Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 7

< October 6	October 8 >

October 7[edit]

Category:Monster anime[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 "?!" 11:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Monster anime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another totally subjective category from User:Kid Sonic. The criteria he writes could fit any number of anime from Dragon Ball Z to Tenchi Muyo. Danny Lilithborne 23:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, No it can't. Dragonball Z mainly revolves around fighters and space. And Tenchi Muyo revolves around girls and space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid Sonic (talk • contribs)
- Comment "Anime that revolves around... fighting strange monsters from other universes." How does that not apply to many anime centered around fighting? Danny Lilithborne 21:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify (and Delete), presuming citations/references can actually be found. - jc37 00:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The anime by genre cats are more then sufficient to sort anime by. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom:too wide a cat. Jpe|ob 01:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just change the definition. Kid Sonic

You can only "vote" once in a single listing, but you can comment more than once. Please keep that in mind : ) - jc37 15:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TheFarix. Recury 19:26, 10 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:Nuclear power plants in the United States[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 both. the wub "?!" 11:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nuclear power plants in the United States to Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States
Category:Nuclear power plants in France to Category:Nuclear power stations in France
Rename, to tie in with Category:Power stations in the United States, Category:Power stations in France, Category:Nuclear power stations by country and its other 28 subcategories. Brammen 22:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until a standard is determined. See: category:Category:Power stations in the United States. It's a mixture of plant and station. See: Power station for comments concerning usage. Based on the article, I particularly oppose the US rename. - jc37 00:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Power stations is fine in the U.S. Look how many of them have "station" in their names. Wilchett 01:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. >Radiant< 13:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This was resolved in the last discussion. The category name was selected as power station since that is a common name used within the industry. The articles themselves use what ever is correct for each facility. Vegaswikian 05:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. — Reinyday, 19:54, 9 October 2006 (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 section.

Category:LGBT rights movement[edit]

No consensus reached after 7 days, discussion was moved and relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 14#Category:LGBT rights movement. Please make further comments there. - the wub "?!" 11:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anthropomorphic comic book titles[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 as follows:

Category:Anthropomorphic comic book titles to Category:Comic books featuring anthropomorphic characters
Category:Anthropomorphic films to Category:Films featuring anthropomorphic characters
Category:Anthropomorphic television programs to Category:Television programs featuring anthropomorphic characters
Category:Anthropomorphic comics to Category:Comic strips featuring anthropomorphic characters

since "featuring" seems to have a slight preference and no objections. the wub "?!" 20:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anthropomorphic comic book titles to Category:Comic books which feature anthropomorphic characters

Rename, The current category name makes it sound like the titles themselves are anthropomorphic. Also:

Category:Anthropomorphic films to Category:Films which feature anthropomorphic characters

Category:Anthropomorphic television programs to Category:Television programs which feature anthropomorphic characters

Category:Anthropomorphic comics to Category:Comic strips which feature anthropomorphic characters

Rename, per original nom Shannernanner 19:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I don't think that anyone looking at the cat names would be confused. Note: I placed them in their own sub-cat category:Anthropomorphism by media. - jc37 22:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Comic books which feature anthropomorphic animals, not just characters.--Nydas 12:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, That's a narrower category, not all anthropomorphic characters are animals? Shannernanner 22:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but all the entries in the category now are anthropomorphic animals, and let's face it, no-one's going to add, say, something like Astro Boy to this.--Nydas 18:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Sorry, didn't see your reply. I don't see any reason to narrow the category names; and though, yes, currently the categories mostly consist of animals, the film category, for instance, does include Monsters, Inc. and Cars. Shannernanner 14:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, could also make a case for deleting as trivia. >Radiant< 13:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename; except "comic book titles" --> "comic books" and "comics" --> "comic strips" lose something in the rename. It should be Category:Comic book titles which feature anthropomorphic characters and Category:Comics which feature anthropomorphic characters. Not every comic is a strip... etc. --Keitei (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Was going by standard at Category:Comics. Comics are considered the blanket category for both comic books and comic strips; and to me, "Comic book titles which feature..." sounds like the titles themselves feature the characters, which is rather ambiguous (does the character's name have to be in the title?). Shannernanner 22:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"which feature" → "featuring"...? David Kernow (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Sure, doesn't make a difference to me. I noticed I typed some both ways on accident and changed them to all be the same. Shannernanner 10:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all but change "which" to "that", meaning Category:Anthropomorphic films to Category:Films that feature anthropomorphic characters, Category:Anthropomorphic television programs to Category:Television programs that feature anthropomorphic characters and Category:Anthropomorphic comic book titles to Category:Comic books that feature anthropomorphic characters. — Reinyday, 19:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment, Okay, so what's the consensus on "which feature," "that feature," or "featuring"? I'm voting "featuring." Shannernanner 13:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For grammar reasons, "which" is preferred to "that", in this case. I have no opinion whether "which feature" or "featuring" is better. (Though I am leaning towards the -ing verb.) - jc37 00:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Comic book titles featuring anthropomorphic characters, as an aside, how anthropomorphized does a character need to be to have the title it's featured in included? Is the ability to speak enough to merit inclusion in this category? --Newt _Ψ _Φ 13:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where are Maus and even all of the Disney titles (e.g. Donald Duck Adventures, DuckTales, Mickey Mouse Adventures)? This category, though possibly new, seems rather biased as is. --Newt_Ψ_Φ 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I'm not sure what that has to do with naming conventions, but someone(s) has (have) been adding to this lately, but on some pages on my watch list anyway, someone has been mass reverting the category add, without a given reason. Shannernanner 18:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Doesn't have anything to do with naming conventions, it was more an issue with the category as it stood at the time of my posting. If you mean my earlier addendum to my "Rename" vote, I said that it was an aside. --Newt _Ψ _Φ 19:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. Doczilla 17:41, 15 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:Copenhageners[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. the wub "?!" 11:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Copenhageners to Category:People from Copenhagen

Rename, in line with the convention for people by city categories. Edton 18:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - jc37 22:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, but please keep Category:Copenhageners as redirect to Category:People from Copenhagen. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Badbilltucker 16:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:13, 9 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:Mac OS X-only software made by Apple Computer[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 keep. the wub "?!" 12:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mac OS X-only software made by Apple Computer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Too minor to deserve its own category. Paul Cyr 16:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see it being useful. - jc37 22:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if it is to be kept, then it must be renamed as it follows neither grammatical rules or Wikipedia naming conventions. Paul Cyr 06:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 13:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the interests of the reader (assuming this is who we're writing for, of course), I could see this as a useful navigation aid. It strikes me as something people might be looking for. --Keitei (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a relevant subset of Category:Mac OS X-only software. — Reinyday, 19:51, 9 October 2006 (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 section.

Category:Providence College graduates[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. the wub "?!" 12:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Providence College alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --Keitei (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. — Reinyday, 19:52, 9 October 2006 (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 section.

Category:Challenged books[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 "?!" 12:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Challenged books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, The name and parameters of the category are wholly ambiguous; this has been mentioned on its talk page. As well, the category Banned books was recently deleted per discussion (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 24#Category:Banned books). Shannernanner 13:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (This is even less clear than banned books.) - jc37 22:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is long time since I saw something so ... confusing. Pavel Vozenilek 23:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, we've seen it before. >Radiant< 13:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; if a recreation, tag as {{deletedcategory}}. David Kernow (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vague.Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Tbeatty 07:10, 11 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:Colorado State University women's basketball players[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. the wub "?!" 20:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Colorado State University women's basketball players to Category:Colorado State Rams women's basketball players

Rename. This category doesn't follow the college sports standard of "(School name) (Nickname) (sex) basketball players. At Colorado State, "Rams" is used for both sexes. Dale Arnett 04:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename.-Mike Selinker 06:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename, per standard. - jc37 22:50, 7 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.

Western Kentucky University basketball[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 both. the wub "?!" 20:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Western Kentucky Hilltoppers men's basketball players to Category:Western Kentucky Hilltoppers basketball players
Category:Western Kentucky Hilltoppers men's basketball coaches to Category:Western Kentucky Hilltoppers basketball coaches
Rename both. This is another school with different nicknames for its men's and women's athletic teams; if you take a look through the school's official athletic site, you'll find that men's teams are "Hilltoppers" and women's teams are "Lady Toppers". — Dale Arnett 04:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename.--Mike Selinker 06:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename, per standard. - jc37 22:50, 7 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:Hellenic Navy ships[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 and redirect to Category:Ships of the Hellenic Navy. the wub "?!" 13:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Ships of the Hellenic Navy, or the other way around. Category:Ships by navy is inconsistant. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Since it's "ships by navy", it should follow the "of the <navy name>" convention. - jc37 22:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as I believe "Ships of" more generally applicable... David Kernow (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change both - While we have had issues trying to achieve consensus on how to standardize country/naval category names, the de facto standard has been to use the Cathead naval ships of template, which would be Category:Naval ships of Greece. As such, I would propose merging all members of Category:Hellenic Navy ships and Category:Ships of the Hellenic Navy into Category:Naval ships of Greece. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both into Category:Naval ships of Greece; I agree with Kralizec. TomTheHand 13:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I agree with ProveIt and DavidKernow.Argos'Dad 18:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I too prefer the "Ships of..." form.Cplakidas 18:42, 13 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:Manga and anime sidekicks[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. the wub "?!" 20:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Manga and anime sidekicks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Subjective criteria (see "bug-eyed characters", "shady characters" and "manga/anime anti-heroes" from same editor). [[User:Danny Lilithborne|Danny Lilithborne]] 01:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete No need for a manga-specific category. Already covered by Category:Fictional sidekicks, unless you wanna make categories for comic sidekicks, movie sidekicks, liturature sidekicks, videogame sidekicks, and animal sidekicks. Animedude 09:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the difference between a "regular character" and "sidekick" is unclear in most series. >Radiant< 12:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clean-up/prune, and make it a sub-cat of Category:Fictional sidekicks. - jc37 22:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, Make it a sub category for Category:Fictional sidekicks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid Sonic (talk • contribs)
Keep as a relevant subsection of Category:Fictional sidekicks. — Reinyday, 20:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC) (see also List of sidekicks)
Delete subjective, unnecessary category. Doczilla 17:43, 15 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:Manga and anime anti-heroes[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 "?!" 20:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Manga and anime anti-heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Subjective criteria (see "bug-eyed characters", "manga/anime sidekicks" and "shady characters" from same editor). Danny Lilithborne 01:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This category could, in effect contain every anime protagonist in existance. Depending on what you definition of "anti-hero" is. If you mean a hero who does not always follow the valliant ways of a sterotypical "hero", your in for a long list when anime is consirned. (Animedude 09:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, "anti-hero" is a subjective term. >Radiant< 12:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, and discussion. - jc37 22:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, the definition of anti-hero basicly fits the same. Anime is a different kind of fiction so don't merge them all under the basic category of anti-hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid Sonic (talk • contribs)
Delete per several CfDs on Anti-hero categories. CovenantD 21:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, make it a sub category for Anti-hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid Sonic (talk • contribs)
Listify whatever isn't already at List of fictional anti-heroes. — Reinyday, 20:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete, with the reasons everyone else has already stated. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too subjective. --InShaneee 16:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this undefined category. Doczilla 17:41, 15 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:Fictional bug-eyed characters[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 "?!" 20:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional bug-eyed characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Criteria seems to be absolutely subjective. The editor's idea of bug eyes is eyes that are solid and black. Delete Danny Lilithborne 01:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What exactly is meant by "bug-eyed"? do they mean eyes that stick or bug out, or do they mean compound eyes like an insects? Also "solid and black" eyes does not mean "bug eyes" in any sense, unless they mean that their eyes resemble small insects, which is stupid.
- Comment: Bug-eyed means protruding or very wide eyed, as per this definition. It's a dictionary word, so the definition isn't the issue. The issue is, Will anyone find this a useful way of browsing articles? I don't think so either. — Reinyday, 20:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete, we do not categorize by appearance. >Radiant< 12:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely subjective criteria which does not lend itself to categorization. --Satori Son 13:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, How come you people delete every article I work on from scratch? I just want something and exciting to happen. I think it was either Naruto or Sakura who reffered to Rock Lee as "bug-eyed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid Sonic (talk • contribs)
- Comment Wikipedia is not supposed to be a place where exciting things happen. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia. Danny Lilithborne 23:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't an article, it's a category. To make an article, try List of fictional bug-eyed characters. — Reinyday, 19:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete - What? no Barney Google or even worse, no Bug-Eyed Bandit? : ) - jc37 22:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - questionable definition of 'bug-eyed'.--Nydas 12:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Keep it (but change definition) - If you don't like it, you could always change the name or definition, but don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid Sonic (talk • contribs)
Delete - way too subjective. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why are you doing this to every article I work on!?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid Sonic (talk • contribs) 09:17 October 10, 2006
  - Comment - Me? I don't recognize your username. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Why should this exist?" is the real question. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this undefined and unnecessary category. Doczilla 17:42, 15 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.