The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep per
Occuli. Categorizations in multiple parents is a valid reason to keep a category even if it is lightly populated which these seem to meet and they are a also part of a series which is also a reason to keep. As pointed out above, accurate parent categories might be more accurately maintained if this level of categorization were extends to other parks.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. The park in which a roller coaster is physically located seems like just about the most important piece of information you can know about it.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 02:17, 1 March 2011 (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:MickWithoutGlasses's articles
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I'm pretty sure past consensus is that we don't use categories to organize one particular editor's user space. A user can create a list within his or her user space to list his draft articles if organization is needed.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete – I share the nom's views on past consensus and that this particular consensus still holds (despite the splendid collection before us of 3 draft articles by MickWithoutGlasses). We could probably do without such as
Category:Knokout discography too.
Occuli (
talk) 00:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Consider that killed; it was being filed in articlespace, but everything in it was a sandbox page (which aren't supposed to have articlespace categories on them), so when I decategorized the sandbox pages the category was suddenly empty. For what it's worth, I actually suspect that the band in question is somewhere between
non-notable and
non-existent, but this obviously isn't the right forum for that discussion.
Bearcat (
talk) 10:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator.
Bearcat (
talk) 10:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per vast (and sound) past precedent against such individual user categories.
VegaDark (
talk) 04:31, 26 February 2011 (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:Sports teams in Portland
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:Frank Farian 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 result of the discussion was:delete.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete or possibly rename to something like
Category:Musicians associated with Frank Farian. The current title suggests that Farian "owned" the artists (in the way record labels "own" artists). As far as I understand, Farian never owned a record label and most entries in the category are simply artists that Farian worked with. That's just too loose an association. For instance, nobody in their right mind would view
Stevie Wonder as a "Frank Farian artist" and
Ralph Ruppert is not even an artist. Farian did form a number of well-know groups such as Milli Vanilli, Boney M. and Far Corporation so one option is to delete the current category and form a much narrower one such as
Category:Musical groups formed by Frank Farian.
Pichpich (
talk) 18:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, which could have been expanded. a classic "by association" category. And it misuses "artists", which in category names should only be used by itself for visual arts artists.
Johnbod (
talk) 19:57, 21 February 2011 (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:I-house architecture in the United States
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.Category:I-houses will need to be nominated separately, as it wasn't tagged.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: According to its article, the
I-house is an American phenomenon. As a result, the I-houses category is always going to be virtually empty; to navigate to articles about individual I-houses, one will always have to go an extra step down to the I-houses in the USA category, which is redundant.
Nyttend (
talk) 16:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge something - one too many layers, & the term is exclusively American.
Johnbod (
talk) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep – but upmerge the unnecessary
Category:I-houses to its 2 parents per Occuli. This retains the most descriptive name, and one with matches the 'by state' subcats.
Hmains (
talk) 19:00, 26 February 2011 (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:Redirects to template from non-template namespace
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:settle this fight elsewhere. The category is clearly not the subject of this argument. Figure out what you want the template(s) to do, and then when it's all sorted out or mediated, we'll consider what to do with the category.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 17:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I nominated this category for deletion before, see
here. Then I withdrew the nomination, because the category was at that time populated by
Template:R from other template. Now that that template has been deleted following
this discussion, I renominate this category for deletion.
Main reason for deletion is that there is absolutely no worth in, or reason for, tracking redirects to templates from non-template namespace.
This category was populated by {{R to template}} until the nominator of this deletion discussion put a speedy deletion tag on it. The nominator claimed that the template was a recreation of {{R from other template}}, which it was not, and the administrator who speedily deleted it has since agreed. The main purpose of {{R from other template}} was to populate
Category:Redirects from other templates, which was used to track redirects within the template namespace. The consensus was that this was unnecessary so the category and template were deleted; however, the template's secondary function, populating
Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace was never discussed.
Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace tracks cross-namespace redirects to the template namespace. After {{R from other template}} was deleted, the category has no corresponding template so I created {{R to template}} to populate it. After it was incorrectly speedily deleted numerous times, the nominator also removed the functionality to populate this category from all other redirect templates for no apparent reason.
Before {{R to template}} was deleted, the category was not empty. It had one member but the nominator never allowed enough time for any more members to be added because of his continual removal of the necessary functionality from redirect templates.
The deletion discussion for {{R from other template}} was entirely unrelated to this category.
The tracking of cross-namespace redirects is sometimes useful. McLerristarr |
Mclay1 05:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. I could be wrong, but it appears that the worth of these tracking cats are that they are all subcats of
Category:Cross-namespace redirects (count=2,659), which is populated by {{R to other namespace}}, and there are many, many redirects in that category that could be reassigned to the subcats. This includes several redirects in the main namespace that begin with "T:" that redirect to template namespace. There are also many redirects from the main namespace that could be reassigned to {{R to category}}, {{R to portal}}, {{R to help}} and {{R to project}}. These Rcats respectively populate
Category:Redirects to category space,
Category:Redirects to portal space,
Category:Redirects to help namespace and
Category:Redirects to project space. And now for a confession. Until I found out the importance of using these templates and categories for CNRs, I added {{R to template}} to many template redirects to other templates, and this was clear misuse of the {{R to template}} Rcat. I think that I did that because the Rcats are actually a little vague, and it seems to me that Mclay1 is on the road to make these categories and their populating templates more clearly defined. If this tracking cat was created to take some of the weight from the parent cat, one finds in the parent cat that the usage is more common than one might think. If we delete this cat, then we might as well delete all of the other subcats and let the parent cat stand alone. OR perhaps we should keep this cat as it is named, and take a lesson that the other subcats be renamed in a similar manner. Then rename the populating Rcats, such as {{R to portal}} could become {{R to portal from non-portal namespace}}, and so forth. ({{R to portal}} could stick around as a shortcut.) In this vein, if it is found that this cat should be kept, then a populating Rcat named {{R to template from non-template namespace}} might be appropriate, and {{R to template}} could be reinstated as a shortcut to it. These are just thoughts and ideas for consideration in this discussion. Thank you for reading! —
Paine Ellsworth (
CLIMAX ) 14:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, maybe I wasn't really misusing {{R to template}}, but it probably was originally designed to populate a category that would hold all of the T:xx redirects that are now found in the parent category,
Category:Cross-namespace redirects. Now, Mclay1, you need to take a good look at the {{R to portal}}, the {{R to project}} and the others. They all populate SUB-CATEGORIES of the parent category, Category:Cross-namespace redirects, and so, they are all ONLY supposed to be added to redirects that cross from the main ARTICLE NAMESPACE (or perhaps another namespace) into other namespaces. In that parent category are P:xx,
H:xx,
C:xx, and MOS:xxshortcut redirects that should eventually populate the sub-categories, along with
T:xx shortcut redirects that need to be put in a template sub-category. These are all pseudo-namespaces and cross-namespace redirects, and so, the sub-categories that I mentioned before are their rightful "homes". So when you look more closely, the redirect-category templates {{R to category}}, {{R to portal}}, {{R to help}} and {{R to project}} are ONLY supposed to be added to cross-namespace redirects. —
Paine Ellsworth (
CLIMAX ) 17:45, 28 February 2011 (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.
People from Georgia (country) by century
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom.
Occuli (
talk) 13:12, 21 February 2011 (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.
Northern Irish foo
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 all.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 00:42, 1 March 2011 (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:Vandals
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:Vandals of property. There's no consensus for a deletion. There's consensus to do something, so a rename is in order. No one seems certain as to what, so I picked something. Feel free to renominate if you have a better idea. --
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete, with no prejudge against creating a category to refer to the subject of the article
Vandals.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 06:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
keep This has nothing to do with the tribe of vendals or its people, as the category makes clear, as do its parent category
Category:Vandalism and main article
Vandalism. This is a category for people who are notable for having destoyed/vandalized things--as their articles make clear.
Hmains (
talk) 06:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. Far too POV. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 09:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
I would agree with this. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:People who damaged artworks - Vandalism (usually accompanied in the British press by the word "mindless") is not really the appropriate term for these, but except for the Patriarch Cyril (why is he there) these people are only notable for this, and primary categories should always be preserved where possible.
Zvi Mazel could then go back. in.
Johnbod (
talk) 20:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
I've removed St. Cyril, since there's nothing in the article about vandalism. The category was added in
this edit, along with a quote from one of
Edward Gibbon's "the Christians are barbarians" quotes. At some point since then, the quote was removed, but the category wasn't.
Nyttend (
talk) 22:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Useful for categorizing persons engaging in clear-cut vandalism.
Steinberger (
talk) 16:49, 28 February 2011 (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:Georgian families
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 "of" form.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom.
Occuli (
talk) 13:12, 21 February 2011 (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:Black Widow 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 result of the discussion was:rename.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I suggest renaming to match
Black Widow (band). Could potentially be confused with albums released by
Black Widow Records (which was named after the band but has released albums not by the band named Black Widow).
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose but I don't really care. I agree that there's a risk of confusion but I think it's minimal and insufficient to warrant disambiguation. The record label is very marginal so it's unlikely that it would be a search term in the category namespace. I would bet against the level-specific cat ever being created and if it were, it would be under the name
Category:Black Widow Records albums. (per the convention at
Category:Albums by record label)
Pichpich (
talk) 05:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
"Oppose but I don't really care". That's a new one for me! ... As long as we're talking about conventions ... the related convention names albums by artists as "ARTIST albums", with ARTIST being the WP article name, which matches the proposal.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Is that last part true? I just searched WP for "(band)" and checked the first examples that come up in the search:
+/- (band),
Copyright (band),
Franz Ferdinand (band),
Poison (band),
Sublime (band),
Danzig (band),
Traffic (band),
CKY (band) and
Toyah (band). With the exception of Copyright which has no albums category, the corresponding albums and songs categories don't carry the "(band)" disambiguation. On the other hand, searching "band albums" in the category namespace shows plenty of examples of "(band)" disambiguation. If it is the convention, I must say I don't understand its rationale: it goes against the "things should be easy to find" principle and I can't imagine a reader searching for
Category:Poison (band) albums.
Pichpich (
talk) 13:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Ok then, conventions are important. Striking the oppose. (But for the record, it's still an ill-advised convention)
Pichpich (
talk) 13:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
It does help to reduce confusion and (if it were universally implemented) it would make it more predictable where one will find an albums category for a particular band. (Of course, it's not universally implemented, which makes it very difficult to know where the album category will be when a band name is somewhat or a lot ambiguous.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename to match the article
Black Widow (band). There are dozens of cfds establishing this convention.
Occuli (
talk) 10:46, 21 February 2011 (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:Oceaneering rides
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Support. Sorry I created this category. I just looked at an infobox and it was linking to Oceaneering and I created the category accordingly. Themeparkgc Talk 23:56, 21 February 2011 (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:HUSS rides
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Support. Sorry I created this category. I just looked at an infobox and it was linking to HUSS and I created the category accordingly. Themeparkgc Talk 23:56, 21 February 2011 (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:Chinese nationalists
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 capitalize Nationalist.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no good objective way to define this category, and the member articles in this category and its subcategories (which I'm also nominating for deletion, below), show that — I'd have to say that all of the figures listed are arguably nationalist and arguably not nationalist. Further, there are many, many arguably nationalist figures that are not currently in the category which have the same issue: arguably nationalist and arguably nonnationalist, because there is no good objective standard. Without the good objective standards, any inclusion or noninclusion is going to be POV. Delete. --
Nlu (
talk) 02:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Also nominated for deletion are its subcategories:
Comment This nomination is confused. The Kuomintang was the party of the 'Chinese Nationalists', which was the name for the people fighting for the Republic of China (as the 'Chinese Nationalist government') and then specifically for those fighting against the Chinese Communists and against the Japanese Empire. One cannot simply delete history; one could argue for better names or for merges. This takes analysis.
Hmains (
talk) 06:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't have as much quibbles if the category were "Chinese Nationalists" (note capitalization), but "nationalists" in the small letters do not denote KMT or the Nationalist Government (of all of its iterations in Guangzhou, Nanjing, Wuhan, and Chongqing). If it were, in fact, intended to denote KMT only, then it duplicates
Category:Members of the Kuomintang (which is a lot clearer as to what it includes). Right now, even assuming that it was intended to speak of the Nationalist government(s), it is going to be underpopulated due to its unclear nature. I still believe that deletion is the best solution, but even if not deleted, it should be renamed and refocused. --
Nlu (
talk) 19:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename as Chines Nationalist [foo] ; I agree with the argument that with the capital it represents a specific government, rther than those Chinese who could be called nationalists in a more general sense, which is much broader. DGG (
talk ) 00:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)reply
rename per DDG as these are people associated with the Chinese Nationalist government of China.
Hmains (
talk) 18:24, 26 February 2011 (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:Defunct architecture firms based in the United States
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
rename per nom the 'based in' phrase is for US state level categories, not US national categories.
Hmains (
talk) 18:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)reply
agree, I believe I created this category as a national extension of one based in New York; I the name model had been Architecture firms based in new york, and I had merely added defunct in front. Given a choice, I prefer
Category:Defunct architecture firms of the United States instead of the more complicated based in phrase. ---
James R (
talk)
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.
Keep per
Occuli. Categorizations in multiple parents is a valid reason to keep a category even if it is lightly populated which these seem to meet and they are a also part of a series which is also a reason to keep. As pointed out above, accurate parent categories might be more accurately maintained if this level of categorization were extends to other parks.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. The park in which a roller coaster is physically located seems like just about the most important piece of information you can know about it.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 02:17, 1 March 2011 (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:MickWithoutGlasses's articles
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I'm pretty sure past consensus is that we don't use categories to organize one particular editor's user space. A user can create a list within his or her user space to list his draft articles if organization is needed.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete – I share the nom's views on past consensus and that this particular consensus still holds (despite the splendid collection before us of 3 draft articles by MickWithoutGlasses). We could probably do without such as
Category:Knokout discography too.
Occuli (
talk) 00:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Consider that killed; it was being filed in articlespace, but everything in it was a sandbox page (which aren't supposed to have articlespace categories on them), so when I decategorized the sandbox pages the category was suddenly empty. For what it's worth, I actually suspect that the band in question is somewhere between
non-notable and
non-existent, but this obviously isn't the right forum for that discussion.
Bearcat (
talk) 10:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator.
Bearcat (
talk) 10:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per vast (and sound) past precedent against such individual user categories.
VegaDark (
talk) 04:31, 26 February 2011 (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:Sports teams in Portland
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:Frank Farian 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 result of the discussion was:delete.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete or possibly rename to something like
Category:Musicians associated with Frank Farian. The current title suggests that Farian "owned" the artists (in the way record labels "own" artists). As far as I understand, Farian never owned a record label and most entries in the category are simply artists that Farian worked with. That's just too loose an association. For instance, nobody in their right mind would view
Stevie Wonder as a "Frank Farian artist" and
Ralph Ruppert is not even an artist. Farian did form a number of well-know groups such as Milli Vanilli, Boney M. and Far Corporation so one option is to delete the current category and form a much narrower one such as
Category:Musical groups formed by Frank Farian.
Pichpich (
talk) 18:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, which could have been expanded. a classic "by association" category. And it misuses "artists", which in category names should only be used by itself for visual arts artists.
Johnbod (
talk) 19:57, 21 February 2011 (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:I-house architecture in the United States
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.Category:I-houses will need to be nominated separately, as it wasn't tagged.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: According to its article, the
I-house is an American phenomenon. As a result, the I-houses category is always going to be virtually empty; to navigate to articles about individual I-houses, one will always have to go an extra step down to the I-houses in the USA category, which is redundant.
Nyttend (
talk) 16:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge something - one too many layers, & the term is exclusively American.
Johnbod (
talk) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep – but upmerge the unnecessary
Category:I-houses to its 2 parents per Occuli. This retains the most descriptive name, and one with matches the 'by state' subcats.
Hmains (
talk) 19:00, 26 February 2011 (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:Redirects to template from non-template namespace
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:settle this fight elsewhere. The category is clearly not the subject of this argument. Figure out what you want the template(s) to do, and then when it's all sorted out or mediated, we'll consider what to do with the category.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 17:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I nominated this category for deletion before, see
here. Then I withdrew the nomination, because the category was at that time populated by
Template:R from other template. Now that that template has been deleted following
this discussion, I renominate this category for deletion.
Main reason for deletion is that there is absolutely no worth in, or reason for, tracking redirects to templates from non-template namespace.
This category was populated by {{R to template}} until the nominator of this deletion discussion put a speedy deletion tag on it. The nominator claimed that the template was a recreation of {{R from other template}}, which it was not, and the administrator who speedily deleted it has since agreed. The main purpose of {{R from other template}} was to populate
Category:Redirects from other templates, which was used to track redirects within the template namespace. The consensus was that this was unnecessary so the category and template were deleted; however, the template's secondary function, populating
Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace was never discussed.
Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace tracks cross-namespace redirects to the template namespace. After {{R from other template}} was deleted, the category has no corresponding template so I created {{R to template}} to populate it. After it was incorrectly speedily deleted numerous times, the nominator also removed the functionality to populate this category from all other redirect templates for no apparent reason.
Before {{R to template}} was deleted, the category was not empty. It had one member but the nominator never allowed enough time for any more members to be added because of his continual removal of the necessary functionality from redirect templates.
The deletion discussion for {{R from other template}} was entirely unrelated to this category.
The tracking of cross-namespace redirects is sometimes useful. McLerristarr |
Mclay1 05:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. I could be wrong, but it appears that the worth of these tracking cats are that they are all subcats of
Category:Cross-namespace redirects (count=2,659), which is populated by {{R to other namespace}}, and there are many, many redirects in that category that could be reassigned to the subcats. This includes several redirects in the main namespace that begin with "T:" that redirect to template namespace. There are also many redirects from the main namespace that could be reassigned to {{R to category}}, {{R to portal}}, {{R to help}} and {{R to project}}. These Rcats respectively populate
Category:Redirects to category space,
Category:Redirects to portal space,
Category:Redirects to help namespace and
Category:Redirects to project space. And now for a confession. Until I found out the importance of using these templates and categories for CNRs, I added {{R to template}} to many template redirects to other templates, and this was clear misuse of the {{R to template}} Rcat. I think that I did that because the Rcats are actually a little vague, and it seems to me that Mclay1 is on the road to make these categories and their populating templates more clearly defined. If this tracking cat was created to take some of the weight from the parent cat, one finds in the parent cat that the usage is more common than one might think. If we delete this cat, then we might as well delete all of the other subcats and let the parent cat stand alone. OR perhaps we should keep this cat as it is named, and take a lesson that the other subcats be renamed in a similar manner. Then rename the populating Rcats, such as {{R to portal}} could become {{R to portal from non-portal namespace}}, and so forth. ({{R to portal}} could stick around as a shortcut.) In this vein, if it is found that this cat should be kept, then a populating Rcat named {{R to template from non-template namespace}} might be appropriate, and {{R to template}} could be reinstated as a shortcut to it. These are just thoughts and ideas for consideration in this discussion. Thank you for reading! —
Paine Ellsworth (
CLIMAX ) 14:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, maybe I wasn't really misusing {{R to template}}, but it probably was originally designed to populate a category that would hold all of the T:xx redirects that are now found in the parent category,
Category:Cross-namespace redirects. Now, Mclay1, you need to take a good look at the {{R to portal}}, the {{R to project}} and the others. They all populate SUB-CATEGORIES of the parent category, Category:Cross-namespace redirects, and so, they are all ONLY supposed to be added to redirects that cross from the main ARTICLE NAMESPACE (or perhaps another namespace) into other namespaces. In that parent category are P:xx,
H:xx,
C:xx, and MOS:xxshortcut redirects that should eventually populate the sub-categories, along with
T:xx shortcut redirects that need to be put in a template sub-category. These are all pseudo-namespaces and cross-namespace redirects, and so, the sub-categories that I mentioned before are their rightful "homes". So when you look more closely, the redirect-category templates {{R to category}}, {{R to portal}}, {{R to help}} and {{R to project}} are ONLY supposed to be added to cross-namespace redirects. —
Paine Ellsworth (
CLIMAX ) 17:45, 28 February 2011 (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.
People from Georgia (country) by century
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom.
Occuli (
talk) 13:12, 21 February 2011 (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.
Northern Irish foo
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 all.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 00:42, 1 March 2011 (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:Vandals
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:Vandals of property. There's no consensus for a deletion. There's consensus to do something, so a rename is in order. No one seems certain as to what, so I picked something. Feel free to renominate if you have a better idea. --
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete, with no prejudge against creating a category to refer to the subject of the article
Vandals.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 06:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
keep This has nothing to do with the tribe of vendals or its people, as the category makes clear, as do its parent category
Category:Vandalism and main article
Vandalism. This is a category for people who are notable for having destoyed/vandalized things--as their articles make clear.
Hmains (
talk) 06:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. Far too POV. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 09:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
I would agree with this. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:People who damaged artworks - Vandalism (usually accompanied in the British press by the word "mindless") is not really the appropriate term for these, but except for the Patriarch Cyril (why is he there) these people are only notable for this, and primary categories should always be preserved where possible.
Zvi Mazel could then go back. in.
Johnbod (
talk) 20:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
I've removed St. Cyril, since there's nothing in the article about vandalism. The category was added in
this edit, along with a quote from one of
Edward Gibbon's "the Christians are barbarians" quotes. At some point since then, the quote was removed, but the category wasn't.
Nyttend (
talk) 22:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Useful for categorizing persons engaging in clear-cut vandalism.
Steinberger (
talk) 16:49, 28 February 2011 (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:Georgian families
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 "of" form.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom.
Occuli (
talk) 13:12, 21 February 2011 (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:Black Widow 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 result of the discussion was:rename.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I suggest renaming to match
Black Widow (band). Could potentially be confused with albums released by
Black Widow Records (which was named after the band but has released albums not by the band named Black Widow).
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose but I don't really care. I agree that there's a risk of confusion but I think it's minimal and insufficient to warrant disambiguation. The record label is very marginal so it's unlikely that it would be a search term in the category namespace. I would bet against the level-specific cat ever being created and if it were, it would be under the name
Category:Black Widow Records albums. (per the convention at
Category:Albums by record label)
Pichpich (
talk) 05:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
"Oppose but I don't really care". That's a new one for me! ... As long as we're talking about conventions ... the related convention names albums by artists as "ARTIST albums", with ARTIST being the WP article name, which matches the proposal.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Is that last part true? I just searched WP for "(band)" and checked the first examples that come up in the search:
+/- (band),
Copyright (band),
Franz Ferdinand (band),
Poison (band),
Sublime (band),
Danzig (band),
Traffic (band),
CKY (band) and
Toyah (band). With the exception of Copyright which has no albums category, the corresponding albums and songs categories don't carry the "(band)" disambiguation. On the other hand, searching "band albums" in the category namespace shows plenty of examples of "(band)" disambiguation. If it is the convention, I must say I don't understand its rationale: it goes against the "things should be easy to find" principle and I can't imagine a reader searching for
Category:Poison (band) albums.
Pichpich (
talk) 13:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Ok then, conventions are important. Striking the oppose. (But for the record, it's still an ill-advised convention)
Pichpich (
talk) 13:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
It does help to reduce confusion and (if it were universally implemented) it would make it more predictable where one will find an albums category for a particular band. (Of course, it's not universally implemented, which makes it very difficult to know where the album category will be when a band name is somewhat or a lot ambiguous.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename to match the article
Black Widow (band). There are dozens of cfds establishing this convention.
Occuli (
talk) 10:46, 21 February 2011 (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:Oceaneering rides
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Support. Sorry I created this category. I just looked at an infobox and it was linking to Oceaneering and I created the category accordingly. Themeparkgc Talk 23:56, 21 February 2011 (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:HUSS rides
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Support. Sorry I created this category. I just looked at an infobox and it was linking to HUSS and I created the category accordingly. Themeparkgc Talk 23:56, 21 February 2011 (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:Chinese nationalists
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 capitalize Nationalist.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no good objective way to define this category, and the member articles in this category and its subcategories (which I'm also nominating for deletion, below), show that — I'd have to say that all of the figures listed are arguably nationalist and arguably not nationalist. Further, there are many, many arguably nationalist figures that are not currently in the category which have the same issue: arguably nationalist and arguably nonnationalist, because there is no good objective standard. Without the good objective standards, any inclusion or noninclusion is going to be POV. Delete. --
Nlu (
talk) 02:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Also nominated for deletion are its subcategories:
Comment This nomination is confused. The Kuomintang was the party of the 'Chinese Nationalists', which was the name for the people fighting for the Republic of China (as the 'Chinese Nationalist government') and then specifically for those fighting against the Chinese Communists and against the Japanese Empire. One cannot simply delete history; one could argue for better names or for merges. This takes analysis.
Hmains (
talk) 06:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't have as much quibbles if the category were "Chinese Nationalists" (note capitalization), but "nationalists" in the small letters do not denote KMT or the Nationalist Government (of all of its iterations in Guangzhou, Nanjing, Wuhan, and Chongqing). If it were, in fact, intended to denote KMT only, then it duplicates
Category:Members of the Kuomintang (which is a lot clearer as to what it includes). Right now, even assuming that it was intended to speak of the Nationalist government(s), it is going to be underpopulated due to its unclear nature. I still believe that deletion is the best solution, but even if not deleted, it should be renamed and refocused. --
Nlu (
talk) 19:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename as Chines Nationalist [foo] ; I agree with the argument that with the capital it represents a specific government, rther than those Chinese who could be called nationalists in a more general sense, which is much broader. DGG (
talk ) 00:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)reply
rename per DDG as these are people associated with the Chinese Nationalist government of China.
Hmains (
talk) 18:24, 26 February 2011 (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:Defunct architecture firms based in the United States
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 08:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)reply
rename per nom the 'based in' phrase is for US state level categories, not US national categories.
Hmains (
talk) 18:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)reply
agree, I believe I created this category as a national extension of one based in New York; I the name model had been Architecture firms based in new york, and I had merely added defunct in front. Given a choice, I prefer
Category:Defunct architecture firms of the United States instead of the more complicated based in phrase. ---
James R (
talk)
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.