Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 12

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xiner (talk | contribs) at 22:28, 12 December 2006 (delete →‎Sportspeople by religion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< December 11 December 13 >

December 12

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:PC DVD-9-only games

Category:PC DVD-9-only games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete, that the video game is released on a dual layer DVD is not a defining characteristic. Recury 19:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's probably a bad idea to categorize games by possible formats they might appear on. It would be a bit like categorizing films by whether or not they've appear on VHS, Beta, DvD, Blu-Ray, etc. Dugwiki 20:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Child villains

Category:Child villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non defining subcategorization of villains. Most entries are not true villains (such as Nelson and Cartman) and those which are should be upmerged accordingly. ~ZytheTalk to me! 18:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep within context of Category:Fictional villains The above problems with ambiguity are due to problems in the parent category Category:Fictional villains. That is, whether or not Cartman is a villain has to do with how the parent category defines what the word "villain" means. But using the assumption that we're keeping Fictional Villains as a category, then I think Child Villains is a reasonable subcategory of that. Therefore my vote would be to keep Child Villains as a way to subcategorize members of Fictional Villains who are children. That done, it is probably worth investigating whether to tighten the category definition for Fictional Villains to clarify whether or not unlikable characters like Cartman qualify as being villainous. Dugwiki 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also rename to Category:Fictional child villains I'd also suggest renaming the category to Fictional Child Villains to make clear that it doesn't apply to actual children who have committed heinous acts (eg real life child murderers). Dugwiki 20:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alumni of St Hilda's College, Oxford

Category:Alumni of St Hilda's College, Oxford to Category:to be determined by consensus
  • Alumnae of St Hilda's College, Oxford or Graduates of St Hilda's College, Oxford, because all graduates and former students of this college are female and will be for some time to come. Note that the college website has an "Alumnae" page. Deb 18:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some may wish to refer to this page. Xiner 22:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of Wisconsin alumni

Category:University of Wisconsin alumni into Category:University of Wisconsin-Madison alumni
  • Merge, upon examination the categories appear to be duplicate in purpose. The main article is at University of Wisconsin-Madison.choster 17:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment UW has a number of campuses outside of Madison so a separate category for those alumni is appropriate. Any UW-Madison alumni should go to that cat but non-Madisons should not. Otto4711 20:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The text inside the first cat says "Alumni of the University of Wisconsin-Madison." This is overlap. Xiner 22:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:White protagonist in Africa films

Delete as categorization by non-defining or trivial characteristics leading to category clutter. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-defining indeed. — coelacan talk — 16:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Characteristics are not trivial. Where there is a definite trend, the information is useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chifumbe (talk • contribs) 14:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT historians

Category:LGBT historians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Created in error during discussion of the now-renamed Category:Historians of LGBT topics. Duplicative. Otto4711 16:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Was anyone ever placed in this category andif so have they been properly moved to the other category? — coelacan talk — 16:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the category was never populated. Otto4711 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hoylake 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women with very long hair

Delete as categorization by non-defining or trivial characteristics leading to category clutter. No objection to creating a list article. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Astounding that this exists. Is this someone's fetish? — coelacan talk — 16:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Dugwiki 16:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ridiculous fetish listcruft. Alphachimp 17:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue

Category:I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue to Category:I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue
  • Rename, Capitalisation, even though it is often abreviated to ISIHAC. Simply south 13:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Simply south ... note it does qualify for speedy rename. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename It doesn't appear this category is even necessary. Generally it's a bad idea to create unique categories for specific shows and films, including radio shows. Cast lists instead simply can appear in the main article with links to the actors/participants, or in a sub-article as a list. Recommend deletion, or if kept then the rename is fine. Dugwiki 16:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This cat is not just the cast, it includes articles on ISIHAC games and characters. (I'm shocked and disapointed that we don't yet have bios of Mrs Trellis or the lovely Samantha ;-) ) -- AJR | Talk 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom...to match the title used by the BBC. The category should be kept, it is useful for linking together the articles on the various aspects of the show - it is more than just a cast list (which already exists in the main article). EdJogg 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename and definitely do not delete. Tim! 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to usual capitalisation. -- AJR | Talk 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pittsburgh Pirates coaches

Category:Pittsburgh Pirates coaches to Category:Pittsburgh Pirates coaches (NHL)

Category:Anthropomorphic martial artists

Category:Anthropomorphic martial artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Anthropomorphic samurai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Very few articles, some of which seem only tenuously related to the category. Very little potential for useful expansion. Subcat bundled for this discussion, same justifications. Serpent's Choice 11:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - the categories are a bit silly perhaps but I've seen sillier. The entries seem appropriate to the cats. Otto4711 20:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Silly cat, but there's a place for it. Not enough for two though. Xiner 22:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. State

Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Overcategorisation: none of the sub-categories which I have examined contains more than six articles, and many are empty. There is also a conflict between the definition of this category and its parent: Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. State arranges bishops "by the U.S. State(s) to which each is/was assigned"; whereas Category:American United Methodist bishops includes only bishops who are "who are American by nationality". It seems unwise to presume that Bishops serving in the US will always be American by nationality, and while this could perhaps be resolved by assigning to a different parent category rather than deleting, it does suggest some confusion of purpose in this category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just done some counting. This category tree contsains 74 entries, amounting to to only 55 unique articles. That's a total of 51 categories for 55 people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP all of these categories will become very helpful as more and more biographies of U.M. Bishops are written. It will help categorize them in ways to make each easily accessible and comparable to each other. Countering BrownHairedGirl, of course Bishops serving in the U.S. ARE American by nationality (though they may be of various ethnicities). No foreign Bishop is allowed to serve in the U.S.A. because foreign U.M. Bishops are elected under different rules, with term-limits and such. Bishops from outside the U.S. are elected for service in their geographical/national areas. This is all according to the Book of Discipline of the U.M. Church!! So Category:American United Methodist bishops is only for the purpose of NATIONALITY, not assignment or areas of service. The Area categories organize Bishops by where they are/were assigned. The State categories do as well, as do many other categories by U.S. States. Another argument BrownHairedGirl makes is that there are few articles in some of these categories. But there are hundreds of such underpopulated categories in Wikipedia! Shall we delete ALL of them?!?! Again, as more of these articles are completed, these categories will become more populated. If I am quick to create categories, some others are way too quick to delete them! Any other questions about any of these categories I will be happy to answer. Thanks! Pastorwayne 12:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If these actegories were an appropriate way of subdivinding the bishops, the categorisation could be done when there are enough articles to populate the categories. But 51 categories for 55 articles is just category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all to Category:American United Methodist bishops and bar Pastorwayne from category creation - Bishops should be sorted according to diocese, not state. Note that most of Pastorwayne's categoreies are simply impractical, as can be seen in most clergy-related category discussions in November and December 2006. Many of the newer categories are only slightly different from previously deleted categories. (I believe categories such as "Bishops of Ohio" and "Bishops of Texas" categories have already been nominated for deletion in WP:CFD, with strong support for deletion.) Pastorwayne's category creation is becoming disruptive; administrative intervention may be warranted. Dr. Submillimeter 13:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To support my point, Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Ohio, which was created by Pastorwayne, is nominated for deletion, with the majority of votes to delete or upmerge. Dr. Submillimeter 13:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But if you upmerge to Category:American United Methodist bishops then that will be incorrect, since Category:American United Methodist bishops is only for Bishops who are American by NATIONALITY, not necessarily by assignment. Moreover, U.M. Bishops are not assigned to Dioceses. The Areas to which they are assigned are of a variety of geographic areas, so the State categories are helpful to know where each also serves. Plus, just as many other categories are organized by U.S. State, the same applies to these categories and subcats. Thanks. Pastorwayne 13:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pastorwayne, if the upmerging would lead to the articles being incorrectly categorised, then the categories have been incorrectly categorised (I noted the problem in the nomination). I have to say that given the number of ill-considered categories which you have created, I have to support Dr. Submillimeter's proposal to bar Pastorwayne from category creation, but that is is a discussion which belongs at WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note that Pastorwayne's contributions here are self-contradictory: at 12:14 he says that "No foreign Bishop is allowed to serve in the U.S.A", but at 13:13 he says that upmeging would lead to incorrect categorisation. This confusion in purpose is becoming disruptive :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than attack a user, why not just ask for clarification. What I meant to say (and if I contradicted myself, of course I appologize) is that U.S. UMC Bishops serve in the U.S. Non-U.S. Bishops serve elsewhere in the World (though at one time U.S. Bishops served elsewhere in the World, too). Since Category:American United Methodist bishops is for American (by Nationality) Bishops, to upmerge all Area subcats to this would be incorrect, since some of those Areas are overseas (i.e., served by non-American Bishops). Only American (Nationality) Bishops should be in Category:American United Methodist bishops. CIVILITY, please! Pastorwayne 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge all to Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church - I found the original parent category and changed my vote accordingly. I still advocate barring Pastorwayne from category creation, at least for a probationary period. Dr. Submillimeter 17:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into Category:United Methodist bishops. Apparently there's a total of 51 categories for 55 people, and yet somehow the most natural and obvious of them all is strangely missing. The first place anyone would look just isn't there. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all (for now) With only 55 or so total articles it's unnecessary to subdivide them by state. If and when there are a couple hundred such articles, I'd support subdivision by either state or diocese (whatever is most appropriate). But for now it appears that dividing by state, while possibly forward thinking, is overkill. Dugwiki 16:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • so let me ask a simple question: the ONLY reason for subcats is when cats become too large? Are not subcats also for helpfully organizing articles for easy discovery and comparison? Thanks. Pastorwayne 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The answer is that subdividing by state is mainly helpful for organization when it subdivides a large number of articles. When only a small number are subdivided, though, it just adds an extra layer of division that makes it harder for readers to find the article they're looking for because rather than having one page worth to scan, they instead have numerous subcategories to browse each of which is on its own page. So I think it's best to hold off on this sort of subdivision until it's actually needed. Dugwiki 20:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • thank you for a most helpful answer! I will seek to restrain myself from creating subcats only because I find them helpful, until largeness of cats suggests it. God bless! Pastorwayne 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And don't some of you have much BETTER things to do than to worry about how such a small part of Wikipedia is being categorized? I bet there are much more popular areas that would be better served by all of your boundless energy! Of course, you'd probably say the same thing (and HAVE) about my interest in creating categories. Touche' God bless you! Pastorwayne 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stampede Wrestling roster

Category:Stampede Wrestling roster to Category:Stampede Wrestling alumni
  • Rename, this is a category containing former roster members (alumni), not current roster members, and to bring it in line with other pro wrestling alumni categories. James Duggan 09:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above comments. RobJ1981 09:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above comments. Geoffg 15:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussions of September 21st and October 22nd. How many times do we have to go through this? -- ProveIt (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ProveIt and previous discussions. Otto4711 15:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Incorrect as it stands. Xiner 22:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling roster

Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling roster to Category:Extreme Championship alumni
  • Rename, it's a category containing former roster members (alumni), not current roster members, and to bring it in line with other pro wrestling alumni categories. James Duggan 08:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above comments. RobJ1981 09:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above comments. Geoffg 15:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussions of November 12th and November 25th. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A while back, there was a big debate on what the article World Wrestling Entertainment alumni should be called because people kept renaming it. We debated this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling a while back and agreed that the most appropriate term for former roster members is alumni and that roster denotes current roster, and all pages dealing with alumni were changed to that name. Since these categories are basically the category version of these alumni pages, they should also be named alumni for that same reason. James Duggan 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep It looks like this discussion already took place on November 12 above. Unless something has significantly changed the category name should remain in place as a procedural matter (to allow for consistency and closure in previously decided cfd's). Dugwiki 16:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like the new system actually conflicts with the guidelines of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) - People/Occupation. The guideline specifies that Occupation categories should not be divided into "current" or "former" categories. For example, Category:Former child actors and Category:Current Minnesota Twins players should not exist. Therefore the categories you mentioned that break wrestlers down between current-and-former categories should probably all be merged. Dugwiki 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm just looking for name consistency, as I pointed out with the other categories above. I would suggest bringing this up to WP:PW on our talk page because we obviously didn't know about that guidline. I still don't like "roster" because it can denote current (just look at the roster articles, they are all current rosters). Maybe using "wrestlers" at the end instead of either "alumni" or "roster", and we can include both past and present roster members. Or we can just scrap these categories. Anyway, this issue has become too complicate now to wrap my head around, so bringing it up to the Pro wrestling WikiProject might help us best decide on the direction these categories go. James Duggan 21:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Roster implies the present. Alumni is more accurate. Xiner 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that per the Nov 25 discussion, the phrase "roster" was chosen specifically because it can include both former and present members. Also note that, as I mentioned above, Wiki categorization guidelines for people say that occupation categories should not be divided into current and former subcategories. Dugwiki 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UN Secretaries-General

rename as United Nations Secretary-General.--Mukuixi 08:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Euromalays

Category:Euromalays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, A neologism and redundant category since Eurasians and oodles of other ethnic categories, which are getting out of hand, already exist. Chris S. 07:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim scholars

Relisting from December 2 CfD. Previous discussion:
Category:Sunni Muslim scholars to Category:Sunni scholars
Category:Sunni Muslim Islamic scholars to Category:Sunni Islamic scholars
Category:Shi'a Muslim scholars to Category:Shi'a scholars
Category:Shi'a Muslim Islamic scholars to Category:Shi'a Islamic scholars
  • Rename, The use of "Muslim" is redundant and not needed. BhaiSaab talk 17:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. Seems reasonable. Sunni and Shi'a are fairly specific. -- Necrothesp 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While Sunni and Shi'a are currently well-understood in the West and identified as "Muslim", in part because of the current problems in the Middle East, I don't believe that the average English-speaker would identify, for example, Ibadi as Muslim. There is no "Ibadi Muslim scholars" category currently, but I still believe that the extra identifying word in the category name is descriptive and necessary. JRP 23:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I would consider it less of an understood reasoning and more for simplicity. If someone does not know what Shi'a is, they can look it up but the categories are already subcats of Category:Muslim scholars with a diagram on each category's page. The only way it would be needed is if there are two identical Shi'a categories and they needed distinguishing. -- CobraWiki (jabber|stuff) 03:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral i was about to support, but considering the above... --Striver 00:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous Beşiktaş J.K. fans

Category:Famous Beşiktaş J.K. fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Football club fanship is not a defining characteristic. Chicheley 02:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Official residences in South Korea

Category:Official residences in South Korea
Delete, there is only one entry, and no need for an entire category. JCO312 02:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Canada in broadcasting

Category:People from Canada in broadcasting to Category:Canadians in broadcasting
To follow all other subcategories of Canadian people by occupation

Category:Waltisim

Category:Waltisim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Nonsense category obviously created as someone's private joke (not even spelled correctly). Russ (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Website Design Companies

Category:Website Design Companies to Category:Web design companies

Category:List of Korean breakdancing crews

Category:List of Korean breakdancing crews to Category:Breakdancing groups
  • Rename, The subject is not notable enough to be split by nationality. The category only contains 1 item. Changing it to include all countries will allow it to be populated, rather than hundreds of categories being created for every country and only containing a few items. To note, this is the only breakdancing groups category in existence. - Tutmosis 01:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. If and when the number of such groups becomes significantly larger, I'd support dividing by nationality. But for now it's not necessary. Dugwiki 16:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Outstanding Canadians

Category:Outstanding Canadians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obvious POV - speedy. –Outriggr § 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artists remixed by Fluke

Category:Artists remixed by Fluke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As far as I can tell, getting remixed by Fluke is not particularly more significant than getting remixed by anybody else. As such, there's no reason that getting remixed by anybody would be a useful characteristic to categorize by. Unint 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, in that case then just delete-ify. :) Dugwiki 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sportspeople by religion

Delete, per discussion of July 25th, Mark Category:Sportspeople by religion. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_12&oldid=93916525"