text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 4

April 4

 * 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 keep. --Kbdank71 19:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Official Residences of Australia
Voting results:

"Official residences in Australia" (2): Courtland, ScottDavis

"Official residences of Australia" (2): Clarkk, Cyberjunkie

"Australian official residences" (3): Cyberjunkie, Clarkk, James F

''No consensus. Default is to keep.''

casing error, should be renamed to category:Official residences of Australia. clarkk 11:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Either they are very big residences (big enough for 25 000 000 people) or that should be Category:Official residences in Australia, surely! Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 11:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * that is even better. clarkk 11:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Support move => Category:Official residences in Australia as a matter of clean-up. Courtland 05:37, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
 * Rename: Yes, incorrect capitalisation that should be corrected - I claim fault. Though I would support Official residences of Australia over Official residences in Australia, because the latter may imply any official residence, like, say, an Embassy. Unless, of course, the category is to become as broad as that.--Cyberjunkie 06:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps even Category:Australian official residences could be considered as an alternative. This would allow for state official residences to be listed as well, while excluding foreign residences. It is also the equivilant of Canadian official residences.--Cyberjunkie 07:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * support this option, consistency with other countries categories is good. clarkk 10:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - it is generally best of avoid Fooian Bar, and better to use Bar of/in Foo. Burgundavia 09:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Official residences in Australia. If "...in..." could include (say) the US Embassy in Canberra, then "...of..." and Category:Australian official residences could both include the Australian embassy in Washington. If people start including buildings not intended, then make a subcategory for them. --ScottDavis 14:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Australian official residences. James F. (talk) 21:34, 10 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 13:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Hong Kong surnames
Voting results:

"Delete" (6): Huaiwei, Kbdank71, SchmuckyTheCat, Susvolans, Umofomia, Radiant

"Keep" (1): Instantnood

Consensus is to delete.

A superfluous category, considering that Category:Chinese family names are shared by any ethnic Chinese preserving his Chinese name in just about any country or territory.--Huaiwei 11:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that the ongoing discussion between Instantnood and SchmuckyTheCat, part of which is visible below, is currently listed on Requests for Arbitration.  Radiant_* 12:01, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This poll on surnames is not related. It is nominated after the RFAr. — Instantnood 12:14, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The way surnames in Hong Kong are romanised are different. Articles in this categories have separate listing of notable people. Rankings of these surnames, if available, will be added later. — Instantnood 11:23, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The romanisation of these surnames are not confined to Hong Kong. Each of the entries listed has countless Chinese all over the World sharing that surname's spelling and has nothing to do with Hong Kong. In addition, the same romanisation can actually mean different surnames in different dialect groups, which some of these articles fail to address.--Huaiwei 12:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Add necessary content and categories to these articles if necessary. If you're not happy with the current name we can rename all such categories as " category:Chinese surnames romanised/transcribed according to [language name] ". — Instantnood 12:26, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * That is not neccesary either. Category:Hong Kong surnames is the first category trying to classify surnames based on a geographic locality. In Category:Surnames, however, all other surnames are classified according to language, groups of languages, religion, or specific and unique naming systems (as opposed to surnames) confined in geographic locality like in India, or by language such as in Germany. We do not need "Category:country name surnames" for every country on Earth, let alone a sub-territory of a country, or else a common surname like "Chen" is going to have countless subcategories by country just because there is one "Chen" who migrated there yesterday, for example?--Huaiwei 12:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Interestingly list of most common surnames is currently sorted according to countries. I agree surnames should be categorised according to language and transcription system, and I thought about that when I created the category. The surnames I have categorised are all Chinese surnames transcripted from Cantonese and according to Hong Kong conventions. — Instantnood 13:10, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I asked for a deletion of a category, and the example you quoted was an article. An article like this will not result in countless subcategories in surname pages, which a category will. In this case, it is not neccesary to classify surnames according to transcription systems, because as I said, these systems are not unique to Hong Kong. You added lines like "XXX is a Hong Kong surname" in disambig pages at the same time that you add the above category. This is highly erroneous, because none of them are specific to Hong Kong either.--Huaiwei 13:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * To repeat, all of these surnames are Han surnames transcripted based on Cantonese and Hong Kong conventions. I have never rule out they are at the same time surnames elsewhere, transcripted based on other romanisation method and other spoken variants. Add content and categories to these articles if you think it is necessary. — Instantnood 14:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * If all of them are Han surnames, why cant they stay in Category:Chinese family names? When you say "transcripted based on Cantonese conventions", is this specific to any country or territory? Is Cantonese a language spoken only in Hong Kong? You asked me to "add content and categories"...what kind of categories? More surnames classified by countries? Is it ever neccesary to mention where these surnames are used, when it is probably far better and less contentious to simply indicate how each dialect group may anglicise these surnames, which btw is well described at List of common Chinese surnames?--Huaiwei 14:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it is necessary to categorise non-Pinyin- and non-Mandarin-based surnames separately? As far as I know it's not only the case in Hong Kong but also in Singapore, such as Teo, Ong, Goh, etc., and perhaps Kho in Malaysia. — Instantnood 14:28, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why should it be neccesary? Anglicised surnames which were not based on Mandarin should actually be made to redirect back to the Mandarin pronunciation, because they all refer to the same term. In cases such as Ng, which corresponds to different terms in Mandarin when used in different dialect groups, a disemg page should be created instead. In this setup, would any subcategory be neccesary?--Huaiwei 14:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you think about the current Ng article, despite the categories? — Instantnood 18:09, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not quite sure why we even have a category for names (or articles, for that matter). -Kbdank71 13:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * These are not the only articles on surnames. — Instantnood 13:25, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete! I thought like Kbdank71 did, but saw categories for other names so I left it. Huaiwei's suggestion though, is great. The Cantonese romanization should be listed on the relevant, already existing, surnames - which I note many already have two or three alternate romanizations. Essentially, Instantnood is creating DUPLICATE articles to populate his category. The relevant surname is presumably expressed in the same Chinese characters (or with minor variation, like Smith/Smythe) everywhere. So why create seperate articles based on different english spelling? Instantnood is also being racist, is he going to include all the Smith's and Mathesons who have lived in HK for two centuries? No, because they are adequately covered elsewhere, as are his new articles. We don't (or shouldn't) make geographical distinctions for names. SchmuckyTheCat 15:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: More than half of the articles were existing ones. Han surnames in Hong Kong do not correspond one-to-one to Pinyin counterparts, and redirects wouldn't work. — Instantnood 15:37, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Examples please. I have yet to hear of any Chinese surname only found in Hong Kong.--Huaiwei 17:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wait. Do you actually understand what I was saying in the above comment? — Instantnood 18:09, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Geographical rather than ethnic classification for names makes no sense. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 15:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree. But it is geography that leads to the differences in transcription. — Instantnood 15:37, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not so much of geography, but more of politics in this case. Singapore's adoption of the pinyin romanisation system does not make it geographically closer to the PRC, for example.--Huaiwei 17:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Han surnames in Singapore are not entirely transcripted based on Pinyin. — Instantnood 18:09, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see why these surnames can't just fall under the Category:Chinese family names. The only difference is the transcription system that is being used.  The surnames when you get down to it are the same, whether it is Wu, Woo, or Ng.  We probably will need a separate discussion on how we would like to organize these names though (perhaps at Talk:Chinese surname?).  --Umofomia 18:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Or perhaps Wikipedia talk:China-related topics notice board (plus hyperlinks from Wikipedia talk:Hong Kong wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia talk:Taiwan-related topics notice board)? — Instantnood 18:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * A discussion in one location, either at Talk:Chinese surname or Category:Chinese family names will do. These pages are more specific to the topic in question, and I am quite wary of this love for having multiple discussions taking place concurrently in multiple discussion groups. Direct all of them to one discussion please.--Huaiwei 12:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Request: In this discussion several logical and reasonable problems are suggested, and they have to be dealt with. The surnames are the same Han characters (despite traditional/simplified) no matter how they are transcribed, and the articles can perhaps be merged, with redirects and disambiguations. Should the poll be paused until how the surnames should be presented is settled? — Instantnood 18:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * NO It just becomes another parallel universe for you to plug stuff into as long as it exists. SchmuckyTheCat 19:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it is necessary for it to be settled? — Instantnood 05:38, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Given that, so far, everyone except you wants to get rid of the category, I think that settles it perfectly well. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I am now requesting to work for a solution on how Chinese surnames should be dealt with on Wikipedia, given the existence of many spoken variants, and romanisation methods based on different variants. — Instantnood 12:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * (response to Instantnood's comment at 05:38, Apr 5, 2005) I do not see why this vote has to be suspended. The category in question is being debated on, and it is clear few can see its usability, a result which can actually aid the formulation of how Chinese surnames should be subsequently treated and/or categorised.--Huaiwei 12:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you mind further elaborate how the result here can "actually aid the formulation of how Chinese surnames should be treated"? — Instantnood 12:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Huaiwei. Radiant_* 12:01, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The discussion has now started at Talk:Chinese surname. — Instantnood 15:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * As it stands at the moment, it's a 5-1 vote for Delete. The discussion on the page listed just above also stopped on April 6. By standard voting policy, this would now mean deletion but all the discussion on both sides has raised several issues that seem to remain unresolved (I do not know enough about Chinese surnames to determine otherwise). At this point, I recommend that this category be nominated on VFD to try to get wider community input on the issue. RedWolf 22:21, Apr 17, 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 to "Cuisine by culture". --Kbdank71 16:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Food and drink by country
Voting results:

"Cuisine by culture" (3): VivaEmilyDavies, Pharos, Courtland

"Food and drink by culture" (1): Instantnood

"Food and drink by country" (1): Kbdank71

Consensus is to rename to "Cuisine by culture".

Renaming request. There was a cross of Category:Food and drink by country and Category:Cuisine. I started recategorizing, then realised that a better one would be Category:Cuisine by ethnicity or region, because cultural things not always match state boundaries. Examples: category:Slavic cuisine, category:Basque cuisine, category:European cuisine and some others that fit poorly into the "by country" schema. I had the same problem with category:dance and found that Category:Dance by ethnicity or region was a good choice. Any better ideas? Mikkalai 03:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Support Category:Cuisine by ethnicity or region, consistent with your dance example. --VivaEmilyDavies 17:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) Now agree with Pharos. Keep and move. VivaEmilyDavies 17:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What about simply Category:Cuisine by culture?--Pharos 09:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Move. I like the Category:Cuisine by culture because food traditions follow the people where they go and though the regional origins might still be clear, the actuality is becoming more disconnected with place as time goes on.  That doesn't mean that "Meditteranean cuisine" would be excluded, but that "Meditteranean" would not have a geographic but a cultural meaning.  Maybe that's a finer line of distinction than is practical, but I hope I've made the gist of what I'm saying clear enough. Courtland 14:13, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
 * Keep and move (to "Food and drink by culture"), as per Courtland. The same could perhaps be done for other categories sharing some similarity, such as Scandinavian/Nordic. I prefer "Food and drink by culture" to "Cuisines by culture".  — Instantnood 19:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * "By culture" is a very good idea. Mikkalai 18:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (the way it is, or at least keep one "by country"). There isn't anything that says an article can only be in one category. If a food belongs to different countries, it can go in that many categories. (Incidentally, what does "keep and move" mean? I think of "keep" as keep it the way it is, but "move" as move it to another category. In other words, I think of "keep and move" as voting "yes and no".) -Kbdank71 19:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Keep and move = Don't delete but move. :-D — Instantnood 19:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * You are missing the points of the discussion above. Cuisine is part of culture, not of politics. If you are going to place Basque cuisine into Spanish cuisine, you will offend many. On the other hand, restricting Jewish foods into Israel will look ridiculous. But then where? Into Poland? Into medieval Europe? Into Nazareth? Into US of A? Mikkalai 20:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well said :) - although actually I guess Basque cuisine probably logically ought to be a distinct subcategory of Spanish cuisine (in the sense that it is one of the cultural cuisines present within Spain - and similarly it should probably be put under French cuisine too, if memory serves that is where a third of Basques live!). The point is that it shouldn't be restricted to being a subcategory of Spanish and French cuisine, it should also count as a culture in its own right and therefore appear directly as a subcategory of "cuisine by culture", "European cuisine" etc. I think this is actually one of those cases where an exception is acceptable to the "don't make Cat:X a subcategory of both Cat:Y and the parent of Cat:Y" rule. "Jewish food" is a clearer example, it should certainly be in "cuisine by culture" itself. Making it also a subcategory of the cuisines of countries with particularly large Jewish communities would probably be overkill due to the number of such countries and the difficulty in deciding a cut-off point. VivaEmilyDavies 23:57, 8 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:
Talk:1972 NHL amateur draft

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1978 NHL Amateur Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

These redlinked draft picks meet WP:NHOCKEY
--98.21.48.228 (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Bob Krieger - 6
 * Gerry Teeple - 2
 * Scott MacPhail - 2
 * Note: Articles must also meet WP:GNG. --75.88.89.194 (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Added notes to those names in the article, referencing this Talk section. Jmg38 (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

 * If anyone believes they do, then create well-sourced articles about them, and be prepared to defend the creations.   Ravenswing     17:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NHL Entry Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:1972 NHL amateur draft


text:
Talk:1971 NHL amateur draft

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1978 NHL Amateur Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

These redlinked draft picks meet WP:NHOCKEY

 * Jim Cahoon - 2

Note: Articles must also meet WP:GNG. --75.88.89.194 (talk) 06:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This current redirect also meets it: Ed Sidebottom - 3 --67.214.7.27 (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NHL Entry Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1971 NHL amateur draft


text:
Talk:1970 NHL amateur draft

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1978 NHL Amateur Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

These redlinked draft picks meet WP:NHOCKEY

 * Jacques Lapierre - 3
 * Luc Simard (Q16267897) - 3

Note: Articles must also meet WP:GNG. --75.88.89.194 (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NHL Entry Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1970 NHL amateur draft


text:
Talk:1969 NHL amateur draft

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1978 NHL Amateur Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

These redlinked draft picks meet WP:NHOCKEY

 * Bernie Gagnon - 2 (156 GP in WHL & NLA, but only 2/7 of his NLA seasons have GP totals on eliteprospects)

Note: Articles must also meet WP:GNG. --75.88.89.194 (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NHL Entry Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1969 NHL amateur draft


text:
Talk:1968 NHL amateur draft

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1978 NHL Amateur Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NHL Entry Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1968 NHL amateur draft


text:
Talk:1967 NHL amateur draft

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1978 NHL Amateur Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NHL Entry Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

California Seals or Oakland Seals
This would have been their inaugural season, with the rest of the 1967 expansion class. They were called the Oakland Seals at this point, not California. --David7581 (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1967 NHL amateur draft


text:
Talk:1966 NHL amateur draft

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1978 NHL Amateur Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

These redlinked draft picks meet WP:NHOCKEY

 * Ron Dussiaume (Q3441381) - 2

Note: Articles must also meet WP:GNG. --75.88.89.194 (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NHL Entry Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1966 NHL amateur draft


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 5

April 5

 * 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:Flora of Singapore. --Kbdank71 16:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Native flora of Singapore and Category:Plants of Singapore
Voting results:

"Merge to category:Flora of Singapore" (3): Instantnood, Kbdank71, Guettarda

"Keep Category:Native flora of Singapore / Delete Category:Plants of Singapore " (1): Lochaber

Consensus is to merge to category:Flora of Singapore.

Both categories have only 1 article each, which is the same article (Vanda Miss Joaquim). Either one can be deleted, or both be deleted and up-merged to category:Flora of Singapore. — Instantnood 21:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: Two stub articles, namely Bird's Nest Fern and Pigeon Orchid has just been created by Huaiwei (who also created the two categories), and are categorised to both category:Native flora of Singapore and category:Plants of Singapore. — Instantnood 21:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete both, move articles to category:Flora of Singapore. -Kbdank71 13:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is a difference between what qualifies as "native" and what is not. I created that category to emphasize this distinction, and at present not every article in second category appears in the former.--Huaiwei 16:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Right. I notice you are populating the categories. Would you mind telling what actually has been changed? — Instantnood 16:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe I do reserve the right to populate a category called up for deletion just because it is empty. There is nothing unethical about it, and new votes should reflect its current situation. As for changes, I do not understand your question?--Huaiwei 17:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly alright to populate the categories and there is nothing unethical. But would you mind keeping this section up-to-date so that votes will be cast reflecting its current situation? — Instantnood 18:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I didnt know I am required to do so?--Huaiwei 19:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not a requirement, but it helps readers to vote according to current situation. — Instantnood 19:27, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Category:Native flora of Singapore / Delete Category:Plants of Singapore (doesn't flora mean plant?). Though it might be useful to have something at the beginning of the subcat explaining what qualifies as "native". -- Lochaber 16:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge to Category:Flora of Singapore. At some time in the future, if there are enough articles, split into Category:Native flora or Singapore and Category:Naturalised flora of Singapore, with Flora of Singapore as parent category.  Guettarda 18:51, 7 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 merge to category:Malaysian cuisine. --Kbdank71 16:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Singaporean cuisine
Voting results:

"Merge to category:Malaysian cuisine" (1): Instantnood

Consensus is to merge to category:Malaysian cuisine.

All articles are also categorised under category:Malaysian cuisine. The two categories should either be merged, or the Singaporean one be expanded to demonstrate the differences, if there's any. — Instantnood 20:45, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I see that you have taken to "revengeful" antics after the spate of Hong Kong-related category appearances in this page. Nonetheless, you will need to be more convincing than the above, because some of these cuisine pages does include details on the variations present in each country.--Huaiwei 20:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The two categories are currently almost identical, except Asam fish and Cuisine of Malaysia. — Instantnood 21:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * You might wish to try looking within articles.--Huaiwei 21:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Out of the 14 articles, Bak kut teh, Char kway teow, Hainanese chicken rice, Nasi lemak, Otak-otak, Popiah, Rojak, Roti canai, do not address the Malaysian-Singaporean differences. Hainanese chicken rice addresses the differences among different places within Malaysia. Hokkien mee said there's one variation for Penang and Singapore, and another variation for Kuala Lumpur. Ketupat and Sambal do not mention Singapore at all.
 * 5 of those are also Indonesian cuisine. — Instantnood 21:29, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I do wonder how familiar are you to that category. I once created Roti prata before, the Singaporean name of Roti canai, and the two were merged with the contents meshed together. I am surprised you fail to even detect this. Secondly, you ask for a "merger" of the two categories. May I know what form will the merged category be? Category:Malaysian and Singaporean cuisine? Or are you suggesting the Cuisine in Singapore can be called Malaysian Cuisine?--Huaiwei 08:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Singaporean and Malaysian dishes share a certain degree of similiarity, thanks to the geographical proximity and similar climate. Even though they are now two sovereign States, exchange and traffic of people have never been interrupted. There is a poll below on category:Food and drink by country, that addresses the same issue. — Instantnood 10:08, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * And the same applies to just about any category in Category:Cuisine, so why pick on this category alone? Again I ask...even if there is a degree of similarity in cuisine between the two countries, may I know what you would call cuisine in Singapore then? Northern Peninsular Malaysia has dishes quite similar to those in Southern Thailand. Shall we amalagamte the two cultures too? Why do you bother having "Cantonese Cuisine", when it can also be called "Chinese cuisine" like the other 5 major cuisines of China?--Huaiwei 10:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I did a similar comparison among categories of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish cuisines, and they do not share the same articles in the way the Malaysian and Singaporean counterparts do. I guess we'd better let other users to decide on what should be done with category:Singaporean cuisine. (By the way, there are Eight Great Traditions of Chinese cuisines, not five.) — Instantnood 11:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * COMMENT Shouldn't Indonesian Cuisine, Malaysian Cuisine, Singaporean Cuisine, cuisine of Brunei, Sumatran cuisine, Bornea cuisine, Javan cuisine all go under Category:Malayan Cuisine ? 132.205.45.148 18:48, 7 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 Category:Non Italian popes and Category:Non-Italian Popes --Kbdank71 17:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-Italian popes
note differing capitalisation The first two are empty and duplicated by the third. I would suggest deleting the first two and the third from Category:Non-Italian popes to Category:Popes by nationality. All the popes could then be sorted this way, in addition to sorting by, say, the century in which they served. --BaronLarf 13:06, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Non Italian popes
 * Category:Non-Italian Popes
 * Category:Non-Italian popes
 * Delete as suggested. -Kbdank71 14:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Why would we need a bunch of categories with a mere one or two entries? Category:Italian popes and Category:Non-Italian popes should suffice.  Throw out Category:French popes and Category:Spanish popes and Category:German popes and don't create Category:Dutch popes and Category:English popes and Category:Polish popes and whatever else we'd need for nationalities, in addition to the proposed supercategory Category:Popes by nationality, just to cover about 10 people total. Gene Nygaard 14:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment works for me. There could then be a list article created to further show where each non-Italian came from. --BaronLarf 15:06, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the obvious, the empty duplicates Category:Non Italian popes and Category:Non-Italian Popes. Gene Nygaard 14:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Delete first two and move last as per BaronLarf.  Goood clean up and avoids small categories.  --A D Monroe III 14:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all I'd rather see categories that sort by positive characteristic—what someone is rather than what someone is not, so I'd favor having all pope categories by nationality rather than dividing into simply Italian and non-Italian. Yes, John Paul II would be the only occupant of "Polish Popes", but that may not always be the case, and I think underpopulated categories should only be avoided if they serve no function in a broader categorizing system and have no chance of ever expanding. Postdlf 14:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I forgot Category:Jewish popes for Cephas, "the Rock", aka "The Big Fisherman". Sure, a million years from now there might be more than a dozen non-Italian popes, maybe even one or two in the next 50 years; but do we really need to allow for that? Creating 9 or 10 categories (including the necessary supercategories) to cover a dozen people isn't very helpful as a finding aid. Gene Nygaard 15:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete all. Basically agree with Postdlf, except popes who are the only members of their nationality should just be under Category:Popes.  It doesn't make sense to structure the category structure such that Italian popes are considered the "default", even if historically they are overwhelmingly more common.  Considering that there are 16 French popes its hard to argue against that category, but I would also allow those of smaller size as long as they have more than one member.  Actually, I am current working on an article on another "Jewish pope", the legendary figure from Jewish folklore of the Middle Ages, and someone could probably write an article about Pope Peter II, apparently a figure who some people believe will be the last pope, not to mention Jean-Marie Lustiger if he's elected, but it really would be over-the-top to have a category for "Jewish popes".  Incidentally we probably need a Category:Legendary popes for Pope Joan and the article I am currently working on.--Pharos 07:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the first and the second ones, as per BaronLarf. — Instantnood 16:46, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the third Above:too emotional to handle debate. Subcategories are historically correct.Leonard.007 21:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the duplicates and keep all Category:French popes etc. that have more than one or two entries per Pharos's suggestion. Perhaps also create List of Popes by nationality or something in Category:Popes to emphasize the various nationalities represented historically. --Laura Scudder | Talk 04:49, 15 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:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 6

April 6

 * 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 to Category:English palaeontologists --Kbdank71 17:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:English paleontologists
Voting results:

"Rename to Category:English palaeontologists" (7): Dunc, Instantnood, Mel Etitis, VivaEmilyDavies, Iota, Guettarda, Grutness

"Keep" (1): Gene Nygaard

Consensus is to rename to Category:English palaeontologists.

palaeontology has 2 "a"'s i it. Same for the Scottish ones. One for a bot. Dunc|☺ 21:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So you think it should be moved to Category:English palaeontologists?

 * Keep, it is both consistent with the rest and a correct spelling. Gene Nygaard 03:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Move. Be consistent with local usage. — Instantnood 12:04, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Local usage? What do you propose to do with categories of paleontologists from non-English speaking countries? Moving would be fine with me, but consistency is more important. Keep, unless all occurrances in page titles of Paleontology and Paleontologist and all other words beginning with Paleo- are consistently changed to Palæo- or Palaeo-. / Uppland 12:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I change my vote to move, as, based on what Mel Etitis writes below, moving U.S. paleontologists to the palaeo-spelling ought to be uncontroversial. / Uppland 20:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: See Manual of Style and Manual of Style for usage in English-speaking countries. — Instantnood 14:14, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * And Manual of Style (spelling). — Instantnood 18:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Move. It looks incongruous to have 'English' followed by a non-U.K. spelling.  Moreover, the spelling 'palaeontology' is also used in the U.S. and other countries (see, e.g., Germany, U.S., S. Africa/Australia.  See Category:Theatre and all its sub-categories, using the spelling that's always used in the U.K. and sometimes used in the U.S.; shouldn't that be done in this category family?  Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * And, as 26,700 Google hits on "paleontology" in domain ".uk" tell you, that spelling is also used in the UK. So what's your point?
 * Futhermore, your emotional United States-bashing argument is based on facts not in evidence; a false assumption that this spelling is limited only to the United States. In Google, while the paleontology/palaeontology hits are only in a ratio of 1:2.5, for domain .ca (Canada) the ratio is the opposite direction at 4.1:1 in favor of paleontology, for example.  On .nz, it's about an even split.  Do we really need to survey each country, for their in print usage as well as their web site usage?
 * Overall Google ratio is 2,660,000 for paleontology vs. 314,000 for palaeontology, or 8.5 to 1 for the version with only one a. Gene Nygaard 20:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Er, sorry? Where did I become emotional, or 'bash' the U.S.?  If you want to conduct the discussion at that level, I'll leave you to it. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You most certainly implied, and intended to claim and for others to believe, a uniform, universal usage outside the United States and Liberia and whatever other English-speaking areas you would exclude from your definition of "Commonwealth." Do you still stand by your claim of "always used in the U.K."?  Gene Nygaard 21:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Move - how about a compromise? Local usage for English-speaking countries; but use "paleontologist" elsewhere since "paleo" is the main usage in WP e.g. Paleontology (Palaeontology, and indeed Palaeontologist, are redirects to that). I think the three categories relevant here are: Category:English paleontologists, Category:British paleontologists and Category:Scottish paleontologists. All have CFD notices on them. VivaEmilyDavies 14:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So who do you propose to do the research on "local usage" for all the various English-speaking countries? Are you going to take Belize?  Does India count?  How are we going to verify the accuracy of that determination by whomever?  KISS!  Otherwise it's all a bunch of nonsense, worthless as a finding aid if we have to guess whatever someone might have determined as the prevalent usage of each little precinct where English might be spoken. What would you guess for the Trinidad and Tobago Republic? For Ireland?  --Gene Nygaard 18:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Or for Scotland, for that matter. Why should we presume that you are an expert on that, and just take your word for it?  Gene Nygaard 18:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I might be mistaken, but I think palaeontologist is the Commonwealth spelling, while paleontologist is the US spelling. Does that simplify things?  --Azkar 18:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's pretty easy to figure out how to spell these things. Americans use American English spellings.  Most of the rest of the English-speaking world uses English English spellings.  If there were any Trinidad and Tobago palaeontologists, they would spell it according the standard English spelling.  The only real variant in spelling is American (although "z" is used for "s" in many cases where otherwise English spellings are used.  See International English.  Guettarda 18:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * With Google limited to "site:.uk" we get about 26,700 hits for paleontology and 66,200 hits for palaeontology, and only a few for palæontology. That's certainly room enough for there to exist regional variations within the U.K. itself, let alone some vague notion of a fictional "Commonwealth" standard.  Let's see you prove that usage is not different in Wales from what it is in Scotland, for example.  Then you can tackle Canada (a Commonwealth country) and the like. Gene Nygaard 19:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Gene, you forgot to add, "I'm right and you're wrong, nya nya." :) -Kbdank71 19:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If anybody is interested, the Oxford English Dictionary (which tries to establish the locality of different usages) mentions "paleo-" merely as the U.S. variant. Of course, U.S. variants then wind up being used in the UK (and elsewhere) too, but it's a matter of taste, not geography. Does anybody else smell a fish in the following logic: "Wales is part of the U.K. - however that doesn't mean that their regional usage of English is the same as British English. Since you haven't proven that it is the same in this instance, the obvious thing to do is assume they use U.S. English". :) I am going to warn you that there are a fair number of Brits who really dislike "paleo-", just like "encyclopedia" (in fact many Brits still haven't come to terms with "-paedia"...). Here's a suggestion: keep things as they are until someone complains. So rather than delve into a Canadian dictionary, lets leave Canada until somebody, probably Canadian, kicks up a stink. However, somebody has spotted that the UK usage is not being used for a UK category, and has complained that it is jarring. Fair enough, so why not move it? VivaEmilyDavies 20:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * And the only one which still uses the encyclopædia spelling is a United States encyclopedia! That probably irks more than anything else.  -- Gene Nygaard 20:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment: See also the previous poll on transport and transportation. — Instantnood 15:19, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Move: based on local usage. Iota 15:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Move (see my reply above). Guettarda 18:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I notice a lot of people are making the argument that since it's about English pal(pick your spelling of choice)ontologists, we should spell it like the English would.  That would hold water if the only people who were going to view that category lived in England.  We shouldn't get to spell something a certain way just because "they would spell it that way there".  Unfortunately, aside from a redirect, I don't have an answer to this category.  I'm personally ok with either spelling.  And that's another thing we should consider.  Is anyone going to be confused with either spelling?  Not are they going to get their knickers in a twist, but will they be confused?  If not, then the spelling shouldn't matter. -Kbdank71 20:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * In a time of transition, there are often age-based differences as well. Old fogeys in the United States, as anywhere else, are more likely to use the palaeontology spelling than the younger generation are.  The trend is toward dropping it.  Gene Nygaard 20:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Move. UK category => UK (and other parts of the commonwealth) spelling. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 02:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thinking a bit more about it, I abstain and strike my comments above, as this whole discussion is idiotic. Unless there is some ambition towards consistency in either direction, I don't see the point. I would support moving all categories if such a proposal is made. / Uppland 06:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It is consistent now, or was when I looked at it, except for one duplicate in both spellings. Gene Nygaard 09:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, that is why I don't really support moving one category (or just a few). / Uppland 09:58, 8 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:
Category talk:Parliament buildings

This category is unnecessary, seeing how there is a more extensive "Legislative Buildings" category up and running. Funnyhat 04:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Parliament buildings


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 7

April 7

 * 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 18:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) ===Category:Botanists studying spermatophytes,Category:Botanists studying fungi,Category:Botanists studying fossils,Category:Botanists studying algae,Category:Botanists studying lichens,Category:Botanists studying ferns,Category:Botanists studying bryophytes===

Voting results:

"Rename" (4): VivaEmilyDavies, Kbdank71, Uppland, Juntungwu

"Delete all" (2): Gene Nygaard, Postdlf

Consensus is to rename

Self-nomination. On reflection the following would be improvements (The more technical usage seems to be preferred; I am afraid that "mycologist" was pre-existent, I was confused by the current split between Category:Mycology and Category:Fungi)

Category:Botanists studying spermatophytes-> please delete (turned out to be too broad to be useful)

Category:Botanists studying fungi-> please merge into Category:Mycologists

Category:Botanists studying fossils-> please rename to Category:Paleobotanists

Category:Botanists studying algae-> please rename to Category:Algologists

Category:Botanists studying lichens-> please rename to Category:Lichenologists

Category:Botanists studying ferns-> please rename to Category:Pteridologists

Category:Botanists studying bryophytes-> please rename to Category:Bryologists

VivaEmilyDavies 17:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete all. Don't bother renaming. Why in the world would we need them? Aren't these categories supposed to be helpful as finding aids? They will only result in one of two possibilities:
 * Someone looking for a botanist can't find him or her for the forest of possibilities to look under, or
 * We get a half-page box of category listings including a couple of these as well as all the categories in the tree above it for each article dealing with some obscure botanist, so we just say to hell with trying to find the category most likely to include a colleague out of that mess.

 * Gene Nygaard 17:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: One one hand, they'll be easy enough to find, being under Category:Botanists, but then again, I wouldn't know what a Pteridologist was if you showed me a dictionary entry and explained it to me in very small words.  So I'm not sure how helpful it would be to people who don't already know the meanings.  -Kbdank71 19:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment:Which is precisely why I picked those category names in the first place :) The downside is that they are too long, and also some biologists reckoned they'd prefer the technical terms. So long as there is a definition included at the top of the category page that will help! Categories are used for collecting related articles togethers and linking them, as well as for browsing and finding (remember: there is also "search" for finding people; along with lists; along with "foo-ologists by nationality" if you know the nationality... besides, if you did want to find an algologist, how would category:algologists not be a useful finding aid?). Compare with zoologists, for example, where "ornithologists" are a recognised subcategory; or "engineers" where there are civil engineers, electrical engineers, and mechanical engineers. Subcategorisation by field provides a useful bridging link - it brings people "closer" in information terms with the object that they studied. If we classed all ornithologists only as zoologists, then the link in category space between Category:Birds and an ornithologist would not be straight between their categories but up via Category:Animals, then across to zoologists, and the ornithologists would be spread out unidentifiably in that category. Isn't that a loss of information?
 * Perhaps Category:Engineers should serve as a model? Engineers are broken down by both field (e.g. civil engineers) and nationality (e.g. German engineers)- a pretty good analogy for this. Isn't that the way to go? If/once "category intersection" is implemented, "X by nationality" is a useless categorisation scheme anyway (you'd just intersect "German people" with "engineers" to find German engineers). But categorisation by field will still be valuable - all civil engineers would be kept in the same place. Getting rid of a parallel subcategorisation can not make it easier to find somebody - consider the Category:Engineers example again. Why would scrapping "Civil engineers" and the like make it easier to find an engineer by browsing? It would just force you to look in "Engineers by nationality", even if you knew the person you were looking for was a civil engineer! Conversely, if you are looking for, say, an American engineer but you don't know quite what type of engineer he was, then nobody is forcing you to look him or her up by field - American engineers is the place to look! If you know neither the nationality nor the field, and you can't exactly remember the name (so you can't search for him) but you would spot it by eyeball search, then use the list of engineers (equivalent here is the list of botanists; the list of botanists by author abbreviation is also helpful if you know only the botanical abbreviation). Keeping such subcategories doesn't make it any harder to find anybody. If anybody else agrees with Gene that they should all be deleted, could you make it clear what you want to do with the proposed merger? Effectively we currently have two lists of mycologists. Why delete one and save the other? Surely we should either delete both or merge? VivaEmilyDavies 19:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Woah! I said small words. :)  Ok, you sold me.  Agree with proposal.  -Kbdank71 19:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * But Category:Engineers doesn't have Category:Natural gas petroleum engineers and Category:Township civil engineers, does it? Just because we can make a distinction doesn't mean we should make a distinction.  Gene Nygaard 19:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment You also seem totally confused about how these things work.  No, I can't necessarily just look in Category:Engineers if I don't know either the engineering specialty or the nationality, because there is no guarantee that the individual articles will be listed in the supercategory (and in most cases, they should not be).  No, I can't just look in Category:Botanists if I don't know whether the botanist I am interested in should be in Category:Algologists or Category:Lichenologists, because there is no guarantee that she will also be in Category:Botanists.  Somebody would have to put her in both categories for that to be true.  So what are the guidelines on how many different levels of the category tree we are supposed enter these people into?  Where are those guidelines published? Even if such guidelines exist and are perfectly clear (both highly improbable), how well is Joe Blow going to follow them in creating a new article? Gene Nygaard 03:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete all, but make list articles of each sub-specialization—those can then go in the botanist category as well as the categories for what they are studying. Having categories at this level of particularlity, however, are simply unnecessary and likely to be confusing to all but experts.  Postdlf 19:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be prepared to put the time in to make a list, but the problem is maintenance. Keeping a bunch of lists up to date as more and more new articles get added requires more time and effort than keeping categories up to date. VivaEmilyDavies 20:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Lists are the way to go. Gene Nygaard 21:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Support move and retaining of specialist categories. / Uppland 20:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. JuntungWu 14:55, 9 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:
Talk:1992 NHL entry draft

These redlinked draft picks meet WP:NHOCKEY

 * Alexander Cherbayev - 1
 * Lee Leslie - 2
 * Andy MacIntyre - 3
 * Brent Tully (ice hockey) - 2
 * Tomas Klimt (Q12059235) - 1
 * Dmitri Starostenko (Q3042228) - 1
 * Ravil Yakubov (Q3420298) - 1
 * Alexander Alexeyev (Ukrainian ice hockey player) - 1
 * Bob Lachance (Q89310670) - 2
 * Martin Sychra - 1
 * Jaroslav Miklenda - 1
 * Pavel Rajnoha - 1
 * Vladimir Grachev (ice hockey) - 1
 * Artur Oktyabrev (Q2865854) - 1
 * Scott Hollis - 2
 * Claude Jutras - 2
 * Konstantin Korotkov (ice hockey) - 1
 * Mike Mathers - 3
 * Claude Savoie (ice hockey) (Q16025219) - 2
 * David Hymovitz (Q3018108) - 2
 * Sergei Simonov (ice hockey, born 1974) - 1
 * Evgeny Garanin - 1
 * Teemu Numminen (Q11896738) - 1
 * Andrei Potaichuk (Q2846837) - 1
 * Ivan Vologjaninov (Q85652089) - 1
 * Jukka Tiilikainen (Q6210912) - 1
 * Yevgeni Pavlov - 1
 * Vladislav Yakovenko - 1

Note: Articles must also meet WP:GNG. --75.88.89.194 (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NHL Entry Draft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1992 NHL entry draft


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 8

April 8

 * 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 17:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:SI derived units of angle
Voting results:

"Delete" (2): Instandnood, Radiant

Consensus is to delete.

This category currently has only 1 article - Radian, and I don't think it will be populated. — Instantnood 20:07, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Why pick on angles? Since the SI is a coherent system of units, as that term is used in metrology jargon, there should only be one unit in any Category:SI derived units of XXX, plus multiples and submultiples built with prefixes.  Milliradians are in common use, and someone could write an article about them and a few more possibilities.  The Category:SI derived units of time, has only microsecond and zeptosecond and a few other prefixes, but there is one major difference for that one; it is misnamed because the second is not a derived unit, it is a base unit.  Whoever made these categories is just using a nonstandard meaning of "derived unit", something different from what this term normally means in metrology jargon.  Gene Nygaard 23:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, categories with this few entries are pointless; should be obviated by the more generic category SI derived units. Plus, we don't even need articles on - I'd be in favor of merging the lot of those.  Radiant_* 09:25, Apr 9, 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 keep. --Kbdank71 17:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Transport in Merseyside
Voting results:

"Rename" (1): Irate

"Keep" (1): JuntungWu

''No consensus. Default is to keep.''

Should be renamed to Category:Transport on Merseyside. as this is the correct usage. See Merseyside.--Jirate 10:17, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
 * note: I have just moved this from WP:RM Thryduulf 18:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * abstain - Merseyside is also the name of a former county, in is consistent with them, but on is the normal useage for -side areas (e.g. Tyneside, Deeside, etc). Thryduulf 18:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is because of the former county argument. JuntungWu 14:57, 9 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 '''keep. Categories were not nominated in good faith.''' --Kbdank71 17:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong-related categories with only one article

 * Category:Hong Kong architects
 * Contains only one article--Huaiwei 17:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Category:Hong Kong philanthropists
 * Contains only one article--Huaiwei 17:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Category:Mobile phone companies of Hong Kong
 * Contains only one article--Huaiwei 17:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Category:Radio stations in Hong Kong
 * Contains only one article--Huaiwei 17:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Category:Internet companies of Hong Kong
 * Contains only one article--Huaiwei 17:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment (non-vote): Wikipedia is a working in progress, and these categories are getting populated. — Instantnood 17:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agreed. So you might do well not using this page as a place to play your games. I do not appreciate your delibrate attempt in picking only on under populated Singapore-related categories.--Huaiwei 18:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not playing any game. — Instantnood 19:19, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actions speaks louder then words. You can be sure I will be noting this habit of yours.--Huaiwei 19:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * With respect, you're both playing games, and it's not helping to write an encyclopedia. Perhaps we can try to work out your differences somewhere other than CfD?  I'm sure any number of people would be willing to help, me included...  -Kbdank71 20:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not deny that the above 5 nominations were made in responce to his antics, and I do agree this is plain childish. I suppose the point has been made thou. On my part, I will just try my best to write more sg-related articles, hopefully more for the good of this site, and not just because someone is picking on me. I apologise for the above abuse of this page.--Huaiwei 09:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * While I don't care whether it was a response to my "antics", nor whether anything was "plain childish", please don't shift the responsibility to anybody else. I am not particularly interested in your hometown, and I have never been picking on it. — Instantnood 16:23, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said, may I hope your actions reflect your true intentions. That you have to suddenly start shifting your attention in nominating several one-article categories above in topics which you are obviously unfamiliar with just raises suspicions on you.--Huaiwei 20:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't suspect about this and that, and speculate what I am familiar with. — Instantnood 20:34, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * No I didnt "suspect". I read it from your own comment above. You might also do well doing as you preach too. Whatever the case, I wont think it is a good idea to embarrass ourselves in a page like this, so our petty exchanges can go somewhere else if required.--Huaiwei 11:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sufficient basis in itself for a nomination. Gene Nygaard 18:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Sure it is. Superfluous categories are a drain, which is why there is a serious policy discussion to limit their creation. I'd also suggest to Instantnood,, honestly, not as his foil, that maybe he should focus his attention on creating a few good articles, rather than constantly creating categories and stubs that end up on VfD and CfD. Categories and stubs are good and useful, but not as useful as really good content. You've made hundreds of stubs, and plenty of categories, but they wither. Backup a step and write. Set a minimum of say, five good articles, then create the category to house them and you won't be constantly seeing your creations up for deletion. SchmuckyTheCat 18:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. May I point out, that he is using this page to play his childish games of revenge against me just because I nominated several HK-related categories below, in which none of them were nominated purely because they were underpopulated. category:Hong Kong surnames is the most recent example.--Huaiwei 18:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Please be careful when you're accusing somebody. I am not only picking Singapore-related categories. — Instantnood 19:19, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not retracting my accusation. Your behavior is way too obvious to be denied. I saw how you were complaining about me with your "friends" with regards to several categories I nominated, and the next moment I know, you started targeting Singapore categories. I dont think this is pure coincidence. If you think the category has room for growth, you can leave a note in the discussion page. Listing it here means it is the LAST step towards deletion. I do not consider this a "cordial" way of getting people to develop content, if that is your "kind intention".--Huaiwei 19:23, 8 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 rename. --Kbdank71 17:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fooican rivers --> Rivers in Fooican
More logical naming convention. Perhaps we could get a bot to do it?: --Neutralitytalk 14:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) Revised list: RedWolf 04:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:African rivers --> Category:Rivers in Africa
 * Category:Asian rivers --> Category:Rivers in Asia
 * Category:Australian rivers --> Category:Rivers in Australia
 * Category:European rivers --> Category:Rivers in Europe
 * Category:Hawaiian rivers --> Category:Rivers in Hawaii
 * Category:New Zealand rivers --> Category:Rivers in New Zealand
 * Category:North American rivers --> Category:Rivers in North America
 * Category:South American rivers --> Category:Rivers in South America
 * Strongly support. -Kbdank71 14:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Generally agree. What about the inconsistence between "Rivers in Foo" and "Rivers of Foo"? — Instantnood 15:10, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please be reminded to put on the tag for block renaming.   — Instantnood 15:30, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to Category:Rivers of Foo current logical naming convention goes the other way. Natural features use "of", man-made features use "in". Look up all the other changes in natural feature categories from about February of this year.  Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 02:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as per Grutness comments. RedWolf 20:55, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:African rivers --> Category:Rivers of Africa
 * Category:Asian rivers --> Category:Rivers of Asia
 * Category:Australian rivers --> Category:Rivers of Australia
 * Category:European rivers --> Category:Rivers of Europe
 * Category:Hawaiian rivers --> Category:Rivers of Hawaii
 * Category:New Zealand rivers --> Category:Rivers of New Zealand
 * Category:North American rivers --> Category:Rivers of North America
 * Category:South American rivers --> Category:Rivers of South America

 * All the above are done except Category:Hawaiian rivers (all others on the left that still exist are pending deletion). The remaining cat should not have been in Category:Rivers and I have demoted it to Category:Rivers of the United States. The category should not be renamed as this would break the naming convention used at the state level (and no, I don't agree that the state level should follow the country level). RedWolf 05:26, Apr 20, 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:
Talk:Temple garment

Members not instructed to wear garments day and night
In the article, it states that members are told in their recommend interview to wear the garments day and night. However, with the new questions, that is no longer the case.

Here is the source, it is on the last page in the grayed out box. I'm not sure how to change the article and add that as a source, so I was hoping someone else could correct this error. Thanks!

False claims about the garment
I just undid a change in this article about the wearing of the temple garment because the reason for the change was incorrect. So I wanted to post a reminder here about what the official sources say, since the change I just reverted claimed that the handbook and his personal membership in the Church verifies the changes he attempted to make. As to the reasons supporting my revert over his removal, I'd refer anyone here with questions to a more careful reading of section 38.5.5, entitled "Wearing and Caring for the Garment". In particular, the pertinent text of that section reads as follows:

"The garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It is a matter of personal preference whether other undergarments are worn over or under the temple garment.

"The garment should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment. It should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing.

"The garment is sacred and should be treated with respect. Endowed members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment."

That does not mean what the editor in question said it did. About the only thing that was correct in the edit in question was the fact that the Church has adjusted the wording about the wearing of the temple garment from "night and day" to instead being "as instructed in the endowment." Anyways, that was my two-fold reason for the reent revert. Any further discussion on this is welcome, but I think to the extent that we can, we should avoid asserting that a source says something when it in fact does not. Thanks again, all. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

"worn by adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement after they have taken part in the endowment ceremony." No, not quite correct. The wearing of garments is intiated as part of the "washing and anointing" ceremony which a different ritual.

Who introduced the garment in the 1800's?
This request is directed to improvement of the article. I'm interested in the history of the introduction of the garment to the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Your article did have some of this history in it but could you tell me which prophet/leader introduced the garment? Were they told about the garment by God or took the idea from studying the Bible? Was there instructions from God what the garment was too look like at the time of the introduction of the garment to the current L.D.S. faith? I can't seem to find answers to these questions anywhere, and I believe some people including myself would find it interesting. Thanks for considering my requested and as always learned much more about this topic thanks to your efforts. 75.174.155.29 (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Highly Inappropriate Content
Good day, I'm just writing to inform the moderators of this article that it contains highly inappropriate content, displaying a picture of the actual clothing that members of the faith consider sacred and not to be displayed for viewing by those who have not also taken on the promises that need to be made to be worthy to wear the clothing. This is not the type of behavior that should be tolerated in an objective and respectful source of information. 67.2.31.58 (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The photos of which you speak are acceptable for inclusion, per Wikipedia policies and were provided courtesy of the Church, so they meet the threshold for inclusion. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * According to the info on wikimedia commons this photo was NOT provided "courtesy of the Church" but rather has a dubious copyright authorization: "The use of this photo was granted to me by the owner of the copyright, a Mr. Packham on 11/11/06." We are unable to verify this copyright because there is no first name of the purported copyright owner. If anyone has evidence that this was provided by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, please provide the same.  Othewise, we agree with the previous talker and believe this content should be removed. Hot Dog (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be the late Richard Packham (he died last April at 90.) "Provided courtesy of the Church" doesn't make much sense; the original photo comes from Packham's website. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 00:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Richard Packham is not a "neutral" source of information, it is obvious from his web page that his goal was to attack and defame the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its adherents. This content was highly innapropriate, is not in good taste, and is offensive to a large audience: the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The photos have been removed for those reasons. Hot Dog (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So what if he's not neutral? The absolute only issue here is, "is the image properly licensed". Wikipedia is not censored. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 04:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not the only issue here, the photo is not in good taste and is offensive to a large audience. The photo does not display a "neutral point of view" but rather is part of an effort to demean or embarrass the adherents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It violates the NPOV standard: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and...without editorial bias, all the significant views..." I am removing the photo again.  Please do not revers my edit.  Thank you. Hot Dog (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. There is no violation of WP:NPOV. We have pictures all over Wikipedia that are offensive to some audience. We have pictures of Mohammad. We have pictures of Baháʼu'lláh. Adherents of the relevant religions don't want those pictures up. We also have pictures of penises and vaginas and all sorts of different sex acts. Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED: Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus, Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect nominated for deleation
I have nominated the ‘Magical Underwear’ redirect for deletion. This redirect is inappropriate and offensive, often confusing people. The term ‘magical underwear’ is frequently used as an insult. LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Temple garment


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 9

April 9

 * 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 category for deletion. --Kbdank71 18:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Categories of mainland China-related topics
This is a friendly notice regarding mainland China-related categories. There is a poll here for assessing the applicability of the naming conventions on each of the articles and categories. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. — Instantnood 15:01, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * geebus keeriste, it's the applicability of his interpretation of the naming conventions. he can't even make a non-biased proclamation. SchmuckyTheCat 15:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nevermind. I always look biased in your eyes, anyways. :-D — Instantnood 16:17, Apr 9, 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:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 10

April 10

 * 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 move text to article and delete --Kbdank71 18:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Biblical Studies
This was nominated below as an empty orphan, but since an anonymous user has expanded it hugely. I haven't read it, but perhaps it should be moved/merged with article Biblical studies or something before deletion? --ssd 14:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur, merge redundant cats. Radiant_* 20:35, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * You missed my point I think. I am NOT proposing to merge redundant categories, but to merge the article portion of a category into a non-category article. --ssd 00:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, sorry. Guess someone mistook a category for an article. This should definitely be merged with the article as you suggest, and the cat is pointless as it has only one article (which should probably be in Category:Theology or something. Radiant_* 18:52, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a subject area I'm familiar enough with to offer any difinitive suggestions on, but we should note that there are currently articles on Biblical studies as well as Biblical Studies. The definitions for each are slightly different, and I'm not really sure if they should be considered as redundant or not.  Both are stubs - whereas the content in this catagory would not be, if this were an article and not a category.  --Azkar 00:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Merged now. I don't think it's ever appropriate to have two identical articles with different capitalization. Radiant_* 18:52, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * NOTE: Please read the original nomination again. Someone has expanded Category:Biblical Studies into an article. The contents need to be merged into Biblical studies. If someone does not take this on, the text from the category will be summarily dumped into the article without integration.

 * I've moved the information to Biblical studies. Category:Biblical Studies was not marked as Cfd, so I added the notice and will wait 3 days before deleting.  --Kbdank71 19:23, 18 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:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 11

April 11

 * 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 18:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Video directors and Category:Music video directors
are both about music video directors. --Nikai 23:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * ...and as such should be at Category:Music video directors. Delete (or redirect) the other one. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 00:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Combine and keep the one called Music video directors, delete Video directors. -- Lochaber 10:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Since this is a week old, quasi-concensus and non-controversial, I was bold. All articles moved to Category:Music video directors, Category:Video directors is empty and can be deleted. -- grm_wnr Esc  14:09, 19 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 18:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Aboriginal peoples of Canada
Should be renamed to Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada. The Government of Canada's Department of Indian and Northern Affairs specifically states in their naming guidelines that authors should "Avoid describing Aboriginal people as "belonging" to Canada". This policy of not implying belonging has been followed by several older Wikipedia categories that group aboriginal peoples, for example Category:Aboriginal peoples in the Canadian Arctic. Discussion regarding this renaming has also been held on the Canadian wikipedians' notice board. Kurieeto 20:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support SchmuckyTheCat 02:44, 15 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 merge into Category:British trade unionists.

Category:English trade unionists
Voting results:

"Merge" (2): Necrothesp, Lochaber

Consensus is to merge into Category:British trade unionists.

Content should be merged into Category:British trade unionists. These two categories seem to have been used indiscriminately (most of those in the latter category are English too), and as most British trade unions operate UK-wide the latter category seems more appropriate. -- Necrothesp 12:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - though there may come a time that Category:British trade unionists becomes too large, should that happen I would support the recreation of this subcat. -- Lochaber 12:45, 11 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:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 12

April 12

 * 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 18:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Chicago transportation
renamed to fit style of Category:Transportation in Chicago which all the other transportation articles (and indeed all country specific ones should). Burgundavia 16:56, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Rick Block 18:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Should the category be expanded as "category:Transportation in Chicagoland"? — Instantnood 08:03, Apr 16, 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.