Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 9

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< September 8 September 10 >

September 9

edit

Category:Aruban people to Category:People of Aruba

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 to Category:Aruban people. ∞Who?¿? 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New category which duplicates older existing category - older category was simply depopulated. I don't know if community consensus has swung from People of Foo back to Fooian people, but one of these cats needs to be deleted.

  • Guettarda 22:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote is to merge into Category:Aruban people, but I'm subject to persuasion on this. My reasoning is that, by a quick survey of Category:People by nationality, out of 217 such categories, only seven are named People of Foo. The rest are allmost all Fooian people, with a handful of other oddballs. I know there's a big discussion out there about standardizing category names, and I have no idea which is considered the standard for the future. But right now, today, the consistent option most certainly appears to be Fooian People, by a vast majority. TexasAndroid 23:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Aruban people. Hiding talk 17:33, 10 September 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.

Roman Catholic higher education

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. ∞Who?¿? 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see several levels of standardization to be had:

  • "Universities and colleges" over "colleges and universities" (to disambiguate over "college")
  • "Roman Catholic" over "Catholic" (to dab "Catholic")
  • "United States" over "U.S." (to dab "U.S.")
  • "Oceania" over "Australasia" (more inclusive term)

I thus propose the following renames:

- choster 22:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all. No argument. siafu 22:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see {{Cfr}} and it's talk page for cleaner and better use of umbrella nominations. ∞Who?¿? 22:51, 17 September 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:Benelli

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?¿? 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category for a single morercycle company. The Benelli article os already well categoried. I see no real need for the company to also have a category. TexasAndroid 21:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Empty, save for the title article. No articles on individual Bennelli motorcycles seem to exist. siafu 22:33, 12 September 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:Law in New Zealand

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?¿? 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just created this. However category:New Zealand law already existed, but was irregularly categorised. This used to fall within the criteria for speedy deletion. CalJW 21:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that deleting a category/article you yourself created (and that has not had signifigant edits by others) is still a legitimate criteria for Speedy. TexasAndroid 21:48, 9 September 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:Languages of Guam

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 change). ∞Who?¿? 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category is empty; Category:Languages of the Mariana Islands includes Guam

The reason I made category:Languages of the Mariana Islands rather than separate category:languages of the Northern Mariana Islands and category:languages of Guam in the first place is that according to Ethnologue there is (not counting English) only one language spoken in Guam (Chamorro) and only three (Chamorro and two others) spoken in the N.M.I. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This category should exist for all countries/colonies/territories Osomec 17:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we go down this road, English language will be half article, half category listing. If there's only one language spoken in a region, especially one as small as Guam, then there shouldn't be a category for it. siafu 22:37, 12 September 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:Minorities of Romania

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?¿? 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-standard category from the Romania menu. This is the only category in this form so far as I can tell. The standard from is category:Ethnic groups of Romania. Rename CalJW 19:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per CalJW --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep or Rename! --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 10:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ??? I think this should be taken as a vote for renaming. CalJW 20:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. "Minorities" involves some circular reasoning as a title for a cat. siafu 22:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per CalJW -- LiniShu 01:11, 16 September 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:Healthcare by nationality

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?¿? 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is another non-cultural category which is organised on state lines and is already in category:Categories by country. Rename category:Healthcare by country. CalJW 18:15, 9 September 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:Citrates

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?¿? 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. Another chemistry one. Hopefully, like previous chemistry ones, this one can be populated and salvaged. TexasAndroid 17:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you don't want it deleted, please don't list it here. I have marked it as underpopulated and started to categorise it. CalJW 18:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is that, if it cannot gain at least one member in the week it sits here, then it deserves to be deleted. The majority of the categories I post here, I'm posting with the hope that someone can fill them and make them useful. Most of them, this one included, are perfectly legitimate categories for Speedy Deletion. They only have to be empty for 24 hours to qualify, and these have been empty far longer. So I could have them speedied, without any chance of being made useful. But if I see even the slightest possibility of them being made useful, I toss them up for CFD instead, so that others may make them useful. If that happens, I'll gladly change my own vote to keep. But if they stay empty for the full seven days, then, I'm sorry, but they need to go.
One lesson I will learn from your comment. I will not again make the mistake of, in my comments, trying to encourage such population directly. It obviously gives out the wrong idea. I will just post the categories here, and let the process go foreward. TexasAndroid 19:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then if you do want it deleted, please say that. This is no please for clean up on obscure subjects. It is little visited and the chances of people with the right specialisist knowledge passing by are slim. IMO if you want it deleted and it is eligible for speedy deletion it would be better to list it there to avoid cluttering the page. CalJW 21:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Over the last several weeks, quite a few categories that could otherwise have been speedily deleted have been made into useful, productive categories. I'm sorry that you consider this to be clutter, but I consider it to be quite productive. As far as wanting it deleted, I would have thought the simple fact that I put it up for CFD was enough to make that clear. In general, (and unless is expressly say otherwise) I want them deleted in seven days *unless* someone can convert them into productive, useful categories. That's what CFD is about. Deleting articles, but first giving them a chance to seek new life, or for the deletion to otherwise be opposed. TexasAndroid 21:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just finished populating this category; it turns out that such little-known drugs as Viagra and Cialis are, in fact, citrates. I agree with TexasAndroid's strategy of listing empty categories (at least ones that weren't created in the very recent past) here for deletion. Empty categories are not like stub articles; if there aren't any articles in them, they either need to be fixed or deleted, and this is a good way to accomplish that. siafu 23:03, 12 September 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:Antimonate

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?¿? 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. Another chemistry one. Hopefully, like previous chemistry ones, this one can be populated and salvaged. TexasAndroid 17:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Empty, doesn't seem to be anything that should go in here. Also, should be "Antimonates" if kept. siafu 23:15, 12 September 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:Animalia

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 as soft redirect. ∞Who?¿? 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arthropoda

Empty categories (except each other). Looks like someone started to build out a new categorization sequence for animeals, but only did the two categories before stopping. TexasAndroid 17:12, 9 September 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:Alumni of École Polytechnique

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. ∞Who?¿? 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Single member. No parent. Does not appear to be a very useful category. TexasAndroid 17:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the École Polytechnique is one of the premier institutions of higher education in France. The domination of society by graduates of the Grandes écoles is a more important issue in France than the like issue in any other major country. The many influential alumni of this particular insitution include two Presidents of France. I have categorised this and marked it as underpopulated. CalJW 18:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge with Category:Alumni of the École Polytechnique which is rather more populated. —Blotwell 02:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Blotwell. siafu 22:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Blotwell. (Changed vote) TexasAndroid 15:22, 16 September 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:Non-Newtonain fluids

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?¿? 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. Some possible members cat be found at Non-Newtonian fluid, but I don't know if it would be a useful enough category to bother with that. TexasAndroid 16:45, 9 September 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:Religions of Romania

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?¿? 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate category with a non-standard name. Merge into Category:Religion in Romania, which is one of dozens in that form. CalJW 14:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per CalJW --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete non-standard duplicate; I've moved the articles. - choster 16:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per choster. siafu 23:20, 12 September 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:Corporations with naming rights of stadiums & arenas

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?¿? 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Corporations with naming rights, so that more subcategories can be added. Right now there are two, one for stadiums, and one for arenas. Ick! -- Beland 08:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See naming rights for examples of other things for which naming rights have been sold. -- Beland 08:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support simply deleting this category, as it is pretty useless without information on which stadiums and arenas they are associated with. A list would be far more useful. - SimonP 17:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not a useful categorization, not to mention that it's bad enough that the likes of Comiskey Park and Candlestick Park bear corporate logos; we don't need to attach this insignificant bit to the rather large articles on notable corporations. siafu 23:24, 12 September 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:Characters in the Law & Order franchise

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. ∞Who?¿? 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Law & Order characters.

  • Agree, and educate whoever created this category name as to the meaning of the word "franchise". 12.73.195.225 02:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. No argument. siafu 23:32, 12 September 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:3d Imaging

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?¿? 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:3D imaging. tregoweth 07:14, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Comment - makes sense, though we should probably also change things like "3-D films" to "3D films" to be standardised.--Ctachme 11:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this a candidate for speedy renaming? Aecis 11:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy capitalization. siafu 23:37, 12 September 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:Wikipedia bad jokes and other undeleted nonsense

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 up. ∞Who?¿? 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with its parent category. -- Beland 06:18, 9 September 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.

Wikipedia: 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 No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC) --Kbdank71 13:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it would be less confusing to remove "Wikipedia:" from the name of each. It would be better to use "Wikipedia" as a regular adjective, instead of trying to make this look like a namespace, which it's not. (If it's needed at all.) -- Beland 06:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support. Beland has a point; the current way it looks is rather ugly. I agree that something should be done about that. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:00, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Some of these categories are used on protected pages. It might need an administrator to complete the renaming. --cesarb 00:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Silly nonsense, not in any way encyclopedic material or helpful to the project. 12.73.198.3 19:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment leaning towards a keep. Note, there are tons of these categories, look at Category:Wikipedia functionaries. I am sure there are more. I believe the concept was to make a seperate namespace for the Wikipedia related categories, which just happened yet, keeping them in this format will just facilitate that for later. If we do rename, then we should rename all of them, even the ones that are not currently listed, to make uniform. I dont' feel appreance is an issue, as they are categories, not article titles. ∞Who?¿? 00:19, 12 September 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.

Television stations with slashes

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 change). --Kbdank71 13:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These are supposed to use hyphens, like:

At the very least, the spaces before and after the slashes should be removed. Not sure what to do about the last two, which already have a mixture of hypens and slashes. If there is a name for the metropolitan area, we could use that instead. -- Beland 05:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler's solution would be * Category:Television_stations_in_Wilkes=Barre-Scranton Septentrionalis 18:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One wanky but arguably solution would be to use a hypehn and an en-dash: Category:Television_stations_in_Wilkes-Barre–Scranton. But I figure that would last about 5 minutes before people started getting confused. What do others think?Nandesuka 18:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would "Wilkes-Barre and Scranton" be a plausible solution? I think this can be tricky; Minneapolis-St. Paul is an actual name for a specific metropolitan area, whereas Burlington-Plattsburgh and Albany-Schenectady-Troy aren't; they're simply names for media markets consisting of several distinct cities that aren't ordinarily grouped together outside of the context of the names for media markets. (I'm Canadian and I know this...what's wrong with me?) Bearcat 06:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename with hyphens instead of slashes, and spaces instead of underscores. siafu 23:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is that underscores comment a joke? --zippedmartin 23:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is that response a joke? siafu 23:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...I guess not then. Those categories cannot be renamed with "spaces instead of underscores", as I see it. They use spaces already, and the two are equivalent(?) to mediawiki anyway. --zippedmartin 00:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Guessed wrong. siafu 00:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What *is* that damn irony character in ascii? My keyboard doesn't have it, and no one else's seems to either. Could you maybe upload .ogg files of jokes in future so I can construe them properly? --zippedmartin 00:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rename maybe, but don't use hyphens as per Bearcat's reasoning. --zippedmartin 23:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate each city and make it it's own cat (aside from Dallas-Ft Worth, et al) --Kbdank71 13:55, 19 September 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:Wikipedia:Sollog sock puppets

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?¿? 23:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Currently empty. We also have Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Sollog. -- Beland 05:21, 9 September 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:Songs with swear words

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?¿? 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minimally useful and potentially infinite. Gamaliel 03:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Silly and useless categorization.--Pharos 04:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Won't someone please think of the children! I mean, delete. tregoweth 04:12, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too trivial for a category, and not worth turning into a list. Flowerparty 05:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CalJW 14:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - choster 21:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteOsomec 17:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yawn. siafu 00:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Swear words?" Like, "on my mother's grave"? "By the gods"? Delete. Postdlf 19:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Gamaliel. Entertaining, perhaps. Useful, probably not. Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 00:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial and vague. --Moochocoogle 21:00, 15 September 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:Mathematical numbers

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?¿? 23:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contains a handful of math articles with "number" in the title. Basically a duplicate of Category:Integer sequences, with a few Category:Integers thrown in. It isn't clear what articles the cat's creator intended it to comprise. Delete. --Quuxplusone 03:10, 9 September 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:Indiana Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians in Indiana

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. ∞Who?¿? 23:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They're redundant. The format "Wikipedians in Indiana" matches other states' (and otherwise-US-affiliated areas') categories.

  • JD 01:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Another embarrasing, useless vanity page by, of and for the cliquers only. 12.73.194.154 02:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. "Indiana Wikipedians" can more clearly include people with ties to the state who don't now live there. Maurreen (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you prefeer adjectival form then aparently "Hoosier Wikipedians" would be the name to use. I realy think some variation of "Wikipedians in/of/from Indiana" would be best. --Sherool 13:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Understandable. That topic is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:User categorisation. "Wikipedians affiliated with location" would be appropriate, but I think the conses was it was too lengthy? Oh, well. Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 16:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Wikipedia is not a dating agency. CalJW 14:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. per Maurreen. Re:CalJW; a category for anything is not a dating agency, much less this category. It is a useful tool to help coordinate activities from time to time. If you're going to delete this category, then please add on every other similar state category. Category:Wikipedians in California, Category:Wikipedians in New York, Category:Wikipedians in Texas, Category:Wikipedians in Florida (and many more) to this CfD, since the grounds we'd be voting on would be the same across all these categories and we should vote them together. If you decide to go that route, you should suggest shutting down the user categorisation project as well. --Durin 19:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I do think it should be shut down, but I have more useful things to do than fight that fight. CalJW 23:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why? User categorization can be helpful in trying to locate regional resources when working on a project or article that may benefit from those more familiar with the subject matter. Perhaps "Firefox Wikipedians" is a stretch, as it promotes a product in a small way, but it also lists those individuals who may be able to test functionality changes within Wikipedia so that visitors using said browsers have a consistent experience. In the end, we should spend more time with articles rather than categorizing users, so this shouldn't be a big deal anyway. Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 16:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested for consistency with the rest of the categories of that kind. After merging we can make an umbrella nomination for ALL the categories of that kind and have a greater debate about what would be the best naming scheme. --Sherool 00:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested. - Samuel Wantman 04:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Indiana Wikipedians as it does not match the naming conventions of the other categories (see Durin's note above). Plus, there are no longer any user pages using this category so there isn't anything to Merge. They are all using Category:Wikipedians in Indiana which should be Kept as it has replaced Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Indiana as stated in Wikipedia:User categorisation. Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 16:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note rather than closing this as no consensus, there was a closer consensus to Merge as proposed, however, there is nothing to merge, as there are no articles in the former cat. If left as is, it will be deleted as speedy. If there is any objection to the merge, then I propose all categories be listed, as this merge conforms to the current standard. A point should/may also be raised at user categorisation for the format of these categories. ∞Who?¿? 23:41, 17 September 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.

Northern Irish

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. ∞Who?¿? 23:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This mass renaming proposal is to rename all categories containing the phrase "Northern Irish" so that they make use of "Northern Ireland" instead. The affected categories are:

The phrase "Northern Irish" is incorrect English, and both in quality media (such as the BBC, RTÉ, newspapers in Ireland etc) and in official usage the name Northern Ireland is used as an adjective describing the region. For example, compare the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly Government, but the Northern Ireland Assembly, Northern Ireland Executive etc. This proposal also contains what I think qualifites as a single speedy rename request: that Category:Northern Irish football competitions (defunct) be moved to Category:Defunct Northern Ireland football competitions - I don't know whether I should list this separately if it's related to this request.Kwekubo 00:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all. "Northern Irish" is nonstandard, potentially confusing and rather imprecise.--Pharos 01:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all ... and is regarded as insulting by many people in the six counties. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For political reasons, as it is a standard English construction, but it is not worth fighting over. CalJW 14:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would the proposed moves mean Northern Ireland is thus an exception to the categorisation of people by nationality? Hiding talk 16:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose it would. The OED recommends the usage of Irishman and Irishwoman with regard to people from Northern Ireland; obviously, that wouldn't exactly do as a blanket addition here. Western Sahara is another exception. --Kwekubo 00:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that "Northern Ireland" is the normally accepted adjectival usage, I don't see that it makes it any more of an exception that the use of "New Zealand" adjectivally. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • See, I use Northern Irish and New Zealander, so I think these things do need to be mentioned as exceptions. I've never used "Northern Ireland" or "New Zealand" adjectively, or seen it used so. Hiding talk 17:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, as a (noun) New Zealander, I've never seen "New Zealander" used as an adjective. The adjective is definitely New Zealand (despite some misguided Wikipedian sometimes using the horrible "New Zealandian") Grutness...wha? 19:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm, I've seen New Zealander used adjectively. At least I've seen it used thus: New Zealander Stephen Fleming, I'm a long time out of school to remember my grammar that well. Hiding talk 20:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that instance, a noun (New Zealander) is being used, as in "my pet cats Nut and Bolt" - cats not being an adjective. The adjective is always properly "New Zealand". I live in a New Zealand city, close to a New Zealand beach. Not a New Zealandish city or a New Zealander beach. The same applies with norther Ireland. Belfast is a Northern Ireland city, not a Northern Irish city. Grutness...wha? 06:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, got it on the Zealander bit, but with regards Northern Irish, can you see the three links below which talk of Northern Irish politicians, Northern Irish parties and Northern Irish product suppliers. I've also seen mention of Northern Irish provinces. I also don't see how it is confusing, as suggested by Pharos, I'm not convinced it's non-standard, I also believe it is common usage and don't see that the usage with regards to official bodies needs to guide the usage with regards to people. Note the Northern Ireland tourist board uses the terms when describing people, Northern Irish artists [1]. The term gets over 800 000 hits on google, is used by the Northern Ireland Assembly and the government of the United Kingdom use it. Therefore I vote Keep. Hiding talk 09:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why do those authorities have those names? There's the Scottish Assembly and Scottish Tourist Board, the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Tourist Board, and the Northern Ireland Assembly and Northern Ireland Tourist Board. I thought that in itself would be a bit of a clue here. I suspect that "Northern Irish" is used informally in those cases, but when it comes to formal usage - like the names of the authorities - the more correct name is used. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Common usage suggests using Northern Irish when talking of nationality. Since those formal institutions do so, why can't we? At the moment I can read in the paper of Northern Irish goal scorers and so on. Names for political institutions are chosen for political reasons. That means it is point of view. We do not endorse point of view, therefore it should not unneccesarily influence us. Since Northern Irish is not grammatically incorrect, I believe common usage should apply, and so I as yet stick to my vote. Please note Northern Irish is used as a term in legisalation, therefore it is not informal as you suggest. However, if you insist on suggesting it isn't formal usage, note that formal naming isn't a wikipedia convention, United States of America redirecting to United States. Hiding talk 22:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also object to the nominator's suggestion that the BBC do not use Northern Irish. [2], [3], [4]. Hiding talk 20:55, 10 September 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_September_9&oldid=1122039441"