Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 23

: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) K1Bond007 17:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

An inherently POV category. Firebug 23:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and remove anything questionable. It's no more POV than all the many other conspiracy theory categories and articles. (I suppose you could use a euphemistic phrase like "people with unconventional theories"...but what's the point? It would mean the same thing). Mirror Vax 00:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• I noticed that someone had added Kanye West to the category, and I removed it. That's an example of the kind of POV I'm talking about. No one admits to being a conspiracy theorist, and (unlike the criminal conviction categories) there is no standard for who goes there and why. Firebug 00:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• The standard is that a conspiracy theorist is someone who promulgates a conspiracy theory. There are many articles, lists, and categories about conspiracy theories. Mirror Vax 01:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV and unmaintainable, IMHO. There may be few people whose only contribution to the mankind is to generate such theories but I do not think WP is able to keep such category clean. Pavel Vozenilek 01:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Pavel Soltak | Talk 22:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see how this can mantain verifiability and NPOV. siafu 14:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep Being a conspiracy theorist is not completely subjective. AnonMoos 19:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• What objective measures can be employed to determine who would be considered a conspiracy theorist? If you can't answer that question, and respectfully I doubt you can, I would urge you to change your vote. Soltak | Talk 22:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• See above. A conspiracy theorist is a person with a conspiracy theory. That's a perfectly clear definition. (It leaves the question of defining "conspiracy theory", but we aren't voting on that). Mirror Vax 23:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Radiantmeta:mergist 02:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Too POV. Gwimpey 07:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A human 03:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep You should not just go after the one category. There is "Category:Conspiracy theories", etc. Just chopping out the "people" category does a disservice to those organizing and seeking this info. I just added Bill Kaysing to this cat because it is the right place (he feels that the Moon landings were a hoax). How hard are was going to have to struggle to organize his information while having to constantly apologize for believing that man walked on the moon in 1969? Why was this not proposed as some sort of rename? -- Fplay 10:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this nomination stems - at least in part - from misunderstanding what a conspiracy theory is. Unfortunately, the definition at Conspiracy_theory#Features is perhaps too broad; for one thing, a conspiracy theory does not have to be false, and does not have to employ flawed reasoning or false evidence. "Conspiracy theorist" is not a synonym for "crank" or "liar". Conspiracy theories objectively exist, as do their believers, regardless of the fact that it is nearly impossible to define the terms in a completely accurate, unambiguous and objective way; compare with Fascism and :Category:Fascists. GregorB 20:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with GregorB.ThreeAnswers 07:41, 1 January 2006 (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 - Izehar 15:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

(I added a CfD notice to the category on December 10, and thought I had posted it here, but oh those wacky browsers...) Categorizing television stations by one program that they air seems overly specific. If there is a need to keep this info, a simple list would seem adequate. tregoweth 22:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Gamaliel 04:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed, it is overly specific. Better to have mention in the BBC World News article about the % of PBS stations carrying it in the United States. User:Ceyockey 16:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per above reasons Gwimpey 07:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I was the creator of the category in question and agree with the proposal for deletion. I created it to replace the ever increasing list of PBS stations airing news from BBC World. That list can be found at the article's talk page. I believe adding a note in the article regarding the number (or percentage) of PBS stations airing the news output to be the best option and will do so. Wikiwoohoo 17:46, 27 December 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) K1Bond007 17:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be an error for the already existing :Category:Margraves of Baden, and in that case could be deleted.

Staffelde 20:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

:Keep. It seems that the error is mine, and that Margrave of Baden-Baden is a real title, so the category is required. Sorry - my mistake.Staffelde 11:56, 26 December 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. Martin 18:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Originally nominated by Mairi as a speedy. It is a completely standard speedy, but following objection was raised, most likely in the mistaken belief that manual amendments would be required to each article in the category:

- LEAVE - seems overkill to rename the entire category in these circumstances--Sjharte 12:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rename Carina22 17:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename for capitalization. siafu 14:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename for capitalization; be nice and let the objector know that this can actually be done all automagically by bots. Bearcat 09:07, 27 December 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 K1Bond007 17:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization, and conform with the rest of the subcats of :Category:Railway stations in Japan

• Rename Neier 13:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since it only contains subcategories that are all also listed in the parent category, so this category isn't very useful. Basically, it just tells what areas of Japan are in the Kanto Region in a convoluted way. If kept, it should be renamed to :Category:Railway stations in Kanto, since that's how all of the others are named (in :Category:Railway stations in Japan). - Bobet 13:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per Bobet to :Category:Railway stations in Kanto. This whole branch needs to be cleaned up. As it is, all the articles in all the subcats are still in the parent, making it rather cluttered. siafu 14:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as proposed. -- Ze miguel 13:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Two comments. First, I don't know when siafu checked the category, but around the end of November, I took :Category:Kanto Region Rail Stations off of all of the articles in that category, and sorted them into their respective prefectures. The only area with subcat articles in the parent cat are major stations in :Category:Railway stations in Japan, and I would be content if they were all removed from the parent cat (the category used to be much bigger before I did that to most of the stations; but at the time, I didn't know if the largest stations like Shinjuku Station merited a top-level mention or not).

Secondly, renaming to Railway stations in Kanto would be very confusing, as Kanto is not a prefecture like most of the other subcats of :Category:Railway stations in Japan. There have been other discussions on geographically sorting Japan's prefectures, and I seem to recall that since some of the regions are not strictly defined (ie, one prefecture could be in multiple regions, depending on who you ask), there has never been a concerted effort to push all of the prefectures down into region categories. So, I would support Bobet's suggestion of deleting the category, rather than the suggested renaming. I didn't suggest that originally, because I was afraid of stepping on someone's toes; but, in retrospect, that seems like the wiser choice.

So, changing my vote to Delete per Bobet. Neier 14:17, 2 January 2006 (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 - Izehar 15:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This category is for things mentioned in a baseball book mentioned in 2003. It is a bad precedent as there are an awful lot of books published.

• Delete Choalbaton 12:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No argument. siafu 14:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gwimpey 07:19, 27 December 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 - Izehar 20:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

As per :Category:Host cities of the Eurovision Song Contest (also on CFD), this is not a defining feature of any city. sjorford (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The World Cup is hosted by countries, not cities. Choalbaton 12:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There is already :Category:FIFA World Cup stadiums to gather the host stadiums so I don't think :Category:Host countries of FIFA World Cup is necessary either (just in case someone gets the wrong idea reading User:Choalbaton's comment). Neier 13:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Neier. Qwghlm 13:37, 23 December 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 as :Category:Sporting Lisbon players K1Bond007 17:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Category is meant for football (soccer) players who have played for Sporting Clube de Portugal, but "Sporting players" is rather ambiguous - it should be more specific, in this case. Qwghlm 10:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rename :Category:Sporting Lisbon players. That is how the club is known in English. Move the article too. Bayern Munich is already at its English language name. Carina22 17:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Carina. Rename as :Category:Sporting Lisbon players. — Dale Arnett 21:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with renaming as :Category:Sporting Clube de Portugal players, because that´s the official name of the team. Nobody in Portugal calls it Sporting of Lisbon. - Mistico
• Comment — All of us agree that Sporting Clube de Portugal is the official club name. However, this is a resource for people who use the English language. True, nobody in Portugal calls it "Sporting Lisbon"—but almost no one uses "Sporting Clube de Portgual" in English. Although it isn't a translation of the official name, "Sporting Lisbon" is the most commonly used name for the club among English-speakers. — Dale Arnett 23:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename :Category:Sporting Lisbon players as this is the English-language wikipedia. Osomec 04:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename :Category:Sporting Lisbon players . Agree this is the only intelligible option for English-speakers. Jameswilson 03:52, 2 January 2006 (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. Martin 18:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The full name is clearer. The category for the much better known NFL is not abbreviated. Rename. Calsicol 08:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC).

• Rename Neier 13:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. I can't improve on the nominator's case, so I won't try. — Dale Arnett 23:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename -- Greaser 12:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. Avoid abbreviations. siafu 14:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as above Gwimpey 07:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. Abbreviations do nothing but confuse. Zookman12 18:50, 31 December 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 - Izehar 14:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Category emptied and deleted - Izehar 14:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Category proposed for deletion on the basis that it is small without potential for growth — see item 2 under Categories for deletion (How to use this page).

The Staged events category is only associated with five articles, at least one of which is doubtful; see Reichstag fire. Many historians contest the assertion that the fire was "staged" by the Nazi Party, though it is virtually indisputable that party's propaganda used the fire to their political advantage.

With this low usage, is this category useful? — JonRoma 06:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The usage level isn't a problem, but the fact that I had no idea at first glance what it might contain is. It's too amorphous. Calsicol 08:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete could mean anything, meaningless catch-all category (and will attract pov) Zzzzz 14:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This category will attract POV nonsense. Soltak | Talk 22:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It would seem as a possible gathering point for all conspiracy theorists, which is almost always in conflict with NPOV. --Greaser 12:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No argument. siafu 14:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete will serve primarily as a way of starting fires. — ciphergoth 11:07, 28 December 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. Martin 18:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:SNL sketches to :Category:Saturday Night Live sketches
• :Category:SNL people to :Category:Saturday Night Live people
• :Category:SNL cast members to :Category:Saturday Night Live cast members
• :Category:SNL writers to :Category:Saturday Night Live writers

As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms), avoid using abbreviations. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rename all CalJW 08:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename all -- Greaser 12:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename all. Avoid abbreviations. siafu 14:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename all per above reasons Gwimpey 07:19, 27 December 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 - Izehar 20:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

A disambiguation is a disambiguation. No special categories are needed or useful. Tedernst | talk 04:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Question - did you empty this category before bringing it here? User:Ceyockey 05:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• I redirected the cooresponding dab template to the general dab template, which emptied this category, yes. I didn't realize at the time that the proper procedure was to list the category for deletion. I was annoyed that the empty category was still showing up on the :Category:Disambiguation page so I edited the empty category to effectively orphan it. I didn't know that was a no-no, either. Someone suggested I needed to then list the category here, which I've done. Sorry for the confusion. Learning as I go here. Tedernst | talk 21:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (and yes its empty?) Zzzzz 15:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per the previous cfd on songs. siafu 14:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I cannot better the arguments put forward above -- Greaser 00:29, 28 December 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 - Izehar 14:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A disambiguation is a disambiguation. No special categories are needed or useful. Tedernst | talk 04:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete but not because of the completely incorrect statement you made in nominating it, Tedernst; rather because it's not a useful category in itself in my opinion. User:Ceyockey 05:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and because it's practically a useless page.--ViolinGirl^♪ 17:28, 26 December 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 - Izehar 14:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A disambiguation is a disambiguation. No special categories are needed or useful. Tedernst | talk 04:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as proposed. Ze miguel 17:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as it is not necessary to distinguish single words from multi-word phrases for purposes of disambiguation. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:18, 31 December 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 K1Bond007 17:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This category serves no purpose I can find, and isn't actually used. SCZenz 02:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Category now modified, see below. -- SCZenz 23:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• delete per nom Tedernst | talk 05:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• I see the reorganization and it doesn't change my vote. Tedernst | talk 01:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• I could think of one purpose, and that is to categorize Abracadabra, Hocus Pocus (magic), Xyzzy and Alohomora. Not sure if there's any point in that, though. Radiantmeta:mergist 18:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Well, no prejudice against recreation. But that's not at all what it's claimed to be for right now. -- SCZenz 18:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• I removed the old (and nonsensical) category description and added Abracadabra and Hocus Pocus (magic) to the category. The other two were redirects. Keep as reorganized. Firebug 23:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, in new reorganized form. -- SCZenz 23:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in new form Gwimpey 07:18, 27 December 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 - Izehar 14:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This category serves no purpose, and isn't used. Yaf 05:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Empty, misnamed. siafu 14:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Empty. Vegaswikian 06:54, 1 January 2006 (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.