Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 10

< January 9	January 11 >

January 10

Category:Power companies to Category:Electric power companies

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 as nominated. Syrthiss 15:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of this category isn't very clear in British English until you read the blurb. It seems to be taken as read in North American English that a "power company" is in the electricity business, but I thought gas companies might be in here too. Rename Calsicol 23:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename as per nomination. Semiconscious · talk 09:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Deborah-jl 13:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, but would "Electric companies" be sufficient in Commonwealthese? siafu 21:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Would Category:Electric companies work everywhere? Unless someone sees a problem, that may be the best choice. Vegaswikian 22:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds fine to me in Americanese; it even matches the article title (Electric company). Not likely to be confused with The Electric Company either. ;p siafu 22:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Support rename to Electric companies. Vegaswikian 01:15, 12 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:Biologically based therapies to Category:Alternative medicine

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. Syrthiss 15:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: It's a meaningless title, to me; aren't all alternative medicine therapies, or any therapy for that matter, based on biology if they're meant to improve health? CDN99 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nomination. Semiconscious · talk 09:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominated, but for the opposite reason. "Biologically based therapy" is called medicine. Given that these therapies on not based on biology (a science), they need to be recategorized. siafu 21:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - meaning is unclear. All "therapies" are biological per se as they act on people. And none of the articles refer to anything specifically "biological". --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 12:05, 19 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:U.S. Joint committees

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. Syrthiss 15:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct name is Category:U.S. Congress Joint committees. There are no articles in the wrong category, there are two in the correct one. —Markles 19:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete incorrect cat. Youngamerican 20:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Delete as per nomination: I have commented on the village pump on this matter: all "US" whatever titles should be changed to "United States...." at the very least. Semiconscious · talk 10:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Semiconscious. These government-related cats using "U.S." need to be addressed. siafu 22:00, 11 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:Visual arts in England to Category:English art

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/Rename. Syrthiss 15:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created yesterday. Category:English art already existed of course. Merge Calsicol 16:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Support Youngamerican 20:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sparkit 02:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nomination. Semiconscious · talk 10:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No argument. siafu 22:01, 11 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:Wholesalers in the United Kingdom to Category:Wholesalers of the United Kingdom

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. Syrthiss 15:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "of" is the standard for categories of companies. Calsicol 15:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename as per nomination. Semiconscious · talk 10:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No argument. siafu 22:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- Longhair 03:28, 15 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:Child sex offenders

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:Convicted child sex offenders. Syrthiss 15:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's an existing cfd ongoing for Category:Sex offenders with a growing consensus for deletion. Relatedly, Category:Child sex offenders is unworkably vague, broken, and has spawned at least one ongoing edit war as a result of inability to determine what, exactly, it means. I've tried to narrow it down, but ultimately feel it should be deleted. Somewhere, someone listed herein is almost certainly being libeled.

Adrian Lamo 09:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major category of crime and edit wars are just one of those things that happen on wikipedia, and no reason to delete anything. The comparison with Category:Sex offenders is misleading. That category is a two member subcategory of the main category on this area Category:Sex crimes. The other major subcategory Category:Rapists is not likely to be deleted. Calsicol 15:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of votes for deletion of Category:Sex offenders are unrelated to the category population, and have been made on basis of whether the category is useful or needed. I'm of the opinion that both categories are unjustifiably vague.

While it'd be nice to be able to have descriptive categories like Category:Sex offenders who actually harmed a real live child and were convicted for it, as to not paint everyone with the same brush, I don't see that happening. In its absence, this category has very real potential to be dangerously misleading. If consensus is to rename, that'll be positive, if non-ideal.

Adrian Lamo 18:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the main reason it isn't useful or needed is that it is barely populated because other categories are available. It does not exist in a vacuum. Calsicol 21:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Convicted child sex offenders. This would include all the problems discusssed in the other Cfd (namely different countries and times define 'child' and 'sex crime' differently), but at least would remove amibiguity and POV. Was the individual commiting a sex crime against a child by the legal standards of his/her place and time? Deborah-jl 16:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. ~~ N (t/c) 17:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Deborah-jl]] Durova 18:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something that is less ambiguous. As I noted on Talk:Pete Townsend, the current title seems to refer only to people who have engaged in sexual contact with a minor. Using each person's home country's definition of "sex offender" will result in widely differing standards for inclusion. If such a rename isn't possible, then Delete. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Each country also has differring definitions of what would constitute an offense with a child. 132.205.45.148 20:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, if only for clarity. Deltabeignet 22:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my vote on Category:Sex offenders. Additionally, if kept, this should be renamed to clarify it's for sex offenders who are children (a 15-yr-old child molester maybe?), or those who committed a crime involving children. siafu 22:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename. These low lifes need to be exposed. Golfcam 00:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That vote is pretty POV. Deborah-jl _Talk 17:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or rename, per me. Adrian Lamo 06:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or - if not - then Rename per Deborah-jl]]. If it is to be kept then the name should definitely include the word "convicted" - otherwise the category may be abused by those wishing to ascribe this awful status on people who have been accused but not convicted - or who authorities had initially suspected but then elected to not prosecute. A conviction in a judicial proceeding should be an essential criterion. Due process has to have been served. Anything less is unfair. And could expose Wikipedia legally if the category is applied to persons who have not been convicted in a judicial proceeding. Incidentally - I think that the same logic and fairness should be applied to Category:Sex offenders and if retained - it should be renamed Category:Convicted sex offenders. Davidpatrick 06:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for another POV category. helohe (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarifcation per Deborah. This preferably needs to only have people convicted of the crime. Davidpdx 11:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looking over most of the votes, it really looks like some of them are vague in terms of intent. My guess is that based on how people have voted there is going to be no consensus. It's a shame because the category should be clarified. Davidpdx 11:13, 17 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:Recent Drawing in Britain

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. Syrthiss 15:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "recent" part isn't easily maintainable. Most of these articles fall into illustration, cartooning or comics categories, though drawing certainly could be a category as legitmate as painting or sculpture. In which case "British drawing" would fit with the scheme of visual art categories. Sparkit 04:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was meant to provice a gap in 'British Drawing'. Half those on the list are (major) visual artists; the need for a drawing category is that it is a discipline that cuts across professional categories. As such drawing has a visibilty issue; it is valuable as an encyclopedic entry as a practice as against professional/commercial job categories. The term 'draughtsman' is too slippery and problematic. 'Recentness' has categorical qualites and should be used more: to mean those that are active (alive/producing) as opposed to 'contemporary' which describes genre and style. 'British drawing' doesn't distinguish the historical from the active (and worth maintaining). Perhaps sub-categories? There is increasing interest in drawing as a singular practice and as such structures need to be developed to accomodate this.Controller 09:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "British drawing" as a category and "Recent British drawing" as a sub-category or list style article? The topic of drawing could use development overall on wikipedia. Sparkit 14:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems straightforward enough to rename it Category:British drawing. "Recent" is far too vague a term to use in a category name. Subcategories can be added if it gets too large, but there is no need to think about them yet. Calsicol 16:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only member, Centre for Recent Drawing is currenlty listed on AfD. If it survives, it can do quite well over in Category:Visual arts in the United Kingdom (likely soon to be Category:British art, but that's not a big deal). siafu 22:08, 11 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.