| < January 22 | January 24 > |
|---|
- 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:Historic surveying landmarks in the United States in lieu of a 'no consensus' close. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Historic surveying landmarks (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another one from Target. While the sole article has many categories, if this is deleted, we may want to considering adding Category:Land surveying of the United States to that article. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep/rename As is often the case for a TfT category, he didn't bother to look for other examples. In this case there is a good handful. However, seeing as how these are all US cases, it would make sense to rename to Category:Historic surveying landmarks in the United States. Mangoe ( talk) 16:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep/Rename based strictly on Mangoe's efforts. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: merge. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Monocacy River to Category:Tributaries of the Potomac River
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. I don't see a benefit from having this category with only one article and subcategory. Maybe if the parent was overloaded, but it is not. A Target creation. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge Examination of Category:Tributaries of the Mississippi River shows that the tributaries of tributaries categories do not have intermediate river-name categories. Mangoe ( talk) 16:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf ( talk) 23:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Rename and create necessary additional categories. Timrollpickering ( talk) 16:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Allan Herschell Company roller coasters to Category:Roller coasters manufactured by Allan Herschell Company
- Nominator's rationale: Rename all to distinguish between rides at a particular location, rides operated by a particular company and rides manufactured by a particular company. There are cases where a company manufactures and operates rides (e.g. Category:Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation roller coasters and Category:Kings Island roller coasters). For the same reason (and also to maintain a standard), I have nominated related categories for water rides and amusement rides. Themeparkgc Talk 23:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: If this proposal is closed with the consensus to rename, changes to Template:Infobox roller coaster and Template:Infobox water ride will need to be performed. As I am familiar with these templates, I am happy to perform these changes. When the time comes, just leave a message on my talk page and I'll get onto it right away. Themeparkgc Talk 22:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Question
Category:Knoebels Amusement Resort roller coasters and
Category:Sea World water rides are both amusement park operators. Did you mean to propose putting these in the manufacturing categories (or are they both the operator and manufacturer)?
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- In the cases of
Category:Knoebels Amusement Resort roller coasters and
Category:Sea World water rides they contain articles about rides which were manufactured by the amusement park themselves. That is the exact reason I am proposing these renames - to remove that confusion between manufacturing and operating. Other examples of this include
Category:Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation roller coasters and
Category:Kings Island roller coasters (which were mentioned in the original nomination) as well as
Category:Warner Bros. Movie World water rides and
Category:Dreamworld water rides.
Themeparkgc
Talk
05:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, so the multiple hybrids that both manufacture a ride and operate it would go under a manufacturing cat but not an operating cat. How does that remove confusion between manufacturing and operating?
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- If these categories were renamed you would then be able to create Category:Roller coasters operated by Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation which would be distinct from Category:Roller coasters manufactured by Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation (the latter being the proposed result of moving Category:Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation roller coasters based upon its current contents). Hopefully this clarifies it. Themeparkgc Talk 09:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, so the multiple hybrids that both manufacture a ride and operate it would go under a manufacturing cat but not an operating cat. How does that remove confusion between manufacturing and operating?
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- In the cases of
Category:Knoebels Amusement Resort roller coasters and
Category:Sea World water rides they contain articles about rides which were manufactured by the amusement park themselves. That is the exact reason I am proposing these renames - to remove that confusion between manufacturing and operating. Other examples of this include
Category:Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation roller coasters and
Category:Kings Island roller coasters (which were mentioned in the original nomination) as well as
Category:Warner Bros. Movie World water rides and
Category:Dreamworld water rides.
Themeparkgc
Talk
05:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I find the manufacturer's names (Arrow Dynamics, Sally Corporation) to be pretty distinct from the operators (Six Flags, Universal Parks). But, if the company names are not clear to others, then separate categories might make sense. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:American Civil War sites in Kentucky to all parents
- Propose merging Category:American Civil War sites in Pennsylvania to all parents
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Parent is not so overloaded at this time to create small by state categories. Kentucky has only one article in it. Pennsylvania has a total of
5(4 since one was about a neighborhood named after a camp and the camp is in ample categories) articles using 3 categories where two of them are already nominated for deletion. WV seems to be a valid exception at this time since it has over 40 articles and folding that in might cause problems. This is part of the on going series of category creations that is being reviewed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf ( talk) 23:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: As of today, the Kentucky category has 14 members and the Pennsylvania category has 19 members. --
Black Falcon (
talk)
02:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is a Civil War museum in Kentucky a civil war site? How about a cemetery? I think some entries may have been added but the quality or appropriateness of them is suspect. Probably better to follow through with the merge, then cleanup and see what the best direction is. This gets back to the problem of site being ambiguous.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
03:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Checking the Category:American Civil War sites parent category, there are seperate subcategories for cemeraries, museums, battlefields, and the like. Wild Wolf ( talk) 04:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is a Civil War museum in Kentucky a civil war site? How about a cemetery? I think some entries may have been added but the quality or appropriateness of them is suspect. Probably better to follow through with the merge, then cleanup and see what the best direction is. This gets back to the problem of site being ambiguous.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
03:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Some of the recently added articles are definitely questionable, and I wouldn't doubt there's a connection between the IP ( 75.145.121.57) who added them and the category creator ( Target for Today, who was blocked.) in an attempt to save the categories. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 21:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Listify with Lashup Radar Network. Timrollpickering ( talk) 16:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Lashup Radar Network (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category with limited growth potential where navigation is better handled by the main article. This is especially true since some of these sites have had several names over their life. The main article appears to be using the names assigned at that point in history making that the most accurate way to provide the information. Category contents use the latest name assigned which is not always useful. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- unsure References claim 44 sites included in this rather impromptu network, so size isn't necessarily an issue. What is perhaps an issue is that most potential members of the category are articles on military bases where one of the radars in the network was located, apparently in some cases because the radar was already there, in others because there was already owned land available. Is this good enough reason to categorize all these base articles? Note that Category:SAGE sites presents essentially the same issues, except that it is (from what I can tell) fully populated. Mangoe ( talk) 19:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete/Listify within article: I think this would work best as a new section within the Lashup Radar Network article. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timrollpickering ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- 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, but remove Category:World War II prisoner of war camps. The discussion seems to hinge on whether "concentration camp" includes more than Axis prisoner camps. I'll take the narrow road and limit the contents of this category to subcategories that contain the words "concentration camps."-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:World War II concentration camps (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. A three entry category with limited growth potential. The category introduction states that the inclusion criteria is based on a concentrated area which is subjective. Also concentration camp means something rather specific as indicated by two of these categories but that meaning does not apply to POW camps in general. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- but tag it as a parent-only category. I am not sure whether POW camps were concentration camps in the technical sense, but that is a reason for looking for a better name, not one for deleting it.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- My understand is that concentration camps were for civilians and POW camps are for military. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep a useful category for bringing a number of similar 'topics' together. In the UK we had POW camps, and also
internment camps for alien civilians - see
Douglas, Isle of Man.
Twiceuponatime (
talk)
09:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- But interment camps and POW camps are not concentration camps! If there is going to be a parent category,
Category:World War II interment camps would seem to be a much better choice.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I think the guard's internment camp may be the prisoner's concentration camp. Both perspectives have POV issues. (That's not to say that Nazi treatment was equivalent to elsewhere.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as substantial content in the "Nazi" subcategory, and content does not belong in the WWII POW or Internment camp category
Hugo999 (
talk)
04:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment that seems to be an argument for 'camps by country'. My point above is that there were camps on both sides (allies and axis) and they need to be collected together somehow. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 09:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- But interment camps and POW camps are not concentration camps! If there is going to be a parent category,
Category:World War II interment camps would seem to be a much better choice.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Definition I am taking as my definition its original use in the
Boer War i.e. as a 'concentration' of civilians, which for WWII includes internment camps. Is it being used here in its holocaust use as 'extermination' camp? Possibly the headnote needs re-visiting before making a final decision???
Twiceuponatime (
talk)
09:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe. But for WWII, concentration means the death camps to most. So it is a politically loaded name that needs to be precisely applied. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. There should be more than three articles in the category, so it has the potential to be applied across many more relevant articles. Boneyard90 ( talk) 22:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as useful sub-cat of Category:Concentration camps and Category:World War II sites, tag as parent category, remove Category:World War II prisoner of war camps from it and instead use "see also" links to navigate from/to that one. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Texas towers (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category where navigation is better handled through the main article. Also the parent categories are problematic since two of the five were never built so how can then be consider closed? Of the remaining 3, they are listed in two different manners for removal from service. So it is better to classify these towers in the actual articles where they have ample categorization and it can be specific for each tower. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment -- I think the solution is to merge the articles on the individual towers into the main article. That will leave a one-article category, which can then be upmerged to an appropriate parent. However, I agree that the category is rather useless as a navigation aid.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are correct that if the articles were merged, there would be no need for this category. If someone wants to do that, I'm not going to object.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think a merge is reasonable. The individual articles don't have that big an overlap so the result would be a very long and potentially messy article. On the other hand, it would be trivial to create a navigation template. Pichpich ( talk) 23:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are correct that if the articles were merged, there would be no need for this category. If someone wants to do that, I'm not going to object.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I am at this time working on a merge of the articles, which would render this category irrelevant. The only single tower article with significant independent content is
Texas Tower 4, and its story will probably only take up half the parent article.
Mangoe (
talk)
16:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- The merge is complete and the category now contains the main article only. Mangoe ( talk) 05:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Wild Wolf ( talk) 03:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Anti-sharia law activists (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: POV category which presumes in Wikipedia's voice that the actions its members take are actually in opposition to the imposition of sharia law when they're just garden-variety anti-Muslim activists. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom's first two words. Fat&Happy ( talk) 21:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: I did not depopulate this category - it had one member, Pamela Geller, when I found it. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge somewhere -- The one article appears to be about a woman who opposes the Islamisation of America. I did not see whether she opposes the use of Sharia - the traditional Islamic law code - in Muslim countries or merely certain aspects of it whcih she (and many waesterners) consider offensive to the western (and UN) idea of human rights. Plain deletion is probably not right, but there is probably an appropiate category where the article should be. I do not consider it to be a POV category, merely an overspecific one.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge what? This discussion is about the
category.
Johnuniq (
talk)
23:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- He's probably talking about merging the contents of the category.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Peterkingiron, the one article is currently also in Category:Opposition to Islam in North America which is where I would have merged it. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- He's probably talking about merging the contents of the category.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge what? This discussion is about the
category.
Johnuniq (
talk)
23:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Non-encyclopedic POV. Opposing a particular legal framework does not warrant an "anti-X activist" label. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete POV Pushing. FTR I depopulated most of the entries.
Arzel (
talk)
14:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a good idea. It's better to leave the categories populated during a CFD discussion so that people can see what they're !voting to delete or keep. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
18:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- At least two articles ( Herman Cain and Peter T. King) were removed before you listed the category here; neither's designation as an "activist" on the topic seems well-supported in the articles. Another, Pamela Geller, was deleted more recently; that inclusion could be seen as an example in support of the original argument for deletion. There may have been others, but if they were as well-monitored as the three I know of, it's likely that at least some preceded the nomination at CFD. Fat&Happy ( talk) 19:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a good idea. It's better to leave the categories populated during a CFD discussion so that people can see what they're !voting to delete or keep. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
18:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- It was only added to three BLP articles by the creator User:Pass_a Method (who seems to have some editing issues, lack of discussion , WP:POV and wp:competence)- the two mentioned and Rick Santorum and User:Binksternet added it to Geller shortly after noticing its creation. Geller seems like the most reasonable of the four additions, but the cat seems a bit narrowly defining to me. You really can 20:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as a WP:SMALLCAT. Others have taken time to research to show POV issues but I don't think we need to look that far. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as a WP:SMALLCAT. I see a "Separation of Church and State" category and an "Church-state separation advocacy organizations" subcategory but I don't see "Separation of Church and State Advocates" for individual people. I would think anti-Sharia would be a subcategory of "Separation of Church and State" (note: "Separation of Mosque and State" redirects to "Separation of Church and State"). Perhaps there should be an anti-Sharia subgroup at some point as the topic grows and one needs to track down all involved in the controversy. Jason from nyc ( talk) 17:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Authors of books on hyperreals (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete It's a better idea to cover this through a list. One advantage of a list is that it can actually give a list of books and not just a list of authors. A big problem with the present category is that there's no meaningful way of deciding what constitutes a book on hyperreals or on non-standard analysis. Does it have to be the single subject? Is a chapter ok? Two chapters? Is a 50-page journal paper as good as a 150-page book? The term
non-standard analysis is much broader than the
hyperreals term used in the category title. Moreover, the category isn't based on a defining feature of its members. In the case of mathematicians I already knew about (Martin Davis, Terry Tao, Reuben Hersh), their work on non-standard analysis is not a major part of their achievements or their fame.
Pichpich (
talk)
19:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- The thrust of your comment seems to be to rename the category rather than delete it. "Hyperreal" happens to be shorter than "non-standard analysis". Two of the main references, by Keisler and Goldblatt, do not use "non-standard" in the title. I am not sure why a book would have to be "a major part of their achievements". Why can't one talk about non-major achievements, as well?
Tkuvho (
talk)
14:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- What I mean is that categories are supposed to be reserved for defining characteristics of a subject. I don't think authorship of a book on hyperreals is defining and I think this is particularly obvious in the case of Terry Tao for instance. For a focus on non-standard analysis, it would make a lot more sense to create a subcategory of Category:Mathematical analysts since it's awkward to separate the people who write the papers from the people who write the textbooks. Pichpich ( talk) 21:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- The thrust of your comment seems to be to rename the category rather than delete it. "Hyperreal" happens to be shorter than "non-standard analysis". Two of the main references, by Keisler and Goldblatt, do not use "non-standard" in the title. I am not sure why a book would have to be "a major part of their achievements". Why can't one talk about non-major achievements, as well?
Tkuvho (
talk)
14:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. The subcategories of Category:Writers by genre and Category:Writers by non-fiction subject area are ideally left appropriately broad; I think this is a little too specific to be considered a genre that we classify writers by. Possibly merge to Category:Mathematics writers? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "mathematics writers" is much too broad a category. Objection about Tao sustained; I will remove him from the list. Tkuvho ( talk) 07:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand the category "mathematics writers". I left a comment at the talkpage there. Is this supposed to be "popularizers of mathematics"? Then it's rather orthogonal to the category under discussion here. Tkuvho ( talk) 09:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I can not imagine to whom this category could be useful. Anybody who want to learn on the subject or on the researchers implied in it will get much more useful information in hyperreal numbers and non standard analysis, including the list on the main books on the subject (at least he should). If this category is kept, we should have a Category: Authors of books on ... for every sub area of mathematics. This will need an amount of effort which would better applied to improve the pages in mathematics by inserting book references when there are lacking or incomplete. D.Lazard ( talk) 11:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is a difference between the hyperreals and many other "sub areas of mathematics". One of the strengths of the hyperreals is their versatility. Anderson applied them in economics, Albeverio in physics, Keisler in education, Davis in functional analysis, Robinson in algebra, etc. It would be nice to have a page discussing all these applications but for now we have no such page. In the meantime, having a list of authors who wrote a book about hyperreals is a minimal indication of the range of possibilities. Tkuvho ( talk) 12:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: delete. (This would be a speedy merge if it had any contents.)-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Bates College Alumni (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete because it's unnecessary. Nobody accidentally places alumni in this category anymore because the standard of keeping it lower case has been around for so long that everyone knows it by now. Also, this category was created in February 2006, when Wikipedia was at its exploratory stage. Now this soft-redirect category is unnecessary. Jrcla2 ( talk) 19:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Now that WP:HOTCAT is so widely used for categorisation, I see no need for a redirect based solely on an obvious miscapitalisation. (In a situation where the capitalisation is non-obvious, I would support keeping the redirect to assist those luddites who do not use HOTCAT). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per BHG's logic. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: (up)merge to Category:Digimon – deletion would leave the sole member uncategorized. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:DigiDestined (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: A category which, until a few seconds ago, contained only one article. That one article has been recategorised- this category serves no purpose. Most constituent articles have been merged or deleted as appropriate. J Milburn ( talk) 18:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment.
Please do not base a nomination on a false statement. The article was not "recategorised", because that therm clearly implies that it was placed in another categ instead. In fact what you did was to simply remove the head article from the category (in this edit), thereby emptying it. Please goive yourself a good whacking with a wet trout. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)- Please look at that edit again, and then kindly redirect that trout at your own face... As you will see, I removed a category (as well as malformed interwiki) and added a new category. If that is not recategorisation, I don't know what is...
J Milburn (
talk)
19:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry! Grovelling apologies for being so snotty when I hadn't checked properly. Have ordered a big box of trout with which to beat myself about the face. --20:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please look at that edit again, and then kindly redirect that trout at your own face... As you will see, I removed a category (as well as malformed interwiki) and added a new category. If that is not recategorisation, I don't know what is...
J Milburn (
talk)
19:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:SMALLCAT-- Lenticel ( talk) 01:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: delete, noting that the category is already empty. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Chosen Digimon (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Another left-over Digimon-cruft category. Only one article remains, and it will no doubt soon be deleted. These subjects just aren't notable. J Milburn ( talk) 18:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Digimon, since there is still one article left in it. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:SMALLCAT-- Lenticel ( talk) 01:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Humans in Digimon (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: A category containing two redirects. None of the characters that would otherwise be a part of this category are notable- all the articles have been deleted or merged elsewhere. J Milburn ( talk) 18:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. A category consisting solely of redirects is of little help in navigation, becsuse it never appears at the bottom of an article. When the articles have all been deleted or merged, we can assume that the topic probably has little notability or chance of expansion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously a delete. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:SMALLCAT-- Lenticel ( talk) 01:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: keep. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:People educated at Ysgol Uwchradd Bodedern (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category, only one entry AussieLegend ( talk) 15:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SMALLCAT, which allows for categories small categories when they are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, in this case Category:People educated by school in Wales. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- This is the alumni category for a Welsh-medium high school. We treat all high schools as notable, and this allow alumni categories for them. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as part of an accepted larger scheme but for what it's worth, I think categorizing people by high-school is a mistake. Pichpich ( talk) 23:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Speedy delete per G7 (author request) VegaDark ( talk) 22:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Images by Before My Ken (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Images by Beyond My Ken (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete There's plenty of precedent against categories of images by uploader. The contributions list can play the same role and is a dynamic list.
Pichpich (
talk)
15:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the precedent cited, can you post some pointers to previous discussions? Thanks.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
21:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, never mind, that's just me being pedantic; the fact that I couldn't find any other "Images by" categories organized by editor is enough to convince me. Given the very small number of images involved, going thorugh the motions here just seems like an unnecessary hassle, so I've de-populated the categories and tagged them both for speedy deletion as the "author". I hope that will close this out. Best, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the precedent cited, can you post some pointers to previous discussions? Thanks.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
21:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Upmerge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Deceased internet personalities (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. In categories, we do not combine the statuses of occupation and living/dead status, as does this category. For examples of these types of categories that have been deleted see here, with the most common one for some reason being "dead professional wrestlers". Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge to
Category:Internet personalities. (A straight delete takes
Ben Breedlove out of Category:Internet personalities altogether.)
Oculi (
talk)
10:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've added Category:American Internet personalities to Ben Breedlove. They should probably be put in the nationality-specific categories rather than just placing them in the general Category:Internet personalities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Pichpich ( talk) 15:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Internet personalities per Oculi. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering ( talk) 14:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:User py-5 to Category:User python-5
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. All the related categories use "python", not "py" - see Category:User python and its other subcats. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Rename/Speedy rename - Seems uncontroversial. VegaDark ( talk) 08:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Jennifer Lopez films (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Classic performer by performance overcategorization. We do not categorize films by the actors who appear in them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per the wave of previous categories that have gone this way. Or maybe keep, so I know which films these are so I don't accidently watch one by mistake... Lugnuts ( talk) 07:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per clear precedent. Pichpich ( talk) 15:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OC#PERF and countless precedents. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete 198.252.15.202 ( talk) 19:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 16:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Open source licenses to Category:Open source software licenses
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Open source has come to refer to a number of things besides software, so it would be helpful to clarify that this category is for software licenses, and that other open source licenses belong in the parent Category:Open content licenses. Pnm ( talk) 00:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep
Open source software is clearly the dominant use of the term and at least half the links on
Open source (disambiguation) have been strongly influenced by the software movement. Open source licences are not a sub-category of open content licences because the content in open content is there to distinguish them from the earlier open sources licences which were found not a good fit for content (see the
GNU Free Documentation License for attempt at this).
Stuartyeates (
talk)
00:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Open content was influenced by open source – but that's exactly the problem with the current title. It suggests the category could contain licenses for both software and content. If you don't want to have open source licenses as a subcategory of open content licenses (as they are currently arranged) what arrangement do you want to see? –
Pnm (
talk)
04:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe use
Category:Reusable intellectual property licenses as a descriptive umbrella category for both?
Stuartyeates (
talk)
21:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)`
- Fine, but it doesn't solve the problem of this category being only for software licenses, and that not being apparent from the title. – Pnm ( talk) 20:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe use
Category:Reusable intellectual property licenses as a descriptive umbrella category for both?
Stuartyeates (
talk)
21:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)`
- Open content was influenced by open source – but that's exactly the problem with the current title. It suggests the category could contain licenses for both software and content. If you don't want to have open source licenses as a subcategory of open content licenses (as they are currently arranged) what arrangement do you want to see? –
Pnm (
talk)
04:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Open source licenses to Category:Open source software licenses per nom. It's simply a question of clarity. - jc37 05:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:New Zealand Medical Association (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete no chance of expansion. There is not even a parent article. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 00:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Why do you say that there is no chance of expansion? There are quite a few articles in
Category:American Medical Association: journals, presidents, sub-offices. Shouldn't we expect a similar potential (on a smaller scale) for the NZMA?
Pichpich (
talk)
15:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- NZ is significantly smaller than the US. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 22:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I did a
search for "New Zealand Medical Association", and found
two3 more articles to add to the category, viz biogs of Presidents of the NZMA. However, that still only gives a total offour5 articles, which is not enough to justify a category. If and when the coverage of NZMA is expanded, then I would support re-creating the category, but it is not needed yet. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC) - Keep or up-merge to Category:Healthcare in New Zealand Stuartyeates ( talk) 19:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep With BHG's additions, I don't really know how one can argue for deletion, certainly not on the grounds that it's small and unlikely to grow. Five articles is not unreasonably small and there is potential for growth since one has to expect that at least some of the past presidents are notable.
Pichpich (
talk)
20:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I consider five articles to be small and I don't expect a lot of growth in this area. The parent article, when it is created can handle the contents of this category. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 22:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: be aware that this organisation was called the New Zealand Branch of the British Medical Association until at least the start of WWII.
Stuartyeates (
talk)
22:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Stuart, it looks like you know enough about it to write an article!!!-- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 22:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)- Ah, I see that there is now an article. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 22:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- Now populated enough to keep. I expect there are a few more biographies to be added. The article says that it only became indepenedent of BMA in 1967, but that does not matter. Articles about it as the NZ Branch of BMA could conveniently be included; I suspect that the addition of a list of presidents and other officers would mean that we would be able to populate it more. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This [1] url suggests that there are 30 biographies that belong in this category. There is a standing consensus that DNZB subjects are notable. Stuartyeates ( talk) 22:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I've now written the stub for the NZMA but I have no expertise whatsoever about the topic and I'm quite certain that it shows. Competent help would be more than welcome. Most importantly I was unable to find the precise dates surrounding the founding of the rival NZMA by Geiringer. Pichpich ( talk) 22:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep As currently populated, it doesn't look too small for me. (I do wish that WP:SMALLCAT had a firm number we all agreed upon though.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
| < January 22 | January 24 > |
|---|
- 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:Historic surveying landmarks in the United States in lieu of a 'no consensus' close. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Historic surveying landmarks (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another one from Target. While the sole article has many categories, if this is deleted, we may want to considering adding Category:Land surveying of the United States to that article. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep/rename As is often the case for a TfT category, he didn't bother to look for other examples. In this case there is a good handful. However, seeing as how these are all US cases, it would make sense to rename to Category:Historic surveying landmarks in the United States. Mangoe ( talk) 16:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep/Rename based strictly on Mangoe's efforts. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: merge. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Monocacy River to Category:Tributaries of the Potomac River
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. I don't see a benefit from having this category with only one article and subcategory. Maybe if the parent was overloaded, but it is not. A Target creation. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge Examination of Category:Tributaries of the Mississippi River shows that the tributaries of tributaries categories do not have intermediate river-name categories. Mangoe ( talk) 16:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf ( talk) 23:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Rename and create necessary additional categories. Timrollpickering ( talk) 16:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Allan Herschell Company roller coasters to Category:Roller coasters manufactured by Allan Herschell Company
- Nominator's rationale: Rename all to distinguish between rides at a particular location, rides operated by a particular company and rides manufactured by a particular company. There are cases where a company manufactures and operates rides (e.g. Category:Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation roller coasters and Category:Kings Island roller coasters). For the same reason (and also to maintain a standard), I have nominated related categories for water rides and amusement rides. Themeparkgc Talk 23:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: If this proposal is closed with the consensus to rename, changes to Template:Infobox roller coaster and Template:Infobox water ride will need to be performed. As I am familiar with these templates, I am happy to perform these changes. When the time comes, just leave a message on my talk page and I'll get onto it right away. Themeparkgc Talk 22:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Question
Category:Knoebels Amusement Resort roller coasters and
Category:Sea World water rides are both amusement park operators. Did you mean to propose putting these in the manufacturing categories (or are they both the operator and manufacturer)?
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- In the cases of
Category:Knoebels Amusement Resort roller coasters and
Category:Sea World water rides they contain articles about rides which were manufactured by the amusement park themselves. That is the exact reason I am proposing these renames - to remove that confusion between manufacturing and operating. Other examples of this include
Category:Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation roller coasters and
Category:Kings Island roller coasters (which were mentioned in the original nomination) as well as
Category:Warner Bros. Movie World water rides and
Category:Dreamworld water rides.
Themeparkgc
Talk
05:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, so the multiple hybrids that both manufacture a ride and operate it would go under a manufacturing cat but not an operating cat. How does that remove confusion between manufacturing and operating?
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- If these categories were renamed you would then be able to create Category:Roller coasters operated by Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation which would be distinct from Category:Roller coasters manufactured by Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation (the latter being the proposed result of moving Category:Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation roller coasters based upon its current contents). Hopefully this clarifies it. Themeparkgc Talk 09:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, so the multiple hybrids that both manufacture a ride and operate it would go under a manufacturing cat but not an operating cat. How does that remove confusion between manufacturing and operating?
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- In the cases of
Category:Knoebels Amusement Resort roller coasters and
Category:Sea World water rides they contain articles about rides which were manufactured by the amusement park themselves. That is the exact reason I am proposing these renames - to remove that confusion between manufacturing and operating. Other examples of this include
Category:Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation roller coasters and
Category:Kings Island roller coasters (which were mentioned in the original nomination) as well as
Category:Warner Bros. Movie World water rides and
Category:Dreamworld water rides.
Themeparkgc
Talk
05:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I find the manufacturer's names (Arrow Dynamics, Sally Corporation) to be pretty distinct from the operators (Six Flags, Universal Parks). But, if the company names are not clear to others, then separate categories might make sense. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:American Civil War sites in Kentucky to all parents
- Propose merging Category:American Civil War sites in Pennsylvania to all parents
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Parent is not so overloaded at this time to create small by state categories. Kentucky has only one article in it. Pennsylvania has a total of
5(4 since one was about a neighborhood named after a camp and the camp is in ample categories) articles using 3 categories where two of them are already nominated for deletion. WV seems to be a valid exception at this time since it has over 40 articles and folding that in might cause problems. This is part of the on going series of category creations that is being reviewed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf ( talk) 23:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: As of today, the Kentucky category has 14 members and the Pennsylvania category has 19 members. --
Black Falcon (
talk)
02:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is a Civil War museum in Kentucky a civil war site? How about a cemetery? I think some entries may have been added but the quality or appropriateness of them is suspect. Probably better to follow through with the merge, then cleanup and see what the best direction is. This gets back to the problem of site being ambiguous.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
03:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Checking the Category:American Civil War sites parent category, there are seperate subcategories for cemeraries, museums, battlefields, and the like. Wild Wolf ( talk) 04:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is a Civil War museum in Kentucky a civil war site? How about a cemetery? I think some entries may have been added but the quality or appropriateness of them is suspect. Probably better to follow through with the merge, then cleanup and see what the best direction is. This gets back to the problem of site being ambiguous.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
03:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Some of the recently added articles are definitely questionable, and I wouldn't doubt there's a connection between the IP ( 75.145.121.57) who added them and the category creator ( Target for Today, who was blocked.) in an attempt to save the categories. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 21:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Listify with Lashup Radar Network. Timrollpickering ( talk) 16:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Lashup Radar Network (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category with limited growth potential where navigation is better handled by the main article. This is especially true since some of these sites have had several names over their life. The main article appears to be using the names assigned at that point in history making that the most accurate way to provide the information. Category contents use the latest name assigned which is not always useful. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- unsure References claim 44 sites included in this rather impromptu network, so size isn't necessarily an issue. What is perhaps an issue is that most potential members of the category are articles on military bases where one of the radars in the network was located, apparently in some cases because the radar was already there, in others because there was already owned land available. Is this good enough reason to categorize all these base articles? Note that Category:SAGE sites presents essentially the same issues, except that it is (from what I can tell) fully populated. Mangoe ( talk) 19:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete/Listify within article: I think this would work best as a new section within the Lashup Radar Network article. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timrollpickering ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- 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, but remove Category:World War II prisoner of war camps. The discussion seems to hinge on whether "concentration camp" includes more than Axis prisoner camps. I'll take the narrow road and limit the contents of this category to subcategories that contain the words "concentration camps."-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:World War II concentration camps (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. A three entry category with limited growth potential. The category introduction states that the inclusion criteria is based on a concentrated area which is subjective. Also concentration camp means something rather specific as indicated by two of these categories but that meaning does not apply to POW camps in general. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- but tag it as a parent-only category. I am not sure whether POW camps were concentration camps in the technical sense, but that is a reason for looking for a better name, not one for deleting it.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- My understand is that concentration camps were for civilians and POW camps are for military. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep a useful category for bringing a number of similar 'topics' together. In the UK we had POW camps, and also
internment camps for alien civilians - see
Douglas, Isle of Man.
Twiceuponatime (
talk)
09:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- But interment camps and POW camps are not concentration camps! If there is going to be a parent category,
Category:World War II interment camps would seem to be a much better choice.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I think the guard's internment camp may be the prisoner's concentration camp. Both perspectives have POV issues. (That's not to say that Nazi treatment was equivalent to elsewhere.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as substantial content in the "Nazi" subcategory, and content does not belong in the WWII POW or Internment camp category
Hugo999 (
talk)
04:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment that seems to be an argument for 'camps by country'. My point above is that there were camps on both sides (allies and axis) and they need to be collected together somehow. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 09:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- But interment camps and POW camps are not concentration camps! If there is going to be a parent category,
Category:World War II interment camps would seem to be a much better choice.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Definition I am taking as my definition its original use in the
Boer War i.e. as a 'concentration' of civilians, which for WWII includes internment camps. Is it being used here in its holocaust use as 'extermination' camp? Possibly the headnote needs re-visiting before making a final decision???
Twiceuponatime (
talk)
09:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe. But for WWII, concentration means the death camps to most. So it is a politically loaded name that needs to be precisely applied. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. There should be more than three articles in the category, so it has the potential to be applied across many more relevant articles. Boneyard90 ( talk) 22:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as useful sub-cat of Category:Concentration camps and Category:World War II sites, tag as parent category, remove Category:World War II prisoner of war camps from it and instead use "see also" links to navigate from/to that one. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Texas towers (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category where navigation is better handled through the main article. Also the parent categories are problematic since two of the five were never built so how can then be consider closed? Of the remaining 3, they are listed in two different manners for removal from service. So it is better to classify these towers in the actual articles where they have ample categorization and it can be specific for each tower. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment -- I think the solution is to merge the articles on the individual towers into the main article. That will leave a one-article category, which can then be upmerged to an appropriate parent. However, I agree that the category is rather useless as a navigation aid.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are correct that if the articles were merged, there would be no need for this category. If someone wants to do that, I'm not going to object.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think a merge is reasonable. The individual articles don't have that big an overlap so the result would be a very long and potentially messy article. On the other hand, it would be trivial to create a navigation template. Pichpich ( talk) 23:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are correct that if the articles were merged, there would be no need for this category. If someone wants to do that, I'm not going to object.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I am at this time working on a merge of the articles, which would render this category irrelevant. The only single tower article with significant independent content is
Texas Tower 4, and its story will probably only take up half the parent article.
Mangoe (
talk)
16:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- The merge is complete and the category now contains the main article only. Mangoe ( talk) 05:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Wild Wolf ( talk) 03:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Anti-sharia law activists (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: POV category which presumes in Wikipedia's voice that the actions its members take are actually in opposition to the imposition of sharia law when they're just garden-variety anti-Muslim activists. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom's first two words. Fat&Happy ( talk) 21:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: I did not depopulate this category - it had one member, Pamela Geller, when I found it. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge somewhere -- The one article appears to be about a woman who opposes the Islamisation of America. I did not see whether she opposes the use of Sharia - the traditional Islamic law code - in Muslim countries or merely certain aspects of it whcih she (and many waesterners) consider offensive to the western (and UN) idea of human rights. Plain deletion is probably not right, but there is probably an appropiate category where the article should be. I do not consider it to be a POV category, merely an overspecific one.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge what? This discussion is about the
category.
Johnuniq (
talk)
23:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- He's probably talking about merging the contents of the category.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Peterkingiron, the one article is currently also in Category:Opposition to Islam in North America which is where I would have merged it. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- He's probably talking about merging the contents of the category.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge what? This discussion is about the
category.
Johnuniq (
talk)
23:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Non-encyclopedic POV. Opposing a particular legal framework does not warrant an "anti-X activist" label. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete POV Pushing. FTR I depopulated most of the entries.
Arzel (
talk)
14:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a good idea. It's better to leave the categories populated during a CFD discussion so that people can see what they're !voting to delete or keep. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
18:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- At least two articles ( Herman Cain and Peter T. King) were removed before you listed the category here; neither's designation as an "activist" on the topic seems well-supported in the articles. Another, Pamela Geller, was deleted more recently; that inclusion could be seen as an example in support of the original argument for deletion. There may have been others, but if they were as well-monitored as the three I know of, it's likely that at least some preceded the nomination at CFD. Fat&Happy ( talk) 19:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a good idea. It's better to leave the categories populated during a CFD discussion so that people can see what they're !voting to delete or keep. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
18:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- It was only added to three BLP articles by the creator User:Pass_a Method (who seems to have some editing issues, lack of discussion , WP:POV and wp:competence)- the two mentioned and Rick Santorum and User:Binksternet added it to Geller shortly after noticing its creation. Geller seems like the most reasonable of the four additions, but the cat seems a bit narrowly defining to me. You really can 20:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as a WP:SMALLCAT. Others have taken time to research to show POV issues but I don't think we need to look that far. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as a WP:SMALLCAT. I see a "Separation of Church and State" category and an "Church-state separation advocacy organizations" subcategory but I don't see "Separation of Church and State Advocates" for individual people. I would think anti-Sharia would be a subcategory of "Separation of Church and State" (note: "Separation of Mosque and State" redirects to "Separation of Church and State"). Perhaps there should be an anti-Sharia subgroup at some point as the topic grows and one needs to track down all involved in the controversy. Jason from nyc ( talk) 17:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Authors of books on hyperreals (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete It's a better idea to cover this through a list. One advantage of a list is that it can actually give a list of books and not just a list of authors. A big problem with the present category is that there's no meaningful way of deciding what constitutes a book on hyperreals or on non-standard analysis. Does it have to be the single subject? Is a chapter ok? Two chapters? Is a 50-page journal paper as good as a 150-page book? The term
non-standard analysis is much broader than the
hyperreals term used in the category title. Moreover, the category isn't based on a defining feature of its members. In the case of mathematicians I already knew about (Martin Davis, Terry Tao, Reuben Hersh), their work on non-standard analysis is not a major part of their achievements or their fame.
Pichpich (
talk)
19:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- The thrust of your comment seems to be to rename the category rather than delete it. "Hyperreal" happens to be shorter than "non-standard analysis". Two of the main references, by Keisler and Goldblatt, do not use "non-standard" in the title. I am not sure why a book would have to be "a major part of their achievements". Why can't one talk about non-major achievements, as well?
Tkuvho (
talk)
14:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- What I mean is that categories are supposed to be reserved for defining characteristics of a subject. I don't think authorship of a book on hyperreals is defining and I think this is particularly obvious in the case of Terry Tao for instance. For a focus on non-standard analysis, it would make a lot more sense to create a subcategory of Category:Mathematical analysts since it's awkward to separate the people who write the papers from the people who write the textbooks. Pichpich ( talk) 21:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- The thrust of your comment seems to be to rename the category rather than delete it. "Hyperreal" happens to be shorter than "non-standard analysis". Two of the main references, by Keisler and Goldblatt, do not use "non-standard" in the title. I am not sure why a book would have to be "a major part of their achievements". Why can't one talk about non-major achievements, as well?
Tkuvho (
talk)
14:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. The subcategories of Category:Writers by genre and Category:Writers by non-fiction subject area are ideally left appropriately broad; I think this is a little too specific to be considered a genre that we classify writers by. Possibly merge to Category:Mathematics writers? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "mathematics writers" is much too broad a category. Objection about Tao sustained; I will remove him from the list. Tkuvho ( talk) 07:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand the category "mathematics writers". I left a comment at the talkpage there. Is this supposed to be "popularizers of mathematics"? Then it's rather orthogonal to the category under discussion here. Tkuvho ( talk) 09:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I can not imagine to whom this category could be useful. Anybody who want to learn on the subject or on the researchers implied in it will get much more useful information in hyperreal numbers and non standard analysis, including the list on the main books on the subject (at least he should). If this category is kept, we should have a Category: Authors of books on ... for every sub area of mathematics. This will need an amount of effort which would better applied to improve the pages in mathematics by inserting book references when there are lacking or incomplete. D.Lazard ( talk) 11:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is a difference between the hyperreals and many other "sub areas of mathematics". One of the strengths of the hyperreals is their versatility. Anderson applied them in economics, Albeverio in physics, Keisler in education, Davis in functional analysis, Robinson in algebra, etc. It would be nice to have a page discussing all these applications but for now we have no such page. In the meantime, having a list of authors who wrote a book about hyperreals is a minimal indication of the range of possibilities. Tkuvho ( talk) 12:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: delete. (This would be a speedy merge if it had any contents.)-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Bates College Alumni (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete because it's unnecessary. Nobody accidentally places alumni in this category anymore because the standard of keeping it lower case has been around for so long that everyone knows it by now. Also, this category was created in February 2006, when Wikipedia was at its exploratory stage. Now this soft-redirect category is unnecessary. Jrcla2 ( talk) 19:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Now that WP:HOTCAT is so widely used for categorisation, I see no need for a redirect based solely on an obvious miscapitalisation. (In a situation where the capitalisation is non-obvious, I would support keeping the redirect to assist those luddites who do not use HOTCAT). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per BHG's logic. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: (up)merge to Category:Digimon – deletion would leave the sole member uncategorized. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:DigiDestined (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: A category which, until a few seconds ago, contained only one article. That one article has been recategorised- this category serves no purpose. Most constituent articles have been merged or deleted as appropriate. J Milburn ( talk) 18:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment.
Please do not base a nomination on a false statement. The article was not "recategorised", because that therm clearly implies that it was placed in another categ instead. In fact what you did was to simply remove the head article from the category (in this edit), thereby emptying it. Please goive yourself a good whacking with a wet trout. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)- Please look at that edit again, and then kindly redirect that trout at your own face... As you will see, I removed a category (as well as malformed interwiki) and added a new category. If that is not recategorisation, I don't know what is...
J Milburn (
talk)
19:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry! Grovelling apologies for being so snotty when I hadn't checked properly. Have ordered a big box of trout with which to beat myself about the face. --20:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please look at that edit again, and then kindly redirect that trout at your own face... As you will see, I removed a category (as well as malformed interwiki) and added a new category. If that is not recategorisation, I don't know what is...
J Milburn (
talk)
19:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:SMALLCAT-- Lenticel ( talk) 01:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: delete, noting that the category is already empty. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Chosen Digimon (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Another left-over Digimon-cruft category. Only one article remains, and it will no doubt soon be deleted. These subjects just aren't notable. J Milburn ( talk) 18:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Digimon, since there is still one article left in it. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:SMALLCAT-- Lenticel ( talk) 01:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Humans in Digimon (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: A category containing two redirects. None of the characters that would otherwise be a part of this category are notable- all the articles have been deleted or merged elsewhere. J Milburn ( talk) 18:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. A category consisting solely of redirects is of little help in navigation, becsuse it never appears at the bottom of an article. When the articles have all been deleted or merged, we can assume that the topic probably has little notability or chance of expansion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously a delete. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:SMALLCAT-- Lenticel ( talk) 01:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: keep. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:People educated at Ysgol Uwchradd Bodedern (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category, only one entry AussieLegend ( talk) 15:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SMALLCAT, which allows for categories small categories when they are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, in this case Category:People educated by school in Wales. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- This is the alumni category for a Welsh-medium high school. We treat all high schools as notable, and this allow alumni categories for them. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as part of an accepted larger scheme but for what it's worth, I think categorizing people by high-school is a mistake. Pichpich ( talk) 23:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Speedy delete per G7 (author request) VegaDark ( talk) 22:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Images by Before My Ken (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Images by Beyond My Ken (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete There's plenty of precedent against categories of images by uploader. The contributions list can play the same role and is a dynamic list.
Pichpich (
talk)
15:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the precedent cited, can you post some pointers to previous discussions? Thanks.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
21:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, never mind, that's just me being pedantic; the fact that I couldn't find any other "Images by" categories organized by editor is enough to convince me. Given the very small number of images involved, going thorugh the motions here just seems like an unnecessary hassle, so I've de-populated the categories and tagged them both for speedy deletion as the "author". I hope that will close this out. Best, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the precedent cited, can you post some pointers to previous discussions? Thanks.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
21:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Upmerge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Deceased internet personalities (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. In categories, we do not combine the statuses of occupation and living/dead status, as does this category. For examples of these types of categories that have been deleted see here, with the most common one for some reason being "dead professional wrestlers". Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge to
Category:Internet personalities. (A straight delete takes
Ben Breedlove out of Category:Internet personalities altogether.)
Oculi (
talk)
10:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've added Category:American Internet personalities to Ben Breedlove. They should probably be put in the nationality-specific categories rather than just placing them in the general Category:Internet personalities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Pichpich ( talk) 15:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Internet personalities per Oculi. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering ( talk) 14:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:User py-5 to Category:User python-5
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. All the related categories use "python", not "py" - see Category:User python and its other subcats. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Rename/Speedy rename - Seems uncontroversial. VegaDark ( talk) 08:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Jennifer Lopez films (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Classic performer by performance overcategorization. We do not categorize films by the actors who appear in them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per the wave of previous categories that have gone this way. Or maybe keep, so I know which films these are so I don't accidently watch one by mistake... Lugnuts ( talk) 07:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per clear precedent. Pichpich ( talk) 15:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OC#PERF and countless precedents. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete 198.252.15.202 ( talk) 19:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 16:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Open source licenses to Category:Open source software licenses
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Open source has come to refer to a number of things besides software, so it would be helpful to clarify that this category is for software licenses, and that other open source licenses belong in the parent Category:Open content licenses. Pnm ( talk) 00:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep
Open source software is clearly the dominant use of the term and at least half the links on
Open source (disambiguation) have been strongly influenced by the software movement. Open source licences are not a sub-category of open content licences because the content in open content is there to distinguish them from the earlier open sources licences which were found not a good fit for content (see the
GNU Free Documentation License for attempt at this).
Stuartyeates (
talk)
00:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Open content was influenced by open source – but that's exactly the problem with the current title. It suggests the category could contain licenses for both software and content. If you don't want to have open source licenses as a subcategory of open content licenses (as they are currently arranged) what arrangement do you want to see? –
Pnm (
talk)
04:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe use
Category:Reusable intellectual property licenses as a descriptive umbrella category for both?
Stuartyeates (
talk)
21:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)`
- Fine, but it doesn't solve the problem of this category being only for software licenses, and that not being apparent from the title. – Pnm ( talk) 20:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe use
Category:Reusable intellectual property licenses as a descriptive umbrella category for both?
Stuartyeates (
talk)
21:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)`
- Open content was influenced by open source – but that's exactly the problem with the current title. It suggests the category could contain licenses for both software and content. If you don't want to have open source licenses as a subcategory of open content licenses (as they are currently arranged) what arrangement do you want to see? –
Pnm (
talk)
04:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Open source licenses to Category:Open source software licenses per nom. It's simply a question of clarity. - jc37 05:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- 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 result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:New Zealand Medical Association (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete no chance of expansion. There is not even a parent article. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 00:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Why do you say that there is no chance of expansion? There are quite a few articles in
Category:American Medical Association: journals, presidents, sub-offices. Shouldn't we expect a similar potential (on a smaller scale) for the NZMA?
Pichpich (
talk)
15:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- NZ is significantly smaller than the US. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 22:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I did a
search for "New Zealand Medical Association", and found
two3 more articles to add to the category, viz biogs of Presidents of the NZMA. However, that still only gives a total offour5 articles, which is not enough to justify a category. If and when the coverage of NZMA is expanded, then I would support re-creating the category, but it is not needed yet. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC) - Keep or up-merge to Category:Healthcare in New Zealand Stuartyeates ( talk) 19:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep With BHG's additions, I don't really know how one can argue for deletion, certainly not on the grounds that it's small and unlikely to grow. Five articles is not unreasonably small and there is potential for growth since one has to expect that at least some of the past presidents are notable.
Pichpich (
talk)
20:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I consider five articles to be small and I don't expect a lot of growth in this area. The parent article, when it is created can handle the contents of this category. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 22:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: be aware that this organisation was called the New Zealand Branch of the British Medical Association until at least the start of WWII.
Stuartyeates (
talk)
22:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Stuart, it looks like you know enough about it to write an article!!!-- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 22:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)- Ah, I see that there is now an article. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 22:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- Now populated enough to keep. I expect there are a few more biographies to be added. The article says that it only became indepenedent of BMA in 1967, but that does not matter. Articles about it as the NZ Branch of BMA could conveniently be included; I suspect that the addition of a list of presidents and other officers would mean that we would be able to populate it more. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This [1] url suggests that there are 30 biographies that belong in this category. There is a standing consensus that DNZB subjects are notable. Stuartyeates ( talk) 22:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I've now written the stub for the NZMA but I have no expertise whatsoever about the topic and I'm quite certain that it shows. Competent help would be more than welcome. Most importantly I was unable to find the precise dates surrounding the founding of the rival NZMA by Geiringer. Pichpich ( talk) 22:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep As currently populated, it doesn't look too small for me. (I do wish that WP:SMALLCAT had a firm number we all agreed upon though.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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.