Misplaced Pages

:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 2: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:06, 7 September 2006 editTerryJ-Ho (talk | contribs)1,035 edits →Category:Hindu politicians← Previous edit Revision as of 07:48, 8 September 2006 edit undoHornplease (talk | contribs)9,260 editsm →Category:Hindu politicians: mNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 132: Line 132:
*'''Strong Keep''' per Ragib <font style="background:black"><font color="black"><b>_</b></font></font><font style="background:black">]</font><font style="background:black"><font color="black"><b>_</b></font></font><font style="background:gold"><font color="black"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font></font> 01:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong Keep''' per Ragib <font style="background:black"><font color="black"><b>_</b></font></font><font style="background:black">]</font><font style="background:black"><font color="black"><b>_</b></font></font><font style="background:gold"><font color="black"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font></font> 01:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
* Delete: Why does this not include Mulayam Singh Yadav, Jyoti Basu, Indira Gandhi,Rajiv Gandhi, Nehru?Are they not Hindu Politicians? * Delete: Why does this not include Mulayam Singh Yadav, Jyoti Basu, Indira Gandhi,Rajiv Gandhi, Nehru?Are they not Hindu Politicians?
<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 23:06, 7 Sep 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>
*'''Comment'''. This is what I wrote on the deletion review page: I voted to delete earlier. But it appears that consistency suggests that this cat must exist, although I continue to think that all religion based cats ''are unencyclopaedic unless religion directly impacts what the person is notable for.'' (So "Christian philosopher" is automatically acceptable, but "Christian athlete" is not, unless the athlete in question is notable as an evangelical or his religion itself has received public attention.) Further, the last time the cat was appearing randomly on various cats - such as ], without citation. As I mentioned that time, ''on what basis do we classify someone as Hindu?'' Being born Hindu is not enough. I raised the issue of ], who proclaimed atheism after his wife died. But does that mean he is no longer Hindu? Nehru was an outspoken atheist, and we have no idea what Indira and Rajiv believe. What about communists like Jyoti Basu? This cat will be simply meaningless. All religion based cats have this problem, but Hinduism, because of its unique structure, poses a particular problem. So I suppose my vote is '''delete'''.] 06:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


====PROPOSAL: WP:WCFD==== ====PROPOSAL: WP:WCFD====

Revision as of 07:48, 8 September 2006

< September 1 September 3 >

September 2

Category:Dadaists

Rename to Category:Dadaist Wikipedians. -- ProveIt 23:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:James Patterson

Rename to Category:James Patterson novels, convention of Category:Novels by author. -- ProveIt 23:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:PC users

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers, same name proposed for Category:User pc. -- ProveIt 22:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Education in Kanpur

Rename to Category:Schools in Kanpur. -- ProveIt 22:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Adriana Lima

Delete, as I recall, we decided against personal supermodel categories. -- ProveIt 21:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Michael 22:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, The result of the last discussion was delete, but it seems like only the parent cat and a few subcats were deleted. I don't see any listed at WP:CFD/W either. Maybe because I didn't tag all of them as it was a recent mass creation.

These all still need to be deleted (I have tagged all of them now.)

--musicpvm 22:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the tags for you, the umbrella format is a little different. To make the links work correcly, you need to specify the umbrella tag. It's best to include the transclusion date as well, or the link will stop working a week later. -- ProveIt 22:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 Speedy delete Per WP:CSD#G4, deletion of recreated material, as per deletion on July 13. Category protected against further recreation. Steve block Talk 23:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional blondes

Category:Fictional blondes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Spanish-Canadians

Category:Spanish-Canadians to Category:Spanish Canadians

category:Supporters of NZ Olympians to category:Wikipedian New Zealand Olympic team fans

The only Olympic team fans category, renaming to match other categories in category:Wikipedians interested in sports teams.--Mike Selinker 16:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hindu politicians

Category:Hindu politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Keep deleted,Infact there is nothing like Hindu Politician.Although there are hindu politicians they are not recognised as such.They may however be listed like Brahman Politician,Dalit Politician etc.Because the criteria here is notability.Such categories which does not exist in reality are hardly notable.HW 17:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • NoteReligion based politics/icians are not notable?Bakaman Bakatalk 17:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:There are two separate discussions running here as pointed above by Rama's Arrow. Can somebody with knowledge of policy, correct this and bring the discussion to a single page please -- Lost 17:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Extremely strong Keep, Bottom line is that is there are categories for Muslim politicians, Jewish politicians etc there should be a category for Hindu politicians also. Plus, to say that there is "no such thing as a Hindu politician" is completely false. There are many politicians in India and in other countries who are both of the Hindu faith as well as who campaign for issues that are pertinent and relevant to all Hindus regardless of sub-denomination. Members of the previouss center-right coalition govt, as well as members of various parties such as BJP definitely come under the category of Hindu politician.Shiva's Trident 18:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I do not know why there is another CfD when a previous CfD had reached consensus to delete. My main reason for delete is that this category's main purpose is to divide on basis of religious lines and thus insert POV into wikipedia. Look at the reasons above. - "Members of the previouss center-right coalition govt, as well as members of various parties such as BJP definitely come under the category of Hindu politician". Does that mean that the others are not Hindu politicians? Who is going to check if all entries are correct. Previously the people like Maneka Gandhi and Sangma were tagged as Hindu politicians. Quoting Hornplease from the previous CfD "If we leave this in, someone will go around randomly adding Indian politicians to the category, completing diluting the information value of the categories on pages with not much other information". - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Changed to no vote per my discussion with Bakasuprman.-Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Wow!Now that's what I call twisting my words to serve an agenda! I never implied exclusivity to the NDA (center right coalition) in my last post. Simply a notable example.Plus, the same reasoning as yours applies to the Muslim politicians sections too.Why aren't you bothering them there? Afriad of getting shot at? If somebody goes around "randomly adding politicians into the category" then another will "randomly" question their addition in the talk page, discussion will "randomly" ensue, a "random" consensus will be reached, maybe with a few admins hanging around to make sure everything's nice and kosher and then, quite "randomly", unmeritorious additions will be REMOVED. THAT'S HOW WIKIPEDIA WORKS!!!!! Anyone can randomly add anything anywhere. That's not a legitimate pretext to demand removal.Statement retracted in light of Aksi's new stand regarding this travesty.Shiva's Trident 20:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Hindu politicians are not just restricted to India. There are many in countries like Fiji, USA or United Kingdom.nids(♂) 18:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, look at the first line of the category - "They may or may not be associated with Hindutva or the Sangh Parivar.". There should be no need to mention this if it was just another categorising like Muslim politicians or Christian politicians. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Note sentence removed. Why only deleting the Hindu cat? Bakaman Bakatalk 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Aksi - we only need to invoke the policy of verifiability to take care of the last reason (the one attributed to Hornplease). For the benefit of others, other deletion debates for religion based categories may be found here -- Lost 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and that DRV has a "speedy close" listed, because it's listed here.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TerryJ-Ho (talk • contribs) 23:06, 7 Sep 2006  (UTC)
  • Comment. This is what I wrote on the deletion review page: I voted to delete earlier. But it appears that consistency suggests that this cat must exist, although I continue to think that all religion based cats are unencyclopaedic unless religion directly impacts what the person is notable for. (So "Christian philosopher" is automatically acceptable, but "Christian athlete" is not, unless the athlete in question is notable as an evangelical or his religion itself has received public attention.) Further, the last time the cat was appearing randomly on various cats - such as Indira Gandhi, without citation. As I mentioned that time, on what basis do we classify someone as Hindu? Being born Hindu is not enough. I raised the issue of Bal Thackeray, who proclaimed atheism after his wife died. But does that mean he is no longer Hindu? Nehru was an outspoken atheist, and we have no idea what Indira and Rajiv believe. What about communists like Jyoti Basu? This cat will be simply meaningless. All religion based cats have this problem, but Hinduism, because of its unique structure, poses a particular problem. So I suppose my vote is delete.Hornplease 06:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: WP:WCFD

I'm nearly done with posting nominations for the "Wikipedians" categories, but some users (notably Cyde) believe that it would be better to have a separate page for Wikipedian categories ("Wikipedian categories for discussion," say). I support this. I don't think everyone here is concerned about the non-encyclopedic content, and I see no reason for them to feel like they should have to participate in it. So let's see what people think: The options are:

( A )  Leave everything here;
( B )  Move to a new page after we get through the current renaming process, plus:
( C )  Move all the Wikipedian stuff to a new page right now.
( D )  "eparate the Working page into "Mainspace" and "Wikipedian" as Mike" suggests below.
( E )  Move all "Wikipedian"-type categories to a separate but interlinked wiki.

Register an opinion, please.--Mike Selinker 15:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • My vote is B, by the way. I think it's a complex process that involves setting up new templates and administrative categories and the like, and I don't want to stop the current run of changes. But I'd like to see it done soon after the current run.--Mike Selinker 15:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A: While I don't participate, putting it on a new page would limit the number of times an average browser of this page would see them - they'd have to look for the other page. I think it should stay here. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • What you describe as an oppose reason actually seems like a good idea to me. I don't want to see these user categories. I think that they are utterly insignificant and are getting in the way of the real business of CFD, categorizing the encyclopedic content. Ten years from now nobody is going to give a damn what name a few people named their category, but what we named an encyclopedic category in the largest freely redistributable encyclopedia will matter. So, bury it away in a corner where we don't have to see it if we don't want to, please. --Cyde Weys 15:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Move all of the non-encyclopedic stuff to a new page, please. I'm not interested in dealing with user categories at all, but there's been this negative trend in the past few weeks where CFD has been utterly overwhelmed with them. Thus, I've stayed entirely away from CFD, and CFD has lost the valuable services of Cydebot, the fastest CFD bot in the west. --Cyde Weys 15:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A, If they are so unimportant, it doesn't make sense why users would take their time creating an entire new section dedicated to them. If anything, that gives them even more importance and promotes the creation of more Wikipedian categories. I think a good portion of the Wikipedian cats are useless, but I don't see a problem in having them discussed here. If somebody does not want to participate in the discussions, they can simply skip over those sections. Also, almost all the recent Wikipedian category discussions have been mass nominations which makes them easy to scroll past. It would be an unnecessary nuisance to split CFD. --musicpvm 16:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Cydebot doesn't have the option of skipping past them when they get onto WP:CFDW, and he can't do them either (he got blocked over it because he was breaking a bunch of userpages). --Cyde Weys 16:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, we could easily separate the Working page into "Mainspace" and "Wikipedian" so that doesn't happen. There's no reason not to do that if there are good technical reasons.--Mike Selinker 16:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Question - Cyde, is it the mass renames that are causing a problem, or will even a single user category nomination prevent your bot from working? I think that the mass renames are going to be over soon once all the user categories get "Wikipedian" in the name in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (categories). After that, I expect (and hope) that user category nominations will be a rare thing, happening every now and then but not a daily occurrance (and only one or a few at at time instead of the mass renames). If your bot can handle that, I'd say stick with A. Otherwise, I'm with Mike on B (but wouldn't have a problem with C). —Cswrye 18:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Now that D has become an option, I think that's the best solution for the short term. For the long term, I would prefer A, but I will qualify that by saying that if even a single user category could potentially cause a problem for Cyde's bot, we should stick with D. I'm still okay with B and C. I really don't like E, but if that's what the consensus is (although I doubt it will be), I can live with it. For anyone interested in a proposal on user categories, I have one at Misplaced Pages:Guidelines for user categories. Feel free to discuss it there. --Cswrye 07:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • D - separate the Working page into "Mainspace" and "Wikipedian" as Mike suggested above. Presumably this will be ok with you Cyde, and not cause any technical problems for Cydebot? I also couldn't care less about fixing the user categories, not when we have such backlogs of categories that readers might actually see. It seems pointless to split CFD completely, not least because it will take a lot of effort and extra maintenance (yes, I'm lazy). It really isn't too much hassle to scroll past debates you aren't interested in, and hopefully the whole user categorisation will be more under control soon. the wub "?!" 21:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In order of preference, E, otherwise B/C then D. David Kernow 01:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Separating out the working page will also work for me to some degree (at least it will let me continue to use Cydebot). At the very minimum this one needs to be done. Heck, we could even separate out the working page into two sections, non-encyclopedic categories and encyclopedic categories, though it might just be easier to take it onto two pages. --Cyde Weys 14:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Better solution: Create a new page that doesn't list Wikipedian categories, and let people like Cyde use that one. Everyone else can continue to use the current page. This also avoids the problem of giving even more attention to User categories by giving them their own CFD page. — Dark Shikari /contribs 22:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Ummm, that makes no sense. Why should the current page, which is the most important one, be the one that lists the unencyclopedic categories and then have to make a new page for the most important stuff? Let the unencyclopedic stuff go elsewhere. --Cyde Weys 23:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I would think that it resolves the complaint of "giving a page to uncyclopedic categories." How about have a single main page, and two sub-pages (and the main page references everything from the subpages)? — Dark Shikari /contribs 01:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I like the Misplaced Pages: Non-encyclopedic categories for discussion, to go along with the Misplaced Pages:Non-main namespace pages for deletion, but we should keep media/image categories here. 132.205.44.134 04:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I strongly oppose the suggestion of creating a seperate page for those categories - we don't need more bureacracy and more pages to monitor. Seperating the worklist would be absolutely fine though. Also, Cyde, couldn't you program the bot to simply skip category jobs which took user pages? Or fix it so that it doesn't harm the formatting? I don't know if your bot is standalone or AWB, but if it's AWB you can now write a plugin to handle things like this. --kingboyk 07:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:SpongeBob SquarePants fans

Merge into Category:Wikipedians who like SpongeBob SquarePants. -- ProveIt 14:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Media in Eritrea

and

Category:Media of Eritrea

Merge into Category:Eritrean media, convention of Category:Media by country. -- ProveIt 14:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:OCWF

Rename to Category:Orange Country Wrestling Federation. -- ProveIt 13:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:DC Animated Universe characters

Merge into Category:DC animated characters, an existing subcat of Category:DC animated universe. -- ProveIt 13:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Rename one of those--The Judge 13:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The "DC Animated Universe charactes" category contains all DC Comics characters appearing in the DCAU (the TV series and movies created by the production team of Bruce Timm and Paul Dini, while Category:DC animated characters contains only the DC characters *created* in *any* animated TV series (Filmation, Hannah-Barbera, Bruce Timm, Jeff Matzuda, etc.). Some of the last category have been already adapted to the current continuity comics, but not all of them. However, I was never sure about the name of the category, maybe it should be moved to something like "Characters appearing in the DC Animated Universe"... but then again, I ignore how would it affect the artcles linking to the category with its current name.--The Judge 13:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The merge probably shouldn't happen as nominated. The DCAU is separate from, say, Teen Titans (TV series) so merging them together destroys the encyclopedic value of the category. I'm not sure the encyclopedic value is all that high, but it's definitely different.--Mike Selinker 15:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The Teen Titans continuity is somewhat tied to DCAU's so there is not much problem there. The problem, however is that the Filmation, Hannah-Barbera and Jeff Matzuda aren't so merging them together would destroy the encyclopedic value of the category as you said. --The Judge 21:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm unfamilier with the subject, and happy to go along with any consensus... -- ProveIt 22:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I created the category, but if I could, now that it's still soon enough (meaning there is not much people involved with the category yet), I'd move it to "Characters appearing in the DC Animated Universe", since that's more appropiate for the porpouse of the category, wich is to list all articles about characters created by DC Comics that also appear in the series and movies created by Bruce Timm.--The Judge 05:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Have the "DC Animated Universe characters" category (including only characters from the Dini-Timm series) as a subcat of "DC animated characters" (including characters from series such as Teen Titans and Superfriends). Perhaps rename to make the distinction clearer. -- Supermorff 19:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
No, DC animated characters is only for characters created in animation. DC animatd universe characters is for ALL characters apeariing in the universe created by Bruce Timm and Paul Dini.--The Judge 00:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, then forget that suggestion. I've attempted to make that distinction clearer with an introductory paragraph to the "animated characters" cat. It does raise the question of what to do with the "Category:Teen Titans animated series characters", which technically doesn't belong as a subcat of either and yet is a subcat of both. "animated characters", as you've described, also no longer belongs as a subcat of "Cat:DC animated universe". -- Supermorff 10:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:People who turned down a role on The Simpsons

Delete, Kill it now, before it spreads. This is even worse than the guest star categories. -- ProveIt 13:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice The most useless category on Misplaced Pages ever. Wasted Time R 13:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Message Oriented Middleware

Category:Message Oriented Middleware to Category:Message oriented middleware

Category:American football kickers

Category:American football kickers to Category:American football placekickers

Wikipedian rugby fans

Continuing the proposed conversion of the international subcategories of category:Wikipedians interested in sports teams. I tried to keep the distinction between rugby league and rugby union, which I have been accused (correctly) of not understanding. I'm proposing "fans" to match all changed categories of category:wikipedians interested in sports teams. As always, if you have an alternate proposal, speak up.--Mike Selinker 05:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Catholic Churches in Washington, D.C.

Category:Catholic Churches in Washington, D.C. to Category:Roman Catholic churches in Washington, D.C.

This page in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
--WikiCats 01:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
How many English speakers do you know who would not recognise the phrase "Roman Catholic Church"? Osomec 10:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

City and town seals

Category:City and town seals of California to Category:Official seals of places in California

Category:City and town seals of Idaho to Category:Official seals of places in Idaho

Category:City and town seals of Massachusetts to Category:Official seals of places in Massachusetts

Category:City and town seals of New Hampshire to Category:Official seals of places in New Hampshire

Category:City and town seals of Ohio to Category:Official seals of places in Ohio

Category:City and town seals of Pennsylvania to Category:Official seals of places in Pennsylvania

Category:City and town seals of South Carolina to Category:Official seals of places in South Carolina

Category:City and town seals of Virginia to Category:Official seals of places in Virginia

Category:Entertainers of Louisianan Creole Decent