< August 31 | September 2 > |
---|
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Already depopulated, sorry! Moved items to Category:Gold rushes and subcat Category:California Gold Rush as appropriate. (Cat was originally Cali, then got filled up with other gold rushy things.
The result of the debate was Listify and delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Small, overly specific category with no potential for real growth (even though a number of its members don't yet have articles). Better as a list anyway, because then a chronology can be indicated. I've put all of the information this category could ever provide into Los Alamos National Laboratory#Directors (that is, I've already turned it into a list, inside the main article). Fastfission 22:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete as both redundant and inaccurate; "demon" meant something entirely different to the ancient Greeks. The contents of this category were moved into Category:Greek legendary creatures. - Sean Curtin 20:58, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Keep. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty category.
TexasAndroid 20:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
Keep No longer empty. Category follows the usual format of Element name compounds and I was easily able to add a stub article for one notable scandium compound, scandium oxide. Caerwine 01:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep - Submitter, changing my vote. This is why I toss certain empty categories up here instead of speedying them. If someone makes them useful, then there's no need for delete. TexasAndroid 17:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty categories (except each other, in one case). Would speedy, but wanted to give them a chance to be populated if there is actually anything that belongs in them. TexasAndroid 17:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete all. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
One person. Five categories just for him. Sorry, but no. Not sure where he should really go, but this structure isn't it. TexasAndroid 16:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty category. TexasAndroid 16:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty category. TexasAndroid 16:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Only item in it is Portal:Marketing, which appears to be a half-formed Wiki-portal mostly untouched for 1 1/2 months (except for a bot/script rename). TexasAndroid 16:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Is empty, isn't about to grow, and had no reason to be created in the first place.
The result of the debate was listify -- Kbdank71 14:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Maybe it's just me, but this looks completely mad. Surely this is what list articles are for. Not to mention: (1) some fairly dodgy capitalisation; (2) the use of "NZ" rather than New Zealand; and (3) inconsistency between nouns and adjectives in the astronomical categories. Listify them all and create Category:Lists of mountains by height to house them. Grutness... wha? 05:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I helped create these sorted categories, here are my thoughts:
BTW: when can I take these Sorted Categories off the Cat Delete list?
¢ NevilleDNZ 12:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC) ¢ reply
Here is an example of a generated table. it can be generated at the USGS web site, the mountains are sorted by Latitude. Heights are currently unavailable.
Name↑↓ | LAT↑↓ | LONG↑↓ | DIAM↑↓ | ET↑↓ | AD↑↓ | Origin↑↓ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nile Montes | 52.0 | 253.0 | 450.0 | Greek | 1997 | Where Zeus restored Io to her human form. |
Zal Montes | 37.5 | 76.3 | 422.0 | Iran | 2000 | Iranian sun god. |
Euxine Mons | 27.0 | 126.0 | 200.0 | Greek | 1997 | Io passed by here in her wanderings. |
Skythia Mons | 26.0 | 98.0 | 200.0 | Greek | 1997 | Io passed by here in her wanderings. |
Mongibello Mons | 22.3 | 66.6 | 180.0 | Italy | 2000 | Name for Mt. Etna, site of Vulcan's forge in Dante's "The Inferno." Thunderbolts from here killed Capaneus, the great blasphemer. |
Gish Bar Mons | 18.5 | 87.0 | 87.8 | Babylon | 0 | Babylonian sun god. |
etc ... |
Note that the table heading becomes a tool bar that can be clicked on to sort the table anyway the end-user prefers.
Name↑↓ | LAT↑↓ | LONG↑↓ | DIAM↑↓ | ET↑↓ | AD↑↓ | Origin↑↓ |
---|
In the absence of sorted heights lists for almost all countries, or even globally for the top 100 mountains, AND for lists that are evolving, I recommend we keep the current height sorted categorys.
¢ NevilleDNZ 16:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC) ¢ reply
These technical changes sound like a good thing, but until they appear, we have to use what we've got. A list is one possibility, but a bad one. Every time someone makes a new hill article, they have to remember to add it to the list as well (perhaps several lists, sorted by different fields: geography, elevation, geology, and so on). That is much more work than having templates include categories that achieve the same end. Certainly it's a work-around that the developers hadn't intended, but that doesn't make it "abuse", but rather ingenious. Until there's a better solution, leave this category here. We gain nothing by deleting it. -- Stemonitis 07:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Please, don't feel disobliged, if you feel that this award is appropriate and deserved then you can put this on your user page.
I was posthumosly awarded the Reinvention of the wheel award.
¢ NevilleDNZ 03:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC) ¢ reply
Given that I am going to have the entire book thrown at me anyhow, here is another workaround for sorting height higher then 10,000ft, (or 1,000m in Britian). The issue is the first character is the only one listed in the sorted index,... so
⒑ for 1000+ m, ⒒ for 1100+ m, ⒓ for 1200+ m, ⒔ for 1300+ m, ⒕ for 1400+ m, ⒖ for 1500+ m, ⒗ for 1600+ m, ⒘ for 1700+ m, ⒙ for 1800+ m, ⒚ for 1900+ m, ⒛ for 2000+ m
These will sort perfectly, and the index will only ever show the first character. (Which happens to be 2 digits that we need). Ironically some cultures actually have a special word for these numbers. eg Ethopian. But I think using Ethopian script would be a tad confusing, even though their numbers do sort perfectly well.
This is more effective then using a ">" for heights that go off scale.
¢ NevilleDNZ 14:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC) ¢ reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This category is covered better by Category:User perl.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 13:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This should be renamed category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom, in line with its parent and the vast majority of UK categories. CalJW 01:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus (no change) -- Kbdank71 13:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Supposed to contain various fictional characters of Celtic origin. Actually contains eight articles, seven of which are Asterix characters, and one is Sláine (comics), a different comics character. If allowed to proceed this way, this will effectively become Category:Asterix characters. If there are many articles about Asterix characters, such a category will make more sense than this one. (Note also that not all Asterix characters are Celtic, but we don't currently have any articles about non-Celtic Asterix characters who are completely fictional.) — JIP | Talk 05:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
A legitimate category to be sure, but not at all useful from a WP perspective. To quote myself at Category talk:Ashkenazi Jews#Tomer's view:
Tomer TALK 08:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin (talk) 01:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
DavidFarmbrough 17:18, September 2, 2005 (BST)
< August 31 | September 2 > |
---|
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Already depopulated, sorry! Moved items to Category:Gold rushes and subcat Category:California Gold Rush as appropriate. (Cat was originally Cali, then got filled up with other gold rushy things.
The result of the debate was Listify and delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Small, overly specific category with no potential for real growth (even though a number of its members don't yet have articles). Better as a list anyway, because then a chronology can be indicated. I've put all of the information this category could ever provide into Los Alamos National Laboratory#Directors (that is, I've already turned it into a list, inside the main article). Fastfission 22:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete as both redundant and inaccurate; "demon" meant something entirely different to the ancient Greeks. The contents of this category were moved into Category:Greek legendary creatures. - Sean Curtin 20:58, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Keep. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty category.
TexasAndroid 20:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
Keep No longer empty. Category follows the usual format of Element name compounds and I was easily able to add a stub article for one notable scandium compound, scandium oxide. Caerwine 01:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep - Submitter, changing my vote. This is why I toss certain empty categories up here instead of speedying them. If someone makes them useful, then there's no need for delete. TexasAndroid 17:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty categories (except each other, in one case). Would speedy, but wanted to give them a chance to be populated if there is actually anything that belongs in them. TexasAndroid 17:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete all. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
One person. Five categories just for him. Sorry, but no. Not sure where he should really go, but this structure isn't it. TexasAndroid 16:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty category. TexasAndroid 16:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty category. TexasAndroid 16:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Only item in it is Portal:Marketing, which appears to be a half-formed Wiki-portal mostly untouched for 1 1/2 months (except for a bot/script rename). TexasAndroid 16:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Is empty, isn't about to grow, and had no reason to be created in the first place.
The result of the debate was listify -- Kbdank71 14:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Maybe it's just me, but this looks completely mad. Surely this is what list articles are for. Not to mention: (1) some fairly dodgy capitalisation; (2) the use of "NZ" rather than New Zealand; and (3) inconsistency between nouns and adjectives in the astronomical categories. Listify them all and create Category:Lists of mountains by height to house them. Grutness... wha? 05:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I helped create these sorted categories, here are my thoughts:
BTW: when can I take these Sorted Categories off the Cat Delete list?
¢ NevilleDNZ 12:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC) ¢ reply
Here is an example of a generated table. it can be generated at the USGS web site, the mountains are sorted by Latitude. Heights are currently unavailable.
Name↑↓ | LAT↑↓ | LONG↑↓ | DIAM↑↓ | ET↑↓ | AD↑↓ | Origin↑↓ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nile Montes | 52.0 | 253.0 | 450.0 | Greek | 1997 | Where Zeus restored Io to her human form. |
Zal Montes | 37.5 | 76.3 | 422.0 | Iran | 2000 | Iranian sun god. |
Euxine Mons | 27.0 | 126.0 | 200.0 | Greek | 1997 | Io passed by here in her wanderings. |
Skythia Mons | 26.0 | 98.0 | 200.0 | Greek | 1997 | Io passed by here in her wanderings. |
Mongibello Mons | 22.3 | 66.6 | 180.0 | Italy | 2000 | Name for Mt. Etna, site of Vulcan's forge in Dante's "The Inferno." Thunderbolts from here killed Capaneus, the great blasphemer. |
Gish Bar Mons | 18.5 | 87.0 | 87.8 | Babylon | 0 | Babylonian sun god. |
etc ... |
Note that the table heading becomes a tool bar that can be clicked on to sort the table anyway the end-user prefers.
Name↑↓ | LAT↑↓ | LONG↑↓ | DIAM↑↓ | ET↑↓ | AD↑↓ | Origin↑↓ |
---|
In the absence of sorted heights lists for almost all countries, or even globally for the top 100 mountains, AND for lists that are evolving, I recommend we keep the current height sorted categorys.
¢ NevilleDNZ 16:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC) ¢ reply
These technical changes sound like a good thing, but until they appear, we have to use what we've got. A list is one possibility, but a bad one. Every time someone makes a new hill article, they have to remember to add it to the list as well (perhaps several lists, sorted by different fields: geography, elevation, geology, and so on). That is much more work than having templates include categories that achieve the same end. Certainly it's a work-around that the developers hadn't intended, but that doesn't make it "abuse", but rather ingenious. Until there's a better solution, leave this category here. We gain nothing by deleting it. -- Stemonitis 07:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Please, don't feel disobliged, if you feel that this award is appropriate and deserved then you can put this on your user page.
I was posthumosly awarded the Reinvention of the wheel award.
¢ NevilleDNZ 03:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC) ¢ reply
Given that I am going to have the entire book thrown at me anyhow, here is another workaround for sorting height higher then 10,000ft, (or 1,000m in Britian). The issue is the first character is the only one listed in the sorted index,... so
⒑ for 1000+ m, ⒒ for 1100+ m, ⒓ for 1200+ m, ⒔ for 1300+ m, ⒕ for 1400+ m, ⒖ for 1500+ m, ⒗ for 1600+ m, ⒘ for 1700+ m, ⒙ for 1800+ m, ⒚ for 1900+ m, ⒛ for 2000+ m
These will sort perfectly, and the index will only ever show the first character. (Which happens to be 2 digits that we need). Ironically some cultures actually have a special word for these numbers. eg Ethopian. But I think using Ethopian script would be a tad confusing, even though their numbers do sort perfectly well.
This is more effective then using a ">" for heights that go off scale.
¢ NevilleDNZ 14:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC) ¢ reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This category is covered better by Category:User perl.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 13:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This should be renamed category:Reservoirs in the United Kingdom, in line with its parent and the vast majority of UK categories. CalJW 01:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus (no change) -- Kbdank71 13:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Supposed to contain various fictional characters of Celtic origin. Actually contains eight articles, seven of which are Asterix characters, and one is Sláine (comics), a different comics character. If allowed to proceed this way, this will effectively become Category:Asterix characters. If there are many articles about Asterix characters, such a category will make more sense than this one. (Note also that not all Asterix characters are Celtic, but we don't currently have any articles about non-Celtic Asterix characters who are completely fictional.) — JIP | Talk 05:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
A legitimate category to be sure, but not at all useful from a WP perspective. To quote myself at Category talk:Ashkenazi Jews#Tomer's view:
Tomer TALK 08:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin (talk) 01:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
DavidFarmbrough 17:18, September 2, 2005 (BST)