Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 11
May 11
[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 13:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This category appears to have been created to house the information now contained at Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, California. The title refers to an OMB metropolitan area designation, not used by the general public. It is coterminus with Orange County, which already has its own category (Category:Orange County, California). Delete. --Plainsong 19:49, 11 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.
- 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 13:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stub category contained only four stubs, with no potential to grow. Stubs resorted into Category:Comics stubs, equivalent template also on WP:TFD - SoM 18:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As creator, can I request speedy deletion. Hiding 19:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ISTR speedy deletion of categories doesn't include creator requests - but I'd certainly support a deletion of this one. Grutness...wha? 02:22, 13 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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CfR notice added on April 2 by User:VivaEmilyDavies ; rename to Category:Towns in Belgium. --Kbdank71 18:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Proposed name is in line with the other categories at Category:Towns by country. --Azkar 18:28, 11 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.
- 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 13:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shortly after creating these, I rethought my categorization logic, and replaced them with the multiple sub-categories Category:Former buildings and structures of Japan, Category:Former Castles, Palaces, and Fortresses, and Category:Former Buddhist Temples. This new scheme will result in most pages being under more categories (one by country, one by building type), but each of these sub-categories will be more general, more logical, than having separate "former buddhist temples" categories for each country... I think. (If anyone sees this and wishes to contribute, adding articles or subcategories to my new pet project Category:Former buildings and structures, please do.) LordAmeth 14:22, 11 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.
- 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 13:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Contains only one entry, on a non-notable Dutch colonist who's listed on VFD. - jredmond 14:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see a whole lot of point to this category, even if the only inhabitant weren't up for deletion. --Azkar 14:21, 11 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.
- 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 13:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There was a merge tag on this category to merge with Category:Slavic mythology. This has been done. Ganymead 04:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Are Polish mythology and Slavic mythology synonomous? I can't examine the articles in each category, as you've already moved all of them. Regular procedure, FYI, is to complete the move after discussion has taken place on CfD. --Azkar 05:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there's no such thing as Polish mythology. Some anon created a lot of pages on some obscure Slavic deities and call them all Polish for a reason unknown to me. Halibutt 07:15, May 11, 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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The articles in these two categories have been merged with Islands Lakes of Ontario and Islands Lakes of Quebec to match the title formatting of the other geography categories. --NormanEinstein 02:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While we're at it, Category:British Columbia lakes should be merged with Category:Lakes of British Columbia, and Category:Yukon lakes should be renamed Category:Lakes of the Yukon. --NormanEinstein 15:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added cfr tags to Category:British Columbia lakes and Category:Yukon lakes. It's still the same day, so we should be good to add these within this nomination. --Azkar 16:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you clarify? Were the articles you moved articles on lakes or article on islands? --Azkar 03:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand how merging lakes with a category on islands is correct? How is a lake like an island? RedWolf 04:52, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Shoot. That's a typo. I've been cleaning up the Islands and Lakes categories and mixed them up. --NormanEinstein
- Rename, then. --Azkar 13:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Shoot. That's a typo. I've been cleaning up the Islands and Lakes categories and mixed them up. --NormanEinstein
- There is no convention which states that political subdivisions of a country must follow the country level conventions. No ambiguity arises out of using the names of Canadian provinces or territories. RedWolf 01:59, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- I believe this proposal is to be in line with Category:Lakes of Alberta, Category:Lakes of Manitoba, Category:Lakes of Nova Scotia, Category:Lakes of Saskatchewan, and Category:Lakes of the Northwest Territories .. --Azkar 02:10, 13 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.