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:Chemical images
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.
It's sufficient to have them there. Chemical images such as structural formulae in an acceptable quality should be moved to Commons and categorized there. The Commons category tree is much more branched. --
Leyo07:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC) PS. The category discussed here has never been used much.reply
Delete As it not used practically and per Leyo. In addition, one cannot gather much info from the category, with those thousends of images given. --
Yikrazuul (
talk)
16:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment it would give a better sorting than that which is currently in place. And following what you say, it would seem that additional categories would be needed rather than reducing the already very few categories that currently exist.
76.66.194.128 (
talk)
05:38, 29 November 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:Reaction images
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.
Same reply as above: It's sufficient to have them there. Chemical images in an acceptable quality should be moved to Commons and categorized there. The Commons category tree is much more branched. --
Leyo07:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC) PS. The category discussed here has never been used much.reply
Delete, as it not used practically and per Leyo. In addition, one cannot gather much info from the category, with those thousends of chemical reactions images given.
Comment it would give a better sorting than that which is currently in place. And following what you say, it would seem that additional categories would be needed rather than reducing the already very few categories that currently exist.
76.66.194.128 (
talk)
05:38, 29 November 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:Compound images
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:Hull and Hornsea Railway
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:WP:Overcategorisation, articles in question covered by at least four other categories.
WP:SMALLCAT, narrow category unlikely to be used by readers to look for articles. Creates an unwanted precedent for future categories covering hundreds of small lines. Has been raised
here on the relevant project page where
consensus was reached in favour of deletion.
Lamberhurst (
talk)
13:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is not overcategorisation as 3 of the other categories are rather obscure without prior knowledge of the subject. A line category is much easier to navigate by as that is usually what is generally known by someone about the station. In fact the company category is rather useless as it defines the line at a point in time and you would need to add other company categories for the line throughout its history, this category could be considered a company category as it started life as the Hull and Hornsea railway.
Keith D (
talk)
13:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose Improper use of CFD as the proposer has already denuded this and several other categories related to it of all of their entries before bringing this one as a test case to CFD, making a balanced view more difficult.
Scillystuff (
talk)
13:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)reply
In this case it may just be stations but there are other features that would be appropriate to such a category such as tunnels, cuttings etc, so I would not rename it.
Keith D (
talk)
20:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose --
WP:SMALLCAT also states unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. As mentioned by others, I can see benefit in this kind of category, and per that quote, that would permit similar cats to be created allowing further useful categorisation, even for the minimum cases (two entries -- one station at either end of a line!), for example, 'railway lines in Berkshire'. --
EdJogg (
talk)
10:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Question when referring to line, is the meaning route or company? if this category is about a company who built a line between the two aforsaid locations, then it's a perfectly justifiable category. If it's about a route running between the two locations then this example is ok but I'd hate to see a proliferation of categories on routes that had only one or two stations e.g.
Category:Kerry Branch which to my mind makes seach by category extremely frustrating as I hate having to drill down through endless layers of sub-categories.
NtheP (
talk)
12:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)reply
This is usually a problem of applying the rules too strictly. Preventing a page from existing in a category when it also fits inside a grand-child cat is all very well, but removes the visibility at the higher level. These new cats should be in addition to existing cats. --
EdJogg (
talk)
14:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose deletionWP:SMALLCAT says "a few members", I contend that eleven is significantly more than "a few". I further contend that the keeping of this category does not set a precedent for other categories. Each should be decided on their own merits.
Mjroots (
talk)
22:42, 26 November 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:People from the County of West Midlands
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:NATLFED
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, kind of miffed I wasn't given notice as the creator of the cat. I supposed if its the usual practice not to use acronyms (or whatever "NATLFED" is) to change it.--
Dudeman5685 (
talk)
19:09, 27 November 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:Red Devil
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:Home Movies
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:Famous places
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: Vague and subjective. How does one objectively determine famousness? Where is the line drawn as to how much fame is needed for a place to merit membership in this category? How do we non-arbitrarily draw that line? Further, the arbitrary US-centrism in the description violates geopolitical NPOV.
Cybercobra(talk)00:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete as there are no meaningful guidelines that could separate the famous places from the non-famous (or infamous). With the potential to include thousands upon thousands of articles for all such articles that might meet a criteria, this category would not serve as an effective navigation tool.
Alansohn (
talk)
19:57, 25 November 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.
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:Chemical images
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.
It's sufficient to have them there. Chemical images such as structural formulae in an acceptable quality should be moved to Commons and categorized there. The Commons category tree is much more branched. --
Leyo07:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC) PS. The category discussed here has never been used much.reply
Delete As it not used practically and per Leyo. In addition, one cannot gather much info from the category, with those thousends of images given. --
Yikrazuul (
talk)
16:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment it would give a better sorting than that which is currently in place. And following what you say, it would seem that additional categories would be needed rather than reducing the already very few categories that currently exist.
76.66.194.128 (
talk)
05:38, 29 November 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:Reaction images
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.
Same reply as above: It's sufficient to have them there. Chemical images in an acceptable quality should be moved to Commons and categorized there. The Commons category tree is much more branched. --
Leyo07:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC) PS. The category discussed here has never been used much.reply
Delete, as it not used practically and per Leyo. In addition, one cannot gather much info from the category, with those thousends of chemical reactions images given.
Comment it would give a better sorting than that which is currently in place. And following what you say, it would seem that additional categories would be needed rather than reducing the already very few categories that currently exist.
76.66.194.128 (
talk)
05:38, 29 November 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:Compound images
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:Hull and Hornsea Railway
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:WP:Overcategorisation, articles in question covered by at least four other categories.
WP:SMALLCAT, narrow category unlikely to be used by readers to look for articles. Creates an unwanted precedent for future categories covering hundreds of small lines. Has been raised
here on the relevant project page where
consensus was reached in favour of deletion.
Lamberhurst (
talk)
13:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is not overcategorisation as 3 of the other categories are rather obscure without prior knowledge of the subject. A line category is much easier to navigate by as that is usually what is generally known by someone about the station. In fact the company category is rather useless as it defines the line at a point in time and you would need to add other company categories for the line throughout its history, this category could be considered a company category as it started life as the Hull and Hornsea railway.
Keith D (
talk)
13:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose Improper use of CFD as the proposer has already denuded this and several other categories related to it of all of their entries before bringing this one as a test case to CFD, making a balanced view more difficult.
Scillystuff (
talk)
13:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)reply
In this case it may just be stations but there are other features that would be appropriate to such a category such as tunnels, cuttings etc, so I would not rename it.
Keith D (
talk)
20:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose --
WP:SMALLCAT also states unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. As mentioned by others, I can see benefit in this kind of category, and per that quote, that would permit similar cats to be created allowing further useful categorisation, even for the minimum cases (two entries -- one station at either end of a line!), for example, 'railway lines in Berkshire'. --
EdJogg (
talk)
10:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Question when referring to line, is the meaning route or company? if this category is about a company who built a line between the two aforsaid locations, then it's a perfectly justifiable category. If it's about a route running between the two locations then this example is ok but I'd hate to see a proliferation of categories on routes that had only one or two stations e.g.
Category:Kerry Branch which to my mind makes seach by category extremely frustrating as I hate having to drill down through endless layers of sub-categories.
NtheP (
talk)
12:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)reply
This is usually a problem of applying the rules too strictly. Preventing a page from existing in a category when it also fits inside a grand-child cat is all very well, but removes the visibility at the higher level. These new cats should be in addition to existing cats. --
EdJogg (
talk)
14:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose deletionWP:SMALLCAT says "a few members", I contend that eleven is significantly more than "a few". I further contend that the keeping of this category does not set a precedent for other categories. Each should be decided on their own merits.
Mjroots (
talk)
22:42, 26 November 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:People from the County of West Midlands
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:NATLFED
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, kind of miffed I wasn't given notice as the creator of the cat. I supposed if its the usual practice not to use acronyms (or whatever "NATLFED" is) to change it.--
Dudeman5685 (
talk)
19:09, 27 November 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:Red Devil
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:Home Movies
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:Famous places
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: Vague and subjective. How does one objectively determine famousness? Where is the line drawn as to how much fame is needed for a place to merit membership in this category? How do we non-arbitrarily draw that line? Further, the arbitrary US-centrism in the description violates geopolitical NPOV.
Cybercobra(talk)00:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete as there are no meaningful guidelines that could separate the famous places from the non-famous (or infamous). With the potential to include thousands upon thousands of articles for all such articles that might meet a criteria, this category would not serve as an effective navigation tool.
Alansohn (
talk)
19:57, 25 November 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.