Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 21

< May 20	May 22 >

May 21

Category:Creature Objects

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 --Azkar 01:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from speedy delete. Comment was "The category has never been used, nor has the template it contains, while there is a plentiful listing over at the Creatures Wiki addon page". --Henrygb 23:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary double. Harro5 23:59, May 21, 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:Dillard University

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 --Azkar 01:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category was created for a list of Dillard University buildings, which have since been merged into the main article. The only other one is a forerunner institution. --Christopherlin 21:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Spinboy 22:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it will become useful again. Beta m (talk)

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:Scientific neologisms

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 --Azkar 01:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category is uninstructive and tells the reader nothing. Virtually the entire set of scientific terms newly used in the past 20 years would go in this category. There are tens of THOUSANDS of them! What's the point?--Deglr6328 19:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~ agreed. Then there's the matter of when does a neologism become a standard term. Courtland 03:31, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
Keep Has as much point as about half of the categories. Beta m (talk)
Delete, WP doesn't deal with neologisms. R adiant _* 09:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Pointless. Agree with nominator. mikka (t) 19:11, 28 May 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:Geography of Arabia

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 --Azkar 01:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabia is defined as the Arabian peninsula. Yet in this category there are also Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq (Mesopotamia) that aren't in the peninsula. Inaccurate category that should be deleted.Yuber^(talk) 15:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't it be renamed Geography of the Middle East? Luis rib 19:03, 26 May 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:Edmeston, New York Images

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 --Azkar 02:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All images have been moved to wikisource, currently contains 2 images. Unnecessary--nixie 13:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shouldn't the images be in Wikimedia Commons instead? Both belong to public domain. -Hapsiainen 19:51, May 27, 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:Lists of longest bridges

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 --Azkar 02:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is not needed. There is already Category:Lists of bridges which is not a big category. The 3 lists in this category can easily be found there. Samuel Wantman 06:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~ agree with the category being superfluous. Courtland 03:32, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
Delete Category of Lists of Categories. Beta m (talk)
Delete.mikka (t) 19:17, 28 May 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:Doujinshi

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 --Azkar 01:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by the properly-romanized Category:Dojinshi (matching the article Dojinshi). DopefishJustin (・∀・) 05:51, May 21, 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:University of Montreal

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 no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 19:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

→ Category:Université de Montréal

This should be renamed because the most common usage in English is not University of Montreal, but Université de Montréal. 132.205.45.148 16:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Outside of Quebec, I hear it all the time as University of Montreal. --Spinboy 16:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "University of Montreal" is the most commonly used English name in most areas outside of Quebec. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I live in Ontario, and I don't think I've ever heard it called the University of Montreal. -- Cafemusique 23:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I live in Ontario too and I've heard that many times. --Spinboy 03:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Still thinking What's the actual name of the university? Beta m (talk)
- The university's English-language website and press releases call it Université de Montréal. - Cafemusique 10:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's the name they use for themselves, I support the rename. R adiant _* 12:35, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - Support then. Beta m (talk) I don't know how to do that strike through thing.
Support. James F. (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I live in Western Canada and never hear of the university either way. RedWolf 06:22, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. When searching for it, people don't have accents, etc on their keyboards, and this is English wikipedia. --Spinboy 19:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Spinboy is correct. I don't have an é on my keyboard, and if I search for "University of Montreal", I'm not going to find "Université de Montréal". With the article, that's fine, a redirect can be used. But that won't work for the category. --Kbdank71 19:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I can't speak for everyone, but I can't say I've ever started out a search for information by looking for the category first. If I wanted info on the University of Montreal / Université de Montréal, I'd start at the article. If I saw there was a corresponding category, and I was interested in more information, I'd go from there. Université de Montréal is the official name of the university, and the name they use, exclusively (even on the English website). If searchability is really a concern, though, how about a soft redirect? Template:Categoryredirect can be used to direct people to the correct location. --Azkar 02:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Many umontreal.ca pages use "University of Montreal". English language, and English-keyboard layout are also quite relevant argument. Gene Nygaard 02:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. If the proper name of the school is "Université de Montréal", then related articles should be categorized by that name. Bahn Mi 06:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support. Since the main article has been renamed Université de Montréal, the category should be also. Grstain 16:36, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose, I would support the argument if it were a true proper name, ie. "St. Jean's Université de Montréal", for a crude example. However, since it is just an university in a place, then the for the English Wiki, it would be the English equilavent, as it would be the French equivalent for the French Wiki. As far as the article's named being changed, as Gene Nygaard stated above, the English keyboard does not "easily" support the extended characters. <>Who?¿? 21:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- COMMENT, then UCLA is not a real university name, just a place name with university attached? Or NYU? or Oxford? Cambridge? LSE? 132.205.44.134 19:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment - I'm not biased because of nationality, and yes, I would argue the that UCLA is not a "name" as much as its a "thing" in a "place", that happens to use that as its name. I would not consider it to be a proper name, ONLY in the sense of how to use it in a foreign print. Ie, if I were to print "Fred's House" in French, I would use "Maison de Fred" (note I didn't use the extended chars (en keyb)), even though "Fred" is a proper name, its understood to those who ONLY speak French as "Fred House". So to refer to your example, if UCLA was in French, I would use the French equivalent of the name. Just my thoughts, I am not a literary genius or anything. However, for keeping the "proper name" of something in a foreign language, maybe we could use a category redirect from the English equivalent, and keep the French named cat.- <>Who ?¿? 02:22, 11 Jun 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.