Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 3

< September 2	September 4 >

September 3

Category:Superstition

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. ∞Who ?¿? 06:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Distinctly POV category; not capable of being used objectively, and not useful since decision of pages that would be included in this category would only be POV. NicholasTurnbull 23:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. I cannot see any problem with this.--Baphomet. 23:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As Category:Superstitions already exists, presumably any merge would be with that?--WholemealBaphomet 01:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are things that are non-POV supersitions: don't walk underneath a ladder, etc etc. But Heaven and Religion? I think this probably needs deleting as it stands and being recreated when someone wants it for something proper. -Splash 00:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too POV for an encyclopedia. JFW | T@lk 11:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way! --GalaazV 20:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean I am preventing you from pushing rubbish.--Baphomet. 20:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Fairly easy to see that black cats and horseshoes are in, religion and prayer are out, but what about astrology, ghosts etc..? If we keep this we need a strong defn and policing. I think on balance "folk ways" would be more useful. Delete with some reluctance. Rich Farmbrough 22:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - superstitions are real :-). Of course inclusion of some superstitions will be resisted by those who cling to them in defiance of reason. The category shouldn't be deleted just because some object to their cherished beliefs categorized as superstition. I suppose those voting delete would want the article superstition deleted also. Vsmith 22:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the existence of Category:Superstitions I'd say a merge, one way or the other, would be in order. Singular or plural? Vsmith 02:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Some people just don't get it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV. Superstition, luck, rabbit rabbit and 13 (number) should be recategorized into Category:Superstitions. -Sean Curtin 02:55, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV magnet. HKT ^talk 06:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is a POV hijack of Category:Superstitions. Use the "provably wrong" criterion in the Superstition article as the basis for moving any articles coded here into the legitimate category. "A superstition is a provably wrong belief or a set of behaviors that are related to magical thinking, whereby the practitioner believes that the future, or the outcome of certain events can be influenced by certain specified behaviors." RDF 20:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently PoV; sometimes (as with triskaidekaphobia) the PoV is consensus. Provably wrong is, I suspect, a useless standard, although I suppose some social scientist may have actually done a study of 13 and black cats to show non-correlation. This cat would only be tolerable if it were restricted to the nonsense on which there is consensus, and I doubt that's possible. (The articles like black cats should anyway go under Category:folklore. Septentrionalis 18:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blatant POV. --Tydaj 19:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is interesting the way various articles are removed from the category, yet others stay. No one seems to have suggested the deletion of the Superstitions Cat. It seems to me that people don't mind others views being categoriesed as supstition, just not their own. Reincanation has been removed but Ghosts stay, each have exactly the same amount of evidence. It is a rather sad comment on the double standard at work here.--WholemealBaphomet 00:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If the category gets deleted, which it will, it will be depopulated (including ghosts). Please stop complaining. JFW | T@lk 07:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - As no one has put it up for deletion I doubt it will. So just another example of you bullying techniques. Which particlular superstition are you keen to prevent being labeled as such?.--WholemealBaphomet 12:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually considering doing just that once this one gets resolved --Tydaj 13:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't alter what I said. Still will not make jfdwolff's comment any more honest.--WholemealBaphomet 13:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You were just being confusing. You could have said you were referring to Category:Superstitions and not your darling Category:Superstition. I tend to ignore honesty issues; when was yours last checked? JFW | T@lk 16:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did say that, you'll note the phrase Superstitions cat. It just that you didn't bother reading what was written, you decided what was in your head was far more indicative of me and so used that. You are singularly lack in integrity.--WholemealBaphomet 17:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. Aside from getting you blocked, such character assaults will simply be viewed as projection. HKT ^talk 21:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure people are capable of constructing their own view, without your guidance.--WholemealBaphomet 22:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. My warning was directed at you. HKT ^talk 00:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I interpret it as a veiled threat. --WholemealBaphomet 00:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A threat to do what? Block this new account of yours, as well? I'm not an admin, so don't worry. I was reminding you of how your insults might be perceived, that you might calm down and respect Wikipedia policy. In return, you would primarily benefit yourself. Please don't assume the worst in others when you have no basis for doing so. Frankly, I'd rather not waste more of the CfD page with this pettiness. HKT ^talk 01:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets see you constantly refer to me getting blocked. Now your suggesting I calm down, all this seem to be you trying to sully my character. You really are a bit of a bully aren't you, though having just looked at your talk page it seems you where summoned here by another bully.--WholemealBaphomet 11:00, 7 September 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.

Category:Cities and towns of Punjab

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. ∞Who ?¿? 03:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Punjab is divided between India and Pakistan. category:Cities and towns of Punjab, India exists. I expect a similar subcategory will be created in category:Punjab, Pakistan sometime soon. Delete. CalJW 22:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteBhoeble 17:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Cities and towns of Punjab, Pakistan. -- Reinyday, 22:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's empty, no point in renaming it until someone decides to write an article or two about it. --Kbdank71 17:57, 9 September 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.

category:Punjab (India)

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 then delete to Category:Punjab, India. ∞Who ?¿? 04:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate. Merge into Category:Punjab, India and delete. CalJW 22:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy I think can be extended to apply to this. -Splash 00:23, 4 September 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.

Category:Cities in Spain

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 Category Redirect. ∞Who ?¿? 04:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, redundant to Category:Municipalities in Spain. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -Splash 00:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change as a {{categoryredirect}}. — Insta ntnood 21:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as a redirect. Bhoeble 17:24, 5 September 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.

category:Pakistani Actors

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, previously speedy [[1]]. ∞Who ?¿? 04:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This should be merged into category:Pakistani actors and then deleted. CalJW 16:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per the roolz. -Splash 00:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied. --Kbdank71 17:55, 9 September 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.

category:Peoples of India

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. ∞Who ?¿? 04:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This contained one article, which I have moved to category:Ethnic groups of India. I have no strong feelings on the matter, but Ethnic groups is clearly preferred in Wikipedia. CalJW 15:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bhoeble 17:25, 5 September 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.

Category:Falsehoods

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. ∞Who ?¿? 04:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only member is Jennifer Wilbanks, and only parent is a redlink, Category:Truth. Samaritan 15:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pov category. CalJW 15:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one article does not make a category, and the hierarchy is faintly ridiculous. (Falsehood is part of truth? Deeeep.) -Splash 00:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duuuude, like that means there could be an entire universe inside my fingernail. Dude. That is seriously messed up. Nandesuka 03:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Carina22 22:16, 8 September 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.

Category:Buildings in Pakistan

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 Category:Buildings and structures in Pakistan

Should be category:Buildings and structures in Pakistan. This is in line with the majority of such categories and a policy decision that was made at some point. It removes doubt that things like the dam I am about to place in the category belong there. CalJW 15:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for sure. -Splash 00:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Rich Farmbrough
Rename Bhoeble 17:25, 5 September 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.

Category:Natives of London to Category:Natives of Greater 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 Keep. ∞Who ?¿? 06:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is part of the series Category:English people by county. The County of London was replaced in 1965 with the somewhat larger Greater London. Category should be changed to reflect this. Mrsteviec 11:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. London is primarily a city, not a county or a region - those are just modern administrative conveniences. Many or most of the people in the category will have died before Greater London existed. The change might also lead to confusion or inconsistency in the categorisation of people who lived in areas that are now part of Greater London before they were absorbed. Wikipedia systematically gives primacy to the city name "London" over the bureaucratic contrivance "Greater London", which reflects everyday usage - compare the two articles. Not one of the first tier sub-categories in category:London uses the latter term. CalJW 14:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Support the general reasoning of Mrsteviec (I just today started Category:Mancunians as a sub-cat of Category:Natives of Greater Manchester) but object on grounds that there is too little difference between what has been London (the city) and what is Greater London (as the article Greater London points out). as CalJW points out too, 'London' commonly refers to Greater London anyway. while on this matter, do people from Oldham or Bolton refer to themselves as Mancunian? - i m second guessing myself now on having the Greater Manchester cat -Mayumashu

Whilst I too object, note London has had county status since 1132. The only real alternative is to have both categories, Category:Natives of London for people born pre-1965 and Category:Natives of Greater London for those born after, which would be technically correct though open to wild misuse. Hiding talk 18:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very obscure technicality only known by and relevant to history enthusiasts, and I suspect not even to many of those. It had theoretical county status because it was a big city that didn't fit into the county system, and otherwise their would have been a small blank on a county map of England. It has a unique system of government which bore very little resemblance to those of the traditional counties. London was and is a city as far as general usage is concerned. Even the GLA thinks of itself as a city government rather than a county government.

Slicing it up chronoligically would be a very bad idea indeed. The UK history categories are a mess because such an attempt has been made, and then largely ignored. CalJW 19:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a fact. And yes, I agree about the mess such a move would cause, I note I even mentioned it. However, such moves are at some point going to be neccessary, and more heavily watched. The quirks of history are not ours to rewrite. Hiding talk 19:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about rewriting history, but about creating a user friendly navigation history. The proper place for obscure facts is in articles, not the category system. I'm afraid I have no idea what your penultimate sentence is getting at. CalJW 22:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My penultimate sentence, and indeed ultimate sentence, address your ultimate sentence in the comment mine is in direct reply to. I am stating that at some point we are going to have to be careful about how we categorise about things, and if things have been set up properly in the UK history categories and then ignored, that needs to be better watched to ensure implementation. Myself explained, I find I'm not sure I understand what a user friendly navigation history is, personally. However, I can not understand the point of continuing a conversation in which we both ultimately agree. Hiding talk who forgot to sign

Object. Surely London is a generic enough term that it can be applied to both groups of people. After all, if you're from Greater London, that's surely the same thing as being from London? -Splash 00:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As this is clearly contentious perhaps removing the category from Category:English people by county would be the best option. As those above have pointed out London is taken in this context to be a city. Could Category:English people by city be the place for this or somewhere else? Mrsteviec 17:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just as easy to leave it where it is and roll with it. Another option, would, however, be to place it alongside Category:English people by county in Category:English people or rename Category:English people by county to the soul-less but more correct Category:English people by administrative region Hiding talk who forgot to sign

That actually be totally incorrect. The counties of England and the regions of England are two entirely different things. Let's just leave it as it is. CalJW 19:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I'd stated administrative regions, which would entail counties, being as they are, regions of administration. However, yes, I would much rather leave things as they are. Hiding talk 20:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What about making category:natives of Greater London a {{categoryredirect}} to category:natives of London, and add a line at category:natives of London to tell readers the category is for the natives of the London County before 1965, and Greater London after 1965? — Insta ntnood 21:25, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Question: What would be done to people who died before the present-day county boundaries came into exist? — Insta ntnood 08:38, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Could you clarify your question, I'm unsure as to what you are asking? Hiding talk 09:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at counties of England. :-) — Insta ntnood 09:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

- - No, I'm still unclear. Do you mean what we do with people born in an area now considered part of London but which wasn't during their lifetime? My understanding is they are categorised in the place they lived. Therefore people who lived and died in Croydon pre-boundary changes are categorised as native of Surrey, those that straddle are categorised as native of both Surrey and London and those that were born after are categorised as native of London. Does that help? I would suggest it very unwise to create categories at town level, that would cause a mess. Hiding talk 18:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think category redirects are used too often and do not help, as users still add these cats to articles, a better navigation tool would probably be "See also". As far as people born in "Great London" after the expansion, all cities expand, and their postal address reads as "London" and not "Great London". ∞Who ?¿? 06:31, 10 September 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.

Category:Fashion (band) albums

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 Category:Fashion albums. ∞Who ?¿? 04:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Fashion albums. There is no need to specify that it is a band if you are listing their albums. -- Reinyday, 10:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

That would be true - if the term album didn't mean something different in the fashion industry. Grutness...wha? 10:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking that as a comment, I know of know album references in the fashion industry and there are no objections. ∞Who ?¿? 04:16, 10 September 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.

Category:Television episodes

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. ∞Who ?¿? 05:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only has one article. Seems like a poor categorization scheme to lump all television episodes in one category. May be somewhat already covered by Category:Lists of television series episodes MakeRocketGoNow 03:47, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, undercategorization? One article does not make a category anyway. -Splash 00:23, 4 September 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.

Category:Fictional homunculi

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 (no change). ∞Who ?¿? 05:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Such an esoteric topic that it has little potential for growth. --Apostrophe 00:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:23, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
Delete, we don't need categories for every fictional race. Most fictional universes don't even have homunculi. R adiant _>|< 09:35, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Homunculi? -Splash 00:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Plural of homunculus, basically it's tiny humans (few inches to a foot) that tend to be magically created and infused with part of the conjurer's soul. R adiant _>|< 07:56, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Far too specific, and only one article included. -Sean Curtin 02:58, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Rename Category:homunculi and include Faust. Septentrionalis 18:32, 5 September 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.

Category:Lincoln

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 Category:Lincoln automobiles; see below notes. ∞Who ?¿? 05:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln is primarily a city in England. That should be reserved for things like Lincoln Cathedral, not cars. Dunc|☺ 02:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The category you require for Lincoln Cathedral is Category:Lincoln, England. However, I suggest renaming the nominated category to Category:Lincoln automobiles and merging the sub-cat of Category:Lincoln vehicles back up to prevent any minor confusion. Hiding talk 04:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lincoln (automobile) so it fits in with other listings in Category:Car companies of the United States. -- Reinyday, 09:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC) (updated 22:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC))
Rename, category as it stands reminds me of a certain president. Confusing name. R adiant _>|< 09:35, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
I note that the category currently contains three items - two on cars and one on Lincoln City Football Club. Which is it meant to be about? Looks like there's some confusion here... Grutness...wha? 11:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to make it the category for the company. CalJW 14:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename category to "Lincoln automobiles", have "Lincoln" refer to the city, and rename/merge "Lincoln, England" with it. James F. (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You need a new CfR for renaming Category:Lincoln, England, which I would object to. -- Reinyday, 22:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Lincoln automobiles — no need for parentheses, and category titles are usually pluralised (in these cases), unlike article titles. -Splash 00:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggested the parentheses to match Category:Mercury (automobile). If you are going to make a new method of naming ambiguous car companies, then you should propose Category:Mercury (automobile) for renaming to match. -- Reinyday, 22:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, I see the confusion. This is not a category for Lincoln automobiles. That category is Category:Lincoln vehicles. This is a parent category for all Lincoln (automobile) related articles, including Category:Lincoln vehicles. See Category:Car companies of the United States for how this works. -- Reinyday, 22:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Renamed to meet leaning consensus, however suggest removal of this new cat along with Category:Mercury (automobile), as the Foo vehicles sub-cats of Category:Ford vehicles cover all of these and have a standard. Although the main articles are Lincoln (automobile) and Mercury (automobile), maybe a cat redirect would be better for those two cats. ∞Who ?¿? 06:14, 10 September 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.