Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 5

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was relist 12 Oct 2006, cat wasn't tagged --Kbdank71 13:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:School massacres in the United States to Category:School shootings in the United States

• Rename, The term "massacre" is generally understood to mean "The intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people." [1] Most (if not all) of the articles in this category have a kill count no higher than ~20 or so, and some only involved as little as one death (not counting the perpetrator). When compared to Category:Massacres (also currently up for deletion [2]), which mostly lists events that killed hundreds of thousands or millions of people, you can see that the term "school massacres" comes off as more of a POV opinion than as a hard fact. As such, I recommend a rename to Category:School shootings in the United States. (Note that one or two articles may end up being removed under this rename scheme, as they were bombings, not shootings.) --Aaron 23:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, but for different reasons. Anecdotally, "school shooting" seems to be much more common in the mass media than "school massacre" (e.g. [3] vs [4]; compare also various major news outlets listings of "school shooting incidents" and the like).-choster 23:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename; good reasoning here, and will hopefully set a precedent for future article naming for these sorts of events. -/- Warren 00:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename; not opposed to proposed solution, but has Category:Killings at schools in the United States been given any thought? That would allow the bombing article to remain in the category. Just a thought, but definitely not opposed to proposal.—Chidom ^talk  03:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion: perhaps a broader scope, such as Category:Crimes on school campuses, or Category:Homicides on school campuses? Her Pegship 05:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Murders at schools in the United States. Murders should be separated out here as they already are elsewhere in the category system, but there is no need to exclude any that didn't involve guns. Edton 11:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Recury 13:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "killings". Massacre is an emotionally laden term and unsuited for categorization. >Radiant< 13:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to killings - In addition to the above comments, also consider that it's theoretically possible (though fortunately hasn't happened) for someone to use weapons other than guns to go on a killing spree in a school. For instance, if someone went and blew up grenades or stabbed ten people, as a reader I'd probably want that article to be included in the same category as shootings. Therefore renaming to killings allows for a broader variety of articles on basically the same subject (hopefully a category that will remain as small as possible). Dugwiki 15:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to murders per Edton. Piccadilly 20:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but to Category:Violent incidents at schools in the United States per parent category. Note that the 'head' article is school massacre, also POV, and should probably be moved. I would prefer that there not be a separate category for the one or two non-gun-related incidents such as the Bath school disaster, which was a bombing and the highest death toll of any school violence in the US. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:School shootings in the United States, per nom. I don't think that there have been any knife or other weapon "massacres" at schools, for one thing. Second, it's clear, as opposed to a kid getting a black eye on the playground (incidents). And third, "murder" should be avoided, since it involves court proceedings (and thus citations - which would mean listifying). I also note that there is already a discussion about massacre" on the Oct 4 CfD. - jc37 21:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC) (updated per the below comments by User:Carcharoth - jc37 15:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Objection - no CfD template has been placed on the page. Carcharoth 11:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please read the relevant talk pages!!! - This discussion was an offshoot of the discussion on the massacres category. Someone then appears to have started this discussion on an American subcategory, without bothering to look around and see that there is a parent category: Category:School massacres, which is what should properly be discussed. If that had been done, then people could have read the relevant talk pages of the parent category. Please see Category_talk:School_massacres. That demonstrates that there are indeed many school killings that are not purely gun-related or gun-related at all. Examples are (weapon in brackets): Beslan_school_hostage_crisis (explosives); Ma'alot massacre (explosives); Bath_School_disaster (explosives); Poe Elementary School Attack (explosives); Cologne School Massacre (flamethrower and lance); Osaka school massacre (knife). Thus 'killings' is preferable to 'shootings'. Carcharoth 11:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:School killings in the United States and list other similar categories, including the parent category Category:School massacres, and the other subcategories of this category, for renaming. Please, can the closing admin notify the moving/renaming admin to use the 'move' function on the relevant talk pages to move them across as well, thus preserving comments like the one I point out above. Carcharoth 11:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment please also note the surrounding category structure. There is a parent category called Category:Disasters in schools which covers five other notable events that caused loss of life in schools: Aberfan, Schoolhouse_Blizzard, Collinwood_School_Fire, New_London_School_explosion, Our_Lady_of_the_Angels_School_Fire. Any renaming should consider whether the wording 'killings' fits in with the surrounding category names. Carcharoth 13:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I still think "school shootings" is the "more common" phrase. However, it's obvious that we need a category for the explosions, etc. How about: support the nom, but create a new category called: Category:School killings in the United States as a sister sub-cat to school shootings? - jc37 15:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Please do not list these as shootings. Not all of them involve guns. The Bath School disaster, for instance, was a bombing. Rename to something like Category:School killings in the United States as is mentioned above. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:21, 9 October 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. David Kernow (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of Czech Painters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Redundant category, empty, appears to have been created by new user. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, obvious mistake. Pavel Vozenilek 22:10, 5 October 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. David Kernow (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Czech Painters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Redundant category to Category:Czech painters, empty, appears to have been created by new user. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, obvious. Pavel Vozenilek 22:11, 5 October 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. David Kernow (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of Painters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Redundant category, empty, appears to have been created by new user. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Many users seem not to understand the difference between a category and a list in Wikipedia. Piccadilly 20:35, 6 October 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Actresses who portraying Mary Magdalene to Category:Actresses who have portrayed Mary Magdalene because "who portraying" isn't English. --Angelmnemosyne 01:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy Vegaswikian 19:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - surely we don't need categories of "Actors who have portrayed X", do we? Grutness...wha? 03:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (see further comments below)[reply]
• Delete per Grutness. Dekimasu 05:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there are already categories of this sort; they are titled, "Actresses who portrayed foo", not "Actresses who have portrayed foo"; the same applies for "Actors who portrayed foo":

Actresses who portrayed...

Actors who portrayed...

If one goes, they all should. (And this discussion would need to move to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion; if the discussion is about deletion, it no longer qualifies as speedy.)—Chidom ^talk  08:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate you've made it clear that the proposed category name was also incorrect. Dekimasu 10:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoa, that's a lot. But is it just me or would that information simply be more comprehensible if listified? Imagine someone like Sean Connery who played 50+ roles in his acting career, does that mean he needs an additional 50+ cats for that? >Radiant< 21:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC) And that by the way is a request to delete all. >Radiant< 13:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I could live with a listify as well; the abundant categorisation of some actors was what was worrying me, too. I note that AWPTarzan is up for speedying, too - that should also be moved down here. BTW, I'm kinda surprised that there's a category for Mary Magdalene but not one for her boyfriend. Grutness...wha? 23:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A further point which makes listifying a better option is, of course, that it is then possible to give details - the actors can be listed in chronological order, or by medium (stage/television/film/radio), and with annotation as to whether it was a drama, a comedy, what the title was, whether they portrayed the role more than once, etc etc etc. A list could convey the information in a far more effective and thorough way. Grutness...wha? 03:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added Tarzan (his category was "Actors who have portrayed Tarzan, I had nominated it for renaming.) I'll tag his page appropriately, and however this closes he'll be on the list.—Chidom ^talk  23:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all except the three biggest guns (Batman, Superman, Spider-Man). I buy James Bond and Robin Hood and a very few others, but not all these.--Mike Selinker 04:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and listify. Please note: the majority of these were created by TMC1982 (see list), who shows no signs of slowing down...enthusiastic, but perhaps overzealous. Her Pegship 05:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all but implement a type of secondary category to avoid the problem mentionned by Radiant. I made that proposal at the Village pump. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#minor categories.Pascal.Tesson 08:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all This is a marginal attribute from the point of view of the characters, and an utterly trivial one looked at the other way round. Edton 11:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Another) Note: Only the {{Cfr-speedy}} tag was present on the original nomination and nothing at all on any of the other categories; in all fairness to the creator of these categories, I have tagged each of them with {{Cfd}}.

• Keep all above categories and rename Category:Actresses who portraying Mary Magdalene to Category:Actresses who have portrayed Mary Magdalene (to match the naming convention of the other categories).

I see no harm in these and feel that some users could find them useful. (I wouldn't be surprised at several users who want to know who all the actors who have portrayed James Bond are.) : Keeping some and deleting others would result in individual categories being nominated all over again, or having this discussion all over again.

The issue that Radiant mentions is not applicable. These are categories for characters which have been portrayed by several actors/actresses; not for how many characters an individual actor/actress has portrayed.—Chidom ^talk  17:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely applicable. It is the actors articles that get cluttered. Piccadilly 20:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, my apologies. I'm still not sure it would make a huge difference in the number of categories listed for a particular performer. I'm clueless as to how many of these categories could/would be created; however, I can understand a desire to be cautious. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  23:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). -- DiegoTehMexican 18:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is categorizing existing articles "an indiscriminate collection of information"? The information is already here.—Chidom ^talk  18:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not the way to present this information as it creates too much clutter in proportion to its significance. Piccadilly 20:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per arguments above. This is why we have lists, no? Hiding Talk 21:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The discussions for this point above seem well reasoned. Vegaswikian 06:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and replace with lists for really important characters only. jamiemcc 23:36, 7 October 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Native American wars to Category:Wars of the indigenous peoples of North America

• Rename; following an extensive discussion by the Military history WikiProject, this has been suggested as the best way to bring this category into conformance with the existing category naming conventions. Kirill Lokshin 15:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per discussion and nom. --Dhartung | Talk 16:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above Hmains 05:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per WP:MILHIST. David Kernow (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Battles of the Indian Empire to Category:Battles of British India

• Rename, "Indian Empire" isn't generally used in this context. Kirill Lokshin 15:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 16:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above Hmains 05:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Edton 11:48, 6 October 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this for renaming Category:Members of Anglican religious orders on 7 September. There were two similar categories and things seem to have got muddled up somehow. The result is listed as "speedy delete CSD 1" (whatever that means) even though my proposal had 100% support. Hawkestone 15:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. Hawkestone 15:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Edton 11:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Athenians (Ohio) to Category:People from Athens, Ohio

• Rename, This propoesed rename will get the category in agreement with current naming conventions on Wikipedia. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 13:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The more standardized we get the more jarring these get. --Dhartung | Talk 16:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was upmerge --Kbdank71 13:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Replicator to Category:Replicators (Stargate)

• Rename, name is ambiguous as it stands (could refer to Star Trek replicators or the band or some nanotechnology or DNA technology). RobertG ♬ talk 11:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Considering they're all mentioned in Replicator (Stargate), I'd say upmerge and delete; I don't see the need of cat'ing by each individual race within a scifi setting. >Radiant< 15:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge and delete as per Radiant's suggestion Dugwiki 18:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Upmerging into several different categories is a poor idea. If this was done often those categories could all become cluttered. Edton 11:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, though, the category in question only has five articles to upmerge, and it's not clear that there's a deluge of other similar categories to worry about. And if the other categories eventually become cluttered, they can always be subdivided at that point. But right now, I don't think clutter is going to be an issue in this particular instance. Dugwiki 16:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge and delete as per Radiant's suggestion. Hiding Talk 21:24, 6 October 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename (to Category:House of Farnese). the wub "?!" 10:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Farnese to Category:House of Farnese

• Rename, The Farneses were the ruling dukes of Parma so "House of Farnese" seems appropriate in line with the categories for other European ruling dynasties. Edton 11:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur. >Radiant< 15:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (but corrected spelling}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assumed that Farnase was a typo, but I see the same spelling on the category page. If this is not a typing error by the nominator, alternative rename to Category:House of Farnese. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spelling amended. Edton 11:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks ! Changed back to support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:33, 6 October 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Israel Prize winners to Category:Israel Prize recipients

• Rename, "winners" isn't really appropriate for an award with a significant section process. Peta 06:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Peta; also List of Israel Prize winners to List of Israel Prize recipients. David Kernow (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay with me. --woggly 13:14, 9 October 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Recipients of the Wolf Prize in Physics to Category:Wolf Prize in Physics recipients

• Rename, the suggestion is shorter and fits the format used by most prizes ie. prize name recipients/winners/laurates. Peta 05:57, 5 October 2006 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Techniques named for people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Way too vague. Unneeded. Only has two articles listed ATM, both on skiing techniques, and not (as stated on cat page) "used in everyday life". Mistakenly put as a subcategory of "Algorithms". Quuxplusone 00:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete. I believe we already have such a list, too. >Radiant< 15:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I can't see this being useful (although I remember a 4th grade trivia question something along these lines). --Dhartung | Talk 16:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nonsensical classification. Pavel Vozenilek 22:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Edton 11:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hiding Talk 21:24, 6 October 2006 (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 section.