Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 14

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion | Log
< October 13 October 15 >

October 14

edit

Building and structure images

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename all. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 23 October 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 section.

Category:S.C.I.F.I. World

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 15:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:S.C.I.F.I. World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television#Categories, "TV series should avoid network categories when they were not originally produced for that network." CovenantD 20:00, 14 October 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 section.

Category:Freedom

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Freedom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant category. There are thousands of articles than can placed under "freedom". It's also far too bold. Freedom, how? It does not give an explanation. It's just called freedom. It dosen't clarify if it's freedom in literature, actions, feelings, etc. Either should be deleted or renamed UnDeRsCoRe 19:21, 14 October 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 section.

Category:Congressional districts of Northwest Territory

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per creator. David Kernow (talk) 03:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Congressional districts of Northwest Territory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I made this category. It's just no longer necessary. —Markles 19:17, 14 October 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 section.

Category:United States Courts of Appeals

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Courts of Appeals to Category:United States courts of appeals

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 section.

Category:Famous gems

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the amended nomination below, suggest Category:Famous gems renamed to Category:Individual gemstones  Category:Named gemstones (amended per Bookgrrl below). David Kernow (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC), amended 02:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as nom. If renamed, will rename List of famous gemstones accordingly. David Kernow (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Is the word "famous" really contentious? I don't see why it would be; the articles I checked all state why that particular gem is famous. However, if it must be renamed I'd suggest "Named gems" as the new title. After all, each gem in the world is an "individual gem"; presumably the point of this category is to identify a few particular ones that have been named for some particular reason. --Bookgrrl 21:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Support as amended :) --Bookgrrl 02:19, 16 October 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 section.

Category:Famous diamonds

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Category:Famous diamonds renamed to Category:Diamonds Category:Individual diamonds  Category:Named diamonds (re-amended per Bookgrrl in discussion above); that contentious word "famous" not needed. David Kernow (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC), re-amended 02:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misfired original nomination; have amended Diamonds to Individual diamonds. (See parent categories for context.)

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 section.

Category:Athletes suffering strange injuries

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Athletes suffering strange injuries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Inherently POV and incapable of precise definition. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:18, 14 October 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 section.

Category:Acquaintances of Lewis Carroll

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Acquaintances of Lewis Carroll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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 section.

Category:LGBT television series

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT television series to Category:LGBT television

  • Rename, to broaden the scope of the category. Technically now it does not encompass TV movies such as An Early Frost (although I stuck it there for lack of a better alternative) or LGBT-related specials. Otto4711 16:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A television series cannot have sex with another television series of the same gender. Do not simply rename. A television cannot have sex with a television of the same gender. Wryspy 05:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand the definition of Category:LGBT-related films to include made-for-TV films. CovenantD 06:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wryspy. Besides, LGBT-related jokes occur in most sitcoms nowadays. >Radiant< 08:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wryspy. The LGBT categories are a nightmare anyway. There is not enough stipulation on what, where or whom goes into them, no pun intended. (Animedude 09:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wryspy and Animedude. Most of the LGBT categories should be deleted as they show the systemic bias of Wikipedia's mainly young Western editor base all too clearly. Calsicol 10:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm curious as to whether comments like "a television can't have sex with another television" are made out of ignorance or if the people making them think they're funny or what. Clearly the categories which include "LGBT" in reference to inanimate objects are not about those inanimate objects having sex with one another. As is clearly noted in the category description, the category is for television series which include one or more LGBT characters. But if it's really so grating on people, the idea that a category name could suggest that gay TVs might be having sex with each other, then as an alternate naming proposal I suggest Category:LGBT-related television programs, to bring the name in line with the existing LGBT-related movies category. Otto4711 12:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too nebulous. "[P]layed a prominent role in the evolving presentation of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered characters in entertainment." How prominent? According to whom? What does "evolving presentation" mean? What do you have to do to be considered to have had a "role in" it? Bookgrrl 21:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent point. Please review the updated category description. Otto4711 22:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  per Josiah Rowe -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Another LGBT deletionist nomination? Wryspy's 'joke' is far more offensive than it is funny. It is REALLY clear what this catagory is for. I suppose those voting 'delete' here will promptly place Category:Black sitcoms or similiar categories up for deletion or risk exposing the fatal inconsistency with their (already quite obviously flawed) logic. CaveatLectorTalk 04:46, 23 October 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 section.

Category:Military defeats

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military defeats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Generally a bad idea, as the vast majority of military encounters result in a defeat for somebody - this category could have such a large population as to be virtually useless. As it stands right now, itis subject to potential NPOV concerns, as the battles that have been added follow no logic other than "this seems to have been a particularly embarrassing defeat," which is an inherently non-neutral determination. Carom 16:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a very bad idea since a defeat is also a victory for somebody else, so this title violates NPOV. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't violate NPOV, but it is pointless. Hawkestone 16:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no way to apply NPOV (many battles receive quasi-mythical treatment in English historiography, leaving little correlation between the popular (mis)conception and what actually happened on the battlefield—systemic bias of the most acute kind) and no real criteria for inclusion. Albrecht 16:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bookgrrl 21:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save Surely there must be some place to put the most notable defeats in history. Right now there is nothing to connect the Alamo or Waterloo or Pearl Harbor as military debacles. The category specifies not just any defeat, but hisorically notable defeats, surely there is no POV problem with classifying the Alamo or Waterloo as notable defeats. "this category could have such a large population as to be virtually useless - No is this is only for NOTABLE defeats.. As it stands right now, itis subject to potential NPOV concerns - How can Waterloo be considered as a non-neutral point of view? "this seems to have been a particularly embarrassing defeat," - exactly which is an inherently non-neutral determination - How can anybody possibly argue that determining that Waterloo was a massive defeat possibly be non-neutral?? Tthis title violates NPOV. - No it does not if everybody agrees it was a defeat. "but it is pointless." It is pointless to NOT note the Waterloo was one ofthe most notable defeats in history. To not note it would be pointless. "no way to apply NPOV" This is ridiculous, there is no debate or POV of any of the currently listed battles. "systemic bias of the most acute kind" What bias? Custer lost. Texans lost the Alamo. No POV. All of the reasoning given here are just plain silly. --~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarcaddy (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Per Nom PPGMD 20:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above.--Zleitzen 23:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Who was defeated? What evidence do we have of the defeat? Oh, right, citations... Delete.- jc37 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could contain every battle ever fought (one can always argue that a "statemate" was northing of the kind). Piccadilly 14:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, ludicrusity of objective ;why not have Notable vistories instead? No, didn't think so.--Dryzen 18:16, 17 October 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 section.

Category:Eastern European Political parties

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eastern European Political parties into Category:Political parties in Europe

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 section.

Category:Eyepatch wearers

edit

Category:Fictional eyepatch wearers

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eyepatch wearers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Fictional eyepatch wearers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The category system should not be burdened with categories that connect people on the basis of trivial attributes that to not reveal any essential similarity between the various individuals concerned. Hawkestone 11:40, 14 October 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 section.

Category:LGBT rights movement

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT rights movement into Category:LGBT civil rights

  • This category is too thinly differentiated from its parent. I think a merge would make things easier to find, especially since this category is made almost entirely out of subcategories. -- Beland 19:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 11:31, 14 October 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 section.

Category:Dubious historical resources

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dubious historical resources

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 section.

Category:Advocacy websites

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge both to Category:Internet activism --Kbdank71 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Advocacy websites into Category:Electronic advocacy

  • Well, as both categories already had "advocacy" in their names, and due to the semantic difference between advocacy and activism (and because it's more accurate in this context), I prefer "advocacy" (as I note below). - jc37 11:14, 20 October 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 section.

Category:Famous transport infrastructures

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous transport infrastructures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
How are we to decide what is "famous"? I do not believe we can choose a bar for inclusion that meets WP:NPOV and does not make it redundant to Category:Transport infrastructure. NE2 01:16, 14 October 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 section.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_14&oldid=1223924125"