Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 18
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
July 18
[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 16:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No need to have a page per character if we already have a List of Tekken characters page. They should be merged into that page and the category should be deleted. --BradBeattie 21:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's outside the "jurisdiction" of this page—CfD doesn't have any control over article content, and as long as the articles exist, there is a need for the category. Here's what you should do: first either unilaterally merge the pages yourself, though with such a substantial change I'd recommend discussing it on the article talk pages first or even listing on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, as is often done, to get consensus. Then come back here once the articles no longer exist. Given how substantial most of the articles appear to be, however, I doubt you're going to get a consensus to merge to a mere list. If anything, the list should probably be edited down and the picture sizes reduced. Postdlf 21:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP as is. The List of Tekken characters page is too long and growing, we are starting to move its contents to articles of Category:Tekken characters.
- If all those articles were stubs, I'd say to merge them and delete the category. However, for the sheer length and informativeness, I'd say keep. By the way are those images legal? They look copyvio to me... but I'm sure one of the article authors knows what is going on? Radiant_>|< 07:57, July 19, 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 rename --Kbdank71 16:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should be renamed to Category:Television spin-offs. Postdlf 21:23, 18 July 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 15:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary category which would be better served by an article about the scandal rather than a category with someone's POV about who is or is not involved in it. (Refer also to the comment in this diff to show bad faith [1]) If every presidential scandal had its own category, each president would be in 50 categories. --BaronLarf 19:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
- If only Rove would drop dead... However, delete. Once enough time has passed so that there is a verifiable and academically accepted history of this event, then there might be justification for it (as we have with Category:Watergate). It's simply inappropriate while it's still developing. Postdlf 20:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Postdlf on all counts. Delete. --Kbdank71 20:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Postdlf. siafu 22:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wikipedia does not generally wait for "academically accepted history" to pass judgement before creating articles or categories. See, for example, Category:Clinton Administration scandals. This story is a current event that is featured on the Main Page and there are several related articles that would be of interest to people following the story. Categories exist to make it easier for people to find articles. In my opinion deleting this category would be POV. --agr 17:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but Plame scandal timeline is much more accurate with regards to the scandal. If someone is following the story, they're more likely to read an article about the scandal. --Kbdank71 18:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Postdif --Badlydrawnjeff 19:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Why delete something just because it is still 'in progress'. This will clearly be needed at some point so why define an artificial 'waiting period' before work on it is allowed to begin? --CBD 23:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's not clear that it's going to be needed. In the end, this may be reduced to two or three articles and not necessarily need its own category. siafu 23:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Suggested rename Plame affair CIA leak is too generic, whereas Plame affair is more in keeping with other historical events of major import, such as Watergate and Iran-Contra affair, etc.
- Rename to something less generic. --ssd 04:45, 21 July 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 15:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a template was changed to include Category:Spoken articles instead, but a number of pages that transcluded the template continue show up in Category:Wikipedia spoken articles, even though the template has changed. --Tabor 17:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, but I prefer this name actually. Radiant_>|< 19:49, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge, and I prefer Wikipedia spoken articles as well. Any such category self-referential in content should be self-referential in name. Postdlf 20:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The three articles left there actually need to be moved; but most of the ogg files use the template, and just need to be touched. I did find a coulple, however, that both used the template and had the old category listed. --ssd 04:54, 21 July 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 15:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason as Category:Hypothetical Sol System bodies - The Merciful 17:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but to Category:Solar System planets (capitals are appropriate here). -Splash 18:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]- OBJECT wrong capitalization, it should be Category:Solar System planets, Solar System is a proper name. 132.205.3.20 18:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT Solar system article shold be moved to Solar System, since solar system is the generic and same meaning as planetary system 132.205.3.20 18:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- RENAME to Category:Planets of our Solar System as per hypothetical discussion. 132.205.44.43 19:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT Solar system article shold be moved to Solar System, since solar system is the generic and same meaning as planetary system 132.205.3.20 18:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Planets of the Solar System. siafu 22:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename - I also prefer Category:Planets of the Solar System. JW 23:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per siafu, now I see this alternative, it's clearly the right one. -Splash 01:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Planets of the Solar System. --Kbdank71 15:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Planets of the Solar System - Worldtraveller 16:06, 20 July 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 15:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right, try this again. This category needs renaming to category:American philanthropists because American is an adjective describing Americans, per wikipedia:naming conventions. Dunc|☺ 15:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Also per the BBC and Britannica (see below under Category:United States painters discussion), and per the CIA World Factbook.[2] Can anyone actually offer evidence that "American" does not mean, in dominant English language usage, "of the United States"? If not, this issue should be closed despite contrary opinions. Postdlf 18:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not rename, or rename to Category:United States philanthropists, this discussion was already had last week sometime. This is just an attempt at an extension of a perfectly healthy discussion currently over on the VP. Keep it there, don't bring it here. -Splash 18:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to United States philanthropists, for consistency. Name after the country, not the continent. Radiant_>|< 19:49, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Incorrect phrasing, contrary to English-language usage, and inconsistent with the use of the adjectival form of nationality in people category names. "American" is the proper term. Please stop repeatedly contradicting external evidence without support. Postdlf 20:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:United States philanthropists as per Radiant. And if by chance this actually gets a consensus to rename to American, what is the time frame before we can re-re-renominate it to change it to United States? Two days? This is getting ridiculous. --Kbdank71 20:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Radiant "American", though most common, is potentially confusing (North American, Latin American, South American, &c.). siafu 22:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Neutralitytalk 22:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Agree. we've been through this before. 'American' is synonymous with the USA rather than continents in English usage.--Hooperbloob 23:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "American" or "U.S." Not "United States", which is stilted. Maurreen 03:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not rename. There is nothing unclear about the existing name either, so there isn't any compelling reason to rename that I see. Jonathunder 23:33, 2005 July 18 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:American philanthropists - SimonP 01:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Rename Classify by nationality not by form of government. Hiding talk 15:18, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree with the proposal. Relisting it right after it was voted on once is absurd, and something I always object to. By the way, I'm an American. My voting card says on the top "for United States citizens only." Are you going to say that is a wrong usage? CDThieme 18:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Am I the only one who thinks the most sensible thing to do is leave this discussion until after the one at Wikipedia:Category titles? Renominating this one day after it was previously closed is very bad form too. -Splash 15:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename American philanthropists in line with most Wikipedia categories and standard usage. CalJW 21:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:United States philanthropists as per Radiant. However I wouldn't object to a category name with "US" instead of "United States". DES 21:40, 24 July 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 15:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two categories into either one, since they appear to be created for the same purpose--Huaiwei 10:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:Administrative divisions of Myanmar. siafu 22:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge also with Subdivisions of Myanmar (which also was created for the same purpose) and States of Myanmar. There is no need to keep the states in separate categories, since they are practically equivalent to divisions, there are only 7 and they have distinctive names anyway. Cities are now directly under geography category. Common Man 07:53, 20 July 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 15:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename category as Category:Districts of Bangladesh, as it is now a subcat of Category:Divisions of Bangladesh.--Huaiwei 10:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Huaiwei; "district" seems to be the term used for the article titles. siafu 22:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename though I would expect word region fitting better. Pavel Vozenilek 23:12, 18 July 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.