Biocrawler:Categories for deletion
From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.
Purge the cache to refresh this page (http://www.biocrawler.com/w/index.php?title=Biocrawler:Categories_for_deletion&action=purge)
See Biocrawler:Categories for deletion policies for the official rules of this page, guidelines for Speedy Renaming, and how to do cleanup.
Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less.
Note that in present implementation, categories cannot be redirected. It is possible to use a 'soft redirect' which means to explain at Category:Foo that it is to remain empty, and to use Category:Bar instead.
| Deletion Tools | |
|---|---|
|
Articles {{vfd}}
Redirects {{rfd}}
{{Move to Wiktionary}} Deletion policy | |
How to use this page
- Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or being created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
- Read and understand Biocrawler:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies here, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas. (See also Biocrawler:Naming conventions and Biocrawler:Manual of Style.)
- Please read the Biocrawler:Categorization of people policy if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
- Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
- Add {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. (If you are recommending that the category be renamed, you may also add a note giving the suggested new name.) This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
- Alternatively, use the rename template like this: {{cfr|newname}}
- If you are concerned with a stub category, make sure to inform the WikiProject Stub sorting
- Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
- Alternatively, if the category is a candidate for speedy renaming (see Biocrawler:Category renaming), add it to the speedy rename section, which is above the regular discussions.
- Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
- Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
- Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.
Special notes
Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidently not listed here.
See also meta-discussion going on at Biocrawler talk:Categories for deletion phrases regarding the content of the {{cfd}} template, and about advisory/non-advisory phrases to be used on this "Categories for deletion" page.
Anonymous users may nominate and comment on proceedings, just as in VfD. Votes from anonymous or new users may be discounted if they lack edit history.
Speedy renaming
Categories may be listed here if they fall under the criteria specified at Biocrawler:Category renaming. They may be processed and removed from this list without delay.
Criteria for speedy renaming are strictly limited to:
- Typo fixes (e.g. Brdiges → Bridges).
- Note that changes between British and American spelling (e.g. Harbours → Harbors) are not considered typos.
- Capitalization fixes (e.g. characters In harry Potter → Characters in Harry Potter)
- Conversions from singular to plural, or back (e.g. Steamship → Steamships)
- (Add new entries here)
- See also Biocrawler:Categories_for_deletion/Names, an attempt to create a guideline for categories of people by first or last name.
Stub categories for deletion
Discussions
June 23
Category:Swedish nobility
This could be a useful category if it were used for institutions associated with the Swedish nobility. That is not how it is used. It is used as a category for biographical articles, and thus based on genealogical information which is presumed but usually not present in the articles. The fact that it has been used for several people who do not belong to the Swedish nobility shows that it is too difficult to apply without access to correct data. (It has been applied to people such as Hans von Euler-Chelpin, Ulf von Euler, Max von Sydow and Björn von Sydow, none of them members of the Swedish nobility, as well as to royal dynasties, which were never counted as part of the Swedish nobility.)
Additional problems: it has been applied to medieval people. The development of a clearly delimited "nobility" was a long process in Sweden (as in many countries), and defining "Swedish nobility" for the Middle Ages is not a simple issue. Swedish historians usually do not speak of "nobility" (adel) before the 16th century, with its predecessor being a service-based tax-exempt class (the frälse), which in its lower tiers is difficult to distinguish from the wealthier parts of the peasantry. A clear delimitation appears only with the Riddarhuset in 1626.
Finally, if it would actually be used consistently as a category for biographical articles for early modern Sweden, it would tend to get useless as most significant political or military figures either were born in the nobility or were raised to the nobility at some point in their career. In some other countries this dominance was even stronger than in Sweden.
There are other similar categories, and they have various problems with definition and delimitation. How do you define German nobility or Italian nobility for time periods when no German or Italian nation states existed? Category:Nobility of the Holy Roman Empire or Category:Patriciate of the Republic of Venice would be more defendable categories, provided somebody makes lists of those families which belong and make sure that every family/person thus categorized actually belongs to the group and not, say, to some other family with the same name.
Nobility is not some kind of absolute state, but something based in a particular time, place and legal system. Outside that context it is meaningless.
I am not certain what would be the ideal solution, but the present situation is clearly not satisfactory. Tupsharru 09:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Category:Proposed languages → Category:Proto-languages
It was recently decided that the two above-mentioned categories should be merged into one. I don't disagree with the merger, but I disagree with its direction. As far as I can tell, the term "proposed language" is not a technical term of historical linguistics, whereas "proto-language" is. The article proposed language does not really make it clear how that term is supposed to be different from proto-language; I think proposed language is basically a Biocrawler neologism for proto-language. I have already suggested that proposed language be merged with proto-language, and I would also like Category:Proposed languages to be renamed Category:Proto-languages. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support Proto-language gets 16k googles, the first bunch of which relate to this cat. Proposed language gets 120k googles, but most of them are entirely unrelated (e.g. "proposed language for amendment X"). Radiant_>|< 09:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Countrian history -> History of Country renames
As requested, I have put these nominations on hold temporarily. The full list is at the bottom of this page (WP:CFD). Please pull out any you have an objection to and put them here, and we will discuss them. We are actually encountering some of the problems the move is intended to avoid in the future - ambiguity over what the adjective form actually refers to. In most cases, it refers to the a single country. In other cases, it also refers to an ethnic group or language or multiple historical or present-day territories, etc. It's easy to overlook these cases when you are renaming a bunch of countries all at once, but hey, that's what peer review is for. -- Beland 08:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Move all to fooish history format. I see no reason why the history section should not be set up like the other cultural categories, such as Category:Art by nationality or Category:Literature by country. As with these other topics history is not something cleanly confined to the political entities known as countries. The history of a subject has vague and amorphous boundaries and we need a vague and amorphous term like nation. Trying to be overly concrete leads to ridiculous results such as having thirteenth century battles in Category:History of the Czech Republic or any of the many pre-Confederation topics that are now in Category:History of Canada.
- Apparently the ethnicity and the territory have become co-mingled here. I would support the alternative move of Category:Czech history to Category:History of the Czech Republic and Category:History of the Czech people, which will have to be done manually. -- Beland 08:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Keeping Category:History of the Czech Republic would not be horrible, but I don't think that there are enough pages to spin out this subcat yet. Either way Category:Czech history should be kept as it can serve the multiple purpose of history by country, by nation, and by region. - SimonP 11:44, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Support for consistency. --Kbdank71 13:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- SimonP objected to this. I'm not sure why, because it appears to be a collection of articles about the history of the Canadian territories, including the various ethnic groups who have lived there. I support the original decision, to make "History of Foo" standard in Category:History by country so that both alphabetical and random-access (typing the name into the Go box) navigation are easy. As I have been saying for a while now, country-adjectives are problematic in a number a ways, and should be avoided where possible. -- Beland 08:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Canadian history extends to a period long before a the country called Canada was formed in 1867. - SimonP 11:44, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Doesn't Canadian mean "of Canada"? And therefore, if History of Canada isn't correct, then neither is Canadian history. However, I support this move. --Kbdank71 13:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Category:Tribes of Uganda
A needless duplicate of Category:Ethnic groups of Uganda with a less well defined, and politically sensitive, title. No other 'Tribes of Country'-cats exist, 'Ethnic groups of Country' is widely used. — mark ✎ 08:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Category:United_States_newspapers subcategories
Category:Newspapers in Arizona
Category:Newspapers_in_Kentucky
Category:Ohio_newspapers
Category:Texas newspapers
Category:Newspapers in Washington
For consistency with the other subcategories, rename to "Newspapers of X". -- User:Docu
June 22
Category:History by country
Should be replaced by Category:History by nation. This was moved to Category:history by country following a two to one vote last week that hardly anyone seems to have paid attention to. The note, made in that debate, that country and nation mean two different things was for some reason ignored. Category:Czech history is not the history of a country, but the history of a nation. The change in name also forced some subcategories to be expelled. Category:Jewish history, for instance, is now classed only under Category:History of religion, which is deeply misleading. - SimonP 23:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Also note that many of the subcategory renames are inappopriate, notably the pending Category:Czech history --> Category:History of the Czech Republic. Both categories should exist; the latter should perhaps be a subcat of the former. -- Visviva 02:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support, the original categories were carefully created, whoever changed them is being sloppy and also incorrect, as explained above. IZAK 05:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Where would Kurdish history articles go, for example. This gets kind of hairy, since it's a pair of terms, the distinctions between which post-WWI and, even moreso post-WWII history has muddled, not only linguistically but even in the minds of people. I doubt that this VfD is going to be the end of this, but, IMHO at least, History by country is definitely not the right way to go with this. Tomer TALK 06:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- COMMENT (neither support nor reject): Some histories are histories of countries (such as the US or UK), while others (maybe Croatian or Jewish) may be those of nations. You're right that these are not histories of countries, but at the same time, there are indeed some which are histories of countries. ~ Dpr 05:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, however in those cases where history and nation overlap we generally have two categories. e.g. we have History of Britain and History of the United Kingdom, History of Serbia and Montenegro and Serbian history, and the previously cited Irish example. It would be possible to have a parallel history by country and history by nation category system, but this would cause some duplication as in 90% of cases they are identical. The general policy had been to have the country history pages as sub-cats of the national history ones, which I think works. Someone looking for History of the Republic of Ireland will quickly find it through History of Ireland - SimonP 11:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. There are two things, territories and ethnic groups. The "history of" categories should clearly distinguish between the two. The word "nation" is confusing, because it can mean either, and many people won't actually realize that. The word "country" should be used in this case, since this should be the category for territory histories. We already have Category:History by ethnic group, and I have added Category:Jewish history there, and I see Category:U.S. history by ethnic group is already there. This makes sense; I would expect to find "History of the United States" and "History of Israel" in Category:History by country (or "History by nation", for that matter). Mixing territories and ethnic groups in the same category will make it too large and too confusing. If any article falls into both categories (hopefully not, for simplicity's sake, but you never know) it should just be listed twice. -- Beland 08:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comments: To answer the above question, I would put Kurdish history in Category:History by ethnic group. To determine whether or not something is a "country", I usually look at List of sovereign states and List of dependent territories. The Kurds are on List of active autonomist and secessionist movements. As for the "Countrian history -> "History of Country" renames, we should handle these separately... -- Beland 08:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Category:Forth-generation video game consoles
This category has an improper spelling and has been converted to Category:Fourth-generation video game consoles; therefore, it should be deleted. Marcus2 16:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted as typo fix speedy renaming. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- And there's a dash in the name why? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Category:Jewish literature
There is as yet no definition on Biocrawler of what precisely Jewish literature is exactly. This category was created in a care-free fashion, and at the same time by the same user as a near duplicate to Category:Yiddish literature with basically the same 3 or 4 entries placed in it, compare [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Jewish_literature&diff=prev&oldid=15619663) and [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Yiddish_literature&diff=prev&oldid=15619568). This is a "category in search of a subject", and until such time as the subject of Jewish literature is developed on Biocrawler, there is no point to this category. There already exist related categories such as Category:Jewish texts relating to Judaism, Category:Modern Hebrew writers and Category:Israeli writers as categories representative of both Hebrew language and Israeli (Jewish literature). The aforementioned thus create further doubt about exactly what Category:Jewish literature uniquely includes? (Maybe some day it would be good for secular Jewish books or authors not writing in Hebrew or Yiddish.) But at this point it appears to be a weakly defined category and should be deleted. IZAK 11:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete for above reasons. IZAK 11:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete echoing IZAK, although I doubt it's unlikely it will ever be a useful category. Tomer TALK 15:34, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- Does there not exist a large degree of non-Hebrew and non-Yiddish (secular) literature written by Jewish authors? Chaim Potok among many Anglophone Jewish writers, and it exists in Francophone literature, German-language literature, and others. Do you feel that the number of such non-Yiddish/non-Hebrew-using writers is scarce? I feel the subject is well defined. There seems to be a true need: no other category seems to fit. Please let me know if there is one that does. Besides, Yiddish and Hebrew literature ought to be encompassed into one overarching category as well. ~ Dpr
- Dpr, what you are describing is Category:American literature or Category:French literature with Jews as literary characters in some of those books. For example, Potok is writing about the phenomenon of (religious) Jews within the larger framework of American culture and not so much as a part of or a continuum of a specifically "Jewish" genre of books or writing (even though many people unfamiliar with Judaism's literary heritage get caught up in thinking that Potok and his type are a breed of modern-day literati equivalant to the Hebrew Bible's Isaiahs and Jeremiahs.) IZAK 05:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not making any argument about 'literati'...I'm just saying that there are multiple interpretations of literature, culture, and community. I believe there may exist something called Jewish literature, that such writers as Potok's and other Jewish writers are not just writers who happen to be Jewish, that such literature is not American or Francophone literature that "happens" to be by a Jewish person or about Jewish communities--instead "Jewish literature" as an entity may exist separately and distinctly (even if it may overlap the others like a Venn diagram.) Some clearly believe this entity does not exist, but we should clarify our statements and agree to disagree--we can only proceed when this stage is reached. Thanks ~ Dpr 05:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- So may I suggest, in good faith, that you go ahead and write a decent informative article about Jewish literature the way you have been describing it. Then other editors may add their views, either accepting, rejecting, or adding to what you are saying. But at this point it makes absolutely no sense to have a vague ill-defined category here that does not even have an article about its main subject. That is like "putting the cart before the horse". IZAK 08:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not making any argument about 'literati'...I'm just saying that there are multiple interpretations of literature, culture, and community. I believe there may exist something called Jewish literature, that such writers as Potok's and other Jewish writers are not just writers who happen to be Jewish, that such literature is not American or Francophone literature that "happens" to be by a Jewish person or about Jewish communities--instead "Jewish literature" as an entity may exist separately and distinctly (even if it may overlap the others like a Venn diagram.) Some clearly believe this entity does not exist, but we should clarify our statements and agree to disagree--we can only proceed when this stage is reached. Thanks ~ Dpr 05:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Category:Political organizations
There were only about five items in this, which I have now moved to the rest in Category:Political organisations. Deus Ex 11:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Category:Euler
This category was created for two Swedish scientists, Hans von Euler-Chelpin and his son Ulf von Euler, both Nobel laureates, and as a subcategory of Category:Swedish nobility. I removed the "Swedish nobility" categorization, but it is in any case silly to have a category for only these two persons. Tupsharru 09:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Category:Actors and actresses appearing on Law & Order
Too damn wordy, and actresses is not appropriate, where "actor" is gender neutral. Suggest Law & Order actors, Actors in Law & Order etc. Three subcats need renaming too. -SV|t 07:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Category:Drugs cheats in football
Ought to be renamed to Category:Users of banned substances in football. The title itself is POV-sounding. Furthermore, it is also inaccurate: Mark Bosnich uses cocaine, which hardly makes him a cheat (cocaine reduces rather than enhances performance). Mandel 07:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, poor naming. --Tothebarricades 03:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here
Category:Greatest Hits games
Use of commercial or proprietary lists by Sony, FHM, Playboy is not an NPOV use of categories. Depopulate list to article, and recat articles by better scheme. -SV|t 00:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't agree that this category is POV (it's a marketing label whose application can be objectively verified), but I do agree that this would be better served as a list than a category. List & delete. -Sean Curtin 05:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Listify. Radiant_>|< 11:41, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete category and listify similar to the article on Player's Choice. Move content up a directory to Category:PlayStation games (although it looks like most if not all of the games are categorized in both). --TheDotGamer Talk 20:36, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, its not POV: games for PSX that sold a certain amount of copies became labeled "greatest hits" and were sold at a reduced price. It's a finite category and I don't see the harm in it. --Tothebarricades 03:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
June 21
Category:British Rail gas turbine locomotives
Rename to Category:British Railways gas turbine locomotives since BR wasn't rebranded until 1968 or so and these engines all predate that. Dunc|☺ 00:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Category:Molyneux
Created originally by User:Irate, who I believe is now banned. Contains two peers and the article on their peerage, based on their common surname. There's no need for this as a subset of Category:Peers, or as a standalone category. The three articles listed already have categories in which they make sense. 146.113.66.22 21:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) (who is actually Mackensen, but can't login at this terminal, but who will reply here within the hour to signify that this anon IP is not some hoaxer)
- Yes, that's really me. Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this vaguely worded and unneccessary catalogue before I add Wolverhampton Wanderers to it! Grutness...wha? 00:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Whoops - that's Molineux stadium... make that Clutha River, then. Grutness...wha?
- Delete this vaguely worded and unneccessary catalogue before I add Populous to it! ;) -- grm_wnr Esc 13:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Category:Controversial books
Very POV. There is no litmus test you can give to say if a book belongs in the list or not. Gorrister 18:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Very true. Delete. --Kbdank71 19:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. All of the books in there have been considered 'controversial' at some point. Whether by the Catholic church, various governments or organisations, or large groups of people. NPOV states that every significant opinion should be represented fairly, not that none should be represented at all. Firestorm 20:00, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Where are the other significant opinions? Did I miss the fair representation of them in this category? As far as I see, Biocrawler is advocating that these books are indeed controversial. --Kbdank71 20:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that these books have been deemed controversial by various groups, so maybe a rename to Category:Books deemed controversial could be in order. But to not include any opinion is not what NPOV really is, either. That's what I meant. Firestorm 23:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Where are the other significant opinions? Did I miss the fair representation of them in this category? As far as I see, Biocrawler is advocating that these books are indeed controversial. --Kbdank71 20:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. All "Controversial" means is "generated significant/notable controversy". It is not that hard to judge, and it is not a pejorative. Origin of Species was controversial in its day; The Metamorphosis was relatively not. Books which were banned, generated large public debates, generated large scientific debates, etc. would be included. Questionable additions can be decided on a case-by-case basis -- it should not be hard to prove it one way or the other — if you can't cite works produced by the "controversy", then it's probably not that controversial. We know The Bell Curve was controversial because there were a legion of articles and editorials written for ad against it (most of which in the present describe it as a "controversial book"), and a number of volumes published as "Refutations of the Bell Curve" or "Arguments against the Bell Curve" or "Arguments for the Bell Curve", etc. True controversy generates more work about something, either offensive or defensive -- there's your litmus test. (The Metamorphosis generated a lot of literary work as well, but it was not attacking or defending it, it was analysing it -- there's your difference). --Fastfission 03:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- One more comment: I'm worried that the people who find this category to be POV don't have a very precise definition of controversial. Merriam-Webster defines "controversial" as simply "of, relating to, or arousing controversy", and "controversy" is defined as "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing view". This is not hard to measure, and it is not POV, and it does not reflect on truth or falseness. --Fastfission 04:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It is a useful category. There are many, many books that the authors wish were controversial, but relatively few that generate widespread discussion and debate, either in the lay or the specialist communities. It is worth highlighting those books. -Willmcw 05:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This is just a magnet for people to list books that don't fit with their own POV. Kaibabsquirrel 05:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I list books as controversial that do fit my POV. Would you deny that Origin of Species was and is controversial? Does that have anything to do with whether you agree or disagree with the book's contents? Creationists think it is controversial, biologists think it is controversial. Controversial can be a positive thing too. If it wasn't controversial, it probably didn't have any effect! --Fastfission 04:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. As stated in NOPV, What people believe, is an objective matter of fact. Likewise it is (basically) a matter of fact that a book is controversial. In contrast, it would be POV to conceal opposing judgements of the book.
- Interesting point. Useful, but wrongly named. How about rename to Category:Books that were banned? "Controversial" is too broad. Radiant_>|< 11:44, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Controversial does not have to be too broad -- we're talking about notable controversy, not a few negative book reviews. Books which changed the entire debate. And in my experience "banned" is both harder to check than this (banned where? by who? by some school board? by the Nazis?). --Fastfission 04:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well, for instance, would you consider Harry Potter a controversial book? Because several die-hard christian organizations accuse it of satanism. What would you think of The Lord of the Rings, which is alleged to be sexist because it has so very few female roles. What about any number of Michael Crighton's or Robin Cook's books, that highlight controversies in current culture? What about Erich von Danicken's books that are controversially labeled as either scientific or misleading? Seems to me that 'controversy' is too broad. Radiant_>|< 08:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Controversial does not have to be too broad -- we're talking about notable controversy, not a few negative book reviews. Books which changed the entire debate. And in my experience "banned" is both harder to check than this (banned where? by who? by some school board? by the Nazis?). --Fastfission 04:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or Rename to Category:Books deemed controversial. (Category:Books that were banned might be a subcategory.) — Sebastian (talk) 04:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
- Keep - this seems like a useful category, and "contovertial" is verifiable, and therefore NPOV. It's certainly notable. Guettarda 04:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Dunc|☺ 10:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - although there are enough keeps now that I'm not sure it's worth the bother. From WP:CG If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?. Exactly how controversial does a book need to be to be put in this category? How long does the controversy need to last? How widespread does the controvery need to be? Banned or not is factually verifiable. Controversial is ultimately subjective. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:34, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Category:South Korean actors and Category:Korean actors
These two categories are somehow overlapped. Some South Korean actresses/actors are categorised only to the latter category, while some are categorised to both. The two can either be merged, or make the former a subcategory of the latter. Please also note that on the English version of Biocrawler many lists and categories of Korean-related topics, the North and the South are not differentiated. — Instantnood 14:39, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- That's rather odd, because they are two distinct countries (and tend not to like each other much). In the spirit of countering systemic bias, delete the latter, keep the former, and add Category:North Korean actors. Radiant_>|< 15:00, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Well politically the two states are not in good condition, but among Korean people they do posess a sense of nationalism. They enter in opening ceremonies of Olympic Games together. In the 2002 Football World Cup North Korea sent a cheering team to the South. On Biocrawler many categories, lists, as well as stub types, are for both. — Instantnood 15:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the latter per Radiant!—--Jerry Crimson Mann 15:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Well politically the two states are not in good condition, but among Korean people they do posess a sense of nationalism. They enter in opening ceremonies of Olympic Games together. In the 2002 Football World Cup North Korea sent a cheering team to the South. On Biocrawler many categories, lists, as well as stub types, are for both. — Instantnood 15:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: In theory, the Korean category could hold all actors of Korean ethnicity, i.e. including Korean-American or Korean-Japanese actors... however, to my knowledge none such are currently included in the category, and I'm not sure such a category would be a great idea. -- Visviva 16:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Anyway, I support Radiant's suggestion to delete Category:Korean actors and merge its contents into Category:South Korean actors. And if anyone can find enough information about a North Korean actor for an encyclopedia article, by all means add that category. -- Visviva 16:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I have put up a notice at the talk page of Korea-related topics notice board. Let's see their opinion. :-D — Instantnood 17:03, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Category:Video editors
Seriously misnamed, since it actually contains only video editing software. Video editors are people. So, rename to Category:Video editing software and delete, unless there are enough articles on actual video editors (Note: Category:Film editors contains only 21 articles, and film editors are generally much more notable than video editors). -- grm_wnr Esc 13:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Video editing software as suggested. It may be worth noting that according to the deletion log from November 2004 the author renamed it from Category:Video editing software to Category:Video editors. --TheDotGamer Talk 22:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Category:Churches_in_Vienna
had only four entries. Created missing Category:Churches_in_Austria (according to other countries) and moved the entries. Ikar.us 12:05, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
- Keep. Category makes sense in order to keep Category:Vienna, which is already pretty full, more organized. Martg76
- Delete and create Category:Buildings_in_Vienna instead. — Sebastian (talk) 04:54, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Category:Singles by nationality and sole subcat Category:Danish singles
This categorization isn't actually in use. Note that singles are already classified by artists, and artists are classified by nationality. Radiant_>|< 09:47, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Agree, delete. Firestorm 20:11, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Category:British musical groups
This category is for musical groups formed in Great Britain. Great Britain is comprised of Scotland, Wales, and England. Scotland and Wales already have their own categories for musical groups. A category for England has recently been created to facilitate the changes. The articles should be merged into Category:English musical groups, Category:Scottish musical groups, or Category:Welsh musical groups (whichever is the case). This category is too generalized. - Tastywheat 07:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Question - Does redundancy within categories have an adverse effect on the server or database? If not, those three categories could exist as subcategories of British musical groups. - Tastywheat 08:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Use it to store the three subcategories and articles which cannot, for one reason or another, sorted more specifically. But maybe it should be renamed to Category:UK musical groups, so it can store the hypothetical Category:Northern Irish musical groups as well? This is mainly because I think it's strange and confusing to have Scottish, Welsh, etc. groups in Category:Musical groups by nationality directly. -- grm_wnr Esc 08:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Rebuttal, I personally feel that the division would make each category smaller and easier to search through. Also, I think the culture of each country affects the bands they produce and a distinction should be made. If the supercategory is to exist there would be little, if any, articles in that category that wouldn't fit in one of the subcategories. Tastywheat 00:21, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep British, delete English, Scottish, and Welsh. --Kbdank71 14:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, as per grm_wnr. Steve block 15:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as super-cat of English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish cats; "British" includes NI, FWIW, and doesn't mean "of Great Britain". James F. (talk) 18:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Clarification, Britain is an unofficial and somewhat ambiguous term for United Kingdom. I would be in favor of grm_wnr's suggestion, renaming to Category:UK musical groups. Overpopulation, if it even exists, would definitely occur in this category without division. Tastywheat 00:21, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Grm wnr. There should be a Category:UK musical groups to cover the three named subcategories (for England, Scotland, and Wales) plus one for Northern Ireland, since that is the difference between the UK and GB (the full name of the place is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"). Grutness...wha? 00:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or rename as a parent for other Great Britain/UK musician categories. -Sean Curtin 05:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Category:2005 news
This category has been split off from Category:2005 ostensibly to hold news-related articles relevant to the year and also news-by-month subcategories like Category:April 2005 news. My main objections are that it makes the category structure harder to use (for comparison, see Category:2003 which has not been fractured like this), will inevitably lead to many multiple classifications, and is simply not necessary since there can't possibly be that much news-related content that it can't be held in a single year-category. Besides, aren't almost all 2005-related articles "news"? In other words, pointless redundancy. (I have also nominated Category:2004 news for exactly the same reasons.) - dcljr (talk) 05:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Category:2004 news
This category has been split off from Category:2004 ostensibly to hold news-related articles relevant to the year and also news-by-month subcategories like Category:December 2004 news. My main objections are that it makes the category structure harder to use (for comparison, see Category:2003 which has not been fractured like this), will inevitably lead to many multiple classifications, and is simply not necessary since there can't possibly be that much news-related content that it can't be held in a single year-category. Besides, weren't almost all 2004-related articles "news" at the time? In other words, pointless redundancy. (I have also nominated Category:2005 news for exactly the same reasons.) - dcljr (talk) 05:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - BTW, I've listed this nomination separately from the 2005 one in case people feel differently about this sort of fragmentation propagating back through time (which will probably inevitably happen) than they do about allowing it for the current year only... although I'm not sure how such a distinction could be maintained. But whatever. - dcljr (talk) 06:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Category:Localities with numerals in their names
- Delete: Frivolous and ultimately erroneously titled.
Cyberjunkie TALK</sup> 14:43, 21 Jun 2005 [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biocrawler%3ACategories_for_deletion%2FLog%2F2005_June_21&diff=15539762&oldid=15539178)
- Delete. Unnecessary categorization. improperly named to boot.
Who is the nominator above?RedWolf 05:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry forgot to sign (check above diff).-- <b>Cyberjunkie</b> <b style="font-size:74%;">TALK 08:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry forgot to sign (check above diff).--
- Delete. Don't see much use for it, and "Three" and "Twentynine" and the like are not numerals.
- Delete. --Kbdank71 14:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Please see my comments at Category_talk:Localities_with_numerals_in_their_names. (I have watchlisted "Categories for Deletion" so that I can download possibly useful information from interesting pages before it is too late.) Wavelength 00:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
Rename to Category:Arithmonyms (or Category:Arithmonymata, if that is the correct plural). — Sebastian (talk) 05:03, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)- Retracting my vote. I still feel sympathetic to the idea, but as a hapax legomenon, "arithmonym" is a bad name for a category. — Sebastian (talk) 05:12, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Category:Discography
- Delete no entries and inactive for a year. Josh Parris ✉ 02:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. --Kbdank71 14:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, although it it wasn't inactive for a year... it was only created last month. I see no use for the category though. --TheDotGamer Talk 21:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Category:Eating
- Delete one entry - a stub that appears in other categories. Josh Parris ✉ 02:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. --Kbdank71 14:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Category:Royal commissions
- Delete one entry, the article on Royal commissions. It's only meaningful to group Royal Commissions by their country, because they have no legal (and little political meaning) outside of it. Josh Parris ✉ 03:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. --Kbdank71 14:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per Josh's point. — Sebastian (talk) 05:17, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
- Delete - my reaction exactly when I read the name - "what country"? - Guettarda 05:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Category:Supersuckers singles
- Delete one entry - it appears that the Supersuckers aren't that interested in singles.... Josh Parris ✉ 04:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. --Kbdank71 14:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Category:The Germs
- Transform into article and Delete. Josh Parris ✉ 04:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. --Kbdank71 14:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Category:Victorianism
- Delete one entry. Josh Parris ✉ 04:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. --Kbdank71 14:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --Brunnock 20:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Category:Chicken Feet
- Delete no entries. Josh Parris ✉ 04:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. --Kbdank71 14:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I shudder to think why this was ever created. BJAODN? Grutness...wha? 00:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Category:Catholic mass
- Delete no entries. Josh Parris ✉ 04:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. --Kbdank71 14:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Category:Evil_Genius
I give up.
June 20
Category:European history
Move content to existing Category:History of Europe and delete. (User:BDAbramson observed duplication on Category talk:History of Europe.) Task for Pearle? -- Nigosh 20:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Agree--Steve block 15:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge, as proposed. — Sebastian (talk) 05:19, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Category:Soviet history
Rename to Category:History of the Soviet Union
- Original discussion on History of Foo is here: Biocrawler:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 12 --Kbdank71 18:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Objection here. This category covers not only the Soviet Union, which starts in 1922, but the Sovet period of Russia 1917-1922 as well. This is exactly what it is: Soviet history.
- This issue has been a matter of various misunterstandings. The history here is in a kind of a knot. If you really want the