Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 13

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was listified as List of sportspeople who served or are serving in political office. David Kernow (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports figures in politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This category is a month old, and wasn't a category along the lines of Category:Athlete-politicians deleted some time recently? Certainly several cross-categories of this sort have been deleted. They create clutter because people with multiple careers will be in many categories already, and the connection between the members of this category is no more than quirky trivia. Osomec 22:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify. Whilst cross career categories are messy, a list of politicians who are also famous for sport is of interest. Athletes turned MPs Sebastian Coe (now a Lord) and Menzies Campbell (neither of whom have so far made it into the category) are relatively unusual in the UK for having a public profile before entering politics (off the top of my head actress Glenda Jackson is the only other current MP who springs to mind) and having this kind of information on one page is handy. Timrollpickering 01:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 07:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify, great idea for a list. Recury 14:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pope John Paul II and Fidel Castro would have to be added, and that demonstrates what a bizarre stretch this category is. — coelacan talk — 20:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 20:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify because the list can better detail criteria for inclusion and be kept more manageable, so we don't have people like Coelacan with the red herring about sandlot baseball or soccer qualifying one as a "sports figure". A category won't be watched like a list will; in fact, it cannot be watched for additions though one's watchlist. Gene Nygaard 22:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Just delete as Wikipedia is not a collection of random lists. Landolitan 21:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify - if multiple people keep trying to create the cat then there's significant interest in it; having a list will help prevent cat recreation. --LQ 03:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 19:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A list will grow stale quickly. Categories are much easier to maintain. Xiner 18:33, 18 December 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete as empty; if necessary, recreate as X86 Macintosh computers or the like. David Kernow (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intel Macintosh computers to Category:x86 Macintosh computers

• Rename: As others have pointed out, this sounds like Intel builds Macs. It is supposed to be for Macs using x86 (i.e. "Intel") CPUs. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: Certainly they are Apple Macintosh computers. However, they are Intel-based or x86-based. I am not sure what the proper destination name is, but this is better than leaving it alone. TonyTheTiger 21:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is' although i understand your point a person may not understand what is meant by x86, i think as it is it's meaning is more obvious.--Fabio 23:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: to Intel-equipped Macintosh Computers. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The suggested name, Category:x86 Macintosh computers, matches the format of other cats in the parent cat. ⇔ ChristTrekker 13:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as empty. If kept or recreated use Category:x86 Macintosh computers since we are talking about x86 architecture based machines. Intel is not the only company that makes those chips so using Intel in the name is misleading. Vegaswikian 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:x86 Macintosh computers. Xiner 18:34, 18 December 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Empress Dowager Cixi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - This category is entirely superfuluous and confusing. Niohe 20:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No point to it--Fabio 23:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nom Johnbod 23:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence here that this person merits a category. Chicheley 20:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Oh, she deserves many categories alright, but not on Wikipedia. Xiner 18:35, 18 December 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 06:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Media arts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article was created then redirected to an article. The category is empty and I'm not sure if it's useful. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Empty category Dugwiki 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Confusing term. Hawkestone 19:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Confusing term, empty category. TonyTheTiger 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete performing no function at time--Fabio 23:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not sure what additional function this Category performs... and I think I work in media arts!Shawn in Montreal 05:47, 19 December 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 06:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neoconservatives against the Iraq War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The category name is misleading as explained on its main page. These individuals were not simply against the war, but actually promoted the war and later changed their minds. Maybe a more accurate name for the category could be employed, like "Neoconservatives with second thoughts about the Iraq war", but it seems to cumbersome. I propose deletion in the absence of renaming since the title is misleading. 70.48.70.119 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. --70.48.70.119 14:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Neoconservatives who formerly supported the Iraq war or Delete. Otto4711 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Which Iraq war? And what about Neoconservatives who always opposed it? And for that matter "neoconservative" is a disputed term - see Neoconservatism#Shortcomings and criticism of the term "Neoconservative". Timrollpickering 16:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Which Neoconservatives always opposed it? Thanks. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ambiguous POV issues per above. Dugwiki 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - disputed term, ambiguous, high potential for POV misuse. Crockspot 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We can't have categories for every twist and turn of opinion. Hawkestone 19:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename definatly needs at-least a rename, or failing that delete--Fabio 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename with inclusion of "2nd Iraq War" perhaps, but don't delete. Inclusion is justified & referenced within the articles I looked at, & it is an important issue.Johnbod 23:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why does such an overspecific subset of a political ideology need to be categorised by the convoluted position they took on a single issue? Do we want similar categories like Category:British politicians who changed their position on Hitler? (And that's frankly almost the entire of Westminster in the 1930s.) Or perhaps those who've both supported and opposed the UK's membership of the European Union in their political careers like Tony Blair. Timrollpickering 04:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on last comment - I think you mean the whole of the Conservative Party in the 30's, and the whole of the Labour party on the EU! Once the last neocon switches over, that might be the time to delete the category, but right now they haven't, and a reasonably long-term topicality cannot be ignored (or an awful lot of Wikipedia editors are completely wasting their time).Johnbod 05:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment With regards Hitler it was more complicated than that - almost everybody at one point or another was advocating some form of peaceful agreement, regardless of how certain people later wrote the history books. (Almost consistently throughout the 1930s only the Communist Party was staunchly opposed. Then after the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact they denounced an Anglo-German war!) But did they necessarily change their positions on Hitler? It would be stepping into the realms of POV to categorise some. Ditto the EU - many on both left and right have seriously reappraised their position over time but not always been clearcut about it. Timrollpickering 12:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Neoconservatives who formerly supported the (2003 on) Iraq war - F.A.A.F.A. 07:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just not category material. Renaming would only emphasise the absurdity of this category. Sumahoy 07:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing opinion to pure delete, renaming is untenable. Otto4711 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can be interpreted as making a political point. Landolitan 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not in and of itself an argument for deletion. WP:POINT only applies to deliberate disruption. There is no evidence here that this is a case of disruption. Just pointing this out; I'm not voting one way or the other. — coelacan talk — 20:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was intended as such, and it certainly should be. If something looks like it makes a political point, it is irrelevant whether it was intended to do so as it undermines Wikipedia's credibility by the same amount either way. Osomec 08:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous comments. Wimstead 22:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Landolitan Osomec 08:57, 19 December 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Timrollpickering 14:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, project category for the currently non-existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Idaho. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The problem with deleting a category like this is that we should anticipate this project and its category existing in the future. Deleting will set precedent for speedy delete even when it is needed. TonyTheTiger 21:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'll note that I started the category, mainly because the template on several talk pages automatically generated the cat which was appearing as a red link; I just took the next step of getting it entered in the right place. I also agree with the preceding comment. MisfitToys 23:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that sooner or later, we'll be needing it ... actually my real hope is that the publicity will inspire somebody, and that by closing time there might be a project using it. After all, there are Category:Wikipedians in Idaho. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should be a WikiProject, not Category thereof. Xiner 18:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, most state WikiProjects have accompanying categories to help handle the often significant number of articles. MisfitToys 23:56, 18 December 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. David Kernow (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Walhalla enshrinees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not a defining characteristic; category clutter. The result is good material for the Walhalla Temple article. Oh look, these people are all listed on the Walhalla Temple article! RobertG ♬ talk 13:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per my nomination. RobertG ♬ talk 13:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain, if possible renaming with less barbarous title. I don't see the problem here compared to hundreds of other far more pointless biographical categories. I've never looked, but something tells me various US Halls of Fame have categories.... Johnbod 16:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Near the top of the merit scale among categories for awards and honours. Hawkestone 19:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per both points above--Fabio 23:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, are you telling me that this is a defining characteristic of Johann Sebastian Bach? --RobertG ♬ talk 10:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment reply No more than being buried in the Pantheon or using a single name pseudonym is for Voltaire, or being a vegetarian and "inductee" of 2 US Halls of Fame is for John Lennon.Johnbod 14:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, he was a great German. Category:Great Germans would be POV, but fortunately this can stand in its place. Chicheley 20:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Possibly the most useful way Wikipedia offers of finding articles about important Germans. Should not even be considered for deletion other than as part of a mass nomination of all similar categories. Chicheley 20:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Change from Keep to Rename to Persons in Walhalla Temple - maybe it just a UK thing (well UK and User:Wetman) but I find "enshrinees" just too much, nor is it in any of my dictionaries. Johnbod 00:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and suggest that Johnbod doesn't rely too much on dictionaries as they tend to be out of date since we are going through one of the most dynamic periods in the history of the English language. Landolitan

Comment Wow, thanks! I will treasure those words of wisdom Johnbod 18:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Fine as it is. Osomec 08:58, 19 December 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. David Kernow (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:M83 group to Category:Centaurus A/M83 Group

• Rename - Various references refer to this as the "Cen A/M83 Group", the "Centaurus A Group", the "M83 Group", or variations of those names. The proposed name, "Centaurus A/M83 Group", is an unabbreviation version of the name used by one of the primary (and best) scientific references for the article. (Also, because the object is a specific place and hence a proper noun, the g in "group" should be capitalized.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. WilliamKF 17:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above--Fabio 23:50, 13 December 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American-Filipinos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Another neologism for a mixed ethnic group. Yes, there are people in the Philippines with American ancestors but there appears to be no consensus on the meaning of this particular term. American-Filipino, as far as I know, is not a mainstream term like Filipino-American is. And it seems like people use American-Filipino in the sense of Filipino-American; i.e. Filipinos in the US. Article of same name is also up for deletion here. Chris S. 03:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, The Category:People of American descent Category:Filipino people by ethnic or national origin are the proper places for this category. TonyTheTiger 21:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as with all categories for immigrants from one country to another. How else are these people to be named? Hmains 04:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as with all categories for immigrants from one country to another (not that these people necessarily are immigrants). Chicheley 20:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as with the dozen other Foo-Filipinos. Gene Nygaard 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Categories for immigrants from Fooland to Barland shouldn't just be haphazardly named "Foovian-Barians" by reference to "convention" (which is only an American convention) unless this is the actual name which a preponderance of reliable sources use to refer to the population in question. (And if you can't find enough reliable sources to establish "preponderance", that draws into question whether there should be an encyclopedia category for them in the first place). cab 15:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does the Queen's English use a different convention. TonyTheTiger 20:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Traditionally we haven't bothered with this American obsession as it is of minimal relevance to British society (and British conservatives would tend to think that America would be better off without it too). 22:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimstead (talk • contribs)
    • Even within a single country, names often differ and do not follow any convention. This is often due to differing scholarly terms, or the group's self-identification. The general British convention is ethnicity second, e.g. British Asian (i.e. South Asians), British Chinese; Category:British Iranians. But there are exceptions, such as Category:Tamil British. More related to the Philippines, Chinese Filipinos are often also known as Filipino Chinese (both terms have around 120k ghits), despite Wikipedia calling them "Chinese Filipinos". As for Indians in the Philippines, "Indian Filipinos" (wiki's term) has only about 1/7 the ghits of "Filipino Indians". (Neither term refers to Filipinos in India, since there are virtually none). cab 04:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why use is very inconsistent in much of Europe and the Old World can be explained by Wimstead’s comment. In the United States, however, Barian Fooian is pretty much standard. The same almost goes for the Philippines, being a former US colony, where the use of Barian-Fooian is well established and used particularly by descendants of immigrants to refer to themselves and each other. In Canada, it’s almost exclusively Barian Fooian. —Lagalag 15:25, 17 December 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, category for Holy Cross High School, there are at least 16 of these; they have nothing in common, apart from sharing a name. -- ProveIt ^(talk)

• Delete per nom.Johnbod 23:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-useful category. All incarnations of the school are adequately listed in disambig page. Tinlinkin 14:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 21:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wimstead 22:22, 16 December 2006 (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 section.