Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 13

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion | Log

April 13

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 18:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Lists of lists

edit

Doesn't seem to have much of a use. Only had two articles, both of which were primarily just lists. --SPUI (talk) 14:45, 13 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 01:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Hungarian history

edit

Voting results:

"Delete" (4): Adam78, Kbdank71, The wub, Laura Scudder

"Keep" (1): PANONIAN

Consensus is to rename

I think this category should be renamed to Category:History of Hungary, because (1) it sounds better, (2) it seems to be more proper in meaning, (3) it seems to be more usual among similar categories (see Category:History by nation). However, I'm not a native English speaker so you should decide it first of all. Adam78 11:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree, since category Hungarian history also includes articles involving history of Hungarians outside of borders of present day Hungary. If we change name into the History of Hungary, then some articles should be moved from it to History of Romania, History of Serbia, etc (of course, it is not History of Serbia but Serbian history, which is much wider category and it is similar issue). Hungarian history is not only history of Hungary, but also history of Hungarians who live outside of present day Hungary. In the same way, Serbian history is also a history of Serbs who live outside of Serbia. Both of these categories should remain unchanged because of that. There is reason why these categories are written like this. User:PANONIAN

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 16:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

category:Articles with OSGB36 coordinates

edit

Voting results:

"Delete" (5): Joe D, RHaworth, Thryduulf, Eugene Van Der Pijll, pmcm

"Keep" (1): 80N, Instantnood

"Rename to OSGB36" (1): Downthepub

Consensus is to delete

There are templates that link out to Ordnance Survey maps that are useful. However, using them also puts in this ugly category within the article, and usually as the primary category (e.g. Great Central Railway (preserved)). If there was felt a need to create such a list of pages, then it should be done with a bot registering to all what links here such as Wikipedia:links to disambiguation pages. Dunc|☺ 10:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Perhaps just rename to "(OSGB36)" -- Downthepub 14:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • D: As far as I can tell this category serves no purpose. All British settlements and locations will eventually be using one of those templates, and they will be categorised by region and type of location/feature, this one just lumps all British settlements and locations into one category. Joe D (t) 17:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Personally, I think it's sufficient if the coordinates are just added on a template. Imagine if we added a category to Template:Coor we would already end up with several thousands of articles in that category. Obviously, if we had a category of GB places missing coordinates, this might help expand them, but it's easier to build a list of articles with the template and UK location categories. --- Docu
  • Keep Delete. NB. Delete means remove from the relevant templates - the category itself may be left in place until its contents have vanished.
If it puts people off using templates for map links then it is a Bad Thing. What follows, from my original vote, is really an argument for using map templates not for this category.
This category should be called "Articles with links to getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk" or, better, simply "getamap". It is not really intended to be a category of the (Main) namespace but rather a category within the Wikipedia: namespace. However there is only one type of category so it has to be where it is. Likewise because it is assigned via a template it unfortunately becomes the first category listed for any article.
The link that these templates generate is a) not advertised on the getamap website and b) quite complicated: http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/getamap/frames.htm?mapAction=gaz&gazName=g&gazString={{{1}}}. There is a danger that at any time the getamap website may change and use a different format URL or stop accepting 'external' calls.
  • That's true, but I use the exact same url through a quicklink and would notice if it suddenly broke. Being the one who linkified it in the first place, I'd know to either fix the URL or change it to something like streetmap if the OS actually blocked our queries. --BesigedB (talk) 13:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Please, what is a "quicklink"? How would you notice if it broke except by checking it at regular intervals (but this category does not address the question of detecting breakage). And having detected a broken link how would you know which articles you had used it in? (Or am I being thick?) -- RHaworth 11:35, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
  • It means I can type m Edinburgh and it comes up with a map of Edinburgh. I use it almost daily. I'd like to see Grunt's idea of an inverted list put in place, but my point and yours are a side issue to that of using the category - if the target url needs changed it can be done in the template rather than in each individual article, unless somebody decides to be stupid and subst: them all. BesigedB (talk) 17:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is just possible that we may need to know which articles contain such links. If so an ad-hoc report will need to be written - Special:Whatlinkshere is unsuitable because:
  • it is limited to 500 items and the two most popular templates gbmapping and gbmappingsmall are each already used by more than 500 articles
  • there are a dozen different templates.
Delete - but sometime in the future we may be glad that all links to getamap are done via templates. -- RHaworth 01:20, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC) revised 13:01, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
  • Comment: At the risk of giving someone a huge amount of work to do, are we going about this backwards? The category is clearly going to be more useful to editors that readers, since it's the editors who'll want to know which articles have these links. In theory, the aim would be to eventually get all UK geography articles to contain OS links. Surely then it would make more sense to work it in a stub-like way, and make the category for UK geography items that don't have OS map links, and slowly empty that category out. Grutness|hello?   11:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - I agree with Grutness' comment. Thryduulf 15:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's a useful category for editors. Giving it a different name might be confusing to the ordinary reader if it was something cryptic like OSGB36, but otoh might make pages look cleaner. At the moment it 'does what it says on the tin'. It would be nice if there were some way to make it appear at the end of a category's list or in a smaller font or something. 80N 10:56, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Categories on articles in the main namespace are for the readers, to look for related articles. As a compromise, can a category be put on the talk pages of the articles? That would be acceptable. Eugene van der Pijll 11:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per 80N. — Instantnood 07:58, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not very fond of über-categories where things tend to just get thrown in, as they end up being rather too large to be manageable. I do however think that the idea of having a category on the talk page is an excellent one. This would allow some sort of list of the pages using the template to be maintained. — pmcm 14:34, 21 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 13:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Renaming Category:American people by occupation subcategories

edit

Voting results:

"Rename" (3): Postdlf, Hooperbloob, Oliver Chettle

"Oppose" (3): Kbdank71, Grutness, ScottDavis

No consensus. Default is to keep.

For consistent and proper naming:

These are the only nonconformists. Postdlf 07:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Disagree. Maybe it's just me, but I prefer either U.S. or United States to American. -Kbdank71 13:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that all the American named categories should be shifted over to U.S.A. because of the reasons stated before in the American v US debates here. 132.205.15.43 02:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • "U.S.A. people"?? Who ever uses "U.S.A." as an adjective? Postdlf 16:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Disagree. You're moving them the wrong direction. Unless, of course, you want Brazilians, Canadians, and Cosata Ricans (all of whom are American) in those categories. Grutness|hello?   03:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • They are North and South Americans, but show me sources that refer to Canadians as Americans without a modifier. Postdlf 16:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, the nearest such book to hand is "Essential History of American Art", by Suzanne Bailey (Parragon, Bath, UK, 2001) which lists such great American artists as Diego Rivera, David Alvaro Siqueiros, and Frida Kahlo. Not Canadians, sure, but "Americans" nonetheless. Grutness|hello?   11:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree America ≠ U.S.A
  • Strongly agree The term Americans is synonymous with US citizens by virtue of their overwhelming presence, not by geography. Canadians, Mexicans, and Costa Ricans would strongly object to being labelled as Americans.Hooperbloob 10:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment—can anyone point to significant evidence of people from North and South America commonly being referred to as "Americans" in the English language, without a modifier? "U.S." is the only real competing adjective for things United States, but its usage is comparatively awkward, less common, and tends to connote the federal government and its official agents and acts rather than the nationality. I thought this issue got resolved a long time ago. Besides, this is simply a listing for completing uniformity in the current structure, not a proposal as to what that structure should be. The issue I have presented for voting is a narrower one: "should this minority of subcategories deviate from the followed naming conventions used by the larger structure"? If someone else wants to list Category:American people and all of its subcategories for renaming, they can do so, but that isn't what has been done here. Postdlf 16:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Love to, but shouldn't we have a consensus either way first? Piecemeal isn't the way to do this. Is there a naming convention for this? --Kbdank71 16:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I thought there was explicitly on here, but there is a de facto consensus in that most of the subcategories and all of the deeper categories in the structure follow that; Category:American people alone should determine what form its subcategories take. More importantly, there is a convention in the real world and that is what we should follow. Regardless of what people may think of the co-opting by the United States of the unmodified term "American" or "America", the fact is that it happened and consequently reflects common usage and understanding in the English-speaking world in and outside the U.S. Do a google search of the BBC website for "Americans" and tell me if that's not the case. Wikipedia is not the place to invent or modify linguistic or naming conventions simply because we don't like the political ramifications of the ones that exist. Postdlf 17:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is not the place to invent or modify linguistic or naming conventions simply because we don't like the political ramifications of the ones that exist. It's not? Then why is this up for a vote? And since when is the BBC setting our naming standards? Just because "American" has been co-opted doesn't mean it's NPOV toward every other citizen of North, Central, and South America. --Kbdank71 17:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Its up for a vote to resolve the inconsistency we're currently seeing in our hierarchies, nothing more. As a non-American who has lived extensively in both North & South America, I've yet to encounter someone who identifies him/herself as someone who lives on a specific continent rather than their own country...or taken offense at the notion that the term 'American' would somehow exclude them. --Hooperbloob 19:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Usage on the BBC is significant evidence of English usage outside the U.S., particularly since it is possibly the media outlet by which most of the world encounters English. Anyway, I think you're misunderstanding what POV means in regards to naming conventions. If anything, it's POV to ignore common linguistic usage because of personal or political values. Note Pro-Life rather than "Anti-Choice". The article notes that it is a self-description, and to pro choice activists it is a POV one, but because of the success of those groups in establishing that name for themselves, it is the appropriate title of the article—the title reflects the most common usage. I'd say it's even more than a mere "self-description" because even their opponents catch themselves using it because of the success of its co-opting. Please feel free to similarly note in the descriptive text of any category using "American" as an adjective that a minority of people (almost exclusively Spanish speakers, not English, to my understanding, and thus less relevant to an English encyclopedia) disagree with the common usage. Postdlf 19:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Anti-Choice ? You would mean the frequently used in media term anti-abortion would you not? That is more accurate, descriptive, widely-used, and not ambiguous (anti-choice? What choice is that? Pro-Choice is a rather ugly term to be using anyways). BTW: Did you know that Columbian also means American? (CBS, Columbia Pictures, etc all refer to the USA). 132.205.15.43 22:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You know, getting tag-teamed is no fun at all.  :) I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. Perhaps we can try to get a consensus on not only "American" vs "US", but also noun vs adjective for all countries. Too many people have too many differing opinions on this, and I think it's unfair to call this a consensus, regardless of the outcome, seeing as how few people visit CfD. --Kbdank71 20:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Then let's get the nonconforming categories consistant for now with the convention followed by the majority of categories, and then posit a broader question about the naming of Category:American people and all of its subcategories on the Village Pump. Or we can continue this here and actually address each others' points. I would like to see some support, beyond mere assertion, for the claim that "Americans" has a significant English-language usage apart from referring to people from the United States. Postdlf 05:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support renaming them all to "American". Right or wrong that is the convention in English and imo people who find it offensive are being unreasonable. Oliver Chettle 03:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Disagree. "American" is at least ambiguous, if not different to "USA". I'd suggest renaming to Category:Artists of the USA etc. For people who think "American" means "from the USA", does "South American" mean "from Alabama, South Carolina, etc", or "from Brazil, Argentina etc" --ScottDavis 02:59, 21 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, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:American visual artists

edit

Redundant with Category:U.S. artists. It has never had any more than three articles, which I've already moved to the proper category. Postdlf 07:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree. However, how does this differ from the opposite CfD above? -Kbdank71 13:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Because it was a subcategory of "U.S. artists", as if "artists" did not only refer to visual artists (which it did and does). Postdlf 16:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • While I disagree with Postdlf's reasons (there are many multimedia artists who use other modalities as much or more than vision), I agree that having both categories is overkill. Delete, recategorise what was there to Category:U.S. artists. Grutness|hello?   08:05, 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 18:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Rivers in Wales

edit

Rename to Category:Rivers of Wales to follow the established naming convention of Rivers of Foo at the national level. RedWolf 04:38, Apr 13, 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_13&oldid=1121862923"