Category:Norwegian heavy metal musical groups by genre
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. These two categories appears to constitute a redundant intermediate level which would have made some sense if they were part of a global scheme, but that seems not to be the case. It looks to me as there would be no negative consequences of simply removing these category and allow all their members to go directly into their one parent,
Category:Norwegian heavy metal musical groups/
Category:Swedish heavy metal musical groups. __
meco (
talk)
15:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. I have just learned about the existence of another three categories,
My principal contention remains, however, that this level seems unneeded and that removing it would not cause the categories which would be the upmerge targets to become crowded or difficult to assess or otherwise deal with. __
meco (
talk)
19:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)reply
keep these are well developed category trees running into several 100 articles. It seems this is a working set of categories, even if they are only applied within a few nationalities.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
I have no objection to this expansion, leaving out America (United States). It would be feasible to also include this category as there exists an adequate solution for that particular situation where there exists two axes of sub-categorization: by genre and by state. That alternative solution would entail giving all state-categorized sub-categories a sort key of the state name preceded by an asterisk (e.g. |*Nevada). That would not be awkward in my opinion. __
meco (
talk)
08:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Chemistry prefixes
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment No, there are no rules. In this case, I do not see how using "chemistry prefixes" instead of "prefixes used in chemistry" or "prefixes in chemistry" is avoiding ambiguity? (Although i can see how my suggestion is not improving it.) Maybe the category could be less ambiguous by renaming it to
Category:Chemical prefixes?
Brad7777 (
talk)
08:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose new proposal per Choster. I see no reason to expand scope of the category beyond the field of chemistry, to allow street-drug prefixes into the category, or marketing chemical prefixes.
70.49.127.65 (
talk)
05:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment/question I thought all chemicals were studied in chemistry. + I'm not sure what the problem is increasing the scope beyond the field of chemistry. I guess it is possibly because all the current prefixes are specifically relevant to organic chemistry? In which case, would
Category:Prefixes of organic compounds be prefered?
Brad7777 (
talk)
08:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Chemistry suffixes
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Cthulhoid
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: "Cthulhoid" is not a word, its meaning is not apparent, and the category offers no definition. A Google search shows no useful results; the fact that the category itself is one of the first of them demonstrates just how esoteric and unhelpful the term is. Judging by its contents, which range from
Zoidberg to
Davy Jones (Pirates of the Caribbean), "Cthulhoid" seems to mean "things with tentacles on their faces", which is hardly a classification of any encyclopedic value. —
Flax517:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment it might be better to make a category for tentacle monsters instead (thus you can include Krakens, and various Japanese fictional monsters) --
76.65.131.160 (
talk)
03:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete A list of this thing works much better than a category. This actually applies to lots of fictional-character traits in part because many of the articles are going to be redirects to articles about shows featuring the character. The other problem is that at times these categories end up having lots of articles that are about shows named after characters who have the trait, not the characters themselves. Lists are just better for this stuff, and categories do not do well.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by illegal baggage
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. Only 1 entry and its a unreferenced one. No where in the media reports does it say carrying a crocodile in your baggage is illegal.
...William16:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Overloading has been a cause of airline crashes.
Viasa Flight 742 being probably the most infamous.
Trans Service Airlift Lockheed L-188 crash, where the aircraft had approximately 40 more people on board than is normal, also being noteworthy. But the category is worded 'illegal baggage'. BTW the Mandala article's reference makes no mention of a governor saying overloading was the cause of the crash. I just removed the section for that and other reasons. Back to the category, SMALLCAT still applies. This is not a category that's going to fill up, even if the crash in question fits it. There is no information at this time that says it does.
...William15:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)reply
For the record: no, the governor did not say anything after the Mandala flight; he was dead. I partly reinstated the section and moved the citations inline. Not that it matters for this CfD. –
FayenaticLondon17:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete - I am in agreement with the nom. "Illegal baggage" is never a cause of any accident or incident; the cause is always something else: overloading, an explosive stored in baggage, greed (smuggling) mixed with stupidity (an improperly secured crocodile in a duffel bag (seriously?) in an enclosed space thousands of feet above the ground). The fact is that nothing fits here naturally: the role and presence of the crocodile in the 2010 Filair crash is unconfirmed and classifying an airline bombing as a baggage violation is like classifying a suicide car bombings as a traffic violation—technically correct, perhaps, but irrelevant. -- Black Falcon(
talk)16:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Female racing drivers by series
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: These are
trivial triple-intersections of gender, occupation and series. Although the parent category is justified by the fact that female racing drivers appears to be a topic of cultural interest, the same cannot be said of these categories as
gender has no specific relation to any racing series.
Category:Female racing drivers is not so large (~100 articles) as to urgently need subdivision; if or when such subdivision takes place, nationality would be a much more natural and useful (in terms of our category structure) line of division than series. -- Black Falcon(
talk)16:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
It was mainly because of the list that I suggested the dual upmerge. Now that it's been moved, however, you're absolutely correct that it should not be upmerged to that parent. -- Black Falcon(
talk)03:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge triple intersects like this are discoraged. We do not need a female equivalency for every possible category, but some days it seems like we are headed that way.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Alumni of the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Newly created category is redundant, and probably misnamed (according to fraternity's WP article and common practice, initiates are considered members for life).
Fat&Happy (
talk)
15:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Don't merge. Merging into Pi Kappa Alpha does not make sense as the pages in the category themselves do not have any thing to do with the fraternity. Its similar to being an alumni of a university. But this is my take based on logic, not conventional wiki rules on greek societies.
180.234.83.85 (
talk)
15:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete – consensus has been against these in the past (per choster). The names are also unintelligible in much of the world (just as bad as 'Old Boodlefoodleians').
Oculi (
talk)
23:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
People by categorization, pre-1XX0 birth stubs
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. Every article of this type should have a year category. Since there is no agreement on what that category should be, and no consensus to delete, these stay for now.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
16:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)reply
The question of which decades have enough stubs for their own categories is, in my opinion, too fluid to keep renaming these categories all the time.
Frequently, these categories end up being too small and being upmerged anyway; I see no reason to keep a few of these arouind.
Decades in the middle, or even recent decades, may end up requiring upmerging; I see no reason why being "old enough" is a justification for havin g a category.
Some times there are cases where the year of birth is definitely earlier than the specified year, but is unknown; such people would end up in the parent category, not here.
Keep‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Australian rules biography, pre-1880 birth stubs - I'm not going to comment on the other sports, but the Australian rules stub cat is very nicely balanced, with 125 articles in the pre-1880 cat, which matches the size of most of the other pre-1970s cats, so your point 2 doesn't apply. There are no "middle decades" missed, so point 3 is moot too. The advantage of NOT upmerging is that the
Category:Australian rules biography stubs is left with only people that we DON'T know the DOB of. It's a very useful distinction (I've just noticed a bunch of umpires in the parent stub cat, checked a recent season guide book, and their DOBs are all there).
The-Pope (
talk)
14:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Actually, in the Australian rules category, 104 have the 1870s tag, which leaves 18 stubs for the pre-1870 - an excelent example of point 2. And
Dave Boyd, an active player in 1870, would need to be in a pre-1870 category, if we had one, as he was an active player in 1870 - an example for #3.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu16:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Actually, Dave Boyd played in the 1940's and 1950's, so was probably born in the 1920's. But your point stands in that AFL stubs are lacking a tag which directly adds to the pre-18X0 category. The reason I like having the category is first to keep unknown birth year separate, and secondly because it does refer to the era of the sport's development (1859-1880 or so). --
Qetuth (
talk)
06:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)reply
I still think that having by all articles with known birth dates in by decade or pre-decade stub cats, and only unknown birthdates in the parent stub cat is useful, and unlike AFDs, it's useful should count here. If you want to extend it by one decade to pre-1870s that's about the limit of most known football history. We are unlikely to bring the numbers down dramatically in the near future, as we still have over 6000 known notable players left to create.
The-Pope (
talk)
16:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge specif time frame birth stubs work, but pre-x birth stubs just seem too much like the heavily discoraged tendancy to seperate out things in the present.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Not really sure what you mean by "heavily discoraged tendancy to seperate out things in the present" but again, for Australian rules football only, the game was only invented in the last 1850s, with leagues not established until the 1880s, so there aren't that many notable people born prior to 1880. It is a stub cat that works for us.
The-Pope (
talk)
11:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Women's history stubs
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.
Unproposed and badly formed template, and with the estimation of capturing 4,000 articles. I'm not particularly opposed to splitting along the line of women's history, but a category which holds 4,000 articles isn't useful. A request was filed at
Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot for Women.27s History project stubs to tag all articles within ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Stub-Class Women's History articles - perhaps a misunderstanding of the different uses of the two systems. What to do is not obvious. If there can be appropriate splits found, then I'd be happy with keeping this template and category as a parent with cub categories below. If we are to keep this template, then at least it needs to be renamed to {{womens-hist-stub}}. If there are no apparent splits, then I don't think this type is useful beyond the already existing splits by nationality and profession.
SeveroTC15:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)reply
As the person who created this stub template, I don't have a problem with whatever you do to correct this. All aspects of this, including my bot request, have been a misunderstanding. But I want you to know, I didn't just wake up one day and decide to go off and create all these things. I was pointed that direction by some very well-meaning editors who thought they were helping.
My original intent was to set up a Tedder bot to daily generate a list of new articles created for
WikiProject Women's History. That's how this began, but it was difficult to get any information on how to do this. Tedder can't set up a bot without search terms, etc. etc. And so I began searching for someone to get this done, mostly not finding answers or even replies.
I had been advised by an experienced editor to create such a stub, as a way to find new articles for a Tedder bot for WikiProject Women's History. I was completely unaware that stub templates needed to be proposed and approved. I had also been advised to run an AWB after the template was created. I don't deal with AWB, so I input a bot request.
The creation of the category was proposed by
another editor who said this could correct it. Two different editors telling me two different things that both felt would have been correct. Finger pointing after the horse ran out of the barn isn't the answer. All I wanted - really - was somebody to set up an automated daily Tedder bot so that project could see a daily list of new articles created. My intent, like theirs, was to do something good for that project. This has taken on a life of its own, but we need to get all this corrected, as cleanly and quickly as possible.
Maile66 (
talk)
11:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rajasthan (Indian Premier League) cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Punjab (Indian Premier League) cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Pune cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Mumbai (Indian Premier League) cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kolkata cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Delhi (Indian Premier League) cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Chennai cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Bangalore cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kochi cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Objects by status
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.
Upmerge as an unneccesary level of categorization. I think this may be an artifact of the old system that made it more difficult to find sub-cats when a category also had a significant number of articles directly in it.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Objects by topic
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Topic seems more vague. its parent cat, Categories by topic, holds categories with many different naming structures. Some of these are, or may also, belong in
Category:Physical objects (I added some categories before writing this suggestion, but i dont think i removed any categories, which is not kosher)
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
06:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Rather a weird category. Should be named "Objects by type" rather than "Types of objects" I think, though the sub-cats contain both articles on types and articles on individual objects.
Johnbod (
talk)
11:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Film redirects
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:do not delete for now. This is so close to the other category that confusion will arise, but Mirokado seems to have a plan, so that can be put into place. If this is empty after that, it can be speedily deleted.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
16:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)reply
oppose merging, support tidy up and delete, details follow:
Redirects from films is populated by {{
R from film}} and has a clear definition of scope: title of film to a more general article. Film redirects is populated by adding [[Category:Film redirects]]. It has (currently) no documentation but is clearly being used to indicate redirects to an article about the same film-related subject (film, festival etc) under a different title, which can be, for example:
to a different language, Kopernik (film) --> Copernicus (film).
to an alternative punctuation or similar, Farewell My Queen --> Farewell, My Queen.
to an alternative released title, House of Pleasures --> House of Tolerance.
and various combinations of the above (to different language with disambiguator etc)
We can probably find suitable generic R from/to templates for each of these cases and should add them anyway (they are missing on the redirects I have checked). That will I think need to be done by hand, preferably before the category is zapped. I am happy to help.
It is of course desirable for WikiProject Film to be able to identify all "its" redirects which fulfil these purposes. The way do that is probably to add {{
WikiProject Film|class=redirect}} to each redirect talk page so we can do multi-category searches (roll on a better user interface for those...). A bot can do that while dealing with the category. We probably don't want too great a proliferation of specialised administrative categories per-project so as long as we can retain the distinction as I suggest or otherwise I would support deleting this category.
I think it would blur the contents of Redirects from films to add these redirects to it, so I would not support that. --
Mirokado (
talk)
07:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
update I have now added an R-* template to each member of this category, along with a few other improvements, so the way is clear for the purely mechanical changes. --
Mirokado (
talk)
19:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Brethren denominations
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment -- I think this needs to be split so that each of the groups in
Brethren has a separate category. These might have the present category, as an ultiamte parent, despite being unrelated. The problem is more with the North American sub-cat, which is getting in the way of creating a rational tree, based on theological views.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete there are also Methodist and other groups that use brethren in their name. There is no clear group that can be easily designated as "brethren denominations" and the current name will tend to link unlike things. There are better names for everything involved, so we should just delete this category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Norwegian heavy metal musical groups by genre
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. These two categories appears to constitute a redundant intermediate level which would have made some sense if they were part of a global scheme, but that seems not to be the case. It looks to me as there would be no negative consequences of simply removing these category and allow all their members to go directly into their one parent,
Category:Norwegian heavy metal musical groups/
Category:Swedish heavy metal musical groups. __
meco (
talk)
15:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. I have just learned about the existence of another three categories,
My principal contention remains, however, that this level seems unneeded and that removing it would not cause the categories which would be the upmerge targets to become crowded or difficult to assess or otherwise deal with. __
meco (
talk)
19:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)reply
keep these are well developed category trees running into several 100 articles. It seems this is a working set of categories, even if they are only applied within a few nationalities.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
I have no objection to this expansion, leaving out America (United States). It would be feasible to also include this category as there exists an adequate solution for that particular situation where there exists two axes of sub-categorization: by genre and by state. That alternative solution would entail giving all state-categorized sub-categories a sort key of the state name preceded by an asterisk (e.g. |*Nevada). That would not be awkward in my opinion. __
meco (
talk)
08:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Chemistry prefixes
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment No, there are no rules. In this case, I do not see how using "chemistry prefixes" instead of "prefixes used in chemistry" or "prefixes in chemistry" is avoiding ambiguity? (Although i can see how my suggestion is not improving it.) Maybe the category could be less ambiguous by renaming it to
Category:Chemical prefixes?
Brad7777 (
talk)
08:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose new proposal per Choster. I see no reason to expand scope of the category beyond the field of chemistry, to allow street-drug prefixes into the category, or marketing chemical prefixes.
70.49.127.65 (
talk)
05:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment/question I thought all chemicals were studied in chemistry. + I'm not sure what the problem is increasing the scope beyond the field of chemistry. I guess it is possibly because all the current prefixes are specifically relevant to organic chemistry? In which case, would
Category:Prefixes of organic compounds be prefered?
Brad7777 (
talk)
08:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Chemistry suffixes
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Cthulhoid
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: "Cthulhoid" is not a word, its meaning is not apparent, and the category offers no definition. A Google search shows no useful results; the fact that the category itself is one of the first of them demonstrates just how esoteric and unhelpful the term is. Judging by its contents, which range from
Zoidberg to
Davy Jones (Pirates of the Caribbean), "Cthulhoid" seems to mean "things with tentacles on their faces", which is hardly a classification of any encyclopedic value. —
Flax517:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment it might be better to make a category for tentacle monsters instead (thus you can include Krakens, and various Japanese fictional monsters) --
76.65.131.160 (
talk)
03:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete A list of this thing works much better than a category. This actually applies to lots of fictional-character traits in part because many of the articles are going to be redirects to articles about shows featuring the character. The other problem is that at times these categories end up having lots of articles that are about shows named after characters who have the trait, not the characters themselves. Lists are just better for this stuff, and categories do not do well.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by illegal baggage
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. Only 1 entry and its a unreferenced one. No where in the media reports does it say carrying a crocodile in your baggage is illegal.
...William16:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Overloading has been a cause of airline crashes.
Viasa Flight 742 being probably the most infamous.
Trans Service Airlift Lockheed L-188 crash, where the aircraft had approximately 40 more people on board than is normal, also being noteworthy. But the category is worded 'illegal baggage'. BTW the Mandala article's reference makes no mention of a governor saying overloading was the cause of the crash. I just removed the section for that and other reasons. Back to the category, SMALLCAT still applies. This is not a category that's going to fill up, even if the crash in question fits it. There is no information at this time that says it does.
...William15:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)reply
For the record: no, the governor did not say anything after the Mandala flight; he was dead. I partly reinstated the section and moved the citations inline. Not that it matters for this CfD. –
FayenaticLondon17:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete - I am in agreement with the nom. "Illegal baggage" is never a cause of any accident or incident; the cause is always something else: overloading, an explosive stored in baggage, greed (smuggling) mixed with stupidity (an improperly secured crocodile in a duffel bag (seriously?) in an enclosed space thousands of feet above the ground). The fact is that nothing fits here naturally: the role and presence of the crocodile in the 2010 Filair crash is unconfirmed and classifying an airline bombing as a baggage violation is like classifying a suicide car bombings as a traffic violation—technically correct, perhaps, but irrelevant. -- Black Falcon(
talk)16:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Female racing drivers by series
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: These are
trivial triple-intersections of gender, occupation and series. Although the parent category is justified by the fact that female racing drivers appears to be a topic of cultural interest, the same cannot be said of these categories as
gender has no specific relation to any racing series.
Category:Female racing drivers is not so large (~100 articles) as to urgently need subdivision; if or when such subdivision takes place, nationality would be a much more natural and useful (in terms of our category structure) line of division than series. -- Black Falcon(
talk)16:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
It was mainly because of the list that I suggested the dual upmerge. Now that it's been moved, however, you're absolutely correct that it should not be upmerged to that parent. -- Black Falcon(
talk)03:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge triple intersects like this are discoraged. We do not need a female equivalency for every possible category, but some days it seems like we are headed that way.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Alumni of the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Newly created category is redundant, and probably misnamed (according to fraternity's WP article and common practice, initiates are considered members for life).
Fat&Happy (
talk)
15:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Don't merge. Merging into Pi Kappa Alpha does not make sense as the pages in the category themselves do not have any thing to do with the fraternity. Its similar to being an alumni of a university. But this is my take based on logic, not conventional wiki rules on greek societies.
180.234.83.85 (
talk)
15:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete – consensus has been against these in the past (per choster). The names are also unintelligible in much of the world (just as bad as 'Old Boodlefoodleians').
Oculi (
talk)
23:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
People by categorization, pre-1XX0 birth stubs
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. Every article of this type should have a year category. Since there is no agreement on what that category should be, and no consensus to delete, these stay for now.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
16:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)reply
The question of which decades have enough stubs for their own categories is, in my opinion, too fluid to keep renaming these categories all the time.
Frequently, these categories end up being too small and being upmerged anyway; I see no reason to keep a few of these arouind.
Decades in the middle, or even recent decades, may end up requiring upmerging; I see no reason why being "old enough" is a justification for havin g a category.
Some times there are cases where the year of birth is definitely earlier than the specified year, but is unknown; such people would end up in the parent category, not here.
Keep‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Australian rules biography, pre-1880 birth stubs - I'm not going to comment on the other sports, but the Australian rules stub cat is very nicely balanced, with 125 articles in the pre-1880 cat, which matches the size of most of the other pre-1970s cats, so your point 2 doesn't apply. There are no "middle decades" missed, so point 3 is moot too. The advantage of NOT upmerging is that the
Category:Australian rules biography stubs is left with only people that we DON'T know the DOB of. It's a very useful distinction (I've just noticed a bunch of umpires in the parent stub cat, checked a recent season guide book, and their DOBs are all there).
The-Pope (
talk)
14:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Actually, in the Australian rules category, 104 have the 1870s tag, which leaves 18 stubs for the pre-1870 - an excelent example of point 2. And
Dave Boyd, an active player in 1870, would need to be in a pre-1870 category, if we had one, as he was an active player in 1870 - an example for #3.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu16:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Actually, Dave Boyd played in the 1940's and 1950's, so was probably born in the 1920's. But your point stands in that AFL stubs are lacking a tag which directly adds to the pre-18X0 category. The reason I like having the category is first to keep unknown birth year separate, and secondly because it does refer to the era of the sport's development (1859-1880 or so). --
Qetuth (
talk)
06:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)reply
I still think that having by all articles with known birth dates in by decade or pre-decade stub cats, and only unknown birthdates in the parent stub cat is useful, and unlike AFDs, it's useful should count here. If you want to extend it by one decade to pre-1870s that's about the limit of most known football history. We are unlikely to bring the numbers down dramatically in the near future, as we still have over 6000 known notable players left to create.
The-Pope (
talk)
16:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge specif time frame birth stubs work, but pre-x birth stubs just seem too much like the heavily discoraged tendancy to seperate out things in the present.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Not really sure what you mean by "heavily discoraged tendancy to seperate out things in the present" but again, for Australian rules football only, the game was only invented in the last 1850s, with leagues not established until the 1880s, so there aren't that many notable people born prior to 1880. It is a stub cat that works for us.
The-Pope (
talk)
11:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Women's history stubs
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.
Unproposed and badly formed template, and with the estimation of capturing 4,000 articles. I'm not particularly opposed to splitting along the line of women's history, but a category which holds 4,000 articles isn't useful. A request was filed at
Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot for Women.27s History project stubs to tag all articles within ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Stub-Class Women's History articles - perhaps a misunderstanding of the different uses of the two systems. What to do is not obvious. If there can be appropriate splits found, then I'd be happy with keeping this template and category as a parent with cub categories below. If we are to keep this template, then at least it needs to be renamed to {{womens-hist-stub}}. If there are no apparent splits, then I don't think this type is useful beyond the already existing splits by nationality and profession.
SeveroTC15:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)reply
As the person who created this stub template, I don't have a problem with whatever you do to correct this. All aspects of this, including my bot request, have been a misunderstanding. But I want you to know, I didn't just wake up one day and decide to go off and create all these things. I was pointed that direction by some very well-meaning editors who thought they were helping.
My original intent was to set up a Tedder bot to daily generate a list of new articles created for
WikiProject Women's History. That's how this began, but it was difficult to get any information on how to do this. Tedder can't set up a bot without search terms, etc. etc. And so I began searching for someone to get this done, mostly not finding answers or even replies.
I had been advised by an experienced editor to create such a stub, as a way to find new articles for a Tedder bot for WikiProject Women's History. I was completely unaware that stub templates needed to be proposed and approved. I had also been advised to run an AWB after the template was created. I don't deal with AWB, so I input a bot request.
The creation of the category was proposed by
another editor who said this could correct it. Two different editors telling me two different things that both felt would have been correct. Finger pointing after the horse ran out of the barn isn't the answer. All I wanted - really - was somebody to set up an automated daily Tedder bot so that project could see a daily list of new articles created. My intent, like theirs, was to do something good for that project. This has taken on a life of its own, but we need to get all this corrected, as cleanly and quickly as possible.
Maile66 (
talk)
11:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rajasthan (Indian Premier League) cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Punjab (Indian Premier League) cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Pune cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Mumbai (Indian Premier League) cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kolkata cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Delhi (Indian Premier League) cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Chennai cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Bangalore cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kochi cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Objects by status
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.
Upmerge as an unneccesary level of categorization. I think this may be an artifact of the old system that made it more difficult to find sub-cats when a category also had a significant number of articles directly in it.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Objects by topic
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Topic seems more vague. its parent cat, Categories by topic, holds categories with many different naming structures. Some of these are, or may also, belong in
Category:Physical objects (I added some categories before writing this suggestion, but i dont think i removed any categories, which is not kosher)
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
06:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Rather a weird category. Should be named "Objects by type" rather than "Types of objects" I think, though the sub-cats contain both articles on types and articles on individual objects.
Johnbod (
talk)
11:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Film redirects
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:do not delete for now. This is so close to the other category that confusion will arise, but Mirokado seems to have a plan, so that can be put into place. If this is empty after that, it can be speedily deleted.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
16:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)reply
oppose merging, support tidy up and delete, details follow:
Redirects from films is populated by {{
R from film}} and has a clear definition of scope: title of film to a more general article. Film redirects is populated by adding [[Category:Film redirects]]. It has (currently) no documentation but is clearly being used to indicate redirects to an article about the same film-related subject (film, festival etc) under a different title, which can be, for example:
to a different language, Kopernik (film) --> Copernicus (film).
to an alternative punctuation or similar, Farewell My Queen --> Farewell, My Queen.
to an alternative released title, House of Pleasures --> House of Tolerance.
and various combinations of the above (to different language with disambiguator etc)
We can probably find suitable generic R from/to templates for each of these cases and should add them anyway (they are missing on the redirects I have checked). That will I think need to be done by hand, preferably before the category is zapped. I am happy to help.
It is of course desirable for WikiProject Film to be able to identify all "its" redirects which fulfil these purposes. The way do that is probably to add {{
WikiProject Film|class=redirect}} to each redirect talk page so we can do multi-category searches (roll on a better user interface for those...). A bot can do that while dealing with the category. We probably don't want too great a proliferation of specialised administrative categories per-project so as long as we can retain the distinction as I suggest or otherwise I would support deleting this category.
I think it would blur the contents of Redirects from films to add these redirects to it, so I would not support that. --
Mirokado (
talk)
07:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
update I have now added an R-* template to each member of this category, along with a few other improvements, so the way is clear for the purely mechanical changes. --
Mirokado (
talk)
19:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Brethren denominations
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment -- I think this needs to be split so that each of the groups in
Brethren has a separate category. These might have the present category, as an ultiamte parent, despite being unrelated. The problem is more with the North American sub-cat, which is getting in the way of creating a rational tree, based on theological views.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete there are also Methodist and other groups that use brethren in their name. There is no clear group that can be easily designated as "brethren denominations" and the current name will tend to link unlike things. There are better names for everything involved, so we should just delete this category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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.