Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 6

: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 15:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Empty, partial replication of real article Anna Ancher Melchoir 23:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The picture belongs in the article if it isn't already. Rhollenton 15:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Joshbaumgartner 15:46, 7 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 --Kbdank71 15:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

None of the other constructions have "state," not even Georgia.

• Object I fail to see what Georgia has to do with anything. In any event, the distinction between "Washington" and "Washington State" is an important one. While the District of Columbia does not currently have any senators, that is a topic of ongoing debate in Congress. Soltak | Talk 00:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• comment I think he means that Georgia needn't be disambiged as Georgia State (as opposed to the country named Georgia), so why Washington? -- Taiichi «talk»
• Rename. Senators from DC can have :Category:United States Senators from the District of Columbia. Kusma (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object Same line of reasoning to distinguish from DC.--Jondel 04:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename since even the article Washington is about the state. This category can only cause less confusion than that. —Blotwell 08:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• object - needed for disambiguation purposes. This is different from articles, which can have dab notices at the top; categories appear at the bottom of an article without such a message and need to be unambiguous in themselves. Rd232 ^talk 08:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object Especially useful for foreigners. Rhollenton 15:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object V1^t 15:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. Seems to be a logical request that matches other categories. If DC ever becomes a state, it is not likely to be called Washington. Vegaswikian 07:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename for consistency. Washington is a state; Washington State is a university. Washington, D.C. is a city. -- Taiichi «talk» 09:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'm from Seattle, and I have to say "no, I mean Washington state" all the time. This tells me that in a category where all 100 Senators could fit it under a very easy misapprehension, you'd probably be better off keeping it as is.--Mike Selinker 15:44, 9 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 nominated --Kbdank71 15:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The proposed name will be clear to non-Irish people. It is desirable to use the plural form. Rhollenton 21:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rename Rhollenton 21:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename Or even to Irish people who may not be familiar with the particular acronym. Joshbaumgartner 15:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename for clarity. - N (talk) 23:17, 11 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 --Kbdank71 15:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Empty & mis-named. Correct category exists as :Category:Victorian era ships. Joshbaumgartner 19:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Sumahoy 20:44, 6 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 --Kbdank71 15:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Redundant with CAT:CSD. Why does this exist? — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 19:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

:See Category talk:Candidates for speedy deletion#Db-attack_subcat. It has only just been created - please it give it some time to see whether people find it useful. Rd232 ^talk 19:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (my bias beeing I created it), at least for a while. The general reasoning is this: Attack pages are potentialy more dammaging to the project and its reputation than obscure vanity articles and things like that, therefore if there is a few hundred articles of backlog on CAT:CSD (happens ocationaly, though it's been realy quiet after they banned anons from creating pages) beeing eable to use this category to nuke all the attack pages first (asuming they are corectly tagged with {{tl|db-attack}} or one of it's redirects) makes this redundancy worthwhile IMHO. --Sherool (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• I submit that banning anons from creating pages has solved the CSD backlog permanently. Furthermore, most attack pages will simply be tagged as {{delete}} or {{db|attack page}} or {{nn-bio}}, none of which will be conducive to this prioritization. We've been pushing for months for people to learn to use Template:Deletebecause, and Template:Delete is still in wide use. The utility of this is questionable. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 19:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Banning anons does seem to have reduced newpage shite; of course in creating the category we didn't know the ban would be happening. Since it (banning anons) is advertised as a trial, there is no reason to act as if it will permanent just because that seems plausible/likely. And yes, of course it will take time for people to adapt to the fact that using {{tl|db-attack}} now has a useful additional effect (enabling prioritisation). You nominated the category for deletion less than 24 hours after it was created, and without first addressing your initial question above ("why does this exist?") to the creator. Rd232 ^talk 08:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I would only be willing to keep it if there are enough admins who would regularly clean it out. Otherwise, it should suffer the same fate as :Category:Redundant orphan images and :Category:Image pages with missing or corrupt images. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

::This sounds like you're not aware that it was explicitly stated in thinking about creating the category that {{tl|db-attack}} etc should place articles in this category in addition to placing them in CAT:CSD. CAT:ASD is intended as an optional means of prioritisation when there's a backlog, not an extra place to clean out. Rd232 ^talk 08:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

:::I am well aware of the original intent of why CAT:ASD was created. All I am saying that if it not emptied on a regular basis in practice, there is no use for it. Neither :Category:Redundant orphan images and :Category:Image pages with missing or corrupt images were emptied on a regular basis and that is one primary reason why they were both redirected to CAT:CSD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

::::For what it's worth, I've been checking it six or eight times a day since it was created. I've found exactly one article in it. I haven't looked at CAT:CSD since before the restriction on anons creating articles went in (due to reduced time for wiki), but before that I'd look once a day at most and usually find three or four pages marked with {{tl|db-attack}}. —Cryptic (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Neutral. Unnecessary complication that just makes it few mouse clicks slower to zap crap. jni 09:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Not true. Anything categorized into CAT:ASD goes into CAT:CSD, too. —Cryptic (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, I see. Thanks for pointing that out. If someone wants to use this subdivision, fine with me. jni 12:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm happy with it since it shows up in the parent CAT:CSD as well. Enochlau 05:31, 13 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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A category for a small informal part of Dublin. Not part of a system. 3 articles after 8 months. Merge Rhollenton 18:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge Too small. Golfcam 17:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Only offical areas should have categories or there could be far too many small ones for neighbourhoods in the long run. Bhoeble 21:34, 9 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 --Kbdank71 15:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel that this one should conform with :Category:Luxembourgish sportspeople. Rename Punkmorten 16:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment That's the prevalent form on wikipedia, but at least four forms are used in total. Rhollenton 17:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object Given the range of forms alluded to above, I would not be prepared to vote to rename unless all related categories were brought en bloc to determine an overall consensus. Soltak | Talk 00:38, 7 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 --Kbdank71 15:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Empty, accidental creation. Exists correctly as :Category:Shipwrecks in the Mediterranean. Joshbaumgartner 16:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Duplicate. Rhollenton 17:24, 6 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 --Kbdank71 15:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Empty. I could only find one article, SS Sauternes, not needing a category of its own. Joshbaumgartner 16:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Jinian 21:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Bhoeble 21:33, 9 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 --Kbdank71 15:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Pointless category. Constructed languages are logically subdivided into artistic languages, international auxiliary languages and engineered languages (according to purpose) or into a priori languages and a posteriori languages (according to the source of their vocabulary). But a subdivision according to the countries where their creators comes from is of no significance at all; of no more significance than adding the sparrow to a category Birds of the USA. Conlangs rarely have a significance that is connected anyhow to a country. Besides, this category is the only one in its kind. Therefore, I nominate it for deletion. See also Talk:Toki Pona#Category:Languages of Canada. --IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 11:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons given. Carina22 14:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete These things do not belong to countries. Sumahoy
• Delete for reasons given. Bhoeble 15:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speaking as an observer of (but not a participant in) the debate that resulted in this category's creation, allow me to clarify that it was done because if something encyclopedic was created by a Canadian, then there has to be some way to classify it in a Canadian-related category because the fact that it was created by a Canadian makes it, by definition, a Canada-related topic. Accordingly, my vote is find a different way to categorize this as a Canada-related topic, but do not delete without replacing in some manner. It's just going to get revived by somebody else otherwise. Bearcat 17:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• I wouldn't have objected if this discussion was about conlangers instead of conlangs. Sure, one way to subdivide conlangers is along the lines of their country. But in the case of the languages themselves, like I said, there is barely any significance; no more than, say, than to a:Category:Symphonies written by gay composers, or :Category:Conlangs created by bearded conlangers. I understand your point, but I don't think the categories are the proper means for your purpose. If you really want to collect all Canada-related artists in one basked, I think you better us the List of Canadians, or one of its sub-lists, for that. --IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 19:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• If I wasn't clear enough, I actually agree with you...but a lot of people see the situation differently. I can guarantee you that somebody will eventually come along and recreate the category or a similar one. Bearcat 03:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• I thought most Canadians were above that sort of idiotic nationalism (I'm a Canadian, I invented X, therefore X is Canadian, tell your friends!), but any given article can have more than one category anyway so I'm sure there'll be some Canadian-related category to put it in. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:53, 14 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 --Kbdank71 15:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The word "System" is part of the proper noun, and should be capitalized. I'm not sure if it's best to include the U.S. or not; someone better versed on those naming conventions should weigh in, but it seems unnecessary. The full official name is the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. --SPUI (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• It should include the country as there are interstate highways in other countries. Rename :Category:Interstate Highway System of the United States Carina22 14:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• There are interstate highways in other countries, but probably not a system with a proper name of Interstate Highways. --SPUI (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per nom: As the proper name for the system, unless another nation uses the same proper name, it is not necessary to add United States. Joshbaumgartner 15:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: for reference, the primary article of this cat is currently titled Interstate Highway. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• I put in a move request to move that to Interstate Highway System. --SPUI (talk) 02:55, 8 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 --Kbdank71 15:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

United States Numbered Highways is the official name of the system, used from the beginning in 1927 to the present by AASHTO. --SPUI (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rename Deserves a vote from someone. Golfcam 17:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as is They're known as U.S. Highways though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:04, 11 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 --Kbdank71 15:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Empty. Articles and cats belong in more appropriate :Category:Aircraft carriers of Russia and :Category:Aircraft carriers of the Soviet Union. Joshbaumgartner 03:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Carina22 14:37, 6 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 nominated --Kbdank71 15:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia naming conventions. Most aircraft carrier categories already correct. Joshbaumgartner 03:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rename and add "Aircraft carriers of foo" as the convention for these subcats to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block (talk) 05:11, 6 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 nominated --Kbdank71 15:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like it is for a group of islands called the Stockholm Islands, which is isn't of course. :category:Islands of Stockholm would be better. Rename Rhollenton 00:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rename "of" is the usual form for islands categories. Honbicot 01:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename for the sake of consistency. Carina22 14:37, 6 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.