php-deluxe.net - description Categories for deletion Log 2005 August 2

Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 2

==August 2==

===Australia schools===

delete -- 14:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

04:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

These catogories have been replaced with the following:

with the parent cat being -- 23:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

*Delete I guess nothing else needs to be done 17:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Object. High schools and schools are not the same thing. Although it s hard to judge since the articles were removed before listing, I think we should keep at least 15:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. No argument. 00:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. While high schools a subset of schools, it would be overcategorizing to give each of several subsets of schools their own cat. 15:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

We don t have any other genre-specific categories (in fact, this one wasn t even properly filled with articles; it was filled with links . If it is decided it should be kept, it should be moved to 22:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

*What do you mean by We don t have anymore genre-specific categories ~J.D., beby_ Louisiana s finest 9:40UTC 8/3/05 *Comment I think he meant, no genre-specific producer cats. As I dont see any right away. I m thinking maybe merge with 12:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge as above. 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Speedily renamed. As a side note, I took the links and populated the new cat. -- 16:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

==== ==== delete -- 13:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Now an empty category, as contents moved to 21:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete I m not complaining, don t get me wrong, but isnt this what Cfr is for Unless it was a project of some sort. Anyway, delete now. 12:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Not sure if the nominator forgot about the prior cfr. See 16:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *I thought it looked familiar, didn t vote on that one. 17:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

==== ==== delete -- 14:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an empty category that contains a hard redirect to 21:26, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Agreed. -- 01:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 04:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

*Delete a soft-redirect maybe useful tho. 12:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete -- 16:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 14:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know, it s a mouthful (that s beause it s not a very natural category, but that s another story). I put this up a short while ago ( ); there were two votes for deletion, none against, and some comments, but it was closed as no consensus. I ve speedily moved it from its old (incorrectly capitalised) name, but it s still inaccurate.

It s not a category for fictional characters who are anti-Semitic, as the title implies, but for fictional Jews portrayed in an anti-Semitic way. It has two entries (Shylock and Fagin). Now, that those are anti-Semitic is of course PoV, and some editors might want to vote to delete the category for that reason — but even if we don t delete it, could we at least rename it so that it does what it says Its parent category is 20:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC) :Wouldn t something like 01:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC) ::I thought of that, but then thought that I d better try to keep to the original intention as far as possible. You re right, though. -- 09:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete - While agree with the new name more than the old, I still think it is too POV to say that characters like Shylock were created out of anti-Semitic sentiments (would Shakespeare then be an anti-Semite) 21:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC) *:During his time, Anti-Semitism was the norm. -- 14:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC) *::Though it s been pointed out that Shylock s given some very sympathetic lines ( do we not bleed etc.). -- 16:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete don t rename. Clearly pov under either name. 04:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, pov. 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. I m not liking either, frankly, and the two articles can be merged into 16:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete pov. Merge per 17:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge (and delete) per 21:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *:Kbdank71 closed the CfD debate (two voted for delete, no-one for anything else) as no consensus, which is why I reproposed it. -- 16:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *::Sigh. And Sherool and DrBat thought it would be better to rename it. You yourself appeared to be on the fence between deleting and renaming. If you re going to make me out to be the bad guy on this, at least know what you re talking about. Now if you ll all excuse me, I m going to have a drink with Tony Sidaway. -- 16:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *:::There were two votes, the rest were comments. The only votes were for deletion. When someone writes Comment they don t mean their views to be included in the closure process. If you think that they do, then we need to change the instructions. -- 17:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *::::Consensus is built by discussion, not voting. You ve been around long enough to know that. But assuming for a moment you re right, there was one delete vote from Jmabel, and your nomination, which wasn t a vote at all, but when you say right off the bat, the real problem is that this is very misleadingly titled , that s a nomination to rename, not delete. You ve got your re-nom, just let it go. -- 17:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *:::::Well, first, my nomination included no renaming option. more importantly, though, I m worried by the position you ve adopted (presumably not only in this case). In VfDs, at least, comments are not taken into account when assessing the consensus, because they indicate that the person involved doesn t want to be counted (perhaps because they re not yet sure of their opinion, and are simply considering the issues — that s certainly my usual reason. If you are going to count their musings, explicitly labelled as non-votes, as if they were meant, then we need to make this clear in the instructions. I think that it s a bad idea, though, as it might well have the efect of stifling discussion. I ve copied this to Talk, as that seems to be the best place for it. -- 18:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Merge per Kbdank71. 19:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

no consensus (keep) -- 14:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Was formerly populated with about six articles for musicians and record producers. The correct category is 19:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment well actually I was just using the defintion from hip hop which [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Category:Rap&diff=next&oldid=20132970 you removed] from the category. : The term has since come to be a synonym for hip hop music and rapping to mainstream audiences. They are not, however, interchangeablerapping (MCing) is the vocal expression of lyrics in sync to a rhythm beneath it; along with DJing, rapping is a part of hip hop music .

:There was no consensus, because no one was sure, I used that terminology for the Rap category to show it was different. You really shouldn t have depopulted the category before nominating it for Cfd, as this gives a false impression of use. Given this, I still feel that 05:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

::I removed it because it s incorrect, and likely comes from an old, outdated version of the information from the 12:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

::BTW, I went ahead and repopulated the category with the six articles that were in there. These articles include two articles on solo rappers ( 12:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

*I fail to see how rap music and hip hop music are interchangeable, but rapping and hip hop are not, and rappers and hip hop musicians are not. I m going to agree with Who and say we should keep it as a subcat of 16:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC) ::Again, populate it with what, exactly Give me some examples of articles that belong in this category, and not in one of the other ones that actually exist.

::Let me try to expain this:

# Rap music and hip hop music are perfectly interchangable. Both describe the same style of rhythm-based music with vocalists delivering lyrics in a rhythmic fasion. Some people might term the underground records as hip hop , while calling the more commercial records rap , but the two words are indeed synonyms (other people, I have learned, mistakenly label R&B singers like Destiny s Child and Usher as hip-hop musicians). There s not a single rap artist who wouldn t be (more properly) termed a hip-hop artist . #...speaking of which, rapper and hip-hop musician are not neccessarily interchangable, but a rapper is indeed a hip-hop musician; they are a vocalist. A non-rapping hip-hop musician is a DJ, a record producer, or an instrumentalist. #Also, one must understand that there is hip hop and hip hop music. The two are not interchangeable, but are (of course) highly related. This is important, because it leads to to my next point about rapping and hip hop ... #...no, rapping and hip hop are not interchangable, the former is a part of the latter. Rapping is one of the four main elements of hip-hop (that is, hip-hop culture ), along with DJing, graffiti, and breakdancing. Hip-hop music is comprised solely of rapping and DJing. The article on for example) also consider elements of the culture. #Note that we do not (and correctly so) have a seperate article for rap or rap music (the former is a disambiguation page, the latter is a redirect to hip hop music). The article on rapping properly descibes the action and process of rapping, much like singing describes the process of singing.

I know it might be confusing to people unfamiliar with hip-hop culture or music, but this is a case of apples and apples here. I d say leave the Category:Rap open, but leave a note not to populate it, because there is absolutely nothing that we could or should put in it. -- 19:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *So I could then say a hip hop musician creates rap music, and I d be correct -- 19:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC) **Uh-huh. -- 19:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC) ::*I would still say no, they are different. I would suggest merge of any biographies to 22:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC) :::*Again, I ask (excuse the emphasis) what specific music articles How are they different And, yet, no one has still not answered this question: If we kept a Category:Rap , what, pray tell, would we put in it that wouldn t or shouldnt t properly belong under Category:Hip hop -- 01:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Note that rap is not necessarily rap music and hip-hop is not necessarily hip-hop music , even if the musics might be considered interchangeable by some (though their lineage suggests otherwise). A rap is the special repartee which is not necessarily with music, or as rhythmic as music. Hip-hop can refer to the special subculture, with its dancing, dress, and other artistry, including hip-hop music . By this lineage, it stands to reason that an instance of rap music may or may not be hip-hop music , and an instance of hip-hop music may or may not be rap music . - 00:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

**Not exactly. A rap is someone rhyming in rhythm. A rap can be included in a non hip hop song , but, there is no rap music that is not hip-hop music and vice-versa. If you do not agree, then give me some examples. Just because a song has rapping in it does not make it a rap song (eg. the eight bar rap verse in many R&B songs, or one of those rap/rock songs). Yes, hip-hop can refer to the culture itself, but when we are talking about hip-hop music , it is the same as talking about rap music . Usage of the rap music name derives from mainstream identification; people who originally where unfamiliar altogether with hip-hop culture. -- 01:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC) ***Actually I think everyone who has commented/voted had answered that question in one way or another. Even the article says rap hip hop. I agree with much of what you re saying, some articles need to be re-cat d, this is not a cat problem. Although recat n of these articles may leave the cat empty, I can t simply support a merge for the wrong reasons. I see that this cat is clearly distinct, and can be populated properly with Rap based articles, seeings there is a Rappers cat for the actual biographies. 06:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC) ****Nobody answered my question. Which Wikipedia articles, that we have now, are rap based articles, but not hip hop based articles I d like specific examples, because if the six articles in the category were properly categorized, this category would be empty . We don t, and never will, have a single article that doesn t properly belong under 13:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

*delete - for the reasons cited in FuriousFreddy s post above. As there aren t any rap articles which aren t also hip-hop articles, then having an extra category will only serve to confuse things. Rappers is a useful category (although Hip hop musicians would be better ) rap isn t - it will only serve to provide duplication. 16:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Rappers is a subset of hip hop musicians , I believe so that non-rapping DJs and record producers can be included in the category. We don t seem to have such a distinction between vocalists and non-vocalists for any other musical genre, though; perhaps 16:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 14:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems to have been made by the same person as 21:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep but expand. Today is a longstanding, high-rated, nationally televised program of historic import, with many famous alumni who can be added. - 21:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete yes it is a high-rated show, that goes good with a high-rated article , I see no reason for a cat at this time. The staff can be listed on the article. 12:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC) **It d be at least as useful as, say, 07:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete per Who. 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Delete per 21:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete per Who. 00:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 14:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems kind of pointless. Recommend for deletion. -- 19:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, overly narrow. 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Delete; not a usefully categorifiable topic. - 21:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete as above. 00:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 14:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Its articles have been moved to 18:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment again, don t get me wrong, I would probably agree, but I am beginning to think we should rename this Wikipedia:Categories for deletion and renaming as more than just deletion happens here. Not specifically just these cats, as I do not know their history, but Cfr allows the community to discuss these things, even if they agree with the current setup. Still 12:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC) :*Oh yea delete too. :) 17:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete since a better cat is found. Who has a point as to the name of this page, but I m afraid it s too widely-established to rename it now (just like VFD is up for rename every month or so since it s not a vote page...) 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. - 21:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, it has also typo in name. 02:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

rename -- 14:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the category name is not NPOV. Drug cheat implies that the person both (1) used the illegal substance intentionally and (2) did so with the intent to improperly enhance his performance, neither of which is required to be proven under baseball s policy. I am not saying that baseball s policy is an unfair one. On the other hand, the category should not imply what has not been proven. I would suggest Baseball players suspended for violation of substance abuse policy as the name. -- 15:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Renaming would require renaming all of the 18:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Would 21:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment. Substance abuse is a broad concept-- the substances 21:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename, if Quux thinks there are other wrongly named cats he should bring them to our attention, that s what bots are for. I object to both the terms cheat and substance here, so my preference would be drugs offenders or drugs abusers . 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC) **Comment. The other cats I mentioned were the 22:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename I like 17:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename to 22:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment. If this category is about steroid abusers, why not say that Instead of drug abusers , which seems like a problem per 22:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC) **However, the policy is not just about steroids (although that s the current issue in the news) but covers other drugs as well. -- 00:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

rename -- 14:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

No reason not to cover other aspects of the river in the same category. -- ) 07:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename both. -- 15:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename both per nominator. -- 20:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC) *Rename per nom. - 21:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename. No argument. 00:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 14:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia s guidelines clearly states that a category like this is not useful; see 06:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC) *Strong delete, same reasons as before. -- 15:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, I do not understand why it wasn t deleted for previous vote. 17:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 04:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

*Delete, hadn t we seen this before If so, speedy. 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC) **If you read what I wrote it specifically states that this was brought up before, but somehow resulted in no consensus . See the link 18:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC) ***Sorry, long day. 20:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Deleted cats by title. not going to have a no consensus here :) 17:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, per nom. - 21:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. No argument. 00:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

===Rename ===

merge -- 13:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

First, having two fairly distinct categories with such similar names invites confusion. Renaming the first category (which has to do with ) as I ve suggested would conform more closely to 03:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC) *Agree with the first rename. Do we need the second at all Toss a cleanup template on it and be move on. -- 15:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Er, what Merge both to wikipedia articles needing translation . The distinction is far from clear. 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC) :* 03:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Question. I have always been confused by the distinction between these two procedures. Although this rename makes it clearer, does the commuinity that deals with these want these two separate cats, or will one centralised cat do the job - 21:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge per Radiant. If one is not skilled in both source and target, then one probably should not be translating. One cat is all that s needed. 00:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge to , per Radiant. (I think it would be nice to have subcats for German, Spanish, etc., but that s for WikiProject Translation (or whatever) to decide, I suppose.)

===Cities in sparsely populated places===

no consensus on either category (keep) -- 13:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

==== ====

Forgive me if I am wrong, but as with the Icelandic suggestion of a few days back, the idea of there being a host of cities in Greenland seems odd since the whole country only has 60,000 people. Change to Settlements in... 02:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment: How about Communities or Municipalities instead 15:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Follow 17:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I like 18:48, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

**New Zealand is another one I ve considered something like that for. 01:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename to Settlements in Greenland . Communities is ambiguous, and I think municipalities means something slightly different. 21:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename, would agree with settlements as the best option. 23:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Object, most areas have cities of regardless of size or actual city-rights. 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Object. There must surely be some official naming system we can simply adopt, no Otherwise everything from capital cities downwards is a settlement. - 21:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename. Settlements seems fine; if not, then how about Cities and towns for conformity s sake -- 15:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename per 00:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

==== ====

As above. Most of the items in this category talk of settlements (so named) with populations in the hundreds. Change to Settlements in... Note that even if the vote is to keep it as cities, it should be in , not of . 02:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment: How about Communities or Municipalities instead 15:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Follow 18:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

*Rename as per Grutness 21:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename, I d favour settlements as the appropriate term. I ve been to some of these Faroese cities , and in some of them by turning up I increased the population by a few percent! 23:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Object. There must surely be some official naming system we can simply adopt, no Otherwise everything from capital cities downwards is a settlement. - 21:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename per 00:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

====General discussion for both====

*Comments: Can someone clarify the objection to Communities Settlements is a new colony, or a place newly colonized , (which would seem not to apply) with a secondary definition of a small or isolated community; village (would that apply to all in the category). 07:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems to have been started as a trial balloon, but went nowhere. All potential inclusions adequately covered by 01:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete per nom. 02:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Is this about my broken floppy No delete. 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC) ::Nope its about your lost floppies ;) 20:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, though we may eventually need to seperate it the TNO cat further into 00:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Misspelled, pointless, and with only one member. -- 00:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete Ambiguous, not enough entries or given reasons to suggest rename. 02:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, 18:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Is Karin Smith (the person mentioned in the category) even notable 13:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC) **Comment: Karin Smith is no longer an article, and as a result, the category is empty. 17:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, not to mention the misspelled name. 00:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Unused. -- 18:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, categories aren t a /directory/structure. 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Delete this and other Unix categories mentioned bellow. In addition to dab format it is rather vague classifications (what is and what isn t utility). 02:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. No argument. 00:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Unused. -- 18:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, categories aren t a /directory/structure. 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *|/dev/null. No argument. 00:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

===rename ===

rename -- 13:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Clearer without the slash. This category, unlike the other three, is used. -- 18:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, categories aren t a /directory/structure. 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Rename in this case, since it is used. - 21:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename. No argument. 00:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Unused. -- 18:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, categories aren t a /directory/structure. 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. No argument. 00:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

rename -- 13:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Miscapitalized. Contains 18:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Speedy rename. 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *speedy R 17:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename. Useful category, IMHO. File comparators name could be also considered. 02:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC) **Comment. Comparator isn t a word in English. And my whole point was that the cat wasn t useful; it only contains two Unix tools, one Linux tool, one stub, and a bunch of adverts that are about to get deleted (see their VfD entries). No useful content. It s like 22:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)