Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ProveReader (talk | contribs) at 05:46, 21 January 2006 (→[[:Category:Self-care]] to [[:Category:Alternative medicine]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< January 11 January 13 >

January 12

Category:Richmond Football Club players to Category:Richmond Tigers players

Taking categories from the Article Merge system and tossing them up here for proper handling. - TexasAndroid 21:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music critics to Category:Music journalists

Taking categories from the Article Merge system and tossing them up here for proper handling. - TexasAndroid 21:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Michigan freeways to Category:Freeways and expressways in Michigan

Taking categories from the Article Merge system and tossing them up here for proper handling. - TexasAndroid 21:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lincoln automobiles to Category:Lincoln vehicles

Taking categories from the Article Merge system and tossing them up here for proper handling. - TexasAndroid 21:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hawthorn Football Club players to Category:Hawthorn Hawks players

Taking categories from the Article Merge system and tossing them up here for proper handling. - TexasAndroid 21:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Faults to Category:Seismic faults

Taking categories from the Article Merge system and tossing them up here for proper handling. - TexasAndroid 21:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Displays to Category:Display technology

Taking categories from the Article Merge system and tossing them up here for proper handling. - TexasAndroid 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Carlton Football Club players to Category:Carlton Blues players

Taking categories from the Article Merge system and tossing them up here for proper handling. - TexasAndroid 21:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professional wrestling contestants

Currently lists contestants for WWE's Raw Diva Search, however, the name can be easily mistaken for Category:Professional wrestlers. RFC needed. kelvSYC 21:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Self-care to Category:Alternative medicine

Meaningless categorization; all articles are in the Alternative medicine category in any case CDN99 20:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Based on the duplication. I do believe that Category:Self-care could be valid with the right articles since the two are really quite different. Vegaswikian 22:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, though I agree with Vegaswikian that there could be a self-care category in the future. siafu 17:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - agreed. --JohnDO|Speak your mind I doubt it 12:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though the meaning might not yet be well represented in Wikipedia, it is a meaningful unique categorization that is not synonymous with alternative medicine. Self-care is a widely accepted component of mainstream medicine, and is almost a standard feature in treatment of chronic manageable diseases. Early editors' difficulties in appreciating the meaning could make it difficult to unmerge the concepts later, to the disadvantage of people seeking information about self-care for chronic diseases but who might not care to wade through a list of alternative therapies for those diseases. Some forms of alternative medicine could be a category of self care, but they are not synonymous concepts. It seems the term Self-Care as I recall was most widely used in Tom Furgeson's magazine, sold to Island Publishing in 1989, [1][2][3]and I don't know where it is now. Myself, I like the word, but common usage is the standard. Self-care is still a concept used by many official health agencies, [4] but it is not about alternative medicine. A skin-care company owns the DNS listing. I'm not offering to fix the category, and it's late in the voting so I'll let it go. Can I vote keep conditionally only if my vote tipped the scale? ProveReader 05:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National coats of arms to Category:Coats of arms by nation

Duplicative. Someone put a Merge template on them both back in November, but nothing further happened. So tossing them up here to try to resolve it for good. The direction I've indicated above is my impression of the better merge direction, but I could be persuaded that a reverse merge is the more proper direction. One way or another, we need to come out of this with only one category, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 20:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very strong oppose These are absolutely not the same thing and it is essential that both are preserved. Have a look at the contents. Calsicol 23:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • very strong oppose indeed. These are indeed completely different categories !! --LimoWreck 23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose they are totally different cats. Not all coats of arms are national coats of arms (indeed, as a percentage, only a tiny, tiny, tiny number are national arms).--Mais oui! 00:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Would those opposing please take a look at the contents, then. If they are different things, then the contents are a total mess. 90% of the "by nation" subcats of "National coats" say just "Coat of arms of XXX". The remainder are a clutter of Royal Coats and Emblems, and a few Crests or Federal coats. Meanwhile Category:Coats of arms by nation is full of "Fooian coats of arms". If they are not to merge, then they need a thourough cleaning/sorting. And I definitely do not have the expertise to so such. - TexasAndroid 05:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Dominican Republic to Category:History of the Dominican Republic

Duplicate categories. I beleive the proper way to refer to it is with the "the". - TexasAndroid 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not certain this is a speedy situation. A quick glance at the criteria, and I don't see any of them that this strictly meets. IMHO there's no hurry, so I've got no problem with it waiting out the week. OTOH, if a mod decided to close this out for Speedy, I would understand. - TexasAndroid 12:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British and English royal favourites, Category:English & British princes, and Category:English & British princesses

Split to Category:British royal favourites and Category:English royal favourites; Category:British princes and Category:English princes; Category:British princesses and Category:English princesses; in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions: "When historical and political complexities (such as mergers and splits) create articles that belong to two countries, do not create a "Foo of X and Y". Instead, list articles in both "Foo of X" and "Foo of Y". For example, "Foo of Russia" and "Foo of the Soviet Union", not "Foo of Russia and the Soviet Union".. Mais oui! 18:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly straightforward, and useful, to split these categories, as they will then fit perfectly into: Category:English royalty and Category:British royalty (see also Category:Scottish royalty).--Mais oui! 20:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The English line flows into the British line (as does the Scottish for that matter). You created Category:English royalty yourself in one of your many moves to create unnecessary subdivisions of categories which are better dealt with at an all-UK level. Things were fine before you intervened imo. CalJW 23:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split as per nom. The English line pretty much came to a halt with Elizabeth I. Thereafter the Kings of Scotland became Kings of England too on account of Tudor blood on the maternal side. Combining English and British in the way these cats currently do implies the opposite. As the monarchs of England and Scotland are, from the time of James I & VI, descended from both royal lines, we require separate categories for English royalty, Scottish royalty and British royalty. The only dilemma is whether to list those royals who were Kings (etc.) of Scotland and England prior to the creation of Great Britain in the British categories or in both the English and the Scottish categories. Valiantis 01:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of People in Taganrog

The category basically duplicates List of People in Taganrog and includes every guy who ever passed through the town of Taganrog, from Peter the Great to Giuseppe Garibaldi. Let's imagine how many articles would be in the Category:List of People in Paris? An alternative is to rename into Category:Natives of Taganrog, which would not include Pushkin, the tsars, and other superfluous entries. --Ghirla | talk 16:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct shopping malls in the United States

At present, this category is fully redundant. Its parent category, Category:Defunct shopping malls, is completely empty except for this category as a subcategory of Category:Defunct shopping malls. I recommend deleting this category, and moving its contents into Category:Defunct shopping malls. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American ethnic cuisines

This is slightly ridiculous: you could the entirety of Category:Cuisine into this category. And what would stop us from make a cat Australian ethnic cuisines? All of the "American ethnic" cuisines belong to other countries anyway! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CompTIA

I have merged all the articles that used to belong to this category to CompTIA. The remaining template in this category is up for TFD. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 12:10Z.

Category:Cisco certifications

I have merged all the articles that used to belong to this category to Cisco Career Certifications. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 12:08Z.

Category:Microsoft certifications

I have merged all the articles that used to be in this category (and then some) to Microsoft Certified Professional. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 11:18Z.

Category:People who have altered their own name

Trivia unrelated to the reasons these people are notable. Delete for the same reason we don't have "Category:Read-headed writers", or "Category:Journalists who outlived their spouses". Mark1 09:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Britney Temple

This does not appear to be a useful nor encyclopedic category. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese newspapers to Category:Newspapers in the People's Republic of China

Two countries both claim to be China, the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. This is a more NPOV name, in the same form as Category:Newspapers of the Republic of China, that doesn't support the PRC's claims to be sole legitimate China. Also, the name Chinese newspapers is ambiguous, since Chinese-language newspapers like the World Journal are published outside of China. After renaming, the category would be a subset of Category:Chinese-language newspapers instead of vice versa. --Yuje 09:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arnica

Is empty, and would never fill beyond a few entries. Category:Asteraceae would be best divided into tribes first, anyway. Stemonitis 09:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American singers by gender, Category:American male singers and Category:American female singers

More ludicrious sex based categories, of doubtful usefulness, delete.--nixie 08:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Benami

  • Keep Men's voices and women's voices are different. Bhoeble 13:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. From the official policy on category names - As a general recommendation for categories on people, have the category names as gender-neutral as possible (unless, of course, there is a distinct reason to otherwise; please mention that reason on the category page in that case). I see no distinct reason here. Valiantis 15:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's easier to hear the distinction than to see it, though it's also (usually) easy to see it if the article has a photo. Osomec 15:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Category:American singers was just sorted into these two categories, and they're still very large categories. Merging them back would make for an enormous category. - EurekaLott 19:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep About as clear an example of a profession where gender distinctions are relevant as you could find and EurekaLott makes a good point. CalJW 20:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way are gender distinctions particularly relevant to singing? Yes, female singers (generally) have higher voices and this issue is already covered far more relevantly and accurately by Category:American singers by range. A basic subcategorisation scheme for singers might be by genre or style of music, and indeed suitable subcats already exist in the Category:American singers by style hierarchy which appears to be well-used. "The category is big" is a poor basis to subdivide a category on gender lines when there are existing subcats that would divide the category in a way that is relevant to the topic inquestion - in this case music. It's germane that Dolly Parton is a country singer and Ella Fitzgerald is a jazz singer. That both possess two X-chromosomes, however, is a fairly trivial basis on which to group them in the same subcat. As it's trivial, there's no good reason for going against the official policy. Valiantis 01:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As someone who did a large portion of the populating here, I felt I should comment. First of all, as stated before, the American singers category was enormous before - and even in that state, it left out many articles. To merge them would create a behemoth. Sorting them by style is problematic since many singers cannot be placed in one, two, or even three categories. It often seems that there are as many genres as there are singers. Secondly, males' and females' voices vary not only in pitch, but in timbre and quality as well. It's an aesthetic difference, but a difference nevertheless. Thirdly, to a layperson, labeling a singer by gender is much more descriptive and useful than labeling them by range or fach. You'd be surprised at how many people couldn't tell you the range or gender of, say, an alto. (It's also notable that the main Category:Female singers and Category:Male singers have lasted for over a year. Speaking of behemoths... Crystallina 08:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorting by gender creates a maximum of two very large categories (which will continue to grow and cannot be meaningfully subcategorised) from one enormous category - there are simply not more genders one can come up with (though I suppose one might have a third - "intersex singers"!). As there are so many American singers, no-one should be in the parent cat in any case, but they can be put into more manageable cats by genre. If a singer has worked in more than one genre, there is no reason not to list them in more than one genre cat - this hierarchy is also readily expandable (more genres can be added) and subcategorisable (more precise delineations within a genre can be added) which allows for growth. To look at it from another angle: - if you were writing an article on Roy Acuff (to take the first man in the category) would you begin your introduction Roy Acuff is an American country singer or Roy Acuff is an American male singer ?. Valiantis 14:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, to justify a gender-based category such as this you would need to be able to write a head article on exactly how and why female singing is a distinct phenomenon from the plain old non-gender-specific kind. Are a female singer's vocal cords in a different part of her body than a male singer's are? Do women tend to sing a distinctly and identifiably different type of material than men do? Have women historically faced some special discrimination that made it significantly harder for them to pursue a career in music? Those are the kinds of questions that need to be answerable in the affirmative to justify this (we don't, for example, have gendered categories for people in the acting biz, where gender has no more or less relevance to the topic than it does here) — the arguments presented here so far justify categorizing singers by their vocal range, not by their sex organs. Put me down on the delete side. Bearcat 20:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the first point: The vocal cords of males and females differ mainly due to pitch differences. Males, in general, have lower voices as a direct result of their longer and thicker vocal cords. This difference is generally striking compared to body size; different (reputable) sources have placed it anywhere from a 20 to 50% difference. Yes, I am able to provide multiple sources. The physiological differences are plainly audible in tone. Barring said anomalies, a male singing a given note will sound clearly different from a female singing the same note.

To the second: It depends on the genre. A great deal of this can be classified as "stereotypical", but it's still noticeable. In addition, some songs are written for the male voice; some for the female. This is nothing but a consequence of their typical ranges. Transpositions can change this in some cases, but not all - especially for songs with a wide range.

To the third question, the answer is "Not as much now, but historically yes." A very specific example: in ancient times, female roles would be sung by castrati - male singers - to substitute for females. According to the article, this persisted until the early 1900s when the practice was outlawed. Add that to the pervasive historical mentality about the "woman's sphere" and the answer is, of course women faced discrimination that made it harder to pursue a music career, or any career for that matter.

A few more points: Vocal range is often extremely difficult to discern, especially in popular singing. The vast majority of songs written are not "rangy"; in certain genres it is almost impossible to tell one's range. Add this to the fact that many singers never discover or display their full range, and it's a rather arbitrary system. Not everybody will fall into an easy label. (There was a bit of a dispute a few months ago, I remember, about applying the vocal classifications generally reserved for classical music to pop music.)

Finally, as I said before, a layperson will get more out of the labels "female singer" or "male singer" than, say, "contralto" or "tenor". Not everybody who looks up singers is going to know these terms. Crystallina 22:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same layperson can also almost always tell a singer's gender just by their given name; they don't necessarily need a category to clarify it for them. And my question wasn't whether there was any difference between male and female vocal cords; it was whether there was a difference so physiologically dramatic that it inherently constitutes an encyclopedic criterion for stating that male and female singing are distinctly different phenomena. That requirement isn't met by a difference as minor as thickness or length of vocal cords that otherwise serve the same purpose in the same physiological manner. Bearcat 23:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American magazine companies to Category:Magazine companies of the United States

Duplicate category for merging. Quaque (talk • contribs) 08:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct United States Government agencies to Category:Defunct agencies of the United States government.

Government should definitely be lower-case, and I suspect the "of" construction would also be favored here.. jengod 02:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chairmen of the FA to Category:Chairmen of the Football Association

Remove abbreviation to help non British people see what this is. Rename. Honbicot 02:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Presidents of the FA to Category:Presidents of the Football Association

Remove abbreviation to help non British people see what this is. Rename. Honbicot 02:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Women's major golf tournaments to Category:Women's major golf championships

As with the men's version listed below, this is the normal usage. Calsicol 02:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Sports television in the United States to Category:American sports television

To follow the naming structure for most articles in Category:American television. Vegaswikian 01:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films notable for historical inaccuracy

We just deleted Category:Historically inaccurate films, and now this is created right afterwards. Adam Bishop 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Completely oppose There need be a category for movies claiming historical basis, and accumulating inaccuracies, whether they are intentional or not. Begging pardon, but this seems a perfectly valid category (and I even find it useful), and I don't see what in Wikipedia statutes would mandate its deletion. --Svartalf 18:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete on almost every imaginable ground - and drive a stake though its heart (as in all those inaccurate Dracula films). - Smerus 10:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Try making a list. siafu 18:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why a list as opposed to a category?... this may be a noob question, but it's better told than implied. --Svartalf 18:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The category makes it a statement of fact; there's no room for explanation. That's what makes it POV and ambiguous. With a list, which is an actual article, you can annotate it and explain each entry's historical inaccuracy (and potentially the notability of such). siafu 13:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes and no... I notice that many of the films in the category have their own section (in the main or talk page) explaining where they are wrong. Only the stubbiest fail to do so, and that could be dealt with. Practically, as a way of cross linking, a category is as good as a list, and it's already there with no need to recompile. --Svartalf 22:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation. Radiant_>|< 21:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this category is deleted, and I wanted to find out about films which are notable for historical inaccuracy, where would I go to look this information up? SP-KP 22:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Delete. A list should be made (per siafu) and a link to the list should be added to the "See Also" sections of the listed films. IMO, the list should only include films that have relatively large, sourced sections on their historical inaccuracies on their main pages. There's a difference being grossly misleading and having slight historical inaccuracies due to artistic license. —simpatico hi 23:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - but it hasn't been, so what's the point of the policy against recreation? Osomec 23:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Winnipegers to Category:Winnipeggers

Winnipeggers is the preferred spelling, Winnipeg media, and Canadian media use the spelling Winnipeggers, see dicussion. Tnikkel 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Men's major golf tournaments to Category:Men's major golf championships

I feel sure that "championships" is much the commonest usage. It certainly is in Wikipedia. Calsicol 00:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_12&oldid=36056151"