February 23
Dance Magazines's "25 to Watch"
- 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. delldot ∇. 18:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale We already have an article on this subject that contains a list. This is something like an award category, sortof, that is heavily discoraged. This basically is the top 25 dancers in a year according to one magazine, so it really does not to fit normal rules for existing. Such making a list categories are generally heavily discoraged. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OC#TOPTEN, per nom. Many publications publish "top 10/20/50/100/..." lists on a recurring basis, but they tend to be arbitrary, subjective and/or not defining. Dance Magazine is a relatively prominent publication within the field of dance, but it is far from the only one (see Category:Dance magazines). -- Black Falcon ( talk) 22:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Random magazine's random list using subjective criteria does not a proper category make. Reso lute 00:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment for what it is worth over half the articles in this category are redirects, usually to lists of dancers with specific ballet companies. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OC#TOPTEN. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks
- 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: relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013 March 13#Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The current title is a bit odd, grammatically, since it leaves open the possibility of administrators who are willing to consider placing self-requested blocks but unwilling to actually place them. The proposed title is shorter, clearer, and more closely matches the convention within Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Willing to consider renaming. I'm not sure on this one. As noted at WP:SELFBLOCK, such requests are typically refused. The admins in this category are likely to be those who will look at each case on its merits, and it seems to me that the renaming implies that they are "admins who will act on any self-block request". I'd like to see some feedback from some of the 17 admins who have placed themselves in this category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose the nuances in the name are important and should be kept. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Special libraries
- 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: result.
The Bushranger
One ping only 05:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Special libraries to Category:Research libraries
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. What makes horticulture, pornography and maps special? This seems to be a category to collect libraries that did not cleanly into a by type category. That makes it categorization by not anything else which we generally avoid. Since Category:Research libraries is the other parent and most of these appear to fit there, they would be a reasonable target. If any don't fit there, they can be cleaned up after the merge. If this is merged then recreation, as a {{ parent category}} should be allowed to accommodate the existing categories for the type of libraries described in special library. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Proprietary libraries
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename to Subscription libraries, with the possibility of another rename (e.g. to Membership) in the future if further discussion and development of the articles shows it's appropriate.
delldot
∇. 18:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Proprietary libraries to Category:Subscription libraries
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proprietary library is a redirect to Subscription library. Of the few articles that I just checked they actually use subscription library in the introduction. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Though the start of the article "A subscription library (also membership library or independent library) ..." offers alternatives that should be considered. Note the current name is not included. I think "Membership libraries" is the best choice in fact.
Johnbod (
talk) 11:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not fixated on the name, so lets see how the discussion goes. If it is as proposed or membership libraries, I would be fine. The closer in the case of the latter rename should consider renaming the main article. I should note that the first version used the current name with membership as an alternative. The rest of the article was a list of membership libraries! Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to match article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Soap Opera Digest Award winners
- 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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_12#Category:Soap_Opera_Digest_Award_winners. delldot ∇. 18:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale This seems to violate the rule against categorizing by award. I read through the article on the award and really saw no evidence that this is a prestigious enough award to be an exception to the general rule. We already have a list so do not need to listify. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: I've alerted Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas to this discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question. Why is the category not linked from this discussion? Even if the nominator has decided for some reason not to use
WP:TWINKLE, the template with which the category is tagged provides a boilerplate which sets up the link and section heading etc. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 16:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think because I got impatient and forgot to do so. We are fallible human beings after all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 18:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles
- 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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_12#Category:Wikipedia_administrators_who_will_provide_copies_of_deleted_articles. delldot ∇. 18:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The proposed title better reflects the scope of the category—administrators who will consider, but are free to decline, requests for copies of deleted articles—and the convention within Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination. There is a talk page archive that might need to be moved manually. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Do we really need this? I'm not in the category and commonly provide this based on the deleted content. Some deleted content is best summarized and not passed along.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 20:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps not. There exist a couple of similar categories for admins who are willing to perform specific user-assistance functions, but providing copies of deleted articles (or, at least, directing a user to WP:REFUND) seems to be something that any admin ought to be willing to do as long as the circumstances are reasonable. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 18:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
February 23
Dance Magazines's "25 to Watch"
- 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. delldot ∇. 18:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale We already have an article on this subject that contains a list. This is something like an award category, sortof, that is heavily discoraged. This basically is the top 25 dancers in a year according to one magazine, so it really does not to fit normal rules for existing. Such making a list categories are generally heavily discoraged. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OC#TOPTEN, per nom. Many publications publish "top 10/20/50/100/..." lists on a recurring basis, but they tend to be arbitrary, subjective and/or not defining. Dance Magazine is a relatively prominent publication within the field of dance, but it is far from the only one (see Category:Dance magazines). -- Black Falcon ( talk) 22:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Random magazine's random list using subjective criteria does not a proper category make. Reso lute 00:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment for what it is worth over half the articles in this category are redirects, usually to lists of dancers with specific ballet companies. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OC#TOPTEN. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks
- 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: relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013 March 13#Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The current title is a bit odd, grammatically, since it leaves open the possibility of administrators who are willing to consider placing self-requested blocks but unwilling to actually place them. The proposed title is shorter, clearer, and more closely matches the convention within Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Willing to consider renaming. I'm not sure on this one. As noted at WP:SELFBLOCK, such requests are typically refused. The admins in this category are likely to be those who will look at each case on its merits, and it seems to me that the renaming implies that they are "admins who will act on any self-block request". I'd like to see some feedback from some of the 17 admins who have placed themselves in this category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose the nuances in the name are important and should be kept. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Special libraries
- 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: result.
The Bushranger
One ping only 05:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Special libraries to Category:Research libraries
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. What makes horticulture, pornography and maps special? This seems to be a category to collect libraries that did not cleanly into a by type category. That makes it categorization by not anything else which we generally avoid. Since Category:Research libraries is the other parent and most of these appear to fit there, they would be a reasonable target. If any don't fit there, they can be cleaned up after the merge. If this is merged then recreation, as a {{ parent category}} should be allowed to accommodate the existing categories for the type of libraries described in special library. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Proprietary libraries
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename to Subscription libraries, with the possibility of another rename (e.g. to Membership) in the future if further discussion and development of the articles shows it's appropriate.
delldot
∇. 18:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Proprietary libraries to Category:Subscription libraries
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proprietary library is a redirect to Subscription library. Of the few articles that I just checked they actually use subscription library in the introduction. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Though the start of the article "A subscription library (also membership library or independent library) ..." offers alternatives that should be considered. Note the current name is not included. I think "Membership libraries" is the best choice in fact.
Johnbod (
talk) 11:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not fixated on the name, so lets see how the discussion goes. If it is as proposed or membership libraries, I would be fine. The closer in the case of the latter rename should consider renaming the main article. I should note that the first version used the current name with membership as an alternative. The rest of the article was a list of membership libraries! Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to match article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Soap Opera Digest Award winners
- 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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_12#Category:Soap_Opera_Digest_Award_winners. delldot ∇. 18:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale This seems to violate the rule against categorizing by award. I read through the article on the award and really saw no evidence that this is a prestigious enough award to be an exception to the general rule. We already have a list so do not need to listify. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: I've alerted Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas to this discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question. Why is the category not linked from this discussion? Even if the nominator has decided for some reason not to use
WP:TWINKLE, the template with which the category is tagged provides a boilerplate which sets up the link and section heading etc. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 16:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think because I got impatient and forgot to do so. We are fallible human beings after all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 18:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles
- 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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_12#Category:Wikipedia_administrators_who_will_provide_copies_of_deleted_articles. delldot ∇. 18:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The proposed title better reflects the scope of the category—administrators who will consider, but are free to decline, requests for copies of deleted articles—and the convention within Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination. There is a talk page archive that might need to be moved manually. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Do we really need this? I'm not in the category and commonly provide this based on the deleted content. Some deleted content is best summarized and not passed along.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 20:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps not. There exist a couple of similar categories for admins who are willing to perform specific user-assistance functions, but providing copies of deleted articles (or, at least, directing a user to WP:REFUND) seems to be something that any admin ought to be willing to do as long as the circumstances are reasonable. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 18:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.