Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 21

< April 20	April 22 >

April 21

Category:United fronts

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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category has been moved to Category:Popular fronts. -- Domino theory 09:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bhoeble 15:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --metzerly 00:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:G.I. Joe weapons and vehicles to Category:G.I. Joe vehicles

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. Syrthiss 21:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only contains vehicles.--Mike Selinker 00:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep could have weapons. In any case, the vehicles could be weapons themselves. 132.205.44.134 02:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It could, but there appear to be no Wikipedia articles on GI Joe weapons to go in here.--Mike Selinker 03:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and I'll feel better about its membership in Category:Fictional vehicles. If one weapon article comes along, it can stay in the parent G.I. Joe cat. If several do, they can have a separate subcat. ×Meegs 08:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Bhoeble 15:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

* <label> releases to * <label> albums in Category:Albums by record label

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. Syrthiss 21:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

standardisation, Visor 21:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 23:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection Not eligible for speedy. CalJW 18:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Absolutely. A release could be anything.--Mike Selinker 00:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the nominated categories have not been tagged for renaming. No vote. - EurekaLott 21:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All done. I also marked a couple empty categories for deletion.--Mike Selinker 19:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: While we're on the subject of Category:Albums, can someone with technical skills figure out what is wrong with the article Songs For The Ride Home, which is in that category. I get a user error ("Fatal error: Call to undefined method SpecialPage::`ddpage() in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/extensions/BoardVote/BoardVote.php on line 468 (10.0.5.3)") every time I click on it. Assistance appreciated.Thanks to whomever took care of that.--Mike Selinker 15:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:Far-left politicians

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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming seems like it is a perjorative. Might appear like an enemies list of sorts. waffle iron ^talk 22:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. There's no need to for us to judge whether someone is "far left" or not. Category isn't useful, as is too subjective with no definite criteria and will hinder rather than help ppl finding things. No defining criteria at all. --DanielCD 22:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or spell out the criteria for inclusion in the category. The articles in the category need to have obvious relevent content with verifiable, reliable sources. Currently, the category refers to the Far-left article which says In modern times it is ideally used to describe persons or groups who hold radical egalitarian views thus supporting radical social and political change by taking over or overthrowing the existing order in society. It can also include an anarchistic hostility to most or all existing hierarchical organizations. I don't think this accurately describes the U.S. elected officials and political leader in this category. FloNight ^talk 01:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is a far right category to balance and a very clear and objective standard for inclusion. Trapper
Keep. There is indeed a far-right politicians category. If this category is deleted then that would be a clear case of bias. -- HowardDean 03:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All I can find is Category:Far-right politicians. It's not categorized or populated. The terms far-left and far-right seem far less descriptive than the standard terms of conservative or liberal and their variations. --waffle iron ^talk 04:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too subjective a term as its current misuse denotes. People seldom describe themselves as extremists. For the sake of balance I will nominate Category:Far-right politicians for deletion too. Valiantis 15:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too subjective. Bhoeble 15:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- reminding folks this is the same HowardDean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the controversial username that rewrote the Democratic Party (United States) to be socialists. None of the 5 politicians listed (all by HowardDean) have ever been considered far-left (I've removed them). This term is specifically mentioned in Wikipedia:Words to avoid. --William Allen Simpson 18:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vilĉjo 22:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (and delete Category:Far-right politicians too). —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete both per Doug Bell. No objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 23:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merchbow 23:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't left-wing versus right-wing is a reasonably objective and pretty NPOV axis? Isn't it possible to work out where someone falls on that axis, by reference to external sources?

See also the CFDs above for Category:Far-right politicians and the inherently POV and perjorative Category:Right-wing populists. Please would someone suggest some more objective and NPOV adjectives for the people who are (or were) in these categories. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:Master Data Management (MDM)

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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I'm listing this correctly... this was nominated for AfD as a duplicate of content at Master Data Management. As this is a category, I'm moving it here instead. Category has no articles in it... not even the main Master Data Management article.--Isotope23 18:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my nom.--Isotope23 19:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yes, this is what I meant, thanks! --Stephenpace 20:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Category is empty and will remain so. FloNight ^talk 03:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bhoeble 15:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Youth wings of political parties by country

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. Syrthiss 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The naming convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) for political parties by country categories is to use "in country". The following Youth wings of political parties by country categories should follow the same convention, as they are of the political parties in question. Currently however the youth wing categories all follow the wording "Nationality x". For consistency and to match the established naming convention policy, they are all therefore proposed for renaming as follows:

--Kurieeto 18:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming per above. Harr o5 06:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Bhoeble 15:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Well done on these bulk jobs, Kurieeto. The Tom 18:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. David Kernow 16:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom (warm up the bot...) —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:Kazakhstan maps and its kid Category:Kazakhstan historical maps

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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both cats have no articles and no future. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 16:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Use commons. Bhoeble 16:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Duplicate nursing school by country categories

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. Syrthiss 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following are empty, duplicate categories:

Category:Nursing Schools in Canada duplicate of Category:Nursing schools in Canada
Category:Nursing Schools in Korea duplicate of Category:Nursing schools in Korea
Category:Nursing Schools in the UK duplicate of Category:Nursing schools in the United Kingdom

--Kurieeto 16:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. David Kernow 16:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. mattbr³⁰ 19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete duplicate categories. --FloNight ^talk 03:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicates and rename Category:Nursing schools in Korea to Category:Nursing schools in South Korea. - EurekaLott 22:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:School of Pharmacy to Category:University of London

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 merge. Syrthiss 21:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overly generic category name, only contains one article --Interiot 15:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. David Kernow 16:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. mattbr³⁰ 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Bhoeble 15:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:Phillips Exeter Academy, Class of 1959 to Category:Phillips Exeter Academy alumni

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. Syrthiss 21:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is simply not all that helpful...three members of the class and the school's main article. A general, overarching categoy (similar to Category:Phillips Academy alumni would serve the purpose far better. I'll be happy to do the remaning legwork - tagging all the other notable alumni - if rename is voted upon. Rename. 82.82.176.188 15:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the guy who made this article. When I did, I thought that a lot more people from the class of '59 would show up as objects of Wikipedian articles, maybe a dozen, or even two dozen or so. And that other classes would then take note of this, and maybe create categories for their own classes. As you say, 3 people in one class is not much of a category. (And I tried like crazy not to have the school's main article show up in it but to no avail.) So I won't fight very strenuously to keep it. If you can think of a better rename, and know how to go about it, I will certainly support that. Hayford Peirce 16:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, pending flood of notable alumni across many years. David Kernow 16:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. mattbr³⁰ 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. FloNight ^talk 03:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. ×Meegs 08:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Bhoeble 16:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:Sword to Category:Swords

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 merges (not to be confused with merge). Syrthiss 21:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb at the top of Category:Swords states Category grouping articles on types of swords, and individual swords. Articles related to the sword in general go to Category:Sword. I don't think that this is a useful distinction - at the moment, the only contents of Category:Sword are Category:Swords and Category:Swordsmiths. Either the articles need to be split further between the categories (e.g. move types of sword into Category:Sword), or they need to be merged. SeventyThree^(Talk) 05:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, useless distinction. Cpt. Morgan 12:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. A category:Individual swords might work. Bhoeble 13:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, makes more sense than splitting further. Colon el Tom 13:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. David Kernow 14:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. And I'll take "S-Words", Alex. BoojiBoy 17:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No split necessary.--Mike Selinker 00:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. FloNight ^talk 03:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.