Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 28
September 28
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Submarine-launched ballistic missiles of the United States. ∞Who?¿? 01:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of similar cats to this one in Category:Modern American weapons. Firstly modern is a poor choice of adjectives because it is so vague. Modern weapons covers everything post-WWII, modern warfare covers everything since Napoleon, and the Oxford History of Modern War covers everything from abut 1500. Secondly even using the most restrictive of these definitions there is no such thing as a "pre-modern American submarine-launched ballistic missiles," so the modifier is useless. - SimonP 23:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to "Submarine-launched ballistic missiles of the United States". James F. (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per James F., unless someone can do a better search than me (or write a better MediaWiki...) and find the cat that must surely already exist? -Splashtalk 03:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename category:American submarine-launched ballistic missiles in line with most of the American weapons categories. To me "of the United States" implies ownership by the US government, but the Americans sell weapons to other countries too. CalJW 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is a larger issue. Look at the following (all of the grandchildren of Category:Ballistic missiles):
- Category:Modern Indian intermediate-range ballistic missiles
- Category:Cold War tactical ballistic missiles of the Soviet Union
- Category:Modern Iraqi tactical ballistic missiles
- Category:Modern American tactical ballistic missiles
- Category:American Cold War submarine-launched ballistic missiles
- Category:Modern American intercontinental ballistic missiles
- Category:American Cold War intercontinental ballistic missiles
- As you see, they are not consistently named in any case, and it's not only the missiles. "Modern" in this case seems so mean "current", i.e. post-Cold War. -- grm_wnr Esc 10:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note the remaining categories mentioned in the comment may need to be part of a larger umbrella nom at a later time. There is a 2/3 majority for rename, which may or may not be used a reference for a future nom. ∞Who?¿? 01:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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?¿? 01:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are only three Rugrats-based films; no need for an entire category. tregoweth 23:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 23:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Osomec 10:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. *drew 22:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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?¿? 01:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two Sesame Street-based films; no need for an entire category. tregoweth 23:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Osomec 10:58, 29 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.
- 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?¿? 01:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This category hasn't been used very accurately it seems. An Executive Agency is a specific type of organisation in the UK government, and many bodies controlled by the British government are not executive agencies. I have transferred the article Public bodies and task forces of the UK government to its own category, and I plan to go through and check that the articles are correctly allocated. It will be clearer what this category is for if it is given it's full name, which ties in with the main article. So please rename this category Category:Executive agencies of the United Kingdom government. Bhoeble 21:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. -Splashtalk 03:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename I agree "UK agency" is not an accurate description --TimPope 13:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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?¿? 01:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Myanmar/Burma is divided into seven division and seven states. These are all first tier subdivisions, and I think the distinction is connected with ehtnic composition. I suggest that this should be renamed category:Divisions of Myanmar. It should reduce the potential for confusion with the parent category:subdivisions of Myanmar somewhat, and it is consistent with the names of the articles themselves. CalJW 17:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Osomec 20:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. It would very confusing to have category:Divisions of Myanmar as a subcategory of category:Subdivisions of Myanmar. That is completely counter-intuative. -- Reinyday, 14:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Why would it be more confusing than what we have now? CalJW 18:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- because "sub" means below. You are proposing having a category called "subdivisions" and then a category called "divisions" below it. It should be the other way around. -- Reinyday, 20:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- But it isn't. It is reality which is confusing here. "Administrative divisions" and "subdivisions" mean the same thing, and I think that is more confusing. CalJW 01:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- because "sub" means below. You are proposing having a category called "subdivisions" and then a category called "divisions" below it. It should be the other way around. -- Reinyday, 20:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Why would it be more confusing than what we have now? CalJW 18:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are thinner North American, European and even African categories than this. How many people from Myanmar do you reckon will be voting here?--Ezeu 15:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]- I don't see the relevance of the first comment as I am not proposing any change in the size of any category. Of course it would be best if some English-fluent Burmese could help out in this vote, but that doesn't mean that a decision can't be made without them. And as I have almost certainly created more categories for Third World countries than any one else, the inference that I am patronising Myanmar in some way is unjustified. CalJW 18:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, rename. --Ezeu 22:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the relevance of the first comment as I am not proposing any change in the size of any category. Of course it would be best if some English-fluent Burmese could help out in this vote, but that doesn't mean that a decision can't be made without them. And as I have almost certainly created more categories for Third World countries than any one else, the inference that I am patronising Myanmar in some way is unjustified. CalJW 18:43, 29 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.
- 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?¿? 01:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not in the standard form for such categories. Rename to category:Ethnic groups of Myanmar to standardise.CalJW 15:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Osomec 20:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 21:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 00:48, 29 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.
- 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). Naming convention candidate. ∞Who?¿? 01:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to follow convention Naming_conventions (categories)#How to name the country. SEWilco 15:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The link is not relevant as it does not say that the of form must be used for all national categories, and it not so used. No standard is stated for images categories, but 48 out of 49 are in this form, so it is the de facto standard. CalJW 15:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: 48 out of 49 what? There are more than 49 countries on the planet. (SEWilco 13:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Countries in Category:Images by country. There are few if any categories which have been created for all countries. CalJW 18:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Though it's now 50 out of 55. But 2 of the "Images of" categories which have been moved in a duplicates. CalJW 18:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Countries in Category:Images by country. There are few if any categories which have been created for all countries. CalJW 18:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: 48 out of 49 what? There are more than 49 countries on the planet. (SEWilco 13:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep Osomec 20:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. James F. (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the problem here that we fear "...fo Foo" may award the images to the government of the country? Because the current way around sure is clumsy grammar, and my instinct is support the rename and challenge the perceived problem to manifest itself. -Splashtalk 03:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The naming convention for categories calls for the name to follow the pattern "... of Afghanistan". (SEWilco 19:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- No it does not. Period. Please get over this misconception that there is one convention for all category types. If could hardly be spelt out more plainly on the page that there are different conventions for different categories. There is currently no official convention for images categories. CalJW 01:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The naming convention for categories calls for the name to follow the pattern "... of Afghanistan". (SEWilco 19:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Rename. "Afghanistan images" sounds like the name of a corporation, not the descriptive name of a category. I would support such a rename for all members of Category:Images by country (which is notably not named Category:Nation images). siafu 00:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, although should this also be set aside given lmore recent discussion of creating a standard? Hiding talk 19:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note this should be added to list of topics to be discussed on Naming conventions. ∞Who?¿? 01:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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?¿? 01:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should be replaced with a list. As with the recently deleted Category:Corporations with naming rights of stadiums & arenas, this category isn't very useful without the information on who is sponsored by each company, something a list could do easily. NASCAR sponsorship also isn't of central importance to most of the companies listed. If we were, for instance, to list things that the Coca-Cola Company is best known for, NASCAR sponsorship would be quite low on the list. - SimonP 14:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Trivial in relation to the companies.CalJW 15:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Osomec 20:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is basically identical to the cats for corporations with stadiums/arenas named after them. siafu 21:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not useful category. James F. (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wikipedianinthehouse
- 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.
- 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?¿? 01:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For a start the current name in miscapitalised. But looking at what's in the category it's broader than "national symbols". Irn Bru has a place in Scottish identity, but it's not really a national symbol Grinner 09:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RenameCalJW 15:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Keep as per overall discussion about the muddle of "national symbol", "national icon" and "cultural icons" categories I have started above in the 1 October section. CalJW 07:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read that section, but I still feel that Scottish cultural icons is the best option for this category. Grinner 11:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Osomec 20:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 21:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, Irn Bru, a cultural icon? I don't think so, any more than Coca Cola. But Rename and fix the categorization sounds ok. -Splashtalk 03:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename--Mais oui! 08:18, 29 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.