Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 10

< August 9	August 11 >

10 August[edit]

Category:Pokémon images[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 --Kbdank71 13:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category should be merged with Category:Pokémon media, as media is inclusive to all data types (audio, video and images). ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:21, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

Oppose Although I would probably normally agree, I question whether media is a good term. We have specific image categories, which do not contain audio, video. If anything, it should just be made a sub of Category:Pokémon media. Also, the ..images cat was created in 2004,with over 200 children, whereas ..media cat was created 11August05, not that this is a major point, but the "image" category naming is pretty much the standard. So I do not oppose making it a sub of media, but NO merger. ∞Who ?¿? 06:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with User:Who. Courtland 00:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

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:Suspected sockpuppets of Jesus[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 --Kbdank71 13:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category appears to be nonsense, created by User:-Ril- for an unknown reason. Carbonite | Talk 23:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page because 7 8 people had already put themselves in the category. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. --Peter Kirby 23:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Patent nonsense. siafu 23:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Speedy delete, but I'm disappointed by who isn't listed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I'm trying to 'assume good faith' but it is hard to see a reasonable motive for this --Doc (?) 00:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The wiki code "[[Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of {{{1}}}|{{PAGENAME}}]]" is hard-coded into Template:Sockpuppet. So everytime a user tags his or her user page with {{sockpuppet|Jesus}} as a joke, that user page will have a link to this category. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely that's not a reason to depopulate it by removing the sockpuppet tags like -Ril- did though. --SPUI (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I currently have Category:Bald Wikipedians who have considered wearing wigs but don't on my userpage, and Kbdank71 uses a red-link cat of his own as well, we meant these as jokes, and do not intend them to be created, most users get this. "Phantom categories" on userpages shouldnt be created just because someone doesnt like the redlink. ∞Who ?¿? 06:40, 14 August 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:Catholic High Schools[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 --Kbdank71 13:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates Category:Roman Catholic secondary education, besides having bad capitalization and a far smaller population. - choster 22:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as we already have another category. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No argument. siafu 23:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "Catholic" is actually ambiguous. K1Bond007 02:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

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:Carolina_Panther_players[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 --Kbdank71 13:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed, as Category:Carolina_Panthers_players already exists and is in fact the correct spelling. Since this is an empty category, recommend speedy deletion. --Cholmes75 21:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a speedy rename section up the top of the page (which this would qualify for). -Splash 21:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but one question - since this category is blank is renaming even necessary? --Cholmes75 21:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A category that is empty for more than 24 hours qualifies for speedy deletion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:43, 11 August 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:Christian mythology[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 ?¿? 04:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This cat is not NPOV; it is nearly always disputed, offensive, and being widely abused by one particular user, to the point of going WAY WAY past 3RR, on numerous pages pertaining to Christian doctrine and theology. It is also unnecessary and redundant, because categories already exist on all these same pages for "Christian doctrine" and "Christian theology". I can't think of anything at all that can be safely tagged as "Christian mythology", without triggering a dispute; the purpose of this cat is simply to cause offense to followers of a particular faith. Codex Sinaiticus 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep I can't support deletion. The category is useful for many other purposes, besides any dubious uses to which it may been put. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, could you possibly name an example of one article where you think this cat is useful and not controversial? Thanks. Codex Sinaiticus 21:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Saint Barbara, Catherine of Alexandria, Saint Christopher, and Saint Margaret of Antioch, for example, all at one time were thought to be historical persons but now are regarded as mythical. There are stories universally regarded as myths, regarding persons almost always regarded as historical, such as Saint George, Prester John. All of these are listed in Category:Christian mythology, as they should be, without controversy. There are some characters who are better known from myths told about them, than from what history and tradition say - but the myth belongs under the category, and the historical person does not; for example, Saint Nicholas (the historical person and legends concerning him), compared to Saint Nick (the fairy tale creature based on the myths, stories and legends concerning Nicholas). Just my opionion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mark.
Keep If we speak of Hindu mythology and Native American mythology (see those cat's), we can't avoid speaking of Christian mythology without cultural bias (which is POV). A clear-cut example of Christian mythology is the Golden Legend. --Peter Kirby 21:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deleting a cat because a certain user has some trouble with it isn't a good enough reason. -Splash 21:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. KHM03 21:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that's like saying we should rename Category:Greek mythology to Category:Greek theology because somebody might follow the ancient Greek religion. --Revolución (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you should know that besides Category:Christian mythology, there is also Category:Islamic mythology, Category:Jewish mythology, Category:Hindu mythology, and Category:Buddhist mythology. So, in the interests of NPOV, you either keep them all or delete them all. --Revolución (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valuable category — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holy Grail, Golden Legend, Hell, etc., not to mention the lives of the saints. siafu 23:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All of these arguments have been rehashed at Talk:Christian mythology and its archives. The categorized articles follow the consensus reached there, and any that don't belong can be handled as they arise in the articles themselves. Smerdis of Tlön 13:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is tons of mediaeval mythology that is specifically Christian. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The entire block of reasoning by Codex Sinaiticus contains lies, halftruths and attempts to distort the facts to his own end. Codex Sinaiticus is pushing a bias, and apparently does not even understand the definition of "myth" let alone "doctrine" or "theology" as the three words do NOT mean the same thing. FestivalOfSouls 16:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is currently a problem category, with one user seemingly insisting that all Christian doctrine belongs in it, but we shouldn't deal with problems by deleting them I encourage everyone to help decide what should go in it at Category talk:Christian mythology. DJ Clayworth 17:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am willing to retract this CFD, but I am now considering resubmitting it as a "speedy rename" to something more unassailably NPOV such as Christian legends or maybe even Christian folklore... The dictionary definition (as well as the popular definition) of "myth" is that it implies something is "fictitious" or "imaginary", and that is not NPOV to categorically state such a thing about a doctrine. Proponents of labelling these as "myths" insist they are using the term "myth" in some different, more obtuse sense, but it's not going to be read that way regardless. The term "legend" is probably what we are looking for, since that means more precisely what we are trying to express without assuming whether it is or isn't fictitious. Codex Sinaiticus 17:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how the term "mythology" is substantively different from from "folklore" or "legends". Mythology seems in fact to be preferred, as mentioned in the multiple examples above (e.g. Category:Islamic mythology. siafu 17:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's the difference: "Mythology", as per the dictionary, implies that something is "fictitious" and "imaginary". "Legend" and "folklore" do not. "Islamic mythology" should probably be renamed for the same reason, but I haven't gotten to that yet. Codex Sinaiticus 17:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think your dictionary might be defective.... I have looked through 6 different dictionaries (ok, ok, only 4 different brands, and 3 different versions of on, including the 60 lb double volume merriam-webster the library here has, from the 60s...) and EVERYONE of them had multiple definitions... about 1/2 of the definitions made no reference to factuality. A word does not have to fit EVERY definition in a dictionary, only a few different uses of it. Now is your dictionary defective, or are you lying(again) to sway public opinion? FestivalOfSouls 20:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - From the votes and comments here, it seems clear that "mythology" is an acceptable term, and does not necessarily indicate that something is fictitious. If this were a vote to rename, I would vote Keep in that case as well, because accepting this condition on the word "mythology" would result in the word never being used again. siafu 17:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, that's precisely why there is a pov dispute here, because the way "mythology" was defined by someone sitting at their computer and posting to wikipedia, is not the way 99% of English speakers define it, nor the way all major dictionaries define it. The word means "fictitious". So I'm going to try this as a speedy rename to "Christian legends" in the interests of a NPOV compromise. Codex Sinaiticus 17:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Or, in this case, the way that 99% of commenting wikipedians (who happen to be, btw, English speakers) define it? As far as I can see here, the "dispute" is one user (yourself) versus all others. NPOV is not a criterion for speedy rename, anyway, so that strategy is not going to produce anything. siafu 17:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I just read thru the rules, and see that a speedy rename has to be on non-controversial grounds... So I guess the procedure to vote on renaming is to use this section? Or what? Do I have to start all over again? Because I question that 99% of wikipedians really have a different definition of "myth" from the rest of the world and all the dictionaries. So if any of you understand "myth" to imply "fictitious", or at least liable to be understood as an official endorsement of stating that something is fictitious, please vote for a new more NPOV compromise name. Codex Sinaiticus 17:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seems rather clear here, so unfortunately I don't think that there's much need for a compromise. siafu 22:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you've been following the talk page for the cat, I even made a half-mock template to explain this "consensus" for the uninitiated reader... ;o) ! Codex Sinaiticus 22:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page makes it rather clear as well. So far, the only one to object to "mythology" has been yourself. If you want to rename the cat, vote for it, but if others don't agree then eventually you'll have to let it go. siafu 23:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Mythic aspects of Christianity. I am not a practicing Christian myself, just as a matter of clarity. My impression of the term "mythology" is that it is used in two primary cases: a) beliefs for which there are not presently alive many (or any) faithful or worshippers; b) beliefs that belong to "that religion over there that is not mine" when respect for the other belief system is not an expectation of "local" society. The problem is not that there isn't a part of Christianity that should or can be considered "mythic"; there is, clearly. The problem is that the usage of the term "mythology" is a ready handle for ridicule by those who do not share the faith; the same is true of Hindu "mythology" and Native American "mythology". I doubt (really, please correct my assumption here if I'm wrong) that Hindi or Native American people who hold traditional beliefs in each case would refer to their own belief system as a "mythology". Courtland 00:30, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

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:Office holder articles that need to be wikified[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 --Kbdank71 13:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is empty, and no one seems to be adding new articles to it. Also, last the Wikipedia:Maintenance collaboration of the week cleared 500 articles out of the wikification category, without regard to their subject matter. I doubt the usefulness of sorting these by topic; I'm hoping after a few more rounds, the backlog will actually be cleared (unlike stubs, which take a lot longer to fix). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beland (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 August 2005

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:Lying-in-state in the Canadian House of Commons[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 --Kbdank71 13:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are only seven people who have lain in state in the Canadian House of Commons. This would be more appropriate as a list article. Delete. Ground Zero 17:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would be mistitled anyway; they are not currently lying-in-state. siafu 17:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could be an easily justifiable list, but as a category it's too narrow a topic and exclusive. --NormanEinstein 18:07, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not at all necessary, and the user who created it has a very problematic edit history. (I could almost literally make a full-time job just out of cleaning up his edits.) Bearcat 19:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 21:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most, if not all, of the persons in the category did not lie in state in the House of Commons chamber, but in the foyer of the Centre Block. --Indefatigable 22:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With something in Canada, preferrably political or people wise. Karmafist 15:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything filed in this category is already in more than one Canadian-related category, because they're all former Prime Ministers. Bearcat 17:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a useful category could possibly make an interesting article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:28, 13 August 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:Free Windows software[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 --Kbdank71 13:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason as Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Free_Linux_software, which was approved for deletion, and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Free_Mac_OS_software, which currently has all Delete and no Keep votes. - Centrx 14:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No argument. siafu 15:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. God, how many of these cats are there? -Splash 21:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but be careful - there are so many articles in this category. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --minghong 01:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page is very useful. So many people pay for software while a similar software may be available for completely free. This category may need to be clarified as what's "free" as in costs nothing or "free" as in open-source. See: Gratis versus Libre. Also, people could move this to a List of free Windows software instead of having this be a category. -Hyad 04:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

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:People of Florida[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 --Kbdank71 13:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parentless category with two members, either duplicating Category:People from Florida or too vague to be useful (what does "of" mean?). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as dup. I've always taken "of" to be the same as "from" in cases like this. "From" is clearer. --Kbdank71 14:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I came across it because the creator had added Jeb Bush to the category — who's not from Florida, of course. Of the other two articles, one is for another governor of Florida, and one for The Birdman, which seems to be a vanity article, and which doesn't mention Florida... I haven't set about depopulating the category, but removing it from the articles to which it either doesn't seem to belong or for which it's redundant has had that effect. I hope that that's OK. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Kbdank. MicahMN | Talk 15:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Kbdank71. siafu 15:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge orphaned and duplicate category to Category:People from Florida as per Kbdank. Hall Monitor 16:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "From" at least implies that the person has left, in this case, Florida. If distinction is desired, then there should be a "From" category and a more general category. If distinction is not desired, "Of" is one option for a general category indicating people associated with the state. Maurreen (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it should be at Category:People from Florida. --Revolución (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is there to be merged? I just checked and there were no articles in the category. Karmafist 15:12, 11 August 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:Fauna of the Alps[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 (keep) --Kbdank71 13:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which alps? It should be renamed to alpine fanua or deleted since it isn't widely used--nixie 04:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - it's a subcategory of "Alps", and all articles in that category also just use the name "Alps", so I assume that it's generally clear that "Alps" without further qualifier means the European Alps. If this is not obvious (full disclosure: I'm a European, and I have no idea what Americans think of when hearing "Alps" without a classifier), we can rename the category to "Fauna of the European Alps", but then we have to rename the parent category and all of its articles for consistency. -- Ferkelparade π 06:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to Alps, the term does commonly refer to the European mountains (in fact I was unaware of there being others until I read that article). But I support deletion as this sounds like overcatting. I oppose renaming since "alpine" (as in "alpine skiing") can be used to refer to mountains in general, other than the alps. Radiant_>|< 08:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not sure about the overcatting...when I created the category, it seemed like an obvious decision because the animals in the category are all more or less symbolic of the alpine region and there's no other place that links all these animals in one place (I rather dislike "list of..." articles in such cases because categories are much more efficient and easier to manage). There is also precedent for such a category in Category:Wildlife of Africa and, more generally, Category:Animals by geography. But of course I won't object if consensus is against keeping the category -- Ferkelparade π 13:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I understand that. But it seems more useful and comprehensive as a list. Imho. R adiant _>|< 15:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There is already a "Flora" section in the Alps article, just make a "Fauna" section. Listify if necessary. --Kbdank71 15:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and list. However, this has led me to discover that there doesn't seem to be a clear precedent for these in the wording, method (cat vs. list), or even if it should be by region (Alps) or country (Category:Wildlife of Trinidad and Tobago). siafu 15:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I left a note on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecoregions to get expert opinions on how the cat structure might best work. siafu 22:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Ferkelparade. Maurreen (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Listify in the article, so delete in the meantime. -Splash 21:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not rename. James F. (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kepp, seems like a useful category. Martg76 01:48, 17 August 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:Geniuses[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 --Kbdank71 13:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Used by only three articles, and has no clear purpose to it. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Invites random and controversial entries, not that it's found them so far. Osomec 08:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons above. Pavel Vozenilek 02:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Speedy Delete Same reason. --Peter Kirby 02:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category name implies that it might contain articles of persons who are considered geniuses, but that is not what the category is being used for currently. The three articles can well go into Category:Giftedness with the benefit of avoiding potential confusion versus other "people-descriptive" categories. Courtland 00:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

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.