Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 28
November 28
This is a duplicate of Category:American musical groups, so I have already moved all its contents to the other category. I am now nominating this category for deletion, as it was done in the past with Category:U.S. film directors, renamed Category:American film directors. See also Category:American writers and Category:American screenwriters as a reference. Mushroom 22:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Same reason as Natives of West Glamorgan - see yesterday's entries - but this time nominated by the author (Sloman) Deb 21:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, this category is now redundant. Natives are standardised on administrative counties in Wales. (P.S. Sloman was not the author of this category and has never touched it, but anyway, thanks for nominating it for deletion deb - will get these Welsh categories nice and tidy in time.)
Not a meaningful category. Most major business have a holding company at the top of their corporate structure. I have moved one article to the more meaningful Category:Conglomerate companies. The other two are already in other suitable categories. Delete Rhollenton 20:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Not a useful category. Only contains two articles, which are both about companies in the same group. Merge into Category:Defence companies Rhollenton 19:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The correct category is category:Airlines of Canada. Rhollenton 19:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Rhollenton 19:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy per rule #4. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Category:Native Americans is used to contain articles about Native American individuals. It has an ambiguous title, which would be more precise if changed to Category:Native American people. This naming would match the wording of similar categories, like Category:First Nations people, Category:Finnish people, and Category:German people. This name change would also allow for the removal of the disambiguating paragraph currently placed within Category:Native Americans. Kurieeto 14:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
KeepNeutral (or merge with First Nations which is just a Canadian/USAian usage difference, for some of the same people). "First Nations people" is required by the grammatical form, but "Finnish people" would be better as "Finns", and "German people" as "Germans". Avoid needless verbosity. That said, a closer look shows most (but not all) other categories include the ugly extra word "people", so I guess I won't try to swim upstream on this. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Duplicates Democratic Wikipedians and has no members at this time. StuffOfInterest 13:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Reverse merge and rename One doesn't have to be an American or a member of a particular party to be a "Democratic Wikipedian". Rename category:Wikipedian Democrats (U.S. political party). Osomec 13:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Both. Another stupid pair of vanity categories. You want to delete all the Jewish-oriented categories and keep all the Wikipedian categories; what a bunch of muffins you people are. 12.73.195.133 15:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Renaming of Cao Wei imperials
- Category:Emperors of Cao Wei to Category:Cao Wei emperors
- Category:Empresses of Cao Wei to Category:Cao Wei empresses
I must admit that when I last proposed (successfully) to have "Emperors of Wei" renamed to "Emperors of Cao Wei," I forgot to check analogies with other Chinese states' emperors, and the categories now look out of compliance with analogous states. I am requesting that these be renamed so that the names would match the other states' emperors/empresses in Category:Chinese emperors and Category:Chinese empresses. --Nlu 08:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Duplicate category CG janitor 10:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Either inherently subjective or absurdly broad
- Delete. I'm happy to accept that controversial is used in a non-pejorative sense. But in the sense of "raising controversy", practically every work of non-fiction that is widely read does so. Maybe a limited class, like certain biographies, can be non-controversial in simply listing some usefully grouped facts. But all the books that advance some particular novel opinion or thesis are ipso facto controversial. Those books that "fall stillborn from the press" (to quote Hume) may not achieve controversy, but neither are they thereby notable (and probably don't have articles). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with Lulu here, and moreover, this shows the need to categorize these books by actual topic; most of these books really fit in in one or another "controversial" genre.--Pharos 21:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete As above, completely subjective and impossible to maintain. Soltak | Talk 01:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)