Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Longhair (talk | contribs) at 23:47, 23 January 2006 (→‎[[:Category:Controversial Films]]: keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

January 23

Category:Living people to Category:*

It is agreed that it is an administrative category. It was intensensly unpopular when nominated for deletion, but Jimbo Wales will not consider deletion. Therefore the idea of giving it the least noticeable possible name has been floated a couple of times on the talk page. Renaming it to a symbol should reduce the risk of subcategories popping up when they are not appropriate. Rename Category:* Choalbaton 23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Antisemitism (People)

Category:Norwegian photography

Unnecessary category that will never be populated by more than a handful of articles. Currently it contains one article, namely Norwegian photography, as well as the subcategory Category:Norwegian photographers (there clearly is ample precedent for the latter). I don't think the topic of Norwegian photography will ever have more than one or two articles, because there seems to be very little that is distinctive about Norwegian photography, or that would set it apart from, say, Danish photography or Swedish photography. Articles about Norwegian photographers will go into Category:Norwegian photographers; then, aside from the overview article on Norwegian photography (which is rather sparse to begin with), what else is there? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vehemently keep - in fact this nomination is abusive, and MarkSweep has absolutely no way of knowing whether it will be populated by more than a handful of articles. You've got to give editors some time to write articles, and if you'd taken the trouble of reading the articles about Norwegian photographers, you'll see that there is plenty to write about. This is ludicrous. --Leifern 21:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Norwegian photographers have their own category, which is not being contested. What else is there about Norwegian photography that makes it so unique that it needs to be separated from Category:Photography? And if there really is such a thing of country-specific photography, how come we don't have categories like Category:French photography or Category:Brazilian photography? I'm not contesting the overview article Norwegian photography, but the associated category seems entirely pointless. If and when we more than a handful of uncontested articles about Norwegian photography–related topics, we can consider re-creating this category. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are photography collections, at least one dedicated photography museum, schools of photography, just for starters. As it turns out, the whole field of photography is undercovered in Wikipedia, and I guess it'll stay that way if people like you continue to happily delete categories. You'll note that someone also tried to delete Category:Norwegian photographers, too, based on a similar rationale. --Leifern 21:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then the solution is to write those missing articles first and worry about categorization once there are more than a handful of articles. The absence of categories does not stop anyone from writing articles. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has starter-level content and growth potential. There is little point in deleting a populated category which is sure to be needed one day. After all, just about every topic which could conceivably have an article is probably going to get one of the next few years, especially for countries with the internet access and English language skills quotient of Norway. Choalbaton 23:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lute players to Category:Lutenists

The Lutenists category predates the Lute players category, and lutenist is the term used consistently throughout the Lute article. Aitch Eye 18:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controversial Films

Nominated for speedy recapitalisation by Longhair earlier today but Valiantis pointed out that it is a recreation of a recently deleted category and suggested deletion. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005_December_26#Category:Controversial films. Point of view. Speedy delete. CalJW 17:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. POV. Recreation of recently deleted cat. Valiantis 18:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- important category; the first one never should have been deleted. (Ibaranoff24 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep per Ibaranoff24. --Vizcarra 22:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CalJW & Valiantis. Her Pegship 23:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- whilst this category could (and previously, has) become a collection ground for articles on films considered to be controversial, I feel it's still a valid category. Many films meet controversy upon release, be it on religious, political or whatever grounds. If an article on a film cites sources detailing the controversy, I don't see a problem. All this category needs is a little monitoring to keep out those seeking to hype or talk up films in this way. It certainly doesn't deserve deletion. -- Longhair 23:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:U.S. Representatives from Puerto Rico

Should be Category:Resident Commissioners of Puerto Rico. —Mark Adler (markles) 17:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scouting and Guiding members to Category:Scouting Wikipedians

Per the misplaced and orphaned afd. Target category has already been created and populated. Neutral. —Cryptic (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Velvet Revolver albums

The correct name of the band is Velvet Revolver, not The Velvet Revolver, and the one album at that category has been moved to Category:Velvet Revolver albums. --G VOLTT 14:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dallas Texans (1960s) players

This category has been completely replaced by the newer Category:Dallas Texans (AFL) players, which matches all of its new peers in Category:American Football League players by team. ×Meegs 11:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brooklyn Dodgers (football) players to Category:Brooklyn Dodgers (NFL) players

Previously this category serviced two unrelated American football teams, the Brooklyn Dodgers (NFL) and the Brooklyn Dodgers (AAFC). All the players for the latter team are now in their own category, Category:Brooklyn Dodgers (AAFC) players. ×Meegs 10:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transportation of New Orleans to Category:Transportation in New Orleans

Rename to match parent and siblings. Choalbaton 08:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Defunct U.S. state constitutions to Category:Defunct United States state constitutions

Moved from speedy after comments - Vegaswikian 07:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:U.S. state parks to Category:United States state parks

Moved from speedy after comments - Vegaswikian 06:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:U.S. state forests to Category:United States state forests

Moved from speedy after comments - Vegaswikian 06:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:U.S. State court systems to Category:United States state court systems

Moved from speedy after comments - Vegaswikian 06:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:U.S. state constitutions to Category:United States state constitutions

Moved from speedy after comments - Vegaswikian 06:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Northern Ireland music venues to Category:Music venues in Northern Ireland

Rename to match parent. Choalbaton 06:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Schools in Conservative Judaism

Rename category to --> Conservative Judaism schools similar to Category:Jewish schools; Category:Chabad schools; Category:Orthodox yeshivas and Category:Jewish seminaries. This will keep things consistent. Thank you. IZAK 05:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Conservative Jewish schools for parallelism. Conservative Judaism is a noun, Orthodox is an adjective, Chabad is usually a noun but can be either, Jewish is an adjective. Deborah-jl Talk 17:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Firefly planets

Category was recently emptied and blanked. - EurekaLott 04:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches of North America to Category:Christian demoninations of North America

This category takes "churches" to refer to denominations, whereas the rest of the churches hierarchy is for church buildings. Rename to remove unnecessary confusion. Also probably needs to be subdivided by country. I've tidied Category:Religion in the United States a little, but that only makes it look more likely that it is far from being fully populated. Choalbaton 02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Support per nomination, plus to match parent Category:Christian denominations. ×Meegs 11:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious sites in Singapore to Category:Places of worship in Singapore

Rename to match the other subcats of Category:Places of worship by country. Choalbaton 02:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Rename to Category:Religious buildings in Singapore. Not all religious buildings are places of worship. - choster 06:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Care to give an example? I see nothing in the category which presents any such problem. Choalbaton 06:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing in this particular category at present, but a monastery or convent, for instance, is a place of religious living, not of worship per se. - choster 21:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strict speaking, a religious site is not neccesary a place of worship. Sites of religious significance are not neccesarily buildings, for entire cities can be religious sites too. While this category in question may not include such sites yet, I would still think the distinction need to be explained.--Huaiwei 14:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religion by state to Category:Religion in the United States by state

Another example of an American user forgetting to take into account the existence of the rest of the world. Rename. Choalbaton 02:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Rename per nominator. --Vizcarra 22:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Real World Cast Members to Category:The Real World cast members

Simple capitalization/reformatting issue. --FuriousFreddy 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baseball by country to Category:Baseball outside the United States

This is a follow up to the nomination below. I am not American and this is a practical suggestion based on Category:Australian rules football outside Australia. Category:Baseball in the United States cannot be populated accurately with making many edits to divide all the categories into between the vast amount of U.S. info and the small amount of non-U.S. info, and I don't think that would be a good idea because it would still leave most of the general articles in limbo as they are mainly about the U.S. but not always entirely so. Thus Category:Baseball is a better place to find out about "Baseball in the United States" than Category:Baseball in the United States could ever be, and if there is to be no U.S. category as I recommend it will be appropriate to rename this Category:Baseball outside the United States. Choalbaton 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment See my comments below. However, leaving these aside, it would appear baseball is organised on a North American-wide basis with Canadian teams (or it may be a Canadian team) involved in the same leagues as the US ones. In which case the name Category:Baseball outside North America might be preferable. (I make no claim to any knowledge of baseball. Is it like rounders? :-) ) Valiantis 05:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended it to baseball outside North America. Don't know why I didn't think of that before. Choalbaton 06:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a category called Category:Baseball in Canada so either that has to go or the proposal can't be changed to "outside North America". The Canadian category only contains two articles, presumably because the Canadians don't care about splitting it up any more than the Americans do. After all they play their baseball in the same shared leagues. But I'm reverting to the orginaal proposal. None of these options are ideal, but I just don't think carving out the American articles makes sense. It means splitting up the leagues, and what do you do about Canadians playing in the U.S. or Venezualans playing for a Canadian team in a mainly U.S. league? The person who started the U.S. category didn't make a serious effort to populate it, I'm not going to, I don't think many U.S. baseball fans would want to, and all in all I don't think it should be done. Choalbaton 06:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Original category is more conventional. --Vizcarra 22:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baseball in the United States

There just isn't enough point. Set up over 2 months ago and populated with a tiny fraction of the relevant content. I looked into populating it, but apart from Category:Baseball by country every single subcategory of Category:Baseball (which used to be a subcategory of Category:Sports in the United States and which I will reinstate) is mainly about American baseball. I'm not an American and this isn't an American arrogance thing, just practical. Category:Australian rules football is directly in the Australian sport category, with a subcategory called Category:Australian rules football outside Australia. With basketball there is enough non-U.S. material for it to make sense to have a U.S. subcategory, but I just don't think it helps to have one for baseball. I will add a note to basketball by country directing people to the main category. On a practical point, even if this were to be populated once, American baseball fans will probably mostly go direct to category:Baseball so it is unlikely this would be adequately maintained. Choalbaton 00:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete Choalbaton 00:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you sure? I've had a quick look and I'd estimate a significant minority of the subcats are on general baseball issues e.g. Category:Baseball rules, Category:Baseball positions, Category:Baseball teams (which includes non-American teams), Category:National baseball teams, Category:Baseball equipment. The issue with Australian Rules football is that no-one plays that at any serious level except in Australia; baseball is much more widely played at a serious level (for example, unlike Australian rules football, it has been an Olympic sport). It's not your intention, but your suggestion would pander to systemic bias. You might want to raise this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball, which at first glance reeks of systemic bias - I can see no mention of non-US baseball. Valiantis 05:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to change it to North America. I'm aware of the general categories and I include them. I don't think systemic bias comes into it. The percentage of users who are interested in baseball who are in North American will not be much less than for Australian Rules. I think the system I am proposing will work - the alternative isn't. The category system is a navigational tool, and I would say that slicing up the baseball category damages navigation. Choalbaton 06:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed back again - see above. Choalbaton 06:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Minor league baseball stars to Category:Minor league baseball players

"Stars" is subjective and not the way things are done. Rename Category:Minor league baseball players Choalbaton 00:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Oppose. I agree that the category could be named better, but the proposed renaming would mean that nearly every Major League Baseball player should be added to the category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EurekaLott (talkcontribs)
    • It's for Minor league players. Not that it would be any less pov if it was for major league players. Choalbaton 06:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think EurekaLott's point is that most other categories for sports teams and leagues are not limited to current players (e.g. Category:Detroit Tigers players). A category limited to current minor league players should probably have a name to match, since it breaks this convention. I'm not sure such a category is such a good idea, though, as its membership would be highly transitory.×Meegs 11:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, this category has several non-current minor leaguers in it too, most of whom also had long careers in the majors. ×Meegs 11:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry I wasn't more clear. Nearly all Major League players in recent history spent time in the minors, which would make them eligible to be listed in the renamed category. The new name makes little sense unless we are also prepared to start creating categories like Category:Toledo Mudhens players and Category:Harrisburg Senators players. - EurekaLott 13:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree. The pattern seems to be that all of these league categories are broken-up into teams when they get too large to be useful — and I think this one would get there really quickly. Especially considering most major leaguers played on at least as many farm teams as major league clubs. I have concerns about the usefulness of the category, whether it's divided or not, as well as the interest-level among editors to fill and maintain it/them. I actually recommend deleting the category unless it can be recast as a reasonably-sized project (maybe for AAA-all stars, or players that never made the majors [who're probably notable for something else]). ×Meegs 17:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]