Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 16

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< December 15 December 17 >

December 16

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

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

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]

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

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]

  • Merge/Delete for reasons given. Also, it could mean several different things: foreign incorporation, foreign ownership, foreign stock exchange listing. CalJW 23:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; this topic was at one point exceptionally contentious as I recall. Hopefully we'll have an easier time forming consensus with this one.
    siafu 23:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge per nom. Carina22 19:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments mentioned in the previous nomination. — Instantnood 20:39, 22 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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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]

  • Rename. No argument.
    siafu 00:14, 17 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

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]

  • Delete. I assume that the user who created this category did so in good faith, and not as a joke. However, I seriously doubt that enough plankton-related characters (!) will appear on the scene in the near future to make this category viable. -,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 14:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending the upcoming explosion of microorganism-oriented fiction.
    siafu 00:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge into
    Sheldon J. Plankton appears to be one. That is, he's an animal plankton (and thus likely a crustacean), and not a plant plankton or bacterial plankton. If there's an algae character created in the future, it can go under Category:Fictional plants.--Mike Selinker 01:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge or delete. Too small. Osomec 13:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The user of this category (one fictional animal, 202.152.162.215(talk)) has been creating many unneeded unwanted categories with one or zero fictional animals. The user has been continually reverted and ultimately was blocked. The category is now empty. Hu 17:13, 26 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

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]

  • Rename to standard form. CalJW 07:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Darwinek 10:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. No argument.
    siafu 00:20, 17 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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

  • Delete. No argument.
    siafu 00:25, 17 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

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"