Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 3 |
==August 3==
=== ===
see 14:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Looks like this is redundant to 23:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Never mind. I speedy deleted it since it was already deleted as per 23:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *:The deletion nomination should have been at SFD, not here, anyway. 11:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *::Yeah, I wasn t paying close attention after I mistyped 00:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 13:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Content moved to 23:17, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Speedy renamed as a typo fix. 00:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 14:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I am wrong, but this category seems too broad and rather superfluous. 22:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete - Far too broad to be useful. -- 22:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete well the only 2 articles are of hot girls so I guess it doesn t mean smoking hot. ;) 22:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *I m the one who made it, and I m currently adding additional articles to it. 23:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *By the way, I confirm every article s placement into this category through careful research. 23:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC) ::Neither of the above two statements have no bearing on whether it ought to be a category in an encyclopedia. (Delete)- 00:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC) :::Not that I m saying we need this cat, but I can pretty much only think of one or two people notable for smoking; 01:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC) ::::Surely you don t mean to forget 22:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC) ::: 03:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete POV -- 01:16, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Delete Too broad for a category. Might as well categorize people who are bald, wear moustaches, wear toupees. under 5 tall, etc. 01:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Delete (RedWolf: there was once a category of people wearing toupees, really) 02:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, this extracts no encyclopedic information from the articles. - 02:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Way too broad of a trait to categorize. – ) 08:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Delete, too broad 20:34, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. No argument. 22:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 14:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Although such a category could be seen as inherently POV and/or non-maintainable (isn t almost everything famous part of pop culture), if it must exist, it needs to be renamed to 21:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
*Delete. Far too broad to be useful. Any category which contains both 21:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete For the same reasons as 22:08, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Way too vague. No clear criteria. Ronald Reagan - 23:06, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Delete for reasons of vagueness. 23:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment for now. If those reasons are valid, then why do we have 23:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, too vague. 00:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Delete, unless it develops some criteria. Laci Peterson Meet the Parents What *Delete. I found this because I was heading to the category to speedy-rename it, but I agree that it s much too broad to be useful. -- 10:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Articles can be selected as various aspects, representations of American Pop Culture. Think of TV programs such as VH-1s I love the 80 s, which highlight various aspects of American Pop Culture, sports, music, movies, news of the day. These are highlights - both profound and sublime (Frank Lloyd Wright and Jennifer Wilbanks). And yes as ). I believe this category can both elevate and string together various aspects of American culture (IE - helps to explain WHY a given piece of content is posted on Wikipedia), reflecting watermarks of American society.
I believe if this category stays representative, and not broadly inclusive, it can be a very important category to keep and maintain. And I strongly hope it will be. Mend it, don t end it. :) -- 10:50, August 4, 2005. *Delete, too broad to extract anything further from the article. - 20:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. The spirit and purpose behind this category seem both very good, but discussing the existence of a national popular culture, as well as finding a few fine exemplars, are different from categorizing every cultural object as either included or excluded. I can t see a way to do this without resorting to POV. We already have 23:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep, and Comment - perhaps the definition of Pop Culture, as posted on Wikipedia, might illustrate the importance of this category and its representative nature across various media and icons: Popular culture, or pop culture, is the vernacular (people s) culture that prevails in any given society. The content of popular culture is determined by every day interactions, needs and desires, the cultural moments that make up our everyday lives. It may include practices such as knitting, cooking, chopping wood, storytelling, playing cards and throwing or kicking a ball. In modern and postmodern societies, popular culture in large part is influenced by industries that disseminate cultural material, for example the film, television, anime, manga and publishing industries, as well as the news media. But popular culture cannot be described as just the aggregate product of those industries; instead, it is the result of a continuing interaction between those industries and the people of the society who consume their products. -- 17:00 3 August, 2005 (UTC). **Despite the attempt, that doesn t seem very illustrative at all. As written, it could include just about anything at all. 00:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
===Proposed mergers===
The following categories had merge tags on them. I m converting them into CFD nominations without offering any opinion. -- 20:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
==== ====
suspend until category titles discussion is complete -- 14:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Nominated for merger with .
==== ====
merge -- 14:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Nominated for merger with . *support. -- 21:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge. There is a far more common definition of mediator than a shaman. 23:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep as . — 14:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
==== ====
no consensus (keep) -- 14:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Nominated for merger with . *Support merge, country related topics are not what the category includes, only listss.-- 00:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep I have merged all the subcategories and this page should be kept as it is.-- 00:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
==== ====
no consensus (keep) -- 14:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Nominated for merger with . *Comment: Are there any archbishops who are not Roman Catholic, say, of the Anglican Church — 14:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC) *Oppose. Should be coexisted with 14:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC) *Keep per Instantnood. 17:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
==== ====
no consensus (keep) -- 14:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Nominated for merger with . *Oppose. These are two very different occupations. A 03:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
==== ====
merge -- 14:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Nominated for merger with . *Merge. No argument. 23:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
==== ====
rename -- 14:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Nominated for rename to . *Rename. No argument. 23:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
==== ====
merge -- 14:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Nominated for merger with . *Merge. No argument. 23:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
==== ====
merge -- 14:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Nominated for merger with . *Keep. Looking over the articles in each, these are neither sufficiently identical nor is one sufficiently empty to warrant merging. 23:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge, there should be correspondence between file formats and their extensions. 15:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC) *Merge. -- 09:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
==== ====
merge -- 14:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Nominated for merger with . *Support merge to Computer and video games in production but dependent on outcome of Cfd nom of 22:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Suspend until resolution of nom cited by K1Bond007. 15:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC) *Other CfD is complete with a no consensus, so this one can continue. I ll concur with merge. -- 15:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC) *Support merge. Given the pattern set out by the parent category . *Support merge. I support the merge. Should the template be changed now or later ~ 11:19, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
==== ====
no consensus (keep) -- 14:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Nominated for rename to .
I strongly disagree with the suggestion that this category be merged with 02:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
*Regarding the former, I definitely agree. Regarding the latter, I ve put up a request that the other category be renamed to include the earlier Iberians as well. - 05:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
**I think if the myths and legends category were created, this should be a subcat of that one. But definitely not renamed-- 15:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC) ***I see that s already been done. Duh. -- 15:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:Do you have some evidence that the Basques had gods so named :Do you have some evidence about Iberian religion and its relation with a Basque religion :For example, have you checked Jose Miguel Barandiarán or Julio Caro Baroja or some authority on Basque anthropology :-- 23:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
==== ====
no consensus (keep) -- 14:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Nominated for merger with . *Whoever nominated this must have missed the Cfd here: 20:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Much better cat name than any of the others suggested. 23:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Restore. I didn t see that CfD. I vote for renaming as 23:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
rename -- 14:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I d like to see these changed to the same format at the other 45 subcategories of 15:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename. No argument. 23:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 14:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
This category is presently empty. 14:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete as per 14:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete per nominator. - 20:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. No argument. 23:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete per nom. 02:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
merge -- 14:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
No reason to separate this from ) 09:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge and delete. 11:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Concur. 12:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Merge per nom. - 20:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge, 02:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
rename -- 13:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Move to something clear like 04:22:57, 2005-08-03 (UTC) *Dangerous As in, poisonous, I assume Otherwise the distinction between dangerous and non-dangerous sounds entirely arbitrary to me. 12:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Rename to 14:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Hmmmm. Poisonous sounds like you have to eat them. Venomous How many spiders carry weak venoms, I wonder Do we really mean lethally venomous to humans (Is today CfD Biology Rename Day) - 20:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Hmmmm indeed. Most spiders have venom of some sort, and are dangerous if you re a fly. Certainly delete this category; possibly rename as something like spiders harmful to humans , as I think that s what was being aimed for here. 00:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Rename, but mostly listify. -- 15:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename and list, per Visviva. 23:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Listify sounds good. 09:36, August 9, 2005 (UTC) *Rename and list, per Visvia. -- 12:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 13:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Misspelled duplicate of 04:10:22, 2005-08-03 (UTC) *Speedy rename. 12:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Redirect if possible; delete otherwise. -- 01:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *This is speedy category. 02:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 13:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Categories named after species epithets. There is no such thing as tepidariorum . The species is always given as Achaearanea tepidariorum . Similarly for the others ( Latrodectus mactans , Heteropoda venatoria , Phoneutria nigriventer ). 04:10:22, 2005-08-03 (UTC) *Delete all. Single species are article topics, not categories. 23:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 13:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Misnamed duplicate of 04:20:10, 2005-08-03 (UTC) *Comment I m assuming there is a project that categorized all the seperate genus of these I agree that more information could be added to each one, but roughly one article and one pic per cat at the moment. Other than that, delete as dup. 11:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *No project is involved. These categories belong to a personal scheme of 12:31:18, 2005-08-03 (UTC) *Redirect if possible; delete otherwise. -- 01:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Per me, above. 23:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 13:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Misnamed duplicate of 04:20:10, 2005-08-03 (UTC) *See above. 11:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Redirect if possible; delete otherwise. -- 01:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Same. 23:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 13:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Just misnamed. 04:20:10, 2005-08-03 (UTC) *Delete . I assume there is no dup or need for this cat 11:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *It was intended to be the category of articles about the species Heteropoda venatoria . But even if it were appropriate to have a category for such a small subject area, it wouldn t be appropriate to abbreviate the genus, because there might be other genera with a species named venatoria . 12:31:18, 2005-08-03 (UTC) *Redirect if possible; delete otherwise. -- 01:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. How many articles are there for any one species (excluding those in the genus homo, which we like to write about so much). 23:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 13:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Misnamed duplicate of 04:30:08, 2005-08-03 (UTC) *See above x2. 11:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Redirect if possible; delete otherwise. -- 01:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 23:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 13:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Misnamed duplicate of 04:30:08, 2005-08-03 (UTC) *See above x3. 11:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Redirect if possible; delete otherwise. -- 01:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 23:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 13:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Category is inherently POV. Who says whether a sports star reached their potential 01:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 12:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Delete POV that is also neologistic, or vernacular at best. - 20:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete Worthless cat, POV, and some of the choices shouldn t be in the category in the first place... Klitschko was a title holder. 21:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Don t Delete There s a justifiable reason for every person that made that list. Klitschko was expected to be the next great heavyweight and with his losses to Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster his weak chin was exposed. Justified. And even Klitschko has acknowledged that he feels he hasn t lived up to the high expectations set by the media and himself. Now who else on the list isn t supposed to be there StockMail *Rename it sports flops. StockMail *Delete as inherently POV. 00:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. No argument. 23:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete it. It s really not that serious. There s way too much overanalyzing. StockMail
=== ===
delete -- 13:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
This is a misuse of categories by putting two discrete classifications together in a single category where two separate categories, that is 01:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete over-categorization. 11:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, overcat. 12:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. I m persuaded by the nomination. - 20:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *unsure delete: perhaps categorisation of SW should be discussed and some guidelines created. It feels as perennial topic. 02:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. No argument. 23:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. A case of overcategorisation which contains false entries ie. not specifically Linux Software. -- 18:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment Not sure I understood the reasoning abowe (wich is why I won t vote at this point), but if I happened to be looking for Linux software that is free (ignoring for a moment that the Wikipedia is not a price guide ), then surely a Free Linux software category would be more usefull than having to look though two seperate categories. One with ALL free software, and one with ALL Linux software (well, all that there are articles about anyway). Isn t this a bit like saying that having for example American novelists is overcategorisation because we already have Novelists and American writers (sorry if that s a inapropriate example, but it would seem to be an example of putting like with unlike as 01:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC) :Comment : At the moment, nearly 99% of free software runs on Linux and free software tend to be platform agnostic, so this category is largely redundant, perhaps that in 5 years we will have say, enough Windows specific free software, but at the moment this is not the case. Another problem is that we don t delete this category, soon we will have, Free BSD Software, Net BSD Software, Free Amiga OS Software, Free Be OS Software you see my point. There is already a 13:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC) ::Comment Aaah! ok I get it now, seeing as free(ware) software are usualy available for every major OS (and the few that doesn t are too few to justify seperate categories) the content of these categories would be virtualy identical to Free software , and therefore they are redundant . Then I agree (though at some point something like Freeware exlusively for <OS> might be justified). Sorry for the trouble. I just found the nominators rant somewhat confusing. The mixing like and unlike stuff realy threw me off and I was left with the wrong impression. Reading VfD s at 03:00 in the morning probably didn t help either :-O -- 18:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
no consensus (keep) -- 13:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Already covered by 01:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Delete merge any stragglers. 11:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC) :*Well in light of the remarkable display of actually reading the article :) I have to go along with on this one.. Keep 22:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *I d prefer the term human anatomy . 12:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *If I understand Alex.tan , only humans have anatomies, and everything else has a zootomy **Sorry, but no. To cite our own article on 20:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Keep per Radiant. 23:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete - was going to put it up for CfD but Alex.Tan beat me to it. Most of knowledge is derived from human anatomy and when we mention words such as leg or arm we refer to human anatomy. It is also reduncdant practically. Zootomy and plant anat are minor branches of anatomy. The overwhleming use of anatomy is in human terms. Also it is incredibly difficult to sort out organisation when every anatomy article has two possible categories to place in, which people will place in different categories. 14:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 13:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Empty category. I created this without realizing that it was already covered under 22:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Redirect if possible; delete otherwise. -- 01:29, August 4, 2005 (UTC) **I ll explain myself here. Some people (a select few, I admit) will look for a Leagues category instead of a Competitions category, because it s what they re used to thinking of as a football competition. It s a simple case of terminology.This explanation also holds for the nom below. -- 01:34, August 4, 2005 (UTC) ***Comment: Well, competitions also includes the various tournaments and cups, so it s a little more expansive than just leagues . -- 05:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment However, it could be a sub cat of competitions, with a knockout competitions sub cat created to sit alongside. 09:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 13:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Empty category. I created this without realizing that it was already covered under 22:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Redirect if possible; delete otherwise. -- 01:30, August 4, 2005 (UTC)|
|