→July 29: move entry to july 30 |
Davenbelle (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===July 30=== |
|||
====[[:Category:Extraterrestrial Wikipedians]]==== |
|||
Patent nonsense. — [[User:Davenbelle|Davenbelle]] 05:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
===July 29=== |
===July 29=== |
||
====[[:Category:Cleanup]]==== |
====[[:Category:Cleanup]]==== |
Revision as of 05:47, 30 July 2005
July 30
Patent nonsense. — Davenbelle 05:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
July 29
A dup of Category:Wikipedia cleanup I believe. Not used, currently 1.5 articles (.5 is userpage article). Merge with Wiki cleanup and delete. ∞Who?¿? 21:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy merge/delete, Pavel Vozenilek 23:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Has no pages or subcategories in it, doesn't have any content other than a parent category, and is a duplicate of Category:Book publishers of the United States (which has articles in it). --Mairi 19:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Please call by Wikipedia:Category titles which is discussing this exact issue (among other related ones). So defer till later.-Splash 20:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Suspend as per Splash. ∞Who?¿? 21:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
The category is contentious and superfluous at best. There is no definitive way, in my opinion, to concretely qualify one as a "gay icon". As the category stands now, there are over 200 biographical articles placed under this category, nearly all of which have little-to-nothing to do with the gay community. This category should be deleted and the articles should not be moved into any of the parent categories if they are not there already. Hall Monitor 19:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm beginning to wonder if maybe it would be worthwhile to limit the number of times per four month period or per year or whatever a category or article can be nominated for deletion. It seems like every other week this category or some other LGBT-related category is nominated. (This isn't a criticism of your comments or nomination, Hall Monitor, just an observation and a little speculation.) -Seth Mahoney 19:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- You might want to drop by Wikipedia:Vfd renomination limits. -Splash 20:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC) fixed red link ∞Who?¿? 21:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- There was a proposal along these lines with regard to the GNAA article being nominated for deletion 6 times, but I do not believe a consensus was ever achieved. Hall Monitor 21:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I am inclined to agree that a portion of the articles may not belong, however, I do think that some of the biographies of those who support gay/lesbian rights should be kept in this cat, because they are noted for being "gay icons". Assuming that's what it means. ∞Who?¿? 21:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless there is a way to define what qualifies one as a "gay icon". Hall Monitor 21:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. First of all, the fact this category has appeared on Rowan Atkinson, Ashanti (singer) and many other non-gay icon-related articles prompted me to get involved in cleaning it up. You remove about 10, and another 20 get added. Some are backed up, but the category simply isn't needed. I think this should go. Cleaning it up has been tried by several people; We all failed. Hedley 21:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep While the category is somewhat subjective, there are some clear gay icons, people who owe the success or longevity of their careers in large part to gays and lesbians (and they will admit it - Cher, Madonna, etc.) Sure there are some names that don't belong, but those can be trimmed. I've trimmed some of them myself. To delete all this work while keeping so many other worthless categories seems strange to me. --JamesB3 23:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup The category isn't unnecessary, just overpopulated. Most of the articles in this category do not actually state anything about their being a gay icon, and, as a result, shouldn't be there. It should be a rule for this category: Do not include articles that contain nothing about their iconic status in this category. (I apologise for the overuse of 'category' here.) --JB Adder | Talk 23:59, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete overly arbitrary. A well annotated list would be far more useful. - SimonP 00:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Category is clearly a matter of opinion, not fact, so it breaches the neutrality rule. Osomec 02:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Since the {{inuse}} is intended as a short-term notice, there really isn't much of a point in making a category for it. Radiant_>|< 16:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Would it be useful for administrators? — Instantnood 17:19, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- It would be useful to help finding places where {{inuse}} was forgotten (some people do forget to remove it), without the extra junk which appears on Special:Whatlinkshere (which, for instance, would include this page, which is not using the template, but merely linking to it). I'm one of the people who hunt for these pages to remove the stale notice. Keep (disclaimer: category creator). --cesarb 17:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I do agree that this category is useful for some people, but I guess special:whatlinkshere/template:inuse (and special:whatlinkshere/template:inusefor, special:whatlinkshere/template:inuseuntil) could help. Do you think accessing these articles via the category is more convenient? — Instantnood 18:28, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm not sure that the cat has a handy function. -Splash 20:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment How about sticking them in Category:Wikipedia cleanup with a sort tag of *, its a relevant cat, and it wouldnt' be deleted for being empty occasionally. ∞Who?¿? 21:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, agree with Radiant. Pavel Vozenilek 23:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Redundant with Category:Korea-related lists. Propose to delete and make that category the daughter of Category:Lists of country-related topics. -- Visviva 15:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree about the redundancy, but "lists of Korea-related topics" is a better name. Radiant_>|< 16:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The other cats like this are named Category:Foo-related lists, so we might as well have some consistency. Also, "lists of Korea-related topics" makes it sound like a grouping of lists that list korea-related topics. In fact, the lists each only deal with a single topic. -Splash 20:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Category:African American politicians
Category:African American politicians, category:African American artists, category:African American scientists, category:African American writers, category:African-American actors
These categories are people by occupation of a specific ethnic groups of Americans. See also a similar previous nomination. — Instantnood 15:27, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Non-vote: These are nominated because of the similarities with a previous nomination. Please don't count my nomination as one delete vote. — Instantnood 15:27, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- My personal vote would be to delete, but I believe this is a broad topic that should be discussed centrally (e.g. any categorization by gender or race could be perceived as discriminatory). Radiant_>|< 16:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: In my opinion, identifying people by their gender or ethnic groups could be perceived as discriminatory, but information provided and presented as fact in an encyclopædia does not mean to be discriminating because of one's gender or race. Actually these categories are useful for studies of demography, history, culture and sociology. I agree this is a broad topic, and I do expect this nomination will initiate a serious discussion over the issue of ethnic group categories. — Instantnood 17:16, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- My vote would also be to delete, but an overarching discussion would be more useful. -Splash 20:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep these categories. I agree that the Jewish-American and Chinese-American categories should have been deleted, but to have groupings for African-Americans is much more important, and these are the most prominent minority in America and cannot be classed into other ethnic categories. Harro5 23:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
An article on Birmighham bus roots would be one thing - but this category is designed to hold nn articles on individual bus routes (its contents are now all on VfD and look certain to go). There is a higher category 'transport in Birmingham' which can contain any future notable bus related articles (gee, can't wait) --Doc (?) 13:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, merge all articles in there to a list. Radiant_>|< 16:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I've no particular desire to hang to the information in a list, either. Bus routes come and go, and connect nearly every road of every major city. -Splash 20:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and merge per Radiant. Pavel Vozenilek 23:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
The inclusion of the word "Canadian" is unneccessary in the title of Category:Canadian First Nations, just as the inclusion of "New Zealand" would be unneccessary in the title of Category:Maori. The term "First Nations", like the term "Maori", is used only to refer to one unique group of indigenous peoples located in a specific country and nowhere else, in this case Canada. Inclusion of the term "Canadian" would only be needed if disambiguating was required, which it is not.
Additionally, the current wording of the category name implies belonging to Canada, which is advised against by the Government of Canada's Department of Indian and Northern Affairs when referring to Aboriginal peoples in Canada [1]. In a related effort to avoid implying belonging, the article First Nations of Canada was recently renamed to First Nations. Kurieeto 03:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Agree to this and all the below, with two comments. 1) technically you're wrong about Maori, since it could refer to Cook island Maori, although I take the point of your analogy; 2) Is the name "Indian reserve" still regarded as the correct one? I may be overly PC here, but I feel uncomfortable with the term. Grutness...wha? 08:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Grutness, thanks for your point about the Maori. With regard to the question of the usage of the term "Indian reserve", to my knowledge it is still the most common, correct term. An alternative term such as "First Nations reserve" hasn't replaced "Indian reserve" the way that "First Nations" has replaced "Indian" in common language. As another measure of the use of the term I googled "Indian reserve" and "First Nations reserve" to compare how many results came back. "Indian reserve" received 98,200 hits, and "First Nations reserve" received 4,990. Kurieeto 16:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Please make good use of {{cfru}} if there's a need. :-) — Instantnood 14:16, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Instantnood, I didn't know of the existence of that template & will now use it where appropriate. Kurieeto 16:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Support this and all those below. - SimonP 14:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Support for all in this grouping. Mindmatrix 16:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Rename all I know personally that the Ojibwa (Chippewa) Nations spans both Canadian and US soil, as they are considered First Nations, it would be wrong to have a country specific title. ∞Who?¿? 21:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Move all as per Kurieeto. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
This renaming is requested for the same reasons as the proposed renaming of Category:Canadian First Nations above. Kurieeto 03:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
This renaming is requested for the same reasons as the proposed renaming of Category:Canadian First Nations above. Kurieeto 03:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
The inclusion of the word "Canadian" in the title of this category is unneccesary. All chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations, a Canadian organization, are of the First Nations, who are an Aboriginal ethnic group in Canada. Kurieeto 03:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I feel that the title of this category should be changed to align its wording with similar categories, such as Category:Communities in Canada, and that category's sub-categories at the provincial and territorial level. Kurieeto 03:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I created this category in February of 2005 when I felt that the subject had a capacity for future growth that warranted its own category within Category:Métis. After four months the Métis culture category contains three articles. I now feel that while a Métis culture category may be needed one day, it should not be created until sufficient articles about the subject are present on Wikipedia. Because the existence of this category makes the location and access of its minimal contents cumbersome, I request that it be deleted and its contents merged into Category:Métis. Kurieeto 03:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Upmerge & delete per nom. Radiant_>|< 16:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and delete. I agree that we'll need this in the future, though. Mindmatrix 17:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Upmerge and delete per nominator. -Splash 20:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per Kurieeto. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I created this category in March of 2005 when I felt that the subject had a capacity for future growth that warranted its own category within Category:Métis. After four months the Métis history category contains only one article and one sub-category. I now feel that while a Métis history category may be needed one day, it should not be created until sufficient articles about the subject are present on Wikipedia. Because the existence of this category makes the location and access of its minimal contents cumbersome, I request that it be deleted and its contents merged into Category:Métis. Kurieeto 03:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Upmerge & delete per nom. Radiant_>|< 16:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Upmerge and delete per nominator. -Splash 20:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- MergeUP and wipe as per nom. (no copvio here). ∞Who?¿? 22:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per Kurieeto. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
"Anthropomorphic _____" categories
The categories Category:Anthropomorphic comics, Category:Anthropomorphic films, Category:Anthropomorphic television programs, Category:Anthropomorphic video games. I'm assuming the creator(s) meant "Comics/Films/Television programs/Video games with anthropomorphic characters"; even so, they seem vague and not potentially useful. tregoweth 23:09, July 29, 2005 (UTC)