Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 23 |
== May 23 ==
=== ===
Delete -- 04:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Speculative and likely to change often; this is not a category that will be of any use in several years. 23:23, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
*Support for the reasons outlined.
*Disagree. If you followed your own link, you d see that well-documented speculation is encyclopedic. For every politician on this list, there s a quote or a news article indicating that person is likely to run. Furthermore, this information is useful to users, so Wikipedia should continue to include it. -- 20:28, May 25, 2005 (UTC) ::I have no problem with Wikipedia including the information, just not in category form. 01:42, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
*Delete. Categories should be reserved for more substantial characteristics than rumors. - 01:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. In a category it does not belong. Convert to list or put into an article. 05:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC) *Delete, for reasons stated above. -- 14:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Delete -- 04:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Ummm...vandalism in category form. Also, misspelled. Which is really my problem with the whole venture, I hate misspelled titles. And movies in which a guy takesa woman on a really bad date to a place with other naked women. Hate those too.-- 22:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Rename -- 04:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Should be renamed 17:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC) *Although I don t agree with the Hepburn naming convention, I suppose that if that s the way it s gotta be, then that s the way it s gotta be. 19:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC) *I ve separated out the textual information into 01:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Merge -- 04:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
This should be merged into 15:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Support. For the reason above, plus it might cause confusion since networking also means networking of people, thus a theoretical possibility of sociology articles also claiming their place there.
Agree. 18:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
===Battles in... ===
Restore -- 04:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I propose these renamings, for the following reasons: (1) the categories were created under the names on the right and moved without a consensus of the editors who work on these articles; (2) the categories are intended for articles about battles involving a country, for example were fought in Athens. So let s put these articles back in correctly-named categories.
Of course, a separate hierarchy of categorization based on location of a battle would be fine, if someone wants to create that. But there was no reason to destroy the existing categorization scheme in order to do that.
I am listing here just those categories that have been moved, or partially moved, following a vote on May 14. A number of other categories were proposed to be moved in that vote, but the move hasn t gone ahead yet. Please consider the general issue in this discussion. 14:00, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
Are there any others I may have missed
*Agree. The result of these moves was clearly silly and absurd. 15:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC) *Hm, this definitely bears discussion, by some people knowledgeable about warfare (which I m not). Somewhere below is a vote for the renaming of fooish battles -> battles in foo , on grounds that the latter makes for clear categorization (each battle has one distinct location, and at least two participating parties, and plausibly more). It sounds to me that battles in foo is easier, but I m no expert. Abstain. 15:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
*So, is the proposal that the 15:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC) **Hm, I don t know. That sounds like overcategorization to me. 16:56, May 23, 2005 (UTC) ***The way this is likely to end up working is that battles will be grouped together by war (for example 17:11, 2005 May 23 (UTC) ****Yeah, that sounds eminently sensible. However, I think geographic locations of battles is also interesting for people, so we should have them too. BTW, British troops fighting German troops in The Netherlands in WW1 is an obvious example of there being no overlap between participants and location... 17:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC) *Disagree. -- 17:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC) *Agree, of course. Moving these was a significant mistake based on an faulty assumption. 17:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC) *Disagree. Far easier to maintain categories of battles by location, rather that who took part. There are many battles in which troops from many different nations all took part - which is easier, to list 01:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC) **Categorisation should be accurate and useful, not merely easy. Location is sometimes important and sometimes not. Sometimes the modern country name is relevant and sometimes it is not. And how can anyone think that having a category for World War I battles is ridiculous That s just ridiculous! 23:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC) *Disagree. During WW2 many battles have taken place between USSR and Germany in Poland. They were not Polish battles. I would suggest having some sort of category for those types of battles (i.e. battle on the neutral territory). *Agree. -- 08:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC) *Query -> I m not a big categorization expert, but is it possible to have separate category trees for battles by someone, and for battles at some location 21:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
no consensus (keep) -- 18:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Should merge with parent category on disc-based computer data storage. This cat name doesn t indicate its true content, and it s also wrong since it contains CD even if CDs can be smaller than 120mm. 09:34, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
|
|