Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 19



April 19

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 14:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Lake Stubs
Stub category that was not cleared by WP:WSS, and which cuts across the current scheme which divides all geography stubs by region rather than by landform type. Can only make for confusion, since articles will be marked lake-stub rather than with the accepted country stubs. There is no Lakes WikiProject, otherwise it might have been viable. Miscapitalised, as well. Grutness|hello? 23:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 14:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Lists that need sequential organizing
Became deprecated when Template:Adviseorder was deleted as per TFD. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 15:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Famiclones
I nominate it for renaming to Category:NES hardware clones. The main descriptive article is named thusly, and the term "Famiclone" is borderline slang, and not really descriptive in and of itself. – Seancdaug 20:56, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about this, but it seems these may be more clones of Famicom than the NES. Anyway, it's surely too much to use the full "Nintendo Entertainment System" as a part of a longer category title, when "NES" should be sufficient.--Pharos 22:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The thing is that the NES and the Famicom are essentially the same hardware marketed in different areas. Several months ago, the decision was made to consolidate all that information into the one Nintendo Entertainment System article (the Famicom article redirects there). When dealing with the internal hardware, as this subject does, the two are synonymous: a clone of the Famicom is, by its very nature, also a clone of the NES. As for the suggested new name, you probably have a point: I originally favored the longer title because it seemed slightly more descriptive, but, looking at it now, it does seem a tad unwieldy. I've changed it above. – Seancdaug 02:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep). --Kbdank71 17:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Lists of subnational entities and Category:Subnational entities
I nominated these two categories, because they seem to overlap and dublicate each other. People are listing their stuff in both categories instead of one. Do we close Category:Lists of subnational entities, or enforce the seperation?--Huaiwei 14:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete lists. --Kbdank71 14:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep seperated?
 * "Category:Lists of subnational entities" for U.S. states
 * "Category:Subnational entities" for state (sub-national) and Category:U.S. states
 * another way to name them would be "subnational entities by name" and "subnational entities by country", but then you might end up with a category "counties" to group counties from different countries. -- User:Docu
 * Comment: I am not too sure what you mean. Category:Lists of subnational entities only for US states? Why?--Huaiwei 20:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep both categories. Some articles are merely lists (e.g. list of departments of Foo, or list of arrondissements of France), and some are details of (a) certain level(s) of administrative division of a certain country (e.g. prefecture of Foo), with lists included. &mdash; Instantnood 20:47, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Another example would be Thailand: list of provinces of Thailand by area, list of provinces of Thailand by population, list of provinces of Thailand by population density, provinces of Thailand. &mdash; Instantnood 20:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: From the current situation, it is apparant that hardly anyone is classifying simple lists into Category:Lists of subnational entities, and non-lists to Category:Subnational entities only. Plenty of articles in one looks category looks similar in the other, and worse, some articles are appearing in both categories. I would have expected Provinces of Thailand to be in Category:Subnational entities, but no, it is in the other category simply because a list is included in the text. Why dont we do ourselves a favour by simply having all articles in Category:Lists of subnational entities under Category:Subnational entities then?--Huaiwei 21:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A "something of Foo" article is about the administrative division level, whereas a "list of something of Foo" article, as the title suggests, is a list of entities at that level. &mdash; Instantnood 21:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, we know that. So can you demonstrate if the two categories are tenable as distinct categories, and if the articles in both categories conform to that distinction?--Huaiwei 22:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was rename. --Kbdank71 15:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Australian politics
I nominate it be renamed to Category:Politics of Australia for consistency for the categories of other nations. All but four are named so.
 * Rename--Cyberjunkie 09:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * agree: rename for consistency. clarkk 12:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. --Kbdank71 14:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * agree Electionworld 21:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 14:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Killer apps
The category title makes absolutely no sense, and the description is equally unilluminative. Once you read "killer application", which is a software program you need so much that you'll buy a system just to use it, you'll see what a botched job this category is. Delete as poorly titled, poorly described, incorrectly populated, and irredeemably POV as a category. Postdlf 09:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with Postdlf. Shanes 13:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree.  &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 13:59, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Kbdank71 14:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Agree. Potentially POV as well. K1Bond007 19:12, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, ugh, more of User:SuperDude115's crap. From what I've seen so far, his creation of an article should be a criteria for speedy deletion.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:30, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Totally subjective, every software producer thinks that their latest app is one. hydnjo talk 13:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was rename. --Kbdank71 14:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

category:London sports
This is inconsistent with every other subcategory in category:British sport by locality, and it is non-standard usage in British English (we say "sport" where Americans say "sports"). It should be category:Sport in London. Oliver Chettle 05:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to category:Sport in London. --Kbdank71 14:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 15:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:The Greatest American
From cat description: This category lists the 100 people who have been selected by voters on AOL and The Discovery Channel as the finalists in the selection of "The Greatest American".

A list is fine to document the results, if notable, and The Greatest American does that. But this is highly problematic as a category. The individuals included therein are likely to be included in many such lists, and so a category for each one would end up flooding the articles. But perhaps the worst aspect of this is that the simple name appears like a highly POV acclamation of the subject, when applied to articles. Delete. Postdlf 03:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. When I saw the cat pop up on the RC-page, I found it interesting and thought it was a keepable category, allthough a temporary one (but that doesn't make it bad). But I have to agree with Postdif. It puts a POV label on lots of articles. Highly controversial ones at that. Shanes 04:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, agree with Postdlf and Shanes. Better suited for a list rather than a category. K1Bond007 04:09, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep (I'm the creator of the category).  "The Greatest American" is the name of the television show which did the ranking.  The title comes from the show, it's not my POV, it's the show's POV, and as such, is NPOV (if you get my odd reasoning.  :) ).  There is a list.  It's at The Greatest American.  I think most of the people on the list are a crock, myself, but it isn't my ranking.  RickK 04:15, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the show's POV and that makes it ok as a list. But the problem is the labeling in the articles. If the category label could read "Among the top 100 Americans voted by AOL and Discovery viewers" instead of just "Greatest American", it would be fine. But that's a too long Category name... How about a template with a small Greatest American-logo or something placed on the 100 articles instead, linking to the list? Shanes 04:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I wrote that before I saw the official logo. That logo would make it look POV, too. Anyway, something that clearly ilustrates in the article that it's a viewers choice label. Shanes 04:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete A list is all that is required.Oliver Chettle 05:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree that a list, linked to from the Greatest American article, is all we need. Oberiko 12:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - we really don't need a category for this.  A list is fine.   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 13:49, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Concur that this is a confusing and useless category. I don't that this program is notable enough to add to the articles on the 100 nominees unless there are some special circumstances regarding their nomination or noteworthy outcome of their nomination. A list is possibly noteworthy, but probably better to fold it all into one article. Dystopos 15:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - List is enough - Category name pushes a POV Trödel| talk 14:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Useful, but too much like statement of fact. (And categories should be construed as statements of fact.) Nothing wrong with it as an article, though. GregorB 19:00, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not sure that even an article -- let alone a list -- is called for for this PR exercise, but a category is definite overkill. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - How is this different than any other "100 Greatest..." countdown shows that run amok on cable television every day? I would question the relevance of the article, frankly, but a category? Forget it. --Feitclub 20:14, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- not sure it is useful. If it was deemed useful, I would suggest putting it either in quotes and making it a little more obvious that it from a show (i.e. Category:"The Greatest American" finalist or something like that). --Fastfission 20:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Category:The Greatest Canadian was deleted in favour of a list → The Greatest Canadian. RedWolf 05:33, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was rename. --Kbdank71 16:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

category:United Kingdom shopping malls
This British category is titled in American English. It should be changed to category:Shopping centres in the United Kingdom. Twelve of the entries have the word "centre" in the name and only one the word "Mall" - and that probably over represents the use of the term "shopping mall" in the UK. Oliver Chettle 02:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No vote; seems like the standard is to be consistent even where that consistency makes teminology incorrect. See the state highway categories a few days ago. --SPUI (talk) 04:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll believe that when I see Bedfordshire listed as a "U.K. state". Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]]
 * Maybe we should have us.en.wikipedia.org and uk.en.wikipedia.org&mdash;we seem to spend an awful lot of time making sure that Brits aren't confused. Postdlf 04:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with renaming. -- Lochaber 09:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. And Postdlf's suggestion does have merit.  --Kbdank71 14:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with renaming, albeit weakly. Normally I'd agree with SPUI that consistency is important, but there doesn't seem to be a great deal of consistency in the broader Shopping malls by nationality category, and the Australian shopping centres category already exists using something akin to the suggested terminology. Short of going back and renaming everything there so that it is consistent, it seems like we should use the appropriate terminology for the location. – Seancdaug 04:41, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope that if Wikipedia is ever made "consistent" in US English it will also be honest enough to change its name to Ameripedia. Oliver Chettle 14:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as per Oliver C. As for Postdlf's comment, it's not so much stopping the Brits from being confused as correcting confused American category-namers. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 06:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was '''no consensus. This was nominated twice. See the other nomination.''' --Kbdank71 14:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Syntax
Merge with Category:Grammar. -- Beland 01:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 13:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Action
I found it childless. -- Beland 01:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The CfD notice was not added to this. I just added it, and will wait a few days before deleting it.  --Kbdank71 13:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 13:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Human behavior
It seems like this should either be a lot bigger or be deleted. Which should it be? -- Beland 01:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Including everything would make it way too long. Don't need it.   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 13:56, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * The CfD notice was not added to this. I just added it, and will wait a few days before deleting it.  --Kbdank71 13:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.