Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 3

< November 2	November 4 >

November 3[edit]

Category:Counties in Northern Ireland to Category:Ceremonial counties of Northern Ireland[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:Counties of Northern Ireland --Kbdank71 15:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first reason is to use the more appropriate of rather than in in the category, my second reason is that whilst "ceremonial counties" is not popularly used with respect to Northern Ireland it is none-the-less their best description, as they have no administrative status and can hardly be described as traditional counties. The category Category:Counties of Ireland is already used to categorise the counties of that part of Ireland and should a Northern Ireland category remain then it is only right that it should attempt to better specify the status of the counties rather than being a kind of subcat or duplicate category. Djegan 21:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as proposed. It is somewhat off that there is even a question mark over whether Northern Ireland should have separate counties. CalJW 00:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly move to Category:Counties of Northern Ireland: the term "ceremonial counties" is not used and the counties do not have a "ceremonial" status as such. If anything they are "historical" or "traditional", but I don't see any reason to add a qualifier, as the actual administrative districts are not known as counties. In respect of Northern Ireland, when the term "county" is used, it always refers to the traditional county. --Ryano 00:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Their are only two official capacities (of which I know) in which the counties are used in Northern Ireland are used the first is the Postcode Address File of Royal Mail (in which counties usage is not manditory[1]) and second the Lord-Lieutenant system used in the United Kingdom. Neither of these, in themselves, justify the current category which is simply a subcategory of Category:Counties of Ireland and theirfore should a category remain it is only proper that it should attempt use a better discriptor, viz ceremonial counties as is used in the England and Wales for the Lord-Lieutenant system. Djegan 19:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Ryano. Arniep 01:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Counties of Northern Ireland. Counties are non-ceremonial in several capacities, such as Gaelic Athletic Association teams, and still officially recognized in such recent iconoclature as the logo of the Stormont Assembly. The Tom 22:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Counties of Northern Ireland as per User:Ryano and User: The Tom -Mayumashu 13:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Counties of Northern Ireland as per Ryano and The Tom, although no real objection to a delete if people feel the subcategorisation is unnecessary. "Ceremonial counties" may accurately express their legal status but is a relatively abstruse term and they occupy a significant place in popular culture, history etc in which regard they are generally referred to as counties. Palmiro | Talk 18:03, 6 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:Muslim criminals[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 14:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category only has a single member and doesn't seem particularly useful. Are we going to categorize every criminal by religious affiliation? - SimonP 19:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it servers no usefull purpose. It is also a bad idea, we don't need lists of christian, jewish, hindu, atheist, satanic, wiccan or whatever criminals. Religion is very rarely a notable trait in any criminal, categorising them by political views would be better (not that I'm suggesting we do that!). --Sherool 22:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy dele. Manifestly anti-Muslim POV twaddle. 12.73.194.215 01:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO, none of that qualifies it for Speedy. Still, I vote to Delete it. TexasAndroid 17:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arniep 01:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Sherool. Palmiro | Talk 20:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm opposed to most <religion> <people> cats in general, and this one is particularly onerous (it's not complemented by Category:Christian criminals, Category:Buddhist criminals, Category:Hindu criminals, &c.). siafu 22:37, 7 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:Scottish people by traditional county[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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Scottish people by council area. On 30 October a whole series of duplicate categories were created: they are based on local govt areas that became defunct in 1975! There are a whole raft of reasons why this is not a good idea. The subcats Category:Natives of Stirlingshire, Category:Natives of Wigtownshire, Category:Natives of Banffshire, Category:Natives of Kincardineshire, Category:Natives of Perthshire, Category:Natives of Inverness-shire, Category:Natives of Ayrshire should also be merged into their various modern descendants (but please note, NOT Category:Natives of Renfrewshire (which is also a much smaller modern council area), Category:Natives of Fife, or Category:Natives of Aberdeenshire (much bigger today), [[Category:Natives of West Lothian]], or Category:Natives of Clackmannanshire, as these are all modern local government divisions).

Comment: What to do with people who died before the present-day council areas were drawn? — Instantnood 20:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is an issue with every single Wikipedia classification by political units, because all political units have a start date, and all have had (or will have) an end date. Take states for example: Leonardo da Vinci was never a subject or citizen of a state called Italy, but you will find him in Wikipedia under subcats of Category:Italian people. The same goes for Beethoven, Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, Walter Raleigh, Alexander III of Scotland, and probably thousands of other biographical articles: Wikipedia categorises them under political units that did not exist in their lifetimes. The same should apply to local government units (which tend to be even shorter-lived than states): the supercategorisation should be by the modern units, and certainly not by a local government system that was abolished over 30 years ago. As time goes on these categories, Category:Scottish people by traditional county, are going to become more and more anachronistic.--Mais oui! 09:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the clarification to the proposal. Merge as proposed. — Insta ntnood 10:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unmerged. i was away two days and missed where the user who s proposed this deletion asked for objections for doing so on the Wikipedia Talk: Scottish Wikipedians' notice board. the talk of the three other users (including myself) there indicates a broad agreement that categorising Scottish people by council area lacks sense given that they only came into existence in 1996 and that people tend not to be familiar with them or identify with them as places of their origin, and that traditional counties or similar lieutenancy areas are a better bases for catting. points to consider - 99% of Scottish people with pages on wikipedia did not grow up in a council area and are therefore not "native" to one. therefore, if we re going to get rid of anything, it should be Category:Scottish people by council area (not my proposal however). at any rate Scottish people who passed away prior to 1996 can in no possible way be said to have been native to a council area; da Vinci was not from an Italy true but is ethnically Italian in the exact sense that present-day Italians are said to be and therefore should be catted under Category:Italian people and not under Category:Natives of Italy; for Scots born after 1995, the Council area cats should be used (ideally) - Mayumashu 13:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed. Categorisation is supposed to be about putting info into clear boxes, not about peoples 'identification' with a geographical or political unit. We should use one system only (the current overlapping set up is confusing as you might have to look in two places to find the person you want), and to me the current council areas make most sense, at least then we can be precise. Lieutenancy Areas are obscure in the extreme. The trad. counties are OK, but as someone pointed out on WP:SCOWNB, Glasgow is within the old Lanarkshire. Let's keep things clear cut and as simple as posible :: Supergolden 17:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment there's nothing unclear about using trad. counties and no, identification does mean something (especially as long as there is clarity too) - why not get both things in one. the Glasgow / Lanarkshire point is a good one - therefore the best choice using is lieutenancy areas, trad. counties is second, and council areas a poor choice. there s nothing obscure about the areas represented as lieutenancy areas - they have essentially the same borders as trad. counties (with simpler names, minus the suffix 'shire') with large cities with their own separate areas. as suggested by another user on the Scotland wikipedians notice board, they re the best choice. let s keep trad counties until we ve got lieutenancy counties cats up and running - Mayumashu 04:52, 8 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:Players who appeared in West Indian cricket to Category:Players in West Indian domestic cricket by team[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 nominated --Kbdank71 14:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the form used for the other categories of this type. CalJW 03:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Sam Vimes 18:40, 4 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:Blink 182 singles[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 speedy deleted. «»Who ?¿?^meta 04:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, already exists at Category:Blink-182 singles sec fan 08:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete empty, mis-spelled cat. --Sherool 22:38, 3 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:Blink 182 songs[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 speedy deleted. «»Who ?¿?^meta 04:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, already exists at Category:Blink-182 songs sec fan 08:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete mis-spelled category, only contains one subcast that is listed above and should be speedied too. --Sherool 22:41, 3 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.