Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Recury (talk | contribs) at 00:05, 15 November 2006 (→‎NEW NOMINATIONS). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< November 13 November 15 >

November 14

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Photographic terms

Category:Photographic terms to Category:Photography terms

  • Rename, More common/less awkward, IMO. Plus it's easier for me to remember which it is if it just matches its parent category (that is, Category:Photography). Recury 00:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alpha Kappa Alpha

Delete, as unused. However it doesn't qualify for {{db-catempty}} because of the template. -- ProveIt (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Violator

Rename to Category:Violator Management to match Violator Management. -- ProveIt (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Misses, Mrs., and Ms.

Category:Fictional Misses, Mrs., and Ms. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
As with the noms below, delete as inane and pointless trivia. The only useful function these categories serve is to prove that similarities in the names of fictional characters does not establish any other meaningful relationship. Compare Mrs. Robinson, Miss Piggy, Ms. Pac Man, and...Mrs. Butterworth. Postdlf 19:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Please see my comments below. (Is Mrs. Butterworth a fictional character or a real syrup?) George J. Bendo 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Misters

Category:Fictional Misters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, absurdly trivial and trivially absurd. Unless you think that there's a point to collecting together Mr. Slave, Mr. Bean, and...Mr. Coffee. Postdlf 19:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This could be even more inane than the Fictional Aces category. (Besides, Mr. Coffee is not fictional.) George J. Bendo 21:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Aces

Category:Fictional Aces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, extreme and arbitrary trivia for all fictional characters named or called "Ace." Completely and egregiously pointless, as illustrated by its grouping of Ace the Bathound and Ace Ventura. Next will be Category:Fictional Andys, so the significant connection between Raggedy Andy and Andy Sipowicz can finally be brought to light. Postdlf 18:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Categorizing fictional characters by name is inane. (At first, I thought this was a category about fictional playing cards.) George J. Bendo 21:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women Governors

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Women state governors of the United States. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom (although I think the convention is "Women" as opposed to "Woman"). Female heads of government are a legitimate sex-based categorization. Otto4711 20:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, I'll fix my nomination as suggested. -- ProveIt (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Web 3.0

Delete, as recreated content. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tchaikovsky compositions

Listify, duplicate of Category:Compositions by Pyotr Tchaikovsky. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life coaches

Having three categories to hold the grand total of one article seems a little over the top Tim! 18:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish trade unions

Category:Scottish trade unions to Category:Trade unions of Scotland

Category:Poems by author

Here we have several competing standards, all of which are reasonable. Poems by Writer, Poetry of Writer, Poems of Writer, Writer poems, and Poetry by Writer. I don't see how this is any different than Category:Operas by composer ... I think any of the above are acceptable, but would like to standardize on one of them. Once we've made a decision, speedy rename should become valid for issues like these. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we go with "Poetry of," that would make the category open to articles on individual poems as well as on poetry collections, for what that's worth. Postdlf 19:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels by author

The great majority of these are the form Writer novels, for example Category:Kurt Vonnegut novels, and a smaller percentage are of the form Novels by Writer, for example Category:Novels by Thomas Pynchon. I think both of these are perfectly good, but we should pick a standard and live with it. Consistency is more work for us, the editors, but it's good for the users. Note, I'm not nominating anything, I'm just suggesting we discuss what the format ought to be. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Name novels has the advantage of compactness, so would probably be my favoured form. Tim! 17:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arjuna awardees

Category:Arjuna awardees to Category:Arjuna Award recipients
Category:Padma Shri awardees to Category:Padma Shri recipients
and the rest at Category:Indian honours system accordingly
Rename. Better name. - crz crztalk 16:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. Better name. Consistent with other categories. --MarkS (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plays by Friedrich Schiller

Rename to Category:Friedrich Schiller plays, convention of Category:Plays by author. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. --MarkS (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches

Category:Churches to Category:Churches (buildings)

Category:Religious work

Category:Religious work to Category:Religious occupations

Apple Computer category

Rename (Apple Corps v. Apple Computer)--Sjeunz 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spouses of Chinese national leaders

Category:Spouses of Chinese national leaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The category will be impossible to define -- and already, the subcategories that are added are questionable, as some empresses' husbands were arguably not "national leaders." Category:Leaders of China was deleted back on September 13 for the same reasons (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_5). Having "national leaders" does make it slightly less ambiguous, but it's still ambiguous. (Not only that, but "spouses" may actually be ambiguous as well; certainly, I don't think Category:Chinese imperial consorts belongs because those were not wives.) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World Championship Wrestling alumni

Category:World Championship Wrestling alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as an improper categorization based on "former" status or Rename to Category:World Championship Wrestling roster. Otto4711 15:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canes Venatici Cloud

Category:M94 group to Category:M94 Group
Category:Canes Venatici Cloud to Category:M94 Group

  • Merge/Rename - Originally, this was created to include galaxy groups that lied within a region designated the "Canes Venatici Cloud" by Brent Tully in a 1982 paper. However, the term "Canes Venatici Cloud" has not been used in that sense since the 1980's. Currently, the term is used to refer to the M94 Group (NGC 4736 Group), as a search for "Canes Venatici Cloud" in the ADS Abstract Service or the Simbad Astronomical Database will reveal. Both Category:M94 group and Category:Canes Venatici Cloud should be merged together under the name Category:M94 Group. The first letter of the word "group" should be capitalized because the object is a proper noun (a specific place).
(Note: The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) lists the "Canes Venatici Cloud" as an alternate name for the NGC 4631 Group. Based on the papers returned from the ADS Abstract Service, this designation is probably incorrect. Part of the problem is difficulty in identifying group membership near NGC 4631, as indicated in the NGC 4631 Group article. NED relies on the LGG catalog for group identification, which lists Messier 94 and NGC 4631 as part of the same group. Most other galaxy group catalogs list these two galaxies as belonging to separate groups, so the results from NED are probably inaccurate.)
George J. Bendo 15:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Preacher of the Gospel

Merge into Category:Christian ministers, or at least Rename to Category:Preachers of the Christian Gospel. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1851 Religious Leaders

Delete or at least Rename to Category:1851 religious leaders. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the only YEAR religious leaders category we have. --- RockMFR 14:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as most leaders will have a term stretching over many years, this doesn't seem a practical category scheme. Tim! 17:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tim!. Postdlf 19:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we already have lists of religious leaders by year (eg. List of religious leaders in 1851) which seem much better suited to this sort grouping. --MarkS (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:State of Origin Games

Listify, empty, and currently context-free table of sporting results. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disney actors

Category:Disney actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
"Actors by Company They Have Worked For" is not a good categorization scheme. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 13#Category:Pixar voice actors for related discussion and excellent reasoning for deletion. Also, please consider the subcategories of this category; I suspect they also should be deleted but the case isn't quite as clear. Powers T 14:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless all of the subcategories are deleted, which seems unlikely. Tim! 17:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think there was more of a "studio system" in the classic Disney era then there is now. I think it's possible, maybe even likely, that there are actors associated with Disney but not other studios. If I'm wrong on that I'll change my mind--T. Anthony 19:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sticking to weak keep, but my reasons have changed. It's useful as a parent category and some of the subcats might still fit what I meant.--T. Anthony 19:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per comments in CFD for similar Pixar category. Above comments supporting the category suggest this is somehow more narrowly defined than it is; it includes anyone who has ever acted in at least one film produced by Disney, which is trivia. Postdlf 20:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Venues of the Curtis Cup

Category:Venues of the Curtis Cup to Category:Curtis Cup venues

Category:Param Vir Chakra

Category:Param Vir Chakra to Category:Param Vir Chakra recipients

Category:Genres of Indian Art

Category:Genres of Indian Art to Category:Genres of Indian art

  • Capitalization fix; "Indian art" isn't a capitalized term. Crystallina 05:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eligible for speedy renaming. Piccadilly 08:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Playboy models

Category:Playboy models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Model by magazine, per precedent set by deleting Category:Playgirl models. Also nominated: Category: Playboy Coeds of the Week, Category:Playboy Cyber Girls and Category:Playboy NSS models for the same reason. Otto4711 04:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Playboy is an incredibly notable publication, much more than Playgirl. I don't even think the Playgirl models category should have been deleted. --- RockMFR 04:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Category:Playboy Playmates, which is something the women are for a period of time rather than simply a photo spread. Piccadilly 08:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agreeing with Piccadilly's delete comments. - jc37 10:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem I have here is that some of the people in these categories are notable only for being in Playboy. Totally at random I clicked on Category: Playboy Coeds of the Week and then Jessica Betancourt. Ms. Betancourt we are told "is an American model. She was Playboy's Coed of the Week for the 2nd week of September 2005. She is also featured in Playboy's Hot Shots 2006, Playboy's Lingerie April/May 2006, and Playboy's Hot 100 of 2006." That's it. If being a Playboy model (but not a "Playmate") isn't sufficiently notable, the articles should be nominated too. If it is sufficient, I think the category should stay because it's clearly career defining in Ms. Betancourt's case (and remember, I picked her at random). --kingboyk 11:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the person is known only for being in Playboy (and not a "Playmate") then the article should be deleted for failing WP:BIO. I didn't have the time to go through several hundred articles checking for notability but if choosing one at random yields nn then the articles probably should be checked and nominated as needed. Otto4711 15:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support that. I'd say the Playmates (the centerfolds—Miss [month], [year]) are per se notable, though we could probably do some merging on the stubs into list articles; the other models? Nowhere near as prominent or well remembered. It's common (and a common sitcom joke) for someone to recognize "Miss June, 1986" years later, and they're always referred to as "former Playboy Playmates." The role has a lot of pop culture significance. It doesn't quite work with "Coed of the Week for the Second Week in September." Those should be deleted if that's all they've accomplished. Postdlf 21:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I started trying to cull through some of this herd and nominating some of the non-notables (which includes everyone in the Coeds of the Week cat except for the above-mentioned Jessica Betancourt since someone got there ahead of me with a prod, which, man, that reads dirty doesn't it) but I found myself in the middle of List of Playboy Playmates with big breasts and had to flee screaming. Otto4711 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, We've done this before. Eventually it became useless, one model (I forget her name) was in over 70 categories, the most categories in all of Wikipedia. Currently Hank Aaron is the top of that list. We ended up killing almost all the model cats. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. All of these are much less significant to the subject than the Playmate category. Postdlf 20:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Underground railroad locations

Category:Underground railroad locations to Category:Underground Railroad locations

  • I think this should be renamed per capitalisation at Underground Railroad. user:Qviri 03:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename'. Would make it clearer that it is not a typical railroad. Vegaswikian 06:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --- RockMFR 06:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It isn't appropriate to categorise places by things that happened in them in this way as it is not a defining characteristic. Piccadilly 08:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches named for St. Dunstan

Category:Churches named for St. Dunstan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete Irrelevant, will never be properly populated. And if we keep this, do we have to create categories for all churches by saints? Circeus 03:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A list in the Saint's article (which should as a matter of course be linked to from the article about each church) is the way to go. Piccadilly 08:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that a list in the saint's article is more appropriate. Except for the name, the churches named after St. Dunstan probably share little in common with each other. (The list of articles in the category is as inane as I expected it to be. Churches named after St. Dunstan: St. Dunstan's, St. Dunstan's, St. Dunstan's, the Church of St. Dunstan, St. Dunstan's...) George J. Bendo 20:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Social networking

Category:Social networking to Category:Online social networking (or Category:Online social networks)

  • Rename. This category is currently used for articles related to online social networking. Category:Social networks is the "parent" category which deals with social networks in general. --- RockMFR 02:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Online social networking as that option is more inclusive or any articles there may be now or in the future that are in this subject area but are not about a specific network. Piccadilly 08:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transportation companies of Spain

Category:Transportation companies of Spain to Category:Transport companies of Spain

  • Rename, in line with previous decision to use "transport" for European transport categories. Honbicot 01:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Piccadilly 08:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_14&oldid=87872202"