Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 30 August 1 >

July 31[edit]

Category:Math lists[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 13:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was agreeed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Proposal: rename Category:Math lists that this category be renamed to Category:Mathematical lists. I moved all the articles from the first to the second category with a bot (there were plenty of them). Now I request the original category be deleted. Oleg Alexandrov 23:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, if so sayeth the project. -Splash 01:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per proposer. Pavel Vozenilek 20:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Reinyday 07:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ComCat 04:16, 3 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.

Media-related categories[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 14:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have:

Navigating the resulting mess is like crawling through spaghetti. I would recommend merging Category:News media and Category:Journalism (don't care which one stays), since there is already substantial overlap, and these terms cover essentially the same territory. I think "Mass media" is fairly unambiguous, if broad. Category:Media, on the other hand, has collected mass media, news media, storage media, and entertainment media articles. I would recommend deleting this category entirely. Mass-media and news-media articles should go into the other categories that are being kept. Other articles should go into Category:Video and movie technology, Category:Computer storage, Category:Entertainment, or elsewhere. -- Beland 21:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose articles should be categorized correctly, as I feel the current names are appropriate.
  • Category:News media - main article News media deals with specifically all news related media, not just journalists, but also corporations, radio, etc.
  • Category:Journalism - main article Journalism deals specifically with the career of being a journalist and all related articles that pertain to being a journalist, whether it is news realted or not.
  • Category:Mass media - main article Mass media deals with all forms of mass media, doesn't not specifically mean news, it also relates to advertising, propoganda, newspapers, magazines, cinema films, radio, television, the World Wide Web, billboards, etc. Any media that is designed to be spread to a mass audience.
  • Category:Media - NO main article, but is and should be a parent cat of all types of media. Media does NOT only mean news/journalism, but is also a format or type of medium which holds data (VHS, CD, DVD, Film).

Article mis-categorization is not a category problem, but I agree that it is a mess and should be sorted out properly, but w/o removal/merging of these cats. ∞Who?¿? 23:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I generally agree with Who. Some clarification: Category:News media is intended for the different types of news media -- broadcast, newspaper, etc. Maurreen (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to Belands specific plan. In favor of other reorganization, but CFD would not be the best place to win me over to it. Many cats need work --glad to see Beland wanting to do some cleanup here. I wont agree to any reorg based on any CFD process. Do it through WP:JOURN instead. -St|eve 01:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that eventually one or more cats may have to return here to actually be deleted if that should be necessary. -Splash 01:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It seems that, while the contents of the cats are a mess, the cats themselves are not too loosely defined. I think they could use some preamble text with links to the other cats to aid editors. I think perhaps they need better names, or something, but that is best discussed over at WP:JOURN. -Splash 01:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While there may be some duplication and overlap between categories and while there is certainly room for improvement I don't think any action is required at this time. The important thing, to me, about Categories is how one uses them. Categories are about making links and associations and I think we shouldn't be so concerned if they are a bit "messy" that's OK, it's a representation of how people are using Wikipedia and complexity is just part of the picture. If it's a question of "crawling through spaghetti, call me Garfield the cat.
Yes, the field is complex. That word, "Media," it has so many meanings and associations where disambiguation is needed, from simple metonymy up to larger issues of technology, culture, ethics and so on. I think it's good to open up the discussion about the categories and it's interesting to see the list of what's there.
Let me take a moment to put another light on the scene, too. There are two WikiProjects dealing with these matters, but need members, advisors and contributors. The Edward R. Murrow Journalism Project (proposed name), formal name WikiProject Journalism and its sister project (as I see it), The Media Project (No name yet proposed). These projects are, as a starter, listing and going over all the articles in this board area and investigating ways to improve the existing crop of articles and to help generate ideas for new ones. In general, the master list of categories should be rich and diverse, not confined and limited, just like Wikipedia itself.
Therefore, while, I "oppose" the idea herein as presented, I think the discussion is significant and hope this will help to spur that on. The whole concept of categories in Wikipedia is itself developing and perhaps some of this is more germane to a meta-discussion about the use and treatment of the category system. Calicocat 02:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - Well, I can see the argument that there are some types of journalism that aren't quite news. But I don't see anything currently under "news media" that shouldn't at least also be under "journalism"? Do you? -- Beland 02:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see it as a question of "journalism" and "news". But here is an example: Category:Newspaper business is down the hierarchy from Category:News media. Category:Newspaper business includes "newspaper circulation" and "Joint operating agreement" and a couple other things. Those topics are more related to the business end than the journalism end. Also, "News media" is (I think) a subcat of both "Journalism" and "Mass media". Deleting that cat and just throwing all those articles into either or both of the other two would make them more messy. Maurreen (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's actually part of the point. News media is a sub-cat of Journalism, and pertains to the news portion of Journalism. The Journalism sub-cat of News Media, should be removed. Also, articles pertaining to news, should be moved further down, under News Media, thus making them Journalism and News Media. ∞Who?¿? 03:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If we need a category for DVDs, tapes, film, hard drives, etc, shouldn't it be "Storage media" or something a little less ambiguous? "Mass media" and "storage media" are really quite different things, and I don't see why they should be co-mingled in the same category just because they happen to share an etymology. -- Beland 02:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Storage media" would be an appropriate subcat of "Media". It already has "Digital media," and probably others could be added. Maurreen (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that some of the articles should be sub-cat'd beneath Media, but it should remain as a parent cat. ∞Who?¿? 03:29, 1 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:Covent Garden[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 14:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Covent Garden is an informal name for a very small part of central London. It has no official existence or generally agreed boundaries. There is an established local categorisation system for London which can be seen in category:districts of London. There are subcategories for the City of London and the 32 London Boroughs. These 33 areas comprise the whole of Greater London. As can be seen from the category, there are hundreds of informal districts in London, few of which have fixed boundaries. None of the others have categories, but if we had categories for all of them it would be over the top, and it would probably lead to lots of debatable categorisation. There would also be a risk that people would remove articles from the more important categories, so I would like to see this precedent deleted. There is also good subject area categorisation in category:London, and we don't need yet another categorisation system cutting across the established ones. CalJW 16:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom, and merge where appropriate. Established boroughs plainly listed on London borough. ∞Who?¿? 21:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems that London is probably already overcategorized. I didn't realise Covent Garden was informal (it's so well-known). Learn something everyday. -Splash 01:45, 1 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.

Importance cleanup categories[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 13:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yea, sorry it was the only info I could find, figured it deserved a mention. I originally thought it must have been a Tfd but didn't see it in archives. Think I was looking for the wrong title. Here is another relevant Tfd discussion. ∞Who?¿? 02:06, 1 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:Lists of Wikipedians[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 13:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Wikipedians should do just find as articles in Category:Wikipedians. Indeed there are already some there. It would be more useful to break down Category:Wikipedians by some other criteria. (Not to mention convert these lists into category memberships, especially the lists that are redundant with existing categories.) -- Beland 06:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are quite a few lists in there, much more than I expected. Before I looked, I would have vote merge with parent. At this point, and as many Wikipedian cats have come up lately, I venture to ask if there is a Wikipedian project that may be able to handle or sort these out better. Many or most Wikipedians do not even know the existance of the Wiki specific cats, and would probably use them more as a community if they did. ∞Who?¿? 10:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is the new Wikipedia:User categorisation project. -- Beland 11:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, thanks for the info. Ok, the question now is, what lists are we going to convert to categories? I don't object to fields of interest, but there are quite a few. Should these be more generalized, or are they already. (I hadn't had a chance to go thru all the interests). Also, Wikipedia:List of banned users, definately doesn't need a cat, but should remain a list. So for now, are we just going to dump all the lists in Category:Wikipedians or are you requesting a categorization of some of the lists? ∞Who?¿? 11:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should note that some lists should be put in subcategories. For example, the by_interest A-Z lists should be in Category:Wikipedians by fields of interest. Old Europe and New Europe can go in by_location, etc. -- Beland 22:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to appropriate sub-cats as per nom. Creation of new cats can be handled by Project as stated. ∞Who?¿? 22:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whole "Wikipedian" category. My god, talk about a "vanity page"! 12.73.195.134 01:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see anything wrong with these categories. Guettarda 12:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What categories? This is a category with several articles, which, if I'm not mistaken, will be moved to Category:Wikipedians and be replaced with new categories. So having been emptied, why would we need this category? --Kbdank71 19:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a problem with it. Dave (talk) 19:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians as per Beland. --Kbdank71 19:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Wikipedia:User categorisation seems mostly/only concerned with geographic location and language. Not very useful to me at the moment. Some users might choose not to identify their location, but might choose to self-identify with another category (i.e. by handedness, by religion, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barista (talk • contribs) 10:43, 7 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:NWFP[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 13:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate of Category:North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan, but the name is less descriptive, and it had only one entry, which I've moved to the longer-named category.-gadfium 05:59, 31 July 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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The London bombing Conspiracy Guild[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 moved to WP:VFD --Kbdank71 13:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this to this VfD. -Splash 17:46, 31 July 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:UK Co-operative Party 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 Keep ∞Who?¿? 03:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deletion of this category. The Co-op party is a very shadowy organisation in Britain, just an appendage of the Labour Party. Some Labour MPs are technically Labour and Co-op, but the bulk of their constituents, and even many Labour party activists, are unaware of who they are, it is not worth listing them separately from the main body of Labour MPs. PatGallacher 21:25, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Another user writes: I'd have thought the fact that few people know of the Co-operative Party makes it all the more important to make this information available! (unsigned comment)

  • Extremely strong keep. The Co-op Party is a different political party which is in electoral alliance with Labour but it does have a separate organisation. Its senior members promote Co-operation. So what if other people don't know who they are? Could say that of many categories. It helps educate readers. David | Talk 00:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Categories, like articles, need to pass some threshold of notability. Whatever the formal position, in practice the Co-op Party is not "a different political party which is in electoral alliance with Labour", it is a rather shadowy appendage of the Labour Party which even a lot of politically aware people are barely aware of. This category is of less significance that e.g. Labour MPs sponsored by specific trade unions e.g. the TGWU, we could have all sorts of categories. Why not e.g. Labour MPs who were active in the National Organisation of Labour Students? PatGallacher 00:36, 2005 July 31 (UTC)
  • Keep. Removing this would seem like a loss of not-useless information to me. Cats do have a threshold of notability, but with a little more subtlety than articles, since they are about metainformation. See WP:CSL for example. More important for a cat is "can you write a few paragraphs about the topic?" and "will it be obvious why the article is in the cat?". A useful guideline (though seemingly not written down) is also "will there ever be more than a few articles in the cat?" In this case, the answer to all three questions is yes. -Splash 01:10, 31 July 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:Inexplicable Political Endorsements[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 13:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV; there aren't many articles about specific newspaper political endorsements. The two articles currently included are one politician and one newspaper; if any more articles were to be added, it would be impossible to tell which newspaper goes with which politican. tregoweth 15:34, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that some confusion about identifying the newspaper with the person is a reason for deletion. In addition, the category was just begun, and will get filled in. Finally, the only thing really important is to distinguish the newspapers from the people, which should be easy to do. If you go on the people, it will list or describe the event and endorsement in question. --Noitall 03:28, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
And the "POV" statement made without explanation is expressly prevented by the category description. --Noitall 03:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Saying anything is 'inexplicable' is POV. The Baltimore Sun article does not mention the reason it is in the category. David | Talk 13:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2 issues:
  1. by this standard, we would get rid of many of our categories, and the category has a clear definition that reduces the chance for POV
  2. agree that newspapers should not be on here because it really is for those endorsed --Noitall 14:00, August 1, 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 Spoken Wikipedia[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 13:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be an unintented duplication of Category:Spoken articles. Russ Blau (talk) 22:06, July 31, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_31&oldid=1121947277"