Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 3

< October 2	October 4 >

October 3

Category:World War I cruisers of Greece

Category:World War II cruisers of Greece

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [both], I see no reason for [these] categor[ies], as [they] cover[ only 1-2 and 3 ships respectively], while a more comprehensive category (Category:Cruisers of Greece) already exists. Cplakidas 22:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur, upmerge and delete. >Radiant< 15:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge and Delete. All three cats seem rather small, and I don't see the need for the extra categorisation, in this case. - jc37 21:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge. Cruisers of Greece is a country category, while these are era categories (they are subcategories of Cruisers of Greece as a way of crossing between the two structures). By merging they become inaccessible through the Category:Ships by era structure. TomTheHand 13:27, 9 October 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 section.

Category:Department stores disestablished in 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Department stores disestablished in 2006 into Category:2006 disestablishments

Merge. The disestablishments by year categories are not generally broken down by subject, so this category is probably overkill. EurekaLott 22:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur, upmerge and delete. >Radiant< 15:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom and Radiant. - jc37 21:04, 7 October 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 section.

Category:Hypothetical solar system stars

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This category has been merged into Category:Hypothetical bodies of the Solar system per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 26#Category:Hypothetical solar system astronomical objects.

I see no use in this category. Our solar system has one star, and has only ever been theorized to have "Nemesis" as well, so this is a category of one. — 132.205.93.148 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, this category will only contain one object. It does not warrant its own category. George J. Bendo 21:20, 3 October 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 section.

Category:Hypothetical extrasolar minor planets

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate of the recently deleted Category:Hypothetical minor extrasolar planets. I see no utility in this category. Creator blanked the category — 132.205.93.148 21:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As with the other category mentioned above, no such objects have been documented, and astronomy is decades away from being able to detect such sources. George J. Bendo 21:19, 3 October 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 section.

Category:Tables

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tables to Category:Tables (lists)

Rename. Suppose I asked "what articles are in category:Tables"? Now I'm pretty sure most people would say pool table, coffee table, Knights of the Round Table and so on. In fact you will find these in category:Tables (furniture). Or you might think that no, the category should contain things like multiplication table, periodic table, truth table. Well you would be wrong again. In category:Tables you find four things Hot dog variations, Table of lunar month correspondences, Table of vowels and Standard electrode potential (data page). These are all pages whose content is organized as a table. Now I hesitated to nominate the category for deletion because I can't see anyway in which this category will be helpful to anyone. ("hmmm, I wonder what other pages like "hot dog variations" I could find in Wikipedia. oh look at that they also have Standard electrode potential (data page)") excuse the sarcasm. In any case, the name of the category should at the very least be disambiguated. In fact I happened to find this category while cleaning the categorization backlog. Pascal.Tesson 18:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least Rename in agreement with the nominator. Mmmmm, hot dog variations... Barno 23:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this category's current membership suggests it is malformed. David Kernow (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as presently used it's pointless, and the other items Pascal mentions are more appropriate in cat:furniture and cat:math. >Radiant< 15:44, 4 October 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 section.

Category:Orange Country Wrestling Federation

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, A lesser promotion that someone added just to advertise it. The main OCWF page is gone, and the redirect just goes to a deadlink. I believe it was deleted in AFD before. RobJ1981 15:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - jc37 21:04, 7 October 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 section.

Category:Wellesley College alumnae

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wellesley College alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Let's not have plurals differentiate by gender.--Mike Selinker 19:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match the convention (consistent with all except this entry and Category:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee people ). If we had to retitle a category every time a school like Wells College changes from women-only to co-ed, it would be a maintenance hassle, albeit minor. Barno 23:41, 3 October 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 section.

Category:Goa trance musicians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Goa trance music groups to Category:Goa trance musical groups

Rename for standard category naming. Psychomelodic2 13:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for sake of uniformity. Pascal.Tesson 15:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename. - jc37 21:04, 7 October 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 section.

Category:Galaxy cluster template

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a category that should only contain the {{Galaxy cluster}} template. One Wikipedia template does not need its own category. It should be deleted. George J. Bendo 13:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is HurricaneDevon related crap and maintenance nightmare 132.205.93.148 20:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; use this instead...? David Kernow (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - jc37 21:04, 7 October 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 section.

Category:Midget and Dwarf actors

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Midget and Dwarf actors to Category:Actors with dwarfism

Rename, The term "midget" is archaic and considered derogatory; rename per parent category, Category:People with dwarfism. Shannernanner 13:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but a midget is a small but proportionally formed individual, whereas a dwarf has a glandular condition which results in the head, hands, chest and feet, and internal organs, of a "normally" sized person combined with a stunting of the spine, and also, along with bowing of the armbones and legbones to limit the size. Midget is to giant as dwarf is to acromegalic. There is nothing archaic about either of the terms as they define different medical conditions with different etiologies and internal and external structures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.73.195.1 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment, If you'll refer to the provided link you'll see that the term is, indeed, considered derogatory and archaic. What was formerly largely referred to as a "midget" would have dwarfism, so there is no misnomer re: "People with dwarfism." Shannernanner 21:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A minor problem here is that many older generation actors preferred/prefer the term midget. See Hervé Villechaize--T. Anthony 13:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, What an individual actor prefers to be called is irrelevant; even if he liked the term "midget," if it is deemed improper terminology for the category the new term would still be proper for his article as he was an actor with dwarfism. Shannernanner 14:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was a minor problem. I'll vote rename, but I'll acknowledge it has a small difficulty. However if enough actors in the category preferred the term "midget" I'd also support a sub-category for "midget actors."--T. Anthony 06:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. This seems in line with contemporary medical & cultural usage. [1] We don't have Category:Colored actors for those African-Americans who preferred that term (or had no choice). (The most preferred term, little people, would be difficult to disambiguate.) --Dhartung | Talk 16:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strongly Oppose - I strongly oppose renaming because of the pseudo-combinative grouping of two unrelated peoples (Imagine the issues of: "I'm not a dwarf, I'm a midget."). I would only change to support, if midgets were merged into their own category. - jc37 21:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, A person who was once largely referred to as a "midget" is a person with dwarfism. A dwarf, as formerly opposed to a midget, is also a person with dwarfism. Shannernanner 21:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did some actual research on this, and came up with the following:
- Q: What is a midget? A: In some circles, a midget is the term used for a proportionate dwarf. However, the term has fallen into disfavor and is considered offensive by most people of short stature. The term dates back to 1865, the height of the "freak show" era, and was generally applied only to short-statured persons who were displayed for public amusement, which is why it is considered so unacceptable today. Such terms as dwarf, little person, LP, and person of short stature are all acceptable, but most people would rather be referred to by their name than by a label. [2]
- And this link which explains that at least wrestling entertainers prefer the term[3].
- And finally, an article on Roger Ebert's website that changes my vote: [4].
Rename per nom. Apparently midgets are considered (in modern parlance) to be "proportional dwarfs". And the term "midget" would seem similar to the "step-n-fetch-it" but not quote (yet) to the level of the N-word. So while some entertainers may still prefer the term (entertainers being apparently the only people who still willingly use the term), not all do (as per the citations above). - jc37 16:12, 9 October 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 section.

Category:Born-again Christians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Born-again Christians into Category:Christian people

Merge, per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 25#Category:Born-again Christian actors; the category seems POV and hard to verify. Also:

Category:American born-again Christians into Category:American Christians

Category:Born-again Christian politicians into Category:Christian politicians

Merge, per original nom -Shannernanner 04:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. We can categorize based on denomination as it's verifiable, but not this. --Dhartung | Talk 11:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. >Radiant< 15:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - "born again" is a self-identification and is not objectively verifiable. — ChristTrekker 14:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Essentially remove "born-again" as a modifier to "christian" from all categories, per above. - jc37 21:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -"Born again" is a vague term and just "Christian is too broad." Yakuman 22:18, 9 October 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 section.

Category:Streets in Los Angeles, California

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Streets in Los Angeles, California to Category:Streets in Los Angeles County, California

Rename, About 80-85% of the major streets in Los Angeles County pass through the city of LA (if sometimes only briefly), but there are already articles in the category, such as Foothill Boulevard (Southern California) which never intersect the city of LA. It is better to turn this into the superset category of Streets in LA County. ^Blank ^Verse 01:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another possible renaming would be Category:Streets in Southern California, which would mirror Category:Southern California freeways. ^Blank ^Verse 02:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Appears to be a sensible solution, given the patchwork jurisdiction. There are also Santa Monica streets in the cat now (I have no idea if they make it into LA proper, and the articles don't help). --Dhartung | Talk 11:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since Santa Monica is surrounded on three sides by the city of Los Angeles, any major street will extend into LA. Santa Monica Boulevard, for example, goes through Santa Monica, LA, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, and finally the community of Hollywood. ^Blank ^Verse 11:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I've noticed a few other "county" examples. (And this would seem similar to what is being attempted with San Francisco Bay Area.) - jc37 21:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. A sensible solution. -Will Beback 17:22, 9 October 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 section.

Category:Fitness models

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, There is already a category called "Fitness & figure competitors"; no reason for a duplicate. fbb_fan 01:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's empty. Was there anything in it that might help decide if there's a point to the cat? Emptying CFD nominees is against process, I thought. --Dhartung | Talk 11:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was nothing done "against process" - the category was empty when I found it. It looks like someone created it but didn't populate it. fbb_fan 12:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, I don't really see the point. >Radiant< 15:44, 4 October 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 section.

Category:Shady anime characters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but move material Fine, I'll create an anti-hero page for anime characters then.
Delete, we already have an "anti-hero" category; this is completely superfluous. Danny Lilithborne 01:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just silly (and would need to be renamed "Shady characters in anime" were it kept anyway). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shady? How vague can you possibly get? --tjstrf 06:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... unless this is a verifiable reference to a type of inking.--Dhartung | Talk 11:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember "Shady Tree" from Diamonds Are Forever...? David Kernow (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will the real slim shady please be deleted? >Radiant< 15:44, 4 October 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 section.