Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 7
August 7
[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 delete --Kbdank71 14:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing as for Category:Free Linux software, which has been proposed for deletion too. Many software here are not specifically for Mac OS, plus Free software tend to be multi-OS. All of the arguments given for Category:Free Linux software apply here too. --Khalid hassani 19:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Same reasons as Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Free_Linux_software. - Centrx 22:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 22:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Pavel Vozenilek 23:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --minghong 01:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Fredrik Orderud 19:23, 14 August 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 rename --Kbdank71 14:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see this changed to the more conventional category:Retailers of the United Kingdom. category:British supermarkets can then become a subcategory. Bhoeble 18:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename: I disagreed with User:Wincoote's choice of name when he created the category, but didn't feel strongly enough to change it myself. Edward 18:36:35, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
- renameGraemeLeggett 15:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. James F. (talk) 09:15, 11 August 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 rename/merge --Kbdank71 14:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Deliberative_procedure should be renamed Category:Parliamentary law.
- All articles in subcategory Category:Parliamentary_procedure should be merged into this new Category:Parliamentary law.
- Category:Parliamentary law should be added as a subcategory to Category:Law.
Deliberative procedure is not a commonly used term; and I was unable to find it in any dictionary, while the term parliamentary law is widely accepted. The creator of this category may have been confused, not realizing that it is actually deliberative assemblies that use parliamentary procedures. A Parliamentary Procedure is a combination of the Common Law of Parliamentary Procedure plus a deliberative assembly's rules of order. Parliamentary law is a branch of Common Law. Squideshi 14:25, 7 August 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 14:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An unnecessary sub-cat. Towns are already categorised in Category:Towns by country. JW 11:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and delete. Category:Towns by country is better fit. Pavel Vozenilek 16:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 16:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Too broad and useless --Khalid hassani 18:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The EU is not a country. Osomec 20:07, 7 August 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 no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 14:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should be renamed as Category:Korean loanwords as per other categories in Category:English words of foreign origin. This might apply to some of the other terminolgy-by-language categories as well, since most of them dont even contain "terminology" at all.--Huaiwei 10:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: For categories with small population I would prefer having one category for words, phrases, terms and loanwords. When they are large enough they can be split accordingly into several ones. — Instantnood 10:42, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep for the time being. — Instantnood 10:42, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and list. For categories with small populations, lists are more appropriate and consistent with the dozens of other entries. siafu 17:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This category is possibly underpopulated. Many related articles are left unincluded in this category. — Instantnood 18:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
- This may be true, but you may notice that in the parent category Category:English words of foreign origin, most of the entries are lists (e.g. List of English words of Czech origin) with categories reserved only for the three biggest contributors (French, Spanish, and German) and even those are named "Fooian loanwords" not "Fooian terms". Korean is not such a major contributor to the English lexicon, and would well suffice as a list instead of a cat. siafu 03:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A similar category, category:Japanese terms, currently includes words, terms, phrases and exported loanwords. Category:Korean terms is not only for loanwords. — Instantnood 07:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- category:Japanese terms was actually an abnormality until category:Cantonese terms was created. Since then, similar categories by language has been created, all of which are improperly named. "Terms", may I point out, is an inappriopriate description when language is the sole determinant, especially when compared to other categories in category:Terminology which are grouped by topical speciality (also see the description for the category above). Where a large number of articles justify a category, Fooen words should be used instead, with supporting sub-cats for Fooen phrses, Fooen loanwords, etc, as has been done for category:French words, Category:French phrases, Category:French loanwords etc.--Huaiwei 08:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. But I don't think Korean terms or Cantonese terms are so populated that they can be split at the time being. Let's keep them as they are, until they're populated, then we can split them into terms, words, phrases and loanwords. — Instantnood 08:40, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Trying to keep badly worded categories solely on the above reason seems a tad odd to me. I didnt think of the listing option before, but since that is suggested above, then yes, I agree that if these categories remain as empty as they are, a list will do just fine.--Huaiwei 09:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A similar category, category:Japanese terms, currently includes words, terms, phrases and exported loanwords. Category:Korean terms is not only for loanwords. — Instantnood 07:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- This may be true, but you may notice that in the parent category Category:English words of foreign origin, most of the entries are lists (e.g. List of English words of Czech origin) with categories reserved only for the three biggest contributors (French, Spanish, and German) and even those are named "Fooian loanwords" not "Fooian terms". Korean is not such a major contributor to the English lexicon, and would well suffice as a list instead of a cat. siafu 03:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This category is possibly underpopulated. Many related articles are left unincluded in this category. — Instantnood 18:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Listify and delete, and send the list to Wiktionary. Radiant_>|< 09:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, like Category: Japanese terms. Kappa 14:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noticed that User:Instantnood added this nomination to Wikipedia:Korea-related_topics_notice_board#Current, moments after which User:Kappa made his vote. I would hope that people read the above comments before voting, and yes, Category: Japanese terms is due for a massive reformat as well.--Huaiwei 09:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- See also the previous nomination of category:Japanese terms, as well as a similar nomination of category:Cantonese terms. — Instantnood 09:49, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Just noticed that User:Instantnood added this nomination to Wikipedia:Korea-related_topics_notice_board#Current, moments after which User:Kappa made his vote. I would hope that people read the above comments before voting, and yes, Category: Japanese terms is due for a massive reformat as well.--Huaiwei 09:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Motion: I would like to propose to include category:Japanese terms and other similar categories into consideration, either as part of this nomination or new ones. — Instantnood 09:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Update. I have nominated category:Japanese terms above. — Instantnood 16:52, August 12, 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 14:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Resolution of policy disputes is done through RFC, AN or similar mechanisms. This category is redundant with those, and also unused and unlinked. Radiant_>|< 08:51, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No argument. siafu 17:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clearly. -Splash 21:40, 10 August 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 13:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I realize similar categories have been up for deletion and haven't obtained any sort of consensus (example), but I believe a category like this is absolutely not needed - moreso for the Razzies than the Oscars. Read the link above and comments by Rick Block. I agree with most, if not all, of what he's saying. K1Bond007 03:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Don't see how this is any more worthy of a category than some other things which have been deleted here. Gamaliel 18:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Would make an excellent list. siafu 03:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is list material. It is a minor award. I suggest that someone should nominate the other Razzie categories also. -Willmcw 19:55, August 8, 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 13:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category and sounds like it was created by someone with a POV mission. -- Necrothesp 23:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Osomec 02:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 17:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Useless. --Khalid hassani 18:47, 7 August 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 merge --Kbdank71 13:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are a total of 11 entries, most of which are already listed in Wicked (novel) and the rest of which could well be. For the matter of that, most of these articles could well be merged into Wicked (novel). Delete and relist any contents in Category:Fictional characters. DES (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Many novels have similar categories that list characters and 11 entries is a decent number for such a category to contain. Also, a sequel to the book will be released this October. There will probably be many new characters in this new book that will be able to fit in this category. --MatthewUND 03:19, 7 August 2005
- Merge to Category:Oz characters and delete, most of these have entries in the Oz characters category such as Wicked Witch of the East, Wicked Witch of the West, Wizard (Oz), Dorthy etc.. others are articles on aliases of the witches such as Elphaba, whom is the Witch of the West. Another is slight spelling change, but the name of a character that already has an article Galinda - Glinda. Articles like that should be merged. In total, there are 4 original characters and all are stubs. Isn't it possible to merge these original characters to Wicked (novel) - which is a stub? Maybe I'm just becoming a mergist here, I don't know. Another thing - are these books really called the The "Wicked" Books? The next book (due this year) is called Son of a Witch. I apparently don't see the connection. K1Bond007 06:55, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
- M/D per the above. Radiant_>|< 08:51, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge per K1Bond007. siafu 17:03, 7 August 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.