Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 26

< February 25	February 27 >

February 26

Category:Wikipedian user interface markup users to Category:Wikipedian document markup users

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. —akghetto ^talk 06:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only two subcategories User kon (see below) and User xul. Omniplex 23:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. User interfaces are NOT documents. Well, I'm the creator, so maybe I'm biased. --minghong 07:55, 27 February 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:User kon

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. —akghetto ^talk 06:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one user. Omniplex 23:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
See also separate TFD. Omniplex 00:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, I'm the creator, so maybe I'm biased. --minghong 07:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comeon, we don't need vanity categories. Not useful in finding actual articles. --DanielCD 01:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No project-related relevance. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 12:39, 5 March 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:American hackers

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. —akghetto ^talk 06:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word "hacker" is hopelessly equivocal. The equivocation is apparent in the mixture of articles so categorized, e.g. Gerald Sussman in the same category as '0x80'. I don't think a word that means so many different things to different people can provide a meaningful basis for classification. I listed this category in particular because of all the "Hacker" categories, it most conflates the word's various connotations, however I also support deleting the parent category. Moe Aboulkheir 23:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found this category of significant importance when I was reading the Eric S. Raymond article, and have used it quite a bit thus far, deleting it would result in the loss of navigation tools on American computer specialists and programmers. Even if the term has been butchered in the recent years, the true meaning has not been lost. Эйрон Кинни 06:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, it hasn't? Look at the contents of the category. Half of those people have never written a computer program. Look at my comments on the category talk page for more detail. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a category for programmers, I am saying that this category should not be it. I didn't propose a rename because the majority of the articles in the category wouldn't belong in an "American Programmers" category, and removing the offending articles from this classification isn't a solution, because the category name perpetuates the confusion that caused them to be put there in the first place. Moe Aboulkheir 17:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the best solution is to better define what consitutes a hacker, rather than just deleting the category. After a definition is agreed upon, the proper articles can be included or removed. So, keep the category and agree on what should go in it. Cool3 23:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to me to be the worst possible outcome. That is, silently enforcing one of myriad connotations of an ambiguous term. People interpreting the contents of the category are going to be none the wiser. Moe Aboulkheir 02:41, 2 March 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:Communities in Virginia to Category:Unincorporated communities in Virginia

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 21:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This recently-created category appears to duplicate an existing one. - EurekaLott 17:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Over-specific and redundant/duplicate. When categories get too specific, they begin to hinder people from finding things rather than help. They can go into the first one just fine. --DanielCD 01:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unincorporated communities in foo is the standard category name for census-designated places, urban neighborhoods, and the like. Communities in foo is typically used as an umbrella category for cities, townships, unincorporated communities, etc. In this instance, they're both attempting to serve the same purpose. - EurekaLott 03:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the above information of Unincorporated communities in foo is correct. —akghetto ^talk 06:13, 7 March 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: Groups of Indians

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. —akghetto ^talk 06:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates Category:Native American tribes and Category:Native American people. JonHarder 14:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FloNight ^talk 01:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too many groupings gets confusing and redundant ones should go. --DanielCD 01:08, 28 February 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:Pro-Roman Catholic Movies

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. —akghetto ^talk 06:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this can be made other than POV. -choster 07:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inherently POV. Эйрон Кинни 07:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 14:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Category:Movies about Catholics. The appropriate response to a POV objection is to first try to remove the POV objection if possible, by renaming the category, not to delete the category. The contents are not POV, just the title. pat8722 18:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Movies about Catholics" is no more natural IMHO. A Man for All Seasons is one thing. What about The Godfather, which even features a Catholic a baptism. Or any King Arthur Holy Grail movie, the sort of relic quest most Protestants would reject. Or JFK. Assuming Joey Buttafuoco is Catholic, The Amy Fisher Story would need to be added as well. Any such category needs to be narrowed vastly to become useful. -choster 21:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One might rename the cat as proposed by pat8722 but it is only worth doing this if it results in a useful cat. "Movies about Catholics" is a highly problematic cat as this could lead to, as a random example, Amadeus being included as it is about Mozart and Mozart was a Catholic, even though this is more or less irrelevant to the film. (The same problems that always append to categories such as Category:Catholics and Category:Muslims in fact). "Movies about Catholicism" might be a useful cat, but in this case two of the three films in the cat at the moment would need to be removed (IMO) as they are not about Catholicism, they merely feature a Catholic priest as a lead character. "Movies about Catholic priests" might be a useful category, but then, The Song of Bernadette (film) would need to go. If anyone can come up with a useful category that will encompass all three films - and not be over-inclusive - then feel free to create it. In the meantime, delete this. Valiantis 19:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A category about a POV doesn't constitute a category that is, itself, POV. Provided that there are enough pro-Catholic movies out there to be worth a category, I say keep it. Waitak 04:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Who decides if the movies are Pro-RC? That is the problem with this category name; it's a matter of opinion as to which movies are Pro-RC! Valiantis 15:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Troll and pov-pusher magnet. Are we going to do categories for the Methodists, LDS, too. How could this be anything but original research for most movies. Most reviews don't evaluate if they are pro-Roman Catholic. FloNight ^talk 01:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is totally useless as an aid in finding material. Who is saying that they are pro-Catholic? What does that mean? What is the definition? This category is too nebulous and over-specific and is a misuse of the category system as I see it. This is simply not an acceptable/needed category. --DanielCD 01:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Alibabs 11:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a category so it should be a category on wikipedia. 69.218.181.192 02:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A "Movies about Catholicism" might be useful, tho. Mairi 06:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no objective criteria as to what is in and what is out; also "Movies about [Roman]Catholicism" as suggested above is not better: The Passion of the Christ is out (no Roman Catholicism there, just a story common to all Christianity), but Keeping the Faith where half the jokes are directed at the protagonist (who is a Roman Catholic priest) is in. Not useful. Carlossuarez46 19:03, 3 March 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:Sports in the United States by city

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 as listed...well, rename those not listed per list. --Syrthiss 21:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories of Category:Sports in the United States by city were recently renamed from Cityname sports to Sports in Cityname as the result of a recent CFR discussion. However, state names were added to all of the categories without consensus. I'm proposing removing the state names from all the categories, except the following:

- EurekaLott 06:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, keep the state names on categories such as Category:Sports in Los Angeles, California, to match the articles on each city, e.g. Los Angeles, California, the supercategories that the "Sports in..." categories are part of, such as Category:Los Angeles, California, and the other subcategories within Category:Sports in the United States by city. Very few city names are unique. — Feb. 26, '06 [07:34] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Comment: please note that the vast majority of subcategories of these city categories (like those of Category:Los Angeles, California) do not include the state name. - EurekaLott 07:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well maybe they should, then? — Feb. 26, '06 [07:54] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Support The same system should be used for American cities as for the rest of the world, ie cities should only be disambiguated by subdivision where there is something to disambiguate. Piccadilly 17:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I didn't think the state names were necessary in most cases. I might add category:Sports in San Jose, California to the keep-the-state list, as that's a very big city in Costa Rica as well.--Mike Selinker 20:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've added it to the above list. - EurekaLott 01:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with the following exceptions (I may think of others later). — Dale Arnett 01:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Columbus, Ohio: Although the Ohio city is by far the largest with that name, there is a medium-sized city of Columbus, Georgia, and several smaller Columbuses in other states.
- Lincoln, Nebraska: There are many cities in the U.S. with that name, and the Nebraska city is not so large that the name is exclusively identified with that city.
- Portland, Oregon: Again, this is by far the largest city with that name, but Portland, Maine is the largest city in that state.
- Richmond, Virginia: Similar to Lincoln, Nebraska, but a closer call. The Virginia city is more prominent among Richmonds than the Nebraska city is among Lincolns, but even so, Richmond isn't instantly identified with the Virginia city outside Virginia and its region.
- San Jose, California: See Mike's comment above—not only is San José the biggest city in Costa Rica, it's the country's capital.
- I'd also drop the "area" from the Quad Cities category. Proposed change: Category:Sports in the Quad Cities area to Category:Sports in the Quad Cities. AFAIK, the Illinois-Iowa metropolitan area is the only one generally known in the U.S. as "Quad Cities". The "area" in the cat name is redundant.
  - I agree with the Quad Cities point. The sports aren't generally outside of Moline, Bettendorf, Rock Island, and Davenport, so "area" is unnecessary.--Mike Selinker 07:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Outside the US, people are generally a lot less aware that cities are in states. Chicago is Chicago is Chicago. If it's not ambiguous, don't gratuitously disambiguate it. Waitak 04:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose several Lincolns in Lincolnshire. Toledos in Spain. Richmonds in Surrey. Portlands in Maine. Syracuse is in Italy. Albanys in New Zealand. San Joses in Costa Rica. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think some of you guys may be missing EurekaLott's point. Those are the ones he DOESN'T want to rename, precisely for the reasons you describe. What he does want to rename is Chicago and New York City and Seattle, the ones where no conflict exists.--Mike Selinker 01:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - oops youre right. in that case, change all except forthose the nom lists and these which also need disambiging:
    Category:Sports in Birmingham, Alabama
    
    Category:Sports in Boston, Massachusetts
    
    Category:Sports in Memphis, Tennessee
  - there are or were big places with those names elsewhere. Birmingham Alabama isnt even the best known Birmingham. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Birmingham and Memphis, sure, but Boston? Why, because of the town in Lincolnshire? Seems like that's not too worrisome.--Mike Selinker 00:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I added Birmingham and Memphis to the list. - EurekaLott 03:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom. Golfcam 03:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. - choster 17:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are a couple of others that I'd suggest keeping the state for, not because they need a dab, but more because they're not typically identified by most Americans without including the state. — Dale Arnett 03:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - College Station, Texas
  - Lansing, Michigan
Support, except for cumulated exceptions. Alai 07:07, 9 March 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:Wikipedians that like cheese

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. —akghetto ^talk 05:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity category, not needed, and added by a vandal trying to humorize Wikipedia, where it is not needed. Category below is also created by same user, Jyoder63. I know and go to school with this user, and he needs to get it across that Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia are not one in the same. Эйрон Кинни 05:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DairyCruft. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per myself. Эйрон Кинни 05:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unneeded and vanity. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 06:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, If this category is unneeded then so are all the other categories on wikipedia, there are categories for people who like music, there are categories for people who play quitar, there are categories for people who have different points of view on religion I think if this category is deleted becuase its not needed then wikipedia should not have categories, but what I think of course doesn't matter becuase so far all I have done with my account here on wikipedia is edit my own page, made a few categories, and vandalise my real life friend's page, but it was in good fun, he did it to me too.. and furthermore I did not make this to anger or "tick off" admins. I did this becuase I have a particular fondness of cheese and i would like to know who else has this same fondness. and I'm a noob so i have no idea how to do that signature thing. Thank you for taking the time to read this.Jyoder63
Delete. Vanity and "dairycruft" sound about right. There's already the non-categorizing and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Food-listed {{User Cheese}} box anyway, making this somewhat redundant. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Then why isnt that one deleted? I think the reason you want it deleted is because I made a stupid and useless category once and I admit that wikipedians that poop was stupid but I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be a category. This was directed towards kinu by the way.

Note. If perchance this is to be kept, please use proper grammar - Wikipedians WHO like cheese. 12.73.201.71 03:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Note. Please excuse my friend, he and I are from Kentucky. Эйрон Кинни 06:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Note on Note. I kind of just wanted to put note on note on note, but anyway technically English isn't my first language I was Amish for the first few years of my life so the first language I learned was the Pennsylvania German language. So I have an excuse.

Delete All we need now is a million categories on likes and dislikes. --DanielCD 01:05, 28 February 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:Wikipedians that poop

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 delete as redundant with Category:Wikipedians. — Feb. 26, '06 [07:37] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

One User:space entry, and as its talk page states, everyone qualifies for this category, thus leaving no logical use for it xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd originally tagged this per the unofficial speedy: T1, but I guess CfD makes more sense, as it isn't truly divisive (after all, it's all inclusive) or inflammatory (unless you've got IBS). I see no logical use for it, and per a comment placed on my talk page and the contribution history of the creator, it appears to be some sort of attempt to use Wikipedia for a cheap laugh between friends. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: Kinneyboy90, who left me the aforementioned message on my talk page, personally knows the creator of this category. As he is a frequent and reliable contributor to Wikipedia, I am certain he has nothing to do with the shenanigans. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I'm quite a fan of whatever cheap laugh this provided. I was even more amused by this than I was Category:Fictional homunculi, particularly given the description. I've already BJAODN'd it. Postdlf 05:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BJAODN sounds good :-) --HappyCamper 05:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had no part in this category. Эйрон Кинни 05:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a useful category. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 06:00Z

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:Pederastic deities

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. —akghetto ^talk 05:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant and empty since it was shown that category was misnamed, and has been supplanted by Category:Pederastic heroes and deities. (By the way, I am sorry to have jumped the gun - after depopulating the category I noticed that it is recommended to not do that - I am still learning the ropes here.) Haiduc 04:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favor of new cat. -Seth Mahoney 16:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto Seth. --DanielCD 01:06, 28 February 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:Docklands Light Railway

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. —akghetto ^talk 05:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Category:Docklands Light Railway stations I just created because I'd failed to notice the former. OwenBlacker 03:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as duplicate. --DanielCD 01:07, 28 February 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:Fictional items

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 deleted as empty category. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates Category:Fictional objects; category appears unused. JonHarder 00:33, 26 February 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.