Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 22
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
April 22
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Created by overzealous anon user, then changed to redirect to Category:Mavis Beacon typing games. —tregoweth 21:58, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Created by overzealous anon user; not particularly necessary. —tregoweth 21:58, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Note: This was incorrectly created on WP:VFD, so I moved it to the correct location.
- Delete: I understand the desire for an entry on Islamofascism, but creating a category is absurd. It makes the category seem like a NPOV label, when it is much more of an insult or epithet. It would be like having a category for Islamophobes and including Robert Spencer, or having a category of Phony Texan Warmongers and including George W. Bush.--csloat 19:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Completely POV category. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:31, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
- You have a right to vote here, but not to unilaterally blank the category without waiting for a result. Stop it. LevelCheck 20:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It would be rather POV and inappropriate to assign people to an epithet. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:00, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. --Viriditas | Talk 00:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and please don't give LevelCheck any more suggestions--that phony warmongers category was created today (I speedied it as vandalism). Meelar (talk) 03:37, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete; inherently POV category. Antandrus 03:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Serves no purpose but to provide a POV label. Soon we'll have Category: Major Jerkfaces. Mr. Billion 05:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, who "made up" this "word"? IZAK 05:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Inherently POV. Might as well have categories for "Racists", "Bigots", "Anti-Semites", etc. Also, apparently created as a WP:POINT (see above). Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I created both categories in the interest of evenhandedness. LevelCheck 20:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This was created as some kind of joke by LevelCheck after I complained about Islamofascists.--csloat 20:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree, it's inherently POV. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:31, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons stated above. --Briangotts 20:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It would be rather POV and inappropriate to assign people to an epithet. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:00, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this misleading fake-"word". IZAK 05:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 16:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Rivers of Massachusetts Burgundavia 16:42, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 14 for discussion on moving other US rivers to "Rivers of Foo" format. --Kbdank71 18:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Agree, as before. --Kbdank71 18:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, as before. RedWolf 03:31, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just discovered looking at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood,_et_al. that this category was renamed as per "consensus". I am arguing that the previous CfR vote was not consensus. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Insurance companies of the People's Republic of China. There were three "renames", two "opposes", one "neutral" (myself) and one user (User:Kbdank71) who said he would have opposed "but it seems the change has already been made" as User:Instantnood appears to have moved it two days before the vote was actually "resolved" from CfD. --JuntungWu 14:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: For your information, it was listed at #To be emptied or moved. [1] — Instantnood 18:49, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I vote to do nothing until the Arbitration case is over. --Kbdank71 20:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Is this a call for a revote? Btw, I do not understand what Instantnood is trying to imply in his comment above.--Huaiwei 20:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Category:Insurance companies of mainland China is currently empty, and as a matter of fact it was depopulated. PICC was moved to category:Companies of the People's Republic of China. — Instantnood 22:11, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
- That is beyond the scope of this page. Right now, I am more concerned as to why this move was efected against set procedures here, as pointed out above? Who did the category move? Was this move authorised?--Huaiwei 22:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Both of them, there aren't enough notable insurance companies in China to complete a category. "... of the People's Republic of China" would be correct if there needs to be one. And yes, this was an instance where Instantnood created the category without concensus and before voting was over. I also would have opposed to begin with and added that to the closed vote, where Instantnood deleted my comment. SchmuckyTheCat 23:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, I can write twenty articles about twenty insurance companies in China, but let's not get into that. --JuntungWu 05:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Is this for real? Delete. Radiant_* 09:12, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Looking over what happened, it appears that Instantnood was in the clear on this one. There were four votes to rename vs two to oppose. That's a consensus. The change was made well after the required seven days. However, that doesn't solve anything, as Insurance companies of the PRC is just a redirect to Insurance companies of mainland china, and that's empty. As such, I'll vote to delete both of them. If JuntungWu wants to write some articles, we can always recreate the categories. --Kbdank71 20:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Renamed to Category:Office suites: avoid the problem of "applications suite" and "application suite" (add a "s" to application or not). --minghong 10:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This sounds like furniture. Can a better name be found? JuntungWu 14:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- How about "Business software applications"? "Office" to me sounds too much like "MS Office". --Kbdank71 15:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Take a look of the office suite article. There are several alternative names, but those are not commonly used. --minghong 19:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Were combined into Category:Entactogens and Empathogens as they are two words used to denote the same thing and neither one is dominant in usage. --Heah 07:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Should be Category:Wikipedia policy thinktank. -- Beland 03:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Agree. --Kbdank71 14:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 13:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
These two terms mean the same thing when you're talking about natural languages. Machine languages are covered under Category:Formal languages. So let's merge the two categories; pick your favorite name. -- Beland 02:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep both. No, they don't mean the same thing, but syntax is a subset of grammar, and Category:Syntax should be a subcategory of Category:Grammar. Uppland 06:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What would be the scope of syntax vs. the scope of grammar, then? -- Beland 20:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As you can see from the article on Grammar here on Wikipedia, grammar is a wider concept, consisting of syntax as one of its constituent parts and at least morphology as another, usually with phonology and other stuff in addition (it depends on which grammar book you are looking at). I don't really know why the article claims that "traditional grammars" only include morphology and syntax; it should define what it means by a "traditional grammar". The word originally (to the ancient Greeks) had an even wider meaning, meaning language and literature studies in general. You could certainly, if a merge is really necessary, include all the syntax stuff in the grammar category, but not the other way around - the words are not interchangeable. It seems that a lot of linguistics articles on Wikipedia are as yet underdeveloped, and it seems likely that the syntax category will be needed at some time in the future even if it would get merged now. -- Uppland 21:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What would be the scope of syntax vs. the scope of grammar, then? -- Beland 20:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Grammar. --Kbdank71 14:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep both, possibly with syntax a subcat of grammar. As I understand it, syntax is that part of grammar that deals with word order. Kappa 00:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Syntax should be subcategory of grammar. Maurreen 17:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Possible successors to Pope John Paul II. Andrewa 01:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Moot point now. --Kbdank71 01:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete for obvious reasons. --Azkar 03:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. All names in this category are preserved in List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave. -- 8^D gab 04:09, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.