Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 5

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 13:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled (La Crosse). I've corrected and depopulated (although an anon has reverted my corrections once...) Should have been a request for renaming, but I forgot about that feature :-p until I was already done. Tomer ^TALK 23:50, August 5, 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 14:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There seems no useful distinction between this and Category:Science fiction characters. I therefore suggest that it be deleted, and the articles moved into Category:Science fiction characters. DES ^(talk) 22:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet another back-handed attempt to ghettoise science fiction. When will people learn that science fiction is literature, and - like all forms of literature, it has good and bad examples. There are plenty of examples of bad "literature" which are just as obnoxious as the worst science fiction. Remove this POV category. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename As per our discussions on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_6 about Category:Literary characters, the distinction is that this is a category for characters in written science fiction, as opposed to TV or Film. However, to avoid confusion in the future, I would suggest it be renamed to something like "Science Fiction Characters (written)". TexasAndroid 16:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could support such a rename. Note that in that case most of the entries in Category:Science fiction characters are misplaced and should be moved to the renamed category. DES ^(talk) 16:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh. I may get to that at some point. I'm slowly working through the main Fictional Characters category first before I even consider tackling any of the subcategories. TexasAndroid 16:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we come to a consensus and do a proper rename, I'll try to help move things. Note that this all started because i was applying the recently created {{fict-char-stub}} to articles that needed it. In the process in noticed this category. DES ^(talk) 17:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding a vote to Suspend this one pending the fate of it's parent category "Literary characters". As happens to the parent, should happen to the child. TexasAndroid 19:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing wrong with this category. --Kbdank71 16:44, 9 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 14:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has only 9 members, and can never have more, since the show has ended. All those entries are now redirs to the series page (I merged them since all were 1-line stubs) but even iff all were significant articles, this is pretty small for a category. DES ^(talk) 16:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This cat now contains 9 redirects to the same article and nothing else! -Splash 17:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I removed the categories from the redirects. Empty. K1Bond007 18:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:28, 5 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 (keep) --Kbdank71 14:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for cfd by User:Descendall on Aug 3, 2 hours after creation by someone else, but not listed here. Not sure why. (no vote) --Kbdank71 15:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Coups, this is overcategorization (and a slightly cackhanded name; easily confused with Category:Leaders by coup). -Splash 17:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument.
  siafu 19:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I added the cfd tag and accidently didn't list it here. I didn't realize that I had added the tag so close to the creation of the category. Nevertheless, the name is so awkward that it is basically meaningless, and I can't see the category growing. Descendall 03:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe the point is to categorise leaders who has been deposed by a coup d'etat (in which case the category can grow easily). If we want to fill Category:Coups with biographies, then merge. If not, keep and rename to a proper term (Category:Deposed by coup, perhaps?) Punkmorten 10:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I created the category to parallel the existing Leaders by coup (if one exists, so should the other), but I can see the overcategorization point and on reflection the name isn't clear, though I dislike long category names such as People deposed by coup. Merge is fine by me. --Dhartung | Talk 01:20, 11 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 (keep) --Kbdank71 14:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for cfd by User:Descendall on Aug 4 but not listed here. Not sure why. (no vote) --Kbdank71 15:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• "Drive by shooting" nominations are automatic keeps and should not be listed here.
  Mirror Vax 02:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge into Category:Coups, this is overcategorization (and a slightly cackhanded name; easily confused with Category:Ouster by coup). -Splash 17:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. One of these two categories should really stay.
  siafu 19:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Descendall 21:50, 6 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 deemed stupid by Mirror Vax --Kbdank71 14:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for cfd by User:Haham hanuka on Aug 4 but not listed here. We've gotten rid of many other "terrorist" cats as POV, so this should probably go too. --Kbdank71 15:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We shouldn't have deleted the others and we shouldn't delete this one either. A definition is given and there is no other term that does the same job. Osomec 15:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have wondered why we deleted the others when we still have Category:Terrorism and its numerous sub- and subsub-cats. -Splash 17:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikipedia "we" is notoriously stupid.
    Mirror Vax 02:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep, but possibly more acceptable with Rename to "armed violence" or "political violence" instead of terrorism. The "terrorist" categories fell because of the POV definition, but there's certainly a phenomenon to be categorized here.
  siafu 19:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: Probably NPOV. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI don't find any POV in this category. Besides, POV is not a concrete reason to delete a category. I don't know why is this category on terrorism being singled out. --{{IncMan|talk}} 15:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment POV is certainly a concrete reason to delete a category; if there's no objective means of determining which articles are and are not members, then it goes. Moreover, this is also not at all the first category to be "singled out" because of the word "Terrorism" or "Terrorist"; there's even another in this day's log right below. See the recent discussion on Peruvian Terrorists for more.
    siafu 16:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Refer to Category:Terrorists and Category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom. If one finds that the inclusion of certain articles or topics is not justified, then tag the category for POV check. Why send it for deletion? Besides, even if one finds POV in the category, point it out. Just tagging it for deletion is not at all constructive. --{{IncMan|talk}} 10:33, 8 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 keep --Kbdank71 14:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for cfd by User:Haham hanuka on Aug 4 but not listed here. We've gotten rid of many other "terrorist" cats as POV, so this should probably go too. --Kbdank71 15:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We shouldn't have deleted the others and we shouldn't delete this one either. A definition is given and there is no other term that does the same job. Osomec 15:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per me, above. Would
  siafu 19:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete based on POV description of category and existing precedent. Hall Monitor 22:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liar. The description is "See Category:Terrorists for the definition of "terrorist" as used in Wikipedia categorization". The description is painfully long-winded and neutral.
    Mirror Vax 02:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep There is no POV in this category. --{{IncMan|talk}} 15:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What's POV about it? -- Necrothesp 11:47, 7 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 merge --Kbdank71 14:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Rugrats
• Category:All Grown Up
• Category:Rugrats and All Grown Up characters

Empty. These were tagged with cfd but not listed here. Other rugrats cats are listed here:

• upMerge the others into Category:Rugrats. -Splash 17:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. No argument.
  siafu 19:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 13:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. --Kbdank71 13:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, oxymoron. Wow, never thought I was going to say that! Radiant_>|< 14:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I barely understand the intention of the title. -Splash 17:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. (weren't these just up for rename recently?)
  siafu 19:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, empty, not needed. K1Bond007 21:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.
• Heh, what could this mean? Like a game being strong or apathetic? Super Speedy Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 00:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this means what have been called "first person" games, like Doom, wher the user has the PoV of a character in the setting as opposed to "god's-eye-view" games. If better named, this might possibly be a useful category. DES ^(talk) 00:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  For such Category:First-person shooters exists. Pavel Vozenilek 16:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe it was intended for games that feature anthropomorphic animals (a la disney movies).

  siafu 16:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Oh was that it? The fan-fiction community calls such characters "furrys", but Category Furry games would be really confusing. Is this feature really one on which people would want to look up these games? Is this category really worth while? I tend to doubt it, but could be convinved. Weak delete, and keep only if a less-confusing name can be devised as well as a decent rationale for the category's existance. DES ^(talk) 16:06, 9 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 13:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• should be Category:Christians
• focus "This category comprises articles pertaining to people espousing or belonging to the Christian faith." this is completely inappropriate! Every European 400 AD - 1770 AD would need to be included. Focus should be restricted to people actively involved in theology, church, or proselytization, i.e. people whose adherence to Christianity is part of their notability.
  dab (ᛏ) 09:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• What about
  DR31 _(talk) 13:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, too broad. Radiant_>|< 12:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Radiant. --Kbdank71 13:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only a couple million WP articles fit this category. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete way too broad. -Splash 17:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No argument.
  siafu 19:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Too broad. RedWolf 22:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Radiant. Hall Monitor 22:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Broad. --
  DR31 _(talk) 13:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Too broad to be useful. Hall Monitor 23:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Depopulate only and rename possebly tweak it's text a little. It's part of a "hierarchy" structure, and the instructions also clearly says that biographies should not go into the category itself, but one of the subcats (and the quoted bit abowe was changed by the nominator too). IMHO deleting this as "too broad" would be simmilar to deleting Category:People (now that's broad!) or, sometimes a "too broad" category is needed to house more spesific subcats, IMHO this is one such case. --Sherool 08:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is an absolutely hilarious display of CFD stupidity. Exactly one person -
  Mirror Vax 12:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 13:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current name is rather ambigous; isn't, say, an Albanian immigrant to Italy, an Albanian-Italian, also a "hyphenated Italian"? And this is leaving aside the potential identity politics of callng someone "hyphenated". Ideally the newly-renamed category could then be organized with similar categories like Category:Polonia.--Pharos 06:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, but I'm not sure if 'diaspora' is the correct title either. It's better than 'hyphenated', though. Radiant_>|< 12:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC) Merge & Delete per KBdank. Radiant_>|< 14:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and upmerge to Category:Italian people. --Kbdank71 13:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is for people who don't live in Italy, whose families may not have lived in Italy for generations. It would be rather inappropriate to label it directly under Category:Italian people. Shouldn't this be categorized with other diasporas, which is impossible if we up-merge?--Pharos 22:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it inappropriate? I'd agree if the category was "People who live in Italy", but it isn't. It's "Italian people". I know many Italian-Americans who definitely consider themselves Italian. --Kbdank71 16:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete per Kbdank71. Out of interest, why are they called "hyphenated"? -Splash 17:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Italian-American, Italian-Canadian etc etc. Get it :) K1Bond007 05:15, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Kbdank71.
  siafu 19:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename as suggested, or perhaps to something less arcane like "Italians abroad." I don't understand the hostility to categories of this sort. -- Visviva 08:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & delete per Kbdank71 K1Bond007 05:15, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/delete per Kbdank71. Pavel Vozenilek 16:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Visviva. These people could be only having full or partial Italian ancestry, but have been settled in another country for generations. There're some distinctions with Italian citizens. — Instantnood 18:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • You do realize that the only things in this category are other categories such as "Italian-Americans", "Italian-Canadians", and the like? No articles at all? So up-merging them isn't going to lose anything. --Kbdank71 16:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What to do with
      Bartolomeo Rastrelli was an Italian in Russia. Charles Bianconi twice served as mayor of an Irish city. I think this category should be renamed and merged with category:Italian emigrants, rather than upmerge. — Instantnood
      19:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and upmerge to Category:Italian people. Hall Monitor 23:46, 9 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 13:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically the same as Category:United States Navy submarines. Only thing in the category as well. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP' There are US submarines that are not from the USN 132.205.3.20 17:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well then shouldn't it be renamed Category:United States submarines? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I think that USA seems functionally better. Why did someone delete my cat? It was created 4 minutes before Voldemort nominated it, which I think is somewhat excessive. As such it only contained one article not in the subcat, and I refrained on using it because of the nomination. But I see that there's no consensus here, so what's happening??? 132.205.3.20 18:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Defer to
  Wikipedia:Category titles, which is discussing a closely related issue, and also the very question being dealt with above. -Splash 17:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Suspend per Splash.
  siafu 19:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• comment as I see it this was nominated within an hour of category creation... so having one thing in the category isn't that unusual, so that reason as a basis for deletion is invalidated. 69.156.19.242 03:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment er... why was this deleted before the voting period was up? 69.156.70.136 04:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly because there are two other categories that are more appropriately named. If you think one of those should be renamed to your category name, bring it up on the discussion page above, or nominate the existing category for renaming to your suggested name. Don't create redundant categories, it just causes confusion. If categories supported redirection, we'd redirect your category to the appropriate one instead of deleting it. --ssd 01:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not my categories. I'm just interested. If it's redundancy, then the less inclusive category (ie. US Navy subs) should be renamed/merged into the more inclusive category, and not the other way around. 69.156.70.136 09:44, 9 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.