Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 24
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2005 August 24)
Contents
- 1 August 24
- 1.1 Category: Kazakh people to Category: Kazakhstani people
- 1.2 Category:UN World Heritage Sites
- 1.3 Category:SSI games
- 1.4 Army bases
- 1.5 Category:Buildings by country
- 1.6 Category:British World War I weapons
- 1.7 Sport shooter categories
- 1.8 Category:Silent Film Stars --> Category:Silent film actors
- 1.9 Category:Kenyan politics
- 1.10 Category:U.S. military officer ranks
- 1.11 Category:Airlines of Hawaii
August 24
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 Deferred to Category titles ∞Who?¿? 01:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Only 53% of citizens of Kazakhstan are ethnic Kazakhs. It is incorrect to mark for example Russian people from Kazakhstan as "Kazakhs". For example, the whole Kazakhstani ice hockey team (only two players at this time at Category:Kazakh ice hockey players) is made by ethnic Russian players. So they are "Kazakhstani", not "Kazakh". Another ethnic groups of this country include Uzbek, Ukrainian, Tatar or Uygur. CIA World Factbook also states that "Kazakhstani" is the correct form. My proposal is to rename this category and another "Kazakh" categories. Darwinek 18:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP category somewhere, and make a new category (perhaps "Khazakhstan nationals and ex-pats") for the citizens/residents/(former) of Khazakhstan? 132.205.46.188 01:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Defer to Wikipedia:Category titles which is (still) discussing this issue. We're getting there, though. -Splash 13:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Defer to Cat titles discussion. --Kbdank71 13:34, 29 August 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 Rename to Category:World Heritage Sites. ∞Who?¿? 01:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:United Nations World Heritage Sites. Prefer not to use abbreviations in category names, per naming conventions, and this poll (about US/UK), and this proposal. Radiant_>|< 13:52, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Rename though I notice that the article is World Heritage Site and the full name is actually UNESCO World Heritage Site. Perhaps just Category:World Heritage Sites per the article title, since the proposed name is not, strictly speaking, the most accurate, and Category:United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage Sites doesn't roll off the typing fingers. siafu 15:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per
nom. I kept trying to get it to roll off the fingers, but all I got was.. akjdf;kdie. ∞Who?¿? 21:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply] - "World Heritage Sites" would be very acceptable. Radiant_>|< 10:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Err, I meant per siafu. ∞Who?¿? 01:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to category:World Heritage Sites, but note that the reason for the capitalization doesn't leap out as immediately obvious in this form. -Splash 13:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to "World Heritage Sites", as suggested. James F. (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to category:World Heritage Sites. BlankVerse ∅ 11:05, 26 August 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. ∞Who?¿? 01:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty. I just created this before I read the bit in the categories guide about how we shouldn't have redirect categories -- this redirects to Category:Strategic Simulations games. Can probably be speedied. Nandesuka 00:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy indeed! siafu 00:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Speedying for abbreviations has been proposed here. Radiant_>|< 11:02, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy although Kdbank71 put the Cfd tag, I'm sure, you the contributor can still use {{db}} as creator. ∞Who?¿? 21:37, 24 August 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.
Army bases
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 13:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Category: United States Army bases , Category: Bases of the U.S. Army
- Delete. Army "bases" are actually posts. I've created Category:United States Army posts and moved all of the relevant articles into that new category. —Charles O'Rourke 04:28, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and revert. "Post" is military insiders' jargon, like "fort" used to be; it also derives from "outpost", so is slanguage as well. "Base" is the common usage term, as in the current "military base closures" controversy. Or ele start calling the United States "Conus". 12.73.195.2 20:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. siafu 15:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think post refers more to usage of where soldier is posted but base is the correct term. IMHO. ∞Who?¿? 21:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd agree with you, except that some of the items in the category are clearly not "bases", like Rock Island Arsenal, but all are definitely posts. siafu 04:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yea I guess I can agree with that. I was Navy anyways :) ∞Who?¿? 08:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd agree with you, except that some of the items in the category are clearly not "bases", like Rock Island Arsenal, but all are definitely posts. siafu 04:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- All your base are belong to us. I've nothing more useful to contribute, but someone had to say it. -Splash 13:07, 25 August 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 Rename. ∞Who?¿? 01:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Buildings and structures by country to match with the parent category and most of the subcategories. -Sean Curtin 06:26, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Rename. No argument. siafu 15:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. ∞Who?¿? 21:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename indeed. -Splash 13:07, 25 August 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 --Kbdank71 13:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:World War I weapons of the United Kingdom. Because it's duplicated. - :Catsmeat 12:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, but notice another thing that is probably in-scope to Wikipedia:Category titles. -Splash 13:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note the country was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at that point in time, and that the British Empire was in effect. The term British at that period in history would quite correctly describe Canadian weapons, Indian weapons and so on. Dominions were made responsible for navies in 1909 however. Hiding talk 16:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, for the reasons above. I think it might be useful to reverse merge, or at least explore the options better. Hiding talk 17:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, possibly rename to "World War I weapons of the British Empire"? James F. (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, good call, yes, rename per James F. Hiding talk 20:46, 29 August 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.
Sport shooter categories
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 all but "by country", defer to titles discussion --Kbdank71 13:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These were a mess (I'm partly to blame) and I've tidied it up a bit. Now, the Category:Clay target shooters, Category:Finnish clay target shooters, Category:German pistol shooters, Category:Indian clay target shooters, Category:Pistol shooters, Category:Rifle shooters and Category:Slovenian rifle shooters levels are empty and should be removed. Same goes for Category:Shooters (replaced by "Sport shooters"), Category:Shooters by nationality (and its subcategories) and Category:Sport shooters by country (both replaced by "Sport shooters by nationality"), and Category:Sport shooters of Finland, Category:Sport shooters of Germany and Category:Sport shooters of Slovenia (all replaced by "Finnish sport shooters" etc.). -- Jao 12:40, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Iff Category:Sport shooters by nationality is supported by Category titles, instead of Category:Sport shooters by country, then delete. Otherwise swap. ∞Who?¿? 21:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the standard in 90% of the cases is "by country", not "by nationality". See also Wikipedia:Category titles. Radiant_>|< 10:30, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Really? I made it this way to make it consistent with Category:Sportspeople by nationality, Category:Athletes by nationality etc. As there is no top category for these categories, I have not checked very many of them, so you might be right, but then certainly the ones I mention here should be moved as well. -- Jao 10:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, the standard in 90% of the cases is "by country", not "by nationality". See also Wikipedia:Category titles. Radiant_>|< 10:30, August 25, 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 Rename. ∞Who?¿? 01:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For reasons of both proper capitalization and NPOV. --FuriousFreddy 15:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 15:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Silent film performers. "Actors" is masculine term, misleading here if not sexist (unless you want to create a Silent film actresses category as well). 12.73.195.2 20:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Neither the Screen Actors Guild nor the Actors' Equity Association exclude actresses. siafu 04:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Silent film actors. I hardly think the term "actors' is sexist, especially considering the majority of performers listed here are female. 'Actors' has also become a rather unisex term nowadays. I also certainly DO find this page relevant for people looking to find a compendium of actors whose careers were most prominent in the silent fim era. - ExRat 21:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. I also do not think actors is sexist, I think having two seperate nouns to describe any profession is. ∞Who?¿? 21:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Silent film actors is a fine name. Kevin 09:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Rename to actors. We have other cats called "...actors..." that include both sexes. -Splash 13:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename - to Silent film actors. As Splash indicated "actors" is the norm for other acting categories here. Rossrs 00:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Silent film actors. -- Reinyday, 16:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as nominated. --Kbdank71 13:35, 29 August 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 13:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Superseded by Category:Politics of Kenya. TreveXtalk 15:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Redundant. siafu 15:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. - Darwinek 00:02, 25 August 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 13:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This category has been added to top level articles like captain, colonel, major, major general etc. Unnecessary for such kinds of articles and sets a bad precendent. There is already category:Military ranks =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:33, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as the articles so categorized refer to their global and historical use, not only that by the U.S. armed forces. Lest we sprout a hundred similar categories, of which lieutenant is a member of all. - choster 23:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per choster, and "United States" is always preferable to "U.S." in titles. siafu 23:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per choster. Also, most of the ranks have one article per rank as well, category should follow article schema. ∞Who?¿? 08:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Pointless. Dbinder 13:29, 25 August 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. ∞Who?¿? 01:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No other state in the US (actually in any state in any country) has such a category, and this one is unnecessary. I switched the four articles that used this category over to the standard Category:Airline companies of the United States. Dbinder 21:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ∞Who?¿? 22:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 22:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Mike "Mig" · Talk 12:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete overcategorization. -Splash 13:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'd forgotten about this one! On the Talk page I'd pointed out its unhelpful ambiguity—airlines headquartered in? Hubbed in? Founded in? Heaven forbid, serving airports in? US Airways (pre-AWA merger) is headquartered in Arlington VA and its largest hub is in Charlotte, but my friend knows it as that Pittsburgh airline. - choster 20:31, 25 August 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.