From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < December 31 | January 2 > |
|---|
- 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 15:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Speady Delete Category:User Dyslexic it just redirects to Category:Dyslexic Wikipedians and has no incoming links. -- Pfafrich 22:06, 1 January 2006 (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 merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Essentially a duplicate of the parent Category:Curators. Adds little or nothing and creates inconsistency. Merge CalJW 21:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC). reply
- Merge. No argument. siafu 02:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Merge per nom. Benami 04:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep. The term "curator" is more general than "museum curator". Curators can curate art exhibitions, collections, archives, etc., all not necessarily in a museum.
Jonathan Bowen
22:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Only two of the members of the Category:Curators are specified in their articles as being not museum curators -- J. Rendel Harris, who was apparently only a library curator, and Alfred Stieglitz, who only curated for galleries not connected to museums. The articles for Catherine Millet, Achille Bonito Oliva, and Yu Yeon Kim don't make it clear whether they were museum curators or not. In the end, it looks like we're talking about preserving a category for 2 articles minimum, possibly as many as 5. All other members already belong in the current Category:Museum curators. Personally, I think the distinction isn't very useful as most will work in various settings throughout their careers. siafu 02:48, 7 January 2006 (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 merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The two dictionaries and one art guide I checked, spell avant-garde with a dash. New category is created and some articles moved. Too bold? Perhaps. Sparkit 21:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Merge, though this would have just been a speedy rename. siafu 02:13, 2 January 2006 (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 merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Superfluous category for identical subjects. DocJohnny 15:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Merge -- DocJohnny 15:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Merge as proposed. CalJW 21:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Strong Oppose per reasons cited for the CfD below. The distinction between Navy-specific ship categories and the broader type by country categories is useful, especially for countries which have had multiple navies in their history, but should be maintained consistently across all countries. Joshbaumgartner 08:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Merge as proposed. It isn't consistent to treat countries with different structures the same. Carina22 09:38, 2 January 2006 (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 no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Superfluous category for identical subjects. DocJohnny 15:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Merge -- DocJohnny 15:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Merge as proposed. The subcategories are also problematic. CalJW 21:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Strong Oppose Naval ships includes ships built in the United Kingdom, Royal Navy ships is limited to ships commissioned in the Royal Navy. Additionally, not all Royal Navy ships were ships of the United Kingdom (the RN existed before the UK came about). Finally, maintaining the same structure for all countries allows navigation for those who may not know the specific proper names for specific countries, not to mention easing the load on those wishing to link articles to categories. Joshbaumgartner 08:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Merge as proposed. It isn't consistent to treat countries with different structures the same. The UK categories cover the history of predecessor states, as do categories for the likes of Germany. Carina22 09:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Comment Has any thought gone into where we shall categorize a number of articles currently categorized under
Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom which were never part of the Royal Navy? The U.K. is a major producer of naval ships for export. I'm all for keeping things simple, but are we going to say that we can't categorize ships by their building country?
Joshbaumgartner
11:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Comment The category implies ownership by Britain, therefore membership in the Royal Navy. If Naval ships built by Britain but sold to other Nations is really an important category to have, then by all means we should have it. As of now, it is my opinion that the category is superfluous as read by most readers, and misleading when used for ships built by the UK. I propose that those ships be classified by the nation in whose navies they are serving. -- DocJohnny 05:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Just a note, the category page header states: Naval ships of the United Kingdom include naval ships designed, built, or operated in or by the United Kingdom. This is consistant with most all ships of country categories.
- If we are going to merge these two, it should be a reverse merge. If done as proposed, the UK will be the only country with naval ships but without a naval ships of ... category. Past CfD's have supported maintaining the Navy Name ships categories primarily because many nations have multiple navies through history (Germany, etc.), and all are under naval ships of ... for their country. Royal Navy doesn't have this issue, but I support maintaining Royal Navy cats because of her unigue prominence in naval affairs. That's why I don't simply support a reverse merge either. Having the only categories for British ships be Royal Navy poses problems. Royal Navy doesn't include the country's name, and while many of us may consider it elementary knowledge that the Royal Navy is of the United Kingdom, it is not universal knowledge. By limiting us to Royal Navy cats and eliminating the various ... of United Kingdom categories, it means that someone looking for United Kingdom won't necessarily find the category. Right now, naval ships of the UK is in
Category:Naval ships by country under United Kingdom, where would Royal Navy go? It is supporsed to be by country name, but it is pretty clumsy to have to sort a category by a word that doesn't even exist in the category name (yes, possible, I know). We have both naval ships of ... categories and Navy Name ships categories so that people can get to the articles by either path and not be forced to search only by one path. A person can find them by country without having to know anything about the name of the country's navy, and if they want to find ships of a particular navy, they can go that way too. I think that is the way it should remain. My fervor on this is not because I'm in love with these two categories, but the simple fact is that there are articles that belong in one but not two and two but not one, so even though a lot of articles belong in both categories, they both are useful and appropriate to remain as is.
Joshbaumgartner
16:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I would support a reverse merge, I just chose this because Royal Navy had more entries. -- DocJohnny 18:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Reverse merge. There's the issue of consistency, non-Royal Navy ships, and the UK isn't the only country with a Royal Navy (despite it being pretty much always the one meant by that name alone). -- Jake 11:15, 6 January 2006 (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 - Izehar 20:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Weird U.S. and Category:Weird U.S. things
Delete: Useless and repetive categories for subjects also seen in the book Weird U.S., for which very few articles exist MechBrowman 02:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete There are very few books which merit a category. CalJW 21:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete. Overcategorization. siafu 02:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete. NeoJustin 19:39, January 2, 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 15:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Very small, unlikely to grow. We should not have categories for individual diseases unless extremely common. JFW | T@lk 04:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete. JFW | T@lk 04:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep Assertion above about likelihood of growth is wrong. SP-KP 10:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep - I found several uncategorized articles that can populate the category:
Monomelic amyotrophy,
Primary lateral sclerosis,
Post polio syndrome,
Infantile spinal muscular atrophy.
Delete There are about 10 or so fairly rare diseases such as ALS. None of them have individual articles. The category can always be recreated if needed to contain the articles should they appear.-- DocJohnny 02:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
-
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis now exists :) --
WS
04:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Comment - The Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis page is an almost verbatim copy from [1] and has now been listed in the copyright violation page. -- DocJohnny 05:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)I was mistaken, went to the wrong page. -- DocJohnny 05:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Comment: If this category contains individuals, like Stephen Hawking who is already in the category, it can be very easily populated with fifteen or so more articles. siafu 02:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep -- per siafu. Has prospects. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename to People with Motor Neuron Disease. Here, keeping it small is an advantage; a category for people with cancer would hardly be manageable. In addition, to Hawking, there is of course, Lou Gehrig; in the U.S. it is often called Lou Gehrig's disease. -- C S (Talk) 08:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Comment There are only three articles: Stephen Hawking, Diane Pretty, Motor neurone disease-- DocJohnny 20:14, 5 January 2006 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < December 31 | January 2 > |
|---|
- 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 15:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Speady Delete Category:User Dyslexic it just redirects to Category:Dyslexic Wikipedians and has no incoming links. -- Pfafrich 22:06, 1 January 2006 (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 merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Essentially a duplicate of the parent Category:Curators. Adds little or nothing and creates inconsistency. Merge CalJW 21:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC). reply
- Merge. No argument. siafu 02:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Merge per nom. Benami 04:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep. The term "curator" is more general than "museum curator". Curators can curate art exhibitions, collections, archives, etc., all not necessarily in a museum.
Jonathan Bowen
22:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Only two of the members of the Category:Curators are specified in their articles as being not museum curators -- J. Rendel Harris, who was apparently only a library curator, and Alfred Stieglitz, who only curated for galleries not connected to museums. The articles for Catherine Millet, Achille Bonito Oliva, and Yu Yeon Kim don't make it clear whether they were museum curators or not. In the end, it looks like we're talking about preserving a category for 2 articles minimum, possibly as many as 5. All other members already belong in the current Category:Museum curators. Personally, I think the distinction isn't very useful as most will work in various settings throughout their careers. siafu 02:48, 7 January 2006 (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 merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The two dictionaries and one art guide I checked, spell avant-garde with a dash. New category is created and some articles moved. Too bold? Perhaps. Sparkit 21:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Merge, though this would have just been a speedy rename. siafu 02:13, 2 January 2006 (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 merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Superfluous category for identical subjects. DocJohnny 15:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Merge -- DocJohnny 15:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Merge as proposed. CalJW 21:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Strong Oppose per reasons cited for the CfD below. The distinction between Navy-specific ship categories and the broader type by country categories is useful, especially for countries which have had multiple navies in their history, but should be maintained consistently across all countries. Joshbaumgartner 08:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Merge as proposed. It isn't consistent to treat countries with different structures the same. Carina22 09:38, 2 January 2006 (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 no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Superfluous category for identical subjects. DocJohnny 15:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Merge -- DocJohnny 15:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Merge as proposed. The subcategories are also problematic. CalJW 21:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Strong Oppose Naval ships includes ships built in the United Kingdom, Royal Navy ships is limited to ships commissioned in the Royal Navy. Additionally, not all Royal Navy ships were ships of the United Kingdom (the RN existed before the UK came about). Finally, maintaining the same structure for all countries allows navigation for those who may not know the specific proper names for specific countries, not to mention easing the load on those wishing to link articles to categories. Joshbaumgartner 08:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Merge as proposed. It isn't consistent to treat countries with different structures the same. The UK categories cover the history of predecessor states, as do categories for the likes of Germany. Carina22 09:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Comment Has any thought gone into where we shall categorize a number of articles currently categorized under
Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom which were never part of the Royal Navy? The U.K. is a major producer of naval ships for export. I'm all for keeping things simple, but are we going to say that we can't categorize ships by their building country?
Joshbaumgartner
11:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Comment The category implies ownership by Britain, therefore membership in the Royal Navy. If Naval ships built by Britain but sold to other Nations is really an important category to have, then by all means we should have it. As of now, it is my opinion that the category is superfluous as read by most readers, and misleading when used for ships built by the UK. I propose that those ships be classified by the nation in whose navies they are serving. -- DocJohnny 05:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Just a note, the category page header states: Naval ships of the United Kingdom include naval ships designed, built, or operated in or by the United Kingdom. This is consistant with most all ships of country categories.
- If we are going to merge these two, it should be a reverse merge. If done as proposed, the UK will be the only country with naval ships but without a naval ships of ... category. Past CfD's have supported maintaining the Navy Name ships categories primarily because many nations have multiple navies through history (Germany, etc.), and all are under naval ships of ... for their country. Royal Navy doesn't have this issue, but I support maintaining Royal Navy cats because of her unigue prominence in naval affairs. That's why I don't simply support a reverse merge either. Having the only categories for British ships be Royal Navy poses problems. Royal Navy doesn't include the country's name, and while many of us may consider it elementary knowledge that the Royal Navy is of the United Kingdom, it is not universal knowledge. By limiting us to Royal Navy cats and eliminating the various ... of United Kingdom categories, it means that someone looking for United Kingdom won't necessarily find the category. Right now, naval ships of the UK is in
Category:Naval ships by country under United Kingdom, where would Royal Navy go? It is supporsed to be by country name, but it is pretty clumsy to have to sort a category by a word that doesn't even exist in the category name (yes, possible, I know). We have both naval ships of ... categories and Navy Name ships categories so that people can get to the articles by either path and not be forced to search only by one path. A person can find them by country without having to know anything about the name of the country's navy, and if they want to find ships of a particular navy, they can go that way too. I think that is the way it should remain. My fervor on this is not because I'm in love with these two categories, but the simple fact is that there are articles that belong in one but not two and two but not one, so even though a lot of articles belong in both categories, they both are useful and appropriate to remain as is.
Joshbaumgartner
16:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I would support a reverse merge, I just chose this because Royal Navy had more entries. -- DocJohnny 18:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Reverse merge. There's the issue of consistency, non-Royal Navy ships, and the UK isn't the only country with a Royal Navy (despite it being pretty much always the one meant by that name alone). -- Jake 11:15, 6 January 2006 (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 - Izehar 20:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Weird U.S. and Category:Weird U.S. things
Delete: Useless and repetive categories for subjects also seen in the book Weird U.S., for which very few articles exist MechBrowman 02:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete There are very few books which merit a category. CalJW 21:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete. Overcategorization. siafu 02:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete. NeoJustin 19:39, January 2, 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 15:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Very small, unlikely to grow. We should not have categories for individual diseases unless extremely common. JFW | T@lk 04:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete. JFW | T@lk 04:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep Assertion above about likelihood of growth is wrong. SP-KP 10:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep - I found several uncategorized articles that can populate the category:
Monomelic amyotrophy,
Primary lateral sclerosis,
Post polio syndrome,
Infantile spinal muscular atrophy.
Delete There are about 10 or so fairly rare diseases such as ALS. None of them have individual articles. The category can always be recreated if needed to contain the articles should they appear.-- DocJohnny 02:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
-
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis now exists :) --
WS
04:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Comment - The Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis page is an almost verbatim copy from [1] and has now been listed in the copyright violation page. -- DocJohnny 05:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)I was mistaken, went to the wrong page. -- DocJohnny 05:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Comment: If this category contains individuals, like Stephen Hawking who is already in the category, it can be very easily populated with fifteen or so more articles. siafu 02:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep -- per siafu. Has prospects. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename to People with Motor Neuron Disease. Here, keeping it small is an advantage; a category for people with cancer would hardly be manageable. In addition, to Hawking, there is of course, Lou Gehrig; in the U.S. it is often called Lou Gehrig's disease. -- C S (Talk) 08:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
- Comment There are only three articles: Stephen Hawking, Diane Pretty, Motor neurone disease-- DocJohnny 20:14, 5 January 2006 (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.