Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 5
March 5
Redundant to Category:Japanese baseball teams. Nippon Pro Baseball also redirects to Japanese baseball. DMG413 20:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Has only one entry, Category:Nova Scotia sports teams, which should be merged with Category:Nova Scotia sports to follow all other Canadian province sports categories. Similar to the Municipal sports teams debate, which resulted in speedy deletion.--Mike Selinker 20:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose It seems very reasonable to me to separate out the teams. By location categorisation is one of the two desirable subcategorisation schemes within Category:Canadian sports teams alongside by sport categorisation. If the other provinces haven't been done yet, that is one up to Nova Scotia. Calsicol 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Seemingly original research, created by creator of only article in this category. Molerat 20:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Category:Lecturers by university in the United Kingdom to Category:Academics by university in the United Kingdom
Few, if any, of the people in these categories are notable for lecturing - I think most are known for other academic work, i.e. research, writing, etc, and I suspect some of them have never done any lecturing. Including subcategories:
- Category:Lecturers of the University of Kent → Category:Academics of the University of Kent
- Category:Lecturers of the University of London → Category:Academics of the University of London (and its 20 subcategories in the same manner)
- Category:Lecturers of the University of Nottingham → Category:Academics of the University of Nottingham (note Category:Academics associated with the University of Nottingham, suggest merge with it)
- Category:Lecturers of Queen's University, Belfast → Category:Academics of Queen's University, Belfast
Vclaw 18:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Lecturer is a formal title, roughly equivalent to "assistant professor with tenue". So "having done lecturing" is irrelevant. However, one should not list professors or readers (associate professors) as being lecturers. So either the professors and readers should have their own lists, or else a rename is necessary. Faculty might be more specific than Academics. JeffBurdges 19:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. No, Faculty is a US term for university teaching and research staff. This is a UK page. The Faculty in a UK university is an administrative grouping of Departments headed by a Dean, e.g. the Faculty of Science. "Academics" is the correct term. As to the proposal, I agree. --Bduke 23:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support All professor/lecturer/other academic title categories should be renamed to "academics". Gradings in the job hierarchy aren't important, and they are so inconsistent around the world that they can only cause confusion. Calsicol 01:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
We recently deleted[1] it at wikinews as being "inherently POV" due to state terrorism generally not being included in normal usage, various acts by non-violent groups often being described as terrorism by significant segments of the American population, etc. However, this deletion has remained contentious and I see no reason why wikipedia and wikinews should differ with respect to inclusion of this category. So I'd like to poll the wikipedia community on this matter. I argued for, but did not vote for, the deletion on wikinews. And I am unconvinced either way at present. I will not vote here. JeffBurdges 18:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Mirror Vax 18:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. A broad, inclusive, useful category.--Mike Selinker 20:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Unless someone can produce non-biased scientific evidence that being a lesbian helps a woman to win a sport, every addition to this category serves only to promote lesbianism and is therefore a breach of the neutrality rules. Therefore the category should be empty, so it follows that it should be deleted. Votes from LGBT activists will probably pour in, but they should only be counted in proportion to the number of LGBT's in society, or the result will be biased. Golfcam 17:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC).
- Keep I don't see any propotion going on here, but you could possibly rename to "Homosexual sportspeople", and include homosexual male athletes. Its not supposed to be a vote in the first place, but we definitely don't apply special voting rules under any circumstances. JeffBurdges 18:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. I'm not a LGBT activist, I'm a sports fan. And I think it's very reasonable to have this category.--Mike Selinker 18:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not a LGBT activist and don't even know what that word means. "Information" is neutral, and does not of itself "promote" anything. The intersection of sportspeople and Lesbianism is a legitimate topic of interest/research. To propose to delete information because it "may" be used in a way "you don't like" is what should not be happening in Wiki, and would be unconscionable censorship by the few over the many. pat8722 22:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Allegations of censorship against people who want to resist the intrusion of sex into every corner of life are one of the tiredest tricks in the liberal armoury. Calsicol 01:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedians motives are irrelevant. Everyone has their own personal motivations for contributing to this project. What matters is argument, not motivation. When Martina Navrátilová came out as a lesbian it was big news. She lost millions in advertising revenue because of this. There is a section of her article that talks about this. It is reasonable to file all articles in categories of articles that discuss the same subject. This can be verified by looking at the articles. Having this category does not mean that "being a lesbian helps a woman to win a sport", nor does it promote anything. Removing this category would be a breach of neutrality rules. -- Samuel Wantman 00:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's one article. Should we have a category for everything that is important for one person in another category? Calsicol 01:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's some interesting logic. Keep. I am an LGBT activist, and am voting for the same reasons as the people above: Being a lesbian in sports is currently a notable intersection. However, the category should only be used when there is mention of the sportsperson's being a lesbian in their article. -Seth Mahoney 00:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. By the logic of the proposal, a category Category:Heterosexual sportspeople would promote heterosexuality. Are you trying to extirpate lesbians by deleting encyclopaedia categories? Haiduc 01:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete User:Haiduc is quite right about Category:Heterosexual sportspeople, but guess what, it doesn't exist, so we don't need to delete it. This category reflects the fashion to make as much of this issue as possible; it reveals contemporary biases as surely as Category:Uppity niggers would have revealed the biases behind an ante-Bellum Southern Wikipedia. Calsicol 01:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Category:Napoleonic wars and subcategories (multiple renaming request)
Category:Napoleonic wars ought to have "wars" capitalized as I believe "Napoleonic War(s)" is a two-word proper noun (see main article Napoleonic Wars). Thereafter a number of its subcategories have less-than-grammatical names. Propose the following:
- Category:Napoleonic wars British commanders → Category:British commanders of the Napoleonic Wars
(NB capitalization of "Wars" here and hereafter.) - Category:Napoleonic wars French commanders → Category:French commanders of the Napoleonic Wars
- Category:Napoleonic wars Polish commanders → Category:Polish commanders of the Napoleonic Wars
- Category:Napoleonic wars Russian commanders → Category:Russian commanders of the Napoleonic Wars
- Category:Napoleonic wars British commanders → Category:British commanders of the Napoleonic Wars
- Support as proposer. David Kernow 12:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC) PS I hope I have used {{cfru}} correctly; apologies in advance if not.
- Rename all per nom. —Kirill Lokshin 17:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Category:Revolution people and subcategories (multiple renaming request)
Category:Revolution people and some of its similarly-named subcategories (see below) have less-than-grammatical names. Propose the following:
- Category:American Revolution people → Category:People of the American Revolution
- Category:French Revolution figures → People of the French Revolution
- Category:Napoleonic wars French commanders : see #Category:Napoleonic wars and subcategories (multiple renaming request) above.
- Category:Guillotined French Revolution figures → Category:People of the French Revolution executed by guillotine or maybe Category:Guillotined people of the French Revolution
- Category:Russian Revolution people → Category:People of the Russian Revolution
- Category:Russian counter-revolution people → Category:People of the Russian counter-revolution
Should "counter-revolution" be capitalized?
- Category:Russian counter-revolution people → Category:People of the Russian counter-revolution
- Support as proposer. David Kernow 12:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC). PS I hope I have used {{cfru}} correctly; apologies in advance if not.
The Placeopedia template is well and good, but I fail to see the value of collecting all its uses in a category. It reads like a random collection of locations. - EurekaLott 08:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Totally unmaintainable. --Tothebarricades 20:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
This category is much too broad - if properly comprehensive, it would contain at least tens of thousands of entries. Also the categorization of "parent" is not special or specific enough - what is the use of this category? It seems rather gratuitous (by comparison, the recent "Living people" category is of course broader, but it has a specific deliberate function for Wikipedia policy purposes i.e. identifying articles which need extra scrutiny to protect against legal and reputational risk.). as an aside, the current entries in the fictional parents category list also seem like a very narrow selection - mainly cartoon and comic characters. Bwithh 04:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree, the category will soon become overpopulated and therefore too difficult to use to be of benefit. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If Category:Parents existed, then there might be a basis for keeping this. - EurekaLott 22:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete. per nom.--cjllw | TALK 23:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge - Slo-mo 04:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep separate These are two separate categories. One contains colleges and universities and the other contains descriptions of types of colleges and universities. --JeffW 05:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep separate AND Remission both articles AND Rename U&C by type —What is wrong with both articles is that they do not have the proper focuses. This lack of focus primarily in U&C by type is what is causing overlap that leads to this misguided CFD. U&C types blurs its focus slightly with business school, which should be removed from U&C types and for-profit college and vocational school should be added (and now are).
- The fine-focused mission of the U&C types article would be: "types of whole (perhaps multi-topic) institutions, especially related to ownership/funding (e.g., private versus public) or overall character (e.g., the Whosiwhatsit Beauty College and Business School as career college or more accurately vocational school)". As is nearly already the case, this would focus U&C types on types of universities, where a university is composed of multiple schools/colleges.
- The fine-focused mission of a renamed U&C by type article would be: "single academic topic addressed within (perhaps a portion of) an institution", such as just the "school of architecture" sliver within a university or a stand-alone single-topic whole institution such as "school of art" regarding The Art Institute of Chicago, focusing on the single academic topic (whereas private university over in U&C types would describe on the whole-institution ownership/funding for The Art Institute of Chicago). In recent years in the USA the far more common case is the former, not the latter, because most stand-alone institutions have been acquired into or are affiliated with a larger university. For example, U&C by type should not contain public university or private university because that refers to a whole institution.
- Conversely, U&C types should not contain business school per se (because that is a single academic topic that belongs in a renamed Category:U&C by type), but many stand-alone business schools (and I am talking about the kind of vocational school that teaches people to type X words per minute, not the portion of a university that grants MBAs) are for-profit businesses, so career college, for-profit college, and vocational school belong in U&C types to fully address this type of business school, permitting business school's removal from U&C types.
- If this proposal for remissioning and renaming is rejected, then I would vote for reversing the merge: eliminate U&C by type by merging it into U&C types, because at Universities (in the plural) and colleges (in the plural) by type I would expect to find a sorted list (or drill-down equivalent) of the names of all universities and colleges in the world arranged by type. Conversely, at U&C types I would expect to find a list of types of whole universities and types of whole stand-alone colleges (USA-specific term), and, sure enough, that is exactly what I find there, with the exception of business school. Being a list/drill-down of institution names sorted by type is clearly not at all what U&C by type is trying to do, so it is quite clearly misnamed. Because U&C by type is fundamentally flawed in multiple ways, then it should preferrably be remissioned or, if need be, eliminated. —Optikos 16:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Redundant --> merge - Slo-mo 04:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- hmm. Not entirely redundant, but certainly too confusing. Remember that an "Art school" is a school which teaches art; a "School of art" can mean a movement (like the Flemish School, for instance). Grutness...wha? 00:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Empty category with no subcategories, pages, etc. and the only contributor was Huaiwei. Эйрон Кинни (t) 04:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Per above. Эйрон Кинни (t) 04:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Empty; appears abandoned; correct form would include "Members of the European Parliament from Italy". Duplicates Category:Images of MEPs from Italy, 6th term. JonHarder 03:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Plus Category:Coastal towns in Balochistan and Category:Coastal towns in Sindh.
- Delete all three because they are made redundant by the Category:Coastal cities and towns in Pakistan as there are only a handful of articles which could be categorised under Coastal Cities and Towns in Pakistan. Since there are only two coastal provinces (Balochistan and Sindh) it does not make sense to have two sub-categories or the separate Coastal Towns category. Green Giant 03:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Moved from AFD:
Doesn't need a full category for one person. (originally listed by User:JoshuaZ) — sjorford (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)