Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 6

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. Syrthiss 21:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization: "Boiron" is a company that makes homeopathic remedies, I don't see a reason for a category for a few commercial homeopathic solutions CDN99 18:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree and delete. Both articles in Category:Boiron remedies already exist in Category:Homeopathy anyway. Semiconscious (talk · home) 22:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. SPAM. siafu 03:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not sure if this qualifies as spam or not, but the category shouldn't exist until there's more to populate it than a single medicine. Soltak | Talk 17:17, 8 January 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 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 KEEP Syrthiss 22:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this also applies to all subcategories. If someone would like to tag them with a bot or manually, please do so.

The official names, as used by AASHTO (the organization that manages numbering) and the Federal government in laws, are "U.S. Route X". (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Highways.) The name of the system as a whole (still used by AASHTO) is United States Numbered Highways, so it might be better to move the main category to that, while simply changing U.S. Highways to U.S. Routes in the others, but that has already been discussed here and failed. SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Unless someone lists here exactly what the subcats are to be renamed to, and tags them appropriately, please consider this nomination to include only Category:U.S. Highway System. --Kbdank71 18:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace "Highway" with "Route" in each one, except Category:State highways inspired by US highways, which would become Category:State highways inspired by U.S. Routes. We use a bot to do the renaming, so why not use a bot to tag? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any consideration being given to this matter unless all the categories are tagged. Proposed changes must be brought to the attention of the users of relevant categories. It should not be seen as optional or as someone a nominator can leave to others. CalJW 00:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bah, fuck that. I'll just go and change them all manually. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per CalJW. Clearly, though, this will need to be renamed to avoid abbreviating "U.S.". siafu 03:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? The routes are called "U.S. Routes". Occasionally they are called "United States Routes", but only when extreme formality is needed. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now I took a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Highways and there doesn't seem to be consensus among project members on how these roads should be named. I'll agree with any consensus that comes out of the project. -- Samuel Wantman 09:06, 7 January 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 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. Syrthiss 22:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous discussion: death row is an americanism, this should be a better term. Ze miguel 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, though I didn't have a problem with Category:Condemned prisoners. May need to be "Prisoners and detainess", though. siafu 03:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. Choalbaton 15:32, 11 January 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 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. Syrthiss 04:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard seems to be "American" instead of "U.S." or "United States". Ronald20 16:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object, as "American" is used mainly for people, a better name would be Category:Television networks of the United States. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Miscellaneous "nationality x" states television categories take the form "Fooian X" not "X of Fooland". Valiantis 14:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's actually talking about the abstract "Television in X", rather than the concrete "Television stations in X". Radiant_>|< 18:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The existing category is a subcat of Category:American television so I'm not sure your argument is as clear-cut as you state. Valiantis 01:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "of the United States". siafu 23:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a particularly valid reason why this category should be exempt from following the existing naming convention in place under Category:Television networks by country? Bearcat 20:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I recognize that the use of "American" to mean "of the United States" is the Wikicontroversy that just wouldn't die, but at some point that discussion simply has to be settled one way or the other. Personally I favour the proposed move, both because it's more consistent with the applicable naming convention for this category tree and because I have no objection to the word "American". But until the matter is definitively settled, I'd suggest keeping one (doesn't really matter which) and slapping a {{categoryredirect}} on the other. We can always program a bot to swap them later on if necessary. Bearcat 02:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: this was not tagged for deletion, so I'm leaving it listed for another week. --Kbdank71 17:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename if the goal is to cleanup Category:Television networks by country subcats. If that is the case, then we also need to rename:

• category:Television networks in New Zealand
• category:Television networks in the Philippines
• category:Television channels in Singapore
• category:Television channels in the United Kingdom

Vegaswikian 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• RENAME TO Category:Television networks in the United States of America. 132.205.45.148 20:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a particularly valid reason why this category should be exempt from following the existing naming convention in place under Category:Television networks by country? Bearcat 20:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: Sheesh, these are a mess. There's also Category:Television networks of the United States that needs to be merged in. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three was too many. I empied the few that were in Category:Television networks of the United States. Vegaswikian 23:27, 18 January 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 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. Syrthiss 03:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard seems to be "American" instead of "U.S." or "United States". Ronald20 16:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object, as "American" is used mainly for people, a better name would be Category:Radio networks of the United States. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Miscellaneous "nationality x" states radio categories take the form "Fooian X" not "X of Fooland". Valiantis 14:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I recognize that the use of "American" to mean "of the United States" is the Wikicontroversy that just wouldn't die, but at some point that discussion simply has to be settled one way or the other. Personally I favour the proposed move, both because it's more consistent with the applicable naming convention for this category tree and because I have no objection to the word "American". But until the matter is definitively settled, I'd suggest keeping one (doesn't really matter which) and slapping a {{categoryredirect}} on the other. We can always program a bot to swap them later on if necessary. Bearcat 02:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: this was not tagged for deletion, so I'm leaving it listed for another week. --Kbdank71 17:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename if the goal is to match what already exists in Category:Radio networks. Vegaswikian 22:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "of the United States". There have been American radio stations that were not in the United States (e.g. Border blasters), and not subject to the FCC. Category:United States radio networks is a subcategory of Category:Radio stations in the United States. The list at Radio network refers to networks by location and not nationality, also. siafu 03:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a particularly valid reason why this category should be exempt from following the existing naming convention in place under Category:Radio networks? Bearcat 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean, aside from the three very particular reasons stated right above? With only three categories, the "existing" convention is not at all well established. siafu 21:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'RENAME TO Category:Radio networks of the United States of America 132.205.45.148 20:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a particularly valid reason why this category should be exempt from following the existing naming convention in place under Category:Radio networks? Bearcat 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: per Valiantis. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 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 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 to Category:Images from the Perry-Castañeda Library. --Syrthiss 22:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the header of the category explains, it's for listing images of the Perry-Castañeda Library Ze miguel 16:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree to rename. Avoid acronyms in main titles. Semiconscious (talk · home) 22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming as Category:Images of the Perry-Castañeda Library as the statement about the contents is incorrect. Rename Category:Images from the Perry-Castañeda Library CalJW 00:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CalJW's suggestion. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per CalJW. siafu 03:13, 7 January 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 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 K1Bond007 22:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm in favour of women in X cats, these categories are beyond silly. Why is it necessary to identify women based on their nationality, these cats also have the potential to grow to an enormous size, so I think deletion would be sensible while the cateogries are relatively small. Alternatively there should be some kind of recommendation that these cats are not used for individuals, rather they are only used to organise other categories based on sex.--nixie 14:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As they have the potential to grow to enormous size they should be kept and subdivided rather than merged. The policy against classifying by sex is misguided and there are obviously many users who dislike it stongly enough to breach it. CalJW 15:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is a policy with which you disagree (and it certainly seems to be policy to keep cat names gender-neutral), should you not be attempting to change the policy rather than advocating contravening it? Valiantis 03:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with stipulations: This needs careful subcategorization, AND there needs to be a creation of Category:Men by nationality. Semiconscious (talk · home) 22:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep-I guess. I typed this as delete before posting it because it strikes me as unnecessary and patronizing. Also because I assumed a "Category:Men by nationality" was extremely unlikely to be done or work. However there is a Category:Men so I guess this can exist as a parent category and a category of men by nationality can be created. It still all strikes me as unnecessary, who would you place in Category:American women who you can't better place elsewhere, but ehh.--T. Anthony 23:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Makes sense, but it would logically result in categories like Category:American people being stripped of all articles in the parent. If that's what we want to do, even in cases where there are very few articles to begin with, then go ahead. siafu 03:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete all. Firstly "Women by nationality" demands "Men by nationality". Such a division on the basis of sex seems pointless. Secondly we would not normally add a person to a category called, say, Category:American people (though this may function as a parent cat) but to (for example) Category:American writers. By the same logic (as T. Anthony implies), if we did classify by sex, then we would add a female American writer to Category:Female American writers not to a generic Category:American women. If we create such cats (or allow to stand) the corollary is having to replace every "Fooian fooers" cat with "Fooian fooers" and "Fooian fooeresses" cats. Is there any logic in this at all? Valiantis 03:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the births and deaths by year categories, these would be very large. There's no reason to divide every existing person by x cat-- this suggestion is just for "by nationality". "American women" would be huge. "Armenian women" not so huge. siafu 04:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, While I'm usually in favor of categories by gender, ethnicity and sexuality. I don't find that the combination of gender with nationality makes sense. (Actually, many other categories by nationality don't make much sense, but they do serve the purpose of breaking up huge categories. For example, I very much don't like Category:Film directors by nationality. Quick, tell me what nationality is Roman Polanski?) On top of that, the subcategories do not always contain women of one nationality. Maggie Smith is not an American, but she is in the Oscar winner subcategory. I don't find this category useful. The policy recently hammered out at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality suggests that the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources. For this reason, many fields do not have "by gender" categories. I don't think by nationality fits the criteria. Certainly you could have an article about Women in France, but even if we did, the article would be about the lives of French women as a population sub-grouping, not as individuals. Is there an academic reason why someone would want to browse through all the articles about French women? I doubt that there are many who are notable because they are women and they are French. -- Samuel Wantman 09:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Samuel Wantman. - Darwinek 12:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we have an already excessive number of nationalty based categories. Djegan 13:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Samuel Wantman. --Mairi 00:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as rather useless. --Ezeu 00:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; no reason to categorise people by their gender unless there's something significant about it --Alynna 09:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful for gathering up the sub-sub categories for Queens etc. Choalbaton 15:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above and excessive. maclean25 00:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has plenty of content. Being female often has a huge influence on a person's life. Osomec 20:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though I do have a procedural problem. None of the sub-categories appear to have been CFD tagged, but by the top they are all subject to deletion if this succeeds. IMHO all should have been tagged CFD at the begining of this. - TexasAndroid 19:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep (or rename), gender may be less important in some countries but it is very important in others. If and when we reach real equality, this could be redundant but we are a long way off this still worldwide. I might add that I am currently undertaking a study of gender issues with respect to nationality/country variations (in the context of websites), so I believe it is academically valid to split this subject by nationality. I suppose one issue could be if this would be better "by country" rather than by nationality. Renaming these categories along these lines could be more appropriate. In any case, I am strongly against full deletion of this and all subcategories since there is now a lot of information there. In fact, the differences in the subcategories that exists for different countries is an interesting subject for study in itself and telling of the culture for the various countries concerned. I also agree with the comment above that the subcategories have not been marked for deletion, so these should be considered separately and with an appropriate call and notice in each category. Not everyone will look in the super-category. --Jonathan Bowen 21:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC) — updated 21:06, 15 January 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 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. --Syrthiss 22:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest burned -> executed, because there are people in the category who were executed by other methods, and removal of alleged. Ze miguel 13:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this 'alleged' is unneccessary. They were executed for heresy, period. Of course, whether they were guilty of heresy is always going to be a matter of POV. --Doc ^ask? 15:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on both counts. "I hereby sentence you to death for alleged heresy" would probably have been controversial even back in the day. - Bobet 17:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per nomination. Semiconscious (talk · home) 22:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. We already have the quite reasonable List of people burned as heretics, so there's no need for a separate category. We should make sure that all the people in the category are on the list, though. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for a different reason then the others, but one stated in the proposal. Some people killed for heresy were maybe not burned. I know there were places where they preferred hanging. Burning was disproportionately done by Catholics, sadly enough, so as written it's going to be skewed. If it gets large enough the burning thing can become a subcat.--T. Anthony 23:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 03:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Can't add Mansur Al-Hallaj until the name is changed. AnonMoos 15:47, 14 January 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 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. --Syrthiss 22:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Empty and probably isn't going to be used any more, since the articles have been merged per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cricket matches articles. Sam Vimes 13:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What a shame. I look forward, however, to the imminent creation of Category:2006 English cricket season matches :) jguk 13:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yup, looks good. Ashibaka tock 06:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Osomec 20:20, 12 January 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 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, nominator created new categories and populated them. --Syrthiss 22:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refers to the country São Tomé and Príncipe, but leaves out part of the country's name and hence some of it's people. I thought "São Toméan and Príncipean" or "São Tomé and Príncipean" would be good, but a google search shows that usage is rather limited. This should follow the example of Category:Trinidad and Tobago people suggested below /- Ezeu 07:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all to "...from Sao Tomé and Principe" per the example of Category:People from Bosnia and Herzegovina. siafu 03:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I did not figure this could be controversial, so I boldly created and populated Category:People from São Tomé and Príncipe, Category:Politicians from São Tomé and Príncipe and Category:Writers from São Tomé and Príncipe per suggestion from siafu. --Ezeu 21:42, 15 January 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 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 Category:Animal images into Category:Images of animals. --Syrthiss 22:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both catgs exist but neither are highly populated (yet). Now's the time to decide which to use. "Animal images" will sort better, rather than always having to specify [[Catg:images of animals|animals]] to get it to sort properly. Elf | Talk 00:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Images of animals While you're correct that Category:Animal images would tend to sort better, the typical format as I can tell from looking in the index is Images of Foo rather than Foo images. Therefore, I have little choice but to support merging all related images to Category:Images of animals. Soltak | Talk 00:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd argue that perpetuating a bad strategy isn't a good strategy. However, of 9 existing animal image catgs, only 1 is named starting with Image. At higher level (Category:Biology images), none start with Image; at parallel level from the other catg (Category:Wikipedia images by type), almost none start with Image; so I'm not sure where you're seeing that "Image" is the prevailing fmt. Elf | Talk 00:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I typed Category:Images of in the search box and then clicked "index." I saw a number of things there, but I'm willing to take you word for it that a number of associated categories are formatted Foo images. Therefore Vote Withheld until someone smarter than me weighs in. Soltak | Talk 00:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Images of animals. "Animal" is also an adjective, making the other cat name potentially confusing as a collection of images of animals and bestial people and things. siafu 03:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• REVERSE MERGE to Category:Images of animals 132.205.45.110 20:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge Category:Images of animals sounds much more natural Choalbaton 15:33, 11 January 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 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 Speedied Urge to merge. MeltBanana 00:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge/deletion according to criteria at top of page. I can do it. Elf | Talk 00:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC) (Ooops I think after rereading I was supposed to wait 48 hours anyway. Oh, well, if there are objections I'll undo. Elf | Talk 00:58, 6 January 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 page.