Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 14
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
May 14
[edit]Fooish battles --> Battles in Fooland
[edit]- 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 13:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More logical name for the subcategories in Category:Battles by country. --Neutralitytalk 19:51, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds good (especially since a battle usually involves two parties, but only one location...) I'd support making this a speedy renaming criterion, if people want. Radiant_* 00:01, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Definitely agree - the former makes it seem like these are battles involving Fooland rather than occurring in Fooland. -Sean Curtin 00:09, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Good idea. --Kenyon 01:39, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Agree. I added cfr notices to most of the subcategories. There were a few that I wasn't sure of a replacement name, like Goths, Huns, Tutonic Knights, basically categories that didn't fall nicely into "Battles in Fooland". For those I just added a cfd notice (until someone can figure out what the replacement should be. --Kbdank71 14:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagee. These are battles involving Fooland. For example, Category:British battles includes battles in which the UK was one of the participants and not just battles that took place in Britain (in fact, at present none of the entries in Category:British battles took place in Britain). So please don't make this change. If you must, use a form of words like "Battles involving Fooland" or "Battles fought by Fooland" that makes this clear. Gdr 17:55, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
- Well, that is a point, but suppose that Britain fought against France a couple of centuries ago... would that be a British battle or a French one? Or both? What if Prussia was also involved? Or how about Waterloo, which iirc involved five different countries? Do we quintuply categorize it? It seems easier to me to categorize by location, then. Radiant_* 07:46, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- If a battle had two participants then it belongs in two categories; if three participants then three categories. The same principle is used in Category:Wars by country and works well. You might also want to categorize battles by their location (like Category:Wars by region), but that would be a separrate scheme. Gdr 08:02, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
- Well, that is a point, but suppose that Britain fought against France a couple of centuries ago... would that be a British battle or a French one? Or both? What if Prussia was also involved? Or how about Waterloo, which iirc involved five different countries? Do we quintuply categorize it? It seems easier to me to categorize by location, then. Radiant_* 07:46, May 18, 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 12:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant with Category:U.S. military training and education. The only article in this category is already listed in U.S. military training and education. --Kenyon 17:42, May 14, 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 keep original, delete suggestion --Kbdank71 12:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Superseded by Category:Roundheads which means the same thing and is more succinct -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Delete the new category instead. It is succinct but too casual, and less likely to be meaningful to people unfamiliar with English history. Oliver Chettle 19:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the new category and delete Category:Roundheads instead. Neutralitytalk 19:58, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment the word Roundheads is in common usage to describe Roundheads. Roundhead appears to have been first used as a term of derision toward the end of 1641, when debates in Parliament on the Bishops' Exclusion Bill were causing riots at Westminster source britannica it is still in use "Cavaliers and Roundheads", Christopher Hibbert, Harper & Collins, 1993. The word is in popular use in the UK see this UK government site on Citizenship Glossary So I would ask you all to reconsider what you have written. Philip Baird Shearer 12:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Agree with Oliver. --Kbdank71 15:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the nominator on this one. Unlike "Cavaliers", "Roundheads" has a clear primary meaning which fits here. Jonathunder 19:03, 2005 May 15 (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 keep category, delete suggestion --Kbdank71 12:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Superseded by Category:Cavaliers which means near enough the same thing and is more succinct -- Philip Baird Shearer 12:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- OBJECT, Cavaliers is definitely the wrong word to use, since it has many meanings not having to do with the Royalists. Rather, Category:Cavaliers should be deleted, and everything placed back into the older category. 132.205.45.148 15:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Delete the new category instead. As above, plus Cavaliers is a common word as noted above. Oliver Chettle 19:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the new category and delete Category:Cavaliers instead. Neutralitytalk 19:58, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment The word Cavliers is in common usage to describe Cavaliers. Oliver Cromwell used it in his dispatches [1] and it is still in common usage e.g. "Cavaliers The Royalist Army at War 1642-1646", by John Barratt, Pub Sutton, 2000. The word is in popular use in the UK see this UK government site on Citizenship Glossary So I would ask you all to reconsider what you have written. Philip Baird Shearer 12:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Agree with Oliver. --Kbdank71 15:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Object, agree with the IP user on this one. "Cavaliers" has multiple meanings. "Royalists" is more clear. Jonathunder 19:00, 2005 May 15 (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 12:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant with Category:Machine learning (for general learning algorithms), or Category:Classification (specifically for classification algorithms). Also, ambiguous: artificial or natural pattern recognition? (Articles about the latter probably belong in Category:Cognition). Has been empty for months (except for one stray recent article). -- hike395 10:50, 14 May 2005 (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.
- 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 12:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
POV category. NSR 09:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Oska 09:52, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete SWAdair | Talk 10:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — KayEss | talk 10:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. How does a language qualify to be "ugly"? Sjakkalle 13:12, 14 May 2005 (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.
- 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 12:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate of Category:Urban studies and planning. It had only one article in it, which I have since moved. -- Decumanus 02:56, 2005 May 14 (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 12:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All members combined into a single article. No possibility for growth. AlistairMcMillan 02:46, 14 May 2005 (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.