Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 27

April 27

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Members of The Beatles --Kbdank71 14:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:The Beatles members

Delete. I have transposed it to a more proper category name, Category:Beatles members. Marcus2 22:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

comment. The article is The Beatles. Perhaps Category:Members of The Beatles would have made more grammatical sense. Grutness|^hello? 04:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

not to be confused with the important entomology category, Beetles' members. Feco 05:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Rename as per Grutness. The name of the band is The Beatles. Removing the "the" just makes is less proper, not more. --Kbdank71 20:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Members of The Beatles as per Grutness. -- Lochaber 16:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Shouldn't it be Category:Members of the Beatles? Is it proper to capitalize "the" in the middle of a sentence even when it's part of a title? Postdlf 19:20, 29 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 14:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Russian Olympians

Empty. There is also a populated Category:Olympic competitors for the USSR and Category:Olympic competitors for Russia --Kbdank71 14:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Asian-American-related topics --> Category:Asian American-related topics

Using a hyphen emphasizes duality and should be used to describe things such as foreign relations between two nations, for example, Japanese-American relations. When describing people we should not use a hyphen. "Asian" is an adjective describing the American. Using the hyphen is a bad representation because it creates the notion of a hybrid. — J3ff 11:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. If anything, I think the second hyphen should be removed. --Kbdank71 13:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Strict grammar rules say "Asian American-related topics" is correct. Similar to the treatment of "ten year-old shoes". Feco 14:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sure, if you are talking about ten shoes that are a year old. I'd think that ten-year-old shoes or ten-year–old shoes would be some shoes that are ten years old. Similarly, when Asian-American modifies something else, it should be hyphenated. Furhtermore, the proposer mischaracterizes the use of hyphens in English. Gene Nygaard 15:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support. There are published guidelines for this specific style issue. California State University, L.A.'s editorial style guide advises: "Do not hyphenate African American (or other compound nationalities, even when used as an adjective [...] Hyphenate compounds with name fragments: Afro-American, Indo-European. [...] Asian American: No hyphen is used for either the noun or the adjective. " --Nectarflowed ^(talk) 20:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. No hyphen is more political correct and modern. --Jiang 02:21, 29 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 13:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Heir Apparent

The category has three articles in it. It is currently a subcategory of Category:Heirs apparent and a merge request was made on March 26. I believe the latter follows the pural convention for lists. Sympleko 10:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - it was my nomination (but I didn't figure out how to make the entry here). Also the Heir Apparent category seems to contain former heirs apparent - the Heirs Apparent is intended for current heirs apparent in active monarchies only, i.e., once one of them becomes a monarch, they are removed from the category, and it does not include pretenders or their heirs. I don't know what use it would be to have a category for monarchs before they were monarchs - it would be a huge list and largely redundant to the monarch category. I suppose an exception might be individuals who were at one time heirs apparent but never ascended to the throne, either because they died, the monarchy was abolished, or some other reason. --Leifern 14:33, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

That sounds like you oppose the merge request, too. Is that right? Sympleko 17:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• of course not delete. This is a ridiculous nomination. Firstly, of course the category contains former heirs apparent. Not including them would be as ludicrous as leaving John Glenn out of a category on astronauts! What it needs is clearer definition, not deletion. Actually what should happen is that the cetegory wrongly capitalised as Heirs apparent should have the nonsense about it only referring to contemporary heirs apparent of modern monarchies deleted, or it else it should be changed to contemporary Heirs Apparent. This one should then refer to historic heirs apparent. There is a category for heirs of English and British monarchs, but no categories for other monarchies. Rather than have multiple pages on multiple monarchies, a single category that cross-references heirs throughout time periods and locations, makes perfect sense. We need a place that includes Henry VIII's three sons by Catherine of Aragon (ingeniously called Henry, Duke of Cornwall, Prince Henry and Henry Tudor), the numerous heirs apparent in France who never became king, assassinated Prince Luis of Portugal, Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria-Hungary, the Comte de Chambord, etc. But deletion is a ridiculous over-reaction to a minor problem of definition. (If anything Category:Heirs apparent should be deleted for crimes against the english language in lowercasing a proper noun. FearÉIREANN 18:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"apparent" in the term is not a proper noun, so there's no crime against the English language, though "English" should be written with an upper case. But setting aside that sort of pettiness, there may be a case to be made for differentiating between three types of heirs apparent: those that are heir apparent now; those that were heirs apparent and ascended to the throne; and those that were heirs apparent and didn't. The terminology of all of these is ambiguous now, so let's come up with the right solution. --Leifern 20:26, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Heir Apparent and Heir Presumptive are capitalised. They are treated as a proper noun as they are the formal constitutional name for different types of heir, like Prime Minister, Letter of Credence, Secretary of State, etc. (How is correctly capitalising formal constitutional terms that are used 'pettiness'? Do explain? Or do you want us to write 'President of the united states?' and 'Prime minister'?) And no there is no need for diffrentiating between different heirs. We corrective categorise cardinals who become popes as cardinals also, governors who become presidents as governors also. Why should monarchs who were once the Heir Apparent (or Heir Presumptive) not be linked that way too? Maybe the best solution is to delete the ridiculous restriction in Category:Heirs apparent, correctly capitalise the category and then merge both ones. But deleting a category that caters for the slack left by a stupid restriction in the other category is hardly sensible. FearÉIREANN 01:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heir apparent is a descriptive term, not a title. The title is something like "Crown Prince," "Crown Princess," "Prince of Wales," "Duke of Rothesay," or something along those lines. You never see an heir apparent introduced as such - always by his/her formal title. An apt analogy would be that "head of state" is a descriptive term, not a title. Also, if we make everyone who ever was an heir apparent part of the category, it would end up being overwhelmingly redundant to several other categories. --Leifern 13:02, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Franz Ferdinand was often called the Thronfolger, even though he was only heir presumptive... john k 03:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jtdirl on the capitalization issue: if it's a title, then it should be capitalized. And I apologize if I gave the impression that people who have been designated Heir Apparent don't deserve a category; all I was trying to do was clear up the merge issue. What's confusing me is that the title is inherently temporary, unlike governors and cardinals. It seems more like President-elect, except for the fact that the time scope is radically different. Somebody has the chance to become (more) notable while holding the title Heir Apparent. An example might be Charles, Prince of Wales, who one could argue still belonged in the category of "notable people who have been titled Heir Apparent" even after accession. Would it make sense to

• rename Category:Heir Apparent to Nonaccedant Heirs Apparent (trouble is, accedant is apparently not a word. Jtdirl, you probably have the right one for an Heir Apparent who did not accede). Keep it as subcategory of Heir Apparent
• rename Category:Heirs apparent to Heirs Apparent, but
• move everybody currently in Heirs apparent to a new subcategory, Current Heirs Apparent
• leave the discussion about whether Heirs Apparent who did accede should be categorized as such to the article writers.

I also agree with Leifern on the capitalization issue: If it's not a title, then it shouldn't be capitalized. I won't debate that any more because I don't know enough about it. But maybe my proposals make sense with whatever capitalization scheme gets figured out. Sympleko 17:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is a formal constitutional name given to the person who is next-in-line to the throne. As such, being a formal constitutional name, it is capitalised. States may choose a specific term to give to the Heir Apparent. I can understand the comparison with President-elect but it isn't the same. A President-elect exists for a short time, usually weeks, before taking office. An Heir Apparent may exist as such for decades - Prince Albert Edward was the Heir Apparent for 60 years before becoming King Edward VII. There are numerous titles given to different Heirs Apparent (Prince of Wales, Dauphin, Prince of Asturias, Prince of Piedmont, etc). Some Heirs Apparent have become almost leaders of the opposition to the King (George IV as Prince of Wales). Some die through assassination (Luis Filipe, Duke of Braganza), some are surrounded by controversy (Charles, Prince of Wales), some are active shapers of public opinion (Charles, Prince of Wales on architecture), some lose their future thrones when republics are declared, ( Victor Emmanuel, Prince of Naples, Otto von Hapsburg, some kill themselves (Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria), some never become king (Frederick, Prince of Wales, Henry, Duke of Cornwall) and at least one in Nepal killed his own family. It is a far more complicated category than President-elect and deserves inclusion. I also don't see why it needs subcategorisation. I doubt if it will have more than 100 members. There are categories with many hundreds of members. FearÉIREANN 22:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Heir Apparent for a discussion on the capitalization, User:Jtdril doesn't have a leg to stand on, or should I say A Leg to Stand On. As for a title, "heir apparent" is clearly not one. It is a descriptive term, just like president-elect, courts-martial, etc. I have asked Jtdril to find a credible source of style that agrees with him, and he hasn't been able to produce one yet. Back to the issue whether the category should be deleted. --Leifern 01:30, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Kbdank71 20:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gene Nygaard 03:37, 29 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 13:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Iraq War and Category:2003 Iraq conflict

I didn't mark either of them for CfD. I'm putting this notice here because I don't know where else to put it. The categories cover the same topic, but I'm sure discussing which to keep and which to delete will lead to all kinds of POV chaos. I suspect this issue will need an admin to ride herd for a few days. Also 2003 Iraq War and 2003 Invasion of Iraq are in the middle of a messy fight about naming/splitting/redirecting. Feco 04:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I like the more specific Category:2003 Iraq conflict. You might want to mark them both for CfD, or else nothing is going to happen to either of them. We can remove it from the winner after the seven days are up. --Kbdank71 20:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • done... they're both marked CfD... let the fun begin. Feco 21:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The specific title is not the current or common one. There are plenty of aspects on wikipedia where common terms are used in place of their proper or specific ones. Further the category is current itself. There is no other war in Iraq, and when it becomes a past issue, the tags can then migrate there. -SV|t 01:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No other war in Iraq? By simply looking at Category:Iraq War, can you tell me if the articles would be about the current war, the previous US war with Iraq, the Iran-Iraq war, or any other war in Iraq's history? True, there isn't any other current war with Iraq, but that's not what the category title is. Besides, "keep" what? Both? Why should we have two separate categories that describe the exact same thing? --Kbdank71 20:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Technically, it is the same conflict. Therefore it should be included in one big category. --Mecanismo 08:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into what? --Kbdank71 20:53, 3 May 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 13:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

category:South Downs

The South Downs are a range of hills in England. This category is being used for everything in the vicinity. There is a well established system for allocating articles about places and things in England by county and city. This category is unique (it was placed directly into category:geography of England "after much consideration" because there were no like categories it could be pooled with) and I don't think it is helpful. The South Downs, which are not very large hills even by English standards, are best covered by an article. There is a proposed South Downs National Park, but it doesn't exist yet, and if there is to be a category for the national park, it should be named appropriately and contain stictly relevant articles, not articles for large nearby towns.Oliver Chettle 01:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree with deletion. The problem is the precedent this one could set - if you allow South Downs then Chilterns might be next, or Cotswolds, and before you iknew it you'd have a whole slew of only roughly defined geographic areas which cut through an existing working hierarchy. I could see that Lake District might be a useful one, but even then it's pushing things a bit. As to any other such regions, though - no. Grutness|^hello? 00:49, 29 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.