text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 21

April 21

 * 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 16:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Windows web development software
I've re-categorized the articles under Category:HTML editors. The term "web development software" is too broad. I can say text editor is also a "web development software". There are not too many HTML editors, so there is no need to split the category into sub-category according to OS. minghong 18:17, 21 Apr 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 delete --Kbdank71 16:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Mac OS web development software
I've re-categorized the articles under Category:HTML editors. The term "web development software" is too broad. I can say text editor is also a "web development software". There are not too many HTML editors, so there is no need to split the category into sub-category according to OS. minghong 18:17, 21 Apr 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 delete --Kbdank71 16:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Battles of the Nez Perce War
Members have been recategorised under Category:Battles of the Nez Percé War. Urhixidur 18:02, 2005 Apr 21 (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 delete --Kbdank71 16:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Nez Perce tribe
Members have been recategorised under Category:Nez Percé tribe. Urhixidur 18:02, 2005 Apr 21 (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 delete --Kbdank71 16:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Seven Wonders of the World
As it stands, this category is a re-creation of the previously deleted Category:Wonders of the World. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Category:Wonders_of_the_World2 for the deletion discussion.

The list of the seven wonders of the ancient world is the only widely accepted list of wonders of the world. The consensus previously reached was that any other list is arbitrary and POV. I think this category should be renamed Category:Seven Wonders of the Ancient World and restricting it to the seven. Worldtraveller 00:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I completely support your proposal. Postdlf 21:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If there are only seven of them, and they never change, this should be a list, and the category should be deleted. --ssd 04:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A list is better. - Uppland 06:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV category, and shouldn't it have only seven articles (or maybe eight)? --cesarb 13:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * DeleteOliver Chettle 03:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Postdlf SchmuckyTheCat 20:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, only seven possible articles....ever. Seven Wonders of the World is entirely sufficient. Cburnett 16:19, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. List is sufficient. RedWolf 03:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with a list.  --Kbdank71 18:20, 27 Apr 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 delete --Kbdank71 16:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Airports of New York City

 * To be replaced with a list, as per the talk page discussion. Burgundavia 06:44, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a good idea David 13:40, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
 * Waiting a day or two for the list to be created.  --Kbdank71 16:39, 28 Apr 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.

Unused Hockey categories

 * 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 13:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Ice hockey player missing international play information
Obsolete and not being used. Kevin Rector (talk) 04:57, Apr 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.

 * 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 13:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Ice hockey player missing statistics
Obsolete and not being used. Kevin Rector (talk) 04:57, Apr 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.

 * 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 13:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Ice hockey player missing awards
Obsolete and not being used. Kevin Rector (talk) 04:57, Apr 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.

 * 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 13:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Unformatted ice hockey player
Obsolete and not being used. Kevin Rector (talk) 04:57, Apr 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.

 * 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 13:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Ice hockey player to do
Obsolete and not being used. Kevin Rector (talk) 04:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * (for all the hockey categories) Delete, conditional on the successfull deletion of the associated templates. --Azkar 03:14, 22 Apr 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 delete --Kbdank71 13:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:FLCL
Only contains one article, FLCL. Any other information on FLCL should just be added to the FLCL article. -℘yrop (talk) 02:56, Apr 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.

 * 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 to Category:Journalism --Kbdank71 13:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:News trade or Category:Journalism
Some articles consider the "news trade" to be a superset of "journalism", the latter being reporting only and the former including non-reporting jobs in support of news publishing and broadcasting. As for what articles belong in these categories, the overlap seems to be between 90%-100%. It just seems confusing to have them both. So let's chuck one, I don't care which. -- Beland 02:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "Journalism" is much more commonly used. Maurreen 02:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Maurreen. Move anything over to journalism that isn't there already and delete "news trade".  Postdlf 21:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Maurreen and Postdif, the catagory Journalism is a valid and established one, whereas "news trade" is not. "News trade" is an invented and I think dubious category. There's an article called news trade which is itself a "totally disputed" stub and one which should not serve as some meta-catagory covering all of media and journalism. I reject "news trade" as the basis for any -- template, categroy and article, the concept is seriously out of wack. Calicocat 20:37, 25 Apr 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.


text: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 21

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners

England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court decision that refined the procedures for U.S. federal courts to abstain from deciding issues of state law, pursuant to the doctrine set forth in Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941).

Facts
The plaintiffs were chiropractors in the state of Louisiana. They sued in the United States District Court to prevent state officials from applying a licensing scheme to them, arguing both that they were not within the group to whom the statute applied, and that the statute infringed the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The District Court noted that a state court might find that the state law did not apply to the plaintiffs, and abstained from hearing the case pursuant to the Pullman abstention doctrine.

The plaintiffs noted that a case refining Pullman called Government and Civil Employees Organizing Committee, CIO v. Windsor, 353 U.S. 364 (1957) had held that the judgment of the state court was meaningless unless the state court was aware that constitutional questions had also been raised as to the validity of the statute. The plaintiffs therefore brought both claims in the Louisiana state court (as they believed Pullman and Windsor required). The state court found against them on both statutory and constitutional claims.

The plaintiffs then returned to the District Court seeking a new hearing on the constitutional question. The defendant then sought a dismissal on res judicata grounds, contending that the decision of the state court was binding as to the constitutional issue.

Issue
Can the federal court hear the case once the state has ruled on the merits of the constitutional issue?

Result
The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Brennan, noted that the state court determination would indeed bind the federal court. The proper procedure, the Court determined, is to give notice that the federal issue is contended, but to expressly reserve the claim on the federal issue for the federal court. If such a reservation is made, the parties can return to the federal court, even if the state court makes a ruling on the issue.

However, the Court also noted that even if the parties did not expressly reserve the federal issues, they can still return to the federal court if it is apparent that the parties had avoided adjudication of the federal law issues.

Because the plaintiffs in this case believed that they were just following the law as required, they would not be barred from continuing in the federal court.


text:
Scholes, Leeds

Scholes-in-Elmet is a village in Leeds, West Yorkshire, England. Its name is a plural of Old Norse skáli meaning "temporary shed".

It is sometimes known as Scholes-in-Elmet to distinguish it from the villages of the same name in the Holme Valley and Cleckheaton, also by analogy with the neighbouring village of Barwick-in-Elmet and Sherburn in Elmet.

The village is part of the civil parish of Barwick in Elmet and Scholes, sits in the Harewood ward of Leeds City Council and Wetherby and Easingwold parliamentary constituency. In 2011, the population of Scholes was 2,266.

History
In the 1800s, Colonel Frederick Trench-Gascoigne (of Parlington Hall, Aberford) owned and rented out a large number of houses, mines, woodlands and farming land in the areas of Scholes, Swarcliffe, Barnbow, Garforth, Barwick-in-Elmet, Cross Gates, and Whinmoor.

In the mid-1880s, a previous occupant of the Seacroft windmill, Isaac Chippindale, started the Scholes Brick and Tile Works on Wood Lane, on the border to Swarcliffe. The company's quarry produced high-quality bricks with which many houses in the surrounding area were built. Its kilns and house were demolished in the early 1980s, leaving two small fishing lakes, but is still known as "Chippy's Quarry".

Amenities
Scholes has two pubs, a dentist and doctors, a hairdressers and beauty salon, a library and two churches. The nearest commercial centres are in Seacroft, the Springs (Barnbow) and Cross Gates. The Seacroft Green shopping centre contains amongst other shops a large Tesco supermarket, while the Cross Gates Shopping Centre (formerly an Arndale Centre) contains many high street shops. Other nearby commercial centres include Garforth and Wetherby.

The Barley Corn is a historic Samuel Smith Old Brewery pub on Main Street, while the former railway station on Station Road (The Buffers) has been converted into a pub and restaurant.

Transport
Scholes lies close to the Leeds Outer Ring Road, the A64 and the M1. The East Leeds Orbital Road, due for completion in late 2022, will also serve the village. Scholes Railway Station was opened in 1876, part of the Cross Gates to Wetherby line; the station and line closed in 1964. Local bus services are 64 and 11, provided by First Leeds. The nearest international airport is Leeds Bradford Airport, which is 12.4 mi.

Comparison
Scholes is in the LS15 postcode area.

Climate
The climate in Scholes is moderate.

title: Scholes, Leeds