Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 13

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< October 12 October 14 >

October 13

edit

Category:Cole Porter compositions to Category:Compositions by Cole Porter

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. «»Who?¿?meta 14:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match the naming scheme in use. I really wish this could be done with a speedy rename, though ... — Pladask 22:54, 13 October 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:Gurps Halo; Category:Halo Gurps

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. «»Who?¿?meta 14:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mistakenly listed in AfD along with a companion article, these are empty categories for the author's personal nonencyclopedic project - the author wrote:

i am creating a Halo campaing book for gurps with an friend of mine, but as it is no finished i shall updat this article every once in a while.

Enough said.  BD2412 talk 22:20, 13 October 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.

Category:Experimental particle physics concepts to Category:Experimental particle physics

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. «»Who?¿?meta 14:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bring together experimental particle physics equipment/experiments with techniques/ideas. Categories like Category:Particle accelerators would now be put on here. Discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Physics#New particle physics category?--generally agreed there to be reasonable. -- SCZenz 19:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Approve: Sounds reasonable. (SEWilco 19:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Rename. No argument. siafu 15:55, 14 October 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:Bell Canada to Category:BCE Inc.

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:Bell Canada Enterprises. «»Who?¿?meta 14:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BCE Inc. (legally "BCE Inc.", also known as "Bell Canada Enterprises" [1]) is a Canadian company with the following subsidiaries: Bell Canada, Bell Globemedia, and BCE Ventures [2]. The Category:Bell Canada currently contains companies from each of these subsidiaries. For example, Bell Mobility is a part of Bell Canada, Category:Bell Globemedia is a sub-category of this category, and this category also contains Telesat Canada, a division of BCE Ventures. This category also contains members of the board of directors of BCE Inc., not Bell Canada. A category does not appear to be needed for the subject of just the subsidiary Bell Canada, so the renaming of this category is requested. Kurieeto 15:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Bell Canada Enterprises" is probably better? 132.205.45.110 16:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Either option would be fine with me for the purposes of this cfr, I by default went with the legal name of the company. Kurieeto 17:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Inc." is the term used on the company's website linked to above. Your suggested compromise could also be selected as an option in this vote. Kurieeto 02:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — To answer your curiosity, federally incorporated Canadian companies may use a number of legal element designations, including "Inc.", "Incorporated", "Ltd.", and "Limited". See [3]. Luigizanasi 16:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But "Bell Canada" also properly refers to a subsidiary of BCE, while this category is being used as if it has the scope of BCE and all subsidiaries. It is therefore ambiguous to the reader if a Category:Bell Canada refers to BCE Inc. as the company's common name, or just to one of BCE's subsidiaries. Kurieeto 02:30, 14 October 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:Irish_terrorists

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. See closure note. «»Who?¿?meta 14:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overly specific. Has no articles in it. Just has 2 subcategories-Category:Irish National Liberation Army and Category:Irish Republican Army--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's now been more than 4 days and it's still empty.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JW. -- SCZenz 19:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Consistent and populated. (SEWilco 19:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Inherently POV and quite likely only created as a provocation (sorry, but given the history of editing in related articles this seems more than likely). Also, it appears redundant as there is already a Category:Proscribed paramilitary organizations in Northern Ireland which seems to cover the same ground in a neutral, non-provocative way. Palmiro | Talk 22:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will be impossible to put articles/subcategories in this category, as many people consider that NPOV requires that we avoid the use of POV terms such as "terrorist' cf Wikipedia:Words to avoid in articles, and as a result such usages have been scrupulously avoided on all the articles in question. This applies just as much to placing articles in categories.
    • There are good reasons why the current category is named as it is: apart from the POV problems with "terrorism", many people would consider that any categorisation of, say, the IRA as terrorists would be unfair unless opposing organisations such as, for example, the SAS, which have also killed unarmed civilians, are categorised as such. Many other people would vehemently object to this. The current category allows us to get around this problem.
    • I cannot imagine that an attempt to place the likes of Michael Collins (widely seen as the father of the independent Irish State) or Frank Ryan, who died largely as a result of wounds he received in the anti-fascist war in Spain, in a category denominated "terrorists" could be pulled off without the mother of all edit wars.
    • The category was created by an anonymous user, whose only previous contribution was the POV edit placing the category:IRA in category:Terrorism. The requirement to assume good faith is considerably attenuated in these circumstances.
    • In fairness I should point out that the reason the category is currently empty is that I reverted changes to cat:INLA and cat:IRA adding them to it as unacceptable POV changes. I'm pretty sure, though, that if I hadn't someone else would have. Palmiro | Talk 19:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment please do not depopulate categories listed on CFD until the end of the discussion. This gives a false impression that the category is empty. Thank you. ∞Who?¿? 21:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • query: surely the requirement to maintain NPOV (and accuracy, in the case of the IRA category) is not suspended simply because a category is on CFD? As it's explained here, it hardly "gives a false impression that the category is empty". Palmiro | Talk 13:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under normal circumstances I would agree and would have not reverted. However, because the category is childless, removing any content, even POV content gives a false impression. Not all users read all of the discussion, they look and vote. Seeings a CFD only lasts 7 days, these articles/categories remaining till the end will not harm anything. ∞Who?¿? 14:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - consistency in categorisation is a huge help. Besides, is there any good reason to constrain our categorisation to Northern Ireland, or to organisations, rather than individuals, who may be unaffiliated? RMoloney 00:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you suggest an example of an article that could be covered by (preferably an NPOV renaming of) this category, but not by the existing category?
    • Note that in other controversial areas other terminology has been used, e.g. Category:Palestinian militants. Palmiro | Talk 18:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - totally unpopulated, and a general trend becoming rampant in wikipedia of creating inherently generic and pov categories simply for the sake of it. Categories should be reserved for well defined objects, not as generic tags. Djegan 18:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV language. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As has been pointed out before, one person's terrorist is another's freedom-fighter and, thus, the language of the title is inherently POV. And it won't do to make Category:Irish freedom fighters because that would have exactly the same POV issues: categories can't balance one another in the way different sections of one article can. Though I do think there is no reason why we can't have Category:Proscribed groups in Foo or somesuch. -Splashtalk 02:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per JW & RMoloney Youngamerican 05:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the whole categorisation scheme needs to be reconsidered, after all a group is not a terrorist. Something along the lines of proscribed groups in foo for organisations, and persons found guilty of terrorism in foo for individuals, both which can be stated factually and neutrally --TimPope 10:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this suggestion. Palmiro | Talk 13:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this idea too. It is an excellent idea, and far more neutral. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Lapsed Pacifist 16:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support any well defined category, which is not arbitrary, including this proposal. Djegan 16:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. That would be a much better way of doing things. — Trilobite 17:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I like this idea, but maybe a name like "Armed factions of Foo"? siafu 19:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question How would such an idea handle the IRA (1916-1922) and the ANC? Started as "proscribed", went on to be war heroes! --Red King 22:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both of those examples are in the category Category: National liberation movements. My reasoning for the above suggestions was thinking about Nelson Mandela, who under the present categorisation schema would be placed in "South African terrorists", not very neutral, whereas I propose he could be placed in "persons found guilty of terrorism in South Africa". --TimPope 09:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. More NPOV, and I take on board Djegan's comment below. (This is a change of vote - I apologise if I've made an error of etiquette, I don't spend much time at AfD or CfD). RMoloney 15:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lapsed Pacifist 11:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The word terrorist is somewhat overused in Wikipedia and this is a case in point. Many people do not regard the Provisional IRA and their like as terrorists, and though we may disagree with them, Wikipedia is not supposed to be written from a majority point of view, but a neutral one. — Trilobite 17:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Deliberately tendentious and unhelpful. For example, the Soviet Union, the Taliban were terrorists but to the USA they were freedom fighters. it is impossible to use such words without taking a particular PoV. It certainly doesn't do anything for conflict resolution. See also Truth and Reconciliation Commission. --Red King 22:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -The Tom 01:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as long as we have Category:Terrorists and Category:Terrorists by nationality it is very important that we apply them equally, and not exempt some groups for political reasons. JW 09:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment whilst it is fair to say uniformity is preferred, Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories_do_not_form_a_tree means that this is not an absolute must - their will be variation and we should not slavishly follow one convention, such as the parent categories Category:Terrorists or Category:Terrorists by nationality. Moreover we do not create one category for each nationality merely because it (the country) exist, their will be variation and exceptions. Djegan 10:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: in any case, we've been here before, with a previous decision to rename these categories: [[5]], and that's why we have the current version 62.84.76.18 15:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC) (Palmiro, logged out due to apparent bug).[reply]
  • Delete There was a similar debate a few months ago about "terrorist" categories. I don't even know why we're debating this.Yuber(talk) 20:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not even understand why someone could support keeping this category. "Terrorists" is about as POV as it gets.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pádraic MacUidhir (talk • contribs) 16:57, 19 October 2005
  • Closing note there was a proposal to overhaul the terroists categories, if you wish to do so, please start a new discussion thread on Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion. «»Who?¿?meta 14:08, 21 October 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:Financial investors

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. «»Who?¿?meta 13:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why this category was ever set up - there are better categories, such as Category:Investment managers for this. DocendoDiscimus 12:39, 13 October 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:International banks → Category:Supranational banks

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. «»Who?¿?meta 13:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International bank is a generic term for any bank that operates outside its home country. What is meant here are Supranational banks - which is also how the members of this category characterize themselves. DocendoDiscimus 12:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as proposed. CalJW 19:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve: Uses the right term. (SEWilco 19:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Rename. No argument. siafu 16:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. -Splashtalk 02:08, 15 October 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:NHL officials → Category:Ice hockey officials

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 Keep. «»Who?¿?meta 13:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In order to match with other subcats under Category:Sports officiating, and also allows for those prominent in Europe and elsewhere outside the NHL. MisfitToys 01:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP and add the supercategory "Ice hockey officials" 132.205.45.110 16:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make into a subcategory of Category:Ice hockey officials, per above - Hockey is not the same all over the world, and the rules of the NHL have always been different and have recently been changed. NHL officials must therefore have knowledge and training that differs from the other hockey leagues, making them seperately notable.  BD2412 talk 17:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Not all hockey is NHL. (SEWilco 19:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Rename. The two categories (existing and proposed) are currently coterminous. Can be split in the future if the need arises. siafu 16:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Although they are within the same scope, there is a difference between a "ice hockey official" and an official NHL official. ∞Who?¿? 22:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above — we'd lose meaning with the proposal. -Splashtalk 02:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I'd vote to make the NHL officials cat a subcat of Ice hockey officials Youngamerican 05:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do create an Category:Ice hockey officials category. Do subcategorize Category:NHL officials there. But do not rename as proposed; while all NHL officials are ice hockey officials, not all ice hockey officials are NHL officials. Bearcat 17:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • RENAME to Category:National Hockey League officials, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. this cat should be a sub-cat of the proposed cat, as said above. DO NOT rename as suggested by the user immediately above here unless the user is willing to iniate the renaming several hundred cats that use initialisms, the use of which is not addressed in the naming convention guidelines (not laws) -Mayumashu 04:03, 20 October 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:Metal Gear Solid villains

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. «»Who?¿?meta 13:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category has been nearly depopulated by merges into List of Metal Gear characters. While that list may be split in the near future, it's unlikely that Category:Metal Gear Solid characters will need a subcat. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No argument. siafu 16:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhm.. this is sad. delete. ∞Who?¿? 22:04, 14 October 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_October_13&oldid=1122066735"