Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 13 February 15 >

February 14

[edit]

Various tropical cyclone categories

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all -- TexasAndroid 15:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merged a number of tropical cyclone categories, mostly "XXXX Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season" categories. Category:Categories_for_deletion lists them all (they all begin with '1'). Each of these categories is now empty and can be deleted. — jdorje (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Syndicated shows to Category:Syndicated television series

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename -- TexasAndroid 14:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename category to match existing TV subcategories- series, not shows. MakeRocketGoNow 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Internet television show to Category:Internet television series

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename -- TexasAndroid 14:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category name should be plural, not singular, and also shoudl be series, not shows, to match all other TV subcategories. MakeRocketGoNow 23:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:People shot by standing Vice Presidents

[edit]

Note: The following CfD was reviewed on Deletion Review on Feb 23, 2006. The closing bureaucrat, User:Mackensen, noted that in fact the result of the debate was delete, not no consensus, and noted further that the category had already been appropriately deleted. Consensus of the DRV discussion also reflected this. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensous -- TexasAndroid 14:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See below --Maxamegalon2000 21:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment be careful what you ask for, someone has added Aaron Burr to your proposed Category:Vice Presidents that like Jimmy Buffet. Carlossuarez46 19:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly did NOT ask for this! -- Samuel Wantman 00:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also use examples to show why things ought to be deleted, thank goodness no-one has decided to create one. Just shows how silly this category is, IMHO :-) Carlossuarez46 15:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its easy to find. We know who shot him and he's linked from that page. John (Jwy) 07:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. It isn't inaccurate, it isn't malicious, and the need for such a category can only be judged in hindsight, a parameter that I think excludes this category from deletion right now, but it certainly needs to be renamed. I have to admit laughing when I noticed it at Wonkette, so maybe something less Daily Show?--TheGrza 04:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is unusual enough information to be notable. It looks like most people who argue for deletion are doing so for partisan reasons, yet claiming partisanship by anyone who disagrees. This is a repository of public information, not a place of restriction of information. There must be a clear and inarguable reason to delete something, in the face of controversy it should be maintained and made available.
Comment - Deleting it is partisan? Look one entry above. Whenever the Leftist Wonkette "loves" something [1], everyone to the right of How.Dean should be worried about POV. Of course, she agrees with me on one thing: "We are aware that the proper term is “sitting.” We love, but do not trust, Citizen Media." See, the creator of this cat. even fails to impress their admirers. Now let's end this misery. Nhprman 15:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get into a shouting war over this. Wanting to delete it is not partisan, and wanting to keep it is not partisan. The issue is over whether we want to linking Whittington and Burr and (potentially) others in a category, and I do, but not because of who I voted for.--Mike Selinker 16:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The main objection seems to be that there are only two entries. However, I think we have to weigh the overwhelming notability of these two incidents against the fact that there are only two people in this category. Somebody point me to the wikipedia policy which defines the required number of members for a category. This category is the most NPOV wording possible (although "standing" does need to be changed to "sitting"); those who seek to delete this are likely much more politically motivated. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --CFIF 01:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hamilton has better claims to fame, and the other guy was, as Shakespear might have put it, "a good start." If he hadn't been standing at the wrong place at the wrong time, he'd have no claim to fame at all. On the other hand, Pokimon characters all have their own articles... Rklawton.
The Harry Whittington article didn't exist until Cheney shot him. It's great background for a Wikinews story, or as a footnote to the shooting footnote in the Cheney article, but hardly encyclopedic. We should also keep in mind that Whittington isn't as popular as Pikachu.[2] On the other hand, Pikachu as been in the public eye a lot longer and has had an article here for a couple of years.[3] Rklawton 07:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

savidan(talk) (e@) 04:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Controversies

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensous -- TexasAndroid 21:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is made up of articles with the word "controversy" in the title. That appears to me to be a poor criteria. This category appears to be a variation on category:cause celebre which has been deleted previously. -Will Beback 21:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The word "controversy" is a clearly defined term, therefore it does not need to be redefined in the article itself. The items "put together on the page" are items related by the fact that they are all publicly established controversies. No argument to the contrary has yet been made on the corresonding talk page.
    • But "why", just because you, personally, don't have use for the content? That is no reason to delete a wiki article... A mere vote is not useful towards consensus building, and has no place on this page. pat8722 14:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any "above" in particular? Any "reasoning" to your opinion? pat8722 14:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As not being otherwise stated, the present criteria for inclusion would simply be the "default", i.e. whatever meets the dictionary definition of "controversy", which is identified as such in wiki-qualified media. As I stated above, further qualifications (sub-categories) will eventually be needed, but it is advantageous to let the article develop under it's present broad definition, until the appropriate subdivisions naturally become apparent. This article is a great place for those studying "controversies" to begin. pat8722
  • Comment If it's kept, make sure it's not misused. I could see prople trying to add Ann Coulter, Pedophilia and Evolution or Creationism being slapped in here. Make sure it's clearly known it's not for POV disputes, cause I can already see ppl trying to use it that way. I'll have to think about this one before I venture a vote. --DanielCD 21:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you want to rule-out the controversies which YOU have political viewpoints on? POV's are certainly (and virtually everywhere) permitted in wiki, just not the POV of the editor. Any other controversies you want to exclude, or just those four (to eliminate reputable POV's you don't like, would be the prohibited POV...)? The point is, any item which doesn't belong on the "Controversies" page, can be argued as such in the talk section of the article. No disputes about what a "controversy" is, have yet arisen on that page. To delete a page just because disputes might arise as to what belongs on the page is against wiki rules, and would eliminate just about every wiki article... pat8722
Please state "why", so we can use your input towards consensus building. Thank you. pat8722
In what sense do you think the article is "inflammatory" and a "constant area for abuse?" Not a single dispute has yet arisen on the talk page. Abuses can be handled there, as for every other wiki article, and is no reason to delete the non-abusive information from wikipedia. To document publicly recognized controversies is not, of itself, inflamatory, it is just fact. "Difficult for average Wikipedian to assess" is condescending, ridiculous, and no reason for a delete. To get rid of this information would be censorship. pat8722 02:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Time_Magazine_Person_of_the_Year

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensous -- TexasAndroid 21:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As with other proprietary Magazine polls and lists, this usage violates Categorization. I havent listed a cat for deletion since Category:Maxim 100 sexiest people, back when cats were first implemented and some paid hack tried to sneak it in. This seems to fall in the same category. -Ste|vertigo 21:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already a list made: Person of the Year. VegaDark 07:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- If this ends up as keep, how will "groups" be represented in this category? For instance, "The American Soldier" was Time's Person of the Year in 2003, and "U.S. scientists" was selected in 1960. "U.S. scientists" was represented by 15 scientists, do all of them deserve to be in this category? Or none of them? I think this is a cumbersome category to work with when ambigious groups or multiple people get voted as person of the year, thus I have to regretfully vote delete. VegaDark 07:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Potential swing vote here. I'd say it's good, but it's going to cause problems with the multiple people of the year issue. If it was clear cut, might be harmless, but I just think it swings a little to the delete side. --DanielCD 21:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.--KrossTalk 21:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The comments about "people" not having Wikipedia articles ("The American Soldier") or multiple people are red herrings. The primary goal isn't to make a category complete, but to get the people who do have articles into that category. The lists, of course, can include "The American Soldier" even if it doesn't have an article to be categorized; that's one of the primary distinctions between lists and categories which serve different purposes. Gene Nygaard 01:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what about years that list multiple people? In 2005 3 people shared the title. Do we add all of them in the category? What about in 1960 when 15 people shared it? Where do we draw the line of inclusion? are we going to add every single american soldier into this category? If there were an established consensus for this I would be inclined to change my vote to keep, as my delete vote was purely on these grounds. VegaDark 06:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why we can't include all three whistleblowers (in fact, those three are an excellent argument for keeping the category, since it's hard to classify them elsewhere), or all the scientists. Obviously, the soldier and computer are weird outside cases, but they don't determine the merits of the category, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker 20:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:World War II German missiles and rockets to Category:World War II guided missiles of Germany

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge -- TexasAndroid 21:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Regions of South Africa

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- TexasAndroid 21:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category refers to administrative regions, which are not an official governmental subdivision of South Africa. In fact, they are only employed in the Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, and are not self-governing (the council for Johannesburg is elected from the municipality as a whole). This category has only one member, Category:Regions of Johannesburg, which will not be orphaned by its deletion. For evidence, please refer to The South African Constitution, Chapter 7, describing "Category A" municipalities (which Johannesburg falls under). -Kieran 20:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Tucsonans → Category:People from Tucson

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensous -- TexasAndroid 20:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CG janitor 13:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Programming language families to Category:Programming language dialects

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep -- TexasAndroid 20:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — a language family is a group of dialects. bmills 17:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not because of family (which I would prefere) but because this category lists individual languages, not articles describing groups of languages and their common features. Thus the name is very misleading and the category only adds cruft into articles. Pavel Vozenilek 19:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??? There's some kind of overlap here, but "dialect" is the wrong way to describe the relationship of Standard ML and O'Caml for instance. They are simply not both dialects of the same language. But they are certainly in the "ML family." I don't really know what to do. — brighterorange (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
O'Caml and Standard ML are both "dialects" (for some notion of dialect) of ML, just like C++, Objective C, and C# are all "dialects" of C; in this case, a programming language is a dialect of any previously existing language it substantially contains (modulo minor syntax changes). I suppose what we really want is a hierarchy of influence for programming languages — maybe it would be best to move both to Category:Programming languages by ancestry or something like that. --bmills 15:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for anything that makes sense, but I'd just remark that I find this definition of "dialect" pretty strange. Is Haskell a dialect of Miranda? Of the lambda calculus? Java of C? Of BCPL? I'd reserve "dialect" for different implementations of a language that share a compatible core. A good example would be "emacs lisp" and "common lisp". — brighterorange (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That's a good point, though certain parts of "Programming language dialects" don't really work that way at the moment, most notably the BASIC subcategory. Also, there's a matter of redundancy -- at the moment, implementations of X are in either "X dialects" or "X programming language family"; some members of a language family are categorized as dialects of their parent language. Maybe I ought to work on making the difference between the two more explicit and revisit this question then. --bmills 22:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article does not list dialects. I suggest moving/merging both categories to be somehow under "List of Programming Languages" as Lists. What don't I understand about "categories"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat8722 (talk • contribs)
Lists are, in general, a very bad idea because they're so hard to maintain. Also, they're not encyclopedic -- when's the last time you read a real dictionary with an article called "List of ..."? At any rate, it may be productive to move both Category:Programming language dialects and Category:Programming language families to Category:Programming languages by influence or Category:Programming languages by ancestry or something like that. The main reason I want the two merged at the moment is so they can both be cleaned up into something that actually makes sense; we can figure out what to call the cleaned-up, unified category at a later date. --bmills 16:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original titles use more common/understandable terminology than your proposals. It sounds like you are targetting to lose the separate indexing quality of the two "articles", are you sure you want to do that? Will you be losing more than you are gaining by trying to merge the two? As to lists vs. categories, typical encyclopedias have no more the latter than the former. I think lists might be more appropriate here, but I admit am not yet well educated on that point. pat8722 03:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original titles wold work well if they were actually organized that way; but Category:Programming language families isn't about programming language families — it's about related programming languages, which is the same way Category:Programming language dialects categorizes articles.
While typical encyclopedias don't have categories, they do have indices, which Wikipedia lacks. Think of categories as Wikipedia's index, whereas lists are (attempts at) articles (they are, after all, in the article namespace -- not some special index namespace). --bmills 04:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:English generals to Category:British Army generals

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep -- TexasAndroid 20:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appear to be duplicate, but I know things can get a bit tricky with "British" vs "English". - TexasAndroid 17:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

College basketball categories

[edit]
UNC Charlotte basketball
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- TexasAndroid 20:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The University of North Carolina at Charlotte has branded itself as "Charlotte" for athletics purposes since 2000. I've slapped a CFR on all the relevant categories, asking to drop the "UNC". — Dale Arnett 16:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the categories are: Category:UNC Charlotte 49ers basketball and Category:UNC Charlotte 49ers men's basketball players, and in both cases the "UNC" should be dropped.--Mike Selinker 23:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Wyoming Cowboys men's basketball players to Category:Wyoming Cowboys basketball players
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge -- TexasAndroid 20:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming is another school where men's and women's athletes and teams are known by different nicknames—here, Cowboys and Cowgirls. See the school's official athletics site, wyomingathletics.collegesports.com. — Dale Arnett 18:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Concepts in Hinduism to Category:Hindu philosophical concepts

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- TexasAndroid 20:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Category:Hindu philosophical concepts. No difference between cats. Concepts in Hinduism is redundant. --Dangerous-Boy 10:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I'd say merge --Melaen 12:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into Category:Hindu philosophy. Tomertalk 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lingam is not a philosophy. It is a concept so therefor merge into Category:Hindu philosophical concepts not Category:Hindu philosophy. --Dangerous-Boy 20:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Jewish States

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Latinus (talk (el:)) 00:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By looking at the eleven articles in this "category" it is clear that this article's name is a neologism contravening Wikipedia:No original research. It is universally accepted that modern Israel is the first and only state of the Jewish people established in over two thousand years of the Jewish diaspora. A definition of a State (in the full and correct sense of the word) is: "...an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty. Recognition of the state's claim to independence by other states..." (Wikipedia) and thus only the modern State of Israel (founded in 1948) qualifies. Before that, even ancient Judea was but a province of the Romans known as Iudaea Province. As for the other "examples" in this category (all quotations are from the Wikipedia articles about the subject mentioned): 1) The Khazars were not a "state" in the modern sense of the word, rather they were more of a Middle Ages feudal nomadic kingdom: "...a semi-nomadic Turkic people from Central Asia, whose ruling class converted to Judaism...they and their tributaries controlled much of what is today southern Russia, western Kazakhstan, eastern Ukraine..." If only the "ruling class converted to Judaism" how does that make its people "Jewish" particularly since none of them survived as recognizable Jews? A supposed "Jewish State" without real Jews in it historically, is a logical fallacy and absurdity. 2) In Adiabene "...Its rulers converted to Judaism from Christianity in the 1st Century...The Queen of Adiabene at the time of the conversion to Judaism, Queen Heleni, moved to Jerusalem..." This does not make Adiabene a "Jewish State." 3) Ararat, City of Refuge is a small plot of land in the USA, how does that make it into a "Jewish State"? (51st U.S. state, anyone?) 4) In Himyar: "...The last sovereign Tubba Himyarite king, (Arabic: Dhu Nuwas) is often considered to have converted to Judaism if he was not simply Judaising..." The word "considered" is suspicious and is far from making this place into a "Jewish State." 5) Jewish Autonomous Oblast, aka "Birobidzan" an "...experiment [that] ground to a halt in the mid-1930s..." was also an integral part of the USSR and Russia, meaning it's not sovereign, and "the experiment was doomed from the start" and thus does not qualify as a "Jewish State" either. 6) Jodensavanne "was an attempt to establish a autonomous jewish territory in Suriname" (sic), and an "attempt" in a "territory" does not equal a "state" by any means. 7) The other entries in this article are about ancient people (Anilai and Asinai; Gudit; Joseph Rabban; Kahina) vaguely associated with some Jewish population centers, but not "states" as such. Finally, 8) Zionism refers to the political developments preceding modern Israel and to its present ideology. This category should thus be deleted because it is inaccurate and misleading. IZAK 09:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Youth organisations of England

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- TexasAndroid 20:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the bad England categories created by the same user this one really takes the biscuit. It contains one article about something which is not only not English, but isn't a youth organisation in the usual sense of the term. There is nothing to subdivide to England in Category:Youth organisations of the United Kingdom and no non-political reason to attempt to do so. Delete . Merchbow 06:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep It contains only one article because Merchbow has just gone round empting all of these categories.--Mais oui! 06:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It contained one article the first time I ever saw it. Merchbow 06:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it is because one of your colleagues had already done the job for you. I assumed it was you because you have just spent the whole morning gleefully depleting several England-related categories of articles.That category had several articles recently. There are thousands of youth organisations in England: perhaps only a hundred or so will be notable enough to have an article, but they deserve their own cat.--Mais oui! 08:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Health charities in England to Category:Health charities in the United Kingdom

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge -- TexasAndroid 19:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be merged into Category:Health charities in the United Kingdom for the same reasons as the parent category:English charities, which was created by the same user was merged into the UK category. To quote the arguments put forward by user:CalJW when making that nomination:

This is yet another English category which doesn't match up with the real world. We have deleted quite a few so hopefully this one will go too. It is not possible for a charity to be English in a legal sense: the Charity Commission covers England and Wales. It is extremely rare for a charity to be national, but cover England only; they cover the UK, or England & Wales or the UK exluding either Scotland or Northern Ireland. Charities do not lobby the English national media, because it does not exist (which is why we deleted the English media category) or the English government, because no such government has existed since 1707. It is pointless to use this to categorise local charities when around 85% of local charities in the UK must be based in places in England (and we have city and county categories for local categorisation, so that's covered already).
This category has not been taken up by users in the month since it was created, which tends to confirm that it is not necessary. It is just a confusing extra tier to click through and will lead to inconsistent categorisation. It will be particularly confusing for people from outside the UK, who may not understand the underlying issues re UK/GB/Britain/England. There is no need to try to shove everything relevant to England into Category:England, because there is a clear explanation in that category that users should see the UK menu on many topics. The only purpose categories like this one serve is the political one of diminishing the prominence given to the UK/Britishness below that which it has in the real world. The category system is a navigational tool and should reflect the world as it is rather than the world in which some users would like to live.
  • Merge as above. Merchbow 05:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This nomination is part of a recent campaign against all the English categories here at Wikipedia. Please do not humour this series of politically-motivated nominations. -- Mais oui! 06:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is well known that it is Mais oui! who is politically motivated. He is Scottish and wishes to pretend that there is no such thing as "British". If his categories were valuable people would not have voted to delete several of them. Merchbow 06:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that Merchbow's initial draft of the above comment gives the whole game away: "He is Scottish... they would have been created by English users (hardly in short supply)". This proves what I realised a long time ago: it is not my work which these people object to, it is my nationality. I ask that an Admin steps into this situation, to explain to people that a persistent campaign against a User because of their nationality is TOTALLY unacceptable here at Wikipedia. "... wishes to pretend that there is no such thing as "British": that is preposterous: British is my citizenship, and I am very well aware of the existence, and importance, of the United Kingdom. On the other hand it is clear that several people around here are trying to pretend that England does not exist.-- Mais oui! 07:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Delete England exists, this category shouldn't. Piccadilly 10:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Same old Mais oui!. Happy to dish out the abuse, but as soon as someone says something he doesn't like, he runs to teacher an administrator. Take note that if he finds one to speak on his behalf it is likely to be a personal pal of his who should therefore be ignored as not being impartial. I would have nominated some of these England categories and voted to delete the others if they had been created by an English user, but no English user created them because they are not appropriate. It is of course complete nonsense to say that there is a campaign against all English categories. The many appropriate English categories which existed before Mais oui!'s totally unnecessary intervention have been left undisturbed. Indeed I have almost certainly created some myself (I've created categories for over a hundred countries, so I can't remember for sure without going through them all). Note that he is the only user who creates inappropriate English categories. CalJW 10:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This came up when category:Companies of England was created in my specialist area, which was a very unhelpful idea. Carina22 08:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not appropriate without the parent category and it was right to delete that. Bhoeble 13:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As per nom. Valiantis 19:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Vice Presidents who have shot people

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- TexasAndroid 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded political category without potential to be meaningful Kalsermar 03:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As I recall we had a Real Americans category that survived for almost 2 weeks while it was processed through CfD, apparently, the rule of thumb is that if you want your nonsense article to last the longest, you should make sure it starts with Category:--152.163.100.132 23:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Who comes up with this nonsense? Monkeyman 02:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mememememe. I came up with it (though I didn't actually create it). Another Wikizen kept insisting on adding references to Cheney's incident directly in the Aaron Burr article, and we argued ourselves silly trying to talk him out of it. I ended up suggesting this category addition as a compromise to defacing the Aaron Burr and the Hamilton-Burr duel articles. I should probably quote Frankenstein about now. But to paraphrase him, please put this creature out of our misery. I assumed if he did it would end up here. Sorry 'bout all the fuss, but it was either that or block him with a 3RR, and I'm not an admin. Rklawton
  • Delete please. Rklawton
  • Comment: Why is this non-sense? A Vice President is a huge public figure. Shooting someone is a big deal. The Hamilton-Burr duel is a favorite topic among historians, the Dick Cheney hunting incident has been a huge media firestorm. Both of them are exteremely notable under any rational definition. There is an obvious connection between these events, which after all is the purpose of categories. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Still you can't dismiss the opinions of everyone else that works on these articles and doesn't want to see them cluttered with garbage. You don't think it's garbage, and that's fine. But look around. Address it in the articles; I don't see the need to make more and more categories. There are aspects of what's "right" on both sides of this. But many others and myself simply believe the pile tilts toward the garbage can instead of away. --DanielCD 04:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did create the Hamilton-Burr duel article, so I hardly think I'm dismissing the content contributors, but there is a limit to how much autonomy we give to them. Often, the main contributors to the article may be diehard fans of its subject. For example, most people who wrote the Dick Cheney article probably object to references to the Valerie Plame affair, but that doesn't mean they should be able to censor references to it.

savidan(talk) (e@) 05:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm solely referring to the debate here in regards to the existance of the category per se. In that regard, wider opinion than simply the article editors is relevant. If this is that important, I'm sure there's someplace we could open a debate and find compromises suitable to all. Humans are boundlessly creative, so I'm sure we could come up with something. --DanielCD 15:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_14&oldid=1132031000"