Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 23
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
April 23
[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. Syrthiss 02:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category is far too broad. There are likely hundreds of thousands of fictional characters who are smokers in the period between the widespread popularization of tobacco and before the social taboos and regulatory restrictions on smoking in the late 20th century. And even then, these taboos and regulations largely felt in the United States - in other cultures e.g. France, Spain - smoking widespread in real and fictional life. Bwithh 00:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, but the U.S./rest of the world contrast isn't very accurate. Bhoeble 00:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, rename to Category:Fictional characters who smoke. However, whether large or small, not sure how useful this category might be in an encyclopedia. Regards, David Kernow 00:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, useless category. Postdlf 00:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, useless category.--Dangerous-Boy 06:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not useful. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Impossible to list everything that would need to get into here.--Mike Selinker 23:51, 24 April 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 --William Allen Simpson 03:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found as a speedy with the reason, moved to Muslim geographers. Cat was not empty. No vote. Vegaswikian 22:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In the history of mathematics Islamic mathematics refers to the mathematics practiced in the Middle East between c. 600 and c. 1600. I assume that would also apply to geography and that these categories would therefore not be equivalent (for example, an Islamic geographer stricly speaking would not have to be a Muslim). —Ruud 22:58, 23 April 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 02:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst in the past it may have been useful to separate Scottish banks, the situation today is that in the vast majority of cases a bank being Scotish changes nothing. In fact the vast majority of Scottish banks have major businesses in England, eg Royal Bank of Scotland, Bank of Scotland and Clydesdale Bank (trading as Yorkshire Bank). Delete Ian3055 21:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Clydesdale also has its own branded branches in England. Astrotrain 08:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment my understanding is that the 'banks by country' series of categories are based on them being countries, its not 'banks by legal system' or any other division we happen to like the sound of. I would have thought that country could be expected to mean ISO 3166 countries. Ian3055 18:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:banks of the United Kingdom. This is part of User:Mais oui!'s endless campaign to stop anything being classified as British. Bhoeble 00:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this is a perfectly valid subcat of Category:Companies of Scotland. It is for banks registered in Scotland: virtually no bank in the world only operates in the country where it is registered, so by the logic of the proposer we should delete every "Banks of foo" category. --Mais oui! 06:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of information For those Users unfamiliar with the economy of the UK: companies can be registered either in England and Wales, in Scotland, or in Northern Ireland. It is also essential to note that this category is a subcategory of Category:Banks of the United Kingdom. --Mais oui! 06:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a spurious justification for a category that suits you for other reasons. The UK has a single banking market. Merchbow 06:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of information For those Users unfamiliar with the economy of the UK: companies can be registered either in England and Wales, in Scotland, or in Northern Ireland. It is also essential to note that this category is a subcategory of Category:Banks of the United Kingdom. --Mais oui! 06:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge- into Category:banks of the United Kingdom. There is no need for a seperate Scottish category. With the exception perhaps of Airdrie Savings Bank, all these banks operate throughout the UK. Astrotrain 07:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The companies are Scottish in origin and remain principally Scottish as far as I can see. Mais oui is technically correct on this one. However, allowing this cat implies we should also have Category:Banks of England and Wales and Category:Banks of Northern Ireland (and a consequent division of the higher-level cat Category:Companies of the United Kingdom). I'm not sure that is an ideal situation. Valiantis 14:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Tesco PF and Intelligent Finance are internet/telephone based operations, and not Scottish in any way. Standard Life isn't even a bank. Astrotrain 18:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Standard Life Bank Limited is registered in Scotland (No SC 173685)" [1] AllyD 18:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a subsidiary- the article is about Standard Life Assurance Company. Astrotrain 21:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Valiantis. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Surely it would be counter-intuitive to de-categorise a specific banknote issuing area? As it stands, the category can help the casual visitor to Scotland who seeks to use Wikipedia to understand the background to the variety of issuers of the banknotes in their wallet. It is also a sub-category which I hope will expand over time, to include more historical depth - from the scandalous (City of Glasgow Bank) to the banks I recall from my youth (National Commercial Bank, British Linen Bank). AllyD 18:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Defintitely. I agree with points of being of Scottish origin (even though many of them have global operations), and the issue of separate banknotes. Banking in Scotland has a long and separate history. I really cannot see what the problem is. Globaltraveller 18:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mai Oui!'s point of information pretty much leaves the opposition on its back, from my point of view. If the banks are registered in Scotland, I see no reason not to have a category for them, especially if that category is a subcategory of the UK banks cat. As well, these banks originated in Scotland. I don't see a problem in labelling the Royal Bank of Scotland as a Scottish bank. Canaen 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the other major item in the category, HBOS, which was a merger between the Bank of Scotland and the Halifax? I would be very surprised if it doesn't have more customers, more assets, more employees and more shareholders in England than in Scotland. On second thoughts, the RBS probably has more of all four of those in England as well. Merchbow 23:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge regardless of registration technicalities all the main British banks should be in the same category. Merchbow 23:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Company registration in the UK is very, very far from being a "technicality". It is of fundamental importance to the owners, managers and creditors of the firm, because the UK comprises three distinct jurisdictions: English law, Scots law and Northern Ireland law. This has many implications for companies large and small, perhaps most obviously in the fields of insolvency, litigation and conveyancing. Indeed, this is the very reason that we have three separate registers in the first place. Furthermore: all UK banks still are in the same category: this cat is a subcat of Category:Banks of the United Kingdom. --Mais oui! 00:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are all trivial justifications for splitting a group of banks which belong together as they are not to do with the primary functions of banks. The UK has a single banking market as I am sure you know perfectly well so all the UK banks should be in the same category. Merchbow 06:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. It does not matter where a company is registered, as they are free to operate throughout the UK. Also, Company Law is the same throughout the UK, as are the regulations governing banking and finance. Astrotrain 08:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, as we have a Single European Market in goods, services, capital and labour, I can only assume that you will shortly be nominating Category:Economy of the United Kingdom, and all of its subcats, for Merging into Category:Economy of the European Union, and corresponding subcats? No? You do surprise me. (PS: Jurisdictions and legal systems are "trivial"? Ho, ho: I pray to goodness that you are in no way involved in corporate governance: if you are, please inform me, and I will dis-invest from the firm directly.)--Mais oui! 08:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Company registration in the UK is very, very far from being a "technicality". It is of fundamental importance to the owners, managers and creditors of the firm, because the UK comprises three distinct jurisdictions: English law, Scots law and Northern Ireland law. This has many implications for companies large and small, perhaps most obviously in the fields of insolvency, litigation and conveyancing. Indeed, this is the very reason that we have three separate registers in the first place. Furthermore: all UK banks still are in the same category: this cat is a subcat of Category:Banks of the United Kingdom. --Mais oui! 00:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Although the arguments presented by Mais oui! are reason enough for me, particularly the one about jurisdictions, I am also swayed by the fact that one Scottish bank (the Bank Of Scotland) was established in 1695 and so is older than the United Kingdom. Lianachan 00:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Almost all the keep votes are from Scots. How can Wikipedia be objective if it can so easily be swayed by national agendas? This vote does not represent the considered views of a cross section of Wikipedians. Any special interest group can create a category and then it only takes a few of them to stop it being deleted because few other people bother to vote. Wikipedia is defenceless against this sort of manipulation. I hope that Digital Universe will be better than this. Merchbow 06:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have no "national agenda" and resent the implication that just because I happen to be Scottish, my Scottishness is the overriding factor in my views on this, despite the fact I clearly stated my reasons for voting keep above. Scottish banking has, as was pointed out above, a long and separate history. Definately worthy of its own sub-category, under the UK banks one. Lianachan 06:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Merchbow's Comment is offensive. Those who vote Keep are a "special interest group" accused on "manipulation" which prevents others' "considered views" from prevailing - a rather rhetorical case. One's own views always appear more rationally founded than others' but thee is no need to attack others' motives. AllyD 07:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's always questionable to assume what motivates individual contributors; however, there is a very strong pattern emerging of Scottish subcats being created by a handful of users regardless of the subject-matter and the usefulness/appropriateness of such cats. (I am not implying that this is a consciously POV position, but I do feel - given that some of these cats are subsequently deleted - that there may be overenthusiasm to subcategorise at a level below the sovereign nation which is the basis of WP categorisation by country). When these cats get listed here for reasons to do with the appropriateness of subcategorisation below the UK level with regard to the subject matter, they are regularly added to Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board at which point some users who frequent that board do seem to pile in here to defend the cats. Again, I am not implying that this is deliberately POV behaviour, but User:Merchbow is correct that the effect of this is to sway the "voting" group strongly so that it is disproportionately made up of Scots. This is not an ideal situation for an encyclopedia which strives for an international view. I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that all of us have unconscious POVs; it is certainly the case that in the past people have voted to keep cats without addressing issues of consistency (e.g. where similar cats in other countries are not subdivided into the sub-sovereign states/provinces/nations of that country). It might be useful if we attempted to draw up some ground rules for the use of sub-UK cats so that 1) we reach consensus when sub-UK cats are appropriate 2) where such a consensus is infringed against, all of us can collectively take action against it on the basis of the agreed position rather than our individual opinions. Valiantis 14:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A sensible and appropriate sub-categorisation. Scottish banking has a long and distinguished history, predating the formation of the UK as pointed out by Lianachan. The fact that the Scottish clearing banks are major players within UK market (and other markets) does not diminish the fact that they are still Scottish banks, and should be categorised as such. This has nothing to do with nationalism, but more to do with facts and common sense. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:Financial services companies of Scotland. Really, this is rampant overcategorization! Many of these aren't articles about banks. Of course, as they are Scottish registered companies, having a category makes good sense, but try to group things more generally! I'm in Michigan, and we certainly expect our registered companies to be in Category:Companies based in Michigan. But even though our economy is much bigger than Scotland, we don't have a separate category just for banks. Oh, and I have a Scottish grandmother and a Scottish great-grandfather, and visited my great aunties and 2nd and 3rd cousins in Scotland once, does that make me a Scottish partisan, too? --William Allen Simpson 02:11, 26 April 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pages under here would fit better under one of the subcategories of Category:Images by scientific discipline. There is no need to merge since there is only one element which I already added to Category:Biology lists. JeffW 21:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Probably too general a name in any case. Regards, David Kernow 00:42, 24 April 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 02:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category seems to be intended to disparage Korean companies which have allowed themselves to fall into the hands of foreigners. Delete. Nathcer 21:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ian3055 22:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 00:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; seems unclear regardless of possible disparagement. David Kernow 00:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; incoherent category. Postdlf 05:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or possibly rename. Not even sure what context "foreign" is intended here. Perhaps renaming to Category:Foreign companies in Korea would be better... —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Merchbow 23:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's redundant, offensive, confusing and unnecessary. The Anti-Gnome 07:27, 1 May 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 02:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting from April 13, based on a decision furhter down that day to combine the Memorials and Monuments cats into one supercat. I wasn't sure whether the mountain ones were sufficiently different that they should have their own cat or be upmerged instead just into M&M category. Syrthiss 20:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename pre nom, but with a reservation: There is no mountain monument or mountain memorial article defining the topic. Is it only for monuments carved from mountains (Mount Rushmore National Memorial), or can it include memorials on mountains (Mount Soledad), or even mountains that are monuments (Devils Tower National Monument)? — Eoghanacht talk 13:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Knowing no better, Eoghanacht, I'd say any of the above; otherwise I'd suggest (a) more specific category/ies. Regards, David Kernow 00:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Scranchuse 19:50, 25 April 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 Mnm in teh US. Syrthiss 02:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
see above. Syrthiss 20:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps sufficient population to merit rename to Category:Mountain monuments and memorials in the United States...? David Kernow 00:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom, and add articles to Category:Monuments and memorials in the United States. — Eoghanacht talk 13:34, 24 April 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 both to Indian family names. Syrthiss 02:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there's two cat with the same subject. --Dangerous-Boy 19:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 19:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually shouldn't it be the other way around? the others are Category:Japanese surnames etc. Williamb 12:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - the other way round is better. at any rate, this is no speedy Mayumashu 13:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, chinese and korean have it as family names instead of surnames, so that's why I picked it. it was 2 against 1. --Dangerous-Boy 22:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If renamed, new name needs some lowercasing. David Kernow 00:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Surname may be seen as a culturally-biased term as it is European in origin. I know in official circles in the UK, the term is often avoided now and "Family name" preferred as people from non-anglophone cultures do not always have an exact equivalent of a surname. In the article space "surname" redirects to family name Valiantis 14:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Culturally biased? Certainly among the politically correct crowd, however the world doesn't dance to the tune of a few. So what if many countries do not use surnames, they aren't even in this category. apples and pears..
- As one of the key rules of WP is the avoidance of POV, then category and article titles should avoid POV. Cultural bias is a form of POV. I'm not sure I can make this any clearer. Valiantis 14:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But this seems to be your POV more than anything else. Williamb 01:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This seems to be an incorrect request. Category:Indian Family Names already exists, so this is a merge request, not a delete or renaming. HOWEVER, Category:Indian Family Names should be renamed to Category:Indian family names. As to Category:Indian surnames vs. Category:Indian family names I have no opinion. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Merge everything into Category:Indian family names --Dangerous-Boy 04:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge both to Category:Indian family names as per Dangerous-Boy. Valiantis 13:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The term "Family" is inappropriate as it is just furthering a biased belief that all surnames apply to familes. Having the same surname doesn't make people family and having different surnames doesn't make people unrelated. "Surnames" is the appropriate term. As for capitalization, that's more of a manual of style thing and one of the many reasons I believe category should be movable by all registered users. Anyway, getting back on point, move everything to "Category:Indian surnames". If people are all "Oh no! processive, intelligent and flexible european language word(s)! Evil!" that's their bag. Wikipedia is about displaying the facts in the most accurate way, not pandering to backwards races who can't appreciate a good word, once again, their bag. Wikipedia isn't censored the use of "Family name" over "Surname" is nothing but "politically correct" (but verbally inaccurate) BS and censorship. Never give in. Don't let hicks win! The Anti-Gnome 07:49, 1 May 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. Syrthiss 02:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorization. This is an unnecessary division of Category:Alabama landmarks, which only has 23 articles in its base (I haven't checked to see how much of that is overlap). Though some state landmark categories do have subcategories for significant cities (e.g., Category:Landmarks in New York City), and North Alabama is (I presume, at least) a recognized region of the state, subcategorizing in this case is not helpful and not needed, especially considering that the article North Alabama has little content aside from a list of included communities. There is no indication that the region so defines its contents that the landmarks are better identified by region rather than the state as a whole (in contrast to NYC landmarks being identified with that city specifically). And it's always too bad when such categories are created in lieu of fleshing out the substance of an article. Postdlf 18:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per excellent nom. Turnstep 00:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into category:Alabama landmarks. Bhoeble 00:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's what I meant. ; ) Postdlf 01:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Bhoeble. — Eoghanacht talk 13:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and delete per Bhoeble. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:53, 24 April 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.
Category:Belgian tennis tournaments to Category:Tennis tournaments in Belgium
Category:German tennis tournaments to Category:Tennis tournaments in Germany
[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 rename both. Syrthiss 02:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the the convention for tennis tournaments should be the same as for tennis by country. ie. "Tennis tournaments in Foo. The possessive is not really appropriate when 90% plus of the competitors in a tournament may be non-nationals. Choalbaton 18:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename both per my nomination. Choalbaton 18:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Seems logical. Turnstep 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. The Anti-Gnome 08:00, 1 May 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 --William Allen Simpson 03:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial and overly vague category. By the definition, it includes just about every standard programming language, since portable languages have a poor interaction with the operating system, and just about every programming language before 1980 and most of them afterwards are single paradigm languages. The name is unclear and not NPOV, since it's an implicit criticism.--Prosfilaes 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Choalbaton 18:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The name is traditional. It was even referenced on the Comparison_of_Pascal_and_C page until somebody took offence that I linked it -- and no I didn't add the original reference. I don't appreciate having my user page edited to distort this vote, and an ad hominem attack pasted on the Category:Bondage programming languages page. Resorting to such vote-distortion tactics is quite dishonest. All votes above mine were made while my user page and the catagory page were both vandalized. AlbertCahalan 18:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, it's not traditional; I've only ever heard of bondage-and-discipline languages as the Jargon file calls them, and that's never included C, Fortran, Prolog, etc., all of which are included in your name. Even if it is traditional, we still don't need a category the equal of Macintrash. I didn't resort to such tactics, nor did they influence my posting here.--Prosfilaes 18:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Jargon file can provide the official definition, with category members being adjusted to match. I support a rename to the longer "bondage-and-discipline language" term if others agree. The four examples given there are Pascal, Ada, APL, and Prolog. AlbertCahalan 19:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would argue that neither APL or Prolog are ostensibly general-purpose in this sense. More importantly, I would argue that Ada is demonstratably adaquate for system programming; there is no way to resolve that debate in an WP:NPOV manner.--Prosfilaes 23:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Jargon file can provide the official definition, with category members being adjusted to match. I support a rename to the longer "bondage-and-discipline language" term if others agree. The four examples given there are Pascal, Ada, APL, and Prolog. AlbertCahalan 19:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The page edits you refer to were made prior to the page submitted for deletion. The reference you cite on the Comparison_of_Pascal_and_C page were added by you (and removed by me). Derek farn 21:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Quit distorting the truth. As anyone can see from the page history, the term was in use on the page before I had ever touched the page. Anyone else mind confirming this? My edit merely links an existing usage of the term, and the history reveals no prior edits by me. AlbertCahalan 07:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, it's not traditional; I've only ever heard of bondage-and-discipline languages as the Jargon file calls them, and that's never included C, Fortran, Prolog, etc., all of which are included in your name. Even if it is traditional, we still don't need a category the equal of Macintrash. I didn't resort to such tactics, nor did they influence my posting here.--Prosfilaes 18:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While I appreciate the point, and the humor, I don't think catagories should be jokes. Another name-space maybe. As for ever encountering the term outside the Jargon File, I agree. New to me in the real world. Not enough reason to keep given the POV inherent in the term. Eveny if I agree with a good part o fthe POV. ww 20:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with the points made by User:Ww. I have spent the 28 years writing compilers and static code analysis tools and have never encountered this term. I think it was made-up by the original author of the page who has a misplaced sense of wikipedia 'humor'. Derek farn 20:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Inherently POV category name. The Jargon File entry is a piece of satire, not a definition of a technical term. Henning Makholm 20:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment added later: Note that the punchline of the Jargon File's term "bondage-and-discipline language" is the allusion to a tradition in scholary prose about programming languages of using the phrase "type discipline" to refer to a compiler-enforced type system. This is completely lost in the abbreviated category name (not that I think renaming is in any way preferable to just deleting it, mind you). Henning Makholm 23:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone. Nathcer 21:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete can't be properly defined. I think type-checking is absolutely necessary in a language so any language that lacks it is an attempt to "enforce an author's theory of ‘right programming’" (quoted from Jargon file). - DNewhall 21:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as completely subjective, unencyclopedic category. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 07:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 'Bondage' has negative connotations except perhaps for those who are that way inclined. Replace with the positive-sounding 'Type-safe' category if there has to be a category. Experience indicates that type-safety and other attributes that assist productivity, reliability, maintainability etc. are vital attributes of a programming language, not the converse. Chris Burrows 13:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Dominus 18:34, 24 April 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 --William Allen Simpson 03:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of a rediculous category--I don't see it ever being very useful. Perhaps some day we may end up needing a category for VeggieTales characters, but not all fruit and vegetable characters. authraw 17:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Interesting. Arniep 17:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's not unclear or overlarge. It could be interesting to study anthropomophic fruit and vegetables; it's as useful as the articles it connects.--Prosfilaes 17:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is based on a primary characteristic so it is okay. Choalbaton 18:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Turnstep 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Doesn't seem ridiculous to me. I just added some entries.--Mike Selinker 23:50, 24 April 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 --William Allen Simpson 03:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huge possible scope, ultimately pointless. Arniep 15:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 15:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Dp462090|Talk |Contrib|
00:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Delete per above. Turnstep 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. David Kernow 00:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Postdlf 00:39, 24 April 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 --William Allen Simpson 03:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category currently contains 6 entities including Moon and Sun. The scope of this cat is much better suited to a list, such as list of Solar System bodies formerly considered planets. The category is proposed for deletion. Kurieeto 14:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Exactly when were the Sun and the Moon ever considered planets? Stop war! 17:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Through most of recorded history I believe, but delete anyway. Choalbaton 18:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Too small, specific, and finite. Turnstep 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. David Kernow 00:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and per Turnstep. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:48, 24 April 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category was created in October of 2005. After half a year it contains one article, and is therefore viewed as excessive categorization at this time. Proposed for merge with parent, Category:Topography of Mars. Kurieeto 13:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Turnstep 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom.--cjllw | TALK 05:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The single article that was in this category has been moved to the larger Category:Plains on Mars. Mlm42 20:09, 30 April 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 02:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to Category:Japanese porn stars. Not used by any article. --minghong 09:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Nathcer 21:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unused cat. Turnstep 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unused, misnamed cat. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP as a category redirect. And no it is not misnamed. "Adult Video Idol" or more commonly AV Idol is the term used for Jap porn stars. 132.205.45.110 18:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is misnamed. Should be named Category:Adult video idols. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "AV Idol" is the more common term. Ofcourse, it being Japan, most Japanese probably don't even know what AV stands for. 132.205.45.110 19:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it should be Category:AV idols in Japan or at best Category:AV idols, but anyway you slice it, the category is misnamed. Certainly, "AV idol" is not descriptive to anyone who has not encountered the term, so if this is specific to Japan the name should at least clarify that point. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "AV Idol" is the more common term. Ofcourse, it being Japan, most Japanese probably don't even know what AV stands for. 132.205.45.110 19:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is misnamed. Should be named Category:Adult video idols. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:06, 24 April 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this is the last of these redundant anti-corporate categories. This might have been an exercise in anti-corporate activism - bombing Wikipedia with a whole load of redundant categories on almost the same subject. Caravaca 09:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Inappropriately pejorative. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Choalbaton 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Smacks of activism. Nathcer 21:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as ill-defined and subjective. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:45, 24 April 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Potential content should go under scandals, business ethics or anti-corporate activism. Whoever created this didn't seem to be aware that there were already adequate and well-developed categories elsewhere. Or redirect? Caravaca 09:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Inappropriately pejorative. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Choalbaton 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Smacks of activism. Nathcer 21:37, 23 April 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 02:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anything here would be better under business ethics. Caravaca 09:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - articles in this +cat should not be moved out. Caravaca has already moved the articles out without waiting for a vote or consensus, I am going to put them back now SirIsaacBrock 13:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Inappropriately pejorative. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Choalbaton 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Smacks of activism. Nathcer 21:37, 23 April 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 02:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anything here would be better under accounting and business ethics. Caravaca 08:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - articles in this +cat should not be moved out. Caravaca has already moved the articles out without waiting for a vote or consensus, I am going to put them back now SirIsaacBrock 13:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Inappropriately pejorative. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Choalbaton 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Smacks of activism. Nathcer 21:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT - I created this +cat not the others, you fellows are voting carte blanche without even looking at what is in the +cat. This is the correct name for the +cat and the correct articles are in the +cat, if you delete it they will default back to Category:Accountancy, which is the main +cat. You are making a mistake!! SirIsaacBrock 20:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This one has an anti-corporate bias the same as the others so it should be merged into the Category:Accountancy. Merchbow 23:39, 24 April 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a series of categories with little or no content; redundant Caravaca 08:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Choalbaton 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Smacks of activism. Nathcer 21:37, 23 April 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a series of categories with little or no content; redundant. Caravaca 08:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Inappropriately pejorative. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Choalbaton 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Smacks of activism. Nathcer 21:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:40, 24 April 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.
Category:Episcopal cathedrals of the United States to Category:Episcopal cathedrals in the United States
[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 rename. Syrthiss 02:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be "in the United States" as per convention. Merchbow 04:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:54, 24 April 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 --William Allen Simpson 03:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several similar, populated categories (female bodybuilders, female powerlifters, strongwomen, fitness & figure competitors) already exist. This category is redundant without adding anything new of significance. fbb_fan 03:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Merchbow 04:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Turnstep 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Open to interpretation, has only one entry and has a very poor introduction. Alan Liefting 05:23, 25 April 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 03:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several similar, populated categories (female bodybuilders, female powerlifters, strongwomen, fitness & figure competitors) already exist. This category is redundant without adding anything new of significance. fbb_fan 03:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Merchbow 04:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Turnstep 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Alan Liefting 05:24, 25 April 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.