Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 24
July 24
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 12:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This category is empty and should be deleted. I don't think the category is a good idea, seeing as the position of Viceroy of Norway was not historically significant. Only three different crown princes would populate the category. Punkmorten 20:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, although according to the article, it would be 5 articles — that still isn't enough for a category. The 5 are already mentioned in Viceroy of Norway, and the 2 of the 3 that have articles already have it mentioned there too. -Splash 15:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Empty. --Kbdank71 16:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not enough material (while Norway have (briefly) been ruled by a viceroy 5 times only 3 people have held the office) and no potential for growth (office no longer exists, these days a regent is apointed when the reighning monarch is indisposed). --Sherool 19:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, obviously. Punkmorten 12:38, 26 July 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.
- 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 moved to WP:SFD --Kbdank71 12:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant with Category: Accounting stubs which follows the format of all the other stub categories. I am in process of adding accounting stubs to the later category. Please be patient :) Renata3 18:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- To SfD, I think. -Splash 15:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no stub-template asosiated with this category, it's empty and un-used as far as I can tell.
Delete, unless SfD also deals with orphanded stub categories. --Sherool 19:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]- It does, and should be taken there. If it's a template or category relating to stubs, orphaned or not, it gets dealt with by sfd. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case I withdraw my previous vote, and agree it should be sent to SfD. --Sherool 23:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It does, and should be taken there. If it's a template or category relating to stubs, orphaned or not, it gets dealt with by sfd. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in CFD scope per discussion above. Courtland 00:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Moved to SFD. Grutness...wha? 11:17, 28 July 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.
- 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 moved to WP:SFD --Kbdank71 12:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"News trade" is a little-used term at best. The general "News trade" category and template have already been deleted. The article has been redirected, I think to "News media". Maurreen 07:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC) (Forgot to sign here earlier.)[reply]
- Delete. Maurreen 18:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- To SfD I think. If not then delete. -Splash 15:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not within the scope of CFD - to SFD with it. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in CFD scope, in agreement with User:Grutness Courtland 00:17, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Moved to SFD. Grutness...wha? 11:17, 28 July 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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 12:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move non-replicated content into the larger category Category:Film score composers. JW 12:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge
Deleteper User:Splash's right thinking on the wording. This sounds quite reasonable. Courtland 15:13, July 24, 2005 (UTC) - Merge into Category:Film score composers, which is what I think the nominator means, since merge implies deletion in CfD. -Splash 15:57, 25 July 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.
- 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 12:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sim games is a redirected category to Category:Maxis Sim games, now redundant to the latter. ? 25 ring-a-ding 08:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC) ?[reply]
- Keep, as it will only be recreated otherwise. However, in present implementation, categories cannot be redirected, so I've changed it over to a soft-redirect which will discourage recreation. -Splash 15:57, 25 July 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.
- 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 12:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now I know that people want to implement a category for absolutely everything. Two possible approaches here: delete as unnecessary, or rename to be consistent with proper capitalization rules (ie. only "Toupee" should be capitalized). My own preference is for the delete, but if people feel strongly that it's worth keeping then I'll settle for the rename. Bearcat 07:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, this is patently ridiculous. Radiant_>|< 07:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete "People want to implement a category for absolutely everything." Agreed I do. --Genocide2st 16:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 00:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What's next? A cat for people who wear baseball caps? RedWolf 05:27, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non-encyclopedic. -Splash 15:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as soon as I create Category:People want to implement a category for absolutely everything. --Kbdank71 16:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN. What about Toupee's made with a tattoo. ∞Who?¿? 16:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, I will rename this category as soon as possible. BTW this category has to do with celebrities only that wear toupees or have had a hair transplant. It should be kept for trivial purposes. Special:Contributions/68.46.186.13
- Delete along with the new category Category:Toupee wearers and Hair Transplants
- 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 12:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could be merged with Category:Leonard Cohen albums. It's just an unneeded category. --Matjlav 19:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have to disagree. Several of the articles filed in Category:Leonard Cohen are books (eg. Beautiful Losers), others are people (eg. Sharon Robinson) whose careers have been closely associated with his, and still others are tribute albums (eg. I'm Your Fan) of Cohen's songs covered by other artists (which can't legitimately be filed under Category:Leonard Cohen albums, since Cohen isn't the credited performer). The categories clearly serve two distinct purposes, which is clearly necessary for someone who's been notable in two significantly different fields of artistic endeavour. Keep. Bearcat 01:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with Bearcat--Hooperbloob 03:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Bearcat. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Bearcat. •Zhatt• 04:52, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as above --Simon.Pole 05:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep CalJW 21:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agreed, etc. CJCurrie 02:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep. Worth remembering that Cohen was a published poet before he became a songwriter. Grutness...wha? 11:16, 26 July 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.