Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 17 |
== September 17 ==
===Abbreviated DRC categories===
Rename. 04:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Most of the Democratic Republic of the Congo categories are already in the full form. I would like to see the exceptions renamed for the sake of consistency:
*Rename as per nom. 13:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename. No argument. 23:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename, per nom. - 16:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename, but for the sake of consistency, 18:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename as per nom. - 10:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
No consensus (no change). 23:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Rename to 23:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
*Delete. Not clear what goes in here. Perhaps would be better as a list like 23:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete per siafu, unless there is an official definition of low- and mid-rise (which there might be; planning permission might hinge on such). Weakly listify. - 02:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep Clear enough. A list would be worse than pointless: it would probably be neglected, but if anyone took to it with enthusiasm that would be a waste of effort better spent elsewhere. This category reduces the amount of uncategorised buildings in 16:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC) **If kept, it needs to be made clear just what is meant by the rather relative terms low-rise and mid-rise , otherwise the category is not meaningful. 17:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC) ***It s just as meaningful as the tall buildings categories. Trying to fix a limit will just create a row as I know from other sites that no agreement on what constitutes a skyscraper is possible. People from countries with very tall ones try to insist on a really high limit to maximise their sense of superiority 00:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC) ****Tall buildings are notable for being tall. Low and mid-rise buildings are presumably notable for some other, more pertinent reason. Besides, if we have two categories for buildings by height, then we need to define them much more strictly than we do if there is only one. 06:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete. If we are unwilling or unable to make a distinction as to what the differences between, low-rise, mid-rise, tall, etc, then any editor can put any building article into this with the reasoning that I think building x is low-rise (mid, tall). As such, it s useless. -- 14:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep Deletion voters haven t offered any better ideas. 16:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep I nearly suggested office buildings but that overlaps imperfectly with too many other categories. 17:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete per other d reasons above. This is a non-notable category, only contains 9 articles, most of which already belong, or can be added to an appropriate category. 18:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC) ::Only 3 out of 9 belong to another buildings category, which does not meet my definition of most . 04:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC) :::Actually I said that can be put in other cats, and I count 6 that have other categories other than this one. The main idea is that it does not need to be cat d as a structure unless it is notable for being a certain type of structure. One or two of them are musuems/art galleries, its not important that its a short or mid height one. 05:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Rename. 04:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Rename to 21:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
*Rename per article title, 23:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename per nom (to clarify, I think siafu does want the plural, since cats usually are). - 02:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC) **Yeah. I meant the plural. 03:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
===Culture of the two Congos===
Delete/Rename per nomination. 04:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
There are two separate countries called Congo: , which I created myself. There was one article which belonged in both, but the answer is to put it in both, just as we might put an article in both the French and Belgian categories for example. The following changes will tidy up this area: *Delete *Rename already exists) *Rename already exists) *Rename (again the other one already exists) *Rename as the only article in it is about a writer from that country. *Delete as it is empty and there should be two separate categories as and when required. 23:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC) *In the case of 23:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC) **German and Austrian, Canadian and American, Australian and New Zealand culture etc are closely linked, but we do categories by country. The two Congo s already have separate main music articles. There are no articles in 04:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC) ***In the same way that Chinese culture can refer to both the culture of people from Singapore and Hong Kong, Congolese culture can refer to both Congos - 16:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete/Rename all as per nom - 13:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete/Rename all as proposed. 18:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete and Rename all per nom. 23:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete/rename per nominator. - 02:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Rename. 04:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Rename to the standard form: 21:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename per consistency. - 02:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename. No argument. 12:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
===Roman officeholders===
Rename. 04:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
This is an umbrella rename proposal regarding .
Rename: Republican consuls or Republican praetors is fairly clear, but Roman Republican consuls or Roman Republican praetors is more clear, I think. I d also be OK with Consuls of the Republic of Rome or Consuls of the Roman Republic , but then we d need to revisit all of the other categories in this area as well. On a final note, I need to look carefully to see if any imperial-era praetors are on the praetor list; if so, it might make more sense to rename these Roman consuls and Roman praetors . What do others think 20:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC) :I made the section heading a link, but there is no such category. Have you marked any categories with cfd notices This is a specialist area and there won t be many well-informed comments here if you don t bring this discussion to the attention of Roman history enthusiasts. I would have thought that there should be an overall category with a variety of subcategories. For modern countries that overall category would be politicians, but that may not be appropriate for Ancient Romans - though I have no opinion on the matter myself. 21:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC) :: I ve removed the section heading, but added the categories I am talking about in the main text; both categories have been marked with cfru notices pointing to Roman officeholders on this page. 22:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename per nom. 18:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Rename. 04:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I am trying to iron out the muddle in the Philippines/ethnicity categories and adding blurbs in the hope of preventing future confusion about the various terms. This one should be renamed 19:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename standardize. 18:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Delete. 04:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
There was one article in this category, but he was a Polish-Filipino, not a Filipino Pole, so I have moved him to 18:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Merge. 04:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Another non-standard dupicate category. Merge into 17:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC) *Merge. No argument. 12:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
No consensus (no change). 21:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I m not sure if this is supposed to be native UK ers who are living in America... or Americans with an Anglo ethnicity. Judging by the current additions, most folks are interpreting it as the former. In which case it would be enormous and of dubious use. · 16:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep There are 24 categories in 17:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC) **I m sorry you were offended. I only nominated this one because it was the only one I was aware of (it was recently added to an article on my watchlist) -- I find your knee-jerk suggestion that I don t value my own ethnicity a little offensive myself. It s not that I don t think an Anglo heritage is a worthwhile thing (I do genealogy too), it s that I think the category, were it properly populated, would be horrendously unwieldy. · 20:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC) ***I think Americans should just be Americans and all these categories should be abolished, but that isn t going to happen, so this one must stay too. Let s just leave people to populate it as and when they want to, that s how Wikipedia works. It certainly isn t unwieldy at the moment, and due to the lack of value placed on Englishness by many people, it is unlikely it will ever be one of the larger U.S. ethnic categories. 21:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC) ****I don t think it has anything to do with not valuing Englishness. I am myself an American of predominantly English ancestry, but my first reaction on seeing the name 06:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC) *****That merely proves the point. It isn t much used because it isn t valued - unlike all the others (see the size of 16:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC) ******Would you prefer 17:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC) *******No, I understand that the term WASP has been extended well beyond it s literal meaning. Someone created this and put some articles in it, and that should be enough. It isn t hard to understand. 00:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC) ********There is an article 05:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC) *Weak keep. I (an American of Eurpoean descent) also think that name is confusing, and have never heard a single person described as such. However, since it lives within , it would probably be awkward to delete it. It would be great for someone to write a description of what belongs in the English Americans category for the category page. -- Reinyday, 14:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete. I m an American of Eurpoean descent as well. I ve never described myself as anything other than American . Not European-American, not Hungarian-American. I ll be happy to vote to delete the others if they come up on CfD as well. -- 14:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC) **Keep There is no chance that most of the others would get deleted so keep this one for consistency. 16:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete. This ethnic group does not exist per se. 18:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete most ethnic subcats. - 14:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep Of course this ethnic group exists. I ve met some myself. 17:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 18:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete as a virtually empty category and a confusing term nobody actually uses. 19:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC) *Closing note I previous accidentally closed this as delete, as I miscounted the votes, and the discussion leaned towards delete. However for numbers sake, 11 votes, 7 del, 4 k. 63% 21:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
No consensus (no change). 03:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Unnecessary, redundant. Only used by one editor. *Delete per above. ) 15:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Keep The category has been used by several editors and the sockpuppet has created four identities in the past 24 hours, and has been blocked five times in the past 3 days. The sockpuppet categories are in any case created automatically by the sockpuppet template. The vandal has attacked several pages and it makes a lot more sense to keep the details of why the user is banned with the category than repeating it on each page. -- 18:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC) ::Comment: only editor making contributions is Gorgonzilla. Possible userfy to Gorgonzilla/Suspected sockpuppets of 66.43.173.74. *Delete or Hide for admin use only. Non-encyclopedic category, engages in speculation, gives troll(s) involved inappropriate public notoriety, public airing of dirty linen, vengeance-driven, etc. Wholly unbecoming; applies to all similar categories as well 00:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC) *Object the purpose of all of these categories are to track sockpuppets, as if that wasn t evident. Usually only if a particular user/ip creates a lot of socks and vandalizes a lot of pages, does the actual category get created, as they usually remain red links. Also, this was just recently created on 15 Sep. Some of the users listed were tagged by administrators. As for unencyclopedic, well yes, these are all administrative related categories unless you propose all of the subs of 03:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep, this has administrative use. - 02:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep, per 17:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep. -- 14:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC) *Closing note these types of categories should be handled in a different manner, whereas they are adminstrative and not encyclopedic in nature. 03:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Delete. 03:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The first category in this form I ve seen and I ve looked at most countries with more than 50 million people now. I have moved the 5 entries to the organisations, religion and society categories. Delete 02:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
*Delete. No argument. 23:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete. What s an association anyway - 02:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC) :It s a club where no one likes anyone else 03:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Rename. 03:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
There are quite a few non-standard sub-cats in the Philippines menu. This one should be renamed to the standard form 02:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC) :Why not create category: Filipino ethnic groups (or Ethnic groups of the Philippines if you insist ) as a subset of Filipino groups The groups is intended to include Filipinos outside the Philippines(e.g. Filipinos in Japan which I may write in the future) and other difficult to classify groups. -- 03:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC) ::Because it is non-standard. In order to improve navigability, we shouldn t have divergent names for standard subcategories. This is a well established convention. When a regular Wikipedia reader visits a national category for the first time he or she should know what subcategories to expect and where the articles on the topic that interests them will be filed - that is how a professional encyclopedia would work. ::This category is particularly inappropriate because it is too vague - pop groups could legitimately be placed in it for example. The appropriate name for the category you are proposing is 18:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename as proposed. 18:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename. No argument. 23:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename consistency is important — particularly in categories which are a navigation, rather than an editorial tool. - 02:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
*Comment Rename to which Are they already existing No argument with ethnic group name but lets do it already=> Ethnic groups of the Philippines .-- 06:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC) **Erm, that was my proposal anyway, which everyone was replying to. 16:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
===Science and technology by nation===
Merge/Rename as proposed.
At present we have . All but two of the subcats are in the form Science and technology in X and are in both categories. I see little point in dividing at national level; the merger removes any doubt that things like inventors and aircraft belong in the category. Also, these are more categories which should use country as they are organised on state lines and are not culturally sensitive. Therefore: *Merge . *Rename . *Rename . 00:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
Merge. 03:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
*Both categories serve the same purpose. 00:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC) *Merge ) 15:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC) *Merge 00:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC) *Merge as proposed. 18:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC) *Merge. No argument. 23:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC) *Comment: FWIW this is the tip of an iceberg, the Punk subcategories are pretty messy. A lot of articles are placed in both a category and its supercategory, and a lot of this seems to be due to various templates. **Oops, sorry about that. -- 05:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC) *Merge, although I do see a tangled web, I think they should be merged, but manually (not by bot). 23:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)|
|