Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 19

==August 19==

=== ===

delete -- 13:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Spurious criteria stated on the Category page/ 21:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Description does not fit category name; should be Religious founders anyway; too narrow and also empty. 22:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC) **Empty Why yes, I suppose it is empty. I wonder if that has anything to do with Jossi putting it up for deletion less than three hours after its creation -- 04:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC) ***I don t know. What do you think Is that why it s still empty 18:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, clearly. - 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *rename into 06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC) ::That category does not work. You cannot have a list in which you decide who is a religion founder. Most reloigions are founded after these persons pass away and not when they are alive. 17:50, August 20, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Also see discussion of 14:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete too ambigous 16:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

keep -- 13:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Listify; we don t have categories for other honours. 19:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep: We don t Have a look at 20:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep and find a suitable parent cat. 22:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC) :*Maybe 22:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep per Durin. 22:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

People in the 22:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

**Well it s not like they just hand them out like candy either. It is one of the two civilian awards that is actually recoginized, we aren t talking about a plaque of achievement or something. I am retired military, and I am not offended by this award, and feel its notable. 23:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC) **Having the category does not necessarily mean that we are saying that all recipients are made notable because they are recipients, either. That s a question for VfD. There are plenty of very notable people in the category ( 23:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Weak keep, but listify too. A list could do this job better than a cat, but the cat is nice and automatic. - 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: this kind of categories is of dubious value. The people awarded with medals could be notable on their own and listing every medal/award as category could make articles worse. Lists, OTOH, can provide more description and don t pollute original articles. 02:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

:*Well I hope so, I dont see creating an article just because they were given the award. I think the list is also a good idea, but if they already have an article, I see no difference in this cat than with the other awards cats, especially if you want to compare it to the Emmy s or something. 18:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the number of honours that are available I just think this is a very bad precedent. If we allow categories for American honours then we have to do it for other countries, and many of them have much more comprehensive systems. In the British system for example, the honours are graduated, so people will get a CBE, then OBE, then KBE and so on, so a lot of people could be potentially categorised in dozens of honours categories. I would hate to think how many an ex-Prime Minister or a Field Marshal would be in. 11:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

:*If we apply your reasons for deletion of this category against other similar categories, then we will be deleting a huge number of categories. There s the possibility of literally hundreds of categories that would be up for deletion if we accept the above reasons you have put forth as sound reasons for deleting this category we re discussing. (and there s plenty more where that came from). ::Similarly, we d need to consider the deletion of categories like (+3) and more. ::We have to be careful in applying reasons for deletion against a single category. It is important that we understand the precedent that this decision might make; if we use your reasoning as a basis, then we could also use it as a basis for a very large set of deletions. In making a decision here, we must consider how the decision would scale and apply against similar categories. In this case, I don t think we can reasonably conclude that deletion of all of these categories would be prudent. As such, deletion of this category is not prudent either. ::By the way, 14:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC) :::You re introducing a load of categories here that aren t really related to this. The Nobel Prize is a competitive award, not an honour in the sense that we are talking about, and neither is ) are not the same as people who have received honorary awards; they are mostly in WP only because they won that particular medal, so its the only way to categorise them. ::::Actually the Nobel peace prize is NOT a competitive prize, although people compete for it, it is rewarded to those who have made a monumental contribution to humanity, I seriously doubt 23:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC) :::::It s not competitive in the sense of a race, but it s still a prize, and as far as I know all the Nobel prizes are given out only once a year and carry a sum of money. You still win a Nobel prize, but you don t win a Knighthood. 13:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC) :::And I ve no doubt Churchill would be eligible for more than five honours categories. 22:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC) :::As far as the other awards and honours, if someone feels so inclined, then 23:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC) :::*JW: The distinction you are making is interesting. That said, I don t think it matters whether a person earns an award or is granted an honor (which is usually bestowed for acts, not much different than earning it). ::::We re not going to add people into Wikipedia solely based on the fact they won a Presidential Medal of Freedom. In fact, I doubt there has been or will be a winner of that medal who is not significant for other reasons, for which the honor is being bestowed (if nothing else). I ll add in more categories you re going to have to consider in this sweeping change; . ::::If I might suggest, it would be better if you came up with hard criteria that applies specifically to this category being deleted. If you can t, then you need to develop a set of criteria that clearly delineates the difference between honors that are bestowed as opposed to earned, and then create a reasonable case for deleating those categories that are for honors that are bestowed and why that reasonable argument does not apply to honors that are earned. Keep in mind; you re walking in a lot of gray area. For example, being an all-star is not something you automatically get if you do x-y-z (depending on the sport). Frequently, recipients are voted upon, there is often debate about who is more worthy, and frequently people with better statistics are overlooked in favor of others with lesser stats. So, is such an all-star honor earned or bestowed I can make a case both ways. Your task is to show why such categories would not fall under your criteria so that we can have a reasonable basis on which to delete this category we are discussing and any that are supposedly like it. I also think you need to make a clearer case for why having such categories is bad for Wikipedia. -- 23:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Keep: Given the above discussion, don t see why this group deserves a category less than the others. Seems to me like a legitimate way to group people. 19:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep 16:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

listify -- 13:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a list (or two). 19:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Listify both 22:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Looks like 22:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete per siafu. 02:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep Perhaps I don t know the proper policy, but I just think it s awesome that we actually have all of the articles on the enemy list in a category! I ll (regretfully) change my vote if the policy dictates otherwise. -- 20:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC) **No policy, this is a discussion and your welcome to say pretty much what you want. Especially if you have a good argument for a keep, you may persuade other users. 20:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC) *Listify. While there s no strict policy, we do have guidelines on categories, lists and series boxes ( 08:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Not very useful. Should be deleted. 19:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, no people by occupation cats. 22:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete per 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete per suggest. 17:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

*Delete 16:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the scope of this category is covered by 16:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 22:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete empty and overcategorization. - 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 18:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

rename as nominated -- 13:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Rename to 14:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename. No argument. 22:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename per above, and note that the Districts of Leeds above allows this cat not to not need deleting. As long as stadtteile are approximately districts. - 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename 00:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Speedy rename, 02:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Overcategorization—it would contain precisely one entry, 05:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete: Already covered by 18:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Overcategorization. 22:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, 18:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 17:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC) *Delete 16:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC) *Nuke it Hey, no anti-ship missile talk, I lived on a Navy ship.. 17:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

rename to Railway lines in Austria -- 13:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

*Currently does not contain railway lines, but pages for individual trains such as 03:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Redundant. 22:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Populate, no We must have railcruft that belongs in here - 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC) **Comment: If it s kept, it should be speedy renamed to Railway lines. 00:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

There are at least few historically notable railway lines in Austria (e.g. because of obstacles ther needed to overcome when going through mountains). Articles on them would be useful and this category (named lines) handy. The current content is inappropriate and should be moved out. 02:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

**Except for 04:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC) ::: Yes, I had in mind articles like the one about Semmering. Such ones should be here. 03:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC) :::: Okay, then let s rename and populate this category. I was just wondering if there is a policy of how big a category should be to justify subcategorization (can t find any). 16:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC) ::::: No fixed policy, AFAIK. Usually common sense is good enough. E.g. 02:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

rename -- 13:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Looking Glass Studios games . 08:08, August 19, 2005 (UTC) *Rename per nom. 22:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename. No argument. 22:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename per Radiant!. - 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Games has many meanings and applications (board games, card games, social games, e.g.); it is not a redundant synonym for computer games , thus requires the qualifier for accuracy and consistency 03:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC) **While John has a point, all computer games categories are named the way I suggested this one. 08:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC) ***Since the company is extinct, the proposed rename is unambiguous: they re not going to be making boardgames. Cat names should be short. Rename. Would

=== ===

rename -- 13:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Insomniac games . Yes, I realize that the company is named insomniac games and that Insomniac Games games sounds stupid, but all related categories are named foo games . 08:08, August 19, 2005 (UTC) *Renanme per nom. What about Insomniac games2 ;-p 22:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename. No argument3. 22:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Weak rename, I don t like this much because it allows for pollution by other things to do with Insomniac Games, but all the alternatives are distasteful. - 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename to something as Computer games released by ... to give more clue what it is about. Since this would be the most important category for a game long title won t hurt. 02:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC) **While Pavel has a point, all computer games categories are named the way I suggested this one. 08:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

no consensus (no change) -- 13:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Software by company . 08:08, August 19, 2005 (UTC) *Agreed, rename. 11:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename per nom. 22:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename. No argument. 22:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename, but to something else. We already have 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep as is. Renaming to software by company leaves out all software authored or owned by non-company entities, which includes almost all freeware and shareware and much material in the open source arena. I m not sure what the best rename might be at this point, but the suggested one is not it, unfortunately. 01:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC) **That s not true. Nearly all freeware and shareware has a company or group name on it (most of them one-man virtual companies ). However, as GRTMP suggests below, developer would be appropriate as well. 08:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC) *Question: what is purpose of such category I have trouble to see it. 02:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename into 03:37, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Only two articles (wich I have proposed be merged into other articles) and no parent category. I doubht we have a lot of articles about secret ingredients for obvious reasons. Delete -- 17:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Misnamed at best, is this secret ingredients in alloys Chemical cocktails Drinking water 22:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Populate, there are lots of secret recipes.Delete per above. - 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete I created an article 15:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC) *Grunka Lunka Dinkety Delete. 08:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC) *Delete- 00:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

soft redirect -- 13:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Superceded by . Now empty. *Delete (technically, a rename, but everything is already moved) 00:59, August 19, 2005 (UTC) *Comment Given how uncommon this word is, a redirect might be best. 22:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Leave a soft-redirect is a good idea. - 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Soft-redirect per Splash. 21:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)