Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Levy (talk | contribs) at 23:11, 6 October 2005 (removed personal attack). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

October 5

The preferred format for country categories in category:Lists by country is officially undecided, but in fact all 51 country categories in it are in the form "X-related lists". The only inconsistency is the existence of Category:Asia lists and Category:Africa lists, so I suggest that they should be renamed category:Africa-related lists and category:Asia-related lists (and possibly moved elsewhere). CalJW 23:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villages of the Czech Republic to Category:Villages in the Czech Republic

The "in" form is standard for settlements. Rename CalJW 23:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UNV television network, Category:UNV network affiliates, and Category:UNV network shows to Category:Univisión television network Category:Univisión network affiliates, and Category:Univisión network shows

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Moved to WP:SFD. ∞Who?¿? 22:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposed name meets the naming guidelines better. Aecis 22:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:3-letter acronym disambiguations to Category:Three-letter acronym disambiguations

Three should be written out, not a numeral, per stylistic conventions. jengod 20:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither of those categories exist. -- Reinyday, 01:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Each of the two category names contained an extraneous colon. I've corrected the problem. —Lifeisunfair 02:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese prefectures to Category:Prefectures of Japan

The "of" form is standard for subdivisions such as these. Rename CalJW 14:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities in Finland to Category:Cities and towns in Finland

Finland is another country where there is no distinction between towns and cities. Indeed the lead article in this category is called List of towns in Finland (though come to think of it that should be changed to, so I'll do so in a minute). In this situation the standard practice is to rename category:Cities and towns in Finland. CalJW 14:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Millennial Wikipedians to Category:Generation Y Wikipedians (or vice-versa)

There's no need to have two such categories. Let's use only the one which is uncontroversial, there are no users who "do not accept to be described" as Generation Y AFAIK, and the title is also clearer. Army1987 14:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both Imprecise and slangy. This whole scheme is a bad idea imo. But if we must have it, the categories should be named by decade, ie. Wiikipedians born in the 1980s etc. CalJW 14:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE BOTH. Same old stuff - vanity pages for a clique within a clique. Juvenile, egotistical, unencyclopedic, worthless. Grow up, grow up grow up, or you will continue to be not taken seriously. 12.73.198.38 17:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again These are user categories and both terms are controversial. Gen Y plays to the stereotype that this generation is nothing more than GenX II, and I find that offensive. Neither term is accepted and both are controversial. This has already been debated, and no concensus was reached. Frankly, I find the nomination of a user category for deletion needlessly confrontational. It also worth noting that there are more people in the millenial category than in Gen Y, in other words this merge proposal is backward in size and is mistaken in in the neutrality of the term Gen Y. -JCarriker 02:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Generation Y Wikipedians into Category:Millennial Wikipedians (the opposite of the original proposal). I don't like the idea of categorizing users in this manner, but the practice obviously is going to continue (and is largely harmless). With this in mind, the more popular of the two designations should prevail (given the fact that they mean exactly the same thing). It may be true that both terms are controversial, but maintaining redundant categories defeats the very purpose of their existence. —Lifeisunfair 03:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge them both into Category:Wikipedians born between 1977 and 1993 --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated in the Category:Millennial Wikipedians description, those years are "approximate." According to the Generation Y article, there is a considerable amount of debate regarding the precise cutoff points. Therefore, this category is loosely defined, and is comprised of individuals whose arbitrary definitions enable self-inclusion. It's of little encyclopedic value, but we can afford to impose lax restrictions upon user categories. —Lifeisunfair 14:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then merge them both into Category:Wikipedians born between about 1977 and 1993. If that generation can't agree on what to call itself, it's not Wikipedia's job to impose a name on them. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even "about 1977 and 1993" is far more specific than the range that is undisputed. Such a name would be significantly more arbitrary and less acceptable than the "imposition" of either of the two widely used slang designations in question (one of which — "millennial" — appears to have been accepted by the vast majority of Wikipedia users who have opted to categorize themselves as members of this generation). —Lifeisunfair 21:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alt country to Category:Country music

Category:Alt country is misnamed (see its talk page), but more importantly, it is not defined, and probably is not notable enough to deserve a separate category. As of today it has only one stub article about a band. Merge into Category:Country music. Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kazakh politicians to Category:Kazakhstani politicians

"Kazakh" is an ethnic group, "Kazakhstani" is a nationality. See recent move of Category:Kazakh people to Category:Kazakhstani people. This one is much more appropriate, since these are public figures in the politics of Kazakhstan. The fact that they are ethnically Kazakhs is irrelevant. Staecker 13:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Football (soccer) player stubs to Category:Football (soccer) biography stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Moved to WP:SFD. ∞Who?¿? 04:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category contains more biographies than just player biographies. As the category itself says, "while the category was originally envisioned only for players, non-playing personnel (managers, coaches, chairmen, executives) can also be included in this category, as long as they are directly connected to the sport." I think a rename is needed to better fit the articles in this category.. Aecis 11:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming for stub categories must be directed to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Serbian and Croatian Americans

The Serbs and the Croats are two different communities, at home and abroad. Let me repeat that in American English words: there are "Serbian-Americans", and then there are "Croatian-Americans". There are two groups, not one. They can be clearly distinguished between one another, both by members of the groups and by outsiders.

No, you can't just recognize them as two different peoples out of a crowd. But that is not a criterion for national categorization, for crying out loud.

Sure, they are similar. But don't we lump together Czech and Slovak Americans, and we don't lump together Finnish and Estonian Americans, and we don't lump together Norwegian and Danish Americans. It's simply not done.

I'll probably split up the category myself, but I needed to say this so that it's spelled out for the future. --Joy [shallot] 10:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. Category:Serbian diaspora and Category:Croatian diaspora. --Joy [shallot]

In principle, it's probably a good idea. But there may be difficulty in deciding, since probably a lot of the people in this category were originally from the unified 1918-1992 Yugoslavia, and then you have to go digging through their individual histories to discover if that meant Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegonia, Serbia, Montenegro, or Macedonia. (In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there were people in this category who were neither Serbian- nor Croatian-Americans, but rather Slovenian-, Bosniak-, Montenegrin-, or Macedonian-Americans.) --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles which lack sources to Category:Articles that lack sources

This is a simple grammatical correction (changing "which" to "that"). Improper grammar isn't a criterion for speedy renaming (though it should be, in my opinion), so I'm listing the category here. —Lifeisunfair 09:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. -- Reinyday, 11:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename. However, you could shorten the category name and even avoid the grammar problem by renaming it to "Category:Articles lacking sources"... Lupo 11:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Category:Unsourced articles"? Or is that too short? Aecis 12:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I second Lupo's idea of Articles lacking sources, otherwise that is correct
  • Keep. Insisting on "that" in restrictive relative clauses is pedantic. There's nothing grammatically wrong with the category name the way it is. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would Category:Articles which ain't got no sources also be acceptable to you? Where do you draw the line? —Lifeisunfair 14:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to get your grammar wrong, please do so properly: Category:Ar?icles wivaat sources. -Splashtalk 15:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonononononono, there's nothing quite like Category:4rt1c13$ \/\/1th0ut $0urc3$. Aecis 22:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:London history to Category:History of London

Non-standard category. Amend to the same form as the other categories in category:History by city ie. category:History of London. CalJW 09:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. -- Reinyday, 11:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:South Korean companies to Category:Companies of South Korea

Swap these two. The one that is the redirect (Companies of South Korea) is named according to the convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), the populated one (the other one) is not. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Botanical gardens by country

Redundant: Category:Gardens is good enough. I created it, then decided it isn't necessary. Cleduc 02:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Botanical gardens in the United States

Redundant: Category:Gardens in the United States is good enough. I created it, then decided it isn't necessary. Cleduc 02:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the state categories should be renamed too so no gardens have to be left out. CalJW 09:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete at the request of the creator. -- Reinyday, 11:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

U.S. case law categories --> United States case law categories

Per the CfD in the reverse order below, let's unabbreviate them all. -- BDAbramson talk 01:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hot Women

This category picks up NPOV and throws it out of the window head first. Who decides who's hot and who's not? Can I add Ann Widdecombe? Francs2000 File:Uk flag large.png 00:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rename as Category:Women currently suffering from fever Just delete the thing. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_5&oldid=24928831"