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. Something of interest to incorporate into each of the articles for these albums (with reliable sources, of course) but not a defining characteristic for any of them. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me19:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)reply
delete Besides the "not defining" aspect, what this comes down to is the notion that making music is all about expressing your personal life. Given the number of break-ups we probably don't know about, however, he accuracy of the categorization is always going to be questionable, and never mind that the theory itself is doubtful.
Mangoe (
talk)
15:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Vague category, OR, could also be interpreted as albums with songs about breakups. Also, what about bands who frequently change members, and bands who get back together? -
AngusWOOF (
talk)
01:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Female economists
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.
Question -- Is economics a field where women perform differently from men? I suspect not. In sociology the gender of the researcher may be significant, but I doubt it applies in economics. If so, merge
Category:Economists.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The issue is not whether they perform differently, it is whether it is an intersection that has received enough coverage that we could write a reliably-sourced, more than just a list article on
Women economists. I do not actually know the answer to that question, but I suspect it would be a yes.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Support to match parent structure. A
quick google suggests women economists as a topic is getting some attention, so deletion is not an obvious choice.
SFB21:28, 20 July 2014 (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:David Crowther
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: Eponymous category for a person who doesn't have the volume of spinoff content necessary to warrant one; all that's filed here is his own biographical article and one book he wrote. Delete as an
WP:OC#EPONYMOUS violation.
Bearcat (
talk)
07:51, 8 July 2014 (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.
Merge Category:Concepts by field and Category:Terminology
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Strong support - I could not support this more strongly! Everything is "terminology" and therefore a completely useless name for a category. Whereas the concepts category is well defined, and fundamental to the organization of Wikipedia. I would support abolishing all "terminology" categories.
Greg Bard (
talk)
13:07, 2 June 2014 (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.
Merge Category:Biological concepts and Category:Biology terminology
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:no consensus, and
DexDor has provided strong reasons for not deleting this category alone while it has "terminology" sub-categories. I will add "see also" links between these two, and this close is of course no bar to cleaning up the contents. –
FayenaticLondon12:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Strong support - I could not support this more strongly! Everything is "terminology" and therefore a completely useless name for a category. Whereas the concepts category is well defined, and fundamental to the organization of Wikipedia. I would support abolishing all "terminology" categories.
Greg Bard (
talk)
13:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)reply
I wish it were possible to nominate categories as "automatically clean category except the following few articles". Because a nomination like that would certainly be applicable to most or all Terminology categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Actually, would my previous thought be entirely impossible to realize? Wouldn't it be possible to delete the category, and then re-establish the category from scratch with only the before-mentioned content?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: It can be done, and I have done it once. If the decision is "purge", we can automate the hard work by making a bot empty and delete a category, then manually undelete and selectively repopulate it. Can you list your proposed contents here? –
FayenaticLondon15:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london:, I think meanwhile for biology it's too late now, this CfD has been posted too long ago and (knowledgeable) people will no longer check this discussion. My question was actually more like a fundamental question, of which the answer could be applied to every terminology page. At least I'm glad the answer is yes!
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:57, 19 July 2014 (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:Rail transport book citation templates
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: Similar to
Ship book citation templates, it is an odd categorization to call it "rail-related transport books." This isn't so much of a category for "rail transport-related books" but a category for "templates for rail transport-related books that are used on Wikipedia rail transport articles" to me.
Ricky81682 (
talk)
05:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)reply
It's not a subject matter categorization. It's a categorization not of books regarding rail transport but of books regarding rail transport 'used in Wikipedia articles' that 'we have templates'. We don't categorize the sources of articles by the article topic, categorizing the templates used for the sources of articles seems like a strange organizational scheme. It would be an upmerge to the main single-source category. I guess I could list all the subtemplates categories if that makes my view clearer. --
Ricky81682 (
talk)
04:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't follow your argument. Please keep in mind I'm not a CfD regular so if you're using CfD short-hand I'm going to need it spelled out. It says right at the top of the category page that the category is "...part of Wikipedia's administration and not part of the encyclopedia." That's the purpose of the parent category as well. What's the proposed benefit of an upmerge, besides making it more difficult to find similar subject-matter templates, when both parents are also administration/maintenance categories?
Mackensen(talk)11:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep What Mackensen said. I sometimes use templates like {{
Butt-Stations}}, and occasionally need to see if a similar template has already been created for a different book that I'm currently referring to. this cat makes it easier to locate the template, if it exists. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:59, 8 July 2014 (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:Bands with numbers in their name
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:Yueju opera
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.
USU Eastern Golden Eagles baseball
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Something of interest to incorporate into each of the articles for these albums (with reliable sources, of course) but not a defining characteristic for any of them. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me19:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)reply
delete Besides the "not defining" aspect, what this comes down to is the notion that making music is all about expressing your personal life. Given the number of break-ups we probably don't know about, however, he accuracy of the categorization is always going to be questionable, and never mind that the theory itself is doubtful.
Mangoe (
talk)
15:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Vague category, OR, could also be interpreted as albums with songs about breakups. Also, what about bands who frequently change members, and bands who get back together? -
AngusWOOF (
talk)
01:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Female economists
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.
Question -- Is economics a field where women perform differently from men? I suspect not. In sociology the gender of the researcher may be significant, but I doubt it applies in economics. If so, merge
Category:Economists.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The issue is not whether they perform differently, it is whether it is an intersection that has received enough coverage that we could write a reliably-sourced, more than just a list article on
Women economists. I do not actually know the answer to that question, but I suspect it would be a yes.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Support to match parent structure. A
quick google suggests women economists as a topic is getting some attention, so deletion is not an obvious choice.
SFB21:28, 20 July 2014 (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:David Crowther
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: Eponymous category for a person who doesn't have the volume of spinoff content necessary to warrant one; all that's filed here is his own biographical article and one book he wrote. Delete as an
WP:OC#EPONYMOUS violation.
Bearcat (
talk)
07:51, 8 July 2014 (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.
Merge Category:Concepts by field and Category:Terminology
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Strong support - I could not support this more strongly! Everything is "terminology" and therefore a completely useless name for a category. Whereas the concepts category is well defined, and fundamental to the organization of Wikipedia. I would support abolishing all "terminology" categories.
Greg Bard (
talk)
13:07, 2 June 2014 (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.
Merge Category:Biological concepts and Category:Biology terminology
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:no consensus, and
DexDor has provided strong reasons for not deleting this category alone while it has "terminology" sub-categories. I will add "see also" links between these two, and this close is of course no bar to cleaning up the contents. –
FayenaticLondon12:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Strong support - I could not support this more strongly! Everything is "terminology" and therefore a completely useless name for a category. Whereas the concepts category is well defined, and fundamental to the organization of Wikipedia. I would support abolishing all "terminology" categories.
Greg Bard (
talk)
13:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)reply
I wish it were possible to nominate categories as "automatically clean category except the following few articles". Because a nomination like that would certainly be applicable to most or all Terminology categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Actually, would my previous thought be entirely impossible to realize? Wouldn't it be possible to delete the category, and then re-establish the category from scratch with only the before-mentioned content?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: It can be done, and I have done it once. If the decision is "purge", we can automate the hard work by making a bot empty and delete a category, then manually undelete and selectively repopulate it. Can you list your proposed contents here? –
FayenaticLondon15:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london:, I think meanwhile for biology it's too late now, this CfD has been posted too long ago and (knowledgeable) people will no longer check this discussion. My question was actually more like a fundamental question, of which the answer could be applied to every terminology page. At least I'm glad the answer is yes!
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:57, 19 July 2014 (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:Rail transport book citation templates
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: Similar to
Ship book citation templates, it is an odd categorization to call it "rail-related transport books." This isn't so much of a category for "rail transport-related books" but a category for "templates for rail transport-related books that are used on Wikipedia rail transport articles" to me.
Ricky81682 (
talk)
05:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)reply
It's not a subject matter categorization. It's a categorization not of books regarding rail transport but of books regarding rail transport 'used in Wikipedia articles' that 'we have templates'. We don't categorize the sources of articles by the article topic, categorizing the templates used for the sources of articles seems like a strange organizational scheme. It would be an upmerge to the main single-source category. I guess I could list all the subtemplates categories if that makes my view clearer. --
Ricky81682 (
talk)
04:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't follow your argument. Please keep in mind I'm not a CfD regular so if you're using CfD short-hand I'm going to need it spelled out. It says right at the top of the category page that the category is "...part of Wikipedia's administration and not part of the encyclopedia." That's the purpose of the parent category as well. What's the proposed benefit of an upmerge, besides making it more difficult to find similar subject-matter templates, when both parents are also administration/maintenance categories?
Mackensen(talk)11:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep What Mackensen said. I sometimes use templates like {{
Butt-Stations}}, and occasionally need to see if a similar template has already been created for a different book that I'm currently referring to. this cat makes it easier to locate the template, if it exists. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:59, 8 July 2014 (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:Bands with numbers in their name
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:Yueju opera
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.
USU Eastern Golden Eagles baseball
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.