Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 9

: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. «»Who?¿?^meta 09:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessary and indirect. We already have a category for the actual releases. Dtcdthingy 23:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose: These performers have technologically isolated their releases. I like being able to identify them so I can buy music which plays on all my audio devices. The category also may be useful in the future for comparison between this class of performers and more open ones. (SEWilco 19:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC))
• These were the original reasons for creating this category. It may be hard for a Wikipedia reader to check all the releases separately to see, if the artist "part takes" in copy control. But it is true that the category is also very hard to maintain because it doesn't work automaticly. This means that Wikipedians are doing the hard work for reader. I've been unsure all the time, if this category is a good or a bad idea, so I'm happy that this is being discussed. --Easyas12c 21:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Musical performers may have just one "copy control release" and many many that aren't, does that make this category appropriate for them? The phenomenon is intresesting, and a list of performers should be maintained, but I'm not convinced that this should be an actual category as it's much less informative for musical performers than, say, style, region, or era. siafu 00:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• "So you're not a killer, if you kill someone, but let lots of people live?" There is a point that maybe there is a better way to do this than a category. As this category is not automatic anyway. Maybe a list with number of albums published and number of copy controlled ones? --Easyas12c 22:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Minor attribute. The music categories are complicated enough without this. Wikipeida is not a buyers' guide. CalJW 08:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• That was not the point. The point was wether or not it is a release, if you can't listen to it. --Easyas12c 22:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Piccadilly 11:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; by definition, it's an attribute of the album, not of the artist. And, for that matter, it's not always by the artist's choice. Bearcat 06:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe, if you live in a totalitaristic or anarchistic nation. In civilised world artists get to choose for their work. It is their choise, wether they sign a contract with evil record companies or not. --Easyas12c 18:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• At least one major label band have actually posted instructions to their website on how to break the copy control on their CD, because it had been imposed by the label against their will. Signing to a major label does not equal consent to give up all control over how your music is marketed. Bearcat 06:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as proposed. Carina22 09:58, 13 October 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. «»Who?¿?^meta 09:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This category and its subcategory should have "and structures" added in line with policy:

• :Category:Buildings in New York City --> :category:Buildings and structures in New York City
• :Category:Buildings in Manhattan --> :category:Buildings and structures in Manhattan.

Rename CalJW 20:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rename per policy. Although don't know why "Buildings and structure" instead of "Structures". (SEWilco 19:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC))
• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:27, 11 October 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 change to categories Naming conventions candidate. «»Who?¿?^meta 09:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Add "Zoos in foo" as the convention for by-country subcats to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). No renaming necessary. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Add as convention. (SEWilco 19:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC))
• Be bold. siafu 00:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• If we seek a new speedy-rename rule, it can't be done properly by being bold. -Splash^talk 00:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as convention per nom. -Splash^talk 00:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Favour zoofoo convention. Bearcat 06:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as proposed. Carina22 09:58, 13 October 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. Naming conventions candidate. «»Who?¿?^meta 09:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Add "Gardens in foo" as the convention for by-country subcats to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), and rename as follows. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• :Category:British gardens → :Category:Gardens in the United Kingdom
• :Category:Italian gardens → :Category:Gardens in Italy

• Add as convention. (SEWilco 19:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC))
• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename - go with the convention that similar cats have. Epolk 15:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as convention per nom. -Splash^talk 00:24, 12 October 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. «»Who?¿?^meta 09:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The article about the capital Stanley, Falkland Islands says it is the only town in the islands, and given that the remainder of the islands has about 1,500 people in total, that makes sense. Surely it would be better to call this :category:Settlements in the Falkland Islands. Piccadilly 09:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rename - fine with me as creator of the category - that does sound like a better title. Warofdreams talk 13:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename - I'm working on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Falklands War. Apart from Stanley, they are more settlements than towns. Megapixie 03:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename - although some of the "towns" in Scotland have only a few hundred people!!! --MacRusgail 19:34, 16 October 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. «»Who?¿?^meta 09:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rename - 1.} Wrong naming convention (Fooian towns), 2.) There are also a few cities in Jamaica, but maybe only "Towns in Jamaica" would be good? Darwinek 09:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename :category:Cities and towns in Jamaica Given that according to the list there are only two cities in Jamaica, they might as well stay in the same category as the towns as they are now.CalJW 20:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per convention. (SEWilco 19:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC))
• That doesn't fully answer the question. The convention depends on the circumstances. CalJW 08:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per the first proposal, ie "cities and towns". Piccadilly 11:35, 11 October 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. Naming conventions candidate. «»Who?¿?^meta 09:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename :category:Crime in Australia to match the other categories in :Category:Crime by country. CalJW 08:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rename, and establish "Crime in foo" as the convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename and make convention. (SEWilco 19:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC))
• Rename and agree, make convention. -- Longhair | Talk 21:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename and make convention. -Splash^talk 00:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as per above. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename for the reasons stated above Agnte 19:59, 14 October 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. Naming conventions candidate. «»Who?¿?^meta 09:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename :Category:Natural history of Singapore to match all the other categories in :category:Natural history by country. CalJW 08:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rename, and establish "Natural history of foo" as the convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per convention. (SEWilco 19:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC))
• Rename Piccadilly 11:35, 11 October 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. «»Who?¿?^meta 09:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This contained 5 articles, none of which was about a specific crime (one of them was Israeli-Palestinian conflict). It was effectively a duplicate of :category:Crime by country and I have relocated the other four items to that and its subcategories. Also, crimes do not have a nationality. Delete CalJW 07:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Rick Block (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (SEWilco 19:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC))
• Delete. No argument. siafu 21:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There are a frightening number of things in the cat system which have been granted nationalities they do not have! -Splash^talk 00:24, 12 October 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. «»Who?¿?^meta 09:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Non-standard category. It is being used as a general category about crime, not a category for individual crimes. Rename :Category:Crime in Singapore. CalJW 07:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rename -- Rick Block (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. (SEWilco 19:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC))
• Rename Piccadilly 11:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename -- Ian ≡ talk 00:06, 14 October 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. «»Who?¿?^meta 09:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This should be renamed :category:Australian doctors in line with local usage, as the other British English influenced "physician" categories were recently. CalJW 07:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rename Piccadilly 11:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per nom, so long as we're sure the term 'physician' isn't in general usage for any medical class in Australia. (But even if it is, the articles still need fixing.) -Splash^talk 00:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename Carina22 09:58, 13 October 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. «»Who?¿?^meta 09:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Another of these vague non-standard "places" categories. I have moved the four items to the standard categories. Delete CalJW 07:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Rick Block (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (SEWilco 19:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC))
• Delete. No argument. siafu 21:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, very vague. -Splash^talk 00:24, 12 October 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. «»Who?¿?^meta 09:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Joseon has multiple meanings. This category only stands for Joseon Dynasty. Rename to :Category:Joseon Dynasty.

• Rename CalJW 08:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC) (not my nomination)
• Rename to clarify. (SEWilco 19:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC))
• Rename. No argument. siafu 21:49, 11 October 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. «»Who?¿?^meta 09:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I missed this one when the bulk renaming was done. Rename to standard :category:Science and technology in Russia. CalJW 06:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rename, and establish "Science and technology in foo" as the convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Science and technology in the Russian Empire and :Category:Science and technology in the Russian Republic. Per :User:Mikkalai, use of word "Russia" alone implies a cultural state of being (which, e.g., remains a constant throughout the Soviet period) rather than a country proper. Staying with this Mikkalai-enforced rule, as at :Category:Film, Russian Empire and Russian Republic must be used to disambiguate the countries existing pre- and post-USSR. [Signature added; sorry about that]. 12.73.195.22 13:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Empire and Republic per previous (anonymous?) voter.
• Comment This vote is anonymous too. A category can't be renamed to 2 different names. There are no first tier subcategories in :category:Russia which include the word "Republic", so the proposal is in breach of convention. It is not standard to divide other countries main categories into eras in this way. However, the proposed renaming is not incompatible with the anonymous voters' position, and if they want to subdivide the category, there is nothing to stop them from doing so. There's no knowing whether anyone else will. But is is a bad idea which will make accessing articles harder for the user. The category system is a navigation tool, not an arena for making statements. I don't think these should count as no votes, against a rename that counts as a speedy. As the proposal is a technical impossibility, these votes should be void imo. CalJW 08:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Fine, tell that to :User:Mikkalai, who forces everyone to use categories about "Russia" to include select (by him) events and objects of the Soviet Union on the grounds that they contain evidence of a constant "Russian culture". He runs roughshod over anyone who disagrees with him, and reverts their attempts to make a distinction between "Russian" and "Soviet" national histories. 12.73.195.22 13:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• The category system, at present at least, intends to have both historical and present-day countries in its structure. So an article can appear in more than one category relating to the 'same' country under its various historical incarnations. This one deals with what we now know as Russia, in common usage as the Manual of Style suggests. -Splash^talk 00:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as proposed. Piccadilly 11:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per nominator. -Splash^talk 00:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per nominator. Carina22 09:58, 13 October 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.