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:Arctic islands
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.
Comment are all arctic islands in the Arctic Ocean? wouldn't some be in the Pacific, Atlantic, or some other bodies of water (like a lake) ? If Hudson's Bay is an extension of the Arctic Ocean, then islands in it are not in the arctic, but still in the Arctic Ocean... Similarly, the White Sea is an extension of the Arctic Ocean, has islands, but is not in the arctic (according to our Arctic article)
76.66.193.119 (
talk)
20:23, 16 July 2010 (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:Civil affairs units and formations of the United States Marine Corps
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.
Comment The civil affairs groups are broken down into Dets & these are too small for separate articles. It would be like making articles on platoons. Therefore, it is unlikely this category will expand beyond two articles.
FieldMarine (
talk)
14:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) I don't think you get the point. I am organizing all of the Military units and formations of the United States, so that they are accessible on multiple routes from
Category:Military units and formations of the United States, people may be looking for Civil affairs units and want nothing to do with Civil affairs itself. Or if they are looking for civil affairs, and be confused by a whole slew of civil affairs units that make the category busy, same problem with Military units and formations of the United States Marine Corps. Because United States Military units are so diverse, and so many missions cross branch lines, these need to be accurately and precisely organized to be accessible from multiple directions. You are getting hyperfocused on the Marine perspective and forget the macro picture,
Sadads (
talk)
14:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I have initiated a dialogue that this category is too narrow in scope to be useful. I also believe (IMHO) that an overall taxonomy that generates many narrowly focused categories with few entries is not well designed. Instead of assuming I don’t get it, I recommend laying out good points so the community can make an informed decision.
FieldMarine (
talk)
16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Again, these categories have more than 2 or three possibilities, they just haven't been developed as articles. Its better to have the organizational structure in place anticipating when you already have small populations instead of relying on massive categories that aren't organizable or negotiable, besides the cross hierarchical category ease of access.
Sadads (
talk)
21:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)reply
That's EXACTLY the point. THERE HAVE BEEN NO CIVIL AFFAIRS UNITS IN THE USMC BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE CAGs. There are only two CAGs. Thus unless there are new specifically CA units created, which is unlikely, as most CA work is done by non-dedicated units, there will only be two or maybe three units for the category. We do not need the organisational structure. If multiple CA units are created later, then we can reconsider the issue. But it is unnecessary overcategorisation at the moment.
Buckshot06(talk)06:33, 17 July 2010 (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:Western Chan Fellowship
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. Only two articles, already linked, no obvious prospects for growth. (There was a tiny article on the retreat centre but I merged it.)
Fayenatic(talk)22:26, 15 July 2010 (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:Infrared photovoltaics
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. This is really about generating electricity using cells apparently based on silicon. So this would be more targeted then the existing name.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:08, 15 July 2010 (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:Photovoltaic antennas
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:Merge. Another one of these odd ball categories. One it is only 2 article so OC small should apply. This upmerge is based on the fact that they are fabricated using standard semiconductor integrated circuit fabrication techniques so they are semiconductor products like most solar cells and also generate electricity. If kept, the category should be renamed to
Category:Rectennas, I think that is the correct plural name, since that is really the parent article in my opinion for this tree.
Nantenna would probably be OK with the existing categories, but I'm not sure. What ever the decision, this needs something.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:55, 15 July 2010 (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:Philosophy of human nature
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: There is no formal field of "philosophy of human nature." The informal philosophy is adequately contained within "philosophy of life."
Greg Bard (
talk)
20:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment (while still unclear as to the proposition here). Hanging anything on the article
Philosophy of life appears shaky. I am unclear why the various tags that it was carrying as recently as February (including an Original Research tag) were removed:
[1]?
AllyD (
talk)
22:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The proposal is to delete (I thought that was explicit in the twinkle process that created this entry). I just think there is a proliferation of "philosophy of..." where there is no academic department at any university on Earth. The "philosophy of life" category is an exception, and it is reserved for "informal philosophy," (and I wouldn't object if it were renamed so).
Greg Bard (
talk)
02:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - I wonder if the category should just be renamed (and re-parented) rather than deleting it -- perhaps something like
Category:Views of human nature. It was set up as a philosophy cat because its creator was a philosophy teacher -- but that doesn't mean it really belongs there.
Cgingold (
talk)
02:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I would really have to discourage that particular formulation. The catgeory "views" was rightfully deleted and the way the philosophy category tree is organized, those things go under "philosophical theories." The category you want would be called "
Theories of human nature". However even that rename isn't warranted given how sparse the category is. There are four members: two
concepts of human nature and two
theories of human nature. It just isn't worth it.
Greg Bard (
talk)
06:14, 16 July 2010 (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:Reconnaissance companies of the United States Marine Corps
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 Change to Upmerge (see comment below). There are only 5 Force Reconnaissance companies in the Marine Corps so the possibility of this category expanding beyond that is minimal. Also, IMHO, the parent category
Category:United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance is a better place for listing the Force Reconnaissance Companies and breaking these out more specifically adds little value.
FieldMarine (
talk)
18:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment IMHO, grouping esoteric units like Marine Corps Reconnaissance into specific categories is too limited in scope and will result in numerous categories with few entries. I would agree with your comment if there was potential for growth beyond a handful.
FieldMarine (
talk)
19:09, 15 July 2010 (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:Elephant 6 artists
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:Elephant 6 albums
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:Nuclear power stations with mothballed reactors
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: There's no category description or nothing on the Talk page to contextualize this, but it seems to me that for readers a closed reactor is a mothballed one. Is there a meaningful distinction? I could not find one using Google, either. If the same, mothballed is too imprecise a term. We don't use mothballs.Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
17:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - While I would agree that "mothballed" is probably a very unsuitable term to use in a category for nuclear plants, I was hoping to resolve the issues/questions I laid out comprehensively in the
closely-related CFD before settling on proper nomenclature for the four related/overlapping categories. I'm not even entirely certain that "closed reactors" is a satisfactory term, even though at first blush it seems like a simple, declarative statement.
Cgingold (
talk)
17:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes of course your statements there were my inspiration for this. I thought I'd nibble away at the what I felt was the easiest bit. If you'd prefer I withdraw this one, pending that previous CfD, I'd be happy to.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
17:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Hmmm. On the whole I think it's generally better not to have two parallel discussions going on at the same time. On the other hand, it's also possible that keeping this CFD open might attract more input in the other CFD. What do you think?
Cgingold (
talk)
18:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Maybe see for now which pot of honey attracts more flies. My CfD comments about a rather complex question for various electric vehicle organizations has largely been neglected in favour of more individual actions. There might be a similar situation happening here, simply because there's so many different things to address. But your CfD is much better put together than mine was so I don't want to apply my experience to yours.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
18:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Oh, I see from Vegaswikian's comment at the other CfD that "mothballed" means closed but capable of being restarted. If so, I should indeed withdraw this....
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
18:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
(ec)Mothballed is not closed. It is not operating but maintained in a state so with 'minimal' cost can be turned back on. Another issue with this category is the use of stations and reactors. We need to clear up terminology when we have one unit or multiples. Further does a station refer to each unit or all units on a site? Nine Mile Point Nuclear Generating Station is listed as a station, but it has two units. So if one unit is mothballed, this category structure would imply that the power plant was mothballed. Yet another problem with the existing category.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:56, 15 July 2010 (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.
William & Mary
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.
Support per rationale stated. Presumably the correct name for this uni. uses the ampersand, as the current article page name and top supracat page name suggest
Mayumashu (
talk)
22:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Renames, But... to better match title of parent article, though is there any reason not include "The" as part of the category title when it is part of the article title? I have the same issue with the structure
Category:New York Times which also excludes the word "The".
Alansohn (
talk)
00:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm fine with "The" in front of "College" in those categories with that word in them. I've added those to the suggested target category names.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
02:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I went to W&M and the "main entrance" (loosely defined, as the main entrance would be considered the
Wren Building, which is an academic building) does not have a sign. However, all over campus, signs use the ampersand (&) not the word "and". Hope that helps.
Jrcla2 (
talk)
17:53, 18 July 2010 (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:Traction motors
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 per
WP:SMALLCAT, this category by banned user Mac/Nopetro has only a main article
Traction motor and a sub-category for manufacturers that is also nominated for deletion. The main article does not indicate that there are any articles about different kinds of traction motors to merit a category.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:15, 15 July 2010 (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.
Galleries of images on Commons
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. Since all these "categories" have been folded into their parents, they should deleted as empty categories (C1).
Ruslik_
Zero17:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Discuss. A user has created the pages listed below as galleries containing images stored on Commons; each of these gallery pages is then transcluded into the corresponding category page (for example,
Category:1943 comics images/Commons is transcluded into
Category:1943 comics images. I question whether this approach is appropriate for a category page; the purpose of categories is to index Wikipedia pages, and these images are not stored on Wikipedia. None of the nominated categories contains any Wikipedia pages at all, although their "parent" categories do. Also, I'm not aware of any way of automatically synchronizing the contents of a Wikipedia gallery with the corresponding Commons category, so these galleries are bound to become inaccurate over time unless they are actively maintained by interested users. If there is a consensus to allow this type of gallery page, I'm fine with it, but I think it should be discussed.
R'n'B (
call me Russ)
13:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - The intent was to provide a bit more inclusion in the categories for if/when editors go looking for already existing files for articles. And to do it with in the current frame work here. This also side steps two potential problems: the sometimes hard to decipher file names and the tendency for category only file pages to be downed. And to be honest, there has been a bit of a re-think with some of the sub-pages being "folded up" into the code of the category proper instead of transcluded, it's just been slow to get to the rest. As for syncing... since a fair chunk of the categories here don't have a matching Commons category, of the hop there is little that could be done to try and sync things. Beyond that, "inaccurate" isn't the best term. Since most files uploaded to Commons are done so as "free to use" they tend to stay around even if not actively used in one of the Wikipedias. That runs the potential of these being incomplete, which is pretty much the same as their parents with regard to the continued uploading of new comics related files. -
J Greb (
talk)
16:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. If the images are on commons that is where the categories should be. Commons deals with categorizing these better then we can, so if there is something lacking it should be fixed there and not here.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:16, 26 July 2010 (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:Hybrid diesel-electric vehicles
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. A
hybrid vehicle uses two or more distinct power sources to move the vehicle. Since diesel-electric defines two, using hybrid is redundant. A rename to
Category:Diesel-electric cars could also be considered since changing to simply vehicles adds a ton of locomotives and ships.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - this is also silly (as currently populated). The
Peugeot 307 is not a Hybrid diesel-electric vehicle. This just seems to be the usual Mac/Nopetro idea of lumping together things which could be X into Category:X. (I am not sure that traditional diesel-electric is hybrid. Isn't the diesel producing the electric?) Delete is usually the best option for Nopetro creations (as even if the category is justifiable, most of the articles placed in it by M/N are misplaced).
Occuli (
talk)
08:38, 15 July 2010 (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:LPG vehicles
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. Per the main article,
autogas itself is ambiguous. Expand the acronym and be done with it. Also consider renaming the main article. A delete recommendation would be acceptable since it is not clear that we need to classify all vehicles by the alternative fuel sources. But doing classifying that way could be very acceptable.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
02:29, 15 July 2010 (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:Cadmium telluride
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. I am not convinced that we need to categorize companies by the compounds that they use. If we drop the two company articles, we are left with a 2 article category.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
02:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete it does not appear that readers will be navigating based on companies by chemicals used. No objection to recreation if there end being other articles about the subject, but that seems unlikely.
Alansohn (
talk)
00:47, 16 July 2010 (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:International Renewable Energy Agency
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. Maybe at some point we will have sufficient articles to populate this category. But right now it seems to be stretching the ties to the agency to include articles here.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. Although at the moment this category has only a limited number of articles it has a good perspective for expansion has IRENA became operational recently. I don't think we should delete it only to recreate it after some period of time.
Beagel (
talk)
05:59, 15 July 2010 (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:Climate change bills
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:Rutgers University athletics
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.
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:Arctic islands
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.
Comment are all arctic islands in the Arctic Ocean? wouldn't some be in the Pacific, Atlantic, or some other bodies of water (like a lake) ? If Hudson's Bay is an extension of the Arctic Ocean, then islands in it are not in the arctic, but still in the Arctic Ocean... Similarly, the White Sea is an extension of the Arctic Ocean, has islands, but is not in the arctic (according to our Arctic article)
76.66.193.119 (
talk)
20:23, 16 July 2010 (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:Civil affairs units and formations of the United States Marine Corps
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.
Comment The civil affairs groups are broken down into Dets & these are too small for separate articles. It would be like making articles on platoons. Therefore, it is unlikely this category will expand beyond two articles.
FieldMarine (
talk)
14:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) I don't think you get the point. I am organizing all of the Military units and formations of the United States, so that they are accessible on multiple routes from
Category:Military units and formations of the United States, people may be looking for Civil affairs units and want nothing to do with Civil affairs itself. Or if they are looking for civil affairs, and be confused by a whole slew of civil affairs units that make the category busy, same problem with Military units and formations of the United States Marine Corps. Because United States Military units are so diverse, and so many missions cross branch lines, these need to be accurately and precisely organized to be accessible from multiple directions. You are getting hyperfocused on the Marine perspective and forget the macro picture,
Sadads (
talk)
14:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I have initiated a dialogue that this category is too narrow in scope to be useful. I also believe (IMHO) that an overall taxonomy that generates many narrowly focused categories with few entries is not well designed. Instead of assuming I don’t get it, I recommend laying out good points so the community can make an informed decision.
FieldMarine (
talk)
16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Again, these categories have more than 2 or three possibilities, they just haven't been developed as articles. Its better to have the organizational structure in place anticipating when you already have small populations instead of relying on massive categories that aren't organizable or negotiable, besides the cross hierarchical category ease of access.
Sadads (
talk)
21:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)reply
That's EXACTLY the point. THERE HAVE BEEN NO CIVIL AFFAIRS UNITS IN THE USMC BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE CAGs. There are only two CAGs. Thus unless there are new specifically CA units created, which is unlikely, as most CA work is done by non-dedicated units, there will only be two or maybe three units for the category. We do not need the organisational structure. If multiple CA units are created later, then we can reconsider the issue. But it is unnecessary overcategorisation at the moment.
Buckshot06(talk)06:33, 17 July 2010 (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:Western Chan Fellowship
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. Only two articles, already linked, no obvious prospects for growth. (There was a tiny article on the retreat centre but I merged it.)
Fayenatic(talk)22:26, 15 July 2010 (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:Infrared photovoltaics
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. This is really about generating electricity using cells apparently based on silicon. So this would be more targeted then the existing name.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:08, 15 July 2010 (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:Photovoltaic antennas
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:Merge. Another one of these odd ball categories. One it is only 2 article so OC small should apply. This upmerge is based on the fact that they are fabricated using standard semiconductor integrated circuit fabrication techniques so they are semiconductor products like most solar cells and also generate electricity. If kept, the category should be renamed to
Category:Rectennas, I think that is the correct plural name, since that is really the parent article in my opinion for this tree.
Nantenna would probably be OK with the existing categories, but I'm not sure. What ever the decision, this needs something.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:55, 15 July 2010 (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:Philosophy of human nature
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: There is no formal field of "philosophy of human nature." The informal philosophy is adequately contained within "philosophy of life."
Greg Bard (
talk)
20:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment (while still unclear as to the proposition here). Hanging anything on the article
Philosophy of life appears shaky. I am unclear why the various tags that it was carrying as recently as February (including an Original Research tag) were removed:
[1]?
AllyD (
talk)
22:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The proposal is to delete (I thought that was explicit in the twinkle process that created this entry). I just think there is a proliferation of "philosophy of..." where there is no academic department at any university on Earth. The "philosophy of life" category is an exception, and it is reserved for "informal philosophy," (and I wouldn't object if it were renamed so).
Greg Bard (
talk)
02:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - I wonder if the category should just be renamed (and re-parented) rather than deleting it -- perhaps something like
Category:Views of human nature. It was set up as a philosophy cat because its creator was a philosophy teacher -- but that doesn't mean it really belongs there.
Cgingold (
talk)
02:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I would really have to discourage that particular formulation. The catgeory "views" was rightfully deleted and the way the philosophy category tree is organized, those things go under "philosophical theories." The category you want would be called "
Theories of human nature". However even that rename isn't warranted given how sparse the category is. There are four members: two
concepts of human nature and two
theories of human nature. It just isn't worth it.
Greg Bard (
talk)
06:14, 16 July 2010 (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:Reconnaissance companies of the United States Marine Corps
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 Change to Upmerge (see comment below). There are only 5 Force Reconnaissance companies in the Marine Corps so the possibility of this category expanding beyond that is minimal. Also, IMHO, the parent category
Category:United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance is a better place for listing the Force Reconnaissance Companies and breaking these out more specifically adds little value.
FieldMarine (
talk)
18:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment IMHO, grouping esoteric units like Marine Corps Reconnaissance into specific categories is too limited in scope and will result in numerous categories with few entries. I would agree with your comment if there was potential for growth beyond a handful.
FieldMarine (
talk)
19:09, 15 July 2010 (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:Elephant 6 artists
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:Elephant 6 albums
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:Nuclear power stations with mothballed reactors
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: There's no category description or nothing on the Talk page to contextualize this, but it seems to me that for readers a closed reactor is a mothballed one. Is there a meaningful distinction? I could not find one using Google, either. If the same, mothballed is too imprecise a term. We don't use mothballs.Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
17:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - While I would agree that "mothballed" is probably a very unsuitable term to use in a category for nuclear plants, I was hoping to resolve the issues/questions I laid out comprehensively in the
closely-related CFD before settling on proper nomenclature for the four related/overlapping categories. I'm not even entirely certain that "closed reactors" is a satisfactory term, even though at first blush it seems like a simple, declarative statement.
Cgingold (
talk)
17:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes of course your statements there were my inspiration for this. I thought I'd nibble away at the what I felt was the easiest bit. If you'd prefer I withdraw this one, pending that previous CfD, I'd be happy to.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
17:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Hmmm. On the whole I think it's generally better not to have two parallel discussions going on at the same time. On the other hand, it's also possible that keeping this CFD open might attract more input in the other CFD. What do you think?
Cgingold (
talk)
18:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Maybe see for now which pot of honey attracts more flies. My CfD comments about a rather complex question for various electric vehicle organizations has largely been neglected in favour of more individual actions. There might be a similar situation happening here, simply because there's so many different things to address. But your CfD is much better put together than mine was so I don't want to apply my experience to yours.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
18:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Oh, I see from Vegaswikian's comment at the other CfD that "mothballed" means closed but capable of being restarted. If so, I should indeed withdraw this....
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
18:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
(ec)Mothballed is not closed. It is not operating but maintained in a state so with 'minimal' cost can be turned back on. Another issue with this category is the use of stations and reactors. We need to clear up terminology when we have one unit or multiples. Further does a station refer to each unit or all units on a site? Nine Mile Point Nuclear Generating Station is listed as a station, but it has two units. So if one unit is mothballed, this category structure would imply that the power plant was mothballed. Yet another problem with the existing category.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:56, 15 July 2010 (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.
William & Mary
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.
Support per rationale stated. Presumably the correct name for this uni. uses the ampersand, as the current article page name and top supracat page name suggest
Mayumashu (
talk)
22:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Renames, But... to better match title of parent article, though is there any reason not include "The" as part of the category title when it is part of the article title? I have the same issue with the structure
Category:New York Times which also excludes the word "The".
Alansohn (
talk)
00:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm fine with "The" in front of "College" in those categories with that word in them. I've added those to the suggested target category names.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
02:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I went to W&M and the "main entrance" (loosely defined, as the main entrance would be considered the
Wren Building, which is an academic building) does not have a sign. However, all over campus, signs use the ampersand (&) not the word "and". Hope that helps.
Jrcla2 (
talk)
17:53, 18 July 2010 (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:Traction motors
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 per
WP:SMALLCAT, this category by banned user Mac/Nopetro has only a main article
Traction motor and a sub-category for manufacturers that is also nominated for deletion. The main article does not indicate that there are any articles about different kinds of traction motors to merit a category.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:15, 15 July 2010 (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.
Galleries of images on Commons
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. Since all these "categories" have been folded into their parents, they should deleted as empty categories (C1).
Ruslik_
Zero17:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Discuss. A user has created the pages listed below as galleries containing images stored on Commons; each of these gallery pages is then transcluded into the corresponding category page (for example,
Category:1943 comics images/Commons is transcluded into
Category:1943 comics images. I question whether this approach is appropriate for a category page; the purpose of categories is to index Wikipedia pages, and these images are not stored on Wikipedia. None of the nominated categories contains any Wikipedia pages at all, although their "parent" categories do. Also, I'm not aware of any way of automatically synchronizing the contents of a Wikipedia gallery with the corresponding Commons category, so these galleries are bound to become inaccurate over time unless they are actively maintained by interested users. If there is a consensus to allow this type of gallery page, I'm fine with it, but I think it should be discussed.
R'n'B (
call me Russ)
13:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - The intent was to provide a bit more inclusion in the categories for if/when editors go looking for already existing files for articles. And to do it with in the current frame work here. This also side steps two potential problems: the sometimes hard to decipher file names and the tendency for category only file pages to be downed. And to be honest, there has been a bit of a re-think with some of the sub-pages being "folded up" into the code of the category proper instead of transcluded, it's just been slow to get to the rest. As for syncing... since a fair chunk of the categories here don't have a matching Commons category, of the hop there is little that could be done to try and sync things. Beyond that, "inaccurate" isn't the best term. Since most files uploaded to Commons are done so as "free to use" they tend to stay around even if not actively used in one of the Wikipedias. That runs the potential of these being incomplete, which is pretty much the same as their parents with regard to the continued uploading of new comics related files. -
J Greb (
talk)
16:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. If the images are on commons that is where the categories should be. Commons deals with categorizing these better then we can, so if there is something lacking it should be fixed there and not here.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:16, 26 July 2010 (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:Hybrid diesel-electric vehicles
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. A
hybrid vehicle uses two or more distinct power sources to move the vehicle. Since diesel-electric defines two, using hybrid is redundant. A rename to
Category:Diesel-electric cars could also be considered since changing to simply vehicles adds a ton of locomotives and ships.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - this is also silly (as currently populated). The
Peugeot 307 is not a Hybrid diesel-electric vehicle. This just seems to be the usual Mac/Nopetro idea of lumping together things which could be X into Category:X. (I am not sure that traditional diesel-electric is hybrid. Isn't the diesel producing the electric?) Delete is usually the best option for Nopetro creations (as even if the category is justifiable, most of the articles placed in it by M/N are misplaced).
Occuli (
talk)
08:38, 15 July 2010 (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:LPG vehicles
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. Per the main article,
autogas itself is ambiguous. Expand the acronym and be done with it. Also consider renaming the main article. A delete recommendation would be acceptable since it is not clear that we need to classify all vehicles by the alternative fuel sources. But doing classifying that way could be very acceptable.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
02:29, 15 July 2010 (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:Cadmium telluride
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. I am not convinced that we need to categorize companies by the compounds that they use. If we drop the two company articles, we are left with a 2 article category.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
02:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete it does not appear that readers will be navigating based on companies by chemicals used. No objection to recreation if there end being other articles about the subject, but that seems unlikely.
Alansohn (
talk)
00:47, 16 July 2010 (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:International Renewable Energy Agency
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. Maybe at some point we will have sufficient articles to populate this category. But right now it seems to be stretching the ties to the agency to include articles here.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. Although at the moment this category has only a limited number of articles it has a good perspective for expansion has IRENA became operational recently. I don't think we should delete it only to recreate it after some period of time.
Beagel (
talk)
05:59, 15 July 2010 (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:Climate change bills
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:Rutgers University athletics
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.