Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 17 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_17

< November 16	November 18 >

November 17

Category:American stuff

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep all WP:POINT nominations by Arniep (who has now been blocked for a massive disruptive deletion campaign, check AFD for more bad stuff). R adiant _>|< 12:25, 18 November 2005 (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.

Category:Wealthy fictional characters

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 14:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this category is? Arniep 17:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no point. Arniep 17:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting and it doesn't do any harm. Honbicot 12:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category would have lots of different characters, which have little or no other connections. Scrooge McDuck, Batman, Ali Baba (he became rich), lots of fictional royals... Using a category to create a set of wealthy fictional characters is overdoing it. Nonrelevant categories consume space in article pages, and make finding the relevant categories more difficult. Perhaps this could be a list. -Hapsiainen 15:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added Mr Darcy. These articles are unlikely to be in large numbers of categories. CalJW 16:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless. --Vizcarra 12:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't have homework to do, so this is more useful to me than Category:Chemical synthesis Osomec 14:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment is it really intended that every wealthy character in every book, play, or film every created should go in this list? Is there a category of fictional poor people, fictional comfortably off people?! Arniep 18:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is impossible to define because wealth is relative; would we include say the butcher in Fiddler on the Roof because he was regarded as rich by others in the village? - RachelBrown 22:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I want to vote keep because this really made me laugh, but its just too nutty. And I fear the next step would be Category:Wealthy Jewish fictional characters. --JJay 08:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of another one- the giant (or was he an ogre?) from Jack and the Beanstalk, every fictional royal and aristocrat in any book, film, tv programme ever published etc. etc. Arniep 17:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rich folks are interesting. Golfcam 16:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly ill-defined. Arguably pointless. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lighten up please people. This is harmless, and I dare say the fictional presentation of wealth even has some academic significance, or should do. Carina22 20:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I expect everyone who voted keep on this to contribute to a new category Poor fictional characters, lets see Charlie Bucket, Pip, Oliver Twist oh wait they all became well off later on! damn :-(( Arniep 23:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment Arniep wrote me to say that some people might put kind-of-rich-but-not-very-rich characters in it and then it would get too big, so now I think it should be called category:Super rich fictional characters. Golfcam 15:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment OK... how would you define super rich? Arniep 19:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak DeleteToo many categories relating to fictional characters as it is.Vulturell 20:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too ill-defined. Poetlister 22:02, 23 November 2005 (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.

Category:Arrested Development characters

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 14:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only contains four articles, three of which I have tagged for merge into Characters from Arrested Development. See also TFD for the related template. sjorford mmmmm 11:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of ___ characters categories. --Vizcarra 07:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a cool show. Golfcam 15:32, 24 November 2005 (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.

Category:User ch-N

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 moved to WP:TFD --Kbdank71 14:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Category:User zh, except non-standard (uses english abbreviation of Chinese, "ch" rather than Chinese, and standard WP abbreviation of Chinese, "zh") and unpopulated. The template should go too, as a duplicate of Template:User zh et al. Blackcap | talk 09:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a connected template, then it really should go up on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion instead of here. TFD is set up to deal with categories attached to templates. CFD is not set up to handle tempates attached to categories. - TexasAndroid 14:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing? CfD doesn't deal with categories that have templates? I don't mind taking this to TfD, but I figured that at the very least, the template should go there and the category should go here. Blackcap | talk 20:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I've gone and listed it on WP:TFD. Blackcap (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP for users who are of the Chamorro language, which the associated Category:User ch is used for, get rid of the spurious Chinese entries. 132.205.93.33 21:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I see two problems with that: the first is, in Chamorro, does Chamorro start with "ch?" If it doesn't, then this doesn't apply to them (I should mention that it appears that it does, but I'm not sure). Second problem is that I'm not sure that we have any Chamorro speaking Wikipedians, so it might be a pointless category. Of course, if these concerns are answered I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be kept, although, as you say, the template, either way, should be deleted or re-written to accomodate the new language. If we don't have any Chamorro-speaking Wikipedians who wish to use this template, than we can't even write it and thus it's thouroughly pointless, so first you'd have to find if we have any Chamorro-speakers. Blackcap (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - O.K. "ch" is the ISO 639 code for Chamorro, so if we have any Chamorro-speakers, then I'd support this. Blackcap (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - All-right, it looks like someone speaks it enough to write a template, so I fully support this. Blackcap (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2005 (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.

Category:Aviary to Category:Aviaries

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 14:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be pluralised in line with usual practice. CalJW 04:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay What's up with this one? No one else voted in 5 days! Golfcam 16:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (could have been speedy). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2005 (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.

Libraries in the United States

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 13:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Libraries in the United States and a few of its subcategories use the standard "in" form for man made objects in line with the subcategories of Category:Libraries by country, but many of them don't:

Rename all CalJW 03:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all as per nom. - Darwinek 13:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - this recategorisation and all similar ones are a complete waste of time. New York City public libraries is perfectly understandable and it better because it is shorter than the proposed rename. STopCat 16:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a waste of time to apply consistent policies as any professionally edited encyclopedia would do. CalJW 11:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not an ordinary encyclopedia with a single editor. This encyclopedia cannot by its nature be consistent. The original category names are better and the majority of readers would agree with me STopCat 12:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is why standards are important. It's really hard for editors to find and fix problems if they don't know what the correct form of the category entry is without having to do research. Vegaswikian 06:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as per nominator. I fail to see how shorter is better for category names. —Cleared as filed. 04:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all for consistency. Honbicot 12:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Don't use nouns as adjectives. Carina22 17:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all More consistent with "Fairfax County Public Library" and such. Nouns are not being used as adjectives here. --Vizcarra 12:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all I don't get the previous user's point at all. Osomec 14:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename because you didn't understand my point? That's interesting. --Vizcarra 20:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all for the above reasons. Vegaswikian 00:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Golfcam 16:27, 22 November 2005 (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.

Category:Northern Indian Ocean tropical cyclones and Category:Northern Indian Ocean tropical cyclone seasons

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 14:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted. These have already been renamed (I didn't know about {{cfr}}); the discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones#List_of_Pacific_typhoon_seasons_and_North_Indian_cyclones. Jdorje 01:05, 17 November 2005 (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.

Category:Mythological Indian weapons to Category:Mythological Hindu weapons

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 to Category:Weapons in Hindu mythology --Kbdank71 14:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's Indian-related doesn't mean it's Hindu. --Dangerous-Boy 06:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Should be Category:Weapons in Hindu mythology. R adiant _>|< 00:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea --Dangerous-Boy 06:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I started the category, and immediately thought that something like Category:Weapons in Hindu mythology would be a better idea. I couldn't find, however, I way to rename a category. deeptrivia 16:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The way to rename a category is to list it here, because it's slightly tricky to do so. R adiant _>|< 23:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Category:Weapons in Hindu mythology. - TexasAndroid 17:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Category:Weapons in Hindu mythology. Osomec 14:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's rename it now! I can't see any possible objections. deeptrivia 16:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Category:Weapons in Hindu mythology. Bhoeble 13:00, 23 November 2005 (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.