Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 10

==10 August==

=== ===

keep -- 13:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This category should be merged with 05:21, 2005 August 11 (UTC) *Oppose Although I would probably normally agree, I question whether media is a good term. We have specific image categories, which do not contain audio, video. If anything, it should just be made a sub of 06:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep in agreement with 00:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This category appears to be nonsense, created by 23:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC) :I created the page because 7 8 people had already put themselves in the category. ) 14:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. -- 23:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. Patent nonsense. 23:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete Speedy delete, but I m disappointed by who isn t listed. 00:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC) *Speedy delete - I m trying to assume good faith but it is hard to see a reasonable motive for this -- 00:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC) *Note: The wiki code 14:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC) **Surely that s not a reason to depopulate it by removing the sockpuppet tags like ) 17:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment I currently have 06:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Duplicates 22:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, as we already have another category. — ) 23:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. No argument. 23:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, Catholic is actually ambiguous. 02:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Not needed, as 21:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *There s a speedy rename section up the top of the page (which this would qualify for). - 21:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *OK, but one question - since this category is blank is renaming even necessary -- 21:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC) **A category that is empty for more than 24 hours qualifies for speedy deletion. 14:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Keep 04:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This cat is not NPOV; it is nearly always disputed, offensive, and being widely abused by one particular user, to the point of going WAY WAY past 3RR, on numerous pages pertaining to Christian doctrine and theology. It is also unnecessary and redundant, because categories already exist on all these same pages for Christian doctrine and Christian theology . I can t think of anything at all that can be safely tagged as Christian mythology , without triggering a dispute; the purpose of this cat is simply to cause offense to followers of a particular faith. 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

keep I can t support deletion. The category is useful for many other purposes, besides any dubious uses to which it may been put. 21:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

:: Hi Mark, could you possibly name an example of one article where you think this cat is useful and not controversial Thanks. 21:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC) ::: Sure. (the fairy tale creature based on the myths, stories and legends concerning Nicholas). Just my opionion. 21:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep per Mark.

Keep If we speak of Hindu mythology and Native American mythology (see those cat s), we can t avoid speaking of Christian mythology without cultural bias (which is POV). A clear-cut example of Christian mythology is the 21:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. Deleting a cat because a certain user has some trouble with it isn t a good enough reason. - 21:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. 21:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep that s like saying we should rename ) 22:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment you should know that besides ) 22:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep valuable category — ) 23:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. 23:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. All of these arguments have been rehashed at 13:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep there is tons of mediaeval mythology that is specifically Christian. ) 14:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep The entire block of reasoning by 16:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep This is currently a problem category, with one user seemingly insisting that all Christian doctrine belongs in it, but we shouldn t deal with problems by deleting them I encourage everyone to help decide what should go in it at 17:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment I am willing to retract this CFD, but I am now considering resubmitting it as a speedy rename to something more unassailably NPOV such as Christian legends or maybe even Christian folklore... The dictionary definition (as well as the popular definition) of myth is that it implies something is fictitious or imaginary , and that is not NPOV to categorically state such a thing about a doctrine. Proponents of labelling these as myths insist they are using the term myth in some different, more obtuse sense, but it s not going to be read that way regardless. The term legend is probably what we are looking for, since that means more precisely what we are trying to express without assuming whether it is or isn t fictitious. 17:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC) **I don t see how the term mythology is substantively different from from folklore or legends . Mythology seems in fact to be preferred, as mentioned in the multiple examples above (e.g. 17:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Here s the difference: Mythology , as per the dictionary, implies that something is fictitious and imaginary . Legend and folklore do not. Islamic mythology should probably be renamed for the same reason, but I haven t gotten to that yet. 17:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

**** I think your dictionary might be defective.... I have looked through 6 different dictionaries (ok, ok, only 4 different brands, and 3 different versions of on, including the 60 lb double volume merriam-webster the library here has, from the 60s...) and EVERYONE of them had multiple definitions... about 1/2 of the definitions made no reference to factuality. A word does not have to fit EVERY definition in a dictionary, only a few different uses of it. Now is your dictionary defective, or are you lying(again) to sway public opinion 20:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC) ****From the votes and comments here, it seems clear that mythology is an acceptable term, and does not necessarily indicate that something is fictitious. If this were a vote to rename, I would vote Keep in that case as well, because accepting this condition on the word mythology would result in the word never being used again. 17:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC) ***** Well, that s precisely why there is a pov dispute here, because the way mythology was defined by someone sitting at their computer and posting to wikipedia, is not the way 99% of English speakers define it, nor the way all major dictionaries define it. The word means fictitious . So I m going to try this as a speedy rename to Christian legends in the interests of a NPOV compromise. 17:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC) ****** Or, in this case, the way that 99% of commenting wikipedians (who happen to be, btw, English speakers) define it As far as I can see here, the dispute is one user (yourself) versus all others. NPOV is not a criterion for speedy rename, anyway, so that strategy is not going to produce anything. 17:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC) : You re right, I just read thru the rules, and see that a speedy rename has to be on non-controversial grounds... So I guess the procedure to vote on renaming is to use this section Or what Do I have to start all over again Because I question that 99% of wikipedians really have a different definition of myth from the rest of the world and all the dictionaries. So if any of you understand myth to imply fictitious , or at least liable to be understood as an official endorsement of stating that something is fictitious, please vote for a new more NPOV compromise name. 17:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC) ::The consensus seems rather clear here, so unfortunately I don t think that there s much need for a compromise. 22:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC) ::: Well, if you ve been following the talk page for the cat, I even made a half-mock template to explain this consensus for the uninitiated reader... ;o) ! 22:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC) ::::The talk page makes it rather clear as well. So far, the only one to object to mythology has been yourself. If you want to rename the cat, vote for it, but if others don t agree then eventually you ll have to let it go. 23:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename to 00:30, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This category is empty, and no one seems to be adding new articles to it. Also, last the cleared 500 articles out of the wikification category, without regard to their subject matter. I doubt the usefulness of sorting these by topic; I m hoping after a few more rounds, the backlog will actually be cleared (unlike stubs, which take a lot longer to fix).

=== ===

delete -- 13:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

There are only seven people who have lain in state in the Canadian House of Commons. This would be more appropriate as a list article. Delete. 17:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. It would be mistitled anyway; they are not currently lying-in-state. 17:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. This could be an easily justifiable list, but as a category it s too narrow a topic and exclusive. -- 18:07, August 10, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Not at all necessary, and the user who created it has a very problematic edit history. (I could almost literally make a full-time job just out of cleaning up his edits.) 19:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. -- 21:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Most, if not all, of the persons in the category did not lie in state in the House of Commons chamber, but in the foyer of the Centre Block. -- 22:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge With something in Canada, preferrably political or people wise. 15:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC) **Everything filed in this category is already in more than one Canadian-related category, because they re all former 17:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete not a useful category could possibly make an interesting article. 18:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The same reason as 14:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. No argument. 15:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. God, how many of these cats are there - 21:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, but be careful - there are so many articles in this category. — ) 23:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. -- 01:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. This page is very useful. So many people pay for software while a similar software may be available for completely free. This category may need to be clarified as what s free as in costs nothing or free as in 04:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

merge -- 13:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Parentless category with two members, either duplicating 14:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge as dup. I ve always taken of to be the same as from in cases like this. From is clearer. -- 14:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *:I came across it because the creator had added 15:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge per Kbdank. 15:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge per Kbdank71. 15:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge orphaned and duplicate category to 16:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment: From at least implies that the person has left, in this case, Florida. If distinction is desired, then there should be a From category and a more general category. If distinction is not desired, Of is one option for a general category indicating people associated with the state. 18:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge it should be at ) 22:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete What is there to be merged I just checked and there were no articles in the category. 15:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

No consensus (keep) -- 13:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Which alps It should be renamed to alpine fanua or deleted since it isn t widely used-- 04:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC) :I disagree - it s a subcategory of Alps , and all articles in that category also just use the name Alps , so I assume that it s generally clear that Alps without further qualifier means the European Alps. If this is not obvious (full disclosure: I m a European, and I have no idea what Americans think of when hearing Alps without a classifier), we can rename the category to Fauna of the European Alps , but then we have to rename the parent category and all of its articles for consistency. -- 06:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *According to 08:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC) **Hmm, I m not sure about the overcatting...when I created the category, it seemed like an obvious decision because the animals in the category are all more or less symbolic of the alpine region and there s no other place that links all these animals in one place (I rather dislike list of... articles in such cases because categories are much more efficient and easier to manage). There is also precedent for such a category in 13:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC) ***Ah, I understand that. But it seems more useful and comprehensive as a list. Imho. 15:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. There is already a Flora section in the Alps article, just make a Fauna section. Listify if necessary. -- 15:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete and list. However, this has led me to discover that there doesn t seem to be a clear precedent for these in the wording, method (cat vs. list), or even if it should be by region (Alps) or country ( 15:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC) **I left a note on the talk page of 22:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Agree with 18:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Listify in the article, so delete in the meantime. - 21:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep, do not rename. 09:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC) *Kepp, seems like a useful category. 01:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Used by only three articles, and has no clear purpose to it. -- 08:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC) :Delete Invites random and controversial entries, not that it s found them so far. 08:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete for reasons above. 02:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete Speedy Delete Same reason. -- 02:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. The category name implies that it might contain articles of persons who are considered geniuses, but that is not what the category is being used for currently. The three articles can well go into 00:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)