Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 13 August 15 >

August 14[edit]

Category:Limitations on freedom of speech[edit]

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?¿? 00:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the creation of this category appears to be to make a political point on the behalf of the creator, as the category page, category talk page, and the Egale Canada talk page have been turned into a small diatribe against this sole group. It seems to be a concentrated effort to create a small podium from which to complain about another small layer of control upon free speech. There is no indication that the user is planning on adding any other articles into this category. In addition to this, the title carries some minor POV which could not be prevented without a name change. Arcuras 21:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Even if the scope of the category is broadened, it will inherently be POV and will attract vandalism. Besides, the creation of this category is a violation of WP:POINT. Aecis 10:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category is inherently restricted to a particular country and legal code and therefore not useful as is. siafu 17:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Aecis. …Markaci 2005-08-15 T 19:01:28 Z
  • Delete. Agree with all above.--BillC38 01:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Aecis. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure and utter nonsense--I-2-d2 15:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Created for tendentious purposes, and entirely POV. CJCurrie 21:38, 16 August 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.

Rename all Former student's of Foo College, Cambridge → Alumni of Foo College, Cambridge[edit]

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 suggested --Kbdank71 13:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also the parent cat Category:Former students of Cambridge University similarly. The University calls them alumni and alumni is the common term in the UK for describing such a person. Note that some of the Colleges are missing this category altogether so are not under this umbrella CfR. -Splash 19:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support. It's the accepted word and saves on typing. David | Talk 19:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure; "alumni" is, well, rare in the UK IME. Common phrase is "old boys" (and bugger the girls ;-)). We don't generally need to use Latinate phrases to emphasise how secure our culture we have; we a history long enough. :-) Mildly surprised that Camby uses the phrase, actually. James F. (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, old boys isn't the usual phrase used by either the University or the Colleges. Alumni is, see the link I gave below. Old boys/girls is used largely to apply to club members and school membership. And Cambridge uses Latin everywhere from before dinner Graces to Graduation ceremonies! -Splash 15:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Old boy' is the term used for people who have ceased to be pupils at a school, not those who have graduated from a university. Graduates, of course, remain members of the university for life. David | Talk 15:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Alumni is not a very common term in the UK in my opinion. Osomec 14:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google gives 4,160,000 hits for 'Alumni site:.uk'. There are only 219,000 for '"David Beckham" site:.uk'. David | Talk 14:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, [1] uses the word alumni in its first paragraph. The Uni and the Colleges use the word all over the place. No, they're rarely called "old boys/girls" since that applies more usually to ex-club members or ex-school students.
    • On a more important point, whilst I haven't check each entry in each cat, I'd be entirely unsurprised if some of these alumni were never students of the Uni. I expect that at least several of them have only ever been members of their College and the Uni as academic members of staff. This position is complicated further by the awarding of honorary degrees, which make you an alumn but don't need you to have been a student. -Splash 15:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. --Kbdank71 16:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per Splash. siafu 17:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Where in the world do you objectors think the US colleges & universities got the idea to use "alumnus/alumni"?? 12.73.195.211 18:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question leading to an oppose (see below): is a student who dropped out of a college (who would be a "former student") an alumnus? My dictionary claims that to be an alumnus one must have graduated. This might make "former student" the better category — Bill Gates is a former student of Harvard, but is not an alumnus. Nandesuka 12:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • AFAIK, "alumnus" is used commonly to refer to anyone who attended a college or university, even if they did not receive a degree. Steve Jobs is often referred to as an alumnus of Reed College, though he never graduated. siafu 15:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally speaking, and in Cambridge University for a fact, being an alumn implies you have membership of the University but no longer attend the University. Membership is for ever, unless you are expelled, so dropping out doesn't mean you surrender either College or University membership. Thus those members of academic staff who are still at the University and famous are, possibly, not alumni, but the term is not rigidly defined. I would not be averse to removing current academics from the cats as renamed. More importantly, the honorary graduates are members of the University, have degrees (usually higher doctorates) and are alumni, but were never students, so cannot be "former students".-Splash 16:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked it up in the OED which says:
      • A ... graduate or former student of a school, college, or university. Chiefly U.S.
    • so I will change my vote to no opinion; I am weakly opposed to inflicting the US usage on a UK school, but I don't think it's earth-shatteringly important either way. Nandesuka 16:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The OED has its eyes on the wrong side of the atlantic. The American Universities were founded after Cambridge and Oxford had already invented their terminologies, and alumni is the term the University itself uses; see the link i gave further up. -Splash 22:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment doesn't one of the style pages to use English language when possible? The use of Latin for things that have perfectly good English equivelents tend to confuse me at least, someone outside the US/UK seeing things like "alumni" or "alma mater" used instead of "graduate" and "college" or whatever will just go "wft!?". Sounds like a bad case of "omnia dicta fortiora, si dicta latina" to me. It might be widely known in the US, but the readers of the English wikipedia extend beyond that, and I for one find the (IMHO unnessesary) use of "fancy" Latin titles confusing. Not sure if I'm the only one though, so no actual vote at this time. --Sherool 14:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it is not true that 'alumni' is a term unknown in the UK. It is the term usually used in Cambridge to refer to those who studied at the university. David | Talk 10:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said it was unknown in the UK, I said it was unknown outside the US and UK. Besides we should use a term that most people understand, not just people who have attended Cambridge. What is wrong with just using "Cambridge graduates" or some such instead? it's infinately less confusing for us "outsiders". --Sherool 11:56, 18 August 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:Censored Anime[edit]

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 (no consensus). ∞Who?¿? 00:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The category is not NPOV, and a lot of anime series that come over to the U.S. get edits. WhisperToMe 19:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Fact is, yes, changes are made, but those are mostly localization issues, not gross edits or rewrites. Edits for the TV broadcast are one thing, it's done to everything. This category is meant for those series/movies/oavs that the distributors go the extra mile with in editing: changing characters, removing scenes/dialog, changing concepts, dumbing down, etc. see Censorship of Anime. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:43, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
    • That's not what "censored" means, though - it in fact refers to the "edits for the TV broadcast" that you're referring to. Calling a re-edit "censorship" is grossly POV. On the other hand, the category as envisioned would be useful if renamed: perhaps something like Category:Significantly edited anime? —Cryptic (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This category is meant for those series/movies/oavs that the distributors go the extra mile with in editing: changing characters, removing scenes/dialog, changing concepts, dumbing down, etc. " And that happens all of the time! Besides, this isn't a U.S.-only Wikipedia. You need to establish a context. The editing isn't happening in... Japan! Actually, anime series get edited for Japanese broadcast too! While I'm at it, I could add almost any anime series to this! Rename it to something else.. maybe "Category:Anime aired on U.S. television", because it is a given that edits will happen on U.S. TV. Also, deciding which anime series are "butchered" is POV. WhisperToMe 02:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, for reasons Cyberskull stated.--Mitsukai 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Notice I voted twice, like a dork. Correct vote is below. ^_^;;;--Mitsukai 01:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if renamed. Radiant_>|< 10:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Up-Merge into Category:Anime. --Kbdank71 16:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Kbdank71. This category is not apparently about censorship, and under the current definition could be construed far too broadly. siafu 17:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Category:Controversially-edited manga and anime. The same edits happen in manga as well (CMX' edits of Tenjho Tenge have been making the rounds lately) and by doing this, we can expand the article itself to cover manga edits, too. The renamed cat can easily sit in the manga and anime cats, and that should solve the problem.--Mitsukai 15:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV title and useless as a categorization tool. Adding context to the articles themselves and to the (also POV titled) Censorship of Anime article would be much more useful. -Sean Curtin 00:37, August 17, 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.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater[edit]

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 13:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't approve of these Wikipedian categories, but if people want them, this one needs a new name because it is American English. "Alma Mater" is very little used in the UK, and very likely unfamiliar in many other countries. I suggest category:Wikipedians by university or college. The subcategories should be changed too. Osomec 11:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong agree per WP:CSB. Radiant_>|< 13:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC) Listify and delete. Radiant_>|< 10:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. We don't use alma mater over here at all, really.Listify and delete per other votes. -Splash 17:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No vanity pages should mean no vanity pages. Period. 12.73.195.15 19:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have a list of Wikipedians by alma mater and I don't think it should be a category as well. Although I have to say I'm from the UK and I've always understood what it meant, though perhaps I do like latin more than the average person. David | Talk 19:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming is fine by me. There's a project turning the lists into categories, so it shouldn't be deleted entirely. -- Beland 13:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename. This is a user category, just like the million other Wikipedia user categories. If people want it, they can have it. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 15:17
  • Delete as per David. --Kbdank71 16:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List is quite sufficient. siafu 17:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom, stick to English when at all possible. As also noted there is Wikipedia:User categorisation project currently turning the various lists of Wikipedians into categories because they are easier to manage (people need only edit theyr own userpage). Personaly I don't think "Wikipedian" categories hould be held to the same strict standards as the ones used in the main namespace, if you don't read userpages you'll never see them anyway. --Sherool 14:13, 17 August 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:Swiss battles[edit]

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 and delete/rename subs. ∞Who?¿? 00:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category has been split in Category:Battles of Switzerland and Category:Battles in Switzerland. I am actually trying to clean the Category:Battles by country and its subcategories which is a mess : Battles are listed in wrong countries with wrong protagonists, ... . Basically, I am trying to have a standardization. I propose :

"Battles in ######1" for Battles which took place IN the actual country #####1. "Battles of ######2" for Battles in which the country/city/people ######2 participates.

If you have any comment, suggestion or want to help, feel free to pass by my talk page.

Poppypetty 09:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summary :

Request for change switch :

This last example is different and should show you well enough how a mess it is.


Request for deletion (empty and have been split):

Poppypetty 21:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Osomec 11:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, that sounds ok to me, and is likely also to be supported by Wikipedia:Category titles. -Splash 17:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kirill Lokshin | Talk 18:03, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Support. --Kbdank71 16:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Commment "Battles in Switzerland" sounds ok to to me, but "Battles of Switzerland" seems a bit anachronistic. -- User:Docu
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.

Early year meta-categories[edit]

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?¿? 00:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are too sparse, usually they have exactly one article, the timeline for the period. Articles should be just put directly in the immediate parent category. -- Beland 08:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. One article (or zero articles) do not make a category. -Splash 17:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Splash. --Kbdank71 16:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in order to have the same cut-off for the category as for year/decade/century pages. -- User:Docu
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:Electricity[edit]

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. ∞Who?¿? 00:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is too broad to fit in well with the other subcategories of Category:Electromagnetism, which include narrower and more useful categories like electrical power, electrostatics, etc. Category:Electromagnetism needs to have a lot of articles sorted into subcategories anyway, so the contents of this category can either be temporarily dumped there, or sorted directly into more appropriate subcategories. -- Beland 05:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I feel inclined to keep this and make it into a supercat for the other cats you mention. It seems natural for Category:Electromagnetism to have subcats Category:Electricity and Category:Magnetism. Gah, why are so many electrical engineering cats in such messes? -Splash 17:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Splash (a specialist). To question above: I guess its result of missing quality control. Computer-related categories is are mess too. Pavel Vozenilek 02:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Splash. siafu 18:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was reorganizing Category:Electromagnetism, and peaked into the Category:Electricity subcat, and I think most of the articles inside should be moved to other categories. As splash pointed out this could be used to organize the cats under Category:Electromagnetism, although I'm not sure how useful that will be. Salsb 01:10, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Splash. But the Electricity category should be used only for stuff that's electricity, as opposed to magnetism, in the sense of a scientific phenomenon. -- SCZenz 14:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Splash. Also note that not all electricity is caused from Electromagnetism, the flow of electrons can be achieved in many ways, chemical, solar, etc. so it would be definately mis-cat'd by sticking all of them under Category:Electromagnetism. ∞Who?¿? 23:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To an extent, yes. However, wherever an electrical current flows there will be both an electric field and a magnetic field, so you can't have electricity without electromagnetism. Technical, irrelevant point, I know. -Splash 06:02, 19 August 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:Electricity safety[edit]

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:Electrical safety. ∞Who?¿? 00:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It only has one article. -- Beland 05:16, 14 August 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:Pokémon items[edit]

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?¿? 00:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested for deletion. After merges, this category ended up with a total of three articles in it. Since it has already been listified anyway, it serves no purpose that the parent category does not. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -Splash 17:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No argument. siafu 18:22, 15 August 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:Fire alarm stubs[edit]

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:SFD. ∞Who?¿? 00:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested for deletion. There is already a fire alarms category that covers these kinds of articles. In practice, the same articles were listed in both the stubs category and the parent (fire alarms) category, making the stubs category a duplicate. Schuminweb 04:09, 14 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_14&oldid=1110182487"