text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 13

April 13

 * 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 18:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Lists of lists
Doesn't seem to have much of a use. Only had two articles, both of which were primarily just lists. --SPUI (talk) 14:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, we need this, along with List of templates of categories of articles. Delete. Radiant_* 15:32, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --the wub 11:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete SchmuckyTheCat 02:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur with both comments made by Radiant. Delete.  Postdlf 02:31, 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 delete --Kbdank71 01:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Hungarian history
Voting results:

"Delete" (4): Adam78, Kbdank71, The wub, Laura Scudder

"Keep" (1): PANONIAN

Consensus is to rename

I think this category should be renamed to Category:History of Hungary, because (1) it sounds better, (2) it seems to be more proper in meaning, (3) it seems to be more usual among similar categories (see Category:History by nation). However, I'm not a native English speaker so you should decide it first of all. Adam78 11:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. -Kbdank71 13:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree --the wub 11:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree, although Category:History by nation isn't unanimous on format, most seem to be History of ____, and in this case it does sound better. --Laura Scudder | Talk 01:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree, since category Hungarian history also includes articles involving history of Hungarians outside of borders of present day Hungary. If we change name into the History of Hungary, then some articles should be moved from it to History of Romania, History of Serbia, etc (of course, it is not History of Serbia but Serbian history, which is much wider category and it is similar issue). Hungarian history is not only history of Hungary, but also history of Hungarians who live outside of present day Hungary. In the same way, Serbian history is also a history of Serbs who live outside of Serbia. Both of these categories should remain unchanged because of that. There is reason why these categories are written like this. User:PANONIAN

 * 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 16:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

category:Articles with OSGB36 coordinates
Voting results:

"Delete" (5): Joe D, RHaworth, Thryduulf, Eugene Van Der Pijll, pmcm

"Keep" (1): 80N, Instantnood

"Rename to OSGB36" (1): Downthepub

Consensus is to delete

There are templates that link out to Ordnance Survey maps that are useful. However, using them also puts in this ugly category within the article, and usually as the primary category (e.g. Great Central Railway (preserved)). If there was felt a need to create such a list of pages, then it should be done with a bot registering to all what links here such as links to disambiguation pages. Dunc|☺ 10:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps just rename to "(OSGB36)" -- Downthepub 14:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * D: As far as I can tell this category serves no purpose. All British settlements and locations will eventually be using one of those templates, and they will be categorised by region and type of location/feature, this one just lumps all British settlements and locations into one category.  Joe D (t) 17:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment: Personally, I think it's sufficient if the coordinates are just added on a template. Imagine if we added a category to Template:Coor we would already end up with several thousands of articles in that category. Obviously, if we had a category of GB places missing coordinates, this might help expand them, but it's easier to build a list of articles with the template and UK location categories. --- Docu

 * Keep Delete. NB. Delete means remove from the relevant templates - the category itself may be left in place until its contents have vanished.

 * If it puts people off using templates for map links then it is a Bad Thing. What follows, from my original vote, is really an argument for using map templates not for this category.

 * This category should be called "Articles with links to getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk" or, better, simply "getamap". It is not really intended to be a category of the (Main) namespace but rather a category within the Wikipedia: namespace. However there is only one type of category so it has to be where it is. Likewise because it is assigned via a template it unfortunately becomes the first category listed for any article.

 * The link that these templates generate is a) not advertised on the getamap website and b) quite complicated: http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/getamap/frames.htm?mapAction=gaz&gazName=g&gazString= . There is a danger that at any time the getamap website may change and use a different format URL or stop accepting 'external' calls.
 * That's true, but I use the exact same url through a quicklink and would notice if it suddenly broke. Being the one who linkified it in the first place, I'd know to either fix the URL or change it to something like streetmap if the OS actually blocked our queries. --BesigedB (talk) 13:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Please, what is a "quicklink"? How would you notice if it broke except by checking it at regular intervals (but this category does not address the question of detecting breakage). And having detected a broken link how would you know which articles you had used it in? (Or am I being thick?) -- RHaworth 11:35, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
 * It means I can type m Edinburgh and it comes up with a map of Edinburgh. I use it almost daily. I'd like to see Grunt's idea of an inverted list put in place, but my point and yours are a side issue to that of using the category - if the target url needs changed it can be done in the template rather than in each individual article, unless somebody decides to be stupid and subst: them all. BesigedB (talk) 17:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It is just possible that we may need to know which articles contain such links. If so an ad-hoc report will need to be written - Special:Whatlinkshere is unsuitable because:
 * it is limited to 500 items and the two most popular templates gbmapping and gbmappingsmall are each already used by more than 500 articles
 * there are a dozen different templates.

 * Delete - but sometime in the future we may be glad that all links to getamap are done via templates. -- RHaworth 01:20, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC) revised 13:01, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

 * Comment: At the risk of giving someone a huge amount of work to do, are we going about this backwards? The category is clearly going to be more useful to editors that readers, since it's the editors who'll want to know which articles have these links. In theory, the aim would be to eventually get all UK geography articles to contain OS links. Surely then it would make more sense to work it in a stub-like way, and make the category for UK geography items that don't have OS map links, and slowly empty that category out. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 11:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * delete - I agree with Grutness' comment. Thryduulf 15:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep - It's a useful category for editors. Giving it a different name might be confusing to the ordinary reader if it was something cryptic like OSGB36, but otoh might make pages look cleaner.  At the moment it 'does what it says on the tin'.  It would be nice if there were some way to make it appear at the end of a category's list or in a smaller font or something.  80N 10:56, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Categories on articles in the main namespace are for the readers, to look for related articles. As a compromise, can a category be put on the talk pages of the articles? That would be acceptable. Eugene van der Pijll 11:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per 80N. — Instantnood 07:58, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete I'm not very fond of über-categories where things tend to just get thrown in, as they end up being rather too large to be manageable. I do however think that the idea of having a category on the talk page is an excellent one. This would allow some sort of list of the pages using the template to be maintained. — pmcm 14:34, 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 keep --Kbdank71 13:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Renaming Category:American people by occupation subcategories
Voting results:

"Rename" (3): Postdlf, Hooperbloob, Oliver Chettle

"Oppose" (3): Kbdank71, Grutness, ScottDavis

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

For consistent and proper naming:

 * Category:U.S. artists                     --> Category:American artists
 * Category:United States painters           --> Category:American painters
 * Category:United States sculptors          --> Category:American sculptors
 * Category:U.S. illustrators                --> Category:American illustrators
 * Category:U.S. architects                  --> Category:American architects
 * Category:U.S. film directors              --> Category:American film directors
 * Category:U.S. film producers              --> Category:American film producers
 * Category:U.S. comedians                   --> Category:American comedians
 * Category:United States musicians          --> Category:American musicians
 * Category:U.S. inventors                   --> Category:American inventors
 * Category:U.S. spies                       --> Category:American spies
 * Category:United States radio personalities --> Category:American radio personalities
 * Category:U.S. politicians                 --> Category:American politicians
 * Category:U.S. philosophers                --> Category:American philosophers
 * Category:U.S. philanthropists             --> Category:American philanthropists
 * Category:United States astronauts         --> Category:American astronauts
 * Category:U.S. businesspeople              --> Category:American businesspeople

These are the only nonconformists. Postdlf 07:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Maybe it's just me, but I prefer either U.S. or United States to American.  -Kbdank71 13:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not an option because it would run contrary to the parent category structure of Category:American people by occupation (and the majority of its subcategories), Category:American people, and the naming rule followed in Category:Nationalities by occupation and Category:People by nationality. I would've listed these for automatic moving without discussion but (unless I was just tired) I didn't see that language on this page any longer.  Postdlf 16:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should hold off voting on this until we can come up with a consensus of "America" vs "US" for all categories. Unless, that is, it's already a naming convention and I just couldn't find it.  -Kbdank71 14:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that all the American named categories should be shifted over to U.S.A. because of the reasons stated before in the American v US debates here. 132.205.15.43 02:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "U.S.A. people"?? Who ever uses "U.S.A." as an adjective?  Postdlf 16:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree. You're moving them the wrong direction. Unless, of course, you want Brazilians, Canadians, and Cosata Ricans (all of whom are American) in those categories. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 03:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * They are North and South Americans, but show me sources that refer to Canadians as Americans without a modifier. Postdlf 16:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the nearest such book to hand is "Essential History of American Art", by Suzanne Bailey (Parragon, Bath, UK, 2001) which lists such great American artists as Diego Rivera, David Alvaro Siqueiros, and Frida Kahlo. Not Canadians, sure, but "Americans" nonetheless. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 11:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree America ≠ U.S.A
 * Strongly agree The term Americans is synonymous with US citizens by virtue of their overwhelming presence, not by geography. Canadians, Mexicans, and Costa Ricans would strongly object to being labelled as Americans.Hooperbloob 10:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment—can anyone point to significant evidence of people from North and South America commonly being referred to as "Americans" in the English language, without a modifier? "U.S." is the only real competing adjective for things United States, but its usage is comparatively awkward, less common, and tends to connote the federal government and its official agents and acts rather than the nationality.  I thought this issue got resolved a long time ago.  Besides, this is simply a listing for completing uniformity in the current structure, not a proposal as to what that structure should be.  The issue I have presented for voting is a narrower one: "should this minority of subcategories deviate from the followed naming conventions used by the larger structure"?  If someone else wants to list Category:American people and all of its subcategories for renaming, they can do so, but that isn't what has been done here.  Postdlf 16:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Love to, but shouldn't we have a consensus either way first?  Piecemeal isn't the way to do this.  Is there a naming convention for this? --Kbdank71 16:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought there was explicitly on here, but there is a de facto consensus in that most of the subcategories and all of the deeper categories in the structure follow that; Category:American people alone should determine what form its subcategories take. More importantly, there is a convention in the real world and that is what we should follow.  Regardless of what people may think of the co-opting by the United States of the unmodified term "American" or "America", the fact is that it happened and consequently reflects common usage and understanding in the English-speaking world in and outside the U.S.  Do a google search of the BBC website for "Americans" and tell me if that's not the case.  Wikipedia is not the place to invent or modify linguistic or naming conventions simply because we don't like the political ramifications of the ones that exist.  Postdlf 17:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place to invent or modify linguistic or naming conventions simply because we don't like the political ramifications of the ones that exist. It's not?  Then why is this up for a vote?  And since when is the BBC setting our naming standards?  Just because "American" has been co-opted doesn't mean it's NPOV toward every other citizen of North, Central, and South America.  --Kbdank71 17:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Its up for a vote to resolve the inconsistency we're currently seeing in our hierarchies, nothing more. As a non-American who has lived extensively in both North & South America, I've yet to encounter someone who identifies him/herself as someone who lives on a specific continent rather than their own country...or taken offense at the notion that the term 'American' would somehow exclude them. --Hooperbloob 19:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Usage on the BBC is significant evidence of English usage outside the U.S., particularly since it is possibly the media outlet by which most of the world encounters English. Anyway, I think you're misunderstanding what POV means in regards to naming conventions.  If anything, it's POV to ignore common linguistic usage because of personal or political values.  Note Pro-Life rather than "Anti-Choice".  The article notes that it is a self-description, and to pro choice activists it is a POV one, but because of the success of those groups in establishing that name for themselves, it is the appropriate title of the article—the title reflects the most common usage.  I'd say it's even more than a mere "self-description" because even their opponents catch themselves using it because of the success of its co-opting.  Please feel free to similarly note in the descriptive text of any category using "American" as an adjective that a minority of people (almost exclusively Spanish speakers, not English, to my understanding, and thus less relevant to an English encyclopedia) disagree with the common usage.  Postdlf 19:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Anti-Choice ? You would mean the frequently used in media term anti-abortion would you not? That is more accurate, descriptive, widely-used, and not ambiguous (anti-choice? What choice is that? Pro-Choice is a rather ugly term to be using anyways). BTW: Did you know that Columbian also means American? (CBS, Columbia Pictures, etc all refer to the USA). 132.205.15.43 22:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You know, getting tag-teamed is no fun at all. :)  I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.  Perhaps we can try to get a consensus on not only "American" vs "US", but also noun vs adjective for all countries.  Too many people have too many differing opinions on this, and I think it's unfair to call this a consensus, regardless of the outcome, seeing as how few people visit CfD.  --Kbdank71 20:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Then let's get the nonconforming categories consistant for now with the convention followed by the majority of categories, and then posit a broader question about the naming of Category:American people and all of its subcategories on the Village Pump. Or we can continue this here and actually address each others' points.  I would like to see some support, beyond mere assertion, for the claim that "Americans" has a significant English-language usage apart from referring to people from the United States.  Postdlf 05:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support renaming them all to "American". Right or wrong that is the convention in English and imo people who find it offensive are being unreasonable. Oliver Chettle 03:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree. "American" is at least ambiguous, if not different to "USA". I'd suggest renaming to Category:Artists of the USA etc. For people who think "American" means "from the USA", does "South American" mean "from Alabama, South Carolina, etc", or "from Brazil, Argentina etc" --ScottDavis 02:59, 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 14:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:American visual artists
Redundant with Category:U.S. artists. It has never had any more than three articles, which I've already moved to the proper category. Postdlf 07:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. However, how does this differ from the opposite CfD above?  -Kbdank71 13:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Because it was a subcategory of "U.S. artists", as if "artists" did not only refer to visual artists (which it did and does). Postdlf 16:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with Postdlf's reasons (there are many multimedia artists who use other modalities as much or more than vision), I agree that having both categories is overkill. Delete, recategorise what was there to Category:U.S. artists. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 08:05, 17 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 18:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Rivers in Wales
Rename to Category:Rivers of Wales to follow the established naming convention of Rivers of Foo at the national level. RedWolf 04:38, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 05:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. -Kbdank71 13:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree --the wub 11:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree --Laura Scudder | Talk 01:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree -- Saga City 22:51, Apr 15, 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 14

April 14

 * 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 01:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Ohio rivers
Voting results:

"Rename" (3): Laura Scudder, Grutness, Kbdank71

"Keep" (2): Postdlf, Redwolf

''No consensus. Default is to keep''

Propose moving it and the similar state rivers categories in Category:U.S. rivers to Category:Rivers of Ohio and Rivers of state to be consistent with Category:Lakes of Ohio and Category:Islands of Ohio. If these are moved I suppose Category:U.S. rivers should also be moved to Category:Rivers of the United States to match with Category:Lakes of the United States. This is the naming convention that was decided for Category:Rivers of England which was renamed after this discussion. This has probably been discussed before but I can't find it so I figured it could benefit from (re)discussion. --Laura Scudder | Talk 05:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know that there's necessarily a reason why rivers by political subdivision have to follow the same form as rivers by country—considering how all the state river categories follow one convention, this would amount to a lot of work for questionable gain.  It would also make them inconsistent with all the list articles (i.e., List of Ohio rivers, List of Mississippi rivers, etc.).  I honestly don't care because either title is functional, but why bother with all that work?  Postdlf 05:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Although I tend to agree with Postdlf that subregions needn't necessarily follow the format of countries, "Rivers of StateFoo" may be less confusing in many cases, given that there's an Ohio River, an Arkansas River, a Mississippi River, and a Missouri River (to name just four). Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 11:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The use of the lower case and plural "rivers" makes that kind of confusion highly unlikely. Postdlf 01:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Unlikely, perhaps... but I have seen articles on rivers it a lower case "r" before... Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]]
 * Oppose. Political subdivisions don't need to follow the same naming conventions established at the country level. RedWolf 08:02, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * Agree. --Kbdank71 18:58, 20 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 17:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Lists suggested for alphabetical organizing
An creation from our friend User:SamuraiClinton. Is linked with Template:Alpha which is also undergoing a vote for deletion. It is basiclay one users opinion of a list that need to be in alpha order. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I think it's a useful idea, but it may be considered part of cleanup and thus needless instruction creep. Abstain. Radiant_* 07:42, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete If you come across a list that should be in alphabetical order but isn't, alphabetize it. This isn't likely to be controversial (so doesn't require prior notice) and doesn't take any particular skill or subject-specific knowledge, so can be done by anyone.  If you don't have time to do the work at the moment add it to your own to do list. -- Rick Block 14:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If you want to alphabetize something, alphabetize it.  Why do we need a category?  Somewhat confusing, though, is that the only article in this category is in alphabetical order (within sub-headings) and was at the point in was put in this category.  --Azkar 22:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - this would probably be a useful category in the Wikispace (along with related ones like "Lists that need expansion") - but it doesn't belong among the main article categories. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 02:12, 17 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 20:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Popular songs
How are we determining what songs are "popular"? This is a relative term we're dealing with, after all. Songs are always "popular" if they have fans who love them, and that counts for most songs. This category could easily become POV just by the relative nature of it. -- LGagnon 20:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, POV - we already have Category:No 1 hits in the United States, and could similarly have Category:Top grossing songs or similarly NPOV of the same spirit. Something like Category:AFI 100 Songs, which is for the American Film Institute's greatest songs of American cinema. --Laura Scudder | Talk 01:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - "Popular", "famous", "miscellaneous" should all be at least strongly discouraged in category names. -- Rick Block 14:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Postdlf 20:21, 20 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. --Kbdank71 20:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some state highway categories
Voting results:

"Rename" (2): SPUI, Silsor

"Keep" (6): Kbdank71, Gene Nygaard, Postdlf, Calton, Fingers-of-Pyrex, Bryan

Consensus is to keep

These are the official names of the highway class. more to come --SPUI (talk) 18:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Alabama state highways → Category:Alabama State Routes
 * Category:Arizona state highways → Category:Arizona State Routes
 * Category:California state highways → Category:California State Routes
 * Category:Colorado state highways → Category:Colorado State Highways
 * Category:Illinois state highways → Category:Illinois State Routes
 * Disagree. Highway is more specific as to what is being categorized.  --Kbdank71 19:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How is "highway" more specific? These are the official names for the systems, used by the state Department of Transportation. --SPUI (talk) 22:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A useless proposal. That's why it is lowercase.  If nothing else, the generic terminology keeps the categorizers from becoming idiots if some state uses a couple of different names for their state highways.  Gene Nygaard 20:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If some state uses a couple different names, we standardize by the one that's used most often, or is used in state laws, or some other way. --SPUI (talk) 22:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No. If you are using proper names in the categories, then putting something else in there would be flat-out wrong.  Keep it generic.  Gene Nygaard 00:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand your reasoning. Everything in the category is, for example, a California State Route. --SPUI (talk) 00:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * See below.
 * Only because you or somebody else has been jacking around with the category. The Category:Southern California freeways should be a subcategory of Category:California state highways.  Tell us, what are the names of those highways?
 * Category:California state highways is for numbered highways. Category:Southern California freeways is for freeways in southern California, the majority of which are numbered (a few are locally maintained, like an old section of CA 163 and the access to LAX). There is not a one-to-one mapping between freeway names and numbers, so the categories are separate. For instance, the Santa Ana Freeway is US 101 north of the East Los Angeles Interchange, and I-5 south of it. Neither of these numbers are in Category:California state highways, because they are in Category:Interstate highways in California and Category:U.S. Highways in California (not sure if the latter has been created). --SPUI (talk) 01:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the way it should be. Gene Nygaard 02:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well then, how should it be, and where does it say how it should be? --SPUI (talk) 02:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You or somebody else has also been jacking around with the names of the articles, doing a half-assed job of changing the names. For example, California State Route 57 opens with this first sentence:  "California State Highway 57 (CA/SR-57) is a major north-south freeway located entirely within Southern California."  Gene Nygaard 01:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I moved them to their proper names. Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. --SPUI (talk) 01:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. Normally I'd be in favor of such categories following official designations, but it seems too problematic to do with this subject, where there may not be one single designation per state and the names vary trivially between states.  The lower case generic form is sufficiently descriptive, accurate, and intuitive.  Postdlf 22:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The members of the categories all follow the usage; why should the category itself be any different? --SPUI (talk) 22:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Because categories serve a different purpose. Gene Nygaard 23:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A few more reasons:
 * 2. Because even if all are the same now, you can't guarantee they all would be in the future.  New York, for example, has "State Highways" and "Parkways" and "Causeways"
 * 3. Because these categories are broader than the "Routes" themselves, or whatever.  They logically include things such as Triborough Bridge under the Category:New York state highways.  Gene Nygaard 00:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Those are all State Highways though. For instance, the west leg of the Triborough Bridge is State Highway 900G, but having an article there saying "State Highway 900G is the west leg of the Triborough Bridge" would be pointless. --SPUI (talk) 00:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment - in several states, notably Massachusetts and Rhode Island, a "state highway" is a road that is state maintained, which has no relation to numbered state highways (except that both are typically main roads). Renaming the category to Massachusetts State Highways would help with this ambiguity. Or maybe Massachusetts numbered state highways? --SPUI (talk) 02:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So just put every damn one of those unnumbered, state-maintained highways which has an article in Wikipedia in the Category:Massachusetts state highways. Where's the problem?  Gene Nygaard 02:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Where do the numbered highways go then? The state highway categories have always been intended for numbered highways. Just as the Interstate highway categories are for numbered Interstates, not highways that run in multiple states. --SPUI (talk) 02:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete for renaming as their proper names. silsor 02:58, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not seeing the problems that these are allegedly the solutions for. --Calton | Talk 05:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The List of United States numbered highways links to the individual state lists, which IMHO should all be consistent in their naming; and IMHO, all the states' categories should also be named consistently. Call them highways, routes, whatever when you get to the page; but keep the page names and categories consistent. Fingers-of-Pyrex 16:24, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
 * Keep. I like categories to be consistently descriptive of their contents, giving each state a different standard for their highway category will make it harder to keep them organized. Bryan 18:01, 17 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 18:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More number categories

 * Please note that all information here is far better explained in (already existing) articles on the subject, all in Category:Numbers. Radiant_* 11:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * empty - Category:Centered square numbers, Category:Triacontakaiheptagonal numbers
 * 1 entry - Category:Centered cubic numbers, Category:Octahedral numbers, Category:Square pyramidal numbers
 * 2 entries - Category:Centered triangular numbers
 * 3 entries - Category:Abundant numbers, Category:Open meandric numbers, Category:Self numbers, Category:Pronic numbers, Category:Factorials, Category:Harmonic divisor numbers, Category:Pentagonal numbers
 * 4 entries - Category:All-Harshad numbers, Category:Perfect numbers
 * 5 entries - Category:Semi-meandric numbers, Category:Automorphic numbers, Category:Highly composite numbers, Category:Hexagonal numbers
 * 6 entries - Category:Catalan numbers
 * 8 entries - Category:Powers of 2 (and they left out 1), Category:Tetrahedral numbers
 * 9 entries - Category:Triangular numbers
 * 10 entries - Category:Sphenic numbers
 * 12 entries - Category:Semiprimes
 * 13 entries - Category:Square numbers
 * 14 entries - Category:Base 10 Harshad numbers
 * many entries - Category:Composite numbers (but note that every nonprime integer >1 is composite)

 * Delete, but we should be careful not to lose any information when doing this, i.e. the relevant article should be linked from the number article and the type of number articles should all have lists of the first several such examples including anything currently in the category (with composite as an exception to the latter point). -- Rick Block 15:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep Category:Square numbers - it has quite a few entries. No vote on the remaining. Docu 10:16, 2005 Apr 17 (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 17:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Warhammer
Duplicate and misnamed category. 2 articles it contained moved to Category:Warhammer Fantasy. 2 subcategories (Category:Warhammer Fantasy and Category:Warhammer 40,000) moved to Category:Games Workshop. Sorry about emptying it before a formal decision (I really should have read the policy before acting :p) but I doubt it's controversial. --the wub 09:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think moving things to the proper category is probably OK where merely emptying the category is not. --ssd 16:12, 17 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 17:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Los Angeles area airports
Rename to fit naming convention of Airports of Blah. I am also wondering if Los Angeles County might be better. Burgundavia 06:18, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. I'm ok with either "...of the Los Angeles area" or "...of Los Angeles county".  -Kbdank71 14:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree, but I like Airports of Los Angeles due to the fact that although Ontario International Airport is administered by Los Angeles authorities, it is actually in San Bernadino County, California. --Laura Scudder | Talk 01:18, 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 delete. --Kbdank71 17:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Andorra geography stubs
At last count, there were only six Andorra geo-stubs, yet this hasn't stopped someone from creating this template and the related category. There's no Andorra WikiProject, and no chance that this category will ever be heavily populated. The person who created this has also been heavily featured on tfd in the past for his unneccessary Andorra and Switzerland articles, and the stub category was not vetted prior to creation by WP:WSS. Oh, did I mention that Category: Andorra geography stubs says it is about the geography of Switzerland, by the way? Grutness|hello? 02:27, 14 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 speedy rename. --Kbdank71 19:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Baseball Trophies and Awards --> Category:Baseball awards and trophies
Standard capitalization. MisfitToys 21:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * should be "trophies and awards", to be consistent with similar categories in other sports. kelvSYC 03:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Being bold, being speedy. --Kbdank71 19:10, 20 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.

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


text:
Talk:Ms. Mowz

Keeping its Page
I plan to add detailed information on every TTYD character. If I do that, will you leave them alone? The sections in TTYD on the characters were, for some of them, updated/created by me, so heeeeeed my request! ~O~ A Link to the Past 04:45, 2005 Apr 18

 * I recommend tidying up the mess relating to this character first. (There are three articles on this character currently tagged for merger.)  I also recommend reading Fiction. Uncle G 09:47, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

There are three? O.o I've only seen Miss Mowz and Ms. Mowz.--A Link to the Past 14:41, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * There's also the target of the merger, which also contains a description of this character. Uncle G 16:42, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Oh, of course, that. Well, yknow, the text on TTYD's page would just be text for the characters' section. We very well couldn't put every bit of information on Ms. Mowz that's available into that page.

title: Talk:Ms. Mowz


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 16

April 16

 * 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 15:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:London airports
Changed to Category:Airports of the London region to fit in with the standard naming convention. Burgundavia 19:18, 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.

 * 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 16:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:People of Swedish ancestry
"Ancestry" is a dubious base for a category; many people may have ancestry from a dozen different countries or ethnic groups, and unless it is very close it may be of no significance to their identity.

Most of the people in this category are Swedish-Americans. A new Category:Swedish-Americans might be motivated for people who are immigrants, or possibly children of immigrants or somehow have played a role in the Swedish-American community. / Uppland 19:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Postdlf 04:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Oliver Chettle 03:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Literally tens of millions of people fall into this category; far too broad and vague. -- tomf688 (talk) 16:11, Apr 23, 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 16:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Professors, and subcategories

 * Category:Professors by nationality
 * Category:American professors
 * Category:Belgian professors
 * Category:British professors
 * Category:Bulgarian professors
 * Category:French professors
 * Category:Canadian professors
 * Category:Professors by subject
 * Category:Sociology professors
 * Category:Physics professors
 * Category:English professors
 * Category:Law professors
 * Category:American law professors
 * Category:British law professors
 * Category:Canadian law professors
 * Category:Professors by university
 * Category:Carnegie Mellon professors

First of all, "professor" means different things in different countries. In the U.S. a professor is more or less synonymous with "university teacher". In many other countries, only the equivalent of a U.S. full professor has the title of professor, others being readers, lecturers, privatdozents or whatever. Secondly, I think it is better to categorize academics after their field, not after position (at least not in such general and vague terms), i.e. not as a "sociology professor", but as a "sociologist". If the sociologist in question is a professor of some kind or works outside university is less relevant, as long as s/he is noted for his/her research and publications.

We need better categorization of academics, but I think this is the wrong way to go about. / Uppland 18:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, for all the reasons you've given (in NZ, "professor" is only one step down from Head of Department, well above Senior Lecturer). And you haven't even mentioned the potential confusion of having "British professorrs" (by nationality) and "English professors" (by subject)! Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 02:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm very uncomfortable with using naming difficulties as a reason for deleting a page or category. Categories can have descriptions; if the category name is in some way ambiguous, the description can provide an explanation of which sense is being used.  I specifically disagree with the removal of Category:Professors by university, and its subcategory; I feel that information about what institutions someone is or has been affiliated with is useful, and can be independent of the other information.  A page can easily have both Category:Carnegie Mellon professors and Category:Sociologist.
 * On the other point, I'm unclear as to the distinction between a "sociologist" and a "sociology professor". Are there academics who are not professors?  The academia article indicates that the terms are essentially synonymous in U.S. English.  -- Creidieki 07:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * ...but not in other countries. see my note about the NZ instance, above - a professor is a higher rank than lecturer in many countries - a sociology lecturer may be a sociologist but not a professor. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 07:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * To which should be added that a lecturer at university may well be a very notable researcher too, in universities and countries where professorial chairs are in limited supply. And many published academics work outside universities; a notable historian may, for instance, work as an archivist. / Uppland 08:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I understand that the term is used differently in different countries. I was assuming that we were dealing with that by using category descriptions, but we could also change the name of the category to "Faculty" or something more general.  I guess I'm interested in discussing whether there's a point in having both "Category:Historian" and "Category:History Faculty".  In the example above, I definitely wouldn't disagree with "Category:Historian" and "Category:Archivist".  Should faculty positions be different? -- Creidieki 17:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree. It's been pointed out that categories can and do have descriptions.  Also, not every Sociologist is a Sociology Professor, and for the ones that are, they can have two categories.--Kbdank71 13:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Neutralitytalk 17:45, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Postdlf 01:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cleduc 03:05, 23 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 15:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Shinto shrine
Dupe of Category:Shinto shrines and also empty. Should be speedy. SchmuckyTheCat 16:47, 16 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 16:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Consonant
Needs to be in plural form. --Hooperbloob 16:43, 16 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 15:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:World hip hop
Renamed to Category:Hip hop by nation to make its function more obvious and to make it more like the similar Category:Jazz by nation, Category:Rock music by nation and Category:Heavy metal by nation. Tuf-Kat 15:48, 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.

 * 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 16:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Rogers Communications subsidiaries
Delete. Most articles included in this category were not subsidiary companies but assets and have already been moved to Category:Rogers Communications. A category for subsidaries is redundant and unnecessary if Category:Rogers Communications is defined to simply include all assets of the company. Kurieeto 12:58, 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.

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep). --Kbdank71 16:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Mafia associates

 * vague, intrinsically controversial, difficult to prove/verify -- Viajero 12:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep unless someone shows a good reason otherwise. Court records are pretty good proof, if you need that level of veracity. If you don't, rename it to "Alleged..." and move on. SchmuckyTheCat 16:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to vote however as the creator of the category its purpose was to list suspected or convicted individuals associated, although not directly involved, with Mafia connections. I apologize if this is an inappropriate category, and I obviously should have specifically stated its purpose in a summery, however if this is the case I will certainly delete it. 209.213.71.78 15:19, 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 15:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Lil Jon & the East Side Boyz

 * I was the one that created the category. It was suppose to mean Category:Lil Jon & the East Side Boyz albums. The proper way to categorize a music act's album collection. Sorry for the trouble. --Anonymous Cow 15:33, 16 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 15:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Google bombing

 * This is an empty category that redirects to the article about the topic. No reason I can think of why it shouldn't be deleted. Feco 19:44, 16 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: User talk:66.122.73.118

title: User talk:66.122.73.118


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 17

April 17

 * 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 14:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Jimbo Wales
Do we need a category devoted to one individual, even Jimbo? LevelCheck 22:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; useless. — Dan | Talk 22:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep! Yes we do [need it]! - 68.72.114.32 22:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Radiant_* 09:52, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep FroggyMoore 22:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete K1Bond007 04:11, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Kbdank71 15:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. RedWolf 04:11, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Kevin Rector (talk) 05:17, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Zzyzx11 | Talk 18:32, 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 14:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Lists of people by religion
There's nothing in this category, and there's junk on the page. 212.59.23.88 17:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Kbdank71 19:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep FroggyMoore 22:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep a category with no articles or subcategories? Why?  --Kbdank71 15:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. RedWolf 04:11, 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.

 * 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 14:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Stadion
Has a link to the article Stadion, and contains an article about someone named "von Stadion". Eugene van der Pijll 17:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. RedWolf 04:11, 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.

 * 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 14:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category: Prophecy timelines
Only contains one article. *Kat* 10:09, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. RedWolf 04:11, 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.

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep). --Kbdank71 14:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Natural history of the United States
It seems like the two articles here should be absorbed into other subcategories of Category:United States. -- Beland 10:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It might have room for expansion. There are other categories which are even emptier, such as Category:Natural history of Hong Kong and Category:Natural history of Denmark.--Huaiwei 10:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've sometimes wondered if an "Ecology of [country]" structure of subcategories by country might be appropriate—it certainly seems like the most likely grouping for the included articles. Though I know its meaning is broader than that, I think "natural history" unavoidably connotes fossils and...well, history.  Ecology seems to plainly speak more to describing present conditions, and in a manner that is inclusive of everything from climate to flora to fauna.  Postdlf 01:51, 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.

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. --Kbdank71 13:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:European routes
Rename to Category:International E-road network. The "European route" name is not in common use, while "International E-road network" is the official name of the system. --SPUI (talk) 05:26, 17 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 14:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Compiler
Needs to be in plural form. --Hooperbloob 05:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It already exists → Category:Compilers. RedWolf 07:07, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect has been completed. Radiant_* 09:55, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Do we really need a redirect? Do redirects work? (tested) No, category redirects do NOT work.  Do NOT do that!! --ssd 12:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * They don't? That's odd, I did test it and it worked fine for me. Why is this considered harmful? Radiant_* 15:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * No. Category redirects do not work.  They leave a category (that still exists) that can have articles in it, but is difficult to get to.  Articles in that category are NOT listed in the target of the redirection, and the article has a blue link instead of a read link.  A category redirect is best done as a soft redirect (with a message saying articles should be moved elsewhere).  This one does not warrent a redirect, deletion is better. --ssd 00:58, 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 13:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Cuban music genres
Inconsistent with others in Category:Musical genres by region Tuf-Kat 03:54, 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 delete. --Kbdank71 13:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Côte d'Ivoire music
Redundant with Category:Ivorian music. Tuf-Kat 03:44, 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 delete. --Kbdank71 14:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Mathematical methods
It is not clear what the scope of this category is. Creator says that it should probably be deleted now (see User talk:Charles Matthews). Category:Mathematical methods was created in September 2004 and contained only one article (Newmark-beta method, which can go in Category:Algorithms instead), until April 15. At that day, Category:Algorithms and Category:Root-finding algorithms were added as subcategories to Category:Mathematical methods, leading to confusion because Category:Algorithms was already a supercategory of Category:Mathematical methods. -- Jitse Niesen 20:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This category is not helpful. Oleg Alexandrov 15:23, 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.


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 18

April 18

 * 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 16:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Animaniacs segments
Empty; the two articles included here now redirect to Animaniacs. —tregoweth 22:01, Apr 18, 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 16:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Spanish food and drink
Empty and duplicated by Category:Spanish cuisine --Kbdank71 18:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. "Cuisine" is a better category name.  Postdlf 01:36, 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 17:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Mexican food and drink
Empty and duplicated by Category:Mexican cuisine --Kbdank71 18:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. "Cuisine" is a better category name.  Postdlf 01:36, 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 no consensus (keep). --Kbdank71 17:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Mathematical recreations and puzzles
Merge this into its supercategory Category:Recreational mathematics, then move some items into Category:Mathematical games or Category:Puzzles if they would fit better. Especially as its description is "mathematical games" for which we already have a category. See also this category's talk page. Blotwell 11:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep FroggyMoore 22:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, then can you explain the difference between articles which are (or should be) in Category:Recreational mathematics and those in Category:Mathematical recreations and puzzles? How, for example, is Knight's tour different from Missionaries and cannibals problem? Blotwell 03:47, 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 keep. --Kbdank71 16:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:50 births
All created by the same anonymous user. It is extremely unlikely that any of these categories will ever have more than one entry. They simply serve no purpose. Firebug 06:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep, they are part of the set Category:Deaths by year, Category:Births by year, but you don't need to use them, if you don't want to. -- User:Docu
 * Keep all if they do in fact have any content. They are part of a larger structure, and individual pieces of that should not be picked out simply because of under population.  They're obviously not harming anything, they're not inaccurate, or in danger of being applied to irrelevant articles, etc.  Keeping a consistent approach to the whole births and deaths by year structure makes it easier to work with rather than trying to figure out, when you're trying to add an article, which years get individual treatment and which don't.  Furthermore, removing them from the individual births and deaths by year categories removes their links to the general category for those specific years.  On the issue of expandability, neither you nor I can really say they won't expand as our articles on ancient persons do, but even if not, it may nonetheless be an interesting fact to some that for a given year, only the birth or death of one individual can be verified as occurring during it.  Postdlf 01:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep As above. Oliver Chettle 03:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It'd be difficult to say it better than Postdlf. Binabik80 04:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. One article does not a category make, regardless of whether or not it's part of a larger structure.  --Kbdank71 14:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Hooperbloob 21:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unusually, I agree wholeheartedly Postdlf's comments - spot on. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 06:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Consider whether older dates would be better served with decade or century categories, otherwise keep. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that a decade-category would be more useful for anything earlier than, say, 1600. Merge. Radiant_* 07:47, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * To be consistent with the year articles and categories, it's preferable to keep them separated. -- User:Docu
 * Keep Cleduc 03:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Postdlf.  --BaronLarf 22:44, Apr 24, 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 17:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Greater Toronto Airport Authority

 * currently has only one item actually relating to the topic, and there are not that many things that can go in it. Also, there is already transporation in toronto. Burgundavia 04:36, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Kbdank71 15:00, 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 17:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Human health
Merge the two entries into Category:Health. -- Beland 04:06, 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.

 * 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 16:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

category:corporate abuse
This category is totally and deliberately point of view. The creator openly states that it is a political campaign: "I created 'corporate abuse' in hopes of future generations learning from our mistakes.... Let the light shine" [unsigned]. Therefore it should be deleted. Gillian Tipson 00:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The reason proferred above for deletion is not enough, because a category should be judged by its function rather than its intent.  Right now the function of this one is simply to tag a bunch of corporate articles by the fact that they have been implicated in some scandal.  Might as well start categorizing individual country articles under Category:War crimes.  Postdlf 03:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It lists corporate abuse. --The Brain 20:57, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it lists the general articles on individual corporations that have been implicated in corporate scandals. If we have articles focusing on those scandals, then those should be grouped under a "corporate scandals" category.  But the present category is poorly titled, poorly used, and poorly conceived.  Postdlf 01:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the point at all. It's like saying that a category full of right wing politicians called "Fascist scum" should be kept, "because it lists fascist scum." Oliver Chettle 02:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Kbdank71 15:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A category named "Corporate abuse" should contain articles about specific instances of corporate abuse. It shouldn't be a container where broad company articles are dumped if that company has been involved in a scandal. Feco 19:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV. Andros 1337 03:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV + agree w/ Feco's point. Edwardian 08:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; POV category. Antandrus 03:39, 23 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:
George Barton House

The George F. Barton House was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, built 1903–1904, and is located at 118 Summit Avenue in Buffalo, New York. The Barton House is part of the larger Darwin D. Martin House Complex, considered to be one of the most important projects from Wright's Prairie School era.

History
The complex was commissioned by Darwin D. Martin, an entrepreneur who worked at the Larkin Soap Company. The site was purchased by Martin in 1902 as a location where he planned to build two houses: one for himself, and one for his sister, Delta Martin Barton, and her husband, George F. Barton.

Martin and Barton were colleagues at the Larkin Company, and Wright also designed houses for other Larkin employees William R. Heath and Walter V. Davidson, as well as the Larkin Company's administration building.

Of the Martin Complex's six buildings construction on the Barton House began first and not only was it the first building of the complex to be completed but also the first of Wright's in Buffalo.

The Barton House is on the north east corner of the complex.

The basic floor plan is cruciform, with the principal living spaces concentrated in the center two-story portion of the house where the reception, living and dining areas open into each other. The two main bedrooms are on the second story, at either end of a narrow hall. The kitchen is at the north end, behind the main stairway, while an open porch is to the south.

Wright's K. C. DeRhodes House in South Bend, Indiana, has a nearly identical floor plan to the Barton House—although on a 90-degree axis in relation to the front veranda. The F.B. Henderson House in Elmhurst, Illinois is also similar in plan.

The Martin House Restoration Corporation operates guided public tours and presents educational programs for both volunteers and the general public.

title: George Barton House


text:
Noise Addict

Noise Addict (sometimes styled as Noiseaddict) was an Australian alternative rock band formed in 1993 by founding mainstay Ben Lee on lead vocals and guitar. He was joined in 1995 by Romy Hoffman on guitar before the group disbanded early in 1996. They had issued a studio album, Meet the Real You, on Fellaheen Records/Shock Records in late 1995. Lee undertook a solo career. He briefly reconvened Noise Addict in 2009 with new members, Lou Barlow and Lara Meyerratken, to issue a second album, It Was Never About the Audience (1 September 2009), before returning to his solo pursuits.

History
Noise Addict were formed in Bondi Beach in early 1993, with the original line-up of Ben Lee on lead vocals and guitar, Doron Kalinko on bass guitar and Josh Zoldan on drums. All were school mates at Moriah College in Sydney's eastern suburbs. Other early bandmates include Daniel Mapp on bass guitar and Joel Wasserman on drums. Lee was later joined by Daniel Kohn on bass guitar and Saul Smith on drums.

The band recorded a four-track demo in Lee's bedroom and sent copies to various record labels. The members’ average age was 14. Their first gig was at a library book sale in 1993. Attending that gig was Steve Pavlovic of Fellaheen Records, who signed them and sent their tape to Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth. Sonic Youth were then touring Australia and Noise Addict's second gig on 6 February 1993 at Selina's Nightclub, was supporting them. Moore signed them to his Ecstatic Peace record label, and the DEF extended play was released in early 1993 – recorded by the line-up of Lee, Kalinko and Zoldan.

According to Australian musicologist, Ian McFarlane, "some parallels to be drawn with another teenage band", silverchair, "although Lee preferred to see Noise Addict as infinitely more 'punk rock'." Their single, "I Wish I Was Him" (October 1993), was "a wry semi-acoustic ode to Lemonheads'" leader, Evan Dando. It attracted the attention of Mike D from the Beastie Boys, who arranged for the band to sign with their label, Grand Royal. They supported two more US bands, Pavement and Fugazi, and then played a run of all-ages gigs.

Noise Addict released their second EP, The Taste in My Eyes (April 1994); The line-up was Lee, Kalinko (who had moved from bass to lead guitar), Kohn and Wasserman. McFarlane felt the EP "displayed plenty of low-fi charm and youthful exuberance among the stylised Jonathan Richmanesque songs." They followed with another EP on Fellaheen, Noise Addict vs. Silverchair. They issued, Young and Jaded, in 1994 on Grand Royal Records, which had "six acoustic songs again recorded [in] Ben Lee's bedroom." Due to school commitments touring by the band was limited.

After the success of Young and Jaded, Lee released his solo debut, Grandpaw Would (June 1995). Kalinko was replaced by Romy Hoffman on lead guitar. In late 1995, Noise Addict released their only full-length album, Meet the Real You, which was produced by Brad Wood (Sebadoh, Liz Phair).

They briefly toured with Sebadoh. In November 1995, the band contributed the track "Mouthwash" to the AIDS benefit album Red Hot + Bothered, for the Red Hot Organization. They performed the last gig in early 1996 in Bondi. McFarlane noticed that "In true punk rock style, as soon as the album came out, Lee broke up the band." Ben Lee continued as a solo artist, he released several albums. Daniel Mapp played with Waikiki. Romy Hoffman performed hip-hop as MC Macromantics.

On 1 September 2009, a new incarnation of Noise Addict, with Lee joined by Lou Barlow (of Dinosaur Jr) and Lara Meyerratken (aka El May), released their second album, It Was Never About the Audience on Lee's own label, Ten Fingers Records. After the Show's reviewer described it as "lo-fi album is a great antidote to slick, overproduced records that value Protools over talent." A two-LP compilation of the band's initial discography, 10,000 Kids with Guitars, was released on Record Store Day 2017 via Numero Group.

Albums

 * Meet the Real You (late 1995)
 * It Was Never About the Audience (1 September 2009) Ten Fingers Records

Extended plays

 * DEF (early 1993) Ecstatic Peace
 * The Taste in My Eyes (aka Noise Addict vs. Silverchair) (April 1994) Fellaheen Records
 * Young and Jaded (1994) Grand Royal

Singles

 * I Wish I Was Him (aka "Unplugged") (October 1993) Fellaheen Records
 * The Frail Girl (1995) Grand Royal / Fellaheen Records

Compilations

 * 10,000 Kids With Guitars (2LP, April 2017) Numero Group

title: Noise Addict


text:
Category:Members of the National Order of Quebec

This category lists members of the National Order of Quebec.


text: Category:Biophysics

title: Category:Biophysics


text:
Category:Swiss civil engineers

Civil engineers from Switzerland exerted considerable influence on modern structural design. David P. Billington, a civil engineering professor and historian of the field at Princeton University, attributes the output of the Swiss in the 19th and 20th century to the refining effect of the competitions used to select Swiss public-works designs, among other causes.

title: Category:Swiss civil engineers


text:
File:Mrbill-headshot.jpg

Headshot of Bill Bradford. Self-portrait taken with an Intel webcam.

title: File:Mrbill-headshot.jpg


text:
Chris Barrie (admiral)

Admiral Christopher Alexander Barrie, (born 29 May 1945) is a retired senior officer of the Royal Australian Navy, who served as Chief of the Defence Force from 4 July 1998 to 3 July 2002.

Early life
Barrie was born in the Sydney suburb of Marrickville, New South Wales, on 29 May 1945 to Alexander William Barrie and Dorothy Clare Chrystal. He was educated at North Sydney Boys High School, and entered the Royal Australian Naval College as a cadet midshipman in 1961.

Naval career
During his early naval training, Barrie completed service on HMA Ships HMAS Anzac (D59), HMAS Vampire (D11) and HMAS Melbourne (R21), which included service in the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation, and a 23-day tour of duty in Vietnam. Postings to the Britannia Royal Naval College at Dartmouth and HMS Excellent (shore establishment) followed.

Barrie served at sea as part of the commissioning crew of HMAS Brisbane (D 41), which included a seven-month tour of duty in Vietnam, during 1969. He also served as Commanding Officer of HMAS Buccaneer from 1969 to 1970, Operations and Navigating Officer on HMS Eastbourne (F73), HMAS Perth (D 38) and HMAS Duchess (D154), Executive Officer on HMAS Vampire (D11), and later as Commanding Officer of HMAS Stuart (DE 48) from 1983 to 1984.

In 1990 to 1991, Barrie held an appointment as Defence Adviser, New Delhi, India. Following this post, he was promoted to commodore and served as Director RAN Surface Warfare School and Commanding Officer of HMAS Watson from 1991 to 1992. He was appointed Deputy Maritime Commander and Chief of Staff at Maritime Headquarters in Sydney from 1992 to 1995, for which he was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in 1994. On promotion to rear admiral, Barrie served as Deputy Chief of Naval Staff, before being appointed Vice Chief of the Defence Force with the rank of vice admiral in March 1997. The following year, Barrie was advanced to Officer of the Order of Australia in recognition of his "distinguished service" in the latter two postings.

Barrie was promoted to admiral, and assumed the post of Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) on 4 July 1998. He held this position until his retirement, and for his "eminent service to the Australian Defence Force" was further advanced to Companion of the Order of Australia in 2001 and awarded the Distinguished Service Order (Military) by the government of Singapore. As CDF, Barrie became involved in the "Children Overboard Affair" of 2001, a high-level political controversy which occurred during the Australian federal election campaign. Barrie was the last Australian Government official to publicly support Prime Minister John Howard's assertion that refugees had thrown their children overboard from their sinking vessel. Barrie retired on 3 July 2002, and was succeeded as CDF by General Peter Cosgrove.

A graduate of the Britannia Royal Naval College, Barrie completed through part-time study a Bachelor of Arts with majors in International Relations and Politics in 1983 and was conferred a Master of Business Administration in 1996 by Deakin University. He was made a Commander of the Legion of Merit by the United States in 2003.

title: Chris Barrie (admiral)


text:
Talk:1991 NHL entry draft

These redlinked draft picks meet WP:NHOCKEY

 * Todd Hall - 2
 * Jason Young (ice hockey) (Q1684003) - 2
 * Bobby House (Q888562) - 2
 * Kerry Toporowski - 2
 * Dmitri Motkov - 1
 * Fredrik Nilsson (ice hockey) (Q6010223) - 1
 * Kevin St. Jacques - 3
 * Clayton Norris - 2
 * Alexander Kuzminski (Q2642512) - 1
 * Fredrik Jax - 1
 * Igor Malykhin (Q64850056) - 1
 * Dean Grillo - 1
 * Jeff Ricciardi - 2
 * Jiri Kuntos (ice hockey) (Q8427690) - 1
 * Rick Corriveau - 3
 * Guy Lehoux (Q1557534) - 2
 * Vyacheslav Uvayev - 1
 * Mattias Olsson (ice hockey) - 1
 * Marcus Thuresson (Q12795669) - 1
 * Mikhail Volkov - 1
 * Vitali Chinakhov - 1
 * Xavier Majic - 1
 * Jukka Suomalainen (Q1101978) - 1
 * Pasi Huura (Q11886801) - 1

Note: Articles must also meet WP:GNG. --75.88.89.194 (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed Jim Bermingham from the list since he’s no longer in the ECHL’s all-time top 10 point scorers. A redirect to ECHL Hall of Fame may be appropriate since he’s an inductee. --75.88.89.194 (talk) 11:43, 16 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:1991 NHL entry draft


text:
Talk:1994 NHL entry draft

These redlinked draft picks meet WP:NHOCKEY

 * Angel Nikolov (Q531803) - 1
 * Lee Jinman (Q383269) - 1
 * Rudolf Vercik (Q9323843) - 1
 * Chad Allan (ice hockey) (Q1058510) - 2
 * Jussi Tarvainen (Q1714079) - 1
 * Arto Kuki (Q713667) - 1
 * Johan Finnstrom (Q5731127) - 1
 * Mark McArthur (Q15834032) - 2
 * Christian Gosselin - 2
 * Mike Gaffney (ice hockey) - 1
 * Yuri Litvinov (ice hockey) - 1
 * Dmitri Mekeshkin - 1
 * Patrik Haltia - 1
 * Evgeny Petrochinin - 1
 * Pavel Agarkov - 1
 * Matt O'Dette - 2
 * Curtis Sheptak (Q56879684) - 1
 * Dmitri Sulga - 1
 * Sergei Gorbachev - 1
 * Tommi Rajamaki (Q429089) - 1
 * Olexei Lazarenko - 1
 * Ramil Saifullin (Q3418481) - 1
 * Alexei Baranov (ice hockey) - 1
 * Boris Zelenko - 1
 * Henrik Smangs (Q11975089) - 1*
 * Yuri Smirnov (ice hockey) - 1
 * Lubomir Jandera - 1
 * Tomas Pisa - 1
 * Sergei Shalamai - 1
 * Mikhail Kazakevich (Q3313666) - 1
 * Shayne Wright (Q2277594) - 2
 * Andrei Yakhanov - 1

Note: Articles must also meet WP:GNG. --75.88.89.194 (talk) 05:34, 4 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:1994 NHL entry draft


text:
Appius Claudius Pulcher (consul 212 BC)

Appius Claudius Pulcher (died 211 BC) was a Roman general and politician of the 3rd century BC, active in the Second Punic War.

Family
He was the son of Publius Claudius Pulcher (consul 249 BC), and the father of Appius Claudius Pulcher (consul 185 BC), Publius Claudius Pulcher (consul 184 BC), and Gaius Claudius Pulcher (consul 177 BC). His daughter, Claudia, married Pacuvius Calavius, the chief magistrate of Capua in 217 BC.

Career
In 217 BC, Claudius was an aedile. In the following year, he was a military tribune and fought at Cannae. Together with Publius Cornelius Scipio, he was raised to the supreme command by the troops who had fled to Canusium. In 215 BC, he was created a praetor, and conducted the survivors of the defeated army into Sicily, where his efforts to detach Hieronymus, the grandson of Hiero II, from his connection with the Carthaginians, were unsuccessful. He remained in Sicily the following year as propraetor and legatus to Marcus Claudius Marcellus, having charge of the fleet and the camp at Leontini. In 212 BC, he was elected consul, and in conjunction with his colleague Quintus Fulvius Flaccus undertook the siege of Capua. At the close of his year of office, in pursuance of a decree of the Senate, he went to Rome and created two new consuls. His own command was prolonged another year. In the battle against Hannibal's forces before Capua, he received a wound from whose effects he died shortly after the surrender of the city. He ineffectually opposed the infliction of the sanguinary vengeance that Fulvius took on the Capuans.

In popular culture
Appius Claudius Pulcher was played by Dimitri Diatchenko in the 2006 film The Secret Under the Rose.

title: Appius Claudius Pulcher (consul 212 BC)


text:
The Manitoban

The Manitoban is the official student newspaper at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Published for the first time on November 5, 1914, the Toban, as it is called for short, is one of the oldest and largest (by circulation and budget) student newspapers in Canada.

The tabloid-sized paper is published monthly during the summer and every Wednesday during the regular Fall-Winter university session. The Manitoban is non-profit and is completely owned and operated by students.

During the fall and winter 10,000 copies of the Manitoban are printed on a weekly basis, and distributed extensively on both campuses of the University of Manitoba and throughout Winnipeg.

Notable past contributors include Marshall McLuhan, Marcel Dzama, Andrew Coyne, Nahlah Ayed, Graham Spry and Izzy Asper.

Editors-in-chief
The Manitoban starts advertising for the position of editor-in-chief (EiC) each February, and normally hires for the position at the beginning of March. EiCs are hired for a term position of 54 weeks, from May 1 to May 14, with the overlap intended to be used for the outgoing EiC to train their replacement.

EiCs are chosen by the Hiring Committee, made up of the paper's Editorial Board and two non-editor staff members. The hiring process consists of a written application, an editing test and an intensive in-person interview.

EiCs may hold the position for two consecutive years, but must be rehired by the Hiring Committee after their first term. Despite funding from the general student population, students who are not on the paper's staff do not participate in the selection of EiC.

The EiC is the head of the Manitoban and is responsible for organizing, editing and approving the paper's content. They are also tasked, in cooperation with the Business Manager, with hiring the staff each year. In addition to these responsibilities, the EiC is the chair of the Editorial Board and the president of the Manitoban Newspaper Publications Corporation.

Current and past EICs

 * Simon Pensato – current EiC
 * Gillian Brown – 2022-24
 * Ty Brass – 2021-22
 * Matthew Doering – 2020–21
 * Malak Abas – 2019–20
 * Garett Williams – 2017–19
 * Craig Adolphe – 2015–17
 * Fraser Nelund – 2014–15
 * Bryce Hoye – 2013–14
 * Ryan Harby – 2012–13
 * Leif Larsen – 2010–12
 * Kevin Doole – 2009–10
 * Tessa Vanderhart – 2007-09
 * Carson Jerema – 2006-07
 * Regan Sarmatiuk – 2005-06
 * Joel Trenaman – 2004-05
 * Bernice Pontanilla – 2001-02
 * Phil Koch – 2000-01
 * Kevin Matthews – 1999-00
 * Ed Janzen – 1997-99
 * Matt Lazowski – 1996-97
 * Jeff Oliver – 1996-96
 * Jeff Zuk – 1994-95
 * Alayne Armstrong – 1991-92
 * Paul Hayward – 1990-91
 * Eric Bertam – 1989-90
 * Doug Nairne – 1988-89
 * Mark Mignacca – 1987–1988

Editorial board
The Manitoban's editorial board meets on a weekly basis during the publishing season, deems what is fit to print in the paper and debates issues of policy. It is made up of editors, and two temporary members of the non editorial staff who are rotated out after three representatives meetings. The EiC is the chair of the editorial board, but only votes in the event of a tie.

title: The Manitoban


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abe Froman

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Abe Froman
Delete. Band vanity. Does not appear to meet any one criterion listed at WP:MUSIC. No entry at allmusic.com. Band's apparent official site is hosted at a University. 957 Google hits for "abe froman", but I would imagine a lot of those are references to Ferris Bueller. android↔talk 04:50, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 08:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep wiki guidelines say non notable means less than 100 people would be interested in them; they are definitely bigger than that. i've heard of them and i am not particularly interested in their subset of punk. "abe froman" + lansing results in about 500 hits on google. 141.151.160.53 09:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines says nothing of the sort. It talks about tours, albums, hits, famous members, and awards.  The only parts of this article that meet those critera are those that are talking about some other band.  The article contents fail to satisfy the criteria. Delete. Uncle G 11:53, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
 * Delete, not Romanian. NazismIsntCool 09:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Uhh, what? android↔talk 03:23, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. --Randolph 06:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Talk:1998 NHL entry draft

These redlinked draft picks meet WP:NHOCKEY

 * Maxym Linnik (Q39386957) - 1
 * Yevgeni Lazarev (ice hockey) - 1
 * Morgan Warren (Q15835632) - 2
 * David Ytfeldt (Q6250212) - 1
 * Tommi Hannus (Q11072040) - 1
 * Yevgeni Pastukh - 1
 * Petja Pietilainen - 2

Note: Articles must also meet WP:GNG. --75.88.89.194 (talk) 11:23, 4 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:1998 NHL entry draft


text:
Talk:1999 NHL entry draft

Info on the series of trades that led to the selection of both Sedins by the Canucks would be of interest. Kurieeto 14:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

draft trades
This page http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0778392.html has a good set of footnotes about how the picks were acquired.

All Star
The all star status (yellow/gold background) refers to whether the player went to an All-Star game (the pertinence of this in the draft lists could be argued, but that's not the point here). To the persons who keep adding Daniel Sedin as an All-Star, he has not been to an All-Star game yet. Surprising, yes, but still a fact. That will probably change in 2011 (since no All-Star game in 2010) but until then (or later), he's not an "official" All-Star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordhong (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

These redlinked draft picks meet WP:NHOCKEY

 * Stepan Mokhov - 1
 * Jaakko Harikkala (Q5394306) - 1
 * Trevor Byrne - 2
 * Andrei Maximenko - 1
 * Vaclav Zavoral - 1
 * Justin Cox (ice hockey) (Q672774) - 2
 * David Bornhammar (Q12307803) - 1
 * Jim Baxter (ice hockey) - 3
 * Vladimir Kulikov - 1
 * Yevgeni Gusakov - 1
 * Anton Borodkin - 1
 * Mikko Kuparinen (Q11882734) - 1
 * Petter Henning - 1
 * Dmitri Kirilenko - 1
 * Tamas Groschl (Q3514903) - 1
 * Yevgeni Kurilin - 1

Note: Articles must also meet WP:GNG. --75.88.89.194 (talk) 16:08, 4 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:1999 NHL entry draft