Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 14

< July 13	July 15 >

July 14

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Excellent cadavers

Ambiguous. "High profile cases" can go into the Category:Assassinated Italian people or Category:Assassinated Italian politicians. Intangible 18:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transport in South America

Category:Transportation in South America --> Category:Transport in South America
Category:Transportation in Argentina --> Category:Transport in Argentina
Category:Transportation in Buenos Aires --> Category:Transport in Buenos Aires
Category:Transportation in Bolivia --> Category:Transport in Bolivia
Category:Transportation in Brazil --> Category:Transport in Brazil
Category:Transportation in Chile --> Category:Transport in Chile
Category:Transportation in Colombia --> Category:Transport in Colombia
Category:Transportation in Ecuador --> Category:Transport in Ecuador
Category:Transportation in Paraguay --> Category:Transport in Paraguay
Category:Transportation in Peru --> Category:Transport in Peru
Category:Transportation in Venezuela --> Category:Transport in Venezuela
Rename all to match main articles. Europe and Oceania were already renamed and Africa is on the same way. - Darwinek 18:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy to Category:Destroyers of the United States

Rename per consensus on WP:SHIPS about reorganization of Category:Ships by country. See below vote on Category:Royal Navy battlecruisers for more extensive description. If you vote against this proposed rename, please participate in discussion on WP:SHIPS to come up with a better proposal. TomTheHand 17:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support as discussed on WP:SHIPS. --Spot87 17:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as discussed on WP:SHIPS. --Victor12 17:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Destroyers of the United States has a rather unfortunate name :-) Bluap 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category:Life in the United States

This category has only just been created. It is much to vague. There are sufficient top level U.S categories already. There is a lot of overlap with Category:American society, which is a standard category. Sumahoy 15:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sumahoy 15:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every subcategory of Category:United States itself is at least partially relevant to "life in the United States", broadly interpreted, so they could all be added to this category, making it a duplicate of its parent. Twittenham 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless category. Cloachland 16:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Golfcam 16:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians by time period

All Wikipedians are in the 2000s. I don't understand the point of this either. I'm a Wikipedian in the 2000s, and I could still be a Wikipedian in the 2010s and the 2020s (if the project lasts that long). --Schzmo 15:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! Please! TomTheHand 15:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It lacks any useful purpose. --Victor12 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cloachland 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers published in Canada

The following are generally titled "Newspapers in region". I think these titles would benefit by being made more precise, with a suggested renaming to "Newspapers published in region".

--Kurieeto 15:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Currently wording is fine. Ardenn 15:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. The proposed name describes the contents accurately, while the current names do not. Twittenham 15:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Cloachland 16:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Royal Navy destroyers to Category:Destroyers of the United Kingdom

See the below proposed deletion of Royal Navy battlecruisers for the reasons for this merge. TomTheHand 14:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support as discussed on WP:SHIPS. --Spot87 17:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as discussed on WP:SHIPS. --Victor12 17:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Royal Navy battlecruisers

For the past several weeks we've been discussing a reorganization of the Category:Ships by country structure. Part of the plan is to categorize by country instead of by navy, so this category is made redundant by Category:Battlecruisers of the United Kingdom, which is fully organized according to the proposal (therefore there is no need for a merge, just a deletion. TomTheHand 13:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion here or a summary of the proposal here if you are interested. See Category:Battlecruisers of the United Kingdom for an example category that has been put together according to the proposal. This has been in discussion for about three weeks on WP:SHIPS and I believe we have consensus there. TomTheHand 13:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one last thing. If you vote against this, it would be greatly appreciated if you could drop by WP:SHIPS and help us improve the proposal. I am aware of the disadvantages of naming these categories by country. However, we've discussed the disadvantages of naming by navy as well, and I believe naming by country is a better decision for reasons discussed on WP:SHIPS. TomTheHand 13:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As discussed on WP:SHIPS. --Victor12 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both It isn't empty and there are 28 categories of Royal Navy ships. Cloachland 16:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is redundant; everything that it should contain is contained in the new Category:Battlecruisers of the United Kingdom. Everything that BC of UK does not contain should not be in there. There are 28 categories of Royal Navy ships, which will all be renamed, merged, and/or deleted, per extensive discussion on WP:SHIPS. If you care strongly about ship categorization, please head over to WP:SHIPS and help us come up with a better proposal. Please don't oppose the delete based on such a cursory glance. TomTheHand 16:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As discussed on WP:SHIPS. --Spot87 16:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transport in Africa

Category:Transportation in Africa --> Category:Transport in Africa
Category:Transportation in Algeria --> Category:Transport in Algeria
Category:Transportation in Angola --> Category:Transport in Angola
Category:Transportation in Burkina Faso --> Category:Transport in Burkina Faso
Category:Transportation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo --> Category:Transport in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Category:Transportation in Egypt --> Category:Transport in Egypt
Category:Transportation in Ethiopia --> Category:Transport in Ethiopia
Category:Transportation in Guinea-Bissau --> Category:Transport in Guinea-Bissau
Category:Transportation in Morocco --> Category:Transport in Morocco
Category:Transportation in Senegal --> Category:Transport in Senegal
Category:Transportation in Tunisia --> Category:Transport in Tunisia
Rename all to match other categories and also to match main articles. - Darwinek 12:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all The English speaking countries in Africa are Commonwealth countries, and if the naming is made consistent for the whole continent, that will simplify matters. Twittenham 15:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Cloachland 16:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People by Chinese city

Category:Beijingers --> Category:People from Beijing
Category:Shanghainese --> Category:People from Shanghai
Rename both, common rename as with the American cities below. -- Darwinek 11:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: Per nom. and general move to "People from X". —Wknight94 (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Twittenham 15:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Cloachland 16:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Kurieeto 16:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish Prime Ministers to Category:Prime Ministers of Spain

Merge into the standard category. Chicheley 10:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. - Darwinek 11:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Twittenham 15:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Federal ministers of Nigeria to Category:Federal ministers of Nigeria

We don't normally divide between past and present. Ministries change often, and unless you already have a detailed knowledge of Nigerian politics, in which case you don't need separate categories, there is no way of knowing whether or not the allocation of articles is up to date, rendering the split useless either way. Chicheley 10:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Chicheley 10:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Twittenham 15:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fam-Lay

This is a category for a minor rapper. It has existed for over a month, and the only article it contains is the one about the rapper. --musicpvm 05:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Osomec 09:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cloachland 16:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians with an age

All of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians with an age were deleted last month, leaving only the parent category and a joke subcategory. Delete them both to discourage recreation of this ill-advised series of categories. - EurekaLott 04:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Joke userboxes are fine, but they should not be made into categories. --musicpvm 04:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chicheley 16:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More demonyms

The following should be renamed per previous discussions.

--musicpvm 03:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against - There is a difference between people from a certain place and denizens. For instance, many of the Milwaukeeans may not have been born in the city but played a significant role in its development and had were likewise impacted by the community. Sulfur 03:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also against - "People from X" place de-characterizes each city. --KHill-LTown 04:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, all of these categories are in Category:People by American city so there is absolutely no reason they should be exceptions to the naming convention used by the 400 other subcategories. I don't see how somebody can significantly contribute to a city without having lived a portion of their life in the city. And if they have lived a portion of their life in a city (even if they were not born in it), it is not incorrect to say "People from". Some of these demonyms of the smaller cities are also extremely ambiguous. If you think every one of the subcategories in Category:People by American city should be renamed to ambiguous demonyms, then propose a mass renaming of all 463 categories, but it makes no sense for these 50 random categories to be inconsistent with the others. --musicpvm 04:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. While Las Vegans is used, I never heard Newburghians in all of my years living up there. If Newarkers was used, it was not a term in common usage. So one wonders how valid some of these demonyms are. In any case, 'People from' always works and since most categories already use this I see no reason not to change to the more common form. One critical factor for an encylopedia is how it treats details in a consistant manner. Let's not lose sight of what this decision is a part of. Vegaswikian 04:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's with adding state name disambiguations to some of the category names? How many Schenectadies and Ypsilantis and Spokanes are there? - EurekaLott 05:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind removing the state from the three you mentioned, but I thought that without the state name, they would be amibiguous (not because there are other cities with the same name but because they are not major U.S. cities and most people may be unaware of where they are located). --musicpvm 05:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Sulfur. -Nogood 05:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support – most of these terms take me a second to figure out, and I am very familiar with U.S. geography. Nearly all of them also do not appear in their city's articles or anywhere else on Wikipedia. I greatly prefer names that are instantly recognizable when browsing, and predictable, so that they can be found through search or by typing the URL directly. ×Meegs 09:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support all. Little Rockers. Haha. --*kate speak 09:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support all per nom. Ease of use should be the first priority. Osomec 09:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all So far as most non-locals are concerned most of these, when seen at the bottom of a category, could just as easily be a religious sect or a fraternal society as a place. Chicheley 09:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support all: Per nom. Also, half of these don't even sound like words and sound unencyclopedic. Duluthans gets very few hits on Google. I live in Tampa and I've never heard the word Tampans in my life. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. -- Darwinek 11:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. I strongly support. Arual 13:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Kurieeto 13:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. I'm opposed to renaming these friendly (and encyclopedic) names for residents of various cities to a sterile, mechanical version. If this passes, the Wikipedia will be striving toward becoming boring. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 13:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Stevietheman. Long live the demonym!--M @r ē ino 14:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to the convention of using common names. However, wherever a denonym is used the People from Foo form should also exist as a category redirect. That way, non-local users can quickly find what they are looking for, even though they may be unfamilier with local terminology. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this would be an excellent compromise that resolves the concern behind this nomination. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 17:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. --Moreau36 14:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, let me qualify my support a little. How are you deciding which city should have the state afterwards? Schenectady, New York is the only city named "Schenectady" in the whole world - in fact, I've seen newspaper articles written about that fact. So, if we don't need "Florida" in Category:People from Miami, Florida even though there's a city called Miami, Ohio, then we certainly shouldn't need the "New York" in Category:People from Schenectady, New York. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the state name from a few more. Are there any others that you think need to be removed? --musicpvm 17:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tax evaders

It only makes sense to have these categories when people are actually convicted for this. So I suggest renaming them to include that as such. Intangible 03:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all -- all the criminal categories require convictions, including murderers. Just make a note on the category. --William Allen Simpson 03:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I support this explanation.--M @r ē ino 14:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all As a general rule the categories do not require convictions. It is anachronistic to emphasis due process as in most times and places precious little due process has occurred. It also ignores deaths before trial and the articles about unidentified criminals. As tax evasion is a matter between citizen and state, perhaps the concept of "unconvicted tax evader" is less meaningful than "unconvicted murderer", but the current form should remain for consistency. Osomec 09:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not, however, support this explanation. That would allow someone to add "American tax evader" to every American Revolution patriot's bio.--M@rēino 14:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That might upset Americans, but they were rebels, not the demigods American mythology (aka American history), makes them out to be, and they did evade taxes, which were little more than a token contribution towards the cost of their own defence. How can you be a patriot of a country that doesn't exist. Americans' were far too prone to get carried away with their own rhetoric then, and haven't improved in the slightest in that regard in the following 230 years. Twittenham 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not nice. Golfcam 16:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Adding convicted makes it sound more like they are all guilty, but some of them might have been innocent anyway, like that Russian guy with the name that starts with K. Golfcam 16:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unhyphenated-American

Speedy Rename -- There are 50 with hyphen and 46 without. The current by country standard is with hyphen for -Americans --William Allen Simpson 17:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all There is no such standard and these do not meet any of the speedy renaming criteria. Chicheley 21:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy --William Allen Simpson 02:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment -- Apparently, Chicheley, you haven't been paying attention.
  1. Over the past few months at CfD, we've consistently named all categories "ethnic-country" with a hyphen, and "country ethnic" with a space, and after extensive discussion, adopted a POLICY: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage.
  2. Speedy renaming of a single hyphen is according to Wikipedia:Category deletion policy#Speedy criteria, which is also POLICY: 4. Non-conformance with "by country" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). These are "by country" categories.
  --William Allen Simpson 03:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I actually support these renamings, but if you had been paying attention you would know that it is still controversial. This isn't the first time you have pushed procedure to the utmost in an attempt to support your own preference. Chicheley 09:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing remaining to be controversial (about naming). The controversy is over. Folks exercized patience, covered this topic regularly over a period of more than 4 months (starting long before you began as editor), and went through all the long and tortuous steps for amending the policy. My goodness, the category naming convention policy itself was written and agreed in about a month last year! This was positively sluggish by comparison. --William Allen Simpson 14:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You foisted that change through yourself with the support of all of 2 other users. A lot more than 2 users have objected to hyphenisation on this page recently. Combined with your recent behaviour on the limited access roads/freeways/motorways issue, this shows a high-handed contempt for people who disagree with you. Chicheley 16:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move and category redirect all (both hyphenated and unhyphenated) to Category:Fooian-American people since top category is Category:American people, to which Category:Americans {{category redirect}}s.~~ Sorry, William; I have read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage again more carefully, I now support the nominated renames/redirects according to that convention. To clarify, are we categorising Fooian-Americans as American nationals who have a self-identified Fooian heritage, and Fooian Americans as Fooian nationals with a self-identified American heritage? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Since some of these categories have been swapped already, I shan't run the category redirect bot again on them until this one reaches a consensus. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - He recently pushed that through himself, with little support. If you oppose the amendments, please vote against them, as is your right. Chicheley 16:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is an excellent idea; it brings the Wiki convention in line with the American journalistic and literary convention.--M @r ē ino 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on statement of support by Chicheley, I'm going forward with Speedy. -- William Allen Simpson 14:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have objected to the speedies, and will object to any others of this type as William Allen Simpson implemented the so-called policy change himself with insufficient support. Chicheley 16:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all per Chicheley --Moreau36 14:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all I will not have William Allen Simpson exploiting my good will in his continuing attempts to find short cuts to get what he wants. Chicheley 15:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all because they are "hyphenated Americans", but please don't use speedy. I don't like speedy renaming because I don't visit this page often enough to check all the items out before they go through. Golfcam 16:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buckwheat Boys songs

One-article category Stev0 07:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Like category:Albums by artist, category:Songs by artist doesn't care how many articles the subcategory has. All such songs get one of these categories, even Peanut Butter Jelly Time.--Mike Selinker 04:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As a general rule, a one-article category is not ready. Let's wait at least until they have 2 or 3 notable songs. --M @r ē ino 14:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the one article is deleted. Cloachland 16:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]