The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: OCAT and not a defining characteristic for the individuals. It currently has only two members and I'm not sure if this can be expanded since it may not be defining for most members.
Vegaswikian1 (
talk)
22:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Listify in
Girls' Day School Trust - Princess Louise is mentioned, but not Princess Alice. Nom is correct in pointing out that being Patron of a society is hardly defining, particularly for members of the Royal Family who are patrons of many, many such organizations, which would lead to great category clutter.
BencherliteTalk07:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Songs written by Anthony Smith
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Stacks
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Logical languages
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. In the article on
Constructed language, as well as
Engineered language, logical languages are treated as a subset of the latter. In my opinion, it would be good if our categorisation followed the same pattern. Also, there are several languages that would qualify as engineered languages but not as logical languages; currently, for the lack of an alternative, they are classified under
Category:Constructed languages, but would easily find a better home in the new category. —
IJzeren JanUszkiełtu?20:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Since my proposal doesn't seem to evoke much discussion (not that I would have expected that, since the subject is rather specialistic), let me add an argument in favour of renaming. At least half of the languages in this category are not strictly "logical languages". Logical languages are languages based on predicate logic, and there are in fact only two of those:
Loglan and
Lojban; a third one,
Ceqli, has been deleted before. "Engineered languages" is an accepted term nowadays. Now that I think of it, one might as well call them "conceptual languages". These encompass not only the logical languages, but also the
philosophical languages and a few other experimental languages. It could be an alternative solution to preserve
Category:Logical languages, create subcategories for the other two groups as well, and turn all of them into subcategories of a newly created
Category:Engineered languages. But frankly, I don't think that would be a good idea, as all three new subcats would be small; without subcats, a
Category:Engineered languages would be nicely populated, but not overpopulated. Also, other conlang types aren't subcategorised to such a degree either. —
IJzeren JanUszkiełtu?07:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Athletes by city
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: only sub cat page listed for this cat page is nominated for merger, two nominations down this page; participates in
athletics by city is unlikely to be a necessary supercategory at any point
Mayumashu (
talk)
20:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Oklahoma (state) actors
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I think the reason is category name brevity. Foo actors is shorter than Actors from Foo. But the scheme is hardly consistent across state and national lines so I have no objection to making the entire structure Actors from Foo.
Otto4711 (
talk)
12:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Athletes/Sportspeople from Omaha, Nebraska
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep - Following the rule of
WP:BOLD, I created the category with the logic that we list dozens of other occupations by city, and thus, why not athletes? This could be a significant - and useful - addition to the realm of categorization this falls within. • Freechild'sup?01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Wait - Rereading this nomination, I believe now that it is far too broad to actually execute. This would actually setback the categorization of people by profession. In the case of
Category:Athletes from Omaha, Nebraska,
Category:Omaha sportspeople and
Category:Nebraska sportspeople upon review you will find that the Omaha categories are more heavily filled than the state category. Not having a category is not an excuse to not create a category; it is actually all the more reason to - that is how WP grows. So I change my note to Strongly keep. • Freechild'sup?01:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, it certainly opens things up for a whole extra layer that doesn t exist now. I personally don t mind what many would see as clutter, in having someone listed as a Omaha sportsperson, Nebraska sportsperson, and an American tennis player, without having one be a true subcat of the other
Mayumashu (
talk)
18:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:American women judges
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
keep we are talking about 'women' here, not 'females' which includes children. We do not have children as judges in the US. Nominators should read the parent categories before nominating.
Hmains (
talk)
23:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Shanti Bahini
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.
Commercial failures
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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/rename/merge per nom. Per discussion here and precedent regarding "failures" in other CFD's and at AFD.
Kbdank7113:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Discuss - this category structure has been to CFD twice before, with both
the first and
the second closing no consensus. However, mixed in amongst them two of the subcats,
video game failures and
automobile commercial failures were CFDed separately and deleted. My suggestion, from the last structure-wide CFD: rename Category:Failed airliners to Category:Discontinued airliners and parent it under Category:Airliners; rename Category:Failed Microsoft initiatives to Category:Uncompleted Microsoft initiatives and parent under Category:Microsoft initiatives; upmerge Category:Commercial failure lists to Category:Business lists; delete Category:Commercial failures both as unacceptably POV/subjective and because it would then be empty..
Otto4711 (
talk)
16:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep all except the Microsoft one, which rename. These are not the solutions. It is silly to create
Category:Category:Discontinued airliners, which potentially would include several hundred articles, just for fewer than ten notable commercial flops. What is the point of losing the list sub-cat in a huge head cat?
Johnbod (
talk)
01:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Category:Commercial failure and Category:Commercial failure lists. The first is completely POV, with random inclusions and questionable basis of inclusion. The second is an arbitrary category with little content. Support the other two suggestions.
Wildhartlivie (
talk)
05:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Incan scholars
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Incan scholars is a narrow concept akin to "Aztec scholars". A wider and more frequently used concept is "Andean scholars" which refers to the whole cultural area in which the Incas and other civilizations developed. This would make this category similar to
Category:Mesoamerica scholars.
Victor12 (
talk)
04:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Role-playing languages
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Kitty Girls
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete as eponymous overcategorisation. Category is not needed for one article and an image that is already in the article.
BencherliteTalk08:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Notable Members of the Girls' Day School Trust
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete as small & unlikely to expand, unless someone is preparing to write a series of biographies of girls' school heasteachers.
Johnbod (
talk)
18:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:User Hindi
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Wikipedians who support the headscarf in Turkey
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Unencyclopedic category per
WP:SOAP, not useful for collaboration as only encompassing users with the same point of view on the issue. Additionally, although it is currently only being used by one user, it is a category included as part of a userbox. --
Snigbrook(talk)00:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Ministers of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Hokkaidō
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose the target is ambiguous. Categories should not be ambiguously named. I think that the island is also more likely to be thought of rather than the prefecture, in the English-speaking world (ie. WWII - Japanese Home Islands). You could rename it
Category:Hokkaido (prefecture)...
70.51.8.247 (
talk)
05:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
I disagree that it is ambiguous because the category is based on the article
Hokkaidō, which starts with "Hokkaidō...is Japan's second largest island and the largest, northernmost of its 47 prefectural-level subdivisions." That shows that it includes both the island and the prefecture.
Douggers (
talk)
05:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
This is not an article, so people will not read the article before categorizing things in it. If you rename it, you will need to police it to keep it properly populated, more than is currently necessary, because people will invariably categorize things more properly categorized for the island in the prefecture category, thus leaving the island category underpopulated.
70.55.85.123 (
talk)
04:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)reply
I understand that people might not check the article, but the article shows that the prefecture and the island are commonly accepted as synonymous terms and having separate categories would be confusing and redundant.
Douggers (
talk)
04:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Support As already established in the
manual of style it is unnecessary to include prefecture behind the name Hokkaidō since -dō is aready included in the name. The island and prefecture are virtually synonymous. As far as these categories are concerned they are synonymous as well.
imars (
talk)
06:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
I misread the MOS. I think we should be able to leave out the prefecture.
Oppose in this one case because you can not have category redirects (or at least they do not work well), and this needs to be specific and consistent with the other prefecture categories. or all other uses, I support dropping the "Prefecture". ···
日本穣? ·
Talk to Nihonjoe04:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)reply
But having a article and a category with different names that cover the same topic is confusing. Most of the people doing the categorizing will know the topic, so keeping "Prefecture" attached in this one instance seems to be more of a hindrance than a help. Why would
Hokkaidō be in the category "Hokkaidō Prefecture" if it's never called by that name? I made this proposal for consistency.
Consistency is bad when it leads to ambiguity because of maintenance issues. I also doubt that many people doing the categorizing will not assume the category is for the island, since in the English speaking world, the island is more widely known than the prefecture. They'd have to look at the article. Considering how people categorize things right now, I doubt that alot of people know category trees all that well, since they don't categorize that well.
70.55.202.181 (
talk)
23:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Here is the complete list of Hokkaidō related categories:
So only the catagory Hokkaidō Prefecture makes the distinction between island and prefecture. Douggers wants to make our use of these categories consistent. Rishiri Island is a Hokkaidō geography stub. Technically it is not part of the island, but it is part of the prefecture. Should we have separate prefecture and island geography stubs? I say no because nobody draws a distinction between the two. User 70.55.202.181 is trying to establish a distinction that does not exist in practice.
imars (
talk)
06:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Fantasy novels by series
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: OCAT and not a defining characteristic for the individuals. It currently has only two members and I'm not sure if this can be expanded since it may not be defining for most members.
Vegaswikian1 (
talk)
22:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Listify in
Girls' Day School Trust - Princess Louise is mentioned, but not Princess Alice. Nom is correct in pointing out that being Patron of a society is hardly defining, particularly for members of the Royal Family who are patrons of many, many such organizations, which would lead to great category clutter.
BencherliteTalk07:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Songs written by Anthony Smith
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Stacks
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Logical languages
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. In the article on
Constructed language, as well as
Engineered language, logical languages are treated as a subset of the latter. In my opinion, it would be good if our categorisation followed the same pattern. Also, there are several languages that would qualify as engineered languages but not as logical languages; currently, for the lack of an alternative, they are classified under
Category:Constructed languages, but would easily find a better home in the new category. —
IJzeren JanUszkiełtu?20:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Since my proposal doesn't seem to evoke much discussion (not that I would have expected that, since the subject is rather specialistic), let me add an argument in favour of renaming. At least half of the languages in this category are not strictly "logical languages". Logical languages are languages based on predicate logic, and there are in fact only two of those:
Loglan and
Lojban; a third one,
Ceqli, has been deleted before. "Engineered languages" is an accepted term nowadays. Now that I think of it, one might as well call them "conceptual languages". These encompass not only the logical languages, but also the
philosophical languages and a few other experimental languages. It could be an alternative solution to preserve
Category:Logical languages, create subcategories for the other two groups as well, and turn all of them into subcategories of a newly created
Category:Engineered languages. But frankly, I don't think that would be a good idea, as all three new subcats would be small; without subcats, a
Category:Engineered languages would be nicely populated, but not overpopulated. Also, other conlang types aren't subcategorised to such a degree either. —
IJzeren JanUszkiełtu?07:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Athletes by city
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: only sub cat page listed for this cat page is nominated for merger, two nominations down this page; participates in
athletics by city is unlikely to be a necessary supercategory at any point
Mayumashu (
talk)
20:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Oklahoma (state) actors
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I think the reason is category name brevity. Foo actors is shorter than Actors from Foo. But the scheme is hardly consistent across state and national lines so I have no objection to making the entire structure Actors from Foo.
Otto4711 (
talk)
12:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Athletes/Sportspeople from Omaha, Nebraska
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep - Following the rule of
WP:BOLD, I created the category with the logic that we list dozens of other occupations by city, and thus, why not athletes? This could be a significant - and useful - addition to the realm of categorization this falls within. • Freechild'sup?01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Wait - Rereading this nomination, I believe now that it is far too broad to actually execute. This would actually setback the categorization of people by profession. In the case of
Category:Athletes from Omaha, Nebraska,
Category:Omaha sportspeople and
Category:Nebraska sportspeople upon review you will find that the Omaha categories are more heavily filled than the state category. Not having a category is not an excuse to not create a category; it is actually all the more reason to - that is how WP grows. So I change my note to Strongly keep. • Freechild'sup?01:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, it certainly opens things up for a whole extra layer that doesn t exist now. I personally don t mind what many would see as clutter, in having someone listed as a Omaha sportsperson, Nebraska sportsperson, and an American tennis player, without having one be a true subcat of the other
Mayumashu (
talk)
18:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:American women judges
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
keep we are talking about 'women' here, not 'females' which includes children. We do not have children as judges in the US. Nominators should read the parent categories before nominating.
Hmains (
talk)
23:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Shanti Bahini
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.
Commercial failures
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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/rename/merge per nom. Per discussion here and precedent regarding "failures" in other CFD's and at AFD.
Kbdank7113:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Discuss - this category structure has been to CFD twice before, with both
the first and
the second closing no consensus. However, mixed in amongst them two of the subcats,
video game failures and
automobile commercial failures were CFDed separately and deleted. My suggestion, from the last structure-wide CFD: rename Category:Failed airliners to Category:Discontinued airliners and parent it under Category:Airliners; rename Category:Failed Microsoft initiatives to Category:Uncompleted Microsoft initiatives and parent under Category:Microsoft initiatives; upmerge Category:Commercial failure lists to Category:Business lists; delete Category:Commercial failures both as unacceptably POV/subjective and because it would then be empty..
Otto4711 (
talk)
16:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep all except the Microsoft one, which rename. These are not the solutions. It is silly to create
Category:Category:Discontinued airliners, which potentially would include several hundred articles, just for fewer than ten notable commercial flops. What is the point of losing the list sub-cat in a huge head cat?
Johnbod (
talk)
01:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Category:Commercial failure and Category:Commercial failure lists. The first is completely POV, with random inclusions and questionable basis of inclusion. The second is an arbitrary category with little content. Support the other two suggestions.
Wildhartlivie (
talk)
05:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Incan scholars
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Incan scholars is a narrow concept akin to "Aztec scholars". A wider and more frequently used concept is "Andean scholars" which refers to the whole cultural area in which the Incas and other civilizations developed. This would make this category similar to
Category:Mesoamerica scholars.
Victor12 (
talk)
04:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Role-playing languages
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Kitty Girls
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete as eponymous overcategorisation. Category is not needed for one article and an image that is already in the article.
BencherliteTalk08:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Notable Members of the Girls' Day School Trust
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete as small & unlikely to expand, unless someone is preparing to write a series of biographies of girls' school heasteachers.
Johnbod (
talk)
18:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:User Hindi
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Wikipedians who support the headscarf in Turkey
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Unencyclopedic category per
WP:SOAP, not useful for collaboration as only encompassing users with the same point of view on the issue. Additionally, although it is currently only being used by one user, it is a category included as part of a userbox. --
Snigbrook(talk)00:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Ministers of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Hokkaidō
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose the target is ambiguous. Categories should not be ambiguously named. I think that the island is also more likely to be thought of rather than the prefecture, in the English-speaking world (ie. WWII - Japanese Home Islands). You could rename it
Category:Hokkaido (prefecture)...
70.51.8.247 (
talk)
05:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
I disagree that it is ambiguous because the category is based on the article
Hokkaidō, which starts with "Hokkaidō...is Japan's second largest island and the largest, northernmost of its 47 prefectural-level subdivisions." That shows that it includes both the island and the prefecture.
Douggers (
talk)
05:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
This is not an article, so people will not read the article before categorizing things in it. If you rename it, you will need to police it to keep it properly populated, more than is currently necessary, because people will invariably categorize things more properly categorized for the island in the prefecture category, thus leaving the island category underpopulated.
70.55.85.123 (
talk)
04:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)reply
I understand that people might not check the article, but the article shows that the prefecture and the island are commonly accepted as synonymous terms and having separate categories would be confusing and redundant.
Douggers (
talk)
04:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Support As already established in the
manual of style it is unnecessary to include prefecture behind the name Hokkaidō since -dō is aready included in the name. The island and prefecture are virtually synonymous. As far as these categories are concerned they are synonymous as well.
imars (
talk)
06:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)reply
I misread the MOS. I think we should be able to leave out the prefecture.
Oppose in this one case because you can not have category redirects (or at least they do not work well), and this needs to be specific and consistent with the other prefecture categories. or all other uses, I support dropping the "Prefecture". ···
日本穣? ·
Talk to Nihonjoe04:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)reply
But having a article and a category with different names that cover the same topic is confusing. Most of the people doing the categorizing will know the topic, so keeping "Prefecture" attached in this one instance seems to be more of a hindrance than a help. Why would
Hokkaidō be in the category "Hokkaidō Prefecture" if it's never called by that name? I made this proposal for consistency.
Consistency is bad when it leads to ambiguity because of maintenance issues. I also doubt that many people doing the categorizing will not assume the category is for the island, since in the English speaking world, the island is more widely known than the prefecture. They'd have to look at the article. Considering how people categorize things right now, I doubt that alot of people know category trees all that well, since they don't categorize that well.
70.55.202.181 (
talk)
23:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Here is the complete list of Hokkaidō related categories:
So only the catagory Hokkaidō Prefecture makes the distinction between island and prefecture. Douggers wants to make our use of these categories consistent. Rishiri Island is a Hokkaidō geography stub. Technically it is not part of the island, but it is part of the prefecture. Should we have separate prefecture and island geography stubs? I say no because nobody draws a distinction between the two. User 70.55.202.181 is trying to establish a distinction that does not exist in practice.
imars (
talk)
06:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Fantasy novels by series
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.