Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 12
Contents
- 1 May 12
- 1.1 Category:Templates for deletion
- 1.2 Category:Candidates_for_the_Canadian_House_of_Commons
- 1.3 Category:Formal logic
- 1.4 Category:Tai O
- 1.5 Category:British cartoonist stubs
- 1.6 Category:Uncategorized articles (mathematics)
- 1.7 Category:Computers
- 1.8 Category:Navigational Rallying
- 1.9 Category:Pseudo-protected
- 1.10 Category:Wikipedia ethics and law
- 1.11 Category:Religious disclaimers
- 1.12 Category:Pages depicting the tetragrammaton
- 1.13 Category:Canadian wrestlers
- 1.14 Category:Rennies
May 12
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 13:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good idea in theory, but in practice it doesn't work at all. The category contains some (but not all) templates presently (or previously) on TFD, and all articles that include those templates. This makes it worthless as a tool for just about anything. To find out which templates are on TFD, read WP:TFD. Radiant_* 21:22, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - I've run a script to perform "null edits" on the pages, so that the category removal takes hold, but we should discourage any categories in templates because of this issue. If we ever need to find templates for deletion, you could in a pinch use Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Tfd. -- Netoholic @ 22:02, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
- Delete. This would be the reverse effect of why we end up with templates in the various clean-up / deletion categories. More hassle than benefit in this case, unfortunately. --Azkar 22:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree, though, it is a good idea if it worked. --Kbdank71 16:43, 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 13:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain whether a list of candidates is sufficiently encyclopedic to warrant a category, as Wikipedia is not supposed to be "Directories, directory entries, or a resource for conducting business." People listed in this category may still be individually notable. --Alan Au 20:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unnecessary category. --Spinboy 20:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think it is an interesting category. Obviously being a (failed) candidate is not notable enough itself to warrant an entry. However, a lot of noteworthy people have been failed candidates and I think a category for them is warranted and interesting. Possible the category should be renamed or include an explanation at the top to make it clear that these are candidates who were not elected. --Webgeer 21:54, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I think this is a very useful category to include otherwise notable people who ran for parliament but were not elected - major party star candidates from outside politics or from another level of government who were not successful, and smaller party leaders. We'd just have to sort everyone into Canadian politicians or [province] politicians anyway, even if they weren't really politicians outside of a notable parliamentary run. A few of the members of the category I might not be so sure about individual articles for, but that's another question.. Samaritan 21:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As the creator of this category I feel that it is useful and helps to categorize a significant number of articles. --YUL89YYZ 00:52, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. A list is sufficient. RedWolf 01:55, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, replace with list. Radiant_* 07:58, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. A list is good. --Kbdank71 16:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are categories for nominated presidential election candiates of the US Democratic Party and the GOP. What is different here is that a candidate in a riding is less notable than a candidate of a national election. — Instantnood 08:48, May 14, 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 no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 13:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant category, duplicate subject matter in Category:Logic; note that Formal logic is a redirect to Logic. Has no entries at present. Charles Stewart 20:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The redirect is wrong -- Logic and Formal Logic are not the same thing. The later is a mathematical discipline that goes way beyond what most people mean by "Logic". In a non-math context, logic is a strategy for avoiding fallacious argument, an important aspect of critical thinking that is not addressed by Formal Logic. ---Isaac R 16:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but then for consistency we should merge from, then delete Category:Logic and move the article Formal logic to Logic. Radiant_* 16:31, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
- No Category:Logic remain useful for non-formalistic topics like Logical argument. We just need to take the more formal articles and subcategories of Category:Logic and move them to Category:Formal logic. On the other hand, it might makes sense to merge Formal Logic with Category:Mathematical logic, which is also a subcategory of Logic. ---Isaac R 17:02, 16 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 13:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There will never be enough about Tai O on wikipedia to merit a category. I (re)wrote most of the article on this hovel, and that article is the only thing in this category. Indeed, this might be a self-nom, I show up as the creator of the category from clicking through a red category link on the article and hitting save to add the cfd template. SchmuckyTheCat 19:43, 12 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 13:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I created this category without fully understanding the procedure and the ideas behind stub categories. Only one entry which has been moved to Category:Comics creator stubs. Unlikely to grow to a neccesary size within a reasonable time period. As creator, can I request speedy deletion? Hiding 19:14, 12 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 13:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I found this cat on theory and feel it is a bad idea and a dangerous precedent. Besides being self-contradictory it violates a number of categorization rules. If you can't figure out what subcategory a page should go in, just add it to Category:Mathematics and eventually someone who knows the topic will recat it. - SimonP 18:28, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Almost BJAODN-worthy. Radiant_* 18:58, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- How bizzare. Delete. --Azkar 20:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry (I created it). Uhm if somecould categorize the last article it should self-destruct (else I'm OK with deleting it... actually that's what I planning to do until I saw that banner stating someone want to discuss this first...) --R.Koot 20:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. Like the barber who "shaves every man in town who doesn't shave himself." Must be a woman. --Christofurio 13:26, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Bad idea to have this category. It basically sweeps things under the rug. Oleg Alexandrov 14:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's a redundant category, no further justification needed. Like most redundant categories, it was probably created by a newbie. In this case, the newbie didn't grasp that a category holds any relevent articles that don't fit subcategories. I don't think any logical fallacy is involved, just a basic newbie misunderstanding. ---Isaac R 16:09, 16 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 13:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Created a couple of months ago without reference to existing Category:Computing tree, and completely redundant. I was able to find better parents for all its articles and subcategories, so it's now empty. ---Isaac R 16:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page was already discussed and deleted back in September, in theory it can just be speedy deleted. - SimonP 18:15, May 12, 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 13:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or rename to Category:Navigational rallying. The only thing in this category is a subcategory Category:Car rallying. I can't see any difference between the two, so I suggest deleting the parent and fixing the subcategory to be a subcategory of Category:Auto racing instead. RussBlau 16:00, May 12, 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 if template is deleted, keep if not --Kbdank71 13:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this cat at some page and my first thought was, WTF is that? It actually doesn't mean anything, except that the author of a page does not want others to edit it. Which runs counter to the spirit of the wiki, and anyway this has nothing to do with actual protection. This cat would be more aptly named Category:Please don't edit this page but even then I fail to see the point of it. Radiant_* 14:36, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete BUT ONLY, if the worthless and abuse prone templates (twoversions, etc) behind it are deleted as well. I like templates including categories, so if those templates are staying then my vote will be a strong keep to the category. SchmuckyTheCat 17:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the Template:Pseudo-protected is used FAR less often than this category. Template:Twoversions has no business being pseudo-protected anyway. Radiant_* 17:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm talkin' about Template:Twoversions, which also uses this category and also needs to go away SchmuckyTheCat 19:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the Template:Pseudo-protected is used FAR less often than this category. Template:Twoversions has no business being pseudo-protected anyway. Radiant_* 17:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It appears this was part of a policy proposal that was actually rejected (see Wikipedia:Non-admin protection/Vote). (inserting a sig for User:Azkar [1]
- Delete. Part of a failed policy. - SimonP 18:14, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete if template:pseudoprotected is also deleted. -Sean Curtin 00:19, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete iff template:pseudoprotected is deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 14:01, 18 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 13:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Contains only two articles, pointless subdivision of wikipedia space. Radiant_* 12:19, May 12, 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 13:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. Also, WP:NOT censored, so there's little point in it in the first place. Radiant_* 12:19, May 12, 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 13:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty and pointless. Radiant_* 12:19, May 12, 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 no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 13:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
too ambiguous - could mean either choreographed entertainment 'professional wrestling' or forms of non-choreographed Sport wrestling. that one type is choreographed and the other isn t is too big a difference to merge the two in one cat. moreover, there are no cross-over competitors who have done both sorts (at least no present articles on any such competitors). all articles for the cat at present are on pro wrestlers so i suggest (and have already populated) Category: Canadian professional wrestlers -Mayumashu 05:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be used as a supercategory for all kinds of wrestlers from Canada, including mud wrestlers... 132.205.44.131 23:18, 12 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 13:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Derisive neologism. -Sean Curtin 02:01, May 12, 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.