Category:Articles with links needing disambiguation
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep.
Bduke
06:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Articles with links needing disambiguation (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale:
Delete since this is unnecessary and backwards. There is already a bot-maintained category for disambiguation pages with links, which has been in use for a long time. This category doesn't tell you which links need disambiguation, so it's not very useful anyway.
Sapphic 22:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Weak keep since this can serve (in association with a template tag attached to links) as a way of identifying "trouble cases" of hard-to-disambiguate links found on one of the more established lists, such as at the
Disambiguation pages with links page. --
Sapphic 23:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC) It also addresses the problem of links to disambiguation pages from a different, equal valid angle to that of sorting by number of links to a disambiguation page (the way it's done elsewhere) – although I personally find it easier to work on disambiguating all of the links coming into a disambiguation page, rather than jumping from topic to unrelated topic as you would using this category. Nonetheless, the type of disambiguation needed at the
Zeenat Aman article (which "
St. Xavier's School" did she attend?) is of a completely different variety than those listed at
WP:DPL and so this category is not only useful but actually serves a unique set of needs not met by previously existing pages or categories. --
Sapphic
00:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- How would it be useful? There is no indication as to which links on the page need disambiguation.
WP:DPL is useful, but this category is not. --
Sapphic
17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Actually that is not true. The links that need disambiguation are marked by a {{
dn}} -- which I believe is the only way that the category should be added to an article. Of course, the category itself should explain this.
older ≠
wiser
19:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Ah, I did not realize that was how articles were added to the category. That does indeed make it at least somewhat useful, and I hereby withdraw my support for deletion. I'd thought somebody had been populating the category by hand (or by bot) in a misguided attempt to be helpful, but apparently I was the one who was misguided. Thanks for clarifying! --
Sapphic
21:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Weak Keep. As indicated above, the specific links that require disambiguation are identified. As for how useful this category is, that's another question. The {{
dn}} template is potentially helpful, in that it identifies a link that someone has attempted to disambiguate but was unable to, most likely due to insufficient context.
older ≠
wiser
19:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep since it helps to track down where the {{
dn}} tag has been added. --
Paul Erik
20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy keep now that the nominator has withdrawn, and opinion is unanimous.
Xtifr
tälk
00:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Strong keep dabbing is essential to the health and utility of the Wikipedia, this cat and the associated template are potentially extremely valuable. I dabble in dabbing and often find links which I would have marked thus had I been aware of this cat!
DuncanHill
10:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, though
Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:dn serves the same purpose. —
Randall Bart
Talk
02:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Ships sunk by U-boats
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename and prune.
the wub
"?!"
13:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Menudo to
Category:Menudo members
- Nominator's rationale: Rename and prune - the vast majority of articles are for members. We need a members category but absent the member articles we don't really need an eponymous category for the remaining material.
Otto4711
21:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Mayhem musicians
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!"
22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Mayhem musicians to [[:Category:Mayhem (band)
musicians members]]
- Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the lead article
Mayhem (band) and reduce possible ambiguity.
Otto4711
21:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!"
22:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Bob Marley (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete -
eponymous overcategorization. Does not meet the exception laid out at the guideline, as coverage of Marley's life is not divided into multiple sub-articles that can't otherwise be easily categorized. Most of the contents are family members and are appropriately interlinked. A
Marley family article might be in order.
Otto4711
21:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete when I saw this, I first thought "Bob Marley is one of those musicians who is highly notable, and probably should have his own category". But when I looked at the articles and sub-cats found in this category, most of them don't belong (like family members). Clean out the cat, and this is a textbook example of eponymous overcat, which get deleted daily.-
Andrew c
[talk]
02:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete this overcategorisation per broad precedent,
Tewfik
Talk
23:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Canadian expatriate musicians in the United States
Relisted at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 15#Category:Canadian expatriate musicians in the United States for more discussion.
the wub
"?!"
13:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!"
22:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:MC Lars (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete -
eponymous overcategorization. Material is all extensively interlinked and appropriately categorized and the category is not warranted.
Otto4711
21:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- They are sometimes a good idea, when the volume and complexity of the material about a person is such that a category is needed to organize it effectively. That is clearly not the case here, as the material abour MC Lars does is not particularly vouminous or complex.
Otto4711
16:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sports clubs established in 1844
Category:Provinces of Perugia
Category:Christian legend and folklore
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was merge as nominated.
the wub
"?!"
13:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Suggest merging
Category:Christian legend and folklore to
Category:Christian folklore
- Nominator's rationale: These two categories were the subject of a
recent debate on August 14, and the result was no consensus. However, nobody in the debate supported the status quo, so I think a quick renomination is fully justified. Opinions were split between deleting the newer folklore category (as nominated) and merging the "legend and folklore" category into the "folklore" category (my counterproposal). The bottom line, though, is that everyone agrees that these categories are redundant, so something should be done. My argument is that legends are a subcategory of folklore (and
Category:Legends is a subcategory of
Category:Folklore), so there should be no problem with having legends in the folklore category--that's where they belong. It's possible that we should have a separate
Category:Christian legends as a subcategory of both
Category:Christian folklore and
Category:Legends, but that would require sorting out which articles are specifically legends, and which are other types of folklore, and I don't think the amount of material here would justify the effort. So I think that a merger to the more simply-named category is the best solution at this time.
Xtifr
tälk
10:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete.
Woohookitty
Woohoo!
08:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Paris Hilton films (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Delete, please see
August 26th discussion. --
Prove It
(talk)
04:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per ample precedent, as demonstrated by the previous discussion.
Bencherlite
Talk
19:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete As per established precedent.
Hiberniantears
19:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
Rename to
Category:Films directed by Paris Hilton, prune all films she didn't direct, then delete as empty. The first step is, of course, optional. :)
Xtifr
tälk
10:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree with Xtifr :).-
Andrew c
[talk]
02:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- delete maybe if she had a lonnnnng career and was a notable acctress, but she's currently just a "vulgar" jailbird druggie =( but seriously what besides house of wax would be in this category? hahahCholga
talK!
02:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- No, not even if she had a long career. We don't categorize movies by their actors, because too many movies have too many actors, and the result would be category clutter. But in answer to your other question:
1 Night in Paris is the movie that made her famous! :)
Xtifr
tälk
11:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per well established precedent.
Wryspy
07:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Richmond City Council
Relisted at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 15#Category:Richmond City Council for further discussion.
the wub
"?!"
13:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
Category:Hairspray (film)