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:Album covers by artist
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.
Inclined to agree, although it would be better to discuss renaming of "album covers" to "audio recording covers" first, to save a double move. See discussion below about single covers. -
Fayenatic(talk)13:01, 11 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:Queensland floods 2010-2011
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:Canada city templates
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 - I used this form (name instead of gentilic) because some time ago i've read that it was decided to use -country name + templates- formm and not -gentilic + templates- to simplify... or else. See for exemple the Canadian mother category (
Category:Canada templates instead of "Canadian templates"), or all country name forms used in
Category:Country templates. Or the 22 names used in
Category:City templates by country (Japan city templates, Bulgaria c.t., Australia c.t and so on.). Of course I know that the correct form is Canadian, but i've simply followed a standard rule decided, i think, some years ago. A proposal reguarding name changes should be presented, but it may be IMHO general, reguarding all countries. Regards. --Dэя-
Бøяg22:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I express this vote for technical reasons: As explained in my comment above, I followed a largely-used standard. Better than a change for a singular category it could be necessary to propose a general renaming (as done time ago for almost all the categories cities and towns in Foo {subject}, now renamed populated places in Foo {subject}). --Dэя-
Бøяg02:09, 4 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:Images of A-Teens
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: Each of the nominated categories is a subcategory of
Category:Images of musical groups and contains only one member: the category for
covers of the corresponding band's audio recordings. The use of "Images of {band}" categories in this way is misleading and unnecessary. It is misleading because images of a musical group's album covers are not, technically, images of the musical group. It is unnecessary because the categories of album covers by band are already appropriately categorized, and the "Images of {band}" categories merely add an unnecessary layer that does not facilitate navigation. Specifically, each member of the nominated categories (see e.g.
Category:Dream (band) album covers) is already in:
The eponymous category for the band, if it exists.
The "Images of {musician/band}" category tree is not (yet) an established categorization scheme like
Category:Albums by artist, and I would argue that it should be used only when there is something to categorize which cannot be categorized via other, more appropriate categories. -- Black Falcon(
talk)20:54, 3 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:Single covers
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 and merge. The proposal to rename
Category:Album covers makes a lot of sense, and should happen. But the amount of efforts needed to split single covers and album covers is unthinkably large. Much better to rename the album categories to something format-neutral and be done with it.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
07:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Suggest withdrawing this nomination and make a new proposal for merger & rename of "album covers" to "audio recording covers". In the past I felt a bit guilty at categorising a single within "albums" as it is far from obvious, at the lower category level, that this has policy support. -
Fayenatic(talk)13:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)reply
I'm far from being an expert on the subject of albums and singles, but I had the impression that "
album cover" is used to refer to any audio recording cover. Insofar as Google hits statistics are informative, "audio recording cover" has only
c. 4,000 hits as opposed to
2.8 million hits for "single cover" and
50 million for "album cover". I agree that extra clarification is needed (I experienced similar confusion until I read the
2007 CFD), but this could be accomplished by adding category descriptions. -- Black Falcon(
talk)02:44, 12 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:Literary collaborators
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. That someone at some point collaborated with another person to write something does not seem to defining for them. So, I will delete this category. Articles about literary collaborations should be placed in the respective category.
Ruslik_
Zero13:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This seems like a very broad and not very useful way to categorize writers. All it tells us is that at some point these authors wrote something of some kind with someone else (without telling us what or who). If there are notable writing teams or collectives with articles I can see grouping them in a category for writing teams but putting individuals in this kind of a category doesn't strike me as helpful.
I Want My GayTV (
talk)
17:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. Ooo, I agree that this is quite a bad method of categorization. If it contained articles named after two or more collaborators, then it would be appropriate, but it does not. I can't really even envisage a situation where we would want or need an article named after two or more literary collaborators.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep though, because
Category:Literary collaborations exists (and is important), I feel less strongly about this category. I agree the category is at present inappropriately populated but I do not see that as a sufficient reason for deletion.
Charles Lamb (writer) and
Mary Lamb collaborated over a number of books and, had they not also been sole authors there could well have been a single article about the two of them. If an article on their
Tales from Shakespeare did not exist then it would be difficult to categorise the situation even with separate biographical articles.
Neil Forsyth is a literary collaborator with Elliot Castro and, because there is no article about the book
[1] or Castro, categorisation would again be awkward. Where should
Category:Translators of the Authorized King James Version fit in the categorisation scheme? The category would best be applied to a writing team for a book or series of books where the team is more notable than the individual authors and where there isn't an article on any of their books.
Thincat (
talk)
00:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Well that is fine then. I've now found
Emma Darcy is a writing team who has written a series of books, none of which seem to have Wikipedia articles. This pseudonym could be (and, indeed, is) in
Category:Literary collaborations but "collaborators" might be more suitable. This AFD nomination acknowledges that teams such as this would be appropriate in the collaborators category.
Caroline and Charles Todd is an example where the article is named under the two authors.
Thincat (
talk)
17:36, 6 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:Royal Air Force Medical Corps personnel
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:World Heritage Sites in Asia and Australasia
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. The term Oceania is widely used on WP and outside WP to include Australia, PNG, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands; the term Australasia is far more slippery and ambiguous, excluding the Pacific Islands and not always including New Zealand. Quite a number of the sites listed are in neither Asia nor Australasia but are in Oceania (there are ones in Fiji, Pitcairn, and the Solomons, for instance, which are not in Australasia by any stretch of the term). Others may or may not be in Australasia depending on your definition. And to cap it off, this has ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Asia and ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Oceania as its two continental parent categories. As such, using Oceania makes far more sense. FWIW, UNESCO – which designates World Heritage Sites – doesn't use either term, but instead refers to "The Asia-Pacific Region" (which implies that it covers far more than just Asia and Australasia).
Grutness...wha?12:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename to "Asia and the Pacific" . We're using UNESCO's organisation so it's only appropriate that we use their naming as well. Also change the main article to suit the category.
Munci (
talk)
12:43, 11 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:Presidents with pet dogs
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.
But dogs don't even realise they are in charge! Now a cat—a cat will believe it is your god even if you lock it out of the house and it's forced to enter the house by ripping a hole in the screen of your basement window.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, "cat" does stand for "centre of all things"... delete, BTW - and Black Falcon, if that other category is moved then the key article should be, too, since they agree with each other.
Grutness...wha?23:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete Importance for categorization does not move in both directions. Even if US presidential pets are important in themselves as it may seem, he specific president gives notability to each pet, but pets do not give notability to the presidents a single bit, in fact, no biography of them would be deemed incomplete if their pet was not mentioned at all.
MBelgrano (
talk)
14:18, 5 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:Government Aided Engineering Colleges
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. If the category is underpopulated, the solution is to tag it with {{popcat}}, not delete it. I don't know enough about the structure of education in India to make any judgement about the substantive merits of this category, and the nominator offers no information to enlighten me. Has anyone notified
WP:INDIA? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
02:28, 7 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:Miscellaneous triathletes
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.
Non-category category with self-referential stated scope, ultimately useless to readers. Upmerge and cross-merge member articles as appropriate. ―
cobaltcigs01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: Re-naming it to something which clearly reflects its purpose within said wiki-project and making it “
hidden” (or whatever they do these days) would be equally acceptable. ―
cobaltcigs23:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge -- The citerion for this category seems to be that the members should not be subject to maintenance by a project. If it is a maintenance-related category, it should not be on the article page. the parent category has not direct population and the contnets of this category would fir well in it.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:28, 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:Punch card
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. I suggest renaming to match
punched card. (This was nominated at the speedy section a few weeks ago, which prompted a
nomination to move the article to
punch card. That discussion has just been closed as "not moved".) There's no reason to have the article and the category have different names; a redirect should be placed on the nominated category.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, it would be bureaucracy gone mad if clearly controversial names are renamed without discussion. As having the requested move close as not moved following a lack of consensus from a lot of discussion shows naming controversy, so it's better to have a discussion here.
64.229.101.119 (
talk)
01:09, 4 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.
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:Album covers by artist
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.
Inclined to agree, although it would be better to discuss renaming of "album covers" to "audio recording covers" first, to save a double move. See discussion below about single covers. -
Fayenatic(talk)13:01, 11 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:Queensland floods 2010-2011
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:Canada city templates
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 - I used this form (name instead of gentilic) because some time ago i've read that it was decided to use -country name + templates- formm and not -gentilic + templates- to simplify... or else. See for exemple the Canadian mother category (
Category:Canada templates instead of "Canadian templates"), or all country name forms used in
Category:Country templates. Or the 22 names used in
Category:City templates by country (Japan city templates, Bulgaria c.t., Australia c.t and so on.). Of course I know that the correct form is Canadian, but i've simply followed a standard rule decided, i think, some years ago. A proposal reguarding name changes should be presented, but it may be IMHO general, reguarding all countries. Regards. --Dэя-
Бøяg22:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I express this vote for technical reasons: As explained in my comment above, I followed a largely-used standard. Better than a change for a singular category it could be necessary to propose a general renaming (as done time ago for almost all the categories cities and towns in Foo {subject}, now renamed populated places in Foo {subject}). --Dэя-
Бøяg02:09, 4 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:Images of A-Teens
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: Each of the nominated categories is a subcategory of
Category:Images of musical groups and contains only one member: the category for
covers of the corresponding band's audio recordings. The use of "Images of {band}" categories in this way is misleading and unnecessary. It is misleading because images of a musical group's album covers are not, technically, images of the musical group. It is unnecessary because the categories of album covers by band are already appropriately categorized, and the "Images of {band}" categories merely add an unnecessary layer that does not facilitate navigation. Specifically, each member of the nominated categories (see e.g.
Category:Dream (band) album covers) is already in:
The eponymous category for the band, if it exists.
The "Images of {musician/band}" category tree is not (yet) an established categorization scheme like
Category:Albums by artist, and I would argue that it should be used only when there is something to categorize which cannot be categorized via other, more appropriate categories. -- Black Falcon(
talk)20:54, 3 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:Single covers
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 and merge. The proposal to rename
Category:Album covers makes a lot of sense, and should happen. But the amount of efforts needed to split single covers and album covers is unthinkably large. Much better to rename the album categories to something format-neutral and be done with it.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
07:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Suggest withdrawing this nomination and make a new proposal for merger & rename of "album covers" to "audio recording covers". In the past I felt a bit guilty at categorising a single within "albums" as it is far from obvious, at the lower category level, that this has policy support. -
Fayenatic(talk)13:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)reply
I'm far from being an expert on the subject of albums and singles, but I had the impression that "
album cover" is used to refer to any audio recording cover. Insofar as Google hits statistics are informative, "audio recording cover" has only
c. 4,000 hits as opposed to
2.8 million hits for "single cover" and
50 million for "album cover". I agree that extra clarification is needed (I experienced similar confusion until I read the
2007 CFD), but this could be accomplished by adding category descriptions. -- Black Falcon(
talk)02:44, 12 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:Literary collaborators
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. That someone at some point collaborated with another person to write something does not seem to defining for them. So, I will delete this category. Articles about literary collaborations should be placed in the respective category.
Ruslik_
Zero13:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This seems like a very broad and not very useful way to categorize writers. All it tells us is that at some point these authors wrote something of some kind with someone else (without telling us what or who). If there are notable writing teams or collectives with articles I can see grouping them in a category for writing teams but putting individuals in this kind of a category doesn't strike me as helpful.
I Want My GayTV (
talk)
17:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. Ooo, I agree that this is quite a bad method of categorization. If it contained articles named after two or more collaborators, then it would be appropriate, but it does not. I can't really even envisage a situation where we would want or need an article named after two or more literary collaborators.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep though, because
Category:Literary collaborations exists (and is important), I feel less strongly about this category. I agree the category is at present inappropriately populated but I do not see that as a sufficient reason for deletion.
Charles Lamb (writer) and
Mary Lamb collaborated over a number of books and, had they not also been sole authors there could well have been a single article about the two of them. If an article on their
Tales from Shakespeare did not exist then it would be difficult to categorise the situation even with separate biographical articles.
Neil Forsyth is a literary collaborator with Elliot Castro and, because there is no article about the book
[1] or Castro, categorisation would again be awkward. Where should
Category:Translators of the Authorized King James Version fit in the categorisation scheme? The category would best be applied to a writing team for a book or series of books where the team is more notable than the individual authors and where there isn't an article on any of their books.
Thincat (
talk)
00:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Well that is fine then. I've now found
Emma Darcy is a writing team who has written a series of books, none of which seem to have Wikipedia articles. This pseudonym could be (and, indeed, is) in
Category:Literary collaborations but "collaborators" might be more suitable. This AFD nomination acknowledges that teams such as this would be appropriate in the collaborators category.
Caroline and Charles Todd is an example where the article is named under the two authors.
Thincat (
talk)
17:36, 6 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:Royal Air Force Medical Corps personnel
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:World Heritage Sites in Asia and Australasia
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. The term Oceania is widely used on WP and outside WP to include Australia, PNG, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands; the term Australasia is far more slippery and ambiguous, excluding the Pacific Islands and not always including New Zealand. Quite a number of the sites listed are in neither Asia nor Australasia but are in Oceania (there are ones in Fiji, Pitcairn, and the Solomons, for instance, which are not in Australasia by any stretch of the term). Others may or may not be in Australasia depending on your definition. And to cap it off, this has ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Asia and ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Oceania as its two continental parent categories. As such, using Oceania makes far more sense. FWIW, UNESCO – which designates World Heritage Sites – doesn't use either term, but instead refers to "The Asia-Pacific Region" (which implies that it covers far more than just Asia and Australasia).
Grutness...wha?12:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename to "Asia and the Pacific" . We're using UNESCO's organisation so it's only appropriate that we use their naming as well. Also change the main article to suit the category.
Munci (
talk)
12:43, 11 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:Presidents with pet dogs
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.
But dogs don't even realise they are in charge! Now a cat—a cat will believe it is your god even if you lock it out of the house and it's forced to enter the house by ripping a hole in the screen of your basement window.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, "cat" does stand for "centre of all things"... delete, BTW - and Black Falcon, if that other category is moved then the key article should be, too, since they agree with each other.
Grutness...wha?23:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete Importance for categorization does not move in both directions. Even if US presidential pets are important in themselves as it may seem, he specific president gives notability to each pet, but pets do not give notability to the presidents a single bit, in fact, no biography of them would be deemed incomplete if their pet was not mentioned at all.
MBelgrano (
talk)
14:18, 5 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:Government Aided Engineering Colleges
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. If the category is underpopulated, the solution is to tag it with {{popcat}}, not delete it. I don't know enough about the structure of education in India to make any judgement about the substantive merits of this category, and the nominator offers no information to enlighten me. Has anyone notified
WP:INDIA? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
02:28, 7 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:Miscellaneous triathletes
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.
Non-category category with self-referential stated scope, ultimately useless to readers. Upmerge and cross-merge member articles as appropriate. ―
cobaltcigs01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: Re-naming it to something which clearly reflects its purpose within said wiki-project and making it “
hidden” (or whatever they do these days) would be equally acceptable. ―
cobaltcigs23:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge -- The citerion for this category seems to be that the members should not be subject to maintenance by a project. If it is a maintenance-related category, it should not be on the article page. the parent category has not direct population and the contnets of this category would fir well in it.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:28, 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:Punch card
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. I suggest renaming to match
punched card. (This was nominated at the speedy section a few weeks ago, which prompted a
nomination to move the article to
punch card. That discussion has just been closed as "not moved".) There's no reason to have the article and the category have different names; a redirect should be placed on the nominated category.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, it would be bureaucracy gone mad if clearly controversial names are renamed without discussion. As having the requested move close as not moved following a lack of consensus from a lot of discussion shows naming controversy, so it's better to have a discussion here.
64.229.101.119 (
talk)
01:09, 4 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.