Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 6

[edit]

Category:First world countries

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles 00:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is too open to interpretation and POV-pushing. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The whole concept is a misunderstanding. The term "Third World" was invented by analogy with "third party", that is a person who is a victim of conflict bewtween others, in this case the Communist East and Capitalist West. Which of these two was the first party and which the second depeneds on your viewpoint in the east or west. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Economic documentaries

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Courcelles 00:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Economic documentaries to Category:Economics documentaries Category:Documentaries about economics.
Nominator's rationale: Correct use of the word "economics". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Modern Creative ensembles

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all. Courcelles 00:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modern Creative ensembles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Modern Creative composers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, unless Speedy delete is possible: apparently I missed this one when I started WP:CFD/Category:Modern Creative musicians (which has since been closed with a consensus of delete). There is no corresponding Wikipedia article; Modern Creative was deleted following AfD discussion.Gyrofrog (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Straatligkinders albums

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Can be recreated if we have articles again, but while we don't, no need for the category Courcelles 00:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Straatligkinders albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is empty; it contained two non-notable albums by a barely notable band, Straatligkinders. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, are you saying that the category is empty because you emptied it? If that's the case, please restore the contents -- removal of legitimate contents is contrary to the CFD process, as it says right there on the CFD template. (But good on you for notifying the category's creator about this CFD.) Furthermore, unless I'm mistaken, there's no valid rationale for deleting an albums-by category that has articles in it, just because one editor or another doesn't think a particular band is notable. If the albums don't meet WP:Notability the articles should be deleted -- then the category can be dealt with. (So please, don't be putting the cart before the horse.) Cgingold (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Laws of Shabbat

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Courcelles 03:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Laws of Shabbat to Category:Laws of Shabbat and Jewish holy days
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Shabbat and Jewish holy days have very similar laws. They will probably always be discussed as a unit. This name change will enable the category to be placed under Category:Jewish holy days. --Eliyak T·C 15:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Living animals

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles 01:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Living animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - Thankfully this is a very recent creation, so there are only 2 articles in it at this point, but it could easily grow into the thousands. I really don't think we want to get into the category maintenance issues that would inevitably arise if this category were to be retained. The only reason, as far as I'm aware, that we maintain Category:Living people is because of WP:BLP issues. I'm pretty sure such concerns don't apply to living animals (but think of the potential for lawsuits: "It is common knowledge that Koko is a slut and often embarasses her human friends with obscene gestures.") -- so there is simply no good rationale that I can see for keeping this category. Let's nip this in the bud. Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – although BLP might apply to Sabi (dog) as she has been met "in person" according to the article (and is said to be a bitch). Occuli (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rolling Stone Magazine's lists

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Relisted to 15 August. Courcelles 03:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rolling Stone Magazine's lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Two entries don't make a list; these are easily found by typing in the name of the article themselves. Modor (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Universal CityWalk Orlando

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles 00:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Universal CityWalk Orlando (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not worthwhile tagging all businesses that are in a certain venue. No evidence this collection is anything more than a directory--nothing special or notable about the collection itself. We have lots of malls and other multistore complexes, seems like an unmaintainable and generally bad idea to keep itemization of locations of each store. DMacks (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:European Greens–European Free Alliance

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Courcelles 00:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:European Greens–European Free Alliance to Category:The Greens–European Free Alliance
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose matching name to article name: The Greens–European Free Alliance. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Step Up

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Courcelles 00:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Step Up to Category:Step Up (film series)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose matching name of category to main article Step Up (film series). Step Up is ambiguous. I also have no problem with deletion as an alternative. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's as small or smaller than the examples used as examples of small categories at WP:OC#SMALL. It has seven articles (including a thoroughly unnecessary article for the series), fewer than the number of Beatles' wives and equal to Liz Taylor's husbands. Assuming any more Step Up films are even in the pipeline, given that there's a lag of two years minimum between films the likelihood of immediate growth seems low to the point of zero. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Courcelles 00:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club to Category:Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs
Propose renaming Category:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club coaches to Category:Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs coaches
Propose renaming Category:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club players to Category:Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs players
Propose renaming Category:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club seasons to Category:Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs seasons
Propose renaming Category:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club navigational boxes to Category:Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs navigational boxes
Propose renaming Category:Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club templates to Category:Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs templates
Nominator's rationale: The club has re-branded itself as Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs. LunarLander // talk // 00:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This should have happened at the start of the year, good on you LL for getting the process underway. Mattlore (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support What Matt said.Jeff79 (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks fellas LunarLander // talk // 21:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Charities accused of ties to terrorism

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles 00:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Charities accused of ties to terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Categories should be based of factual, verifiable evidence, not accusations. Furthermore, by whom are the charities being accused, and are such accusations notable?   Cs32en Talk to me  00:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.