Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by T. Anthony (talk | contribs) at 07:22, 27 October 2006 (→‎[[:Category:Living classical composers]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

October 26

Delete, strange intersection of a religeon, an ethnic group, and a profession. -- ProveIt (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. - jc37 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic military defeats

Category:Historic military defeats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This fails on several grounds:

  1. Does it mean "historic" as in notable? If it does, it's POV
  2. Does it mean "historic" as in "in history"? If so, what other kind of military defeats are there (apart from fictional ones)?
  3. A defeat, by definition, was someone else's victory. A case in point from this category is the Battle of Waterloo.

The category also contains such "historic military defeats" as PT 59, which, to my mind, is a boat, not a defeat. Note also that Category:Military defeats was deleted here just two weeks ago. Not particularly convincingly coincidentally, this was created two days later by the person who created that one. (In other words, this is probably speediable as a recration). Grutness...wha? 23:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European politicians

Category:European politicians into Category:Politicians of European nations

Category:Articles that have been Wikified

Category:Articles that have been Wikified (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete. This category is populated by articles which pass the five criteria of the User:Draicone/Wikify template. It is completely pointless- it would be filled with tens of thousands of talk pages if actually used. The template itself is fine, but it shouldn't add articles to a category, and should only be used when articles are being worked on. --- RockMFR 21:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 11#Category:Articles currently undergoing Wikification --- RockMFR 21:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:21st century classical composers, due to the special and unique provisions of Category:Living people. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Doczilla 02:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Somewhat reluctantly as I imagine several of these people did most of their work in the 20th century and are semi-retired in this one. Also I'm supporting this for slightly different reasons than the ones suggested. I think the "living" moniker in this case is not useful and maybe sounds unintentionally insulting. As in "wow there are people alive who actually do this!" Category:Ragtime composers includes a few living composers, but it doesn't single them out for being alive.--T. Anthony 07:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Subjects of the Sign of Taurus

Category:Subjects of the Sign of Taurus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Categorisation by star sign is totally out of place in an encyclopedia. Piccadilly 21:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Centenarians, due to wikipedia policy and upkeep issues. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it should be kept, and perhaps made a subcategory under the Centenarians category. We can then distinguish between living and deceased centenarians. I don't think upkeep will be an issue as it can easily be added and removed as appropriate. In the meantime I will continue to expand this new category. --Dovea 17:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that theoretically, encyclopedias are supposed to be written in a sort of timeless way. The content we write here can be written to CD, or mirrored on dozens of different websites, or even published in a book ... places where it cannot be updated. So, there are special restrictions against categorizing people as living or dead. The only exception to this is the special administrative category Category:Living people, which is kept around mostly for legal reasons and isn't supposed to have any subcategories. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Bandy in the United States, convention of Category:Sports in the United States. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Billboard Adult Contemporary number-one singles

Category:Billboard Adult Contemporary number-one singles to Category:Billboard Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks number-one singles

Rename to Category:Indian Council of Agricultural Research, to match Indian Council of Agricultural Research. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Holocaust

Rename Category:Holocaust to Category:The Holocaust, to follow main article The Holocaust. Perhaps leave redirect. David Kernow (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Category:Existentialist films

Category:Existentialist films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a completely subjective category. Entries are added by an individual's interpretation, not by any actual facts that can be proven. -- LGagnon 12:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer and video game additions

Category:Computer and video game additions into Category:Expansion packs

Category:Films directed by Hussein Tajvidi

Category:Films directed by Hussein Tajvidi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, category is referencing to an article Hussein Tajvidi which was deleted for non-notability. Furthermore, the category has only one entry in it. --Brad Beattie (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Type-D stars

Category:Type-D stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Appears to be a recreation, after a previous CFD consensus said delete. Not sure whether it qualifies for speedy, so brought here for consensus. RobertGtalk 08:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians for Tampa 2008

Category:Wikipedians for Tampa 2008

Nobody's in the category. How could you merge it? 1ne 03:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is that we often see empty categories on CfD, usually because someone empties them prior to nomination, out of process. Also, this suggests that if a userbox is involved, that the category in the userbox (possibly through <includeonly>) should be changed as well, for future use/reference. - jc37 05:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of English cricket from 1890 to 1914

Category:History of English cricket from 1890 to 1914 to Category:English cricket from 1890 to 1918

Hammer Films

Category:Body horror

Category:Body horror to Category:Body horror films

Category:Celebrity Gamers

Category:Celebrity Gamers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This category is for celebrities who are said to enjy playing computer games. Categorisation by hobby is not useful or significant. Delete Merchbow 03:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems a little too narrow to me. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Worldwide animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:2006 United States Senate candidates

Category:2006 United States Senate candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as a bad precedent. If politicians get an extra category each specific time they stand for office many of them will accumulate a great many repetitive and non-defining categories. Sumahoy 00:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I realize that means that the renaming will be completed around the time of the election. What about just waiting? --Dhartung | Talk 09:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This belongs on Wikinews, if anywhere. Really it is better not to serve up these articles on a plate to anyone who might want to manipulate them at this time. Calsicol 18:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - relevant, not POV, and even (gasp) notable. While I realise that the election is nearly upon us, I don't want this to be a precedent which may be pointed to in 2008. - jc37 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Listify. The function here is better served by a list where you could see who won and who lost and any other useful information. Vegaswikian 04:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]