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. In this category tree, we have categories for different languages (in these cases:
Category:English-language journals and
Category:Spanish-language journals. For journals that are not written exclusively in one language but in a mix of two or more languages, there is the
Category:Multilingual journals. Creating separate categories for different language combinations seems impractical: some journals are in two languages, some in three. Having a
Category:Portuguese, Spanish and English-language journals does not really seem workable (not to mention all the problems one can get into when asking which language should be mentioned first). I propose to stick to the conventions in this area: an "English-language journal" is a journal written (entirely) in English, a journal published partly in English and partly in Spanish is a "Multilingual journal" and therefore to delete this category.
Randykitty (
talk) 23:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I don't think we want all possible permutations and see no reason to have a limited number.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 06:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep for now. It is true that the potential combinations of languages in journals are huge. However, I think that at last the few most common combinations deserve their own categories. I would argue that Spanish-English journals are so many that they are most likely the most common sort of bilingual journals. In addition this category helps to ease the pressure in
Category:Multilingual journals, which is currently overpopulated.
Dentren |
Talk 15:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Hi, glad that communication has been re-established. To put your comment about easing the pressure on the multilingual journals category into perspective, we're talking here about 6 journals out of 291. Even if a few were missed that could fit into this cat, that barely deserves the word "easing"... (BTW, I find the name of the category counter-intuitive, too. "English- and Spanish-language journals" would have been more logical (alphabetical order) and in the title as it is, I think that, grammatically, there should be a dash after "Spanish"). --
Randykitty (
talk) 16:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)reply
These six are ones I have had time to categorize. Spanish-English languages are many more.
Dentren |
Talk 21:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)reply
It still wont make a real dent in that cat, it opens the door to endless discussions (shouldn't this be English-Spanish?), it starts a category tree that is going to be very difficult to define (English-Portuguese-Spanish journals, English-Esperanto-French journals, Dutch-Hindi journals, whatever). --
Randykitty (
talk) 10:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. If the multilingual journals category gets too big, it can be logically subdivided at a later date. Regards,
DA Sonnenfeld (
talk) 15:01, 24 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:Television series by RDF Media Group
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The category should be merged as the company itself was merged into Zodiak.
Bbb2007 (
talk) 23:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose These were produced by RDF Media, a well-known production company, under that name. The sub-category relationship is a far better way to represent this. The lack of WP coverage on RDF shouldn't be taken as evidence for RDF's relative significance compared to Zodiak.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 10:42, 17 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.
Drug-related suicides in U.S. 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.
Keep The size and scope of this category for the United States -- with an unfortunate number of further such deaths in the future -- provides ample justification for subcategorizing by state.
Category:Suicides in New York and
Category:Drug-related deaths in New York provide a network of ways to navigate through such deaths in
New York State and corresponding category structures for other states already exist.
Alansohn (
talk) 03:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep "Small number of entries" when the categories contain over 20 articles? I think the size is quite reasonable.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep all. If articles aren't being properly diffused down the tree, that's a maintiance problem, not a deletion one. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 02:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep all there are enough articles to justify dispersion to the state level.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:29, 19 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.
Alcohol-related deaths in U.S. 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.
Comment. These are each part of a state-specific category scheme, so if they are all merged to
Category:Alcohol-related deaths in the United States, the articles would also need to be merged to the appropriate state-specific category in
Category:Drug-related deaths in the United States. (I think it generally makes more sense to separate out the alcohol ones from the other drug ones, though, since an alcohol-related death is not normally what one thinks of as a "drug"-related death.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep "Small number of entries" when the categories contain over 20 articles? I think the size is quite reasonable.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep all. If articles aren't being properly diffused down the tree, that's a maintiance problem, not a deletion one. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 02:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep upmerging would just create more categories to put the articles in.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:33, 19 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:LivingTV television programmes
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The channel's name was changed two years ago.
Bbb2007 (
talk) 20:43, 16 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:Global internet community
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. –
FayenaticLondon 13:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is no sign of any clear and self-evident inclusion criteria for this category, apart perhaps from "everyone who use the internet" or "everyone who uses social media" ... both of which are uselessly broad. Phrases such as this may be used in PR campaigns for internet businesses, but they are far to vague to have any use as a category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 19:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete The name is a synonym for "internet culture". I don't see how this category could have a separate scope than its parent article.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:58, 18 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:Eidolon
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:Eidolon albums
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. Eidolon is a disambiguation page; the band which this category is named for is
Eidolon (band).
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 18:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
If that were the only reason, then the nomination immediately above would be equally effective.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 06:28, 17 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.
Alumni of Panadura Royal College
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. –
FayenaticLondon 13:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep - although there is one article currently it has the potential to grow as new articles are created.--obi2canibetalkcontr 16:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep we accept alumni categories as part of a series.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:34, 19 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:Radio stations in Colorado Springs & Pueblo
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.
Split per The Bushranger; according to {{Colorado Springs Radio}} and {{Pueblo Radio}}, they're different radio markets, so they're no different from other cities in Colorado for this purpose. Renaming per nom would put Pueblo stations, such as
KIQN, in the wrong category.
Nyttend (
talk) 21:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)reply
It would appear, for the record, that while Colorado Springs and Pueblo are a unified Nielsen television market, they are not a unified Arbitron radio market. (One doesn't require the other in the least, as they're two completely different things.) And even as a unified TV market, the category for TV stations isn't double-barrelled this way, but is at just
Category:Television stations in Colorado Springs, Colorado (although it was formerly at a doubled Colorado Springs-Pueblo title, which probably explains how this one happened, it got renamed much sooner than this did.) That said, the cities do seem to each have enough of their own radio stations to justify each having their own category — so split per Bushranger rather than just decatting Pueblo.
Bearcat (
talk) 20:26, 20 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:Law firms in India
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 under
CSD G7 (author request).
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 10:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)reply
This can be speedied.
DexDor (
talk) 08:14, 16 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:Military equipment of the Second Boer 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. See my
earlier close for the rationale. Additionally, at this point, none of the categories contain anything except an article about
a horse breed.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 02:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete all, this is a conflict in which few, if any, of its weapons are defined by. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 07:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
keep all (similarly the other AfDs) The idea of conflating theatrical performances per
WP:OC#PERF with military conflicts is ridiculous. The "equipment in minor conflict" categories may indeed not be defining for the equipment's technical development history (as they are for WWII), but they do define a significant group of interest to historians of that conflict.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 21:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
If it's not defining for the categorised items, they shouldn't be categorised. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a resource for historians. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 02:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)reply
What a nonsensically
BF comment. You perniciously fail to understand my point, yet again. This whole attempt of yours to delete a large tree of categories by snipping away at the margins until you think you've set a precedent is underhand and deceitful, quite contrary to the open and honest behaviour that is essential for a group project. You should be ashamed of it.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 02:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Andy, I share many of your concerns, but your points are lost in a comment which appears to be unacceptably vitriolic. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 03:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete being used in a specific conflict is not defining for a massed produced weapon. I have no objection to lists, but categories just do not work.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep all for now. I am unpersuaded by the sweeping and absolute generalisations used in the deletion of these categories, as well as by the lack of notifications to
WP:MILHIST. It is very odd to pursue such a wide range of changes without the participation of the relevant WikiProject, especially when it is such an active and well-organised project; and there seems to be no coherent plan for how best to group this information. I am a political historian rather than a military historian, but some weaponry is very strongly defined by particular conflicts: e.g. the
Sopwith Camel by WWI, the
Supermarine Spitfire by WWII, the
Sea Harrier by the Falklands War,
Alvis Saracen by
The Troubles, etc. Simply deleting the categories without a Plan B is losing valuable metadata, and doing so in a piecemeal and under-notified fashion is not the way to ensure good decisions. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 03:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)reply
The Sea Harrier and the Saracen illustrate some of the problems with these categories; why choose the Falklands rather than Bosnia? Why choose the Troubles rather than Malaya? If WP had existed in 1982 would we have moved the Sea Harrier article from a Cold War category to a Falklands War category? If so, the categorization is non-permanent. If, on the other hand, we categorize by every conflict in which a type of equipment is used then some articles (AK-47, M16, CH-47, C-130 ...) could be in hundreds of such categories (
Centurion tank is currently in 5 such categories). There are also cases where it's not clear whether or not a particular type has been involved in a particular conflict - e.g. does delivering supplies to Kandahar count as taking part in the Afghanistan conflict? What if there is disagreement about whether a weapon was used in a conflict? - such issues can be handled in lists, but not in categorization. Categorizing by when the equipment was first introduced (year/decade/period/century) avoids these problems - military aircraft (e.g.
Hawker Typhoon) are already mostly categorized by date rather than by conflict.
DexDor (
talk) 20:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)reply
OK, maybe those two weapons are defined by their use in two conflict rather than one; but they are still very much defined by their use, just as
David Owen is defined by his membership of two political parties rather than the usual one. I note too that you didn't respond to either the Camel or the Spitfire.
I quite agree that the AKJ-47 is an example of a wepapon used in so many conflicts that it is defined by none of the. It's probably the most extreme example possible, but there other less extreme examples of the many weapons which are not defined by their role in a particular conflict. However, these nominations have been justified by a sweeping assertion that usage is non-defining. Since it clearly is defining in some cases, the basis for deletion is false.
Some discrimination is required between these different types of case, and we need a better solution than blanket deletion on the basis of the false assertion that none of the weapons are defined in this way. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 08:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Usage is not a defining characteristic of a weapon/vehicle type - being wheeled, armoured, designed by Alvis etc are defining characteristics (if a vehicle doesn't have those characteristics then it's not a Saracen), but having been used in Ulster/Malaya is not a characteristic that every Saracen has. To take another example: Some Ford Transits have been used as ambulances, but we don't put the
Ford Transit article in
Category:Ambulances.
Where an article is about a single item (the David Steel analogy) then it may be reasonable to categorize by the usage of that item. Such articles have not been included in these CFD nominations - e.g.
HMS Hermes (R12) is still in a Falklands War category, but
Mark 82 bomb is not. The Camel and Spitfire are examples of types whose use was almost exclusively in a single conflict, but many (probably most) weapons etc don't easily fit into one/two by-conflict categories. The AK-47 isn't that unusual (e.g. see the
DShK or the
CH-47 which has been used in virtually every US/UK conflict since the 60s).
DexDor (
talk) 20:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep all - I too disagree with the direction of this sweeping re-categorization. Keep per Andy Dingley.
Marcus Qwertyus (
talk) 20:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Listify the first item, after merging in the others. Delete the rest. We have had a series of noms for military equipment by war. However, they are in the nature of performance by performer categories, which we do not like. We nomrally listfy such categories (unless a list already exisits). Australia would have had little or no national arms industry at that period. All arms probably came from UK, so that an Australian category is particularly pointless.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)reply
KeepCategory:Military equipment of the Second Boer War and and merge the others into it, and upmerge it all to a single category. There is way too much structure here. Agreed, it is silly to define weapons by the wars that used them, but categories are not simply for defining, they are for navigating. As a navigation tool, the subcategorisation and forked categorisation is counter productive. There are only a handful of pages here. They belong in one category page. This is similar to the above "Listify the first item, after merging in the others. Delete the rest", but lists and categories have different complementary purposes and there is no good reason to not have a single equipment category for a major war. It fits in well in
Category:Second Boer War. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 06:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment. The
bad-faithpersonal attacks on the motives behind this nomination are downright depressing. The simple fact is that there is no "snipping around the edges to establish precedent"; there is deleting non-defining categories. WW1, WW2, the Cold War, these are defining for the majority, if not all, of the equipment used in them. While, as mentioned above, the
Shar is indeed defined by the Falklands War...what other equipment used in it is? Having a category "Weapons of war X", when only one or two weapons used in it would fit, is bad categorisation, as either you police a two-article
WP:SMALLCAT and exclude other weapons used in the war, or you populate it with all the weapons used in the war but which aren't defined it, becoming
WP:OC. These should be lists, not categories. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 05:16, 13 March 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.
American monarchists
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 in general we avoid categorizing people by just supporting some position. To add to this, it is unclear that the people in this category form a cohesive group. The Loyalists are not neccesarily "Monarchists", breaking from England was not neccssarily a debate over monarchy.
Emperor Norton does not really fit the definition of a monarchists. Of the remaining they just don't seem to be a cohesive enough group, and this feels like categorization because they support an idea without any evidence they have done anything about supporting it.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Support, there were several monarchists in the revolutionaries, who wanted to make George Washington into George the First. --
65.92.180.137 (
talk) 04:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
keep as is this is part of a pattern of such categories found in
Category:Monarchists which the nominator did not mention. This is not a transient position, it is part of a theory of governance. There is nothing provided to support the nominator's assertions that the people in the category did nothing but think. In any case, the history of ideas is as important as the history of action.
Hmains (
talk) 18:20, 17 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.
Algonquin 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 First off we have began deleting these categories, because in wikipedia we classify things by what they are, not what they are named.
Looting should renain in the same categories if it were to be renamed to
Plundering. The articles here belong in various categories, but are not on words. This category itself has articles like
Lake Michigan that are problematic for other reasons as well. For one thing, it is unclear that place names should be included in such a category at all. Another problem is that lake is not derived from Algonquian, so it is hard to see how a set of two words, one not even Algonquian, could ever fit in this category. So in general this category at base should not exist because it classifies by common naming trait, and as it is applied it even less should exist because much of the contents can not be said to be words at all, but are names.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Missinipi Broadcasting Corporation is an even more extreme case of this category being misapplied. Here we have three words, one of which might be from an Algonquian language. Plus as the name of a very specific thing, I do not think it could ever be considered a "loanword". The same could be said for the cases where the articles are on specific places in Pennsylvania or Virginia.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment: Support, but what about
Category:Algonquian ethnonyms - should that be moved to a different Algonquian category or should it be deleted ?
DexDor (
talk) 06:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete no indication from the category name if this is for loanwords in an Algonquin language from some other language, or loanwords from Algonquin languages in non Algonquin languages, or loanwords from one Algonquin language in another Algonquin language --
65.92.180.137 (
talk) 04:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Listify what can be sourced, then delete. per nom & precedent.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 01:27, 25 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. In this category tree, we have categories for different languages (in these cases:
Category:English-language journals and
Category:Spanish-language journals. For journals that are not written exclusively in one language but in a mix of two or more languages, there is the
Category:Multilingual journals. Creating separate categories for different language combinations seems impractical: some journals are in two languages, some in three. Having a
Category:Portuguese, Spanish and English-language journals does not really seem workable (not to mention all the problems one can get into when asking which language should be mentioned first). I propose to stick to the conventions in this area: an "English-language journal" is a journal written (entirely) in English, a journal published partly in English and partly in Spanish is a "Multilingual journal" and therefore to delete this category.
Randykitty (
talk) 23:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I don't think we want all possible permutations and see no reason to have a limited number.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 06:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep for now. It is true that the potential combinations of languages in journals are huge. However, I think that at last the few most common combinations deserve their own categories. I would argue that Spanish-English journals are so many that they are most likely the most common sort of bilingual journals. In addition this category helps to ease the pressure in
Category:Multilingual journals, which is currently overpopulated.
Dentren |
Talk 15:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Hi, glad that communication has been re-established. To put your comment about easing the pressure on the multilingual journals category into perspective, we're talking here about 6 journals out of 291. Even if a few were missed that could fit into this cat, that barely deserves the word "easing"... (BTW, I find the name of the category counter-intuitive, too. "English- and Spanish-language journals" would have been more logical (alphabetical order) and in the title as it is, I think that, grammatically, there should be a dash after "Spanish"). --
Randykitty (
talk) 16:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)reply
These six are ones I have had time to categorize. Spanish-English languages are many more.
Dentren |
Talk 21:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)reply
It still wont make a real dent in that cat, it opens the door to endless discussions (shouldn't this be English-Spanish?), it starts a category tree that is going to be very difficult to define (English-Portuguese-Spanish journals, English-Esperanto-French journals, Dutch-Hindi journals, whatever). --
Randykitty (
talk) 10:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. If the multilingual journals category gets too big, it can be logically subdivided at a later date. Regards,
DA Sonnenfeld (
talk) 15:01, 24 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:Television series by RDF Media Group
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The category should be merged as the company itself was merged into Zodiak.
Bbb2007 (
talk) 23:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose These were produced by RDF Media, a well-known production company, under that name. The sub-category relationship is a far better way to represent this. The lack of WP coverage on RDF shouldn't be taken as evidence for RDF's relative significance compared to Zodiak.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 10:42, 17 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.
Drug-related suicides in U.S. 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.
Keep The size and scope of this category for the United States -- with an unfortunate number of further such deaths in the future -- provides ample justification for subcategorizing by state.
Category:Suicides in New York and
Category:Drug-related deaths in New York provide a network of ways to navigate through such deaths in
New York State and corresponding category structures for other states already exist.
Alansohn (
talk) 03:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep "Small number of entries" when the categories contain over 20 articles? I think the size is quite reasonable.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep all. If articles aren't being properly diffused down the tree, that's a maintiance problem, not a deletion one. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 02:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep all there are enough articles to justify dispersion to the state level.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:29, 19 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.
Alcohol-related deaths in U.S. 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.
Comment. These are each part of a state-specific category scheme, so if they are all merged to
Category:Alcohol-related deaths in the United States, the articles would also need to be merged to the appropriate state-specific category in
Category:Drug-related deaths in the United States. (I think it generally makes more sense to separate out the alcohol ones from the other drug ones, though, since an alcohol-related death is not normally what one thinks of as a "drug"-related death.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep "Small number of entries" when the categories contain over 20 articles? I think the size is quite reasonable.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep all. If articles aren't being properly diffused down the tree, that's a maintiance problem, not a deletion one. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 02:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep upmerging would just create more categories to put the articles in.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:33, 19 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:LivingTV television programmes
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The channel's name was changed two years ago.
Bbb2007 (
talk) 20:43, 16 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:Global internet community
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. –
FayenaticLondon 13:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is no sign of any clear and self-evident inclusion criteria for this category, apart perhaps from "everyone who use the internet" or "everyone who uses social media" ... both of which are uselessly broad. Phrases such as this may be used in PR campaigns for internet businesses, but they are far to vague to have any use as a category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 19:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete The name is a synonym for "internet culture". I don't see how this category could have a separate scope than its parent article.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:58, 18 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:Eidolon
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:Eidolon albums
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. Eidolon is a disambiguation page; the band which this category is named for is
Eidolon (band).
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 18:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
If that were the only reason, then the nomination immediately above would be equally effective.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 06:28, 17 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.
Alumni of Panadura Royal College
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. –
FayenaticLondon 13:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep - although there is one article currently it has the potential to grow as new articles are created.--obi2canibetalkcontr 16:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep we accept alumni categories as part of a series.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:34, 19 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:Radio stations in Colorado Springs & Pueblo
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.
Split per The Bushranger; according to {{Colorado Springs Radio}} and {{Pueblo Radio}}, they're different radio markets, so they're no different from other cities in Colorado for this purpose. Renaming per nom would put Pueblo stations, such as
KIQN, in the wrong category.
Nyttend (
talk) 21:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)reply
It would appear, for the record, that while Colorado Springs and Pueblo are a unified Nielsen television market, they are not a unified Arbitron radio market. (One doesn't require the other in the least, as they're two completely different things.) And even as a unified TV market, the category for TV stations isn't double-barrelled this way, but is at just
Category:Television stations in Colorado Springs, Colorado (although it was formerly at a doubled Colorado Springs-Pueblo title, which probably explains how this one happened, it got renamed much sooner than this did.) That said, the cities do seem to each have enough of their own radio stations to justify each having their own category — so split per Bushranger rather than just decatting Pueblo.
Bearcat (
talk) 20:26, 20 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:Law firms in India
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 under
CSD G7 (author request).
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 10:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)reply
This can be speedied.
DexDor (
talk) 08:14, 16 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:Military equipment of the Second Boer 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. See my
earlier close for the rationale. Additionally, at this point, none of the categories contain anything except an article about
a horse breed.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 02:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete all, this is a conflict in which few, if any, of its weapons are defined by. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 07:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
keep all (similarly the other AfDs) The idea of conflating theatrical performances per
WP:OC#PERF with military conflicts is ridiculous. The "equipment in minor conflict" categories may indeed not be defining for the equipment's technical development history (as they are for WWII), but they do define a significant group of interest to historians of that conflict.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 21:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
If it's not defining for the categorised items, they shouldn't be categorised. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a resource for historians. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 02:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)reply
What a nonsensically
BF comment. You perniciously fail to understand my point, yet again. This whole attempt of yours to delete a large tree of categories by snipping away at the margins until you think you've set a precedent is underhand and deceitful, quite contrary to the open and honest behaviour that is essential for a group project. You should be ashamed of it.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 02:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Andy, I share many of your concerns, but your points are lost in a comment which appears to be unacceptably vitriolic. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 03:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete being used in a specific conflict is not defining for a massed produced weapon. I have no objection to lists, but categories just do not work.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep all for now. I am unpersuaded by the sweeping and absolute generalisations used in the deletion of these categories, as well as by the lack of notifications to
WP:MILHIST. It is very odd to pursue such a wide range of changes without the participation of the relevant WikiProject, especially when it is such an active and well-organised project; and there seems to be no coherent plan for how best to group this information. I am a political historian rather than a military historian, but some weaponry is very strongly defined by particular conflicts: e.g. the
Sopwith Camel by WWI, the
Supermarine Spitfire by WWII, the
Sea Harrier by the Falklands War,
Alvis Saracen by
The Troubles, etc. Simply deleting the categories without a Plan B is losing valuable metadata, and doing so in a piecemeal and under-notified fashion is not the way to ensure good decisions. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 03:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)reply
The Sea Harrier and the Saracen illustrate some of the problems with these categories; why choose the Falklands rather than Bosnia? Why choose the Troubles rather than Malaya? If WP had existed in 1982 would we have moved the Sea Harrier article from a Cold War category to a Falklands War category? If so, the categorization is non-permanent. If, on the other hand, we categorize by every conflict in which a type of equipment is used then some articles (AK-47, M16, CH-47, C-130 ...) could be in hundreds of such categories (
Centurion tank is currently in 5 such categories). There are also cases where it's not clear whether or not a particular type has been involved in a particular conflict - e.g. does delivering supplies to Kandahar count as taking part in the Afghanistan conflict? What if there is disagreement about whether a weapon was used in a conflict? - such issues can be handled in lists, but not in categorization. Categorizing by when the equipment was first introduced (year/decade/period/century) avoids these problems - military aircraft (e.g.
Hawker Typhoon) are already mostly categorized by date rather than by conflict.
DexDor (
talk) 20:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)reply
OK, maybe those two weapons are defined by their use in two conflict rather than one; but they are still very much defined by their use, just as
David Owen is defined by his membership of two political parties rather than the usual one. I note too that you didn't respond to either the Camel or the Spitfire.
I quite agree that the AKJ-47 is an example of a wepapon used in so many conflicts that it is defined by none of the. It's probably the most extreme example possible, but there other less extreme examples of the many weapons which are not defined by their role in a particular conflict. However, these nominations have been justified by a sweeping assertion that usage is non-defining. Since it clearly is defining in some cases, the basis for deletion is false.
Some discrimination is required between these different types of case, and we need a better solution than blanket deletion on the basis of the false assertion that none of the weapons are defined in this way. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 08:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Usage is not a defining characteristic of a weapon/vehicle type - being wheeled, armoured, designed by Alvis etc are defining characteristics (if a vehicle doesn't have those characteristics then it's not a Saracen), but having been used in Ulster/Malaya is not a characteristic that every Saracen has. To take another example: Some Ford Transits have been used as ambulances, but we don't put the
Ford Transit article in
Category:Ambulances.
Where an article is about a single item (the David Steel analogy) then it may be reasonable to categorize by the usage of that item. Such articles have not been included in these CFD nominations - e.g.
HMS Hermes (R12) is still in a Falklands War category, but
Mark 82 bomb is not. The Camel and Spitfire are examples of types whose use was almost exclusively in a single conflict, but many (probably most) weapons etc don't easily fit into one/two by-conflict categories. The AK-47 isn't that unusual (e.g. see the
DShK or the
CH-47 which has been used in virtually every US/UK conflict since the 60s).
DexDor (
talk) 20:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep all - I too disagree with the direction of this sweeping re-categorization. Keep per Andy Dingley.
Marcus Qwertyus (
talk) 20:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Listify the first item, after merging in the others. Delete the rest. We have had a series of noms for military equipment by war. However, they are in the nature of performance by performer categories, which we do not like. We nomrally listfy such categories (unless a list already exisits). Australia would have had little or no national arms industry at that period. All arms probably came from UK, so that an Australian category is particularly pointless.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)reply
KeepCategory:Military equipment of the Second Boer War and and merge the others into it, and upmerge it all to a single category. There is way too much structure here. Agreed, it is silly to define weapons by the wars that used them, but categories are not simply for defining, they are for navigating. As a navigation tool, the subcategorisation and forked categorisation is counter productive. There are only a handful of pages here. They belong in one category page. This is similar to the above "Listify the first item, after merging in the others. Delete the rest", but lists and categories have different complementary purposes and there is no good reason to not have a single equipment category for a major war. It fits in well in
Category:Second Boer War. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 06:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment. The
bad-faithpersonal attacks on the motives behind this nomination are downright depressing. The simple fact is that there is no "snipping around the edges to establish precedent"; there is deleting non-defining categories. WW1, WW2, the Cold War, these are defining for the majority, if not all, of the equipment used in them. While, as mentioned above, the
Shar is indeed defined by the Falklands War...what other equipment used in it is? Having a category "Weapons of war X", when only one or two weapons used in it would fit, is bad categorisation, as either you police a two-article
WP:SMALLCAT and exclude other weapons used in the war, or you populate it with all the weapons used in the war but which aren't defined it, becoming
WP:OC. These should be lists, not categories. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 05:16, 13 March 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.
American monarchists
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 in general we avoid categorizing people by just supporting some position. To add to this, it is unclear that the people in this category form a cohesive group. The Loyalists are not neccesarily "Monarchists", breaking from England was not neccssarily a debate over monarchy.
Emperor Norton does not really fit the definition of a monarchists. Of the remaining they just don't seem to be a cohesive enough group, and this feels like categorization because they support an idea without any evidence they have done anything about supporting it.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Support, there were several monarchists in the revolutionaries, who wanted to make George Washington into George the First. --
65.92.180.137 (
talk) 04:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
keep as is this is part of a pattern of such categories found in
Category:Monarchists which the nominator did not mention. This is not a transient position, it is part of a theory of governance. There is nothing provided to support the nominator's assertions that the people in the category did nothing but think. In any case, the history of ideas is as important as the history of action.
Hmains (
talk) 18:20, 17 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.
Algonquin 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 First off we have began deleting these categories, because in wikipedia we classify things by what they are, not what they are named.
Looting should renain in the same categories if it were to be renamed to
Plundering. The articles here belong in various categories, but are not on words. This category itself has articles like
Lake Michigan that are problematic for other reasons as well. For one thing, it is unclear that place names should be included in such a category at all. Another problem is that lake is not derived from Algonquian, so it is hard to see how a set of two words, one not even Algonquian, could ever fit in this category. So in general this category at base should not exist because it classifies by common naming trait, and as it is applied it even less should exist because much of the contents can not be said to be words at all, but are names.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Missinipi Broadcasting Corporation is an even more extreme case of this category being misapplied. Here we have three words, one of which might be from an Algonquian language. Plus as the name of a very specific thing, I do not think it could ever be considered a "loanword". The same could be said for the cases where the articles are on specific places in Pennsylvania or Virginia.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment: Support, but what about
Category:Algonquian ethnonyms - should that be moved to a different Algonquian category or should it be deleted ?
DexDor (
talk) 06:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete no indication from the category name if this is for loanwords in an Algonquin language from some other language, or loanwords from Algonquin languages in non Algonquin languages, or loanwords from one Algonquin language in another Algonquin language --
65.92.180.137 (
talk) 04:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Listify what can be sourced, then delete. per nom & precedent.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 01:27, 25 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.