Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 12

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion | Log
< October 11 October 13 >

October 12

edit

Category:Blogebrity

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. «»Who?¿?meta 07:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is a duplicate of Category:Bloggers and should be deleted as such. Hall Monitor 20:34, 12 October 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:Irish Chicagoans

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. «»Who?¿?meta 07:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An overly-specific category, and misleadingly named as these people are not Irish, but Americans of Irish origin. Category:Chicagoans already exists. JW 12:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the category is a bad precedent anyway. What about German-Americans of New York or Italian-Americans of Detroit, or how about Londoners of Irish descent? The possibilities are endless. JW 20:56, 12 October 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:Fellows of the RSA → Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts

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. «»Who?¿?meta 07:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename principally because of the abbreviation. Note however, from Royal Society of Arts, that such is not the full name of the Society which is the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. The article says that the Society itself uses either the abbreviation or its true full name. Nevertheless, the Society is almost never known by its (archaic) full name in the UK and common usage, the Manual of Style and the existing title of the main article would dictate that we don't either. -Splashtalk 02:38, 12 October 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.

Subcats of Category:Casinos

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. Naming conventions candidate. «»Who?¿?meta 07:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Establish "Casinos in foo" as the convention for by-country subcats of Category:Casinos at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and rename as follows (originally nominated as speedies). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:33, 12 October 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:Political parties in Canada

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 all with special exception to Yukon. «»Who?¿?meta 07:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merrily moving the standardization bandwagon to its next stop in the magical world of Canadian politics.

...per Foo in Bar standard used for political parties already

...again per standards, projected downwards onto subnational entities. Note the addition of the "Provincial" modifier—I think this is an important clarfying term missing from the current naming regime, as the province-specific categories in question already consciously exclude federal parties even if they're identified with only one particular province. (Bloc Québécois, for instance, is NOT presently in the Quebec political parties category, but the federal one, where it should stay) Those here who might be used to arrangements in the US/UK/Aus etc. where there are much fuzzier distinctions between national and subnational parties should note that Canada has an abberant (by the standards of most federations) divide between organizations active at various levels of government. -The Tom 01:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spinboy, you seem to be rather fond of opposing the most minor of changes without giving any sort of reason whatsoever. Your choice, of course, but I can't say I get it. -The Tom 12:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spinboy should also be aware that WP:GAFD provides for pure votes without reasons to be discounted. He should also remember that, eventually, people will think he is trying to make some point or other and will come to wonder what it might be. -Splashtalk 14:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the sole Yukoner, there are at least two others currently writing: one mainly on dog-sledding and dogs, which I think is rather appropriate, and the other is our perennial Christian Heritage party candidate. Even though I (along with the majority of Yukoners, I suspect) have a strong personal preference for "the Yukon", others feel equally as strongly that the article should not be used in the teritory's name. So it is a POV issue. One of these days, a petty-minded nit-picky bureaucrat bureaucrat will slap a NPOV tag on the usage with the article, or some broad-minded intelligent true Yukoner and Canadian will slap one on a category missing the article. :-) I have argued this in other votes, but the consensus has been to ignore my arguments. FWIW, my argument is that we should use adjectival nouns rather than "of foo" or "in foo" for Canadian provinces and teritories. But the consensus has been to slavishly follow a convention that has been established for countries (where it makes eminent sense), and apply it to sub-national entities, where it doesn't always work. Anyway, this my last comment on this since you all choose to ignore me & I'll go off & edit articles. Luigizanasi 03:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the information; I was merely citing a potential faux pas and alternatives. OK: ...Yukon, then; not '...the Yukon'. (If it helps any, the Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage indicates a preference for the (simple) former.) :) E Pluribus Anthony 02:59, 17 October 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_October_12&oldid=1122066481"