Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 14[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 keep. --Kbdank71 01:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Ohio rivers[edit]

Voting results:

"Rename" (3): Laura Scudder, Grutness, Kbdank71

"Keep" (2): Postdlf, Redwolf

No consensus. Default is to keep

Propose moving it and the similar state rivers categories in Category:U.S. rivers to Category:Rivers of Ohio and Rivers of state to be consistent with Category:Lakes of Ohio and Category:Islands of Ohio. If these are moved I suppose Category:U.S. rivers should also be moved to Category:Rivers of the United States to match with Category:Lakes of the United States. This is the naming convention that was decided for Category:Rivers of England which was renamed after this discussion. This has probably been discussed before but I can't find it so I figured it could benefit from (re)discussion. --Laura Scudder | Talk 05:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment I don't know that there's necessarily a reason why rivers by political subdivision have to follow the same form as rivers by country—considering how all the state river categories follow one convention, this would amount to a lot of work for questionable gain. It would also make them inconsistent with all the list articles (i.e., List of Ohio rivers, List of Mississippi rivers, etc.). I honestly don't care because either title is functional, but why bother with all that work? Postdlf 05:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment - Although I tend to agree with Postdlf that subregions needn't necessarily follow the format of countries, "Rivers of StateFoo" may be less confusing in many cases, given that there's an Ohio River, an Arkansas River, a Mississippi River, and a Missouri River (to name just four). Grutness|hello? 11:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The use of the lower case and plural "rivers" makes that kind of confusion highly unlikely. Postdlf 01:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unlikely, perhaps... but I have seen articles on rivers it a lower case "r" before... Grutness|hello?
Oppose. Political subdivisions don't need to follow the same naming conventions established at the country level. RedWolf 08:02, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. --Kbdank71 18:58, 20 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 17:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Lists suggested for alphabetical organizing[edit]

An creation from our friend User:SamuraiClinton. Is linked with Template:Alpha which is also undergoing a vote for deletion. It is basiclay one users opinion of a list that need to be in alpha order. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually I think it's a useful idea, but it may be considered part of cleanup and thus needless instruction creep. Abstain. Radiant_* 07:42, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If you come across a list that should be in alphabetical order but isn't, alphabetize it. This isn't likely to be controversial (so doesn't require prior notice) and doesn't take any particular skill or subject-specific knowledge, so can be done by anyone. If you don't have time to do the work at the moment add it to your own to do list. -- Rick Block 14:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you want to alphabetize something, alphabetize it. Why do we need a category? Somewhat confusing, though, is that the only article in this category is in alphabetical order (within sub-headings) and was at the point in was put in this category. --Azkar 22:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - this would probably be a useful category in the Wikispace (along with related ones like "Lists that need expansion") - but it doesn't belong among the main article categories. Grutness|hello? 02:12, 17 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 20:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Popular songs[edit]

How are we determining what songs are "popular"? This is a relative term we're dealing with, after all. Songs are always "popular" if they have fans who love them, and that counts for most songs. This category could easily become POV just by the relative nature of it. -- LGagnon 20:58, Apr 14, 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 20:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some state highway categories[edit]

Voting results:

"Rename" (2): SPUI, Silsor

"Keep" (6): Kbdank71, Gene Nygaard, Postdlf, Calton, Fingers-of-Pyrex, Bryan

Consensus is to keep

These are the official names of the highway class.

more to come --SPUI (talk) 18:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Disagree. Highway is more specific as to what is being categorized. --Kbdank71 19:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • How is "highway" more specific? These are the official names for the systems, used by the state Department of Transportation. --SPUI (talk) 22:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A useless proposal. That's why it is lowercase. If nothing else, the generic terminology keeps the categorizers from becoming idiots if some state uses a couple of different names for their state highways. Gene Nygaard 20:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If some state uses a couple different names, we standardize by the one that's used most often, or is used in state laws, or some other way. --SPUI (talk) 22:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No. If you are using proper names in the categories, then putting something else in there would be flat-out wrong. Keep it generic. Gene Nygaard 00:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I really don't understand your reasoning. Everything in the category is, for example, a California State Route. --SPUI (talk) 00:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. See below.
  2. Only because you or somebody else has been jacking around with the category. The Category:Southern California freeways should be a subcategory of Category:California state highways. Tell us, what are the names of those highways?
Category:California state highways is for numbered highways. Category:Southern California freeways is for freeways in southern California, the majority of which are numbered (a few are locally maintained, like an old section of CA 163 and the access to LAX). There is not a one-to-one mapping between freeway names and numbers, so the categories are separate. For instance, the Santa Ana Freeway is US 101 north of the East Los Angeles Interchange, and I-5 south of it. Neither of these numbers are in Category:California state highways, because they are in Category:Interstate highways in California and Category:U.S. Highways in California (not sure if the latter has been created). --SPUI (talk) 01:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, that's not the way it should be. Gene Nygaard 02:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well then, how should it be, and where does it say how it should be? --SPUI (talk) 02:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. You or somebody else has also been jacking around with the names of the articles, doing a half-assed job of changing the names. For example, California State Route 57 opens with this first sentence: "California State Highway 57 (CA/SR-57) is a major north-south freeway located entirely within Southern California." Gene Nygaard 01:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I moved them to their proper names. Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --SPUI (talk) 01:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Normally I'd be in favor of such categories following official designations, but it seems too problematic to do with this subject, where there may not be one single designation per state and the names vary trivially between states. The lower case generic form is sufficiently descriptive, accurate, and intuitive. Postdlf 22:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The members of the categories all follow the usage; why should the category itself be any different? --SPUI (talk) 22:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Because categories serve a different purpose. Gene Nygaard 23:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A few more reasons:
2. Because even if all are the same now, you can't guarantee they all would be in the future. New York, for example, has "State Highways" and "Parkways" and "Causeways"
3. Because these categories are broader than the "Routes" themselves, or whatever. They logically include things such as Triborough Bridge under the Category:New York state highways. Gene Nygaard 00:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Those are all State Highways though. For instance, the west leg of the Triborough Bridge is State Highway 900G, but having an article there saying "State Highway 900G is the west leg of the Triborough Bridge" would be pointless. --SPUI (talk) 00:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment - in several states, notably Massachusetts and Rhode Island, a "state highway" is a road that is state maintained, which has no relation to numbered state highways (except that both are typically main roads). Renaming the category to Massachusetts State Highways would help with this ambiguity. Or maybe Massachusetts numbered state highways? --SPUI (talk) 02:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So just put every damn one of those unnumbered, state-maintained highways which has an article in Wikipedia in the Category:Massachusetts state highways. Where's the problem? Gene Nygaard 02:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Where do the numbered highways go then? The state highway categories have always been intended for numbered highways. Just as the Interstate highway categories are for numbered Interstates, not highways that run in multiple states. --SPUI (talk) 02:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for renaming as their proper names. silsor 02:58, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not seeing the problems that these are allegedly the solutions for. --Calton | Talk 05:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The List of United States numbered highways links to the individual state lists, which IMHO should all be consistent in their naming; and IMHO, all the states' categories should also be named consistently. Call them highways, routes, whatever when you get to the page; but keep the page names and categories consistent. Fingers-of-Pyrex 16:24, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
  • Keep. I like categories to be consistently descriptive of their contents, giving each state a different standard for their highway category will make it harder to keep them organized. Bryan 18:01, 17 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 18:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More number categories[edit]

  • Please note that all information here is far better explained in (already existing) articles on the subject, all in Category:Numbers. Radiant_* 11:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but we should be careful not to lose any information when doing this, i.e. the relevant article should be linked from the number article and the type of number articles should all have lists of the first several such examples including anything currently in the category (with composite as an exception to the latter point). -- Rick Block 15:04, 16 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 17:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Warhammer[edit]

Duplicate and misnamed category. 2 articles it contained moved to Category:Warhammer Fantasy. 2 subcategories (Category:Warhammer Fantasy and Category:Warhammer 40,000) moved to Category:Games Workshop. Sorry about emptying it before a formal decision (I really should have read the policy before acting :p) but I doubt it's controversial. --the wub 09:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think moving things to the proper category is probably OK where merely emptying the category is not. --ssd 16:12, 17 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 rename. --Kbdank71 17:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Los Angeles area airports[edit]

Rename to fit naming convention of Airports of Blah. I am also wondering if Los Angeles County might be better. Burgundavia 06:18, Apr 14, 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 17:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Andorra geography stubs[edit]

At last count, there were only six Andorra geo-stubs, yet this hasn't stopped someone from creating this template and the related category. There's no Andorra WikiProject, and no chance that this category will ever be heavily populated. The person who created this has also been heavily featured on tfd in the past for his unneccessary Andorra and Switzerland articles, and the stub category was not vetted prior to creation by WP:WSS. Oh, did I mention that Category: Andorra geography stubs says it is about the geography of Switzerland, by the way? Grutness|hello? 02:27, 14 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 speedy rename. --Kbdank71 19:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Baseball Trophies and Awards --> Category:Baseball awards and trophies[edit]

Standard capitalization. MisfitToys 21:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • should be "trophies and awards", to be consistent with similar categories in other sports. kelvSYC 03:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Being bold, being speedy. --Kbdank71 19:10, 20 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_April_14&oldid=1121862780"