Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 16

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2005 December 16)
< December 15 December 17 >

December 16

edit

Category:NCSSSMST to category:National Consortium for Specialized Secondary Schools of Mathematics, Science and Technology schools

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 K1Bond007 22:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the least user friendly category name I have ever seen. The expansion isn't a great category name either, but as least it is clear and the policy is to avoid abbreviations. CalJW 23:59, 16 December 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.

Category:Schools in Lewisham

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 K1Bond007 22:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As some of you may know I am a frequent creator of detailed categories, and a defender of many of them, but dividing schools in London by borough is too much. All London articles are categorised by subject area and by borough, but it is not helpful to cross the two. British schools are subdivided primarily by county, with a few categories for major cities as well. London is both a city and a county, but the London boroughs are merely districts. Nor are they real communities, but simply modern bureaucratic hodge-podges made up of a small number of neighbourhoods. I should think that few Londoners could draw the boundaries of their own borough on a map with anything approaching accuracy. This category only contains one article, and it is hopefully the only such category which has been created so far. Delete CalJW 23:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There's certainly merit to your argument, however, the boroughs are the Local Education Authorities in Greater London. As this is a function that in many other parts of England is held by the shire county (or by a unitary authority or metropolitan district - predominantly in urban areas) then is this of relevance (as schools in other parts of England are, as you say, categorised by county or large city)? Also there must be 500 or so state secondary schools in London - each of which is potentially an article (I appreciate this is a hotly contested issue!) - plus a large number of independent schools. Might a geographically more detailed categorisation scheme than just Category:Schools in London be needed given that London has somewhere in the region of 1/6 of England's entire population? Valiantis 01:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I have said I generally support small categories, but they are not needed here. There is nothing wrong with a category containing several hundred items if it is more user friendly than smaller categories. The London schools have already been divided by type. If they are divided by borough as well the final step will be category:Public schools in Bromley, Category:International schools in Camden and the like, with one or two articles in each. Much better to call a halt now. Boroughs be more usefully covered with lists. Finally, who cares about LEAs apart from bureaucrats? CalJW 02:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are not enough articles on Wikipedia to justify sub-categorising schools in London by area within London. I spent all of yesterday subcategorising them by type, and this way it is effective. No other London borough has this subcategory, and hence it should be removed. It no longer has any articles either. Deano 10:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Deano Carina22 19:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CalJW's argument has persuaded me. Valiantis 00:30, 18 December 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.

Category:Foreign banks in Canada into Category:Banks of Canada

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 Merge K1Bond007 22:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit odd to have a split between foreign and domestic banks - can't find any other country where this is the case (except Hong Kong). Can't see how this helps anyone's attempts to understand the sector, surely they compete with each other regardless of ultimate nationality? The business of where a company has its shares listed is surely for "Companies traded on the....Stock Exchange"? Ian3055 23:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Oops, I have a conflict of interest on this one, work for HSBC UK Ian3055 23:20, 16 December 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.

Category:Foreign banks in Hong Kong into Category:Banks of Hong Kong

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 Merge K1Bond007 22:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Canada above Ian3055 23:18, 16 December 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.

Category:U.S. colonial history to Category:Pre-revolutionary history 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. Martin 22:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC) Avoid abbrev, clarify colonizing vs. colonized, etc. jengod 21:44, 16 December 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.

College football teams and players 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 Rename all K1Bond007 22:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The categories I and others have been creating under Category:College football teams and Category:College football players have followed this pattern: (shortened name of school) (nickname) football with or without players on the end. Most of the following categories preceded this effort, and do not fit these patterns. So for consistency's sake, I'd suggest changing them all.

The Notre Dame coaches one is the only one of its kind, but there could easily be others in the future. I included "University" in the RedHawks one to avoid confusion with the Miami Hurricanes categories.--Mike Selinker 21:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego State teams added to list.--Mike Selinker 18:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename... although I think the Miami RedHawks should say the Miami RedHawks, since it's clear that it's not the same as the Hurricanes. Other than that, I support all the changes. Anthony 10:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename, as per nominator and Anthony. jareha 22:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Based on these two comments, I've removed the "University" from the RedHawks. I also added a Kentucky category to the list.--Mike Selinker 05:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your first strike-out is the same as what follows. In other words, "University" wasn't removed — was that intended? jareha 06:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now.--Mike Selinker 16:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename (regardless of what's nominated for Miami) ×Meegs 15:10, 19 December 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.

Intelligence agencies by country

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 No consensus (no rename) K1Bond007 03:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These categories need renaming, to follow the naming guidelines.

Aecis praatpaal 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't believe there is any policy on the linked page which supports this. CalJW 23:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a policy here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). —Mike 01:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the policy for articles. The policy for categories is here. It is different and more detailed, and it was agreed more recently and after more extensive debate. Many different forms are used for many different subject areas, but there is no policy for this topic. CalJW 03:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Longer and clumsier. The assertion that there is a policy favouring the proposed form is incorrect, so the case must be argued on its own merits. CalJW 03:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected on the policy. I believed that the "[subject] of [country]" concept applied to intelligence agencies as well. It seems that is not the case. I believe that it is clearer to use the full country names, instead of the adjectives. As to the issue of length and clumsiness CalJW has raised: I disagree with that. In most cases, the proposed name adds only a few letters to the category: "of Poland" instead of "Polish", "of South Africa" instead of "South African". There is only one proposed name that is considerably longer than the current name: Category:Intelligence agencies of the United States. In that case, however, the current name probably needed unabbreviating anyway, in which case the proposed name only adds "of the". I also don't see why "[subject] of [country]" is any more or any less clumsy than "[nationality] [subject]." Aecis praatpaal 13:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because of cases where
  • Comment - I don't favor [Nation] [Subject] over [Subject] of [Nation] (or vice versa), but do note that these are currently inconsistently named. You have a number of "[Nation] intelligence agencies" and a number of "[Nationality] intelligence agencies". This is an inconsistency that needs to be corrected, and I would be opposed to any suggestion that left us using nationalities instead of nation names. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the only change required is to expand U.S. to "United States", which can be done as a speedy. "United States", "United Kingdom" and "New Zealand" are all used as adjectives quite frequently. CalJW 06:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Clean it up. The greater goal of cleaning up the entire "Intelligence Agencies" undertaking here on WP seems to be what is being considered here. CelebritySecurity 23:59, 25 December 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.

Category:American football players by team to Category:National Football League players by team

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 K1Bond007 22:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this cat a while back, and now with the WikiProject NFL discussions ongoing about categorizing them to remove all players from the Category:National Football League players and putting them into team cats, I figured this one should be renamed. It only includes NFL teams anyway, and if anyone wants to categorize CFL, AFL, or USFL players by team, they can do that under the league-specific cats. Anthony 14:12, 16 December 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.

Category:Regicide

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 to Category:Regicides K1Bond007 03:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category for men reponsible for the death of Charles I of England. 52 of them have articles which are in this category. The problem is that there are only 32 articles in the much more importnant parent Category:Parliamentary supporters in the English Civil War. The major attribute of being on the Parliamentarian side should take clear priority, and the best way to achieve that is to delete this category. The article List of regicides of Charles I serves the purpose better. Merge into category:Parliamentary supporters in the English Civil War and delete CalJW 07:32, 16 December 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.

Category:Wikipedians Avenging John Seigenthaler Sr.

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: Because this was created by a vandalism-only account that has now been blocked, I am Speedy deleting this. Besides, this cat became empty after the creator's user page was tagged as an indefinitely blocked user [1] and thus it would eventually qualify under CSD #C1 anyway (so I am just speeding up the process, if you do not mind). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem appropriate in light of the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. The last line added to the page in this edit is particularly seems uncivil. [2] 10qwerty 06:26, 16 December 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.

Category:World War II American battleships to Category:World War II battleships 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 K1Bond007 22:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same situation as British battleships below. Joshbaumgartner 04:00, 16 December 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.

Category:Fictional plankton

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 K1Bond007 22:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this page is going to be used very much. I have never seen a fictional plankton apart from the one listed, therefore it shoukld be deleted. pielover87 03:51, 16 December 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.

Category:Hobart suburbs to Category:Suburbs of Hobart

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 K1Bond007 22:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will bring into line with other similar categories within Category:Neighbourhoods_of_Australia. -- Longhair 03:40, 16 December 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.

Category:World War I British battleships to Category:World War I battleships of the United Kingdom

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 K1Bond007 22:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate, with second category being correctly named per policy. Joshbaumgartner 03:29, 16 December 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.

Category:Texas naval ships to Category:Naval ships of Texas

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 K1Bond007 22:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy. Joshbaumgartner 02:14, 16 December 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.

Category:French naval ships to Category:Naval ships of France

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 K1Bond007 22:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy. Joshbaumgartner 02:14, 16 December 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.

Category:Dutch naval ships to Category:Naval ships of the Netherlands

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 K1Bond007 22:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy. Note ships from the United Provinces period have been categorized in Category:Naval ships of the United Provinces, due to the need to differentiate those from the period of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (19th Century and since). Joshbaumgartner 02:07, 16 December 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.

Category:World War II American escort aircraft carriers to Category:World War II escort aircraft carriers 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 K1Bond007 22:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy. Joshbaumgartner 01:08, 16 December 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.

Category:Ukrainian aircraft carriers

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 K1Bond007 22:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, duplicate of correctly named Category:Aircraft carriers of Ukraine. Joshbaumgartner 01:01, 16 December 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.

Category:Spanish aircraft carriers to Category:Aircraft carriers of Spain

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

Per policy. Joshbaumgartner 01:01, 16 December 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_16&oldid=1122514842"