Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 14 February 16 >

February 15

Category:Trump administration proposed cabinet members

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is odd as it is temporary. "Proposed" cabinet members will either be confirmed or not, and will then become cabinet members or rejected or withdrawn nominees. Soon enough, this category will be completely empty when every cabinet role is filled. And the category will be of even less use after Trump leaves office. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 21:55, 15 February 2017 (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.

Futsal clubs

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 all. – Fayenatic London 00:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Categories
Nominator's rationale: Should have same naming conventions as Category:Association football clubs by country Ben Stone 19:52, 15 February 2017 (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.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Her Pegship ( talk) 15:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename per stub category naming conventions. Her Pegship ( talk) 18:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Support - we don't use the "-related" form for stub catagories. As to the stub tag, the current name represents a subtype of {{ Library-stub}}, which it isn't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:36, 20 February 2017 (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:Wikipedia_good_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: keep. – Fayenatic London 14:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There are few reasons.. 1. This category is a duplication of /info/en/?search=Template:GA and list of these articles can be easily retrieved there: /info/en/?search=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:GA 2. More importantly people often get confused and think that this page is actually a list of good articles. You can verify it by browsing through langlinks in sidebar. The actual Good Articles category ( /info/en/?search=Category:Good_articles) has only 12 of langlinks, and most of them are actually equivalents of "Good Articles in English" that obviously isn't available in English Wikipedia. Removing this category would encourage to link Good Articles categories in other languages to proper category, and release langlinks from this category Adam Stankiewicz ( talk) 15:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. CfD is probably too narrow for consensus to fundamentally change this long-established system. This tracks talk pages. Separate category tracks main pages. Both have their maintenance uses. Category tracking is not redundant to templates and we have both very often. Having a template doesn't remove the need for it. This would need a much broader RfC, the CfD is not even reported to any projects except people who watch the category. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 17:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I'm concurring with User:Ivanvector, wondering about the purpose of collecting all these talk pages. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. While the nomination is unclear so initially it is uncertain why this discussion has been called, on looking into it I can see we have two categories for the same articles. Category:Wikipedia_good_articles was created first, and is the main maintenance category containing the various Good Article topic categories. This cat links to the articles via their talkpages. Category:Good articles was created in 2010 as a tracking category, and links to the articles directly. The cats count differently, as Category:Good articles holds 25,776 pages, while Category:Wikipedia good articles holds 25,795 pages. I think it is appropriate to look into these two categories, and merge them into one, keeping the functionality of both, so we have one category that holds, tracks and counts our Good Articles. I would suggest that links from whichever category is chosen as the merge target should go to the articles rather than their talkpages. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The difference is probably something like one is populated by the GA topicon while the other is populated by "class=GA" in the WikiProject banners. The discrepancy would be articles or talk pages missing one or the other. Another good reason to have one category for this and have it populated in a consistent way. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 16:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The mechanism for creating the topicon and putting the articles into the article category is to have a bot notice the changes on the talk page and update the article to match. And there are currently issues with the bot maintainer preventing changes to the bot (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations). Have you even checked whether your proposed change will avoid breaking that bot? — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply
You really could have made that comment without the hostility. Seeing how I wasn't aware of the process until you explained it, no, I did not check. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 19:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm OK with keeping after seeing explanations that a merge is not practical. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • This is setting up for a separate discussion I'm sure, but I see what you mean: an article rated A-class might also have passed a GA review, so it would not be a member of the related GA-class category, thus it would need to be a part of one of the "Wikipedia good articles" subcategories for tracking. Any solution I can think of at the moment isn't better than what we have now. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:07, 16 March 2017 (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:Zaporizhian Sich

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. Note: it currently contains 3 articles and a sub-category. – Fayenatic London 14:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, it only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Oppose, there will be more. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 12:06, 15 February 2017 (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:People associated with Kiev Pechersk Lavra

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: merge to parents as a soft deletion. That means that the category may be re-created if it appears useful, although it could then be subject to a fresh nomination. Right now it only contains the new category for monks, so I will place that one into the two parent categories of the nominated category. – Fayenatic London 14:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:OCASSOC. The one article is about a monk of Kiev Pechersk Lavra, but I'm not sure if there is sufficient potential to create a Category:Monks of Kiev Pechersk Lavra. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Oppose, the category is created for the purpose of associating people with the Kiev Pechersk Lavra and the city of Kiev. Upmerging will not solve anything. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 12:06, 15 February 2017 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_15&oldid=1084319230"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 14 February 16 >

February 15

Category:Trump administration proposed cabinet members

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is odd as it is temporary. "Proposed" cabinet members will either be confirmed or not, and will then become cabinet members or rejected or withdrawn nominees. Soon enough, this category will be completely empty when every cabinet role is filled. And the category will be of even less use after Trump leaves office. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 21:55, 15 February 2017 (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.

Futsal clubs

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 all. – Fayenatic London 00:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Categories
Nominator's rationale: Should have same naming conventions as Category:Association football clubs by country Ben Stone 19:52, 15 February 2017 (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.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Her Pegship ( talk) 15:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename per stub category naming conventions. Her Pegship ( talk) 18:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Support - we don't use the "-related" form for stub catagories. As to the stub tag, the current name represents a subtype of {{ Library-stub}}, which it isn't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:36, 20 February 2017 (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:Wikipedia_good_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: keep. – Fayenatic London 14:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There are few reasons.. 1. This category is a duplication of /info/en/?search=Template:GA and list of these articles can be easily retrieved there: /info/en/?search=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:GA 2. More importantly people often get confused and think that this page is actually a list of good articles. You can verify it by browsing through langlinks in sidebar. The actual Good Articles category ( /info/en/?search=Category:Good_articles) has only 12 of langlinks, and most of them are actually equivalents of "Good Articles in English" that obviously isn't available in English Wikipedia. Removing this category would encourage to link Good Articles categories in other languages to proper category, and release langlinks from this category Adam Stankiewicz ( talk) 15:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. CfD is probably too narrow for consensus to fundamentally change this long-established system. This tracks talk pages. Separate category tracks main pages. Both have their maintenance uses. Category tracking is not redundant to templates and we have both very often. Having a template doesn't remove the need for it. This would need a much broader RfC, the CfD is not even reported to any projects except people who watch the category. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 17:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I'm concurring with User:Ivanvector, wondering about the purpose of collecting all these talk pages. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. While the nomination is unclear so initially it is uncertain why this discussion has been called, on looking into it I can see we have two categories for the same articles. Category:Wikipedia_good_articles was created first, and is the main maintenance category containing the various Good Article topic categories. This cat links to the articles via their talkpages. Category:Good articles was created in 2010 as a tracking category, and links to the articles directly. The cats count differently, as Category:Good articles holds 25,776 pages, while Category:Wikipedia good articles holds 25,795 pages. I think it is appropriate to look into these two categories, and merge them into one, keeping the functionality of both, so we have one category that holds, tracks and counts our Good Articles. I would suggest that links from whichever category is chosen as the merge target should go to the articles rather than their talkpages. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The difference is probably something like one is populated by the GA topicon while the other is populated by "class=GA" in the WikiProject banners. The discrepancy would be articles or talk pages missing one or the other. Another good reason to have one category for this and have it populated in a consistent way. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 16:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The mechanism for creating the topicon and putting the articles into the article category is to have a bot notice the changes on the talk page and update the article to match. And there are currently issues with the bot maintainer preventing changes to the bot (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations). Have you even checked whether your proposed change will avoid breaking that bot? — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply
You really could have made that comment without the hostility. Seeing how I wasn't aware of the process until you explained it, no, I did not check. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 19:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm OK with keeping after seeing explanations that a merge is not practical. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • This is setting up for a separate discussion I'm sure, but I see what you mean: an article rated A-class might also have passed a GA review, so it would not be a member of the related GA-class category, thus it would need to be a part of one of the "Wikipedia good articles" subcategories for tracking. Any solution I can think of at the moment isn't better than what we have now. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:07, 16 March 2017 (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:Zaporizhian Sich

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. Note: it currently contains 3 articles and a sub-category. – Fayenatic London 14:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, it only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Oppose, there will be more. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 12:06, 15 February 2017 (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:People associated with Kiev Pechersk Lavra

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: merge to parents as a soft deletion. That means that the category may be re-created if it appears useful, although it could then be subject to a fresh nomination. Right now it only contains the new category for monks, so I will place that one into the two parent categories of the nominated category. – Fayenatic London 14:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:OCASSOC. The one article is about a monk of Kiev Pechersk Lavra, but I'm not sure if there is sufficient potential to create a Category:Monks of Kiev Pechersk Lavra. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Oppose, the category is created for the purpose of associating people with the Kiev Pechersk Lavra and the city of Kiev. Upmerging will not solve anything. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 12:06, 15 February 2017 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_15&oldid=1084319230"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE