Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 9 September 11 >

September 10[edit]

Category:Wong Kar-Wai films → Category:Films directed by Wong Kar-wai[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. ∞Who?¿? 01:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To conform to naming in article Wong Kar-wai, which is according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Names.-Ajshm 21:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Actually his name should be spelt "Wong Kar Wai", the normal practice on Hong Kong identity cards. — Instantnood 18:09, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • COMMENT that policy is weird, it doesn't conform to HK standard, or the way that overseas North American Chinese write their name. 132.205.45.110 19:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I encourage both of you to take up this issue on the discussion page, Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese). I don't think we should change naming conventions on CFD, so to the extent we vote here it makes sense to vote in accordance with the existing conventions. But if you are going to raise the issue over there, perhaps we should table this rename to give that conversation some time to occur? Nandesuka 00:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The naming conventions already have "Tung Chee Hwa" as an example. "Wong Kar Wai" is not a transliteration based on Wade Giles. — Instantnood 07:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per CFD discussion the clear preference is the format Films directed by director, so Category:Films directed by Wong Kar-Wai (or Kar Wai, or what have you) is in order. - choster 05:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
Wong Kar Wai = the HK way, and what he uses himself.
Wong Kar-wai = used in most scholarly sources on film, and apparently on Wikipedia

But this CFR is only about renaming one category to conform to the use of the name in all other articles. If at a later time we decide to change all references to Wong Kar Wai, so be it.

Also to pick up on the previous comment, if we look at the Category:Films by director, most seem to be in the format "Foo films" and not "Films directed by Foo", but don't know which one is correct. It was voted to "rename all" but the vote is not closed? Anyway, I revised my suggestion. -Ajshm 08:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • THIS IS NOT A SPEEDY. It needs to be listed properly, and this debate moved into the relevant section. I'm not doing it myself to avoid people thinking I've actioned the debate. -Splashtalk 23:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved from speedy to the original entry date. ∞Who?¿? 01:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. My personal preference would be to write Chinese names in pinyin or pinyin without tone marks, all else being equaly (e.g. Li Li Yong instead of Li-Young Lee). However, it would be pretty stupid to rename the category to not match the article and the current Wikipedia naming convention. siafu 02:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note article name is spelled Wong Kar-wai, so will go with that name. ∞Who?¿? 01:38, 18 September 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:Rugby league[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 KEEP. That is quite enough of that! -Splash 01:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Rugby league is a minor regional sport that deserves one article to explain its rules, history and main competitions. However, it is evident that its apologists intend to create a massive spread of articles about it on the lines of major sports with which it cannot possibly compete. This is a waste of space and is totally inappropriate to the encyclopaedic purposes of Wikipedia. The article Rugby League is more than sufficient and any more than that should be deleted. Indeed, it could be argued that the section on rugby league in the Rugby football article is sufficient mention of a sport that is an insignificant offshoot of the major sport of rugby union.Jack 20:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Bad faith nomination based on the antagonism between rugby league and rugby union. CalJW 20:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per CalJW. It's just as much of a sport as union. Or cricket, for that matter. Sam Vimes 21:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Main article Rugby league should be included in category:Rugby football. The sport is a minor variation of rugby with an insignificant global spread. Even in the UK, it has been reliably estimated to have less than 100,000 supporters. To say it is a major sport alongside cricket, soccer or rugby union is nonsense. It is no more significant than hundreds of other minority interest activities except that it has managed to acquire for itself a disproportionate media presence. To allow such a wide category spread for this activity sets a precedent for all minority interests and the result will be that WP is swamped with inconsequential material. To say that the nomination is bad faith is out of order because rugby union is unquestionably a major global sport and RL is anything but: it seems to me that the bad faith emanates from the RL apologists who are attempting to give this sport an importance that in reality it does not have at all. The original suggestion that it deserves an article in the rugby football category is a realistic approach and should be adopted. --GeorgeWilliams 10:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? According to the Wikipedia article Rugby league in England, there's 62,463 registered players, and 51,420 people go to stadiums each week to watch actual matches. That's about 100,000 who are dedicated to the sport. In Australia, 144,000 watch matches every week [1]. Rugby league is also defined as one of the major four team *sports on the BBC Sport website. From an Australian point of view, you could argue that it's union which is the minor sport only played in one region. Sam Vimes 11:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. On a cricket forum I'm member of, there was a thread on the Tri Nations rugby union series. It got 120 posts. [2]. In the same time, the thread on the National Rugby League [3] got 347. I wonder what that suggests about what people care about? Sam Vimes 11:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Furthermore, I have looked at the category and it contains several empty articles such as Rugby league in Argentina which can never be completed because RL is not played competitively in those countries and has only ever taken place there as a minor "foreign culture" exhibition piece. This is absurd. You might as well allow Tiddlywinks in Bhutan as an article! --GeorgeWilliams 10:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that one does seem a bit odd. However, we do have Afghan cricket team... Sam Vimes 11:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Afghan cricket scene is not at all surprising when you remember that the country was occupied by Great Britain for long periods in the 19th Century and that British influence prevailed until well into the 20th Century. Not forgetting its border with cricket-loving Pakistan, of course.
But the suggestion that these RL articles are authentic is nonsense:
I have a Jamaican friend who says there is absolutely no way that RL is played in the West Indies, definitely not in Jamaica, though he admits it might have been exhibited there but there are no competitions and no interest whatsoever. He says RU is played but on a very minor scale. He says that it is true that many West Indians in England have played RL but that is a bit different to the sport being played in their former homelands. You have to be very careful reading the claims of RL people.
A few years ago, I worked with an Argentinian IT contractor who was an RU player and big fan of the Pumas. I distinctly remember talking to him about RL as the alternative rugby code and he had never even heard of it. He stated that it is definitely not played in Argentina. Indeed, he said the playball procedure is completely illogical because it prevents players from contesting the ball, which is one of the basic tenets of football. I remember this because he is the first person who ever made that point to me and I hadn't thought of it like that before.
I've also spoken to an American I know who hails from New England, the area of the USA where RL would probably be played if it is. He says he knows of RU being played there but not a 13 a side game, though he can't be 100% certain. Okay, so that's not quite conclusive. He also said he is not aware of RL being played in Canada, though RU definitely is: in fact, RU is developing quite well in Canada.
As for the other countries, I do not know but I suspect it is the same tale and that an odd exhibition game has been held at some Sunday fete or whatever.
RL attendances. Okay, so they have 62,463 players and they claim 51,420 weekly spectators. The spectator figure is an old total because the attendances have fallen quite badly this year and the current average is a little over 40,000 per weekend. The vast majority of the 62,463 players are amateurs who play on Saturdays and it is an undisputed fact, even among RL people themselves, that most of these amateur players go to watch pro or semi-pro games on Friday night or Sunday afternoon so there is a huge overlap between their two figures of 62,463 and 51,420. There is another factor here, which is that many RL fans go to two matches each weekend. Top clubs like Leeds and Wigan often play on Friday night and many of their fans go to watch another game on the Sunday afternoon as well. Which means the number of active adherents is somewhat less than 100,000 individuals. The Times survey mentioned earlier reckoned about 100,000 including casual fans who go to a couple of matches a year plus tagging on to cup final trips. Whichever way you look at it, this a very minor activity indeed with a minimal spread in England alone, let alone globally.
Less than 100,000 people follow the sport that loudly proclaims itself as The Greatest Game and claims to be the "national sport of Yorkshire and Lancashire", if you please. There are 10 million people in Yorkshire and Lancashire and less than 1% follows RL. These grandiose claims are, in Wikipedia terms, POV and very much so. According to WP policy re the notability of subjects and the desire to keep things in perspective, I stand by my view that RL should have one article on WP to describe the rules and background and that this should be in a rugby football category, most of which should be dedicated to the parent sport of rugby union which does have a nationwide presence in the UK and does exist on a global scale. --Jack 14:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This is ridiculous. It is sad that there are still some people who haven't got over this antagonism. This is not the place to argue for the deletion of articles, and all or nearly all of the rugby league articles would survive nomination on Articles for deletion - probably about the same proportion as for rugby union. In my opinion this nomination and the subsequent pointless argument breaches WP:POINT. Osomec 17:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Rugby league is also defined as one of the four major team sports in the United Kingdom by Wikipedia's Sport in the United Kingdom article. The abuse of statistics above is silly - one could just as easily make a case that football is a minor sport in the UK by comparing the number of people who pay to see the game live with the total population. There are thousands of categories less signficant than this one. Carina22 17:43, 11 September 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:Permanent Residents of Hell[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?¿? 01:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly stupid and purely subjective category of no conceivable encyclopedic value. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:59, 10 September 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:Digital Art[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 rename. ∞Who?¿? 21:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Digital Art to Category:Digital art for proper capitalization. >>sparkit|TALK<< 17:24, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Support. Nandesuka 18:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh! My intent was to list this for speedy rename. Apparently I missed my mark. >>sparkit|TALK<< 20:56, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
That's cool, the msg was mainly for everyone, not necessarily you :) ∞Who?¿? 00:29, 11 September 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:Adult Entertainment[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:Erotic entertainment. ∞Who?¿? 01:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming to Category:Adult entertainment to fix capitalization. tregoweth 16:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Fixing the capitalization is good and I'd support it. This may be more than you wanted to discuss, and I'm happy to drop the issue, but: I have this prejudice against the term "adult entertainment" as both non-descriptive and euphemistic. "Oh, adult entertainment? Maybe Terms of Endearment will be there...whoops!" I know that everyone knows what it means, but I'd have a vague preference to rename this to something that honestly describes its true nature, which everyone understands to be sexual in nature (for descriptive, not censorship purposes). "Erotic entertainment", perhaps? Nandesuka 18:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The movie "Terms of Endearment" is most certainly not a form of adult entertainment. The term "adult entertainment" is the official name of the industry, of which (among other things) go-go bars, pornography, and Burlesque are sub-categories. The name "Adult Entertainment" is a noun, I will change the capitalization to conform with Wikipedia standards shortly. Thanks. Max Spades 12:05, 15 September 2005 (EST)
  • Rename per Nandesuka, I couldn't think of any current adult entertainment that is not erotic, and is definately less ambigous for the current contents. ∞Who?¿? 20:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Rename as "Erotic entertainment" or "Erotica in entertainment". Nothing adult (mature) about most of the stuff that would be covered anyway; that's just a grossly, intentionally misleading euphemism for porn, the continued use of which is simply confusing to young people. 12.73.198.3 13:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pornography is a subset of the "Adult Entertainment" industry, which consists of many parts, including non-'Erotica' categories. I will add these as we develop this category further. Thank you. Max Spades 12:13, 15 September 2005 (EST)
  • Rename per Nandesuka. "Adult" is a not at all satisfying euphemism, and wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Here, we can say porn. Porn porn porn. Of course, the category is a bit broader than that, so "Erotic entertainment" would be better. siafu 22:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename category:Erotic entertainment. I know Wikipedia started out in the office of a porn company, but I don't think that the policy should be taken to mean "Wikipedia has no sense of decency and never shows the slightest restraint." Much of the material in this category would be unworthy of inclusion even if there were no children in the world. CalJW 18:07, 14 September 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:Surf[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. ∞Who?¿? 01:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subcategory of Category:Pop music genres, but is far better served by Category:Surf music. See Talk:Surf rock. Andrewa 09:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely support. Nandesuka 18:48, 10 September 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:Historic floods[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?¿? 01:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing Category:Historic floods for deletion because during a reorganisation of this category it has become empty. I think I should have asked for a merge instead, but recategorised about 10 articles to Category:Floods. Looking at the list at the Special:All Pages link, restricting to Category namespace, and putting 'Historic' in the search box, there seem to be quite a few Categories with the description 'Historic', some of which seem logical, some of which aren't. I see no reason to have 'Historic floods' instead of the simpler 'Floods', as I presume all floods with an article in Wikipedia should be notable anyway.

  • Carcharoth 00:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although some categories may use historic, titles should not contain words like: famous, historic, etc. These are inferred, as they have encyclopedic entries. ∞Who?¿? 20:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would guess that most of the categories named "Historic" simply mean "Historical" (not contemporary), and can be individually nominated for renaming as such. -- Reinyday, 03:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Who. siafu 22:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_10&oldid=1122039950"