Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/resolved

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are resolved (but interesting) issues from Categories for Deletion.

Note: This page is meant to be organized by topic, to make things easier to find. The topics (which are not mutually exclusive) may be somewhat arbitrary.

See also Category:ToL cleanup and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities for delete/keep guidelines on these topics. Other WikiProjects may have their own guidelines for categories.

Untidy dump

[edit]

Category:Athletics stadia from (September 1st)

[edit]


On the one hand this is a duplicate of the much more widely used category:entrepreneurs. On the other, if there is to be a broader category about entrepreneurship, which is what the contents seem to imply is the intention, it should be called category:Entrepreneurship. I will create the latter in due course. Wincoote 00:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Can't we merge category:entrepreneur and category:businesspeople into category:entrepreneurs (after fixing the capitalization problem first), and then move the non-people articles into category:Entrepreneurship? -Kbdank71 14:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I like that suggestion. --Laura Scudder 22:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course we can't. Huge numbers of important business people are not entrepreneurs. The latter is a subcategory of the former. Wincoote 14:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • And yet you propose to delete corporate leaders, saying it's a duplicate of business people. -Kbdank71 15:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Entrepreneur and entrepeneurs have the same meaning and should be merged. Seems to me we should strive for consistency in the use of plural for all people-related categories. --Leifern 14:59, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Merge Category:Entrepreneur into Category:Entrepreneurs and forget the "Entrepreneurship" nonsense and leave "business people" out of it. If it is about entrepreneurs and their activities, it belongs in the entrepreneurs category, just as much as listing individuals who might be given this tag. Gene Nygaard 16:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Category:Entrepreneur into Category:Entrepreneurs. If there were enough articles about starting businesses to justify a category:Entrepreneurship, then that should be a separate category. But the individuals should be categorized as "Entrepreneurs". Category:businesspeople is clearly different. -Willmcw 23:49, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Like my other nominations below this is an unhelpful and little used duplication of category:businesspeople. If this is deleted, I will find better homes for those articles which are not about individuals. Wincoote 00:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. -Kbdank71 15:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Duplicates category:businesspeople and category:entrepreneurs. Plus, it's a vague category. Many companies have a chairman of the board, a CEO, a COO, etc. Are all of those leaders? What about someone who shows leadership from a subordinate role? -Willmcw 19:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Mountains of Greece for consistency with the naming convention of Mountains of Foo. RedWolf 07:36, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Should be merged with subcategories of Category:National parks by country (moving in from Category:Protected areas by country after a previous WP:CFD vote was clarified - I originally misinterpreted the decision). -- Beland 02:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree. There aren't any NPs that aren't in a country are there?--ZayZayEM 04:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the word national gives us a clue there... :) agree. Grutness|hello? 10:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I beleive there are at least three that are in more than one country, but I don't suppose that matters. Wincoote 13:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If you follow the reasoning of all these pro/anti China categories then China has no national parks. (Course, I think that's ridiculous, just sayin') SchmuckyTheCat 20:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • (response to Grutness) There's a matter of name. In the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and some other parts of the world, the term "country park" is used instead. — Instantnood 05:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • You miss my point, which was replying to ZayZayEM. If a park is a national park then by definition it must be in a nation. Doesn't matter what they're called in other parts of the world. Grutness|hello?
  • Don't understand the proposal. What gets lost in the merger? What name/names are kept? I think that Category:National parks with the country categories under it and eliminating Category:National parks by country would be good. Multinational ones would also logically fit into each relevant subcategory (in unusual cases could be in the supercategory if necessary). It seems pretty redundant to include both "national" and "by country". Maybe not strictly so, but people going to "national parks" won't be surprised to see it subdivided by country, and should actually expect it since this isn't the type of thing that each country normally has only one of. Gene Nygaard 18:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Sounds logical, and to me, "natural reserves" or "protected areas" sound more all-encompassing. There is at least one airport serving three States on the border, and the airport itself is on the soil of two States (Switzerland and France). It is categorised in three [[category:Airports of Foo]] categories. — Instantnood 05:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have already moved all the entries to Category:Puerto Rican dramatists and playwrights to put it more in line with the rest of the entries under Category:Dramatists and playwrights by nationality. Ganymead 06:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This was previously put up for a vote here. There was no consensus as to what an alternative would be, so I'm renominating this for an alternative. My thoughts are, we could go with 1. Category:Cities and towns in Hungary and Category:Villages in Hungary, 2. Category:Cities, towns and villages in Hungary, or 3. Category:Municipalities in Hungary. Those seemed to be the best ideas from the earlier discussion. -Kbdank71 22:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • 2 - Cities, towns and villages in Hungary -Kbdank71 22:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • 2 - Cities, towns and villages in Hungary -Adam78 23:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • 2 - Cities, towns and villages in Hungary--NightMonkey 23:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • 4 - Cities and towns in Hungary and towns includes all villages--and even if you don't like my idea, put that serial comma in if you use Category:Cities, towns, and villages in Hungary --Gene Nygaard 03:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 2 - Cities, towns and villages in HungaryAlensha 19:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Everything but 1. I support one single category for all populated places in Hungary, be it Cities in Hungary, Towns in Hungary, Cities and towns in Hungary or Cities, towns and villages in Hungary. BTW Gene, the serial comma is a subject of debate. Markussep 12:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Categories of star classes

[edit]

White dwarf stars stars are class D stars. There is also Category:White dwarfs making this category obsolete. This category is has only a redirect.--Jyril 21:36, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as a matter of clean-up. Courtland 00:08, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
  • KEEP because it aids in navigation for those who are not astronomers, but would look in Category:Stars by spectral type . 132.205.15.43 00:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • comment — perhaps a Star classification terminolgy article, almost an embellished list, could be added to Category:Stars_by_spectral_type to assist in this matter. I am sensitive to the needs of non-experts in general, but I thought deletion of the category did not unduly handicap them. Courtland 01:22, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
    • Delete. Presumably, a non-astronomer wouldn't know a Type-D star from a hole in the ground. -Kbdank71 18:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • COMMENT a non-astronomer would see type D or class D in various star articles and when navigating around WikiPedia might want to look up some more. The articles might be from say SPACE.COM or something. 132.205.45.148 19:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment. Perhaps, but if they wanted to read an article about a Type D star, they'd have to go to White dwarf, which, oddly enough, doesn't mention "Type D" once. This is just a category. -Kbdank71 20:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • It is worth mentioning. That article should also include information on classification of different types of white dwarfs.--Jyril 20:27, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete But move to list-- I think it's important to not simply wipe away indexing by the more technical naming convention. siafu 18:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP because it aids in navigation for those who are not astronomers, but would look in Category:Stars by spectral type . 132.205.15.43 00:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. How is an empty category going to help anyone? -Kbdank71 18:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It exists as a categoryredirect and that works for navigation purposes as well. 132.205.45.148 19:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)** It exists as a categoryredirect and that works for navigation purposes as well. 132.205.45.148 19:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stellar spectral types N and R have been combined to type C so these categories are redundant. They are also empty.--Jyril 21:36, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • KEEP because it aids in navigation for those who are not astronomers, but would look in Category:Stars by spectral type . 132.205.15.43 00:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. How is an empty category going to help anyone? -Kbdank71 18:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It exists as a categoryredirect and that works for navigation purposes as well. 132.205.45.148 19:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wolf-Rayet stars are class W stars. There is also Category:Wolf-Rayet stars making this category obsolete. This category is empty.--Jyril 21:36, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as an matter of clean-up. Courtland 23:57, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • KEEP because it aids in navigation for those who are not astronomers, but would look in Category:Stars by spectral type . 132.205.15.43 00:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. How is an empty category going to help anyone? -Kbdank71 18:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It exists as a categoryredirect and that works for navigation purposes as well. 132.205.45.148 19:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Redundant with correct Category:Triumph vehicles. SFoskett 19:05, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete The reason that it isn't being used is probably that it is in American English. Wincoote 22:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and delete Category:Triumph vehicles. Using Wincoote's logic, why isn't it Category:Ford automobiles? Should the existing Category:Ford vehicles include all farm tractors sold under by Ford the "Ford" brand? They are vehicles, are they not? So are Honda motorcycles and Volvo skid-steer loaders, are they not? Gene Nygaard 23:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't follow this argument, which may be self-contradictory, but it is advocating a breach of the policy that British English has equal status. If this user's concerns are to be addressed, it should be Category:Triumph cars and Category:Triumph motorbikes if required (or "motorcycles" if that is standard). His suggestion is an example of U.S. linguistic imperialism. Wincoote 00:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't even buy your interpretation that this would be proper in British English. Vehicles is too broad a term. Furthermore, vehicles is common in American English as well, so I haven't the foggiest idea what that argument is involves. In American English, motor vehicles (and in a Department of Motor Vehicles in some states, for example) isn't usually applied to farm tractors and construction machinery, but vehicles certainly includes them. And what's this "Equal Statud" nonsense? Your argument would also mean that American English has equal status, wouldn't it? And then the logical conclusion would be that characterizing something as American English is most certainly not a legitimate argument for changing it, wouldn't it? Talk about self-contradictory!! Gene Nygaard 01:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • British English is preferred for articles about British topics, and American English for American topics. This is not "nonsense"; it is one of Wikipedia's best known policies. By extension the same should apply to categories.Wincoote 05:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. Automobiles are neither a "British topic" nor an "American topic", and most manufacturers are neither. Many are multinational.
  2. Automobiles is a narrower and more appropriate term in both British English and American English so I have no idea what your point is there. An 1885 Triumph bicycle is a vehicle, as is a Red River ox cart. Gene Nygaard 09:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Changing my vote now that it has been clarified that the "correctness" doesn't involve two words intended to have the same meaning, and that Triumph motorcycles belong in this category as well. If kept, the automobiles category should be as a subcategory of the vehicles category, but that would not appear to be necessary. Gene Nygaard 14:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is inconsistent with the 70+ other '[Manufacturer] vehicles' categories we already have.--Hooperbloob 04:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't follow this as an American/British distinction; we both use the terms "automobiles" and "vehicles" with those spellings. I advocate remaining consistent with the existing standard, as cited by Hooperbloob. siafu 05:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not everything needs to be an argument about American vs British. As for vehicles vs automobiles, if consensus does indeed go for vehicles, then Gene, I'd fill it up with vehicles: cars, trucks, motorcycles, tractors, etc. If they are a vehicle, they belong in the category, period. If people just want cars, then it should be named something else. -Kbdank71 21:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'll be starting the Red River ox cart article shortly; they are quite interesting vehicles. Meanwhile, I have found a few others to add to the various "vehicles" categories. Gene Nygaard 02:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • We had this exact same argument recently over another category (Car or Automobile or Vehicle), though I don't remember exactly what the category name was (someone here is bound to remember it though). The decision them was that motor vehicle was a perectly accepatable term used both in the US and in the rest of the English speaking world. Don't see why the same decision can't be applied here. Grutness|hello? 08:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like you've been snookered out of an argument there. Obviously nobody went with that idea. I don't find any categories about "motor vehicles". Gene Nygaard 16:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • ...in which case, I've no idea why the decision wasn't implemented. If that is - for some reason - not a viable option, I vote to retain the "vehicles" category and delete the "automobiles" one. Grutness|hello? 01:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Self-nomination. Singular not plural. My typo, sorry. Please delete. VivaEmilyDavies 02:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

wellformed and in use category name = Category:Botanists active in South America
  • Even without the typo, I suspect this category will get nominated for deletion. This topic is better served by a list. RedWolf 04:53, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a matter of clean-up. Courtland 05:26, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
  • Delete, but keep Category:Botanists active in South America until somebody gives convincing arguments against it. / u p p l a n d 09:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


"By country" categorization

[edit]

The following is an attempt to collect discussions and precedents involve the question of formatting for country- or culture-specific categories, especially those taking place after January 15, 2005. (E.g. "Lakes of X", "Xian lakes", "Lakes in X", "X lakes", etc.) Note that ther may be other, similar precedents listed under other categories on this page.

Economics

[edit]
  • "Economy of CountryName" is preferred to "CountryNamian economy".

Education

[edit]

Geography

[edit]
Here's the simple rule: communities get cross-categorized by the type of municipality they are (i.e., Category:Cities in Ohio, Category:Villages in Ohio) and the county they are in. I've seen at least one instance of further subdivision of Cities in _____ County, but I think this is unnecessary, it hinders the purpose of grouping all cities in a state together and all places in a county together, it and simply won't work in rural counties that may only have a handful of communities. Postdlf 05:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Military

[edit]

History

[edit]

Politics and government

[edit]

Moved back to CFD, passed consensus. Discussion now to see what replacement cat will be. See discussion for archive.

People

[edit]

The policies at Wikipedia:Categorization of people may post-date some of these decisions.

Transportation

[edit]

Science and technology

[edit]

Spelling and usage

[edit]

Sports

[edit]

Religion and philosophy

[edit]

Wikipedia

[edit]

Entertainment

[edit]

Misc

[edit]