From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 28

Category:Libraries in Melbourne

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: Speedy delete as empty. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Libraries in Melbourne ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Inexperienced user created a category instead of article. I have copied the text to an article. Cuddy Wifter ( talk) 23:22, 28 February 2009 (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:Abduction researchers

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: Rename to Category:Alien abduction researchers. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Abduction researchers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete We already have the category Ufologist and I feel this is redundant and that the term "researcher" validates the activities of those tagged in some way, thus violating NPOV. Verbal chat 16:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I agree, if kept it certainly needs to be renamed as suggested. But you didn't address the issue of redundancy, etc. -- I could possibly be persuaded. Btw, there are also two other related cats that need to be renamed in the same way. I was planning to raise this issue first at the main article, which itself was recently renamed to Alien abduction but should probably be called "Alien abduction phenomenon", imo. However, I suppose ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Abduction claims should be taken to CFD without further delay. (Done.) Cgingold ( talk) 00:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree that the categories are redundant. All adbuction researchers may be ufologists but not all ufologists are abduction researchers. A reader interested specifically in abduction researchers shouldn't have to search through all of the ufologist articles to find them. Otto4711 ( talk) 01:01, 1 March 2009 (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.

rename Category:British Bangladeshis

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: Rename. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:British Bangladeshis to Category:British people of Bangladeshi descent
Nominator's rationale: as per conventional naming pattern (eg. Category:British people of Nepali descent, Category:British people of Pakistani descent etc.) Mayumashu ( talk) 16:32, 28 February 2009 (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:Barlows of note

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. All are contained in Barlow (surname). Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Barlows of note ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete WP:OCAT by shared surname, with no evidence given that any of these Barlows are actually related to each other. Bearcat ( talk) 10:19, 28 February 2009 (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.

Ghanaian MPs

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: keep. Kbdank71 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Members of the Parliament of Ghana, by Parliament ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Mostly overlapping categories. All of this information already exists as a list. If this is incomplete, please include all of the nominated categories included. TM 03:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Excuse my ignorance but how is this different from categories such as Category:UK MPs 1987-1992 and Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament for example?-- Natsubee ( talk) 14:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the UK scheme is in my opinion an examplary demonstration of the synergy between lists (all MPs of a particular parliament) and categories (MPs with articles). I see no reason why it should not be carried over to Ghanaian MPs, who seem to be elected in a roughly comparable system. (I take it that a Ghanaian MP is just as notable as a UK one, although many articles are at present missing.) Occuli ( talk) 14:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I have absolutely no problem with all Ghanaian MPs having articles and I've even started several myself. Can you explain to me why the same information (MPS in a given parliament) needs to be in two different places? I'd be in favor of deleting the UK version as well.-- TM 15:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Vegaswikian wants the UK equivalents to be listified, but it is simply untrue to say "that this is what is apparently happening for the UK categories". The CFD which Vegaswikian opened relates only to one such category out of 54, and it has not yet been closed. I see no consensus to listify and delete even the one category which has been nominated, let alone the other 53 which have not even been nominated. I think it's very poor conduct to say that "this is what is apparently happening" when the CFD referred to has not been closed and when most participants oppose Vegaswikian's view. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As I read that discussion, several UK categories were already listified and since this is a major effort it will take time to do all of the categories. Is that not what was written in the other discussion? Vegaswikian1 ( talk) 04:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. These categories are a well-designed and workable tool in navigating the still-scanty coverage of the Ghanain Parliament. Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods" ... and "these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:21, 7 March 2009 (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:Relgious sees in Canada

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.
Discussion moved to speedy as a mere typo issue. Timrollpickering ( talk) 08:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Relgious sees in Canada ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Speedy rename to "Religious sees in Canada". -- Kevlar ( talkcontribs) 01:06, 28 February 2009 (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:Actor-athletes merge to Category:Sportspeople turned 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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. While the consensus was to delete both, the latter one was not tagged. I have nominated Category:Sportspeople turned actors for deletion based on this discussion, so if the consensus remains, that can be deleted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Actor-athletes to Category:Sportspeople turned actors
Nominator's rationale: it is not a long list so there is no need to limit it to those notable for play a sport and not for being notable for having coached, managed, or officiated one. All were notably involved in sport first and then politics (none were notable politicians first) 'Athlete' is problematic outside a Canadian-American context. Mayumashu ( talk) 00:59, 28 February 2009 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 28

Category:Libraries in Melbourne

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: Speedy delete as empty. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Libraries in Melbourne ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Inexperienced user created a category instead of article. I have copied the text to an article. Cuddy Wifter ( talk) 23:22, 28 February 2009 (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:Abduction researchers

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: Rename to Category:Alien abduction researchers. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Abduction researchers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete We already have the category Ufologist and I feel this is redundant and that the term "researcher" validates the activities of those tagged in some way, thus violating NPOV. Verbal chat 16:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I agree, if kept it certainly needs to be renamed as suggested. But you didn't address the issue of redundancy, etc. -- I could possibly be persuaded. Btw, there are also two other related cats that need to be renamed in the same way. I was planning to raise this issue first at the main article, which itself was recently renamed to Alien abduction but should probably be called "Alien abduction phenomenon", imo. However, I suppose ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Abduction claims should be taken to CFD without further delay. (Done.) Cgingold ( talk) 00:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree that the categories are redundant. All adbuction researchers may be ufologists but not all ufologists are abduction researchers. A reader interested specifically in abduction researchers shouldn't have to search through all of the ufologist articles to find them. Otto4711 ( talk) 01:01, 1 March 2009 (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.

rename Category:British Bangladeshis

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: Rename. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:British Bangladeshis to Category:British people of Bangladeshi descent
Nominator's rationale: as per conventional naming pattern (eg. Category:British people of Nepali descent, Category:British people of Pakistani descent etc.) Mayumashu ( talk) 16:32, 28 February 2009 (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:Barlows of note

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. All are contained in Barlow (surname). Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Barlows of note ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete WP:OCAT by shared surname, with no evidence given that any of these Barlows are actually related to each other. Bearcat ( talk) 10:19, 28 February 2009 (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.

Ghanaian MPs

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: keep. Kbdank71 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Members of the Parliament of Ghana, by Parliament ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Mostly overlapping categories. All of this information already exists as a list. If this is incomplete, please include all of the nominated categories included. TM 03:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Excuse my ignorance but how is this different from categories such as Category:UK MPs 1987-1992 and Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament for example?-- Natsubee ( talk) 14:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the UK scheme is in my opinion an examplary demonstration of the synergy between lists (all MPs of a particular parliament) and categories (MPs with articles). I see no reason why it should not be carried over to Ghanaian MPs, who seem to be elected in a roughly comparable system. (I take it that a Ghanaian MP is just as notable as a UK one, although many articles are at present missing.) Occuli ( talk) 14:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I have absolutely no problem with all Ghanaian MPs having articles and I've even started several myself. Can you explain to me why the same information (MPS in a given parliament) needs to be in two different places? I'd be in favor of deleting the UK version as well.-- TM 15:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Vegaswikian wants the UK equivalents to be listified, but it is simply untrue to say "that this is what is apparently happening for the UK categories". The CFD which Vegaswikian opened relates only to one such category out of 54, and it has not yet been closed. I see no consensus to listify and delete even the one category which has been nominated, let alone the other 53 which have not even been nominated. I think it's very poor conduct to say that "this is what is apparently happening" when the CFD referred to has not been closed and when most participants oppose Vegaswikian's view. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As I read that discussion, several UK categories were already listified and since this is a major effort it will take time to do all of the categories. Is that not what was written in the other discussion? Vegaswikian1 ( talk) 04:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. These categories are a well-designed and workable tool in navigating the still-scanty coverage of the Ghanain Parliament. Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods" ... and "these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:21, 7 March 2009 (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:Relgious sees in Canada

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.
Discussion moved to speedy as a mere typo issue. Timrollpickering ( talk) 08:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Relgious sees in Canada ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Speedy rename to "Religious sees in Canada". -- Kevlar ( talkcontribs) 01:06, 28 February 2009 (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:Actor-athletes merge to Category:Sportspeople turned 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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. While the consensus was to delete both, the latter one was not tagged. I have nominated Category:Sportspeople turned actors for deletion based on this discussion, so if the consensus remains, that can be deleted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Actor-athletes to Category:Sportspeople turned actors
Nominator's rationale: it is not a long list so there is no need to limit it to those notable for play a sport and not for being notable for having coached, managed, or officiated one. All were notably involved in sport first and then politics (none were notable politicians first) 'Athlete' is problematic outside a Canadian-American context. Mayumashu ( talk) 00:59, 28 February 2009 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook