Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 4 |
==August 4==
=== ===
rename -- 13:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Rename as 18:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename per nominator, or else suspend pending resolution of the general issue. -- 17:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename to be consistent at this point. We can rename them all after the titles discussion if need be. -- 16:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
no consensus (keep) -- 13:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Suggest renaming to 02:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename 02:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC) **Rename per 05:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC) **Oppose this particular name. Cellular is an Americanism, they re called mobile phones in the rest of the world, and 03:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename to 06:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename per is a UK example. So service providers is more correct and more general. Googlebattle: Mobile phone service companies : 358 hits, Mobile phone service providers : 31,500,000 hits, mobile network operators : 101,000 hits (and is not inappropriate). **Um, I think you left out the quotes — I get 18,500 hits for Mobile phone service provider and 35,000 for Mobile network operator . Network operator is the industry term, service provider usually refers to third-party 03:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename I would suggest simply 14:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC) **It does imply that they operate the phones though! Which they don t, of course, the users do that! - 14:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC) **The abbreviated Mobile operator might also be an option — although I still don t understand the objections to the full Mobile network operator . 02:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename per 16:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 13:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
In the light of the long-time existence of 22:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete the fuzz. Ah, does that ever feel good. 23:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete with some attempt to redirect otherwise it is back in short time. 00:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *Roxanne. You don t have to put on the red light... -- 16:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 13:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
22:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC) : Oh and 22:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename Modern is only modern in a certain viewpoint, so that doesnt work either. Simply splitting them into seems like the sharpest thing to do. *Rename, and if they are split, 21th century is still erroneous. 23:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Merge into existing cats 06:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge per 17:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *NOTE: I m deleting this because a) it s empty, so there is nothing to split and renaming is pointless, and b) there are already populated cats of 13:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
rename -- 13:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Should be renamed to 21:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename. A proper use of the oft-mistaken terminology. 23:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename, not really controversial. 16:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
=== (depopulation only)===
depopulate -- 13:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I was referred here from 18:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *When you say clean up, what exactly are you proposing -- 19:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC) **Getting a bot to remove all articles from the category. 08:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC) ***Why do you not want to then delete the empty cat - 17:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC) ****Honestly, I don t care one way or the other, I just thought that the cat was part of a preexisiting heirarchical structure that I didn t want to screw up by taking a piece out. 20:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Depopulate 15:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Depopulate This category seems to be owned by an individual who insists on placing Puerto Ricans in both that category and whatever other Puerto Rican-(profession) categories are applicable. -- 21:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. We should not be keeping empty categories around. -- 16:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC) **Comment It won t be empty, it contains 18:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC) *Depopulate 18:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 13:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that the category be renamed to 2005-08-4 T 18:12:43 Z *If anything, it should be Microsoft Windows Wikipedians, or some such. But personally, I think that s not a great way to categorize wikipedians, so delete. -- 18:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Sort of subjective, don t you think It s only appearing on user pages, and the user chooses to add it to his/her page. The plan was to add sub-OS s of Windows, Linux, etc as subcategories to the general Windows, Linux categories. -- 18:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. What could such people have in common Why not 19:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC) **Of course, then you d have to have 19:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Although this is up for rename only, I see no point in categorizing Wikipedians especially by operating system. Delete. 19:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Delete, although all these various flavours of Wikipede are fairly lighthearted, this one is really just catcruft. - 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename The nominator has a strong point. Wikipedians may opt to categorize themselves, or not. it s pureply optional. that s fFine. But if we are going to use windows , let s use the more effective 22:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC) **Also, administrators are cautioned to take note: So fFar all votes to delete seem to be on the basis of catagorizing wikipedians by OS as a possible practice, and have nothing to do with this specific category. Making the votes off-topic and void. Only actual votes to rename or not should be counted. 22:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC) ***This is never the case. Voters are free to vote any way they like, and occaionally in CfD a vote produces an outcome the nominator did not intend. The votes to delete are entirely valid, and mine stands. - 23:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC) ***All votes will be counted. -- 01:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC) ***Then we also should delete 05:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC) ****No, they were not nominated here and have not been brought into the discussion for deletion. If you want them all to be deleted, nominate them all. You can create an umbrella CfD if you like, to save time. - 05:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 23:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete per siafu :) 00:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC) *Delete, trivia. 08:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. What s next Wikipedians who eat apples versus Wikipedians who eat oranges If someone really wants this sort of info, use a list. 01:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC) *Keep, possibly listify. Honestly, people. Is this really going to fill up the Wikimedia Project servers Does it have any effect on article space Is there any reason at all to be troubled by its existence Don t we all have several hundred more important things to do than this -- 17:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *:Feel free to create such a list if you think it s important enough. 02:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete trivial. 02:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete pointless 09:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 13:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Empty . Redundant considering it s in a subcat of 16:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Delete as per nom. -- 18:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Speedy as per Kbdank71. 19:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete Console games is a useless name anyway, as the defining line between consoles and PCs looks like its going to blur even more with the X360 et al. PS2 games or Xbox games would be better categories, this is just nonsense. 11:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
no consensus (keep) -- 13:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Tiny category, no chance of growth since helicopter insertions are generally preferred to amphibious landings (incidentally, one of the category s four articles is actually an aircraft carrier) 15:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete seems like over categorization to me. I m sure everything in it will fFit better in a much more useful category. 22:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC) **Comment WP already has a ships of the royal navy (don t know the exact name, but this thing is a subcat of it) which should be fine 11:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
*Keep Perhaps my choice of amphibious warfare over assault ships was a poor choice. I ll accept a rename. 13:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC) **Comment Already has thirteen entries in the category - still too small 13:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Hardly tiny. Bigger than many other categories. And why would the RN still be procuring them if they didn t want an amphibious capability Also remember that historical articles are perfectly valid on Wikipedia, and so there may well be other articles about historical amphibious warfare ships still to be written. It s also perfectly valid to insert subcats of large categories. In fact, it s very useful. And 19:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC) **Comment I do not look at timestamps when deciding whether or not to nominate for deletion. Any article/category etc. on WP should be of sufficient standard, regardless of its age 09:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep - seems like a reasonable category. 11:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename warfare ships to warships . 09:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC) **Comment its amphibious warfare ships not amphibious warfare ships the ships are not amphibious. 09:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep (and at current name). 09:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 13:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Several discussions on VFD reform are under progress, but some people are preempting those discussions by already using the unsanctioned mechanism of which this category is part. That is improper. 10:41, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. A. How can we demonstrate that category-based deletion can work, if we can t, well, demonstrate it B. At present, the few articles listed in this category are also listed through VfD. Therefore, this does not represent any disruption of that process (although VfD is direly in need of disruption). C. Don t disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Just because Ed slapped the community between the eyes with a clue-by-four doesn t mean that it s OK to just strike randomly at anything Ed-associated. This nomination seems to be aimed at preventing any constructive solution to the VfD cesspool. -- 12:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC) **A.Get feedback before rashly starting a test run. At present, consensus is opposed to the entire idea of category deletion in this way. B.I never said it was, but it s also ultimately not going to prove anything in this way. C.You really need to read 12:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Discuss and refine the proposal and get wide acceptance from the community before you implement this. What if VfD and Categorized Deletion or whatever you want to call it come to opposite conclusions on the articles that are doubly listed This isn t disruptive by itself, but could become disruptive if that happens. 12:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Delete Appears to be an improper process. 13:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete Seeing that the 18:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Delete as per reasons above. -- 18:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, this is almost a 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep: harmless experiment until conflict over specific deletion, which should not be handled here. I would join a consensus to rename the cat, but there doesn t appear to be one. 18:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
rename -- 13:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Rename to match other subcategories under 06:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC) :Comment : Shouldn t it be Lao Americans 11:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC) ::Comment. 06:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete ethnic subcats. - 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename per nom 22:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename. No argument. 23:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Compound modifiers should be hyphenated. 06:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename. Many Americans consider hyphenation offensive, which is why the articles and categories for almost all the other ethnic groups in the country are without hyphens.-- 06:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename as Lao Americans. — 14:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC) **Comment.Please read my comment above. Lao is not the same thing as Laotian .-- 22:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC) ***Which group of people are we referring to Americans who are Lao by ethnicity, or Americans who came from Laos — 20:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC) *Maybe this category should be deleted, since the only article in it is about 06:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC) **Agree if that s the case. For these people only the ethnic group and present citizenship are relevant. — 16:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC) *Rename as per nominator, or delete if neccesary.-- 15:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
rename -- 13:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Request renaming to fit the template. *Rename for consistency. 01:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
rename -- 13:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Request renaming to fit the template. *Rename for consistency. 01:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *RENAME to 19:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename as per nom. -- 19:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC) Rename per nom. - 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Rename. No argument. 00:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Question: What template 06:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC) **Good question. I think s/he means precedent or something. We have 17:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 13:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Requesting deletion. Someone placed one article in this category by mistake. I unwittingly propogated the fFirst person s error by making an actual page fFor it. There is, in fFact, a perfectly acceptable 06:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Speedy merge as capitalization fix. 09:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Shouldn t it be Alternative... , or is that another UK/US difference 11:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC) **No, to my knownledge it has always been commonly known as Alternate . 19:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC) **The same is true to me (English-person s) knowledge as well, although I couldn t tell you why. - 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC) ***In American Sci-fi, the phrases alternate dimension , alternate universe , alternate reality , etc., which should have all been alternative , have been misused for so long that they are now the accepted form. -- 17:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC) ****...whereas here the phrases are alternative dimension , alternative universe and alternative reality , etc. Which is why I wondered whether it was a UK/US language thing. 01:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC) (former president, NZ National Association for Science Fiction) *Delete, empty, per nom 19:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Delete unneeded. - 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
keep -- 13:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
This cat is more or less a duplicate of 09:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment: To my American ears, twin towns sounds rather strange here. It suggests two towns that are close to one another, a la the Twin Cities. I had never before heard sister cities referred to as twins. Is this a European usage :* Agree with the comment. Sounds very odd to say twin town . - 13:23, 2005 August 4 (UTC) :* Czech language knowns sister city (translated), although the term isn t used very much. 19:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC) ::*In Norwegian the consept is known as friendship cities (translated), but I ll defer to native English speakers to descide the best term in English (though twin cities sounds strange in my ears too). -- 14:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC) :*Over here in the UK, we talk of a town being twinned with another, so perhaps it is Anglo-centric or something. - 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC) :*I hear the two terms equally often (Sister city/Twin town). I d agree that Twin towns could be confused with the US term Twin city for two conurban centres (e.g. Seattle-Tacoma), and since the two terms are equally used, I don t see any reason why we shouldn t keep this one the way it is. 02:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep 14:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC) *Keep Sister cities to avoid confusion with 15:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep 19:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment: another alternative I saw is partner city . 03:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
merge -- 13:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
CfR/CfD templates were added, but categories were not listed here. (I say put em all in 19:34, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *upMerge per nominator. This is overcategorization. - 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge. No argument. 00:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Speedy Merge (if such a thing exists) -- 01:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)|
|