Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 22

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< April 21 April 23 >

April 22 edit

Category:Premature obituaries 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. Syrthiss 01:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this as one of around two dozen categories listed on Bob Hope's article. Many of the other people tagged with it also have a large number of categories. This is much better covered by a list, which exists. The categorisation of people is getting out of hand, imposing some restraint is essential or the system will be ruined. Osomec 20:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete. No argument. siafu 12:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bhoeble 16:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep an exceedingly useful category. Those doing research on obituaries no doubt would like to have access to this. I think a category works better than a list here. "Many of the other people tagged with it also have large numbers of categories" is not a reason for deletion. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but the fact that it's trivial to the biography is a reason. siafu 16:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom—better as a list. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Scranchuse 19:51, 25 April 2006 (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:Media by country to Category:Media by nationality & subcats 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. Syrthiss 01:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First-off, this is a re-do of a former nom, but since then we've seen something of a creeping consensus emerge that it is inappropriate for any category that is grouped as "x by country" to contain categories named "Fooish x". "Fooish," after all, is a nationality, not a country, so it stands to reason that the overarching category's name is a straight-up linguistic misrepresentation. Conversely, "x by nationality" categories are not expected to take the form "x (of/in/etc) Fooland". (The one exception are the Republic of Congo/Democratic Republic of Congo-type situations where useable Fooishes are not forthcoming.) So I say let's give'er another kick.

When the whole category naming convention-party went down last year, I don't think it was really understood that suddenly we'd get to a situation where a relatively sensible system would emerge without ever emphatically having it out over it in one talk page. And yet categories are far, far, tidier today than they were six months ago after a series of incremental adjustments often made without too much concern for what sort of grand system would emerge. Go us!

A by country/by nationality split seems to have oozed into existence along the following lines—"by country" for things that are spatially fixed or somehow loosely associated with the governing apparatuses of various states, "by nationality" for things that are more abstractly linked to notions of nationhood, often self-identified and usually not constrained by borders. Greek art is as much Greek art in a gallery in California as it would be in Athens. Conversely, you can take a Picasso into an Athens museum and it doesn't become Greek. Vietnamese people are Vietnamese no matter what chunk of earth they sit on. A Vietnamese person can emigrate to Canada, potentially losing Vietnamese legal citizenship in the process, but if they can still be identified most readily as Vietnamese (whether they themselves are emphatic about it, or we outsiders perhaps a few decades later stick to such associations), then the categorization stands. That's why someone like Alexander Graham Bell can be American, Scottish and Canadian all at once. Nationality also holds up a lot easier with shifting political and demographic factors over history. Saladin and Hammurabi aren't Iraqis, for instance, but the Euphrates is a river in the country of Iraq.

This clump of categories is a significant chunk of the remaining outliers to the aforementioned split. We have the general form Fooian radio/magazines etc., but the parent cats all use by country. Kurieeto has thankfully taken on a few of the last remaining other outliers below; we ought to be pretty close to closing this weirdness out altogether if we pass them all.

I favour treating media as a fundamentally non-territorial concept, akin to a play or a literary tradition. While it would be possible to empirically file all media sources by the patch of ground on which their CEO's desk is or where the AVID unit that puts together that final cut of a news segment, I don't think gybes with how the average person identifies media: The Times of London is British the same way The Beatles are British, not "of the United Kingdom" the way Loch Ness is "of the United Kingdom." NBC is American the same way line-dancing is American, not "in the United States" the way the Sears Tower is "in the United States." (In fact, there's a whole WTO/UNESCO background to this issue that backs this up involving Sheila Copps and split-run magazines and the ruling that cultural industries weren't state-linked that I can't go into at this time, but media studies sorts will no doubt get where I'm going)

I think this is especially true in the general globalization-heavy millieu we live in: these days, printing presses and transmission towers and ownership groups or any media outlet that could be used to construct a geospatial frame of reference may be located on entirely different continents from the original cultural location, which endures in the form of the normative cultural identity we all commonly ascribe to that media outlet. (Exhale.) In other words, the BBC is "British media" even when the newscaster is South Asian coming from their Washington studio for broadcast outside the UK on the international service. The Jerusalem Post is "Israeli media" even though it was at one time owned by Canadian/British git. A category name like "Newspapers in France" that includes International Herald Tribune doesn't strike me as superbly effective.

So I'm going to say rename this and its various daughters as such:

Apologies for the above essay. I got on a roll. The Tom 20:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose all The categories are based mainly on states and I don't have a problem with that. "Nationality" presents more problems if anything. Osomec 20:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think, though, that The Tom's point is that media could be based in one country, fronted by citizens from another country, while the media company is based in a third country. However, I'm not sure how switching the description "by country" to "by nationality" takes account of this. Then again, "state", "nation", "country", "X of Y", "Yish X", etc seems to me a Pandora's Box nobody can quite put the lid on... Thanks, The Tom, for your thoughts. Regards, David Kernow 11:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The primary distinctions for various media companies/entities are not so much a matter of country but nationality. That is, the important distinctions have more to do with language and culture than locale. However, I think that choice for categorization just muddies the waters and would make it near impossible to clearly delineate. siafu 13:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per David Kernow I don't see much connection between the stated problem and the proposed solution. I can't say I'm bothered by the "problem" either. Bhoeble 16:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. renaming does not solve problem of how to categorise culture designed for consumption / consumed internationally, as per User:David Kernow. i recommend (where a certain amount of POV would need to be applied (as is the case in general in wikipedia, where limiting POV is the proper thing and eliminating it improper and impossible) a series of cat pages named such as Category:International newspapers, Category:Multinational companies, etc. (and they be collected under a parent, Category:International entities) i m in favour of use of "country" over "nationality" in all cat naming as the latter connotes quite strongly that there is a connection between a nation/country's government and the item in question. with people, this connection is rather trivial - somewhat less trivial is between where a person has lived, were brought up, worked, or contributed to, regardless of there citizenship (and hence nationality), and "country" allows for inclusion of non-nationals with people. and i don t get how one can describe culture as having nationality??, that is, that there is a direct and necessary connection between a country's culture and its national government (and i know from checking that a number of dictionaries have nationality=nation origin as their 2nd or 3rd meaning of nationality, which puzzles me, but not as a primary meaning). Mayumashu 06:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In most cases these are geographical, not cultural, classifications. A newspaper is listed under Category:South Korean newspapers, even if it (hypothetically) serves an entirely non-Korean readership. -- Visviva 10:51, 30 April 2006 (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:Divisions of Captain Wes Industries Worldwide, 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 delete. Syrthiss 02:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain: Listing this here only because someone else mistakenly listed it in WP:PROD. Text there was "It cites no references to its origin and appears to be part of a vanity entry." —Wknight94 (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Might work as an article if it can be updated to meet WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 06:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One article, the first line of which reads: "Westar Aerospace Research, Limited (NASDAQ: CWIW), is a fictional company". As there is no article for Captain Wes Industries Worldwide, Inc., the cat description remains rather incomprehensible. siafu 12:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per siafu Bhoeble 16:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the tone of the article and subsequent entries on other pages appear to be vanity pieces with no source outside Wikipedia. I've put up a discussions in the article Westar Aerospace Research, Ltd. and when the author put uncited entries into the List of fictional companies that went unanswered. --YoungFreud 07:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There were about a half dozen companies at List_of_fictional_companies which claimed "a division of CWIW" but no references to their origins have been provided. ~~Brother William 25th April 2006
  • Delete per one article in category being a fictional company with no context.--Isotope23 15:06, 26 April 2006 (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:Hindu demons to Category:Asura 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 Withdrawn - TexasAndroid 15:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- More accurate term. --Dangerous-Boy 18:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No because not all demons are Asuras (eg Ravana and other Rakshasas) and not all Asuras are demons (eg Varuna, Mitra etc).--Grammatical error 19:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What GE said. Not a good idea, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker 19:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed my nomination.--Dangerous-Boy 19:20, 22 April 2006 (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:Polish punk albums to Category:Polish punk rock albums 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. Syrthiss 02:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Description and albums included refer to punk rock albums. 2. Category level up is Punk rock albums. Visor 18:27, 22 April 2006 (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:Community building to Category:Community 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. Syrthiss 02:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have a longer name, which is not entirely comprehensive (community building is only a part of what makes community)? Community building may have it's own subcategory withing the community category, but currently this term doesn't even have it's own article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Community building is a distinct practice within the numerous topics relevant to community. I think it would be overbroad to include all the articles related to community building in a generic Community category. If the Community category is created, it would make complete sense to have the Community building category be a sub-category. I'm very surprised there isn't an article on community building. I've added a request for it to the Community Wikiproject and may end up writing a first draft myself—if I get some time over the next few days. —GrantNeufeld 21:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outright. The articles included do not seem particularly related (Jane Addams, Cultural capital, List of civic and political organizations, and Democracy in America?), and the titular article is a red link, so there's not really any way to evaluate the relative merits of inclusion of articles. This is at best premature, at worst OR (and potentially POV). siafu 13:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per siafu Scranchuse 19:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per siafu Who would know what category:Community was for? It is much too vague. Athenaeum 19:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - I started Wikipedia:WikiProject_Community a couple of years ago and later on Portal:Community but have been offline for a while. I was thinking that community-related topics could be linked through the portal and a major category. I thought I even created a Category:Community one time but it got deleted or something. Community building would be a good article, but see Community development. Thanks. CQ 23:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK here. Please take a look at Category_talk:Community_building and Category_talk:Community. This OK? -- CQ 23:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I am happy to see an article on community building, I still question whether we need a subcat for it. All articles from it should probably be moved to Category:Community. What articles besides community building should go into it's subcat?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:05, 1 May 2006 (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:Community Justice 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. Syrthiss 02:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much orphaned. not even really used by WP:CJ. Computerjoe's talk 17:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No argument. siafu 13:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Community Justice" is an ill-advised project. Bhoeble 16:32, 23 April 2006 (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:Decemmillenniums 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 Speedy deletion by Proto --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another nonsensical category created by the same one who likes to talk about the Googol family. Delete. Georgia guy 16:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. — Arthur Rubin| (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. David Kernow 17:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 13:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bhoeble 16:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What the heck is a decemmillennium supposed to be anyway? It gets zero google hits. Stop war! 17:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Agree. Why do you think I said "nonsense" above? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:05, 24 April 2006 (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:Far-right politicians 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. Syrthiss 02:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned cat, subjective name, only two articles both of which are also in the much more widely used Category:Right-wing populists. Category:Far-left politicians is nominated for deletion below and the consensus so far is to delete that too, hence there are also issues of balance and NPOV to consider. Valiantis 15:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather delete Category:Right-wing populists (which is inherently POV and perjorative - see CFD above) and move it to Category:Far-right politicians or even Category:Right-wing politicians (for which we should at least be able to find sources to support the categorisation). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have a fairly good article on Populism as a political position. It doesn't imply the term is inherently perjorative. "Far-right", however, is listed as a term to avoid at least without qualification. As a category title does not allow for qualification, then it should not be used in a category name. Valiantis 13:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Populism is quite good, but it also says that "Not all politicians who adopt a populist campaign are true populists. ... And not all politicians who are labeled 'populists' are populists, or consider themselves to be populist. The term is often used as a straw man fallacy, misrepresenting an opponent's position."
We also have articles on right-wing politics and left-wing politics, and indeed far right and far left (although they don't agree on hyphenation amongst other things). Perhaps we should steer clear of this labelling entirely. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that "populist" can be abused as a term, but then that applies to most political labels! You could substitute "liberal", "socialist", "nationalist", "conservative" or whatever in your above quote and it would still ring true. Valiantis 13:58, 28 April 2006 (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-fiction writers by country to Category:Non-fiction writers 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. Syrthiss 02:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a by nationality category in line with category:Writers by nationality. Rename Bhoeble 15:22, 22 April 2006 (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:Best Soundtrack Oscar Winner to Category:Best Original Music Score Oscar winner; Category:Best Soundtrack Oscar Nominee to Category:Best Original Music Score Oscar nominee 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 both in plural form. Syrthiss 02:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common problem on WP, of confusing "soundtrack" with "film score". There has never been a "best soundtrack oscar". The Oscar category has gone through several names, but "best original music score" would probably be the simplest. JW 14:36, 22 April 2006 (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:Telescope manufacturer logos 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 upmerge. Syrthiss 02:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category has existed since December of 2005, but only contains 2 images. I see it as unneccessary categorization. Proposal is to merge it with its parent cat, Category:Company logos. Kurieeto 14:13, 22 April 2006 (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:General Australian reality television 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 (as the article exists already in the merge target). Syrthiss 02:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian reality television series already serves the purpose of categorising reality television shows in Australia. This category isn't necessary and is non-descriptive. Contains just 1 article which is also found within the Australian reality television series category. -- Longhair 14:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Bhoeble 15:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 13:06, 23 April 2006 (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.

Aircraft manufacturers by country 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 Aircraft manufacturers of Foo. Syrthiss 02:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following Aircraft manufacturers by country categories are named "Nationality x". However, as they contain exclusively manufacturing companies, I believe that they should be following the Wikipedia naming convention for companies, which is to use "of country" as defined at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Two new category wordings would be acceptable to me: "Aircraft manufacturers of x" or "Aircraft manufacturing companies of x". The contents of Cat:Aircraft manufactuers by country are proposed for renaming to follow established company naming conventions as follows, with a choice between two wordings for their renaming:

--Kurieeto 11:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to "Aircraft manufacturers of X". This is a slightly more flexible name than including the word "company", it is shorter without loss of accuracy, and it seems to be the standard on WP so far (e.g. List of aircraft manufacturers). I wonder about the use of portmanteau forms such as "of the Soviet Union and Russia" and "of the Czech Republic and Czechoslovakia", but that is a debate for elsewhere. Valiantis 15:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Aircraft manufacturers of X". Bhoeble 15:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Aircraft manufacturers of X". We should remember deal with those portmanteau ones afterwards. The Tom 19:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "manufacturers of fooland". siafu 13:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Aircraft manufacturers of X". mattbr30 19:21, 24 April 2006 (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:Industrialists of Hawaii to Category:Businesspeople of Hawaii 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 Hawaiian businesspeople to match both parent cats. Syrthiss 02:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The parent category uses "businesspeople", ie category:American businesspeople. Scranchuse 02:06, 22 April 2006 (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/2006_April_22&oldid=1132346316"