Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 31

==July 31==

=== ===

delete -- 13:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It was agreeed at 23:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete, if so sayeth the project. - 01:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete per proposer. 20:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete -- Reinyday 07:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 04:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

===Media-related categories===

keep -- 14:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

We currently have:

Navigating the resulting mess is like crawling through spaghetti. I would recommend merging 21:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

*Oppose articles should be categorized correctly, as I feel the current names are appropriate. :* deals with specifically all news related media, not just journalists, but also corporations, radio, etc. :* deals specifically with the career of being a journalist and all related articles that pertain to being a journalist, whether it is news realted or not. :* deals with all forms of mass media , doesn t not specifically mean news, it also relates to advertising, propoganda, newspapers, magazines, cinema films, radio, television, the World Wide Web, billboards, etc. Any media that is designed to be spread to a mass audience. :* - NO main article, but is and should be a parent cat of all types of media . Media does NOT only mean news/journalism, but is also a format or type of medium which holds data (VHS, CD, DVD, Film).

Article mis-categorization is not a category problem, but I agree that it is a mess and should be sorted out properly, but w/o removal/merging of these cats. 23:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

*Oppose same as above - well put, however the more accurate category is probably 03:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

*Oppose. I generally agree with 00:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose to Belands specific plan. In favor of other reorganization, but CFD would not be the best place to win me over to it. Many cats need work --glad to see Beland wanting to do some cleanup here. I wont agree to any reorg based on any CFD process. Do it through 01:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

**Note that eventually one or more cats may have to return here to actually be deleted if that should be necessary. - 01:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. It seems that, while the contents of the cats are a mess, the cats themselves are not too loosely defined. I think they could use some preamble text with links to the other cats to aid editors. I think perhaps they need better names, or something, but that is best discussed over at 01:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

*Oppose. While there may be some duplication and overlap between categories and while there is certainly room for improvement I don t think any action is required at this time. The important thing, to me, about Categories is how one uses them. Categories are about making links and associations and I think we shouldn t be so concerned if they are a bit messy that s OK, it s a representation of how people are using Wikipedia and complexity is just part of the picture. If it s a question of crawling through spaghetti, call me Garfield the cat.

:Yes, the field is complex. That word, Media, it has so many meanings and associations where disambiguation is needed, from simple metonymy up to larger issues of technology, culture, ethics and so on. I think it s good to open up the discussion about the categories and it s interesting to see the list of what s there.

:Let me take a moment to put another light on the scene, too. There are two are, as a starter, listing and going over all the articles in this board area and investigating ways to improve the existing crop of articles and to help generate ideas for new ones. In general, the master list of categories should be rich and diverse, not confined and limited, just like Wikipedia itself.

:Therefore, while, I oppose the idea herein as presented, I think the discussion is significant and hope this will help to spur that on. The whole concept of categories in Wikipedia is itself developing and perhaps some of this is more germane to a meta-discussion about the use and treatment of the category system. 02:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment - Well, I can see the argument that there are some types of journalism that aren t quite news. But I don t see anything currently under news media that shouldn t at least also be under journalism Do you -- 02:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

**I don t see it as a question of journalism and news . But here is an example: 02:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC) **That s actually part of the point. News media is a sub-cat of Journalism, and pertains to the news portion of Journalism. The Journalism sub-cat of News Media, should be removed. Also, articles pertaining to news, should be moved further down, under News Media, thus making them Journalism and News Media. 03:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment - If we need a category for DVDs, tapes, film, hard drives, etc, shouldn t it be Storage media or something a little less ambiguous Mass media and storage media are really quite different things, and I don t see why they should be co-mingled in the same category just because they happen to share an etymology. -- 02:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Storage media would be an appropriate subcat of Media . It already has Digital media, and probably others could be added. 02:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

**I agree that some of the articles should be sub-cat d beneath Media, but it should remain as a parent cat. 03:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 14:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

16:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete as per nom, and merge where appropriate. Established boroughs plainly listed on 21:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete. It seems that London is probably already overcategorized. I didn t realise Covent Garden was informal (it s so well-known). Learn something everyday. - 01:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

===Importance cleanup categories===

delete -- 13:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

11:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. See 23:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete per nom, since I don t like any of the names, really. However, the discussion that 01:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC) :*Yea, sorry it was the only info I could find, figured it deserved a mention. I originally thought it must have been a Tfd but didn t see it in archives. Think I was looking for the wrong title. Here is another relevant 02:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

merge -- 13:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Lists of Wikipedians should do just find as articles in 06:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC) *Comment There are quite a few lists in there, much more than I expected. Before I looked, I would have vote merge with parent. At this point, and as many Wikipedian cats have come up lately, I venture to ask if there is a Wikipedian project that may be able to handle or sort these out better. Many or most Wikipedians do not even know the existance of the Wiki specific cats, and would probably use them more as a community if they did. 10:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

There is the new 11:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

***Ah, thanks for the info. Ok, the question now is, what lists are we going to convert to categories I don t object to fields of interest, but there are quite a few. Should these be more generalized, or are they already. (I hadn t had a chance to go thru all the interests). Also, 11:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC) **** Well, for the purposes of this vote, why don t I limit my proposal to simply moving all the list articles into 21:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I should note that some lists should be put in subcategories. For example, the by_interest A-Z lists should be in 22:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

*Delete and move to appropriate sub-cats as per nom. Creation of new cats can be handled by Project as stated. 22:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete whole Wikipedian category. My god, talk about a vanity page ! 01:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep - I don t see anything wrong with these categories. 12:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC) **What categories This is a category with several articles, which, if I m not mistaken, will be moved to 19:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. I don t see a problem with it. 19:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC) *Merge to 19:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge seems mostly/only concerned with geographic location and language. Not very useful to me at the moment. Some users might choose not to identify their location, but might choose to self-identify with another category ( i.e. by handedness, by religion, etc. )

=== ===

delete -- 13:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of 05:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Useless category. 06:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete, 15:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 04:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

moved to 13:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I have moved this to 17:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Keep 03:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I propose deletion of this category. The Co-op party is a very shadowy organisation in Britain, just an appendage of the Labour Party. Some Labour MPs are technically Labour and Co-op, but the bulk of their constituents, and even many Labour party activists, are unaware of who they are, it is not worth listing them separately from the main body of Labour MPs. 21:25, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Another user writes: I d have thought the fact that few people know of the Co-operative Party makes it all the more important to make this information available! (unsigned comment)

*Extremely strong keep. The Co-op Party is a different political party which is in electoral alliance with Labour but it does have a separate organisation. Its senior members promote Co-operation. So what if other people don t know who they are Could say that of many categories. It helps educate readers. 00:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC) :Categories, like articles, need to pass some threshold of notability. Whatever the formal position, in practice the Co-op Party is not a different political party which is in electoral alliance with Labour , it is a rather shadowy appendage of the Labour Party which even a lot of politically aware people are barely aware of. This category is of less significance that e.g. Labour MPs sponsored by specific trade unions e.g. the TGWU, we could have all sorts of categories. Why not e.g. Labour MPs who were active in the 00:36, 2005 July 31 (UTC) *Keep. Removing this would seem like a loss of not-useless information to me. Cats do have a threshold of notability, but with a little more subtlety than articles, since they are about metainformation. See 01:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

delete -- 13:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

POV; there aren t many articles about specific newspaper political endorsements. The two articles currently included are one politician and one newspaper; if any more articles were to be added, it would be impossible to tell which newspaper goes with which politican. 15:34, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

::I respectfully disagree that some confusion about identifying the newspaper with the person is a reason for deletion. In addition, the category was just begun, and will get filled in. Finally, the only thing really important is to distinguish the newspapers from the people, which should be easy to do. If you go on the people, it will list or describe the event and endorsement in question. -- 03:28, August 1, 2005 (UTC) :::And the POV statement made without explanation is expressly prevented by the category description. -- 03:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Saying anything is inexplicable is POV. The Baltimore Sun article does not mention the reason it is in the category. 13:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

::2 issues: #by this standard, we would get rid of many of our categories, and the category has a clear definition that reduces the chance for POV #agree that newspapers should not be on here because it really is for those endorsed -- 14:00, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. Agree with 03:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

merge -- 13:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This appears to be an unintented duplication of 22:06, July 31, 2005 (UTC) *Merge/delete 04:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)