Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 23



Category:Big-bust models and performers

 * 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 30 June 2005 13:39 (UTC)

Delete. Poorly conceived as a classification, worthless as a category. I'm seeing this pop up on random adult model articles who just may happen to be kinda busty compared to the average gal (such as Liv Lindeland), not just on those who have 40DDs. "Big-bust" is far from a term of art. Postdlf 01:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Postdlf. &mdash; mark &#9998; 19:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, most likely joke. Pavel Vozenilek 01:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as probably a joke, but also because it lacks a quantitative title. -Splash 15:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. James F. (talk) 23:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Big-bust modelling is a rather well-defined genre. The ladies in question do have something in common (which is why this category makes sense), and I see no way of putting it differently (which is why this category is necessary). True, Anita Blond and Kyla Cole don't belong here, but that's another matter. GregorB June 28, 2005 21:51 (UTC)
 * No vote as of yet. There are over 1000 hits on Google for this term, but how can this be qualified as a category?  Hall Monitor 28 June 2005 22:10 (UTC)
 * Delete. Grouping women together simply by the size of their breasts is hardly encyclopedic. --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 22:35 (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.

Category:Roman Catholic Artists

 * 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 30 June 2005 13:59 (UTC)

In theory there could be a good sub-category of Category:Roman Catholic Church art by this name, but this is not it. It has an extremely broad definition of artist (Alyssa Milano?) and as with other by religion cats who belongs is very difficult to verify. By contrast the other subcats of Category:Roman Catholics are very well defined. - SimonP 23:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure of its use, but if the decision is to keep then the capitalisation will still need work. Grutness...  wha?  00:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Would be far too large if it is to contain every artist who was a Roman Catholic (that would include most known artists of medieval Europe, practically every artist of the Italian renaissance or baroque, &c. &c.). If the intention is something else, it is clearly misnamed. Delete. Uppland 09:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I see no point in this category. &mdash; mark &#9998; 19:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too broad. Pavel Vozenilek 01:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another random intersection of two usually unrelated characteristics.  Postdlf 01:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete misconceived category. -Splash 15:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. James F. (talk) 23:22, 25 Jun 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.

Category:Veterans

 * 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 30 June 2005 14:01 (UTC)

Suggest this category be renamed to Category:Military veterans. Simply "veteran" is too broad a term which can be narrowed by adding "military" to the name. -- tomf688 (talk) 22:44, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support name change. Veterans of what? We know what you're talking about, but I'd prefer not to think when browsing an article's categories. Categories should be designed for the lowest common denominator. Harro5 08:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: This category and its subcategories have some organizational flaws. E.g. Category:Vietnam War veterans does not contain a single Vietnamese name. Also, Category:US Veterans contains people who are (apparently) no veterans, such as Hershel W. Gober. &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 08:29, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
 * Note comment The lack of Vietnamese names is not a flaw in category naming, but lack of articles of Vietnamese veterans included in the category. And its quite possible that Hershel W. Gober is a veteran, but could just be mis-categorized, not a category issue.  <> Who ? &iquest; ?  04:13, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as suggested. <> Who ? &iquest; ?  04:13, 27 Jun 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.

Category:US Veterans

 * 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 30 June 2005 14:03 (UTC)

Suggest this category be renamed to Category:United States military veterans. Not only is it improperly formatted in its current form, but simply "veteran" is too broad a term which can be narrowed by adding "military" to the name. -- tomf688 (talk) 22:44, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support name change. Veterans of what? We know what you're talking about, but I'd prefer not to think when browsing an article's categories. Categories should be designed for the lowest common denominator. Harro5 08:40, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Make that United States military veterans please. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to "United States military veterans". James F. (talk) 23:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to "United States military veterans" as per Radiant. <> Who ? &iquest; ?  04:15, 27 Jun 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.

Category:African Mythology

 * 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 30 June 2005 13:37 (UTC)

Long ago I moved the articles in this category to Category:African mythology and made the former a redirect. Now it contains only a  . Needs to be deleted. This shouldn't require any discussion. - dcljr (talk) 23:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * See Speedy Renaming criteria above. This fits. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:22, 25 Jun 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.

Category:Unpop Archivists

 * 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 30 June 2005 14:09 (UTC)

There are only three articles in this category and the Unpop Art Movement article itself should probably be deleted as well. Delete. Hall Monitor 16:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 01:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article looks like it's on its way to deletion so the category is unnecessary too. -Splash 15:00, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. James F. (talk) 23:22, 25 Jun 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.

Category:Swedish nobility

 * 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 30 June 2005 14:12 (UTC)

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. Uppland 09:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Categories should be useful, if not necessarily perfect, like many Wikipedia articles. This one is well used, groups things that are clearly worth grouping, and you have not proposed anything better. Please deal with the fine distinctions in an article. CalJW 16:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with CalJW, without a better alternative, there isn't much to consense on.  --Kbdank71 16:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, I was hoping for a discussion. Uppland 09:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Do we have anyone that actually has knowledge of Swedish nobility, or the time to do the research in order to clean it up? --Kbdank71 14:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I know something about it, and have access to relevant references at a nearby library, but I don't really believe it is useful to use a category like this for biographies. Anyway, maybe this issue is a bit to too complex for a few days on CfD and should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people instead, except that the discussion on that page seems not to have been active for a while. Uppland 11:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... nobility come from noble right? well i mean we need the cat about Swedish nobility. (If you don't understand this reasoning it is because it is early in the morning....) Can't we just create a sub category inside this cat named "members of Swedish noble families" and put all names there? --Fred-Chess June 30, 2005 08:20 (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.

Category:Proposed languages &rarr; Category:Proto-languages

 * 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 30 June 2005 14:13 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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/undefined 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_ &gt;|&lt; 09:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as proposed. &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 17:09, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
 * propose = pro (before) + pose (place, as in a suggestion). "Proposed" means suggested before they happened. So what does proposed language mean? Clearly a language that has been put forward for future creation. Esperanto was proposed - proto-indo-european was not. The idea of referring to a conjectured past language as a proposal is ridiculous. Delete. Grutness...  wha?  00:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely you mean "rename"? &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 01:05, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * (slaps forehead) yup, I surely do. Grutness...  wha?  09:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Just make a mental note that pro does not always mean "before" in a temporal sense. (cf. etymologies of "problem", "program", etc., in which "pro" derives from the same Greek root).  I'd hate to see arguments that we can't speak of problems of the past ("problem" = literally "to throw before") because of this misunderstanding.  Agree to the move but reject this particular argument. --Tabor 04:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * May come from the same root, but in this particular case it's always used to mean a future thing. There is no point proposing something that has already happened. Conjecturing, theorising, or suggesting, perhaps, but not proposing. Comparing your analogous uses, there is no such verb as "to problem", and you wouldn't talk about "programming something to happen in the past". You can talk of a programme of past events, however, because in this case you are laying out an agenda of that time - i.e., the events of the future as seen from that point. Grutness...  wha?  06:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this one is easy: It's like "Proposed category: History of Mesopotamia". Someone wants that there be in the future such a concept of the past. &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 08:18, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
 * Rename as suggested; didn't I vote for this already? James F. (talk) 23:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. There's only one non-proto-language on it, Adamic language, and that's already in the more appropriate cat Category:Languages whose existence is uncertain. - Mustafaa 29 June 2005 05:38 (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.

Countrian history -> History of Country renames

 * 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 to History of Foo --Kbdank71 30 June 2005 14:24 (UTC)

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. SimonP
 * Agree as per the Dürnkrut argument. (But not with the Canada argument, as per Kbdank71's question below.) The usual "Fooish/Fooian/Fooese/..." argument (that it is harder to know the correct term) is not a major concern since most people would find this category through the appropriate country/region/nation category anyway. &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 17:31, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)


 * Move all to History of Foo format. --Kbdank71 14:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong agree. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename all, as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Comments in support: Well, History of Canada includes material from before 1867, as well. Most people seem to interpret the title to mean "History of the territory currently known as Canada".  The same is true for most country histories, except those where the history is split among multiple articles because of splits and mergers and whatnot.  The concept of "History of Foo" might be best understood to include not just "All the things that happened to Foo while it was around" but also "How Foo came to exist in the first place". The precision you suggest would require something like "History of present-day Canada"; neither "Canadian history" nor "History of Canada" would include pre-formation events.  But I think this would be awkward and unnecessary.
 * Ambiguous and amorphous category names can cause problems with readers (if they can't find an article they are looking for because they are only thinking of one meaning out of many), and with editors (who may create new, redundant categories, remove existing articles, due to similar misunderstandings). With regard to ethnic vs. country histories, with articles, we actually seem rather careful to separate the two, and there are many disambiguation pages and cross-links to help people realize the distinction and navigate appropriately.  (That's an important point - many people might not be aware of some of the finer distinctions we are making.) For examples, see Finnish or History of the Czech lands.  If there are any articles (which I'm not aware of), which straddle this boundary, they can easily be accomodated by putting the article in both the country and the ethnic categories. -- Beland 20:15, 25 Jun 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.

Category:Czech history -> Category:History of the Czech Republic

 * 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 keep as Czech history --Kbdank71 30 June 2005 14:24 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Keep as per SimonP's multi purpose argument and because I have a bias for shorter category names. &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 17:13, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
 * Support. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per SimonP's comment. There are several articles on the history of the nation, of the present-day country known as the Czech Republic, and of the land once known as Czechoslovakia. More than one categories are needed to serve these different meanings. &mdash; Instantnood June 28, 2005 16:36 (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.

Category:Canadian history -> Category:History of Canada

 * 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 to History of Canada --Kbdank71 30 June 2005 14:24 (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)
 * Support per above. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Same fate as umbrella (No need to treat as special case. Treat the same as whatever will be decided on "Countrian history -> History of Country renames".) &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 17:35, 2005 Jun 23 (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.

Category:Tribes of Uganda

 * 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 30 June 2005 14:17 (UTC)

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. Delete it. &mdash; mark &#9998; 08:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, of course. - Mustafaa 29 June 2005 05:38 (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.

Category:Newspapers in Washington

 * 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 all --Kbdank71 30 June 2005 14:18 (UTC)


 * For consistency with the other subcategories, rename to "Newspapers of X". -- User:Docu
 * Rename all to "Newspapers of X" as per Docu. --Kbdank71 14:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename all as per Docu. &mdash; mark &#9998; 17:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Is "Newspapers of X" better than "Newspapers in X"? "Newspapers of Arizona" seems to suggest more of a formal link to the state government, as if they are the publishers. "in" also seems to be more common from the examples above.  NoSeptember            03:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I think "of" is proper because I don't think it implies state government sponsorship, and I think "in" may be too limiting in that many newspapers don't have distribution just within one state&mdash;such papers aren't merely "in" one state, but rather "of" the state where they are published.  Postdlf 22:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, since this will make for consistency, but prefer "Texas newspapers", "Ohio newspapers" etc since this is the format used for many of the subcats of Category:Newspapers. -Splash 15:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename all, as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:22, 25 Jun 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.