Category:Alumni and faculty of University of Königsberg
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Rename per nom. Also, this should really be split into two separate categories, if anyone is willing to put in the effort.
LeSnail (
talk) 15:47, 5 February 2008 (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:Military of Kosovo
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was delete.
Kbdank71 14:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Kosovo, not being yet an independent country, does not currently have its own military force. The category has two articles listed:
Kosovo Force (Not the military of Kosovo, but a NATO-led international force responsible for establishing a safe and secure environment in Kosovo. — If you wish, this would be "a military force in Kosovo")
Kosovo Protection Corps (a civilian emergency service agency, that eschews military or law enforcement functions and has no role in defense. — For details see
here)
When/if Kosovo gains independence and creates its own military force, or when/if the UN establishes a local institution with defence & military functions, then this category can be undeleted/recreated... but right now it is inaccurate and misleading.
Delete per nom without prejudice to it being re-created after Kosovo declares independence in the next month or two.
Snocrates 21:28, 10 February 2008 (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:Game show card games
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was no consensus.
Kbdank71 14:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization; note that the category consists of only three actual card-based game shows, and three pricing games on
The Price Is Right. Beyond the three actual game shows listed here, I can only think of one other game show that prominently used cards (
Super Pay Cards!). Therefore, I feel that this category is overly narrow in its scope and should be deleted.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 22:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. Perfectly valid category, and certainly not overcategorized. In fact, it's very useful category because it puts context to the actual games, which are far less suited for more generic card game categories.
2005 (
talk) 22:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep per
User:2005. This is not an overcategorization, and game shows featuring cards and card games are becoming increasingly popular.
Rray (
talk) 00:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete OCAT, what about match game? didn't people write their answers on cards? Note
card is a dab page on which playing cards is merely one choice.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 02:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. It a very nice category. I do not wish to have this deleted, and it was a way to put game show under that category together. And further more, though celebrities write answers on cards, none of them have Jack of Hearts or 10 of Clubs on it.
Knowledgeman800 (
talk) 9:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - of the six entries, two of them (
Card Game (pricing game) and
Joker (pricing game)) are not game shows but are rather segments of a game show. They should not be categorized as game shows but instead as The Price is Right pricing games, which
they are. Three of the remaining four shows,
Gambit (game show),
Hit Me and
Top Card are all based on blackjack and are all already categorized with other blackjack-based television shows in
Category:Blackjack television programs. The one remaining game show,
Card Sharks, does not need its own category to set it apart as using playing cards. Additionally, categorizing game shows based on the equipment used in them is overcategorization.
The Price Is Right uses or has used an ungodly number of props, including but certainly not limited to wheels, chips, shells, dice, bells, buzzers, clocks, golf clubs,
puppets, yodeling mountaineers and
Preparation H. I have no desire to see
Category:Preparation H game shows any time soon nor do I find it at all helpful from an organizational standpoint to put 50 categories on TPIR based on every piece of equipment that may have found its way into one of its gaming segments.
Otto4711 (
talk) 23:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The category is game show card games, not card game game shows! Obviously we are not "categorizing game shows based on the equipment". We are categorizing card games. In this case, card games used on game shows. Obviously there is no overcategorization in that since there is no other way to find this commonality.
2005 (
talk) 02:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The idea that these are "card games" is faintly ludicrous. They are television shows (and bits of television shows).
Otto4711 (
talk) 04:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
That is an entirely different point. If you want to question their categorization under card games at all, fine. if you want to afd/question whether they should have articles, fine. But the articles exist, and as such if they are called card games, then the categorization makes sense.
2005 (
talk) 04:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, that's rather the point I was making, that these are not card games. They are game shows (or pieces of game shows) that involve cards.
Otto4711 (
talk) 14:48, 9 February 2008 (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:Heartland songs
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was rename.
Kbdank71 14:29, 11 February 2008 (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:Fictional pretty girls
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was delete.
Kbdank71 14:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Speedy delete as trivial, POV, undefinable.
Fayenatic(talk) 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, the category is definitely POV in its scope, and I don't think that the three girls within it are notable (note that one of those three is at AfD).
Mimi Tachikawais kind of cute, though.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 22:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. -
Ev (
talk) 22:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per firm but fair nom. Cat:Fictional women rides again.
Johnbod (
talk) 14:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Indeed! Presumably you refer to the head
category:Fictional females - now quite well populated, and I'm glad we kept it. Doesn't need this one, though. -
Fayenatic(talk) 00:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I forgot we turned that into something! I meant its initial sad appearance.
Johnbod (
talk) 02:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete "Pretty girls" is non-defining for both real amd fictional women.
Dimadick (
talk) 20:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete. We are clearly not supposed to categorize by a subjective term like pretty.
Doczilla (
talk) 09:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete These are exactly the kinds of categories we dont need. --
Piemanmoo (
talk) 04:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Question: this is clear-cut and unanimous. What does it take to get a speedy? Is speedy deletion of categories no longer policy? -
Fayenatic(talk) 14:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I think you're confusing
speedy deletion criteria with
snowball conclusions to discussions. Lots of people agreeing to delete does not equal a "speedy". It can result in a premature termination of discussion using the snowball justification, but for whatever reason (my guess would be (a) because CFD gets less traffic than AFD; (b) there's less of an imperative to tackle problematic categories before 5 days are up than there is to tackle problematic articles, and (c) the leg-work of closing CFD chats relies on admins, fewer of whom patrol these skies than elsewhere) the snowball clause is rarely invoked.
BencherliteTalk 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Ah! Thank you. I wasn't actually thinking of the snowball clause; hadn't read that one before. Rather, I had expected one of the above experienced hands to close the discussion early and delete the category. However, now I understand that it does not meet any of the
WP:CSD criteria, so I and have withdrawn the word "speedy" from the nomination. -
Fayenatic(talk) 00:42, 10 February 2008 (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:WikiProject Transport in Scotland lists
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was rename.
Kbdank71 14:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category shows the lists associated with
WP:TIS and so can be assessed that way.
Simply south (
talk) 19:28, 4 February 2008 (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:Supercars
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was relisted on feb 11.
Kbdank71 14:26, 11 February 2008 (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:Articles with example pseudocode
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was keep.
Kbdank71 14:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I don't think this category is useful for readers. How likely is it that somebody wants to go through all articles with example pseudocode on Wikipedia? Furthermore, this has been discussed before at
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 17#Category:Articles with example pidgincode where is was decided to delete the category for this reason. I know that this is technically a speedy, but I don't think it's proper to speedy a category that has existed for over a year. --
Jitse Niesen (
talk) 14:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. And definitely not a speedy procedure. The category is useful for readers because of the following reasons:
Author's of research papers and academic literature such as myself, as well as students in numerical computing and computer science, need numerous examples of pseudo-code from various academic traditions as a template and source of inspiration. (Wikipedia authors of articles including pseudo code also need this, but that is not an argument. The need among WP readers is a sufficient argument.)
Formal standards for pseudo code does not, and should not, exist. Instead one has to look into many examples to get a picture of the standard.
The same reasons as all other
Articles with example code. If you delete this you should delete them all. The numerous number of such categories indicates the usefulness.
Independent persons has made several attempts during the years to form a category or list of articles with example pseudo code, as well as Wikipedia style guidelines for pseudo code, which proves the need.
Keep. Articles with example pseudocode are still articles with example code, so this categorization does not hurt, and keeps articles with example pseudocode separate from articles with example code in languages that don't have a category of their own.
GregorB (
talk) 17:11, 8 February 2008 (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:Nations belonging to haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA)
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was delete.
Kbdank71 14:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Apart from the strange terminology ("belonging to haplogroup XYZ"), for a nation to be in this category is in no respect defining. The criterium of 20% is quite arbitrary, and even with this low threshold this will always remain a category with only a few instances. Having this category does not add value; more detailed information is readily available in the article
Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA). --
Lambiam 10:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
keep and probably rename to Category:Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) nations - agree with nominator about the terminology (word "belonging" doesnt make sense), but the category itself is very helpful.
Sasha l (
talk) 11:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
keep and rename - per Sasha.
Serebr (
talk) 12:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete These seem to be ethnic groups rather than nations; eg
Ossetians. To categorise an ethnic group via some personal quality of its people (height, weight, intelligence, genetic make-up etc) is surely overcategorisation. Also
Ossetians doesn't mention haplogroups and so it is difficult to justify the categorisation. A list would be ideal.
-- roundhouse0 (
talk) 20:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per roundhouse. These categories suggest that a nation is synonymous with its dominant ethnic group, which is not a fair assessment. The dominant haplogroup is also probably not defining for a nation. A list will be much better as it will allow more information to be given.
LeSnail (
talk) 15:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete and listify the whole tree, for reasons given.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete yet another arbitrary threshold category, when are we going to have the guts to delete other genetically useless ones like the race/ethnicity ones that suffer the same ills?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 02:34, 6 February 2008 (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:Live Video Feed
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was delete.
Kbdank71 14:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Pages with live video feeds doesn't need a category; unless there is a project that oversees them.
Leo Laursen (
T ¦
C ) 09:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as an article hiding as a category.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 21:22, 9 February 2008 (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:Users who doesn't tolerate harassment
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was Close to allow moving it to User CfD.
Bduke (
talk) 03:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one user in the category, not useful at all, since Wikipedia as a whole does not tolerate harrasment
RogueNinjatalk 02:18, 4 February 2008 (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:Alumni and faculty of University of Königsberg
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Rename per nom. Also, this should really be split into two separate categories, if anyone is willing to put in the effort.
LeSnail (
talk) 15:47, 5 February 2008 (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:Military of Kosovo
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was delete.
Kbdank71 14:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Kosovo, not being yet an independent country, does not currently have its own military force. The category has two articles listed:
Kosovo Force (Not the military of Kosovo, but a NATO-led international force responsible for establishing a safe and secure environment in Kosovo. — If you wish, this would be "a military force in Kosovo")
Kosovo Protection Corps (a civilian emergency service agency, that eschews military or law enforcement functions and has no role in defense. — For details see
here)
When/if Kosovo gains independence and creates its own military force, or when/if the UN establishes a local institution with defence & military functions, then this category can be undeleted/recreated... but right now it is inaccurate and misleading.
Delete per nom without prejudice to it being re-created after Kosovo declares independence in the next month or two.
Snocrates 21:28, 10 February 2008 (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:Game show card games
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was no consensus.
Kbdank71 14:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization; note that the category consists of only three actual card-based game shows, and three pricing games on
The Price Is Right. Beyond the three actual game shows listed here, I can only think of one other game show that prominently used cards (
Super Pay Cards!). Therefore, I feel that this category is overly narrow in its scope and should be deleted.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 22:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. Perfectly valid category, and certainly not overcategorized. In fact, it's very useful category because it puts context to the actual games, which are far less suited for more generic card game categories.
2005 (
talk) 22:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep per
User:2005. This is not an overcategorization, and game shows featuring cards and card games are becoming increasingly popular.
Rray (
talk) 00:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete OCAT, what about match game? didn't people write their answers on cards? Note
card is a dab page on which playing cards is merely one choice.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 02:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. It a very nice category. I do not wish to have this deleted, and it was a way to put game show under that category together. And further more, though celebrities write answers on cards, none of them have Jack of Hearts or 10 of Clubs on it.
Knowledgeman800 (
talk) 9:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - of the six entries, two of them (
Card Game (pricing game) and
Joker (pricing game)) are not game shows but are rather segments of a game show. They should not be categorized as game shows but instead as The Price is Right pricing games, which
they are. Three of the remaining four shows,
Gambit (game show),
Hit Me and
Top Card are all based on blackjack and are all already categorized with other blackjack-based television shows in
Category:Blackjack television programs. The one remaining game show,
Card Sharks, does not need its own category to set it apart as using playing cards. Additionally, categorizing game shows based on the equipment used in them is overcategorization.
The Price Is Right uses or has used an ungodly number of props, including but certainly not limited to wheels, chips, shells, dice, bells, buzzers, clocks, golf clubs,
puppets, yodeling mountaineers and
Preparation H. I have no desire to see
Category:Preparation H game shows any time soon nor do I find it at all helpful from an organizational standpoint to put 50 categories on TPIR based on every piece of equipment that may have found its way into one of its gaming segments.
Otto4711 (
talk) 23:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The category is game show card games, not card game game shows! Obviously we are not "categorizing game shows based on the equipment". We are categorizing card games. In this case, card games used on game shows. Obviously there is no overcategorization in that since there is no other way to find this commonality.
2005 (
talk) 02:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The idea that these are "card games" is faintly ludicrous. They are television shows (and bits of television shows).
Otto4711 (
talk) 04:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
That is an entirely different point. If you want to question their categorization under card games at all, fine. if you want to afd/question whether they should have articles, fine. But the articles exist, and as such if they are called card games, then the categorization makes sense.
2005 (
talk) 04:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, that's rather the point I was making, that these are not card games. They are game shows (or pieces of game shows) that involve cards.
Otto4711 (
talk) 14:48, 9 February 2008 (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:Heartland songs
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was rename.
Kbdank71 14:29, 11 February 2008 (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:Fictional pretty girls
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was delete.
Kbdank71 14:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Speedy delete as trivial, POV, undefinable.
Fayenatic(talk) 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, the category is definitely POV in its scope, and I don't think that the three girls within it are notable (note that one of those three is at AfD).
Mimi Tachikawais kind of cute, though.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 22:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. -
Ev (
talk) 22:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per firm but fair nom. Cat:Fictional women rides again.
Johnbod (
talk) 14:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Indeed! Presumably you refer to the head
category:Fictional females - now quite well populated, and I'm glad we kept it. Doesn't need this one, though. -
Fayenatic(talk) 00:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I forgot we turned that into something! I meant its initial sad appearance.
Johnbod (
talk) 02:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete "Pretty girls" is non-defining for both real amd fictional women.
Dimadick (
talk) 20:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete. We are clearly not supposed to categorize by a subjective term like pretty.
Doczilla (
talk) 09:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete These are exactly the kinds of categories we dont need. --
Piemanmoo (
talk) 04:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Question: this is clear-cut and unanimous. What does it take to get a speedy? Is speedy deletion of categories no longer policy? -
Fayenatic(talk) 14:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I think you're confusing
speedy deletion criteria with
snowball conclusions to discussions. Lots of people agreeing to delete does not equal a "speedy". It can result in a premature termination of discussion using the snowball justification, but for whatever reason (my guess would be (a) because CFD gets less traffic than AFD; (b) there's less of an imperative to tackle problematic categories before 5 days are up than there is to tackle problematic articles, and (c) the leg-work of closing CFD chats relies on admins, fewer of whom patrol these skies than elsewhere) the snowball clause is rarely invoked.
BencherliteTalk 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Ah! Thank you. I wasn't actually thinking of the snowball clause; hadn't read that one before. Rather, I had expected one of the above experienced hands to close the discussion early and delete the category. However, now I understand that it does not meet any of the
WP:CSD criteria, so I and have withdrawn the word "speedy" from the nomination. -
Fayenatic(talk) 00:42, 10 February 2008 (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:WikiProject Transport in Scotland lists
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was rename.
Kbdank71 14:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category shows the lists associated with
WP:TIS and so can be assessed that way.
Simply south (
talk) 19:28, 4 February 2008 (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:Supercars
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was relisted on feb 11.
Kbdank71 14:26, 11 February 2008 (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:Articles with example pseudocode
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was keep.
Kbdank71 14:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I don't think this category is useful for readers. How likely is it that somebody wants to go through all articles with example pseudocode on Wikipedia? Furthermore, this has been discussed before at
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 17#Category:Articles with example pidgincode where is was decided to delete the category for this reason. I know that this is technically a speedy, but I don't think it's proper to speedy a category that has existed for over a year. --
Jitse Niesen (
talk) 14:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. And definitely not a speedy procedure. The category is useful for readers because of the following reasons:
Author's of research papers and academic literature such as myself, as well as students in numerical computing and computer science, need numerous examples of pseudo-code from various academic traditions as a template and source of inspiration. (Wikipedia authors of articles including pseudo code also need this, but that is not an argument. The need among WP readers is a sufficient argument.)
Formal standards for pseudo code does not, and should not, exist. Instead one has to look into many examples to get a picture of the standard.
The same reasons as all other
Articles with example code. If you delete this you should delete them all. The numerous number of such categories indicates the usefulness.
Independent persons has made several attempts during the years to form a category or list of articles with example pseudo code, as well as Wikipedia style guidelines for pseudo code, which proves the need.
Keep. Articles with example pseudocode are still articles with example code, so this categorization does not hurt, and keeps articles with example pseudocode separate from articles with example code in languages that don't have a category of their own.
GregorB (
talk) 17:11, 8 February 2008 (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:Nations belonging to haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA)
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was delete.
Kbdank71 14:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Apart from the strange terminology ("belonging to haplogroup XYZ"), for a nation to be in this category is in no respect defining. The criterium of 20% is quite arbitrary, and even with this low threshold this will always remain a category with only a few instances. Having this category does not add value; more detailed information is readily available in the article
Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA). --
Lambiam 10:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
keep and probably rename to Category:Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) nations - agree with nominator about the terminology (word "belonging" doesnt make sense), but the category itself is very helpful.
Sasha l (
talk) 11:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
keep and rename - per Sasha.
Serebr (
talk) 12:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete These seem to be ethnic groups rather than nations; eg
Ossetians. To categorise an ethnic group via some personal quality of its people (height, weight, intelligence, genetic make-up etc) is surely overcategorisation. Also
Ossetians doesn't mention haplogroups and so it is difficult to justify the categorisation. A list would be ideal.
-- roundhouse0 (
talk) 20:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per roundhouse. These categories suggest that a nation is synonymous with its dominant ethnic group, which is not a fair assessment. The dominant haplogroup is also probably not defining for a nation. A list will be much better as it will allow more information to be given.
LeSnail (
talk) 15:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete and listify the whole tree, for reasons given.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete yet another arbitrary threshold category, when are we going to have the guts to delete other genetically useless ones like the race/ethnicity ones that suffer the same ills?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 02:34, 6 February 2008 (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:Live Video Feed
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was delete.
Kbdank71 14:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Pages with live video feeds doesn't need a category; unless there is a project that oversees them.
Leo Laursen (
T ¦
C ) 09:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as an article hiding as a category.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 21:22, 9 February 2008 (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:Users who doesn't tolerate harassment
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was Close to allow moving it to User CfD.
Bduke (
talk) 03:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one user in the category, not useful at all, since Wikipedia as a whole does not tolerate harrasment
RogueNinjatalk 02:18, 4 February 2008 (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.