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:Delete. Contains one article which hardly justifies an article lets alone being in
Category:History of electronic engineering. There will be a need for a category at some point in the future (who knows how far....) but in my cleanup of related articles and categories there is absolutely nothing around at present that can be added to this category. There is not even a
History of electronic engineering article. Finally, items of historic interest such as
Astron (wristwatch) should not be categorised in "History of .." categories. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
23:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The nominator ought to read
WP:IMPERFECT some time. This category has one article in it because it was created only shortly before he tagged it for deletion. I created it because I was rather surprised to find that we didn't already have it, along with the histories of engineering and of electrical engineering.
This isn't "cleanup" - it's Alan off on yet another of his deletion sprees. "Cleanup" would begin by some shared discussion and agreement over just what the scope of these categories ought to be: then once that was agreed and publicised, then there could be a shared effort to clean up the discrepancies. As it is, this is a wholly subjective excursion by a single editor: they don't personally like the current use of these categories (unclear and mis-used as it probably is) and so they're deleting and de-categorizing anything that isn't nailed down. This isn't a nett positive contribution to the encyclopedia.
My "deletion spree" is a means of improving WP and it needs a hell of a lot of improving. And note that an page can be put up for deletion at any stage after it has been created. The fact that it was created quite soon before I came across it is not relevant in a CfD. While the existence of one category containing one article does not make a lot a lot of difference in the millions of pages that
readers come and visit it does have a small effect on the readership. If there are too many pages that are of no use to readers they will be dissatisfied with their "Wikipedia experience"
So are you suggesting that the thousands of edits I do should be discussed? This is a ludicrous suggestion which will slow down the improvement of WP, and besides the vast majority of my edits are uncontested. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
00:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
You're trying to delete categories because they don't have enough entries (yet). At the same time, you're also repeatedly
removing categories from the lead article of an eponymous category
History of electrical engineering, contrary to our guidelines, with the edit summary "removed Category:Electrical engineering using HotCat. But it just clutters Category:Electrical engineering up with yet another article.)"
Guideline are just that - guidelines. They don't work in every situation so it is up to the discretion of the editor(s). In the case you mention, a guideline which is widely ignored, there is 180 odd articles in the parent category so that one extra is clutter and ends up amongst all the other articles. Makes for useless navigation which is what categories are supposed to be for. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
01:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Electrical engineering is indeed crowded and would benefit from re-structuring. Re-structuring can be done through diffusion into other categories, which is just what your removal of categories is working against. So you're happy to leave
Shmoo plot, and hundreds of other valid but relatively low-importance articles, as categorized into
Electrical engineering, but you're removing an article on a broad topic within it, its history?
Andy Dingley (
talk)
01:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
This is all way off topic for the CfD and it covers a multitude of issues but since we are all here I may as well continue. The way I see it, since the subcats come first they are effectively a higher importance that the articles that are in the actual parent cat.
Category:History of electrical engineering is a subcat of
Category:Electrical engineering so it it does not need categorising amongst the faff in the parent cat. Also if there are many articles that deserve to be in the parent cat and all of the subcat epynomous articles of the subcats are then thrown in navigation is made more difficult. I do want to see
Category:Electrical engineering cleaned up and I made a bit of a stab at it. There is a lot of work needed over there.
Radio frequency engineering and
RF engineering need merging, a
Category:Electrical engineering terms is needed etc. As an ex-
electronics technician I have have sufficient knowledge but I am just busy enough with other WP projects at present. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
02:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
This is rather unreasonable. Andy Dingley created this category at 20:43 on 12 March 2012. Alan Liefting nominated it for deletion at 23:32 on 12 March 2012 - less that 3 hours after it was created. The rationale? "Contains one article." It is completely unreasonable to give other editors so little time to notice the new category and populate it. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
06:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
It is an astonishing piece of hypocrisy for Andy Dingley to cite
WP:IMPERFECT in his defence. He has been deleting my contributions because they are "imperfect" for some time. He calls them "inaccurate" or "wrong" but when I ask him to explain this, he is silent.
Biscuittin (
talk)
08:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I am well aware of your rationale for deletion. You unilaterally decided that "there is absolutely nothing around at present that can be added to this category", so you decided to nominate it for deletion without giving anyone any time to prove you wrong. Why the hurry? You could have simply watched the page and, if a week went by with no additions, nominated it then. In another one of your category deletion nominations you write "The category has been around for two years and no one, including the editor who created, it has bother to expand it" Stop and think: why did you consider that to be a valid argument? (I agree that is was.)
I would also point out to both of you that you are misusing this page, and ask you to both to stop doing that. This page is for discussing one thing and one thing only: whether to delete Category:History of electronic engineering. Statements like "off on yet another of his deletion sprees" and "when I ask him to explain this, he is silent", if they are made at all, should be placed on the editor's talk page or the appropriate noticeboard. You have both been around long enough to know that those statements do not belong here. Knock it off, OK?
OK, back to whether the page should be deleted. Yes, it is true that a page can be put up for deletion at any stage after it has been created. However, putting it up for deletion three hours after it has been created is excellent grounds for immediately rejecting the proposal and telling the nominator to re-nominate in two weeks. You didn't give me or any other editors sufficient time to add pages to the category.
You claim that "readers come and visit it" and "If there are too many pages that are of no use to readers they will be dissatisfied with their 'Wikipedia experience'." Please explain -- in detail -- exactly how you believe that these readers will arrive at the page. Clicking "Random Article" won't do it - that link never land you on a category page, That leaves only links to it There is the one link at the bottom of
Astron (wristwatch) and the links listed at
Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:History of electronic engineering. So that gets you, what, one visitor a year?
"Don't rush to delete articles. We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article unless its potential significance cannot be established. Wikipedia is not paper and has no need to work towards a deadline. There is no finished version expected soon, and it is perfectly acceptable to let the editing process fashion an article up to our standards eventually. And if it takes a long time for that process to work, so what? Wikipedia is a work in progress, and will always remain so."
"Recently, people have been getting themselves in a panic because the quality of Wikipedia is not as high as they'd like it to be. Now this is a problem, certainly, for anyone who wishes to depend upon Wikipedia as a high-quality, reliable source of information. But to someone who wishes to write a free encyclopedia, it's not a problem. It's an opportunity, and that's what we're here for. Remember, there is no deadline." --
Guy Macon (
talk)
09:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Please tell me what is "the appropriate noticeboard" for complaining about another editor's behaviour. Although I have been around for a long time I still find Wikipedia extremely confusing. My past experience is that, no matter where I put my complaint, some
Wikilawyer will claim that it is the wrong place and try to pull rank on me.
Biscuittin (
talk)
10:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I think an article on History of electronic engineering would be a great addition to the encyclopedia. There are a lot of things that could be covered; the Edison/Westinghouse DC/AC war, Analog computers, Tesla's inventions, etc. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
17:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete The issue, as I see it, is that we haven't written articles about the history of electrical engineering; there are (from what I can see) biographies and articles about devices and so forth, all of which could be called "historical" only in the weak sense that since we only write about the past, everything we write about, other than abstract theory, is history.
Mangoe (
talk)
12:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
@Mangoe - Did you mean electrical engineering or electronic engineering?
For both of these, we already have many articles that I would regard as appropriate for inclusion. The
war of the currents would be a good one for
History of electrical engineering For electronics, de Forest's
triode valve and the
transistor belong under
History of electronic engineering as important individual developments. The difference between these two categories is the age of the category page itself: electronics hasn't yet had these articles categorized into it.
So which cat did you mean, and what was your precise point? That for electronics (the category for deletion here) there aren't yet any articles in it, or that for electrical engineering you regard the articles we do have as not being about "history"?
Andy Dingley (
talk)
10:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Withdraw as nominator. In retrospect I had not cast the net widely enough when looking for suitable articles to populate the category. I have found a category and an article that are suitable. Out of all the others that have now been added there are only a few that are suitable but I will continue that discussion at the talk page. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
19:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Is there any chance that I could get you to agree to avoid nominating hours-old pages for deletion? I would say that if it doesn't meet the criteria for a speedy deletion, it should be given a week or two for editors to discover and improve it. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
19:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
No, I cannot make that assurance. As I have admitted I may have been a little hasty in this case. Anyhow, I don't think I often come across newly created categories. What I would like from seasoned editors is that if they create a category they should then populate it rather than expecting another editor to chance upon it. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
20:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Your words say that what you would like from seasoned editors is that if they create a category they should then populate it, but your actions say that what you would like from seasoned editors is that if they create a category they should then populate it within three hours of creating it. Your refusal to wait a reasonable amount of time is bad for the encyclopedia and against consensus, and you should expect a vigorous effort to stop you if you continue the practice. I am going to leave it at that and not comment any further; clearly further attempts at persuading you will be futile. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
No. Especially since the proposal already had some support. This discussion needs an admin to review it and do the close which involves more then removing the CfD tag.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm sure I've nominated categories when they were 3 hours old, when I felt that they were ill-conceived and no amount of time was going to change that. Alan's withdrawn the nomination, leave it that.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
00:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to
Category:History of electrical engineering. I'm not convinced that the fine line being drawn in the difference between these two categories helps the readers. If you earn a degree in electrical engineering you cover everything that is included in electronic engineering. Even the main society in this area, IEEE, just supports both. I see keeping this as causing more problems since a case could be made that most of the category contents belong in
Category:History of electrical engineering.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
02:52, 15 March 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:Machine Fault Diagnosis
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.
Rename to ? A look at the main article shows a list of mechanical faults, some of which form the other members of the category. It looks as though that list is what can be categorized, rather than a category of diagnostic techniques, at least at present.
Mangoe (
talk)
12:37, 13 March 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:Instructional dance songs
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:Self-reflexive songs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep. This seems to make sense as part of the family of these categories, which serves a useful purpose. It would surely make more sense to propose to delete the whole family, rather than one category within it, although for me that would also be a "keep". On the points made above, many other categories do not have (or need) an article dealing with the identical topic. To say "difficult if not impossible to verify" is surely incorrect: self-reflexiveness is a characteristic like any other, actually quite a prominent one, and should be easy to verify. For citations, secondary sources are needed, but if a song is notable enough to have an article then there will need to be reliable sources dealing with it and there is no reason why they should not cover the point. It does indeed seem odd that
Self-reflexive song redirects to the category. In my view that is harmless in itself, but for the redirect to be included in the category is comically circular: the category should be deleted from the redirect. If this was recently a one-article category it has been populated since then. If there has been any
original research, I do not see that that should affect the question of whether this category serves a useful purpose or not.
Moonraker (
talk)
Moonraker (
talk)
00:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
For all I know "populated only through original research" may be correct, but it seems rather likely that the same is true of a great many Wikipedia categories, if not most. SMALLCAT is not really about the existing number of articles in a category. In "Small with no potential for growth", the potential for growth is surely what matters, and this category plainly has that potential.
Moonraker (
talk)
03:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Where is the evidence of that potential for growth? All but one of the articles included in this category are unsupported by a reference, and that means massive potential for shrinkage when the improperly categorised articles are removed. --22:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Per
WP:CAT#Categorizing_pages "Categorization must maintain a neutral point of view: categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
A sensible policy, but I do not see that this category fails on either of those scores. I think you are just explaining the policy?
Moonraker (
talk)
03:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
If there's nothing in an article about a song that would justify its addition to the category, then the addition of the category to that article is by its very nature "controversial". Thus, categories populated by this type of original research are very problematic.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
If it's so obvious, just add some citations (or even one) to support it. That the whole point of
WP:OR—to prevent users from adding information that they "know" is "true" but cannot substantiate with sources.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes, and as has been pointed out above, it's currently the only one that is so referenced. Are there any references that can be added to the other articles presently in the category that would justify the category being placed on the article? If not, we're dealing with a one-article category, hence the potential relevance of
WP:SMALLCAT.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)reply
"Clearly" according to what and by what standard? Your own knowledge? Uncited statements found elsewhere in Wikipedia or on the Internet? The obvious truth? Or are we talking about reliable sources that say they are? The article you link to is a smorgasbord of uncited information that may actually be
WP:OR.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Here is an article about self-reflexive songs including a list of examples.
[2] Also there is an article called "Self-reflexive songs and their readers in the late 14th century" that is listed online.
[3]. (There is also a song on YouTube called "Self-reflexive song".
[4]) This shows there are songs which are self-reflexive.
Cjc13 (
talk)
21:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)reply
This reminds me of something Lionel Hutz once said. (Judge: Mr Hutz, do you have any evidence at all? Hutz: Well, I have plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.) What you have provided is "evidence" in the same sort of way that hearsay and conjecture are "evidence" for a law court to consider. In other words, yes—it's evidence; but they are extremely unpersuasive to the point of being almost useless.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep It is part of a reasonable scheme, and has plenty of potential for growth. Needs cleanup per BHG but that is no reason to delete.
LeSnail (
talk)
19:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Where is the evidence of that potential for growth? Only one of the articles currently in the category has any reference to justify its inclusion, so what I see right now is a huge potential for shrinkage. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete. This has major
WP:OR and sourcing problems. Delete if no other sources can be found—a one article category for only one song that can be sourced as "self-reflexive" is not particularly helpful. My opinion might change if there are a glut of sources for other songs that have just not been added to relevant articles yet.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Also
Wikipedia:Categorization states that categorization is to, ... identify the defining characteristics of an article's topic. So quite plainly, if the lede for any article, including songs, does not give something as a defining characteristic, then it can't be defined or categorized as such. In the articles I read in this cat there is no claim that any of the songs were self-reflexive, nor enough information to ascertain that a song might be self-reflexive, One of them didn't even mention what the lyrics were about at all! How can that song be included in the category, even assuming
good faith? This problem exists for all categories 'by lyrical content,' more so because many songs lyrics are not face-value meanings but use allegory, metaphor and every other literary device. In other words the lyric writer might know what they meant (but not always) when they wrote the song and the listener will know what they think the song is about, but there's too much gray between the two points for any useful categorization. --
Richhoncho (
talk)
21:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The whole thing seems to be a big pile of
WP:OR and
WP:POV, and those arguing for keeping the category seem wholly unconcerned about the fact that only one of the articles in this category has a reference to justify its inclusion. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete basically agree with the four opinions above. The whole
Category:Songs by theme subtree is a catastrophic mix of OR and categorizing according to trivial characteristics but the present category is particularly problematic because it's so poorly delineated.
Pichpich (
talk)
20:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)reply
One day—one day—the sort of person who finds editing Wikipedia to be an entertaining hobby is not going to find the subject of recursion to be so hilarious as to insist on propagating it wherever possible. The degree to which this category requires original research to populate it makes it too controversial to belong in a neutral category system.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
15:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The article is about both the EP and the song. There does not seem to be any reason to think that the information given by the site quoted is inaccurate.
Cjc13 (
talk)
12:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)reply
There are eight tracks on this particular EP, which one is supposed to be self-reflexive? This is a rhetorical question, no need to try to reply. --
Richhoncho (
talk)
17:42, 22 March 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:Central Election Commission of Ukraine
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: Category contains one article and one subcategory (which itself contains one article but has the potential to expand). Highly unlikely that more articles could be added here.
Green Giant (
talk)
22:13, 12 March 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:Former countries in Serbia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename or delete. This is utterly anachronistic. We can't claim that e.g. the
Kingdom of the Gepids was a "former country in Serbia", because there was no Serbia at the time. Similarly, tagging
Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia as a "former country in Serbia" is, well, a bit ridiculous, because the reason for the inclusion is the fact that the region of
Syrmia became part of Serbia after KoCS was already gone. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
20:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Support deletion and upmerge per Good Olfactory's suggestion. The present Serbia incoporates parts of other former counties, but this is much to specific a category to merit retention.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:06, 15 March 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:Early electric motors
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep They're defined quite simply as those early designs that played a part in the historical development of electric motors, but have no significant role as useful devices today. As to the numbers, then there are dozens of potential candidates for that simple definition and I wasn't aware that it was now a policy to fully-populate a category before it could be created.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
20:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Categories, being a black and white classification, should have clear demarcation for topics that are included. I am not convinced that the category has a potential to grow. The three articles in the category would be far better off in linked from a
History of the electric motor article. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
21:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)reply
"Categories, being a black and white classification,"
Welcome to MediaWiki. They aren't. Categorization in MediaWiki is not ontological. It automatically builds a navigation structure, but it doesn't define memberships, identities or attributes.
I also note that the nominator has now jumped from targeting one category to slating three referenced non-stub articles for deletion and merging as footnotes into an overall article on electric motors. Yet at the same time he has also (quite rightly) tagged electric motor as a potential split, to manage its already substantial size.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
00:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Why not simply delete all categories, as you've clearly never liked them. We could replace all categories with hard-coded links from list articles (a pull model) rather than annotating the articles themselves for categorization (a push model). Of course we'd never be able to maintain that for a site with more than a few dozen pages...
Andy Dingley (
talk)
01:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I am not suggesting the deletion of all categories. You are making a fallacious black and white style argument I actually like categories which is why I spend a lot of my time prowling around in them and fixing them up. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
01:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. The offered definition is a bit fuzzy. What does it mean if something has "no significant role as useful devices today"? What is a significant role? It must mean something more than having some role.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Obviously a definition of scope is up for improvement. I think even "some" role would be enough (for exclusion), implying that they're still made and still used as more than lab curiosities.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
00:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
So, it's for electric motors that were made but are now obsolete, or at least no longer produced for anything other than museum pieces and the like? How would we set a cut-off date for what is early vs. what is not?
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't see any need for a date, merely the functional grouping of "what seemed like a good idea at the time, but either never went anywhere, just couldn't be made to work, or has since gone the way of the
buggy whip". One of these, the
mouse mill motor, did have a significant use for a while as part of automatic
telegraphs. If you check your local telegraph office, they might still have one.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
00:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Not to press the issue too far, but couldn't an electric motor be developed tomorrow that by the end of this decade would meet those requirements? That would certainly not be an "early electric motor".
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Quite possibly, and in another century we might regard that as an "early" design too. I just don't see that the semantics of "early" are causing any problems here. Alan's point is that the scope isn't clearly stated, which is a reasonable point, but easily fixed.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
00:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I think the potential for problems are there, because even with the scope as defined and this discussion I'm still confused as to how exactly one would determine if a particular engine is "early" enough. Categories are rarely unclear in scope to their creators, but that's part of the problem—we don't all have access to your thought process when it was created, and it's unclear what scope was intended then or now.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete. I can't see how we can have a clear inclusionary criteria using the current terminology of the category name and proposed definitions. "Early" is problematic for me—see the discussion above.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:22, 13 March 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:Mobile phones by country
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:Electronics introduced in 1992
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.
There are things that are of far greater that WP needs which I would rather work on. The category has been around for two years and no one, including the editor who created, it has bother to expand it. Also, deletion is not permanent. I am not saying there is something "wrong" with it. That is a subjective appraisal. I am saying that we don't need it - at least not yet. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
21:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)reply
"There are things that are of far greater that WP needs which I would rather work on. " I agree - so why not do them? Instead you seem to be finding excuses to delete anything related to "History of engineering" categories, on the grounds that they're not yet
perfect.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
00:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
It's probably best to not make this discussion a debate on what users should or should not be doing with their limited WP editing time. Let's focus on the nomination as opposed to what the nominator has or has not done/should or should not do.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Asking to have things deleted is a way of improving WP. Are you suggesting that I should not attempt to improve topics relating to the history of engineering? And I agree with Good Ol’factory that we should concentrate on the WP. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
00:28, 13 March 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:Election agencies in Albania
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 did think it might be poor translation but the
main website appears to use this translation in its English pages ("Central Election Commission") with occasional use of the plural (i.e. "Elections").
Green Giant (
talk)
17:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete and upmerge. The two pages now in the category appear notable. It seems very unlikely that any of the hundreds of local election commissions is notable in itself, and if that is so then the category fails
WP:SMALLCAT: small and with no potential for growth.
Moonraker (
talk)
21:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep or rename since there are two - central and local, deletion should not be an option, nor upmerging, which comes to the same thing. I do not speak Albanian and cannot comment on the correct translation, whether agency or commission.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:12, 15 March 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:Short story collections by Stanislaw Lem
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:Victoria schools
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:Featured articles on Mathematics Portal
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep but put on the talk page. "We don't classify articles by which portal(s) display them"? Why not? I can see reasons to do this, for internal purposes, but this means that the categorisation should either be hidden or on the talk page. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
23:46, 12 March 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:Old Victorians - Singapore
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.
Agree if all alumni categories are split so as to be consistent - DragTian
Alumni of Victoria Junior College have been moved to another category. Now what is needed is the renaming of the present category. - DragTian
Comment -- When I got here the nom category had been emptied, presumably to implement the split. Membership of a club, such as an old boys association is usually non-defining, but education at a secondary school is defining. I have not entirely understood the relationship between the two colleges. If the pupils of the junior school almost inevitably continue to the senior one and there are no other feeder schools, it may be better to treat them as one, despite having separate campuses.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:21, 15 March 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:Physician Assistant programs in the United States
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete and possibly turn into a list. We shouldn't categorize universities according to the programs they offer. First it doesn't really correspond to a defining characteristic of the university. Second this would quickly lead to serious category clutter because universities typically offer dozens of programs.
Pichpich (
talk)
11:34, 12 March 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:Trade unions of Hong Kong
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:Celebrities who were born in London's St Joeseph's Hospital
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.
Strong Keep. I have seen countless references to celebrities places of birth, I think this subject may be of interest to people, with
Justin Bieber,
Ryan Gosling, and
Rachel McAdams all well known A-list celebrities having the same hospital of birth in an otherwise not well known city of
London, Ontario .
Pumkinhead001 (
talk)
Delete.
WP:OC#TRIVIAL excludes place of death, and I can't see how place of birth is any different. Also "Interesting coincidence" sounds a lot like a trivial intersection (WP:OC#TRIVIAL again) --
Northernhenge (
talk)
19:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)reply
note although you don't see place of birth as different from place of death, it is not stated in oc Trivial, that is your interpretation, by this logic we can also dismiss as trivial, school attended, degree obtained..ect. What I feel makes the place of birth somewhat significant is London not being a major metropolis for movie and music production such as New York, L.A.
I would agree that place of birth and place of death are both generally inappropriate for categorization. I would also say the same for school attended and degree obtained. Reasonable users could disagree on these points. But holding my view doesn't mean the information should not be mentioned in an article about the person. It just means I don't view these factoids as "defining" for the person of the type that categories are meant to capture.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
delete because of that prefix "Celebrities".
If there are articles for people capable of being categorized, then they're presumably notable - and that's enough.
As to whether "... by hospital" is significant, then it's not something I have any interest in or would make use of. However nor is it my role to tell other people not to do so, provided that they can adequately source it.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
00:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete as
WP:OC#TRIVIAL, which says: "If something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely that it is a trivial characteristic." The fact that someone was born in a particular town is usually a fairly insignificant characteristic, but the question of whether people were born in one hospital rather than another one in the same town is no way a "defining characteristic"; it is trivia which could easily be omitted from the article. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
01:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete – we have deleted country of birth, so 'hospital of birth' is less than trivial. (I have never seen 'hospital of birth' mentioned in an obit in a respectable publication.) This seems to be St. Joseph's Hospital in London Ontario, which is not even mentioned in
St. Joseph's Hospital.
Oculi (
talk)
09:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename to Artists from London, Ontario , please change my vote. I think "people " from London Ontario is way too broad, Should
Justin Bieber be in the same list as some guy who is a city councillor? Love or hate Bieber, he is world known, also the rest of the named people.
Pumkinhead001 (
talk)
18:51, 15 March 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:Events at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games
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:Madrigals
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.
Yes, I see now that there is an ongoing discussion to
move the article. Since at this stage it seems likely to be moved, it's probably best to withdraw this nomination. I will renominate if for some reason the move doesn't happen.
Good Ol’factory(talk)07:59, 12 March 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:Glees
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename.
Glee is ambiguous and
Glees is a place in Germany. I suggest renaming to match the article
Glee (music). (I note that this is apparently not speedy-able under C2D due to
this recent change to the criteria. This is a set category, not a topic category.)
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:43, 12 March 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.
Anime of YEAR categories
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.
Manga of YEAR categories
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:Rounds
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:Conference National players
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.
Rename - per nom. Makes perfect sense to include the Conference North and Conference South with the Conference National, similar to what's done with Football League. ★☆
DUCKISJAMMMY☆★
19:11, 12 March 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:Tinnosbanen
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.
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:Delete. Contains one article which hardly justifies an article lets alone being in
Category:History of electronic engineering. There will be a need for a category at some point in the future (who knows how far....) but in my cleanup of related articles and categories there is absolutely nothing around at present that can be added to this category. There is not even a
History of electronic engineering article. Finally, items of historic interest such as
Astron (wristwatch) should not be categorised in "History of .." categories. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
23:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The nominator ought to read
WP:IMPERFECT some time. This category has one article in it because it was created only shortly before he tagged it for deletion. I created it because I was rather surprised to find that we didn't already have it, along with the histories of engineering and of electrical engineering.
This isn't "cleanup" - it's Alan off on yet another of his deletion sprees. "Cleanup" would begin by some shared discussion and agreement over just what the scope of these categories ought to be: then once that was agreed and publicised, then there could be a shared effort to clean up the discrepancies. As it is, this is a wholly subjective excursion by a single editor: they don't personally like the current use of these categories (unclear and mis-used as it probably is) and so they're deleting and de-categorizing anything that isn't nailed down. This isn't a nett positive contribution to the encyclopedia.
My "deletion spree" is a means of improving WP and it needs a hell of a lot of improving. And note that an page can be put up for deletion at any stage after it has been created. The fact that it was created quite soon before I came across it is not relevant in a CfD. While the existence of one category containing one article does not make a lot a lot of difference in the millions of pages that
readers come and visit it does have a small effect on the readership. If there are too many pages that are of no use to readers they will be dissatisfied with their "Wikipedia experience"
So are you suggesting that the thousands of edits I do should be discussed? This is a ludicrous suggestion which will slow down the improvement of WP, and besides the vast majority of my edits are uncontested. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
00:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
You're trying to delete categories because they don't have enough entries (yet). At the same time, you're also repeatedly
removing categories from the lead article of an eponymous category
History of electrical engineering, contrary to our guidelines, with the edit summary "removed Category:Electrical engineering using HotCat. But it just clutters Category:Electrical engineering up with yet another article.)"
Guideline are just that - guidelines. They don't work in every situation so it is up to the discretion of the editor(s). In the case you mention, a guideline which is widely ignored, there is 180 odd articles in the parent category so that one extra is clutter and ends up amongst all the other articles. Makes for useless navigation which is what categories are supposed to be for. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
01:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Electrical engineering is indeed crowded and would benefit from re-structuring. Re-structuring can be done through diffusion into other categories, which is just what your removal of categories is working against. So you're happy to leave
Shmoo plot, and hundreds of other valid but relatively low-importance articles, as categorized into
Electrical engineering, but you're removing an article on a broad topic within it, its history?
Andy Dingley (
talk)
01:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
This is all way off topic for the CfD and it covers a multitude of issues but since we are all here I may as well continue. The way I see it, since the subcats come first they are effectively a higher importance that the articles that are in the actual parent cat.
Category:History of electrical engineering is a subcat of
Category:Electrical engineering so it it does not need categorising amongst the faff in the parent cat. Also if there are many articles that deserve to be in the parent cat and all of the subcat epynomous articles of the subcats are then thrown in navigation is made more difficult. I do want to see
Category:Electrical engineering cleaned up and I made a bit of a stab at it. There is a lot of work needed over there.
Radio frequency engineering and
RF engineering need merging, a
Category:Electrical engineering terms is needed etc. As an ex-
electronics technician I have have sufficient knowledge but I am just busy enough with other WP projects at present. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
02:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
This is rather unreasonable. Andy Dingley created this category at 20:43 on 12 March 2012. Alan Liefting nominated it for deletion at 23:32 on 12 March 2012 - less that 3 hours after it was created. The rationale? "Contains one article." It is completely unreasonable to give other editors so little time to notice the new category and populate it. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
06:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
It is an astonishing piece of hypocrisy for Andy Dingley to cite
WP:IMPERFECT in his defence. He has been deleting my contributions because they are "imperfect" for some time. He calls them "inaccurate" or "wrong" but when I ask him to explain this, he is silent.
Biscuittin (
talk)
08:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I am well aware of your rationale for deletion. You unilaterally decided that "there is absolutely nothing around at present that can be added to this category", so you decided to nominate it for deletion without giving anyone any time to prove you wrong. Why the hurry? You could have simply watched the page and, if a week went by with no additions, nominated it then. In another one of your category deletion nominations you write "The category has been around for two years and no one, including the editor who created, it has bother to expand it" Stop and think: why did you consider that to be a valid argument? (I agree that is was.)
I would also point out to both of you that you are misusing this page, and ask you to both to stop doing that. This page is for discussing one thing and one thing only: whether to delete Category:History of electronic engineering. Statements like "off on yet another of his deletion sprees" and "when I ask him to explain this, he is silent", if they are made at all, should be placed on the editor's talk page or the appropriate noticeboard. You have both been around long enough to know that those statements do not belong here. Knock it off, OK?
OK, back to whether the page should be deleted. Yes, it is true that a page can be put up for deletion at any stage after it has been created. However, putting it up for deletion three hours after it has been created is excellent grounds for immediately rejecting the proposal and telling the nominator to re-nominate in two weeks. You didn't give me or any other editors sufficient time to add pages to the category.
You claim that "readers come and visit it" and "If there are too many pages that are of no use to readers they will be dissatisfied with their 'Wikipedia experience'." Please explain -- in detail -- exactly how you believe that these readers will arrive at the page. Clicking "Random Article" won't do it - that link never land you on a category page, That leaves only links to it There is the one link at the bottom of
Astron (wristwatch) and the links listed at
Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:History of electronic engineering. So that gets you, what, one visitor a year?
"Don't rush to delete articles. We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article unless its potential significance cannot be established. Wikipedia is not paper and has no need to work towards a deadline. There is no finished version expected soon, and it is perfectly acceptable to let the editing process fashion an article up to our standards eventually. And if it takes a long time for that process to work, so what? Wikipedia is a work in progress, and will always remain so."
"Recently, people have been getting themselves in a panic because the quality of Wikipedia is not as high as they'd like it to be. Now this is a problem, certainly, for anyone who wishes to depend upon Wikipedia as a high-quality, reliable source of information. But to someone who wishes to write a free encyclopedia, it's not a problem. It's an opportunity, and that's what we're here for. Remember, there is no deadline." --
Guy Macon (
talk)
09:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Please tell me what is "the appropriate noticeboard" for complaining about another editor's behaviour. Although I have been around for a long time I still find Wikipedia extremely confusing. My past experience is that, no matter where I put my complaint, some
Wikilawyer will claim that it is the wrong place and try to pull rank on me.
Biscuittin (
talk)
10:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I think an article on History of electronic engineering would be a great addition to the encyclopedia. There are a lot of things that could be covered; the Edison/Westinghouse DC/AC war, Analog computers, Tesla's inventions, etc. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
17:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete The issue, as I see it, is that we haven't written articles about the history of electrical engineering; there are (from what I can see) biographies and articles about devices and so forth, all of which could be called "historical" only in the weak sense that since we only write about the past, everything we write about, other than abstract theory, is history.
Mangoe (
talk)
12:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
@Mangoe - Did you mean electrical engineering or electronic engineering?
For both of these, we already have many articles that I would regard as appropriate for inclusion. The
war of the currents would be a good one for
History of electrical engineering For electronics, de Forest's
triode valve and the
transistor belong under
History of electronic engineering as important individual developments. The difference between these two categories is the age of the category page itself: electronics hasn't yet had these articles categorized into it.
So which cat did you mean, and what was your precise point? That for electronics (the category for deletion here) there aren't yet any articles in it, or that for electrical engineering you regard the articles we do have as not being about "history"?
Andy Dingley (
talk)
10:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Withdraw as nominator. In retrospect I had not cast the net widely enough when looking for suitable articles to populate the category. I have found a category and an article that are suitable. Out of all the others that have now been added there are only a few that are suitable but I will continue that discussion at the talk page. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
19:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Is there any chance that I could get you to agree to avoid nominating hours-old pages for deletion? I would say that if it doesn't meet the criteria for a speedy deletion, it should be given a week or two for editors to discover and improve it. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
19:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
No, I cannot make that assurance. As I have admitted I may have been a little hasty in this case. Anyhow, I don't think I often come across newly created categories. What I would like from seasoned editors is that if they create a category they should then populate it rather than expecting another editor to chance upon it. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
20:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Your words say that what you would like from seasoned editors is that if they create a category they should then populate it, but your actions say that what you would like from seasoned editors is that if they create a category they should then populate it within three hours of creating it. Your refusal to wait a reasonable amount of time is bad for the encyclopedia and against consensus, and you should expect a vigorous effort to stop you if you continue the practice. I am going to leave it at that and not comment any further; clearly further attempts at persuading you will be futile. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
No. Especially since the proposal already had some support. This discussion needs an admin to review it and do the close which involves more then removing the CfD tag.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm sure I've nominated categories when they were 3 hours old, when I felt that they were ill-conceived and no amount of time was going to change that. Alan's withdrawn the nomination, leave it that.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
00:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to
Category:History of electrical engineering. I'm not convinced that the fine line being drawn in the difference between these two categories helps the readers. If you earn a degree in electrical engineering you cover everything that is included in electronic engineering. Even the main society in this area, IEEE, just supports both. I see keeping this as causing more problems since a case could be made that most of the category contents belong in
Category:History of electrical engineering.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
02:52, 15 March 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:Machine Fault Diagnosis
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.
Rename to ? A look at the main article shows a list of mechanical faults, some of which form the other members of the category. It looks as though that list is what can be categorized, rather than a category of diagnostic techniques, at least at present.
Mangoe (
talk)
12:37, 13 March 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:Instructional dance songs
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:Self-reflexive songs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep. This seems to make sense as part of the family of these categories, which serves a useful purpose. It would surely make more sense to propose to delete the whole family, rather than one category within it, although for me that would also be a "keep". On the points made above, many other categories do not have (or need) an article dealing with the identical topic. To say "difficult if not impossible to verify" is surely incorrect: self-reflexiveness is a characteristic like any other, actually quite a prominent one, and should be easy to verify. For citations, secondary sources are needed, but if a song is notable enough to have an article then there will need to be reliable sources dealing with it and there is no reason why they should not cover the point. It does indeed seem odd that
Self-reflexive song redirects to the category. In my view that is harmless in itself, but for the redirect to be included in the category is comically circular: the category should be deleted from the redirect. If this was recently a one-article category it has been populated since then. If there has been any
original research, I do not see that that should affect the question of whether this category serves a useful purpose or not.
Moonraker (
talk)
Moonraker (
talk)
00:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
For all I know "populated only through original research" may be correct, but it seems rather likely that the same is true of a great many Wikipedia categories, if not most. SMALLCAT is not really about the existing number of articles in a category. In "Small with no potential for growth", the potential for growth is surely what matters, and this category plainly has that potential.
Moonraker (
talk)
03:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Where is the evidence of that potential for growth? All but one of the articles included in this category are unsupported by a reference, and that means massive potential for shrinkage when the improperly categorised articles are removed. --22:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Per
WP:CAT#Categorizing_pages "Categorization must maintain a neutral point of view: categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
A sensible policy, but I do not see that this category fails on either of those scores. I think you are just explaining the policy?
Moonraker (
talk)
03:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
If there's nothing in an article about a song that would justify its addition to the category, then the addition of the category to that article is by its very nature "controversial". Thus, categories populated by this type of original research are very problematic.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
If it's so obvious, just add some citations (or even one) to support it. That the whole point of
WP:OR—to prevent users from adding information that they "know" is "true" but cannot substantiate with sources.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes, and as has been pointed out above, it's currently the only one that is so referenced. Are there any references that can be added to the other articles presently in the category that would justify the category being placed on the article? If not, we're dealing with a one-article category, hence the potential relevance of
WP:SMALLCAT.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)reply
"Clearly" according to what and by what standard? Your own knowledge? Uncited statements found elsewhere in Wikipedia or on the Internet? The obvious truth? Or are we talking about reliable sources that say they are? The article you link to is a smorgasbord of uncited information that may actually be
WP:OR.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Here is an article about self-reflexive songs including a list of examples.
[2] Also there is an article called "Self-reflexive songs and their readers in the late 14th century" that is listed online.
[3]. (There is also a song on YouTube called "Self-reflexive song".
[4]) This shows there are songs which are self-reflexive.
Cjc13 (
talk)
21:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)reply
This reminds me of something Lionel Hutz once said. (Judge: Mr Hutz, do you have any evidence at all? Hutz: Well, I have plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.) What you have provided is "evidence" in the same sort of way that hearsay and conjecture are "evidence" for a law court to consider. In other words, yes—it's evidence; but they are extremely unpersuasive to the point of being almost useless.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep It is part of a reasonable scheme, and has plenty of potential for growth. Needs cleanup per BHG but that is no reason to delete.
LeSnail (
talk)
19:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Where is the evidence of that potential for growth? Only one of the articles currently in the category has any reference to justify its inclusion, so what I see right now is a huge potential for shrinkage. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete. This has major
WP:OR and sourcing problems. Delete if no other sources can be found—a one article category for only one song that can be sourced as "self-reflexive" is not particularly helpful. My opinion might change if there are a glut of sources for other songs that have just not been added to relevant articles yet.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Also
Wikipedia:Categorization states that categorization is to, ... identify the defining characteristics of an article's topic. So quite plainly, if the lede for any article, including songs, does not give something as a defining characteristic, then it can't be defined or categorized as such. In the articles I read in this cat there is no claim that any of the songs were self-reflexive, nor enough information to ascertain that a song might be self-reflexive, One of them didn't even mention what the lyrics were about at all! How can that song be included in the category, even assuming
good faith? This problem exists for all categories 'by lyrical content,' more so because many songs lyrics are not face-value meanings but use allegory, metaphor and every other literary device. In other words the lyric writer might know what they meant (but not always) when they wrote the song and the listener will know what they think the song is about, but there's too much gray between the two points for any useful categorization. --
Richhoncho (
talk)
21:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The whole thing seems to be a big pile of
WP:OR and
WP:POV, and those arguing for keeping the category seem wholly unconcerned about the fact that only one of the articles in this category has a reference to justify its inclusion. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete basically agree with the four opinions above. The whole
Category:Songs by theme subtree is a catastrophic mix of OR and categorizing according to trivial characteristics but the present category is particularly problematic because it's so poorly delineated.
Pichpich (
talk)
20:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)reply
One day—one day—the sort of person who finds editing Wikipedia to be an entertaining hobby is not going to find the subject of recursion to be so hilarious as to insist on propagating it wherever possible. The degree to which this category requires original research to populate it makes it too controversial to belong in a neutral category system.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
15:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The article is about both the EP and the song. There does not seem to be any reason to think that the information given by the site quoted is inaccurate.
Cjc13 (
talk)
12:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)reply
There are eight tracks on this particular EP, which one is supposed to be self-reflexive? This is a rhetorical question, no need to try to reply. --
Richhoncho (
talk)
17:42, 22 March 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:Central Election Commission of Ukraine
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: Category contains one article and one subcategory (which itself contains one article but has the potential to expand). Highly unlikely that more articles could be added here.
Green Giant (
talk)
22:13, 12 March 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:Former countries in Serbia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename or delete. This is utterly anachronistic. We can't claim that e.g. the
Kingdom of the Gepids was a "former country in Serbia", because there was no Serbia at the time. Similarly, tagging
Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia as a "former country in Serbia" is, well, a bit ridiculous, because the reason for the inclusion is the fact that the region of
Syrmia became part of Serbia after KoCS was already gone. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
20:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Support deletion and upmerge per Good Olfactory's suggestion. The present Serbia incoporates parts of other former counties, but this is much to specific a category to merit retention.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:06, 15 March 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:Early electric motors
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep They're defined quite simply as those early designs that played a part in the historical development of electric motors, but have no significant role as useful devices today. As to the numbers, then there are dozens of potential candidates for that simple definition and I wasn't aware that it was now a policy to fully-populate a category before it could be created.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
20:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Categories, being a black and white classification, should have clear demarcation for topics that are included. I am not convinced that the category has a potential to grow. The three articles in the category would be far better off in linked from a
History of the electric motor article. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
21:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)reply
"Categories, being a black and white classification,"
Welcome to MediaWiki. They aren't. Categorization in MediaWiki is not ontological. It automatically builds a navigation structure, but it doesn't define memberships, identities or attributes.
I also note that the nominator has now jumped from targeting one category to slating three referenced non-stub articles for deletion and merging as footnotes into an overall article on electric motors. Yet at the same time he has also (quite rightly) tagged electric motor as a potential split, to manage its already substantial size.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
00:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Why not simply delete all categories, as you've clearly never liked them. We could replace all categories with hard-coded links from list articles (a pull model) rather than annotating the articles themselves for categorization (a push model). Of course we'd never be able to maintain that for a site with more than a few dozen pages...
Andy Dingley (
talk)
01:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I am not suggesting the deletion of all categories. You are making a fallacious black and white style argument I actually like categories which is why I spend a lot of my time prowling around in them and fixing them up. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
01:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. The offered definition is a bit fuzzy. What does it mean if something has "no significant role as useful devices today"? What is a significant role? It must mean something more than having some role.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Obviously a definition of scope is up for improvement. I think even "some" role would be enough (for exclusion), implying that they're still made and still used as more than lab curiosities.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
00:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
So, it's for electric motors that were made but are now obsolete, or at least no longer produced for anything other than museum pieces and the like? How would we set a cut-off date for what is early vs. what is not?
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't see any need for a date, merely the functional grouping of "what seemed like a good idea at the time, but either never went anywhere, just couldn't be made to work, or has since gone the way of the
buggy whip". One of these, the
mouse mill motor, did have a significant use for a while as part of automatic
telegraphs. If you check your local telegraph office, they might still have one.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
00:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Not to press the issue too far, but couldn't an electric motor be developed tomorrow that by the end of this decade would meet those requirements? That would certainly not be an "early electric motor".
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Quite possibly, and in another century we might regard that as an "early" design too. I just don't see that the semantics of "early" are causing any problems here. Alan's point is that the scope isn't clearly stated, which is a reasonable point, but easily fixed.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
00:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I think the potential for problems are there, because even with the scope as defined and this discussion I'm still confused as to how exactly one would determine if a particular engine is "early" enough. Categories are rarely unclear in scope to their creators, but that's part of the problem—we don't all have access to your thought process when it was created, and it's unclear what scope was intended then or now.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete. I can't see how we can have a clear inclusionary criteria using the current terminology of the category name and proposed definitions. "Early" is problematic for me—see the discussion above.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:22, 13 March 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:Mobile phones by country
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:Electronics introduced in 1992
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.
There are things that are of far greater that WP needs which I would rather work on. The category has been around for two years and no one, including the editor who created, it has bother to expand it. Also, deletion is not permanent. I am not saying there is something "wrong" with it. That is a subjective appraisal. I am saying that we don't need it - at least not yet. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
21:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)reply
"There are things that are of far greater that WP needs which I would rather work on. " I agree - so why not do them? Instead you seem to be finding excuses to delete anything related to "History of engineering" categories, on the grounds that they're not yet
perfect.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
00:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
It's probably best to not make this discussion a debate on what users should or should not be doing with their limited WP editing time. Let's focus on the nomination as opposed to what the nominator has or has not done/should or should not do.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Asking to have things deleted is a way of improving WP. Are you suggesting that I should not attempt to improve topics relating to the history of engineering? And I agree with Good Ol’factory that we should concentrate on the WP. --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs)
00:28, 13 March 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:Election agencies in Albania
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 did think it might be poor translation but the
main website appears to use this translation in its English pages ("Central Election Commission") with occasional use of the plural (i.e. "Elections").
Green Giant (
talk)
17:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete and upmerge. The two pages now in the category appear notable. It seems very unlikely that any of the hundreds of local election commissions is notable in itself, and if that is so then the category fails
WP:SMALLCAT: small and with no potential for growth.
Moonraker (
talk)
21:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep or rename since there are two - central and local, deletion should not be an option, nor upmerging, which comes to the same thing. I do not speak Albanian and cannot comment on the correct translation, whether agency or commission.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:12, 15 March 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:Short story collections by Stanislaw Lem
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:Victoria schools
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:Featured articles on Mathematics Portal
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep but put on the talk page. "We don't classify articles by which portal(s) display them"? Why not? I can see reasons to do this, for internal purposes, but this means that the categorisation should either be hidden or on the talk page. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
23:46, 12 March 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:Old Victorians - Singapore
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.
Agree if all alumni categories are split so as to be consistent - DragTian
Alumni of Victoria Junior College have been moved to another category. Now what is needed is the renaming of the present category. - DragTian
Comment -- When I got here the nom category had been emptied, presumably to implement the split. Membership of a club, such as an old boys association is usually non-defining, but education at a secondary school is defining. I have not entirely understood the relationship between the two colleges. If the pupils of the junior school almost inevitably continue to the senior one and there are no other feeder schools, it may be better to treat them as one, despite having separate campuses.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:21, 15 March 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:Physician Assistant programs in the United States
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete and possibly turn into a list. We shouldn't categorize universities according to the programs they offer. First it doesn't really correspond to a defining characteristic of the university. Second this would quickly lead to serious category clutter because universities typically offer dozens of programs.
Pichpich (
talk)
11:34, 12 March 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:Trade unions of Hong Kong
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:Celebrities who were born in London's St Joeseph's Hospital
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.
Strong Keep. I have seen countless references to celebrities places of birth, I think this subject may be of interest to people, with
Justin Bieber,
Ryan Gosling, and
Rachel McAdams all well known A-list celebrities having the same hospital of birth in an otherwise not well known city of
London, Ontario .
Pumkinhead001 (
talk)
Delete.
WP:OC#TRIVIAL excludes place of death, and I can't see how place of birth is any different. Also "Interesting coincidence" sounds a lot like a trivial intersection (WP:OC#TRIVIAL again) --
Northernhenge (
talk)
19:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)reply
note although you don't see place of birth as different from place of death, it is not stated in oc Trivial, that is your interpretation, by this logic we can also dismiss as trivial, school attended, degree obtained..ect. What I feel makes the place of birth somewhat significant is London not being a major metropolis for movie and music production such as New York, L.A.
I would agree that place of birth and place of death are both generally inappropriate for categorization. I would also say the same for school attended and degree obtained. Reasonable users could disagree on these points. But holding my view doesn't mean the information should not be mentioned in an article about the person. It just means I don't view these factoids as "defining" for the person of the type that categories are meant to capture.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
delete because of that prefix "Celebrities".
If there are articles for people capable of being categorized, then they're presumably notable - and that's enough.
As to whether "... by hospital" is significant, then it's not something I have any interest in or would make use of. However nor is it my role to tell other people not to do so, provided that they can adequately source it.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
00:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete as
WP:OC#TRIVIAL, which says: "If something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely that it is a trivial characteristic." The fact that someone was born in a particular town is usually a fairly insignificant characteristic, but the question of whether people were born in one hospital rather than another one in the same town is no way a "defining characteristic"; it is trivia which could easily be omitted from the article. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
01:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete – we have deleted country of birth, so 'hospital of birth' is less than trivial. (I have never seen 'hospital of birth' mentioned in an obit in a respectable publication.) This seems to be St. Joseph's Hospital in London Ontario, which is not even mentioned in
St. Joseph's Hospital.
Oculi (
talk)
09:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename to Artists from London, Ontario , please change my vote. I think "people " from London Ontario is way too broad, Should
Justin Bieber be in the same list as some guy who is a city councillor? Love or hate Bieber, he is world known, also the rest of the named people.
Pumkinhead001 (
talk)
18:51, 15 March 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:Events at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games
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:Madrigals
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.
Yes, I see now that there is an ongoing discussion to
move the article. Since at this stage it seems likely to be moved, it's probably best to withdraw this nomination. I will renominate if for some reason the move doesn't happen.
Good Ol’factory(talk)07:59, 12 March 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:Glees
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename.
Glee is ambiguous and
Glees is a place in Germany. I suggest renaming to match the article
Glee (music). (I note that this is apparently not speedy-able under C2D due to
this recent change to the criteria. This is a set category, not a topic category.)
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:43, 12 March 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.
Anime of YEAR categories
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.
Manga of YEAR categories
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:Rounds
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:Conference National players
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.
Rename - per nom. Makes perfect sense to include the Conference North and Conference South with the Conference National, similar to what's done with Football League. ★☆
DUCKISJAMMMY☆★
19:11, 12 March 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:Tinnosbanen
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.