Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 29
- 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 14:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
miscapitalized version of Category:Railway stations of Japan. -- --Hooperbloob 01:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I just deorphaned Category:Railway Stations in Kyushu to this parent. It has the same capitalization problem. Also, is there a convention about "of" vs. "in" for these categories? -- Tabor 18:40, 30 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 14:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty, miscapitalized version of Category:Towns in Yamanashi Prefecture. -- Rick Block 23:35, 29 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 14:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Miscapitalized version of Category:Television actors. -- Rick Block 23:32, 29 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 14:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-plural version of category:Social sciences, to which it was a hard redirect when I found it. Hard redirects of categories don't work. I see no reason to have a soft redirect for this one. -- Rick Block 23:28, 29 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 14:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Emplty dup of Category:Santa Catarina. -- Rick Block 23:23, 29 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 14:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty orphan (apparently has been empty for some time). -- Rick Block 23:18, 29 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 15:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because alot of articles being just video games, not available on the computer. 132.205.15.43 22:42, 29 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 15:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dup of Category:Puzzle computer games. -- Rick Block 22:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP and move the appropriate games from Category:Puzzles into this category. I would also propose renaming Category:Puzzle computer games to Category:Puzzle computer and video games, and moving the current Category:Puzzle games articles into there, and recategorizing it under this category. There are many puzzle games that are not computer/video games. 132.205.15.43 22:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. A quick sampling revealed no computer games. I fail to see how it's a duplicate. --Azkar 02:13, 30 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 15:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-plural version of category:inventions, to which it was a hard redirect when I found it. Hard redirects of categories don't work. I see no reason to have a soft redirect for this one. -- Rick Block 22:09, 29 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 15:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category that is just a redirect to Category:Ants. RussBlau 20:53, Apr 29, 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 15:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry ... I started doing this change manually before reading all the CFD instructions, but have now reverted the article classifications and submitting suggested change here. Tabor 20:43, 29 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 15:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category that has been redirected to an article: Fielding positions chart. Inasmuch as the (immense) Cricket category already contains a subcategory Category:Fielding, this one looks to be redundant. RussBlau 20:44, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Well that's not a silly point. Rain has stopped play (it's got no articles in) Dunc|☺ 16:01, 5 May 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 15:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. Misspelling of Cricket terminology. RussBlau 20:36, Apr 29, 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 no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 15:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Voting results:
"Keep" (4): Texture, RussBlau, Kyle, KASchmidt
"Delete" (4): Pjacobi, Rick Block, Askar, Postdlf
No consensus; default is keep
This is a fine example of misguided category use. You cannot state that someone is a heretic, without qualifying who holds this opinion and in some cases further qualifying, in which period of time. So the hereticness of the categorized persons has to be explained in prose in the articles. --Pjacobi 20:10, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
- Keep - I am not aware of a living heretic. It is merely a historical classification and yes, I agree that the religion/sect claiming heresy should be listed. That is an editing issue and not a need to remove historical fact. No one's opinion should be involved. (For example, Galileo was labelled a heretic by the Catholic Church. Fact of history.) - Tεxτurε 20:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Galileo is no longer considered a heretic by the Catholic Church. Do you want to create categories like Category:Considered to be heretic by the roman catholic church in the 15th century, Category:Considered to be heretic by the roman catholic church in the 16th century, Category:Considered to be heretic by the roman catholic church in the 17th century, Category:Considered to be heretic by the roman catholic church in the 18th century, Category:Considered to be heretic by the roman catholic church in the 19th century, Category:Considered to be heretic by the roman catholic church in the 20th century, and Category:Considered to be heretic by the roman catholic church in the 21st century? --Pjacobi 20:27, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
- Your excessive parody doesn't work and is not suggested for similar categories. If it is renamed I would suggest "Category:Once labelled as heretic" or "Category:Historic heretic" and include those labelled by established religions. (Transient satanic religions need not apply.) I would mourn the loss of a list containing all the labelled heretics. - Tεxτurε 15:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Galileo is no longer considered a heretic by the Catholic Church. Do you want to create categories like Category:Considered to be heretic by the roman catholic church in the 15th century, Category:Considered to be heretic by the roman catholic church in the 16th century, Category:Considered to be heretic by the roman catholic church in the 17th century, Category:Considered to be heretic by the roman catholic church in the 18th century, Category:Considered to be heretic by the roman catholic church in the 19th century, Category:Considered to be heretic by the roman catholic church in the 20th century, and Category:Considered to be heretic by the roman catholic church in the 21st century? --Pjacobi 20:27, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
- Keep - the category intro text clearly states that it contains people known for their "supposed heresy" and explains that this represents the viewpoint of a particular religious organization. RussBlau 20:38, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
° Keep w/changes Okay a few things, I agree with you. Understand heretic is a general word. Earlier I list Jacobus Arminius as a heretic and he was removed. You will find that at the Synod of Dort Arminius and his teachings were deemed to be anathema (accursed). Furthermore, you will find in the writings of Anabaptists, puritans, Mennonites, and early catholic Nicene/Post-Nicene councils that the same judgment was made of similar doctrines called Pelagianism. This is the same thing as excommunication the only difference is that being anathema means one is accursed unless one repents. Therefore, on this basis he should be on this list. From this we need to take a look at a number of things:
1) The Category needs to be moved to Religion.
2) Subcategories should be made dividing Heretics by the church that claims they are a heretic.
3) I would love to see these divided on what is the basis for making the judgment. Were they heretics because of Church law or because they taught something that is not biblical. As we can see this list is a heavily Roman Catholic. Was Luther a heretic? No he was not! He disagreed with the Catholic Church. This is a prime example of why I would like the distinction to be made as to why they were excommunicated.
My final question is why can we not say that some one was wrong? This is not a historic website. We want to know what is true when someone represents something as true and as time passes we see that it is not true then the facts change. Kyle
- Delete - From wikipedia:Categorization_of_people, Consider whether a list or other grouping technique would be more appropriate. IMO, heresy requires more context than categorization allows. -- Rick Block 04:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It is extremely POV to categorize anyone as a "heretic". I think this information would be better served in list format - where things can be explained a little better than simply labelling a historical figure a heretic. --Azkar 02:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. as per Texture, RussBlau. Having been labeled a heretic is a significant biographical commonality tying all of these people together, regardless of whether or not somebody posting here thinks they were right.--KASchmidt 06:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you are thinking of a category Category:Heretics as of definition by the Roman Catholic Church in 1800. This would be a somewhat usefull and coherent category. It is a POV label, but as the labeller is clearly stated, it is in line with our NPOV policy. And the Catholic Church if course was a very important labeller of heretics. But in its current state the category is just a potpourri of people, including some heretics defined by Sunni Islam. And if the category will continue to exist in its current definition, I'll have to put a lot popes into it, as they are surely heretic as seen by the Assyrian Church of the East. Etc. --Pjacobi 07:53, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with Azkar. Lists would also allow for proper grouping by relevant religion, i.e., List of people considered heretics by the Catholic Church, List of people considered heretics by the Anglican Church, etc. Postdlf 20:11, 4 May 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 15:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. See Category:Dramatists and playwrights for explanation. RussBlau 20:07, Apr 29, 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 15:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. Duplicates Category:United States Football League coaches (work in progress). -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 18:04, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
- Delete redundant. --Mecanismo 08:45, 3 May 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 15:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. Duplicates Category:American Football League coaches (work in progress). -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 18:04, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
- Delete. redundant. --Mecanismo 08:45, 3 May 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 15:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. Duplicates Category:All America Football Conference coaches (work in progress). -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 17:52, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
- Delete. redundant. --Mecanismo 08:46, 3 May 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 15:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is the purpose of this category? Fulfilling our voyeuristic needs? "Little clothing" is not so easy to define, and this category makes as much sense as "Category:Fully clothed people" IMHO. Category:Images containing nudity is ok (well, at least more ok than this), but this is a bit over the top. --Conti|✉ 17:42, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Nude images for past discussion, which came to no consensus on the "little clothing" category. --Kbdank71 17:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep.--Patrick 12:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Utterly worthless. Image:5_Silver_US_Dollars_1896.jpg is included, btw, which is a sign of either obsessive lasciviousness or puritanism, I can't tell which, maybe just a joke. But this category serves no academic purpose whatsoever, and the name is pretty dumb on top of it. Postdlf 08:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. -Sean Curtin 01:29, May 6, 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 15:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Everything here (and more) is already in Category:Mathematical journals. -- KTC 17:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I noticed this a while ago too. Oleg Alexandrov 20:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. redundant category --Mecanismo 08:48, 3 May 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 rename --Kbdank71 13:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The category should be renamed to be consistent with the other subcategories in Category:National Football League. Zzyzx11 | Talk 17:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All right, but Zzyzx11 does the work. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:33, 29 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 13:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The category should be renamed to be consistent with the other subcategories in Category:National Football League. Zzyzx11 | Talk 17:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Agree - Fingers-of-Pyrex 17:19, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
All right, but Zzyzx11 does the work. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Category empty; delete it. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:09, 2005 Apr 30 (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 No consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 13:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If this category is useful at all it certainly needs to be renamed. - SimonP 03:17, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Whee! This title's doubly POV! At least rename; at best delete. Grutness|hello?
07:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) - Category:People by organization? Perhaps if there were more organization-people cats ... No vote, here. --Azkar 02:24, 30 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 No consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 13:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We had a cfd about a similar category, Airports of New York City. This is close enough be to speedied, but not quite. Burgundavia 00:08, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I was part of that discussion on category talk; indeed I was the one who recommended that category's deletion when it was made into a catch-all metro New York category. I also said in the discussion that I thought this sort of category would be a better alternative, which noone objected to. This category isn't just for airports and does not supercede Category:Airports of New York in any way.--Pharos 00:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think it should be renamed to "Air transportation in New York City"—"aviation" is too vague and doesn't describe how it's been populated. Postdlf 20:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I had originally intended this, until I saw where Air transportation redirects.--Pharos 22:20, 4 May 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.