Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 13

< October 12	October 14 >

October 13

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Serbian and Montenegrin footballers

Category:Serbian and Montenegrin footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category is redundant to Category:Serbian footballers and Category:Montenegrin footballers. The previous cfd, here, decided to keep it until split. I've finished splitting it, so it is time to delete. Picaroon9288 22:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Individuals in the history of France

Category:Individuals in the history of France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete: it strikes me as extremely weird and vague criterion for categorizing, and it is unmatched by any subcategory in other counties' "history of" categories. It also looks like it has been created without paying attention to its possible consequences: I am willing to bet that three quarters of articles in the category French people can go in there. The precedent created here is unmanagable. Or at the very least rename to "People in the history of France". Dahn 22:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern ships

Rename. Several weeks ago we had a CFD on this subject and decided to rename, but these categories slipped through the cracks. TomTheHand 16:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British skeptics

Category:British skeptics to Category:British sceptics

Rename, British spelling of sceptic for an obviously British category. Schaefer (Talk) 19:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename further or delete as overly vague. Sceptic towards what? Government? Religion? Economy? Wikipedia? What is the meaning of this cat? >Radiant< 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Radiant Dahn 22:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fauna of the United States by state and its subcategories

Category:Fauna of the United States really is enough. Up to 50 categories in a single article is beyond useful. See Puma for an example, and there are just 14 of them in there! And, if we have the fauna by US states category, why not start a similar categories for the fauna by Bundesländer? This just isn't useful. --Conti|✉ 19:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it may not be workable, as a person with an interest in biogeography I must take issue with the assertion that the categories aren't useful - they're definitely useful. Anyway, you can't delete a category without nominating it for deletion - so until all 50 categories are separately tagged & listed, I must register a Strong Oppose. Guettarda 19:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- What would be the point of seperately listing the 44 categories for deletion? The reasoning is exactly the same, and I can't imagine that there's a reason to keep one of those while deleting the other. So, either, all of them should go, or none of them. --Conti|✉ 19:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - - The point would be that it would allow interested editors (ie, those who have the categories on their watchlists) to weigh in. It's a basic courtesy. Guettarda 21:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose any such change, whether each article is tagged (as they are required to be by the delete rules) or not. Each state has its fauna and that needs a category to group them together. The supercategory is then needed to group them together. These categories are obviously useful for many purposes.

The number of them (by necessity) does not make them or anything else 'not useful'. Also, wasn't the same or similar deletion proposal on flora or fauna of the US states just defeated a couple of weeks ago? Hmains 20:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, there's no mention on Category:Fauna of the United States by state or its talk page about it. Just out of curiousity, would you support similar category creations for faunas of other states in this world? I see the basic idea behind these categories, but I don't see what the reader is gaining when he looks at a huge bunch of categories in these articles. --Conti|✉ 20:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Conti's idea. We should most definitely not tag each animal or plant by every country or state it exists in. Grass would have hundreds of cats added. That is simply not useful. Listify and delete. >Radiant< 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Grass isn't a species. A reasonable person would just leave an overly common species out of these categories. In addition, categories like these tend to list only native species. Guettarda 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I've listed the categories here after I've seen this, so not all Wikipedians are reasonable persons, apparently. If these categories should exclude common species that are in all (or almost all) states, we should explicitly state this. --Conti|✉ 21:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Dahn 22:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous American Military Defeats

Delete, POV. >Radiant< 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Dahn 22:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Criminal suspects

Category:Criminal suspects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, This category is too vague and potentially too large. There's no definition for "suspect", and law enforcement agencies don't necessarily release lists of suspects so it is difficult to verify. Anyone who has ever been questioned by investigators or accused in the press could be included. Will Beback 18:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the definition of "bona fide" law enforcement agency is furthermore problematic in parts of the world.-choster 18:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arbitrary. We want facts, i.e. convictions. >Radiant< 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Dahn 22:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Escorts

Delete Category created to tag a single person, and unlikely to be expanded. No main article. Generally not (yet, nor likely to ever become) encyclopedic. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly merge article into Category:Courtesans and prostitutes The only article in the category appears at a glance to also possibly fit under Category:Courtesans and prostitutes. Now if more articles about people whose profession is "escort" are added, then I'll change my vote to Keep (since categorizing people by their stated profession is standard). Dugwiki 18:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Dugwiki. Guettarda 19:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename to Category:Courtesans, escorts and prostitutes. There have been WP:BLP concerns raised about identifying escorts (which supposedly does not necessarily involve sex, wink, wink, nudge, nudge) as prostitutes, an illegal activity in many places. Gamaliel 20:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Say no more! >Radiant< 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gamaliel. Ramsquire 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rename failed last week on he concern that associating criminal activity with non-criminal activity as BLP issue. Not sure why a merge should succeed now. --Tbeatty 21:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis and Clark

Category:Lewis and Clark to Category:Lewis and Clark expedition

Rename The main article of the category is 'Lewis and Clark expedition'. While this category includes bio articles on Lewis and Clark, the focus of the category is on the 'expedition', not just the two leaders of it. This rename should improve clarity. Hmains 16:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and I think Lewis and Clark Expedition should be renamed to reflect this capitalization as well. -choster 17:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
revision I accept that my rename proposal should be changed to:

Category:Lewis and Clark to Category:Lewis and Clark Expedition to match the article and to match capitalization rules Hmains 20:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess, this has two articles (Lewis and Clark)? Ok, that wasn't very funny. Rename, anyway. >Radiant< 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National parks of the United States

Per Rmhermen "Please no" comment on my talk page:
Rename Category:National parks of the United States to Category:National Parks of the United States

"National Parks are capitalized because the U.S. maintains named National Parks as well as other areas which represent the same level of protection but are not so named."

—Chidom ^talk 16:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC) on behalf of Rmhermen talk[reply]

Oppose per convention of Category:National parks. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This has gone back and forth a couple times. I thought consensus was to capitalize because the category then unambiguously refers to an official designation (e.g. a Wilderness Area being quite different from a wilderness area, Gettysburg being a national park but not a National Park)" see CFD 2006/Feb/16. -choster 18:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Robbi McMillen

Divide into Category:Robbi McMillen songs and Category:Robbi McMillen albums. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Low Saxon

Category:Low Saxon into Category:Low German

Merge, Category:Low Saxon should be merged into Category:Low German. Both refer to exactly the same concept, but the name Low German is more common in English sources, see Talk:Low German (linguistic sources have been adduced especially in the following two contributions: [1], [2]). ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 14:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:E-RPG System

Category:Famous redheads

Category:Famous redheads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Redundant to List of redheads, which, though in need of cleanup, can be much better defined and therefore avoid POV. Also, only one person was added to it. Shannernanner 12:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, recreation. We don't cat by hair color, and we don't use 'famous' in cat names. >Radiant< 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hoylake 17:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Radiant above. Dugwiki 18:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Estudios Churubusco films

This is a category for films shot at the Mexican studio. This seems a bad precedent, we could end up with a category for every major (or minor) film studio. There is already a list at Films shot at Estudios Churubusco so a category isn't really necessary. JW 12:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why not for Mexican studio? or Russian? We can have cats like Films by Country by studio -> American films by studio, Mexican films by studio and so forth Kmorozov 12:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category is for non-Mexican films shot at the Churubusco studios, so it wouldn't come under Mexican films by studio. "Studio" in this context means "a place where a film is shot", not "a company that produces films", which I think is what you mean. JW 13:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films by Studio sub-cats

A rename to bring these in line with the other categories in Category:Films by studio, Category:Paramount films, Category:United Artists films, Category:New Line Cinema films etc. "Films by..." isn't appropriate in these cases as the categories include many films distributed, but not produced by these companies. London Films is a slight exception, because "London Films films" wouldn't make sense. JW 12:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, Use of "RPG" in article titles is discouraged by WP:MOS and WP:RPG style guidelines. Further, the category is for computer role-playing games, not role-playing games, so that should be reflected in the category title. Percy Snoodle 08:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:College football defunct bowls

Category:College football defunct bowls to Category:Defunct college football bowls

Rename, College football defunct bowls is a very awkward title and it doesn't match Wikipedia convention. Woohookitty^(meow) 06:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Parks

Moved a related group from speedy. Please discuss as a group at the end of the listing. Vegaswikian 06:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Start discussion here.

Comment since the categories are for national parks in general; not part of a proper name, we know it should be parks and not Parks. So it should either be National parks of Foo or National parks in Foo. The in form is normal for parks in a state, but the of form is specified for national parks in the naming conventions. I think the in or of is debatable, but it should be parks and not Parks. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose They are national parks of the United States which are in Alaska [etc], not national parks of Alaska [etc]. Brammen 11:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (moved ten identical commments here)[reply]
Rename to proper capitalization; no opinion as to 'of' or 'in'. >Radiant< 14:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove capital Ps" but do not change to of as U.S. states are not nations. Hoylake 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the in forms are currently 244 through 251 on the list. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actresses who portraying Sandy Olsen to Category:Actresses who portrayed Sandy Olsen

per respect of English grammar. Pascal.Tesson 21:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy renames. Vegaswikian 06:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and Delete What is the benefit of categorising actors by character? It seems over the top to me. Olborne 22:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we've just gone through a huge similar batch of these - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_5#Actors_.2F_Actresses_who_portrayed. Grutness...wha? 23:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see some utility in Category:Actors by role as there are classic characters that are notable for their varied interpretations by actors. This is not really an example, unless maybe we count theatrical interpretations as well. That said at present we don't have a female role in the mix so perhaps it's time for Category:Actresses who have played Miss Havisham or Category:Actresses who have played Elizabeth Bennet or Category:Actresses who have played Lady Macbeth or something. Those would make more sense anyway as Miss Havisham, Elizabeth Bennet, and Lady Macbeth have articles, but Sandy Olsen does not.--T. Anthony 08:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure that a renaming would be useful. I can see having a category for a character like Sherlock Holmes or Tarzan but not one who has only been in 2 movies. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category: United States Courts of Appeals judges

Category: United States Courts of Appeals judges to Category: United States circuit judges

Rename. The new name is compact and elegant; any judge of a court of appeals is named a circuit judge by statute. (See 28 U.S.C. § 43 and 28 U.S.C. § 44.) It also avoids arguments over whether court should be singular or plural and whether we should be referring to “X judges” or “Judges of X”. — DLJessup (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 10#Category:United States Courts of Appeals judges. Since there were at least five suggested move targets and only four contributors to the discussion, I withdrew the original nomination and started this follow-up. — DLJessup (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The problem I have with this is that many states use the term "circuit court" for their lowest level courts so then the judges of those courts are called circuit judges. So using circuit judges here is confusing. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current name is just fine as it is. No reason to change it at all. Hmains 16:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above, ambiguous with local "circuit judges" Dugwiki 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Reference pages

Category:WikiProject Reference pages to Category:WikiProject Contents pages

Rename, Matches new "main page" name, Wikipedia:Contents. Rfrisbie^talk 03:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per nom --Quiddity 19:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]