Google
 
   
Login
Username:

Password:


Lost Password?

Register now!
Search

Advanced Search
Main Menu
service
Impressum
Datenschutz
Haftungsausschluss
top books
Polls
What do you think about php-deluxe.net?
Excellent!
Cool
Hmm..not bad
What the hell is this?
encyclopedia
GNU build system
FLAC
Andrew Orlowski
Configuration file
Bedroom programming
Tri-Ace
Fortune (program)
recommendation
Freenet DSL
Who's Online
11 user(s) are online (9 user(s) are browsing encyclopedia)

Members: 0
Guests: 11

more...
partner

Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 16

== June 16 ==

=== ===

delete -- 13:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definitionless. I m pretty sure some of the 11 people listed shouldn t be in there, but I could never back up my reasoning for removing them because there is no definition to check the people against. 22:04, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

  • Delete, too fuzzy (and putting Torvalds in makes it rather joke). Better category Computer Scientists exists. 19:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • === ===

    keep -- 13:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Same reasons as 21:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) *Keep - it s a useful browsing aid, like any other decent category. 07:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep, unlike most campaign settings Dragonlance has a wide range of creatures not found any place else. Even their minotaurs are different. 10:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    delete -- 13:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Duplicate of 18:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • DELETE -- 00:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • === ===

    no consensus (keep) -- 13:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    The idea s not bad, but the name is rather strange. Any ideas for a better name -- ) 13:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *I d be tempted to delete it, as this requires a rather lengthy description and it would be better if that description were copy/pasted into each of the (presently five) highways that it applies to. 14:06, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) **There are a good number more - he just added the five he knew. -- ) 22:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak rename. How about the name: State highways with US highway numbers — 07:09, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
  • State highways patterned after U.S. highways I honestly can t see the use in such a category, however. Any idea how rare it is for this If it s the general rule, or even only one of a handful of ways that state highways were planned, it s really not all that interesting a category. 00:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE I agree with Poastdlf. -- 00:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • === ===

    rename -- 13:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Rename to 12:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Make that 12:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) *COMMENT current contents include things that are not battleships. Why not just do 16:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Rename. - 21:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) *KEEP, I don t see many of the category s articles being called battleships , although many of them are warships, not all of them are warships either, so renaming it would orphan some articles. If it were just renamed, then the majority of the articles would reside in the wrong category. 16:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • that should be 16:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • === ===

    delete -- 13:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Unnecessarily confrontative, and redundant to 10:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Name is too easy to abuse (and categories do not seem to be the best tool to classify /quality/ of an article - a complex and misuse-prone content labeling system would be better). 19:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — 07:10, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
  • Delete Not an encyclopedic label, uneducated, unprofessional.-- 00:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • *Delete -- TFD discussion was to delete it, too. See 08:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    rename -- 14:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Rename to 10:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) :Sure, go ahead. 10:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Rename - I always thought that style of wording was odd. - 12:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    delete -- 14:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Rename to 10:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) :Agreed (I originally created the category as 10:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :rename - again, there should be conventions for how these are worded. - 12:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    no consensus (keep) -- 14:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Delete, there is a good 10:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) :Um, there are 13 articles here. Seems enough to warrant a category to me. Keep 10:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :*Yes, but only three in the main characters article, nor are there categories for fighters (say, Caramon). Apparently most of the cool characters are wizards. Hence my suggestion for merging. 10:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) :**As far as I can see, there s no category for fighters because there aren t very many of them. Merging is unnecessary and preemptive. Keep / Rename 10:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Keep - this is relevent as a subcategory of both Fictional wizards and Characters of Dungeons & Dragons. - 12:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Rename to 05:36, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    delete inner, no consensus on other two -- 14:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Overcategorization; too small to be useful; redundant with 10:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) :I ve marked 10:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :*How, exactly Outer planes I can understand. But there s only one astral plane to begin with, and all inner planes are elemental, para-elemental, pseudo-elemental or positive/negative; and there s not much to write about most of those. 10:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) :*Okay, I m happy with deleting 10:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep 21:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    no consensus (keep) -- 14:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Too small to be useful; redundant with 10:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) :They will expand in future. Keep 10:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :*Possibly, but why the overcategorization There aren t that many extraplanar creatures. The monstrous manual doesn t even make this distinction. 10:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) ::There are many extraplanar creatures. Most aren t in the monstrous manual, because they are almost never found in the prime material plane. 10:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep the fiends category, as it s also a subcategory of 21:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    no consensus (keep) -- 14:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Contains no creatures not part of the more generic 10:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) :You re wrong - 10:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep - They are not part of generic D&D. And even if they were - they are categorized under FR creatures because they have information RELEVENT TO 12:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) **I have been playing D&D and various variants and other RPGs for about twelve years now. What about you 12:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Of the four examples cited above, driders and yochlol are not necessarily FR-specific (both may have originated in FR products, but were later published in materials for core D&D or in supplements for other settings). - 21:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • 05:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • ***Since when do articles get categorized on the basis of the current contents of the article rather than the subject of the article Every article in 05:50, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) ****Point taken. However, I still think the category serves a useful purpose. 07:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *****If it duplicates another category, it doesn t. If the contents were only Realms-specific, it would be a completely different issue. - 02:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) *****If you want to browse 02:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. -- 19:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Many articles contain specific sections that are only relevant to the Forgotten Realms . 21:09, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) *Delete Detailed game information is not encyclopedic. Wikibooks -- 00:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) **It s not just game information; it s also from novels and famous authors such as 03:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    merge into Flautists -- 14:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Flutist and Flautist are synonymous, and 05:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    *Concur. 08:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) *This is a BE/AE issue (obviously), and the histories of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Category:Flautists&action=history flautist] vs. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Category:Flutists&action=history flutist] show that the former was created in June 2004, as opposed to November 2004 for flutist. Perhaps we should do it the other way around 10:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :*Yes. As mentioned at 10:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :*I have no position on the BE/AE issue, but I figured that since way more articles have been added to flutist than flautist it might mean that flutist was the more obvious choice for someone adding a category tag. I m fine either way, though. 15:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::*Well, you learn something new every day. I d assumed that flutist was a misspelling due to ignorance, and have been correcting it wherever I ve found it. I didn t realise it was a valid (if wince-inducing) alternative - sorry! 01:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *I don t care about the BE/AE issue on this either. If we need to delete one, I d say Flutist, as Flautist has been around longer. -- 16:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Whichever way it goes, I think this is a case where a soft redirect via {{ ) 18:16, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    delete -- 14:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    This is merely a category of people with some connection to California who happen to be actors.

    Generally speaking, there isn t even any clear criteria as to who goes in which people-from-state subcategory (simply being born there living there for a number of years or only acheiving notability there). Furthermore, what relationship does someone s state of residence even have to their occupation If they ve held political office, the relationship is pretty clear—they were a state governor, member of the state legislature, etc—so state politician subcategories make perfect sense. But an actor It s simply not a profession that has a strong nexus to a specific state of practice.

    This was created by the author to subdivide 22:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    :There are over 200 articles in 01:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Agree with Postdlf. Dividing between movie and TV sounds like a sensible start, doing it by state does not. Delete. 08:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) **I would note there is a precident for occupation by US state categories, for example 16:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Those are problematic as well because of the lack of clear criteria for inclusion in a particular state. But note that those at least haven t been used (or at least shouldn t be used) to absolutely replace the national categories, merely to supplement them, though in cases of individuals primarily notable just within one state, it makes sense to only apply the state category. ::To deal with the examples at hand, let me explain why I think writer and musician state-specific categories, if appropriately limited, are more logical than state-specific acting categories. , for example, because not only has he lived and worked there for pretty much his entire life, but if you ve read any substantial number of his books, you ll see that many (if not most) of them actually take place in Maine, so not only King himself but more important to the occupation category, his writing, has a substantial nexus to the state of Maine. But because King is obviously nationally notable, it would be a mistake to limit him only to the state category. The same may be true of certain musicians, who are frequently known for their connection to a particular region because that s where they played most of their career, that s where the band formed, etc.—so long as the public identifies them with that state. States and cities furthermore have music scenes, so that the nature of the music itself will be tied to a very specific geographic locale, and not just the musicians. Once again, these should supplement , not replace the national categories, unless we re dealing with a musician who is only or primarily notable in one state. Regarding the industrialists, I haven t actually looked at that category, but the same thing may be true to a certain extent, if the industrialist is mainly known for their involvement with industry that is local to Hawaii. ::I think the general rule should be, given the strong national identity and culture of the U.S., and given the frequency with which Americans move to state to state (particularly notable people), the presumption should be against a specific state being important to an individual, particularly to his career. For most careers, it would be pretty silly to make state-specific categories. ; the creation of either would probably just be examples of local vanity—a resident of either of those states just trying to honor their hometown heroes. I ve even seen people argue that national categories are irrelevant to certain professions— subdivisions of a nation must be doubly so. ::So why should actors get a state-specific category 22:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Delete. I agree, there is no reason to break it down by state. -- 19:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    delete -- 14:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Redundant with 00:33, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) *Keep - I think it works better, and is more navigatible, than grouping creatures that are essentially humans (elves etc.) with monsters and animals, especially with it as a subcategory of Categegory:Forgotten Realms creatures, and the basis for seperation clearly defined. - 01:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) **Note: iff kept by Erolos reasoning, it should be renamed to 10:03, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) *Delete, the distinction is arbitrary, since by 3.5 rules any creature is a playable race. Also this seems mostly redundant with 08:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) **Even in previous editions, nearly every creature was playable in some product or other (dragons in Council of Wyrms ; beholders and illithids, among others, in The Reverse Dungeon ...) - 21:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) *If anything, it should be Forgotten Realms humanoids ... but it includes 09:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Redundancy is irrelevant. Anyway, races don t have to be humanoid. They just have to be intelligent. 21:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) **Redundancy is perfectly relevant: if two categories serve essentially the same function, one of them will usually be deleted. - 07:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) ***Yeah, well, in this case they don t serve the same function. 23:07, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) ****But every creature with Int 3+ is a playable race in 3.5 edition (and even then, there are ways to boost the Int, such as with awaken ). - 23:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) *Delete Cant this kind of stuff can be at wikibooks instead of wikipedia -- 00:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    keep -- 14:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    For some reason, this category was marked for speedy deletion, but I don t see any reason why. It seems very notable and encyclopedic, with a lot of potential to be a helpful navigation tool. At the very least, it deserves to be voted on here. My vote is to keep. 01:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Maybe we should ask the nominator I cannot see a good reason either. Or maybe it should be 08:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

    *Keep. Reasonable category. 19:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep. The majority of 19:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Keep and remove notice ASAP. The category was marked for speedy deletion by 07:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)