Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 24

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< December 23 December 25 >

December 24

edit

Category:Technology/isobel

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 K1Bond007 17:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFD notice was put up without a listing, so I'm adding it now (it's not my nomination). I'd delete because it's not likely to get used (and has a slash). SeventyThree(Talk) 22:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I noticed that it was a category with significant text and no corresponding article so I created the aritcle forgot to list it here. -- Fplay 04:15, 26 December 2005 (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:Banned books

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 No consensus to delete K1Bond007 05:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Category:Controversial books is getting whacked, then so should this one (but please gather and preserve the information of the list before ripping out the attributes from all of the article pages). My reasoning is techincal: This kind of thing should be a list only. Why? It is because the grouping (what is on or off such a list) is hard to manage. Trying to do it with a category (with over 100 books) means you fight the fight of "what is on and off the list" on 100 articles. This should be one "List of" article and that it is. Balance issues, etc. can be worked out there. Again: category is just a bad way to do it: you visit the book's page, you see that attribute and it is distracing and possibly prejudicial (to read the book or not, depending on the reader of the article). -- Fplay 22:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The banning also involved a POV process at one time. When I am book-browsing, I am not interested in knowing that some nun somewhere banned some book that I feel like reading. This "banned" category acts like a LABEL or MARK that intrudes on the book browsing process. Do good librarians go and give books special marks on the book cover or the card catalog (or whatever) for having been through a banning? No. They just want the card catalog to have publication date, author and subject of book in the card catalog (or index or whatver) and not much else. If the book (usually only in later printings) is published promoting itself as an award-winner of something, fine. Everything else is a MARK on the book after publication and I find it to be retroactive and INTRUSIVE. Good librarians preserve the books in their orignal published state and let the reader decide how to proceed. You want a special display or a list about censorship? Fine! However, when I go into the stacks of a library in the USA, I expect the books to the UNMARKED by censorship or promotion! -- Fplay 06:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a POV was involved in the process of banning a book (I'm not disputing that point) is completely irrelevant. There is absolutely no POV involved in determining whether or not a book was at one time banned, regardless of what the reasons were at the time. Regarding your comments about marking an article and the intrusiveness, that too is irrelevant. This is a category. A link appears at the very bottom of the article and in the list of categories. THIS IS/WAS A BANNED BOOK is not splashed all over the top of the article, that would be a different matter entirely. Conveniently enough, this isn't it. Soltak | Talk 20:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
THAT is merely a side-effect of technology: In earlier versions of the WikiMedia software, the categories WERE listed at the top of the page. My attitude is: leave the book article alone and go make whatever lists you want. People who want to know what lists a book is on can use the "What links here" tool. -- Fplay 23:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for not including past versions of the software in my reasoning. Also forgive me for being of the general impression that all of the arguments you are raising are completely irrelevant to the issue. What the software used to be like has nothing to do with what the software is like. Categories are at the bottom, not the top, and having this category does nothing to adversely label a book. Soltak | Talk 00:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Category links appear at the top, together with interlinks and the Printable version | Disclaimers | Privacy policy links, for users with the Cologne Blue skin in their preferences (which I prefer). They appear in different places depending on the skin. Previews of Catch 22 using various skins are: standard, simple, Cologne Blue, MonoBook, Chick, Nostalgia, and MySkin. -Wikibob 17:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another technical point about categories is that they obscure the issue of WHY. WHY is something in a category? We are not accustomed to justifying why an item is in a category. Look at what is happening on the "Banned books" LIST: they recognize the lack of documentation and are backfilling. You want this kind of fix-up (adding justification for being in a category) to occur on every book article? YUCK! -- Fplay 04:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I compeltely agree with Fplay. How do I do something about it? A stlye guide request that a category have a good description and goal? The problem is even worse with subcategories; they're listed [i]before[/i] the main category entires for some unclear reason, and the category structure here seems very haphazard for those reasons. How do we make it change?Mikeblas 04:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, Tom Sawyer was banned in Mesa, Az. The book is viewed by their schoolboard (and, apparently, by many individuals) to be racially charged. [1] Mikeblas 04:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I go to Mesa, AZ, and take a copy of "Tom Sawyer" with me, I can be arrested, convicted, and sentenced to jail for possessing a banned book??? 12.73.195.159 15:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not be silly: It means that if you go to some libraries in Mesa AZ, you will not find that book to be available. Only a knowlegeable person would even notice its absence. The impact is mostly on the school or local community and there are no criminal issues involved in the USA. It amounts to local censorship. Local censorship already happens in the home (in a non-notable way) but when it happens in a USA municipality, it often becomes notable. -- Fplay 20:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not being silly, wee one, I am being satirical. You are giving a histrionic, reactionary definition to the word ban, and also censorship. Just because a local schoolboard or library system decides to exclude a certain title from their stacks because of content, this does not constitute a ban, just a controversial decision. In this case, it is also rather a reactionary decision since TS is, for better or worse, a recognized major work of American literature. But it is not banning, or censoring. Read up on Nazi Germany's book bans, or the Soviet Union's, or even pre-Revolutionary colonial America. But Mesa, AZ - you, do not be silly! And this kind of silliness is just why the Cat needs to be DELETED. 12.73.195.159 23:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But by the very nature of the word "ban", forbidden books in totalitarian regimes are exactly the material for which a category bearing this title has any encyclopedic value or intellectual meaning. The exclusion of a book from the Podunk County Library System libraries simply because the subject matter or content somehow bothers the decsion-makers, when it can still be purchased privately and kept and read out loud, is nothing but a matter of local politics, and defining it as "banned" is strictly POV 12.73.194.235 00:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is just not practical or even useful to list all books banned under totalitarian regimes. Having an article on book censorship and then including examples of books banned under various different totalitarian regimes would be much more informative. Arniep 02:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But my point is, real banning occurs most often in totalitarian regimes, so if you are going to keep any kind of record of truly "banned books" (and you are the one who suggested getting rid of the cat but *listifying* the contents), then you must start there. Unless you are suggesting a Category/List [[:Partial index of books banned, censored or otherwise rejected for content here and there in unexpected, non-totalitarian places. Duh, I don't think so. 12.73.196.52 01:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per systemic bias. Would have no objection to listifying by country, which is also more comprehensive because it allows years and reasons. Radiant_>|< 01:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Create subcats as needed. Mirror Vax 02:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A couple of folks have suggested country-based sectionizing (either of the category or lists), but that wouldn't work well for non-totalitarian regimes; I'm basing this comment on the ability of individual school districts in the United States to ban books, as in the aforementioned Mesa, AZ case. It wouldn't help the reader to say "book A is banned in the US" because that would not be a true statement; "book A is banned somewhere" is a true statement, which, if the category is kept, the category text needs to clarify very well. User:Ceyockey 03:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Of what earthly encyclopedic value is an enormous categorization OR listing of every book not included in the Mesa, AZ, school libraries? By your use of the word "ban", this is what you will have to produce: every book available is either accepted or rejected by every school or public library system - they cannot hold them all, and many are determined not to meet the needs or standards of the various jurisdictions, and so most are rejected. That is NOT a ban. You seem to have a burr in your ass about Mesa excluding "Tom Sawyer" because of alleged racist content, and that is your POV problem, which is what I keep saying is wrong with having this category under any circumstance. 12.73.196.52 01:37, 28 December 2005 (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:Industry to Category:Industries

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 No consensus K1Bond007 05:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're redudnant, and there's no reason to decide between one or the other. I think "Industries" is the one that should remain, since it fits the pluralization pattern and does indicate we'll end up with a list of all industries in a category. Mikeblas 22:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: The former is for industry in general, the latter for specific industries. -04:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I actually figured that out myself, finally. I've been moving topics into and out of the categories to make them adhere to that definition. Is it up to me to take down the suggestion banner if I want to withdrawl my own suggestion? Mikeblas 04:30, 26 December 2005 (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:Deceased rap artists

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 - Izehar 09:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do we need a category for rappers who have passed away? Delete --FuriousFreddy 19:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm usually the first to vote to delete some categories, but for this one I just have to say "Why not?"
  • Keep Why not? we have a list of FAMOUS people who died from drug overdoses so why not have this?

Soltak | Talk 22:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless it is normal to differentiate between deceased and living people when categorized by occupation (for example do we have deceased scientists or deceased historians or such?). Joshbaumgartner 22:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As opposed to rappers, deceased scientists and historians (especially historians) are rarely so due to gang fights. Deceased rappers, including many of those featured in the category, have - at the very least - suspicious circumstances surrounding their deaths. Soltak | Talk 23:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a gross generalization. Big L was a victim of a shooting, but not because he was in a gang. Left Eye died in a car accident (and she's not even in here). Big Pun died of complications from obesity. DJ Screw died of a heart attack (or overdose, one). Ol' Dirty Bastard died of a heart attack. Scott La Rock was killed during an argument with a friend. The only two who died under honestly mysterious circumstances were The Notorious B.I.G., 2Pac, Jam Master Jay, and Mac Dre. But that's four out of ten. --FuriousFreddy 01:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Four out of ten is forty percent. Do you think even twenty percent of scientists or historians die under honestly mysterious circumstances? Mikeblas 02:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's four out of that ten. There's several others who've died of more reguilar circumstances who aren't included here. I'm honestly offended by your implication, on some "these crazy rappers are always tryin' ta kill each other". Rappers are no more likely to die under myseterious circumstances than any other classification of entertainers. --FuriousFreddy 23:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • My comment about "gangs" was an illustration relative to the "historians" comment, not a statement of fact. I am very well aware that some of the deaths weren't a result of gang fights. However, some of them are. Regardless, a pretty high percentage of rappers (as opposed to other professionals) die under mysterious circumstances. As was suggested below, upmerging to a category about suspicious deaths (I don't know if we have one) would be perfectly acceptable. Soltak | Talk 20:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • A pretty high percentage of entertainers in general die under mysterious circumstance. Rappers are no exception to the rule, but it's certainly no more frequent than any other type of musical performers: it just gets sensationalized in the media. --FuriousFreddy 23:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming I were to change my vote to delete on this particular category, would you support Category:Suspicious Deaths or something to that general effect? Soltak | Talk 00:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Unsolved murders, maybe. Whoa...it already exists! --FuriousFreddy 23:27, 26 December 2005 (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:Winston Churchill

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 K1Bond007 17:52, 3 January 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:David Bowie

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 K1Bond007 17:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A category that is a person's name is illogical. This one is a subcategory of, for example, 1947 births. Alan Pascoe 17:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I believe this was done to prevent large numbers of categories clogging up an article. Arniep 19:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment made for Winston Churchill applies here also. If this is accepted, it could reasonably be done for every person for whom there is a biography on Wikipedia. That would make a total mess of the relevant categories. Alan Pascoe 20:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep John Lennon, Michael Jackson, Elton John, Elvis Presley and so on all have categories. Golfcam 03:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And these should go too. Consider this and the Winston Churchill category as 'test cases'. Address the principle; should there be categories for individual people? Consider the long-term effects of these. There may be just a few now, but the numbers will increase. Many categories will then become an incoherent mix of two approaches -- putting a biography article in a category such as year of birth, or putting a biography article in a category which is made a subcategory of a category such as year of birth. It is the functionality that matters here, not how important the person is, or how pretty the article page looks. Alan Pascoe 11:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This practice is well established and useful. It is very functional to group articles related to prominent people, which is why it is so often done. Bhoeble 05:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not well established, there are very few cases of it. It also does not enhance functionality, it damages it. This is the very reason I have proposed it for deletion. When I, for example, click on a category "1947 births", I expect to see a list of other articles about people born in 1947. In all but one case this is so, and that case is David Bowie. Proponents of this practice have won the argument if they can explain to me how David Bowie can logically be a sub-category of "1947 births". Alan Pascoe 14:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Well-established practice. siafu 14:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's rather late to start a debate about the desirability of this practice as its usefulness is well established. Osomec 03:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per above Larix 18:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for the reasons given, but I do agree it shouldn't be a subcategory of "1947 births". The article itself should link to that, as those are articles about people, not articles about people and all the subjects that go with them.--Mike Selinker 00:58, 31 December 2005 (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:Sports Fans

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 Merge and Delete K1Bond007 17:59, 3 January 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:Von Erich wrestling family

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 K1Bond007 18:00, 3 January 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:Images to be moved to the Commons

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 No consensus K1Bond007 05:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:NowCommons. Same thing, different template, very confusing name. -- Beland 11:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question — The description says "Each image on this page has been replaced by the same image (or an image with the same name) on Wikimedia Commons" which means that the images are already on commons; the description also says that there is an issue around history replication to commons ... if that is the issue, that the two categories are distinguishable based on one having GFDL issues and the other not, then I'll change my opinion on the matter. User:Ceyockey 00:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, maybe rename to Images incorrectly moved to Commons, because it might contain non-free images (eg. Image:Arvidsjaur City Arms.jpg) that were moved to Commons, that may be deleted from there. In which case one risks losing the image from en: where they could be used, under fair use provisions, or maybe only in some jurisdictions. Commons criteria is that All files uploaded must be free of use in any jurisdiction. -Wikibob 18:29, 26 December 2005 (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.

Ontario regions

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 K1Bond007 06:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Traditional legal form is ‘Regional Municipality of XX’, and Waterloo’s current usage is ‘Region of Waterloo’. ‘XX Region’ is in most cases merely an unencyclopaedic shorthand, and should be used only in cases such as York and Durham, where the regions themselves have begun using it. David Arthur 16:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I understand your point about the Region of Waterloo. For the record, I think Niagara's use of "Niagara Region" on top of its its website would make Niagara Region, Ontario a valid category name as well. "Halton Region" can be seen in some places on their website, but it's certainly not universal, and they seem to prefer the full form. Peel is going in a direction similar to Waterloo, proclaiming "Region of Peel" on their website. Originally, my goal was to unify the category names for consistency's sake, but now I see that might not be the best of options. I am well aware of the legality of "Regional Municipality of XX" form, however, I thought it was a bit unwieldy for a category name. In any case, I would certainly like to do away with the "XX Regional Municipality" form.
What would you think would be a better option -- an universal "Regional of Municipality of XX" name for all the categories, or different short-hand names for different regions, thus keeping Region of Waterloo as is? --Qviri 22:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would use the form used by the region itself wherever appropriate, and ‘Regional Municipality of XX’ otherwise. Systematisation can be useful, but in this case Wikipedia’s mission as an encyclopaedia seems to me to dictate that we reflect the reality of what we’re reporting on, rather than trying to create standard conventions where the don’t exist. (The same reasoning goes for article titles as well.)
I agree that certainly ‘XX Regional Municipality’ should go - I don’t think I’ve ever seen that form used outside Wikipedia. David Arthur 14:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated my proposal, let me know what you think. --Qviri 17:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support the revised proposal. David Arthur 23:22, 26 December 2005 (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:Films having to do with Pixar

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 - Izehar 14:28, 2 January 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:Direct-to-video films from Disney to Category:Disney direct-to-video films

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 to Category:Disney direct-to-video films

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:Buffalonians to Category:People from Buffalo, New York

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 to Category:People from Buffalo, New York K1Bond007 05:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On December 13, a category was nominated for deletion due to a typo. The discussion was closed as delete for that specific category, however, there were some votes/comments to rename the category as well. I'm merely relisting this for debate. K1Bond007 01:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with you that we need some recommendations on how to tackle this. Sincerrely, I thought 'Shanghainese' was a breed of dog (no, dont jeer. No sacarsm intended – really). --Ezeu 17:50, 27 December 2005 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_24&oldid=1123073955"