Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 21
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
December 21
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.
The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 00:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Fictional spiders, or Rename to Category:Fictional giant spiders. -- ProveIt (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom, no need to differentiate based on spider size. Unless of course the spiders have D-cup or larger breasts. Otto4711 05:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I have to admit, that CfD "in-joke" made me laugh : ) - jc37 10:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Oppose Rename, since "giant" is subjective. - jc37 10:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge- I doubt renaming would help, but merging seems okay--SUIT 19:31, 22 December 2006 (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 section.
Category:Years Ah
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.
The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 00:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, Only need one, AH analogous to AD. meltBanana 21:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger 22:10, 21 December 2006 (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 section.
Category:Post-Civil War American people
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Useless category of open-ended time period, which would include all American people of the last 150 years. (Note: this is the latest of many inappropriate categories created by Pastorwayne; previous CFD discusisons have included suggestions that he be banned from creating categories). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (clarifying intent as nominator). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if the category is restricted only to, say, the five year period following the Civil War, there's no particular reason to seperately catalog those people under this category. Dugwiki 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no reason to have this category. --Alynna 02:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This seems to be part of a sub-categorisation scheme of Category:American people by time period. Neutral about the parent cat at the moment, but I don't think that this category should be deleted, at least until the whole schema is explained. - jc37 10:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I think that clarification of the purpose of the parent cat may be a good idea, but whatever it is, I cannot see any way that this category can be useful. There may be a case for a separate category relating to figures from the process of Reconstruction, but that's not what this cat is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Everyone in the United States since 1865 is a "post-Civil War" person. Dr. Submillimeter 13:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and ANSWER: the post-civil war period in U.S. history is an important one. Obviously, it would not extend for 150+ years, because there are two periods already following it (WWI and WWII). There should probably even be another period in there, like "post-reconstruction." Indeed, that is another name for post-civil war: "Reconstruction," which if you know U.S. history, was an extremely important time period. Perhaps the Spanish-American War time period would suffice for the Post-reconstruction time period. Anyhow, whatever you call it, the time period following the U.S. Civil War is significant and deserves its own cat. Thank you! Pastorwayne 15:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- reply most periods in history are significant, that is not sufficient to creatr a category for "people of x period". If the category is to be anything other than a random intersection of people and time, thenh it seems to me that it needs to be tightly defined by a readily identifiable historical era, and to be restricted to people who played a significant part in that era. This category fulfills neither of those criteria, and your explanation does not suggest any clear answer on either count. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you please, see Category:Reconstruction for additional information. I propose a RENAME to Category:Reconstruction Era American people as a subcat of Category:American people by time period. Thanks. Pastorwayne 18:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Rather vague category name--SUIT 19:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - one of Pastor Wayne's. QED. roundhouse 15:05, 23 December 2006 (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 section.
Alumni of UK Universities
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.
The result of the debate was rename all per nom. David Kernow (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:University of Aberdeen alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Aberdeen
- Category:University of Abertay Dundee alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Abertay Dundee
- Category:University of Dundee alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Dundee
- Category:University of Edinburgh alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Edinburgh
- Category:University of Glasgow alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Glasgow
- Category:Glasgow Caledonian University alumni to Category:Alumni of Glasgow Caledonian University
- Category:Heriot-Watt University alumni to Category:Alumni of Heriot-Watt University
- Category:Napier University alumni to Category:Alumni of Napier University
- Category:University of Paisley alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Paisley
- Category:Robert Gordon University alumni to Category:Alumni of Robert Gordon University
- Category:University of St Andrews alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of St Andrews
- Category:University of Strathclyde alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Strathclyde
- Rename all, these got missed in previous CFRs, probably because Category:Alumni by university in the United Kingdom was poorly populated until relatively recently. These are the only categories there not in the form "Alumni of (University name)" and should be renamed for consistency. Timrollpickering 16:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom for consistency. DuncanHill 16:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom as already stated for consistency. TonyTheTiger 22:14, 21 December 2006 (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 section.
Academics of UK Universities
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.
The result of the debate was rename both per nom. David Kernow (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:University of Glasgow academics to Category:Academics of the University of Glasgow
- Category:University of Strathclyde academics to Category:Academics of the University of Strathclyde
- Rename, these are the only two UK University academics categories not in the form "Academics of the (University Name)". See also Category:Academics by university in the United Kingdom and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 4#UK University academics. Timrollpickering 15:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename much easier when consistent. DuncanHill 16:14, 21 December 2006 (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 section.
Category:Organizations based in Luxembourg
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.
The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, Luxembourg uses British/European English. See WikiProject Luxembourg. Thus, the category title should be spelt as per other British English-speaking countries, i.e. 'Organisations'. Bastin 12:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The spelling in -z- is acceptable British English usage, and should be preferred, according to the Oxford University Press house style (see 'Oxford Guide to English Usage'. OUP, 1993. DuncanHill 13:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OUP understandably follows the Oxford English Dictionary but this is probably their best known insistence on a style that is contrary to widespread practice. See American and British English spelling differences#-ise / -ize, especially "the OED might be fighting a losing battle". Timrollpickering 16:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The spelling in -z- is acceptable British English usage, and should be preferred, according to the Oxford University Press house style (see 'Oxford Guide to English Usage'. OUP, 1993. DuncanHill 13:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. "Organisation" is far more common
thison Luxembourg's side of the Atlantic, whatever the OED may wish otherwise. Timrollpickering 17:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Rename per Timrollpickering Honbicot 00:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Americans use "z"; many Brits use "s" but a substantial percentage do not (see DuncanHill's comment above); the Luxembourgeois may well use "s" but are unlikely to make a big deal of it; use of "z" upsets few level-headed users of "s" (and vice versa); the category works very well as it is and can be redirected to from the "s" equivalent; and all in all "British-versus-American" spelling disagreements such as this aren't worth the effort put into them. -- Hoary 09:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename It is fairly well established that the OED uses an outmoded form of UK English when preferring the -ize spelling. Bluap 22:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Hoary. And to Bluap, so just because you use an outdated spelling you think the OED is wrong? TJ Spyke 05:03, 27 December 2006 (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 section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete g1, obviously pointless and misspelled to boot. NawlinWiki 13:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People Who has Something too do with Reality TV
[edit]- Category:People Who has Something too do with Reality TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Speedy delete Just created and totally unnecessary as there are plenty of categories already. Honbicot 11:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Ebyabe 13:27, 21 December 2006 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.
The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 00:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually rather funny: a category of songs sung by a fictional group. However, I consider this unencyclopedic and perhaps fancruft, although that term is not often applied to cartoon characters. Michaelbusch 07:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. They've released a few of albums and depending on how you define things, even had a #1 song. But I don't think we include covers unless they're particularly memorable; thus The Chipmunk Song (Christmas Don't Be Late) and Witch Doctor should be the only entries. -choster 15:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, I don't think that this was an original "Alvin and the Chipmunks" song. It uses an Alvin-esque voice for the Witch Doctor but as far as I can locate "Alvin and the Chipmunks" were not the original artists. If that's verified then with only one entry the category should be deleted. Otto4711 18:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I stated more obliquely, and realizing this may be a Pandora's box, a song might be closely identified with an artist even if that artist is not the original performer. Thus I suggested the Chipmunks version could be as much their song as "Leaving on a Jet Plane" is a Peter, Paul and Mary song and "I Will Always Love You" is a Whitney Houston song and so on.-choster 23:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally don't have any problem with putting Witch Doctor under the AATC cat. I was only responding to the notion that cats should only include the original artist. Otto4711 05:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I stated more obliquely, and realizing this may be a Pandora's box, a song might be closely identified with an artist even if that artist is not the original performer. Thus I suggested the Chipmunks version could be as much their song as "Leaving on a Jet Plane" is a Peter, Paul and Mary song and "I Will Always Love You" is a Whitney Houston song and so on.-choster 23:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a natural subcategory Category:Songs by artist, which groups all songs by recording artist. Per the category description, Please note that all song articles should have subcategories here, regardless of how many songs the artist has recorded. Alvin and the Chipmunks are the official artist for their recordings. Dugwiki 20:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not WP:CRUFT. Widely liked characters. TonyTheTiger 22:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Among other reasons, the "group" has had songs which have "charted", so I don't think notability should be an issue. And agreeing with Choster's comment about cover songs, above. (Consider how many times a "cover" has been more commonly known than the "original" : ) - jc37 10:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-Per above--SUIT 19:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per jc37.Bakaman 20:33, 23 December 2006 (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 section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.
The result of the debate was rename as per revised nom. Timrollpickering 00:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
moved from speedy - original proposal:
- Category:Drum Corps to Category:Drum corps, Should be a generic term. Lazytiger 16:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as revised, which is the more complete and appropriate term. Her Pegship (tis herself) 07:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger 22:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per revised nom. - jc37 10:00, 22 December 2006 (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 section.
Category:People who have Appeared on Reality TV
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete g3 - vandalism, user now blocked, see also "Category:People Who has Something too do with Reality TV", above. NawlinWiki 13:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This category is redundant. There is a Category:Reality television participants and a Category:Game show hosts, of which many people currently in this category belong to (well, considering how the "Participants" category is used, as it includes judges, everyone belongs in that category). As for the rest, I believe those who have only appeared in a single episode of a reality show do not deserve their own category (such as the Barenaked Ladies, although the article itself does not even mention a reality show appearance). SKS2K6 06:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --ΨΦorg 07:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete duplication. --Dweller 10:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete See also my nomination a few items above. Honbicot 11:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Ebyabe 13:27, 21 December 2006 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Children of members of the United States Congress
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Children of members of the United States Congress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete The category for Presidential children is all very well because they become nationally and internationally notable merely by being such, but the same does not apply to all children members of Congress, who only become notable if they do something else. Thus this category is a step towards classification by parental occupation, and that is not a defining characteristic. Sumahoy 00:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nobody cares very much about children of Congressmen, unless they do something notable. -Amarkov blahedits 01:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others. bibliomaniac15 01:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreed that children of lesser politicians are not notable unless in their own right. --Dweller 10:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination and comments above about notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Would set a bad precedent. TonyTheTiger 22:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above Dugwiki 23:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. (And incidentally I disagree that Presidential kids are notable. A very few are; most aren't. Still, many Americans seem to have a barely sublimated urge for a quasi-royal family of their own, so I shouldn't begrudge them this minor entertainment.) -- Hoary 09:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While being the child of a Congressperson is not notable in and of itself (I don't think presidential children are either), both are defining characteristics. ~ BigrTex 15:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By that line of reasoning, though, the profession of your parents is always a defining characteristic. Why not have categories for Children of doctors or Children of film actors or Children of murderers, etc? Why single out congressman, many of whom as less well known on the national level than the sorts of people I mentioned above? Dugwiki 16:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with always although I admit that I don't know where I'd draw the line. From your examples, Children of murderers would be a defining characteristic - if there were no POV issues with murderers, while Children of doctors would not because the category of doctor is too broad (Brain Surgeon, Podiatrist, small town, etc) to be defining, and Children of film actors is somewhere close to the line.
- The problem that I see with the issue at hand is the age of the children during the time - I think that there is a difference between the Kennedy Children (who were young in the White House), Chelsea Clinton (who was a teen in the White House), and the Reagan Children (who were adults while their father was president). ~ BigrTex 17:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Felix Han 17:24, 22 December 2006 (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 section.