusion with the uni with the same name in Belfast. -Mayumashu 03:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - N (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Rename The school is known throughout the nation simply as Queen's. The school in Belfast is known as QUB and referred to commonly by that acronym. Similiar categories that follow the standard are [[Category:Columbia_alumni]], [[Category:Caltech Alumni]], etc.
Rename as per nom. Osomec 14:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename --- It might be known in "the nation" as Queen's, but Wikipedia is not limited to Canada's borders. Examples like Columbia and Caltech are not particularly relevant, because there are no other schools with identical or similar names (and if there are, then those articles/cats should also be renamed). 209.202.119.248 15:27, 18 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:People of Otago

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 14:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category has one article; Category:Otagoites has a considerably larger number. As an Otagoite myself, I suggest transferring the odd-one-out, then deleting Category:People of Otago. Grutness...wha? 12:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

support from another otagoite. BL kiss the lizard 23:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

support. i wasn t careful in creating this cat - apologies. -Mayumashu 04:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be, among some Wikipedians, the notion that there need to be separate categories to distinguish between "natives of this place" and "people who were famously associated with this place but were actually native to somewhere else". Frex, someone born in Toronto would be categorized at Category:Torontonians, while someone who moved to Toronto as an adult would be categorized at Category:Toronto people. I'm not saying it's my own preference...but it's what some people feel is necessary. Personally I support the proposed move, but I'd also support merging the two distinct Toronto categories, too. Bearcat 19:18, 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.