Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 13
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
May 13
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Created by user who gave it the content "i dont know what it is." --Tabor 23:48, 13 May 2005 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant with Category:Criminals. Rhobite 23:24, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- 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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Suspicious image category that contains only one image. Possible complication: category is linked to Vietnamese wiki vi:Category:Hình_chụp which has about 50 images in it. --Tabor 23:25, 13 May 2005 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There exist two categories, Category:Mathematical Institutes and Category:Mathematical institutes. The latter is more conformant to the Wikipedia style, which calls for not overusing capitals. Both of these categories had articles. I moved the remaining ones from the former to the latter (I know now this is in violation of policy, I figured that out after I did the move, sorry), and I request Category:Mathematical Institutes to be deleted. Oleg Alexandrov 23:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I created Category:Mathematical Institutes some time ago while being ignorant of wikipedia naming conventions. MathMartin 15:10, 14 May 2005 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Individual initiative to tag VFD subpages that was quickly abandoned. See User_talk:Rholton/archive02#VfD categorization --Tabor 23:07, 13 May 2005 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.
The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 13:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging it to Category:Wikipedia guidelines. This has been suggested in several places such as Template talk:Semi-policy but those debates tend not to attract much notice, so I guess the official Category Renaming place is the way to go. Radiant_* 17:53, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete after merging and splitting. The definition of "semi-policy" isn't clear, and so many of those pages are mislabeled anyway. Many are guidelines, and some really have no status in the "policy life cycle" and are simply process or discussion pages. -- Netoholic @ 20:44, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
- Delete after merging into guidelines. Weird neologism, very confusing. --Mrfixter 00:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merger. -- Beland 06:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. BlankVerse ∅ 13:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and revise. There is a role for semi-policy and it emerges from communities of practice, which are formally represented here as Wikiprojects. There is a general consensus (by no means universal) that Wikiproject guidelines for action transcend the whims of individual editors in that they represent the cooperative decision making and behavior of a group of editors toward a common goal. I think that recognizing this formally through preservation of a definition and place for "semi-policy" is useful, albeit the definition of the term and the "essay" describing it should go through significant revision and some redirection to overcome the abiguity of the current usage which has landed the category here. Courtland 03:23, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
by the way ... was this category depopulated in preparation for deletion? If so, then it should be repopulated. ~~Courtland
- It's a simple rename... the strange term 'semi-policy' has been changed to the rather more obvious term 'guideline'. Per WP:NOT a bureaucracy, there is no need for several 'levels' of policy beyond the existing (official policy, and proposed/guideline/rejected). What you describe is very nice and has right to exist, but it exactly what 'guideline' means. Radiant_* 08:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly. No-one has been able to define "semi-policy", whereas "guidelines" is simple enough for all to understand. There is no need to semi-worry. --Mrfixter 09:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a simple rename... the strange term 'semi-policy' has been changed to the rather more obvious term 'guideline'. Per WP:NOT a bureaucracy, there is no need for several 'levels' of policy beyond the existing (official policy, and proposed/guideline/rejected). What you describe is very nice and has right to exist, but it exactly what 'guideline' means. Radiant_* 08:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Support merge. --Kbdank71 15:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merging. The only definitions I can think of for "semi-policy" are synonomous with "guideline". I.e., "not policy, per se, but something we recomend doing." --Azkar 18:47, 19 May 2005 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a Category:Role-playing games – Seancdaug 16:19, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Exactly, redundant category. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:41, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: Itchy trigger fingers aside, the two should be merged. The genre is more widely known as "RPG", and RPG is easier to search for. EreinionFile:RAHSymbol.JPG 03:50, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Acronyms for categories is not a good idea. RPG stands for other things as well. I'm not sure how categories can be merged or redirected though. Ajshm 08:42, 14 May 2005 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a Category:Massively multiplayer online role-playing games --Ajshm 08:40, 13 May 2005 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.
The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 14:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While the subject seems worthwhile, many of the articles contained in this category are single-line descriptions created primarily by a single editor. Perhaps merge them all into a common article/list instead of treating them as separate articles in a category? (Creator has been notified via talk page.) --Alan Au 06:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose. As there is no reason to merge the articles to begin with, there is no reason to delete the category. Uppland 07:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to support, asThis category apparently duplicates the better Category:Provincial Districts of Sweden. There is still no reason to merge the articles, however, and this is not the right place to discuss that in any case. There are already lists of hundreds and other districts in the article on each Swedish province (see Uplandia or Sudermannia). Uppland 09:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Sorry for modifying my reaction again, but the way this nomination is phrased makes it completely invalid for this page, as it asks us to vote about one thing, but actually proposes something else. There may be a valid reason to delete this category, i.e. that it duplicates another very similar one. The reason it is listed here now is however not a valid one, as this page is where we discuss how to categorize articles, not whether to keep, delete or merge them. The articles exist, are all very expandable and need categorization. I would encourage the nominator to withdraw this nomination. Uppland 11:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to my unfamiliarity with Wikipedia procedures, I was unsure of the correct place to discuss this issue. My apologies. I'm more than happy to retract the nomination, on the condition that you move the discussion to the appropriate location. --Alan Au 21:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the offer, but as there seems to be no consensus for any change with regards to the hundred articles, I see no reason to spend any more of my own time on the issue. Uppland 05:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to my unfamiliarity with Wikipedia procedures, I was unsure of the correct place to discuss this issue. My apologies. I'm more than happy to retract the nomination, on the condition that you move the discussion to the appropriate location. --Alan Au 21:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support, the vast majority of these are one-line stubs and should be merged to provide greater accessibility of information. It seems likely that after the merge, there is no further need of the cat. Radiant_* 07:56, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep they may be one-line stubs at the moment, but there's enough chance of these groeing into full-sized articles with a bit of work from editors - the size of one or two of the larger articles show that. There are quite a number of valid categories that currently contain a lot of articles which need expansion - this one is no different. Grutness...wha? 09:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Should we also create an article about every block of houses, every neighbourhood, every street in a city, etc? Because many hundred are not populated by more than a hundred people, which is less than an average city street. And according to the article policy, articles shouldn't be created if they are not of general importance, right? --Fred-Chess 10:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- By that argument, prhaps we should also get rid of all articles about Antarctica, since that has a population of ony a few hundred at any one time. Grutness...wha? 06:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is a continent comparable to a city block? We're talking non-existant administrative divisions that could be best described as sub-villages. Any hundred that actually matters is overshadowed by the modern communities in its place. Whatever history worth mentioning should be described in the article about that community/village. / Peter Isotalo 17:20, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Since when is a continent comparable to a city block? Ever since a hundred was, I suppose. I mean - let's take an example. There were - what? 30 or so provinces. Picking two at random, I see Dalia had 5 hundreds and Bahusia had 17. So we're probably talking 300-350 hundreds for the whole country. How many city blocks are there in even a small country? Grutness...wha? 01:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is a continent comparable to a city block? We're talking non-existant administrative divisions that could be best described as sub-villages. Any hundred that actually matters is overshadowed by the modern communities in its place. Whatever history worth mentioning should be described in the article about that community/village. / Peter Isotalo 17:20, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- By that argument, prhaps we should also get rid of all articles about Antarctica, since that has a population of ony a few hundred at any one time. Grutness...wha? 06:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Like Grutness says, many of the articles in the category can be expanded. Moreover, many of the articles are nice to link to when writing about old Swedish history, like I do.--Wiglaf 09:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; we went through this with the Rambot articles, years ago. James F. (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support/Delete. I can't see how this is encyclopedic at all. In an article about Hundreds, sure, but to have an article about each one of them, most of which is essentially a definition? If someone wants to expand it, create the article then. I'm sure if we revisit this at some point in the future we'll still have a bunch of definitions. --Kbdank71 16:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If a full article would be valid, so are these. There is no need to worry about how long things take to get done in Wikipedia as there is no deadline for the completion of the project. Gillian Tipson 17:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not too sure about that. We have a List of Beavis and Butt-head episodes, but if someone made an article about each one which said (in it's entirety): "This is a B&B episode from Season 1", those articles would end up on VfD before I could click "save page". --Kbdank71 17:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you arguing that these real places in Sweden are no more notable than cartoon episodes, or that being a stub is a valid reason for an article to be deleted? It has to be one of them. Gillian Tipson 19:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- These real places have other names that in a lot of cases have been used just as long as the name of the individual hundreds. The hundreds are administrative and legislative units that no longer exist. The communities/villages/towns contained in or divided among the hundreds are the relevant encyclopedic entries in this context. Peter Isotalo 19:23, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, as per Gillian Tipson's reasoning. --TVPR 12:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete.I'm a Swede myself and I'm quite put off by the vertiable chaos in the geography department that seems to be the sole work of Mic, who has not been active for over six months and seems to have left Wikipedia for good. This category is no exception. Municipalities are mixed with regions that are mixed with historical provinces that are mixed with modern "län" (counties) and as a mind-boggingly confusing raster on top all this Mic has completely misunderstood Wikipedia:Naming policy by consistently favoring non-notable pseuo-English "translations" for Swedish names that are completely un-offical, such as Dalia, Bahusia, Gotlandia (!), etc. Mind you, this is not a vote against Mic personally, but against a consistently confused and non-encyclopedic editing pattern concerning Swedish geography that needs to be dealt with, and this is a very good place to start. / Peter Isotalo 13:12, May 15, 2005 (UTC)- Please stick to the issue at hand: how are the hundreds – an easily delimited category, with a finite number of members (which are very unlikely to be multiplied at this point in history) – confused with anything else? In which way is writing articles about hundreds and categorizing them as such "non-encyclopedic"? Uppland 14:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- They're defunct, extremely minute adminstrative units that can't be expanded on and have basically zero value as individual links. Like Fred pointed out; it's like listing individual blocks of houses, except that articles on modern city blocks could actually be filled with information that is more than just one sentence, though most of it would be quite pointless duplicate information. 99% of all the hundreds if not all, would or could never contain more information than X hundred was a hundred in village/town Y, of landskap Z and that's it. At best they could be listed in a list of Swedish hundreds or something like it. / Peter Isotalo 17:20, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, Fred was wrong, as he admitted on his talk page when I pointed this out to him, and so are you. A hundred is a härad in Swedish (and if you, by any chance, don't know what that is, I suggest you look it up in Nordisk familjebok). Uppland 17:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, they are hundraden up until the 13th century and only thereafter do they become häraden, though not at the same time in all provinces. I'd like to know exactly what these articles would ever contain except for just the information on the location. Moreover, in what would the value of linking to these articles lie? How many minor, overlapping historical administrative units should we have? Are there any precedents on this at all? / Peter Isotalo 18:57, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- We should have all "overlapping historical administrative units", just like we should have historical currency units etc., and the hundreds certainly aren't "minor", as each hundred consisted of several parishes (socknar). Precedents exist in Wikipedia, in that considerably less significant places in other countries, especially in the U.S., are included. Outside Wikipedia, we have Nordisk familjebok, which includes articles on all Swedish hundreds, as well as on all Swedish parishes. Uppland 19:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, they are hundraden up until the 13th century and only thereafter do they become häraden, though not at the same time in all provinces. I'd like to know exactly what these articles would ever contain except for just the information on the location. Moreover, in what would the value of linking to these articles lie? How many minor, overlapping historical administrative units should we have? Are there any precedents on this at all? / Peter Isotalo 18:57, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, Fred was wrong, as he admitted on his talk page when I pointed this out to him, and so are you. A hundred is a härad in Swedish (and if you, by any chance, don't know what that is, I suggest you look it up in Nordisk familjebok). Uppland 17:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- They're defunct, extremely minute adminstrative units that can't be expanded on and have basically zero value as individual links. Like Fred pointed out; it's like listing individual blocks of houses, except that articles on modern city blocks could actually be filled with information that is more than just one sentence, though most of it would be quite pointless duplicate information. 99% of all the hundreds if not all, would or could never contain more information than X hundred was a hundred in village/town Y, of landskap Z and that's it. At best they could be listed in a list of Swedish hundreds or something like it. / Peter Isotalo 17:20, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Please stick to the issue at hand: how are the hundreds – an easily delimited category, with a finite number of members (which are very unlikely to be multiplied at this point in history) – confused with anything else? In which way is writing articles about hundreds and categorizing them as such "non-encyclopedic"? Uppland 14:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I looked a few examples of hundreds up in Nationalencyklopedin (which I really recommend over NF in most cases) which to my surprise lists individual hundreds, most actually even with really useful information like etymologies and geographic boundaries. Vote changed. / Peter Isotalo 20:25, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- 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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecated as a result of the deletion of {{doom-stub}} by WP:TFD. -Frazzydee|✍ 03:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and this might be a speedy criterion... see CFD talk page. Radiant_* 07:56, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- 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 page.
Category:American currencies, Category:Currencies of Canada, and Category:Currencies of the United States
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.
The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:American currencies -> Currencies of the Americas
- I'm a little hesitant about proposing this one, because it'll mean going against the naming style used for its sister categories. However, I feel the current name is too ambiguous. As a Canadian, my heart nearly skipped a beat when I saw Canadian dollar categorized as an "American currency".
- Category:Currencies of Canada -> Category:Canadian bills and coins
- There is only one currency in use in Canada, and that's the Canadian dollar. The rest of the articles are about specific bank notes, plus a sub-cat on coins.
- Category:Currencies of the United States -> Category:U.S. bills and coins
- Same as its Canadian counterpart.
--Azkar 01:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to say that I'm not in favour of this schema. I don't mind Category:American currencies -> Currencies of the Americas, which is far less ambiguous, but both Canada and the United States have used other currencies. I have seen old stamps of Prince Edward Island with values in "pence currency" (being 2/3 of sterling), and the Newfoundland dollar would also clearly count in this category, if an article for such a sad beast was ever created. ISTR that early in its history the US also used pounds, shillings, and pence (at least prior to the revolution). Grutness...wha? 02:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I can't really find any articles about pre-Canadian dollar and pre-United States dollar currencies, with the exception of Continental Dollar. Certainly there would be value to fitting them into the category scheme in a logical way, if they existed. I just think the current names of the categories are extremely misleading. Do you have any alternative suggestions? --Azkar 02:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the solution would be Category:Currency of the United States? Radiant_* 09:31, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly what I was going to suggest - Category:Currency of the United States and Category:Currency of Canada. Covers both singular and plural possibilities of money systems. Grutness...wha? 09:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. I think that works. --Azkar 20:30, 13 May 2005 (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 page.
Hidden category: