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.
Never mind: I see that the distinction is between Simplified Chinese containing terms used in Malaysia and Singapore versus Simplified Chinese containing terms used in the PRC.
Rybec (
talk)
06:29, 11 February 2013 (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:Harvard librarians
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.
Support nominator's rename. There is no risk in confusing library science students with the library staff. The majority of students are unlikely to ever have articles on WP because they were students of library science. If they become notable it will be for other reasons.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk)
06:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
And how exactly will your rename do the latter? If we open it up to "staff" would that not include part-time staff? Actually, I think your rename target is the proposed option most likely to include part-time student employees in its contents.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)reply
You are totally misunderstanding what students people want to exclude. No one has suggestede we exclude people who had at one point been students at Harvard. What they want to exclude is people who were only connected with Harvard while students there. Harris, for example, was the librarian of Harvard long after he was a student there.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)reply
I think you are also reading Primary Topic too narrowly. The fact that cities named Harvard may well have librarians, some of whom may become notable might be an additional reason to rename. However the main issue is that we generally refer to the instution as Harvard University in all its subcats.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:59, 14 February 2013 (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:The X-Files episode redirects to lists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy delete as empty category per
WP:CSD#C1. For future reference, categories which have become redundant in this way don't need to be brought to CFD; just tag them with {{db-catempty}}. (This doesn't apply if an editor thinks a category is a bad idea; it's only to be done when a category is no longer applicable to any pages). --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Since every episode of The X-Files now has its own article, there are no longer any redirects from episode titles to lists. I already emptied this category by fixing links to the correct articles. The category has now become obsolete.
FakirNL (
talk)
19:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Undersized stub category with an undersized permanent category. Delete stub category, and upmerge template. No prejudice against recreating category once article count permits.
Dawynn (
talk)
18:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep. I don't understand the problem. If a category is underpopulated is well, it means that many articles are not stub. The objective of Wikipedia is the "destubization". --
Kasper2006 (
talk)
09:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)reply
And the purpose of
stub sorting is to help editors find groups of articles that meet their interest. Please review the
guidelines for the project. Past experience has shown that stub categories with less than about 60 articles are too finely granulated to be of use. We can keep the template, but upmerge it to more appropriately sized categories.
Dawynn (
talk)
12:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep The purpose of stub categories is to provide a systematic basis to allow for identification of stub articles by type so that editors can work on their expansion to get them out of the category. The objective of stub categories is to have as few articles as possible. With 9 articles presently in
Category:Italian paralympic athletes biography stubs and 17 in
Category:Paralympic athletes of Italy, it seems that neither it undersized. Even if the size were a genuine issue, constantly deleting the category when it was deemed too small and waiting for it to be large enough before recreating it, and doing so in a neverending cycle of deletion and recreation of the stub category, hardly seems to be an effective way to deal with these stubs.
Alansohn (
talk)
14:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment "The objective of stub categories is to have as few articles as possible." is true, but is misrepresenting the issue as the aim is less stubs total, but over-categorising stubs would make the stub system virtually useless - a stub category with one stub does not help an editor find similar articles to expand at all. As Dawynn says, 60-800 is the standard consensus aimed for at this point. I personally would prefer a bit smaller standard, say 40-500, but others in the past have criticised the system as over-categorised as is and think stub cats should aim for 500-2000 or similar (sorry, I cannot find the discussion where I read this argument). In this case, 9 has been previously agreed on as way to small a group to need its own stub category (though a template is fine, and in this case fits WP:WSS's speedy criteria), and (part of) the point about the small parent category I think Dawynn was making is that there is little apparent potential growth (as obviously there should not be more Italian paralympic athlete stubs then there are Italian paralympic athletes). Hence, in this case there should be no danger of the neverending cycle you mention. Although I do notice this category was boldly created without proposal at
WP:WSS/P and yet the creator added a template which asks that categories be discussed at that page before creation. --
Qetuth (
talk)
01:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete cat, upmerge template To be clear, deleting a category does not lose useful information with stubs as the stub template is still on the article - it will simply put the article in the current parents (Paralympics stubs and Italian sportspeople stubs) instead of its own category. --
Qetuth (
talk)
00:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I have just tried to find some of the untagged articles mentioned by Sportygeek, and brought it up to 14 before noticing another problem - the tag populating this category is {{Italy-paralympics-bio-stub}}. No mention of athletics. Hence I just added it to some archers before noticing the link in the stub tag went to an article for a specific sport. So, there is a mismatch here and at the very least either the category should be renamed to more generic Paralympians or the template should be moved to {{Italy-paralympics-athletics-bio-stub}}. This though seems like too fine a division, especially when most of its parents are yet to exist. Instead, I would like to propose the following solution:
Proposal
Delete both template and category nominated.
Create {{Italy-Paralympic-medalist-stub}} (speedy S2, covers most, if not all, of the articles being discussed as few Paralympians without medals have articles yet).
Create {{Paralympic-bio-stub}} and associated category
Category:Paralympics biography stubs to hold competitors who don't fot the existing 'medalists' tree, non-competitors such as coaches/executives, and a possible future 'by event' tree.
Investigate at
WP:WSS/P the possibility of a scheme of national paralympics stub tags and/or categories - some countries have organisations, by year summaries, sporting teams, all in the main
Category:Paralympics stubs plus competitors both with and without medals, so I think at least some of those countries could justify a category.
This way, rather than an italian athletics medallist being tagged with Italian athletics stub and para. medallist stub, they would be tagged with Italian medallist stub and para. athletics stub, which has the same information but a clearer category structure and may better suit the goal of grouping stub articles by editor interest. --
Qetuth (
talk)
12:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted from
CfD 2013 January 21 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Is there any support for Qetuth's proposal? It seems to address most of the concerns raised on all sides
Merge to equivalent Italy athlete category and (if necessary) the general Paralympics stubs category.
Qetuth's proposal has some merit, but will result in even more small categories. This is presumably being populated by a stub type, so that perhaps this should be being discussed elsewhere.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:40, 11 February 2013 (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:S.H.I.E.L.D. films
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. I'm temped to put this under "Speedy" Category is being used to link films where the fictional agency SHIELD appears in any way shape or form. In some cases it is editorial jusdgement that SHIELD is a notable intersection.
J Greb (
talk)
20:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Selective upmerge to multiple parents excluding the "by series" categories. I am not familiar with these films, but the two apart from Capt America prominently feature SHIELD; just de-categorise that one. –
FayenaticLondon20:41, 20 January 2013 (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:S.H.I.E.L.D. in other media
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. I'm temped to put this under "Speedy" Category is being used to link non-comics uses of the fictional agency SHIELD appears in any way shape or form. In some cases it is editorial jusdgement that SHIELD is a notable intersection. Very much redundant with
S.H.I.E.L.D.#In other media.
J Greb (
talk)
20:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - Would these two categories be better converted to some sort of
Category:Fictional universes subcat? I would think that signs a tv series or movie is set in the same universe and have some characters in common is a good reason for categorisation, and isn't that what the presence of SHIELD indicates? --
Qetuth (
talk)
23:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)reply
No, it doesn't. Just like DC, Marvel has various universes in which different versions of the same characters and agencies appear; the two Spider-Man series categorised here, for instance, do not take place in the same universe, but rather feature different versions of Spidey. Same for the two Iron Man series. -
The BushrangerOne ping only13:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted from
CFD 2013 January 19 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Short-range ballistic missiles
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.
Oppose per Alansohn. Anachronistic reshuffling of categories for which TBM was not the term of art at the time isn't necessary with a subcategory of TBM being SRBM. --
65.92.180.137 (
talk)
01:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Alansohn. They are different things. 1000m and 3500m are robust definitions, and presumably accepted ones, so that includion is not a POV issue. Headnotes will be needed to define the scope.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:06, 11 February 2013 (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.
Military equipment of the Vietnam War
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.
Delete all - This is a borderline case, as it could be argued that the Korean War was significant enough to be defining for some of its equipment...but the key word is "some". This is best handled as lists in the appropriate articles. -
The BushrangerOne ping only03:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete all perhaps with selective listifying. I would question whether separate Australian lists are useful: they could be included as a separate section in more general lists.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:53, 11 February 2013 (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.
Words and phrases of Australian Aboriginal origin
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.
Listify at
List of English words of Australian Aboriginal origin or
List of Australian place names of Aboriginal origin where neccesary. The Wiktionary category structure might be a better place to specifically categorise by langauge root, but as a list in general it does not contain all the words in the nommed cats, nor it it a likely place for readers to think to look, so I'm not sure why you think listing on WP is unnecessary when we already have a list which does the job better. Is the intention to also delete the parent category
Category:Words and phrases of Australian Aboriginal origin? If it is being kept these should probably be upmerged, else we are selectively uncategorising some articles on the basis of knowing more about them. But I think all the rationale above to delete equally applies to the parent. --
Qetuth (
talk)
23:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
OK to listify, however Wiktionary should be the place for readers to find a comprehensive list of words that originated in a particular language; it's appropriate for WP to give some examples and link to Wiktionary, but I don't see why WP needs to try to maintain complete lists (not that I'm proposing deleting any such lists). I intend to review the articles in
the parent cat (and
its parent...), but that may result in a purge rather than a complete deletion.
DexDor (
talk)
06:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
I kind of see your point, although I believe such info has as much encyclopedic value as it does...dictionaric? But this doesn't appear to be the way we currently work: such lists on Wiktionary are rare and often shorter than their Wikipedia equivalents. If English words being derived from Dharug, or Korean, is a documented phenomenon, Wikipedia should probably have an article, list or section discussing such, and interested potential readers are unlikely to find it directly on Wiktionary which is really not set up for that kind of searching to the inexperienced.
When I said that readers can find a list in Wiktionary I meant the Wiktionary category rather than a list article in Wiktionary.
DexDor (
talk)
06:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Listify what can be sourced, then delete this could be the core of an interesting article on English-speakers borrowing of indigenous terms for new items and concepts encountered, etc.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
19:18, 15 February 2013 (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:Welsh loanwords
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale These are all overcategoization by shared name. As was pointed out until recently we had
Category:Hindi loanwords that contained
Looting because we had chosent that name for the article and not its German-loanword synonym Plundering. Wikipedia articles are on things, and the things they are on are very rarely the words themselves. These subjects are much better covered by dictionaries than encyclopedias, but if we cover them at all it should be in lists. I was thinking of nominating the whole tree, but I know some of the categories will bring out people who want to use wikipedia categories to advance linguistic studies. I figured we would be best off to handle a close grouping of a limited number so that we do not get overwhelmed by any objections. Also, it made sense since their most immediate parent is up for nomination for renaming.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Listify all. Such a collection may indeed be of interest, but it is a feature of the name not the object, and synonyms with differing roots are overwhelmingly common. --
Qetuth (
talk)
23:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete these category names have no meaning. They don't indicate if these are loanwords in the language, or loanwords from the language. Further some of the categories suffer
WP:Systematic bias being only words in that language from English, or words in English from that language, when there are many other languages in the world besides English and language X. --
65.92.180.137 (
talk)
01:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Listify then delete' -- These are presumably English words with a particualr origin: this is not a shared name, but a shared origin. That shared origin is of interest, but I am not convinced that this is not somethign for the dictionary. Nevertheless we could have an encyclopaedic article on the loan words from other languages to English.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:59, 11 February 2013 (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:Celtic loanwords
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 This category has now been limited to articles that are functionally lists. For now it seems we have enough lists here to make it worth keeping the category. If we need all the list articles is another question that will probably be decided at some other time. For now we should rename the category to prevent it from being turned back into the loanword categories we are in the process of getting rid of.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose proposed category name is ambiguous (current name is also ambiguous) If we consider only the list articles in the nominated category, and not subcategories, then then name should be
Category:Lists of loanwords from Celtic; this is not currently a category of loanwords in Celtic languages, only of loanwords in non-Celtic languages from Celtic languages. --
65.92.180.137 (
talk)
02:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- neither the present or the target is satisfactory, but I have no suggestion as to what the target should be. In any evetn this partly depends on the outcome of the discussion above. I would suggest that this is relisted when that one is closed.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Both opposes seem odd because neither likes the current situation. If you do not like the target and do not like the current situation, you should try to come up with a better target, not just shot down honest attempts to improve the situation. Anyway, the target name is not "ambiguous" as much as it is broad. Since this category contains lists of English, Spanish and French words with Celtic origin, it is fairly broad. I guess we could rename it to
Category:Lists of words of Celtic origin, but I always thought that was exactly what loanword meant.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I did come up with a better target, it's a redlink in my opinion. And "loanword" does not mean that, since it can also mean Category:Lists of words in Celtic languages borrowed from non-Celtic languages which is why I said both source and target names are ambiguous. ; but bearing on your second proposed category name,
Category:Lists of words of Celtic origin is acceptable to me.--
65.92.180.137 (
talk)
05:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Upmerge, would be my vote. It's probably best to upmerge all of the cats on this level to the supercat and then decide how to proceed from there.
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
14:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
If the above discussion results in listify/delete, then rename this. The above oppose comments haven't considered the likely outcome above which undermines their rationale.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
19:20, 15 February 2013 (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:Songs written by Jace Everett
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.
Never mind: I see that the distinction is between Simplified Chinese containing terms used in Malaysia and Singapore versus Simplified Chinese containing terms used in the PRC.
Rybec (
talk)
06:29, 11 February 2013 (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:Harvard librarians
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.
Support nominator's rename. There is no risk in confusing library science students with the library staff. The majority of students are unlikely to ever have articles on WP because they were students of library science. If they become notable it will be for other reasons.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk)
06:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
And how exactly will your rename do the latter? If we open it up to "staff" would that not include part-time staff? Actually, I think your rename target is the proposed option most likely to include part-time student employees in its contents.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)reply
You are totally misunderstanding what students people want to exclude. No one has suggestede we exclude people who had at one point been students at Harvard. What they want to exclude is people who were only connected with Harvard while students there. Harris, for example, was the librarian of Harvard long after he was a student there.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)reply
I think you are also reading Primary Topic too narrowly. The fact that cities named Harvard may well have librarians, some of whom may become notable might be an additional reason to rename. However the main issue is that we generally refer to the instution as Harvard University in all its subcats.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:59, 14 February 2013 (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:The X-Files episode redirects to lists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy delete as empty category per
WP:CSD#C1. For future reference, categories which have become redundant in this way don't need to be brought to CFD; just tag them with {{db-catempty}}. (This doesn't apply if an editor thinks a category is a bad idea; it's only to be done when a category is no longer applicable to any pages). --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Since every episode of The X-Files now has its own article, there are no longer any redirects from episode titles to lists. I already emptied this category by fixing links to the correct articles. The category has now become obsolete.
FakirNL (
talk)
19:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Undersized stub category with an undersized permanent category. Delete stub category, and upmerge template. No prejudice against recreating category once article count permits.
Dawynn (
talk)
18:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep. I don't understand the problem. If a category is underpopulated is well, it means that many articles are not stub. The objective of Wikipedia is the "destubization". --
Kasper2006 (
talk)
09:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)reply
And the purpose of
stub sorting is to help editors find groups of articles that meet their interest. Please review the
guidelines for the project. Past experience has shown that stub categories with less than about 60 articles are too finely granulated to be of use. We can keep the template, but upmerge it to more appropriately sized categories.
Dawynn (
talk)
12:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep The purpose of stub categories is to provide a systematic basis to allow for identification of stub articles by type so that editors can work on their expansion to get them out of the category. The objective of stub categories is to have as few articles as possible. With 9 articles presently in
Category:Italian paralympic athletes biography stubs and 17 in
Category:Paralympic athletes of Italy, it seems that neither it undersized. Even if the size were a genuine issue, constantly deleting the category when it was deemed too small and waiting for it to be large enough before recreating it, and doing so in a neverending cycle of deletion and recreation of the stub category, hardly seems to be an effective way to deal with these stubs.
Alansohn (
talk)
14:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment "The objective of stub categories is to have as few articles as possible." is true, but is misrepresenting the issue as the aim is less stubs total, but over-categorising stubs would make the stub system virtually useless - a stub category with one stub does not help an editor find similar articles to expand at all. As Dawynn says, 60-800 is the standard consensus aimed for at this point. I personally would prefer a bit smaller standard, say 40-500, but others in the past have criticised the system as over-categorised as is and think stub cats should aim for 500-2000 or similar (sorry, I cannot find the discussion where I read this argument). In this case, 9 has been previously agreed on as way to small a group to need its own stub category (though a template is fine, and in this case fits WP:WSS's speedy criteria), and (part of) the point about the small parent category I think Dawynn was making is that there is little apparent potential growth (as obviously there should not be more Italian paralympic athlete stubs then there are Italian paralympic athletes). Hence, in this case there should be no danger of the neverending cycle you mention. Although I do notice this category was boldly created without proposal at
WP:WSS/P and yet the creator added a template which asks that categories be discussed at that page before creation. --
Qetuth (
talk)
01:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete cat, upmerge template To be clear, deleting a category does not lose useful information with stubs as the stub template is still on the article - it will simply put the article in the current parents (Paralympics stubs and Italian sportspeople stubs) instead of its own category. --
Qetuth (
talk)
00:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I have just tried to find some of the untagged articles mentioned by Sportygeek, and brought it up to 14 before noticing another problem - the tag populating this category is {{Italy-paralympics-bio-stub}}. No mention of athletics. Hence I just added it to some archers before noticing the link in the stub tag went to an article for a specific sport. So, there is a mismatch here and at the very least either the category should be renamed to more generic Paralympians or the template should be moved to {{Italy-paralympics-athletics-bio-stub}}. This though seems like too fine a division, especially when most of its parents are yet to exist. Instead, I would like to propose the following solution:
Proposal
Delete both template and category nominated.
Create {{Italy-Paralympic-medalist-stub}} (speedy S2, covers most, if not all, of the articles being discussed as few Paralympians without medals have articles yet).
Create {{Paralympic-bio-stub}} and associated category
Category:Paralympics biography stubs to hold competitors who don't fot the existing 'medalists' tree, non-competitors such as coaches/executives, and a possible future 'by event' tree.
Investigate at
WP:WSS/P the possibility of a scheme of national paralympics stub tags and/or categories - some countries have organisations, by year summaries, sporting teams, all in the main
Category:Paralympics stubs plus competitors both with and without medals, so I think at least some of those countries could justify a category.
This way, rather than an italian athletics medallist being tagged with Italian athletics stub and para. medallist stub, they would be tagged with Italian medallist stub and para. athletics stub, which has the same information but a clearer category structure and may better suit the goal of grouping stub articles by editor interest. --
Qetuth (
talk)
12:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted from
CfD 2013 January 21 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Is there any support for Qetuth's proposal? It seems to address most of the concerns raised on all sides
Merge to equivalent Italy athlete category and (if necessary) the general Paralympics stubs category.
Qetuth's proposal has some merit, but will result in even more small categories. This is presumably being populated by a stub type, so that perhaps this should be being discussed elsewhere.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:40, 11 February 2013 (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:S.H.I.E.L.D. films
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. I'm temped to put this under "Speedy" Category is being used to link films where the fictional agency SHIELD appears in any way shape or form. In some cases it is editorial jusdgement that SHIELD is a notable intersection.
J Greb (
talk)
20:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Selective upmerge to multiple parents excluding the "by series" categories. I am not familiar with these films, but the two apart from Capt America prominently feature SHIELD; just de-categorise that one. –
FayenaticLondon20:41, 20 January 2013 (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:S.H.I.E.L.D. in other media
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. I'm temped to put this under "Speedy" Category is being used to link non-comics uses of the fictional agency SHIELD appears in any way shape or form. In some cases it is editorial jusdgement that SHIELD is a notable intersection. Very much redundant with
S.H.I.E.L.D.#In other media.
J Greb (
talk)
20:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - Would these two categories be better converted to some sort of
Category:Fictional universes subcat? I would think that signs a tv series or movie is set in the same universe and have some characters in common is a good reason for categorisation, and isn't that what the presence of SHIELD indicates? --
Qetuth (
talk)
23:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)reply
No, it doesn't. Just like DC, Marvel has various universes in which different versions of the same characters and agencies appear; the two Spider-Man series categorised here, for instance, do not take place in the same universe, but rather feature different versions of Spidey. Same for the two Iron Man series. -
The BushrangerOne ping only13:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted from
CFD 2013 January 19 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Short-range ballistic missiles
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.
Oppose per Alansohn. Anachronistic reshuffling of categories for which TBM was not the term of art at the time isn't necessary with a subcategory of TBM being SRBM. --
65.92.180.137 (
talk)
01:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Alansohn. They are different things. 1000m and 3500m are robust definitions, and presumably accepted ones, so that includion is not a POV issue. Headnotes will be needed to define the scope.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:06, 11 February 2013 (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.
Military equipment of the Vietnam War
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.
Delete all - This is a borderline case, as it could be argued that the Korean War was significant enough to be defining for some of its equipment...but the key word is "some". This is best handled as lists in the appropriate articles. -
The BushrangerOne ping only03:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete all perhaps with selective listifying. I would question whether separate Australian lists are useful: they could be included as a separate section in more general lists.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:53, 11 February 2013 (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.
Words and phrases of Australian Aboriginal origin
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.
Listify at
List of English words of Australian Aboriginal origin or
List of Australian place names of Aboriginal origin where neccesary. The Wiktionary category structure might be a better place to specifically categorise by langauge root, but as a list in general it does not contain all the words in the nommed cats, nor it it a likely place for readers to think to look, so I'm not sure why you think listing on WP is unnecessary when we already have a list which does the job better. Is the intention to also delete the parent category
Category:Words and phrases of Australian Aboriginal origin? If it is being kept these should probably be upmerged, else we are selectively uncategorising some articles on the basis of knowing more about them. But I think all the rationale above to delete equally applies to the parent. --
Qetuth (
talk)
23:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
OK to listify, however Wiktionary should be the place for readers to find a comprehensive list of words that originated in a particular language; it's appropriate for WP to give some examples and link to Wiktionary, but I don't see why WP needs to try to maintain complete lists (not that I'm proposing deleting any such lists). I intend to review the articles in
the parent cat (and
its parent...), but that may result in a purge rather than a complete deletion.
DexDor (
talk)
06:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
I kind of see your point, although I believe such info has as much encyclopedic value as it does...dictionaric? But this doesn't appear to be the way we currently work: such lists on Wiktionary are rare and often shorter than their Wikipedia equivalents. If English words being derived from Dharug, or Korean, is a documented phenomenon, Wikipedia should probably have an article, list or section discussing such, and interested potential readers are unlikely to find it directly on Wiktionary which is really not set up for that kind of searching to the inexperienced.
When I said that readers can find a list in Wiktionary I meant the Wiktionary category rather than a list article in Wiktionary.
DexDor (
talk)
06:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Listify what can be sourced, then delete this could be the core of an interesting article on English-speakers borrowing of indigenous terms for new items and concepts encountered, etc.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
19:18, 15 February 2013 (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:Welsh loanwords
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale These are all overcategoization by shared name. As was pointed out until recently we had
Category:Hindi loanwords that contained
Looting because we had chosent that name for the article and not its German-loanword synonym Plundering. Wikipedia articles are on things, and the things they are on are very rarely the words themselves. These subjects are much better covered by dictionaries than encyclopedias, but if we cover them at all it should be in lists. I was thinking of nominating the whole tree, but I know some of the categories will bring out people who want to use wikipedia categories to advance linguistic studies. I figured we would be best off to handle a close grouping of a limited number so that we do not get overwhelmed by any objections. Also, it made sense since their most immediate parent is up for nomination for renaming.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Listify all. Such a collection may indeed be of interest, but it is a feature of the name not the object, and synonyms with differing roots are overwhelmingly common. --
Qetuth (
talk)
23:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete these category names have no meaning. They don't indicate if these are loanwords in the language, or loanwords from the language. Further some of the categories suffer
WP:Systematic bias being only words in that language from English, or words in English from that language, when there are many other languages in the world besides English and language X. --
65.92.180.137 (
talk)
01:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Listify then delete' -- These are presumably English words with a particualr origin: this is not a shared name, but a shared origin. That shared origin is of interest, but I am not convinced that this is not somethign for the dictionary. Nevertheless we could have an encyclopaedic article on the loan words from other languages to English.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:59, 11 February 2013 (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:Celtic loanwords
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 This category has now been limited to articles that are functionally lists. For now it seems we have enough lists here to make it worth keeping the category. If we need all the list articles is another question that will probably be decided at some other time. For now we should rename the category to prevent it from being turned back into the loanword categories we are in the process of getting rid of.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose proposed category name is ambiguous (current name is also ambiguous) If we consider only the list articles in the nominated category, and not subcategories, then then name should be
Category:Lists of loanwords from Celtic; this is not currently a category of loanwords in Celtic languages, only of loanwords in non-Celtic languages from Celtic languages. --
65.92.180.137 (
talk)
02:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- neither the present or the target is satisfactory, but I have no suggestion as to what the target should be. In any evetn this partly depends on the outcome of the discussion above. I would suggest that this is relisted when that one is closed.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Both opposes seem odd because neither likes the current situation. If you do not like the target and do not like the current situation, you should try to come up with a better target, not just shot down honest attempts to improve the situation. Anyway, the target name is not "ambiguous" as much as it is broad. Since this category contains lists of English, Spanish and French words with Celtic origin, it is fairly broad. I guess we could rename it to
Category:Lists of words of Celtic origin, but I always thought that was exactly what loanword meant.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I did come up with a better target, it's a redlink in my opinion. And "loanword" does not mean that, since it can also mean Category:Lists of words in Celtic languages borrowed from non-Celtic languages which is why I said both source and target names are ambiguous. ; but bearing on your second proposed category name,
Category:Lists of words of Celtic origin is acceptable to me.--
65.92.180.137 (
talk)
05:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Upmerge, would be my vote. It's probably best to upmerge all of the cats on this level to the supercat and then decide how to proceed from there.
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
14:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
If the above discussion results in listify/delete, then rename this. The above oppose comments haven't considered the likely outcome above which undermines their rationale.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
19:20, 15 February 2013 (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:Songs written by Jace Everett
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.