< October 31 | November 2 > |
---|
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge all the subcategories that have been created back into Category:Earls in the Peerage of England.
Peerage titles in the British Isles are "non-territorial", meaning that the place may have had no real relevance to the person in question. To quote myself on the talk page of
Category:Earls in the Peerage of England, "The placenames mentioned in the title are of little significance. They were allocated more or less at random and the family in question often had little to do with the place. Also the same earldom was often created more than once for different families, but if we were to subcategorise all the peers it would make more sense to do it by family - but there are probably too many complications involved to make that worthwhile. For a start it would have to be done by surname, but the surnames are usually less well known than the titles and they tended to change between generations due to compound names (see
Duke of Portland for example." Another vital point is that some titles were created in more than one peerage (new peerages were created in 1707 on the Act of Union with Scotland, and in 1801 on the Act of Union with Ireland (see
peerage of Great Britain and
Peerage of the United Kingdom), so it follows that if all the articles in
Category:Earls in the Peerage of England were recategorised by place, and those categories were made sdubcategories of
Category:Earls in the Peerage of England numerous factually inaccurate indirect categorisations would occur. To put it is simpler terms, not all earls whose title is taken from a place in England are "Earls in the Peerage of England", some of them are Earls in the Peerage of the United Kingdom or Earls in the Peerage of Great Britain. There are articles for each peerage that put things into context and provide explanatory information that cannot be included in a category.
One of the above (Huntingdon I think) is a recreation of a category previously deleted following my nomination. The previous deletion had the support of the creator of the category.
Carina22
23:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was duplicate, already being deleted -- Kbdank71 18:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!"
11:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
Category:Forbes Global 2000 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
This category is not trustworthy as this list changes every year and there is no way for the reader to know whether all the entries in this extremely incomplete category are correct by the latest list other than to check them one by one. It is also rather dodgy to take another organisations list and reorganise it; I don't see how that stops it being a copright violation. A list can do a much better job, and can be annotated by industry, country, year the figures are for and so on. Wikipedia has its own
List of companies by revenue. It may be incomplete, but it is more complete than this category and it is Wikipedians own work so it is free of copyright problems.
Greg Grahame
22:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Finland-Swedish to Category:Finland Swedish
The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Black people (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Categorisation by skin colour is pernicious, which is perhaps why Wikipedia does not have
Category:White people,
Category:Yellow people,
Category:Brown people or
Category:red people. It is just a perverse form of political bias to treat black people differently. Skin colour does not determine whether people have encyclopedic accomplishments.
Greg Grahame
22:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Finland-Swedes to Category:Swedish-speaking Finns
The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Forbes Most Influential Businessmen (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
There is no information on where this comes from or what the criteria were, making it impossible to assess the reasons why these individuals were chosen, or even whether this is a complete set. Besides that ripping off another publication's list is a bit cheap and perhaps a violation of copyright.
Greg Grahame
21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
No more so than:
That is an article, but it is surely a copyright violation to have a 2complete list", (though as it happens the complete list is only one quarter complete). I will reduce it to a top 10, which is what other media organisations would reproduce.
-- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!"
20:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 15:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 15:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Municipalities of Switzerland (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, might as well just throw it out, you cannot find anything here anyway. It has over 260 entries mis-sorted, not in alphabetical order, see
Wikipedia:Categorization and
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics). And you likely won't get here anyway, because many of those entries categorized here don't have the redirects to them from the English alphabet spelling without diacritics. They are probably all contained in subcategories anyway.
Gene Nygaard
17:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was list at UCFD -- Kbdank71 15:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Enterprise Linux (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
merge with its parent category
Category:Red Hat; the only article in this cat can be just as easily found in
Category:Red Hat --
Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (
Talk)
16:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Elizabeth Moon (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Nobody else in
Category:American fantasy writers and
Category:American science fiction writers has one, also there is nothing to put in the category but herself and
Category:Elizabeth Moon novels which belongs to - and already is in -
Category:Fantasy books by author, like everybody else's.
Malyctenar
14:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional preteens (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Basically, fictional characters by age is supposed to be a way of categorizing fictional characters by how long they've lived.
Category:Fictional centenarians includes any character over 100 years. It would be feasible to create
Category:Fictional characters over 1000 years old as a subcategory (but it would also be pointless). "Fictional preteens" categorizes characters by their inclusion to a small age group, roughly 11-12. It even described "too old to be considered children", when I would describe preteens AS children. Many characters grow up on television, and pass through preteen phases which makes them warrant inclusion. In fact, any character that's lived to be a preteen should be included. This category baffles me. ~
Zythe
Talk to me!
13:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 15:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Pikmin characters (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Childless category.
Combination
12:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename, only nominator commented, but seems sensible, and no objections were raised. I'll leave a {{ category redirect}}. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Maffei group to Category:IC 342/Maffei Group
The result of the debate was delete, appears to be a duplicate mis-spelt category (two articles in the category; will merge with People from Guildford before deleting). -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:People from Guilford (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
It should be people from Guildford, have moved articles to correct one.
WikiGull
10:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:South Australian parliaments into Category:Members of South Australian parliaments by term
The result of the debate was rename per nom. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 15:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
For spelling consistency please rename Category:Sports organisations to Category:Sports organizations. BR, Brz7 01:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional cowards (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Too subjective. Reached no consensus before, let's try this again. Every fictional character has something cowardly in their histories, even
Superman. This is ridiculous and serves no point to any sort of research. For example,
The Doctor described himself as a coward in one episode, although I doubt anyone would think to add him. It's just silly over-categorization.~
Zythe
Talk to me!
00:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
< October 31 | November 2 > |
---|
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge all the subcategories that have been created back into Category:Earls in the Peerage of England.
Peerage titles in the British Isles are "non-territorial", meaning that the place may have had no real relevance to the person in question. To quote myself on the talk page of
Category:Earls in the Peerage of England, "The placenames mentioned in the title are of little significance. They were allocated more or less at random and the family in question often had little to do with the place. Also the same earldom was often created more than once for different families, but if we were to subcategorise all the peers it would make more sense to do it by family - but there are probably too many complications involved to make that worthwhile. For a start it would have to be done by surname, but the surnames are usually less well known than the titles and they tended to change between generations due to compound names (see
Duke of Portland for example." Another vital point is that some titles were created in more than one peerage (new peerages were created in 1707 on the Act of Union with Scotland, and in 1801 on the Act of Union with Ireland (see
peerage of Great Britain and
Peerage of the United Kingdom), so it follows that if all the articles in
Category:Earls in the Peerage of England were recategorised by place, and those categories were made sdubcategories of
Category:Earls in the Peerage of England numerous factually inaccurate indirect categorisations would occur. To put it is simpler terms, not all earls whose title is taken from a place in England are "Earls in the Peerage of England", some of them are Earls in the Peerage of the United Kingdom or Earls in the Peerage of Great Britain. There are articles for each peerage that put things into context and provide explanatory information that cannot be included in a category.
One of the above (Huntingdon I think) is a recreation of a category previously deleted following my nomination. The previous deletion had the support of the creator of the category.
Carina22
23:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was duplicate, already being deleted -- Kbdank71 18:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!"
11:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
Category:Forbes Global 2000 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
This category is not trustworthy as this list changes every year and there is no way for the reader to know whether all the entries in this extremely incomplete category are correct by the latest list other than to check them one by one. It is also rather dodgy to take another organisations list and reorganise it; I don't see how that stops it being a copright violation. A list can do a much better job, and can be annotated by industry, country, year the figures are for and so on. Wikipedia has its own
List of companies by revenue. It may be incomplete, but it is more complete than this category and it is Wikipedians own work so it is free of copyright problems.
Greg Grahame
22:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Finland-Swedish to Category:Finland Swedish
The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Black people (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Categorisation by skin colour is pernicious, which is perhaps why Wikipedia does not have
Category:White people,
Category:Yellow people,
Category:Brown people or
Category:red people. It is just a perverse form of political bias to treat black people differently. Skin colour does not determine whether people have encyclopedic accomplishments.
Greg Grahame
22:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Finland-Swedes to Category:Swedish-speaking Finns
The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Forbes Most Influential Businessmen (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
There is no information on where this comes from or what the criteria were, making it impossible to assess the reasons why these individuals were chosen, or even whether this is a complete set. Besides that ripping off another publication's list is a bit cheap and perhaps a violation of copyright.
Greg Grahame
21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
No more so than:
That is an article, but it is surely a copyright violation to have a 2complete list", (though as it happens the complete list is only one quarter complete). I will reduce it to a top 10, which is what other media organisations would reproduce.
-- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!"
20:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 15:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 15:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Municipalities of Switzerland (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, might as well just throw it out, you cannot find anything here anyway. It has over 260 entries mis-sorted, not in alphabetical order, see
Wikipedia:Categorization and
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics). And you likely won't get here anyway, because many of those entries categorized here don't have the redirects to them from the English alphabet spelling without diacritics. They are probably all contained in subcategories anyway.
Gene Nygaard
17:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was list at UCFD -- Kbdank71 15:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Enterprise Linux (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
merge with its parent category
Category:Red Hat; the only article in this cat can be just as easily found in
Category:Red Hat --
Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (
Talk)
16:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Elizabeth Moon (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Nobody else in
Category:American fantasy writers and
Category:American science fiction writers has one, also there is nothing to put in the category but herself and
Category:Elizabeth Moon novels which belongs to - and already is in -
Category:Fantasy books by author, like everybody else's.
Malyctenar
14:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional preteens (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Basically, fictional characters by age is supposed to be a way of categorizing fictional characters by how long they've lived.
Category:Fictional centenarians includes any character over 100 years. It would be feasible to create
Category:Fictional characters over 1000 years old as a subcategory (but it would also be pointless). "Fictional preteens" categorizes characters by their inclusion to a small age group, roughly 11-12. It even described "too old to be considered children", when I would describe preteens AS children. Many characters grow up on television, and pass through preteen phases which makes them warrant inclusion. In fact, any character that's lived to be a preteen should be included. This category baffles me. ~
Zythe
Talk to me!
13:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 15:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Pikmin characters (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Childless category.
Combination
12:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename, only nominator commented, but seems sensible, and no objections were raised. I'll leave a {{ category redirect}}. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Maffei group to Category:IC 342/Maffei Group
The result of the debate was delete, appears to be a duplicate mis-spelt category (two articles in the category; will merge with People from Guildford before deleting). -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:People from Guilford (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
It should be people from Guildford, have moved articles to correct one.
WikiGull
10:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:South Australian parliaments into Category:Members of South Australian parliaments by term
The result of the debate was rename per nom. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 15:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
For spelling consistency please rename Category:Sports organisations to Category:Sports organizations. BR, Brz7 01:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional cowards (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Too subjective. Reached no consensus before, let's try this again. Every fictional character has something cowardly in their histories, even
Superman. This is ridiculous and serves no point to any sort of research. For example,
The Doctor described himself as a coward in one episode, although I doubt anyone would think to add him. It's just silly over-categorization.~
Zythe
Talk to me!
00:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
reply