Google
 
   
Login
Username:

Password:


Lost Password?

Register now!
Search

Advanced Search
Main Menu
top books
Polls
What do you think about php-deluxe.net?
Excellent!
Cool
Hmm..not bad
What the hell is this?
encyclopedia
Application framework
Multimedia framework
Occam programming...
Bess
Performance testing
Nodezilla
Cohomology
recommendation
compare webbrowser
Freenet DSL
Who's Online
8 user(s) are online (8 user(s) are browsing encyclopedia)

Members: 0
Guests: 8

more...
browser tip
Unix Befehle
manual of unix befehle
recommendation!
Sponsored
partner

Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 12

== May 12 ==

=== ===

delete -- 13:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a good idea in theory, but in practice it doesn t work at all. The category contains some (but not all) templates presently (or previously) on TFD, and all articles that include those templates . This makes it worthless as a tool for just about anything. To find out which templates are on TFD, read 21:22, May 12, 2005 (UTC) :(contains 91 articles, 81 images , and only five templates) 21:23, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - I ve run a script to perform null edits on the pages, so that the category removal takes hold, but we should discourage any categories in templates because of this issue. If we ever need to find templates for deletion, you could in a pinch use 22:02, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
    • *Delete. This would be the reverse effect of why we end up with templates in the various clean-up / deletion categories. More hassle than benefit in this case, unfortunately. -- 22:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC) *Delete. I agree, though, it is a good idea if it worked. -- 16:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    no consensus (keep) -- 13:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    I m uncertain whether a list of candidates is sufficiently encyclopedic to warrant a category, as Wikipedia is not supposed to be 20:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Unnecessary category. -- 20:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC) *Keep. I think it is an interesting category. Obviously being a (failed) candidate is not notable enough itself to warrant an entry. However, a lot of noteworthy people have been failed candidates and I think a category for them is warranted and interesting. Possible the category should be renamed or include an explanation at the top to make it clear that these are candidates who were not elected. -- 21:54, May 12, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. I think this is a very useful category to include otherwise notable people who ran for parliament but were not elected - major party star candidates from outside politics or from another level of government who were not successful, and smaller party leaders. We d just have to sort everyone into Canadian politicians or [province] politicians anyway, even if they weren t really politicians outside of a notable parliamentary run. A few of the members of the category I might not be so sure about individual articles for, but that s another question.. 21:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC) *Keep. As the creator of this category I feel that it is useful and helps to categorize a significant number of articles. -- 00:52, May 13, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. A list is sufficient. 01:55, May 13, 2005 (UTC) *Delete, replace with list. 07:58, May 13, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. A list is good. -- 16:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC) *Comment: There are categories for nominated presidential election candiates of the US Democratic Party and the GOP. What is different here is that a candidate in a riding is less notable than a candidate of a national election. — 08:48, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    no consensus (keep) -- 13:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    Redundant category, duplicate subject matter in 20:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep . The redirect is wrong -- Logic and Formal Logic are not the same thing. The later is a mathematical discipline that goes way beyond what most people mean by Logic . In a non-math context, logic is a strategy for avoiding fallacious argument, an important aspect of 16:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • *Okay, but then for consistency we should merge from, then delete 16:31, May 16, 2005 (UTC) **No 17:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    no consensus (keep) -- 13:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    There will never be enough about Tai O on wikipedia to merit a category. I (re)wrote most of the article on this hovel, and that article is the only thing in this category. Indeed, this might be a self-nom, I show up as the creator of the category from clicking through a red category link on the article and hitting save to add the cfd template. 19:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC) *Keep. — 10:08, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    delete -- 13:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    I created this category without fully understanding the procedure and the ideas behind stub categories. Only one entry which has been moved to 19:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    delete -- 13:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    I found this cat on 18:28, May 12, 2005 (UTC) *Almost BJAODN-worthy. 18:58, May 12, 2005 (UTC) *How bizzare. Delete. -- 20:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC) *Sorry (I created it). Uhm if somecould categorize the last article it should self-destruct (else I m OK with deleting it... actually that s what I planning to do until I saw that banner stating someone want to discuss this first...) -- 20:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC) *Cool. Like the barber who shaves every man in town who doesn t shave himself. Must be a woman. -- 13:26, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Bad idea to have this category. It basically sweeps things under the rug. 14:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It s a redundant category, no further justification needed. Like most redundant categories, it was probably created by a newbie. In this case, the newbie didn t grasp that a category holds any relevent articles that don t fit subcategories. I don t think any logical fallacy is involved, just a basic newbie misunderstanding. --- 16:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

    • === ===

    delete -- 13:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    Created a couple of months ago without reference to existing 16:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC) *This page was already discussed and deleted back in September, in theory it can just be speedy deleted. - 18:15, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    delete -- 13:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    Either delete or rename to 16:00, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    delete if template is deleted, keep if not -- 13:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    I saw this cat at some page and my first thought was, WTF is that It actually doesn t mean anything, except that the author of a page does not want others to edit it. Which runs counter to the spirit of the wiki, and anyway this has nothing to do with actual protection. This cat would be more aptly named 14:36, May 12, 2005 (UTC) *Delete BUT ONLY, if the worthless and abuse prone templates (twoversions, etc) behind it are deleted as well. I like templates including categories, so if those templates are staying then my vote will be a strong keep to the category. 17:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Note that the 17:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I m talkin about 19:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • *Delete. It appears this was part of a policy proposal that was actually rejected (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_12&diff=13617682&oldid=13616298] *Delete. Part of a failed policy. - 18:14, May 12, 2005 (UTC) *Delete if 00:19, May 14, 2005 (UTC) *Delete 14:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    delete -- 13:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    Contains only two articles, pointless subdivision of wikipedia space. 12:19, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    delete -- 13:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    Empty category. Also, 12:19, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    delete -- 13:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    Empty and pointless. 12:19, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    no consensus (keep) -- 13:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    too ambiguous - could mean either choreographed entertainment 05:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC) *It could be used as a supercategory for all kinds of wrestlers from Canada, including mud wrestlers... 23:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

    === ===

    delete -- 13:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    Derisive neologism. - 02:01, May 12, 2005 (UTC)