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, for now. The carnivore category seems like it deserves to stay, given that there are analogous categories for
Category:Herbivorous animals and
Category:Detritivores. All of these would need more contents to deserve continued existence, in my opinion.
Category:Predators is more suspect, as it is a subset of all carnivores. But it hasn't been nominated for merging. If someone wants to continue the reverse-merge argument, please nominate it.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 12:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
keep as is. They are not the same, despite any overlap. Carnivorous animals may be either predators or scavengers. See the relevent WP articles.
Hmains (
talk) 02:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment as Hmains points out, merging to Carnivorous animals is the only option that makes sense. I'm sort of surprised to see how thinly populated these are. For now, I'd rather keep both alive and see how they evolve.
Pichpich (
talk) 22:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge. These categories are not large enough at present to justify both.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:59, 30 September 2011 (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:Scheduled human spaceflights
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 13:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. I noticed that this includes
Category:Scheduled manned Soyuz missions which only has one entry. That one and all of the other Soyuz flights are directly listed in the parent category. So maybe if the parent is renamed, this one should just be deleted.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete after conversion to template along with
Category:Future spaceflights. I just went through these to clean out some of the ones that have already flown. The category is a maintenance issue that would be better dealt with as a template that broke this stuff out by year.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 07:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
OK, the template is available {{tl:User:Vegaswikian/Template:Future spaceflights}} if there are any comments. In creating the template, the category was cleaned up to remove flights already flown, programs that are not actually flights and proposals which are not flights.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Even given the maintance problem of this category? I'll note that after my cleanup while creating the template, the parent category is already out of date. These categories are maintenance nightmares.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 17:35, 1 October 2011 (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:Netware
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: I request the renaming of this category, because the proper spelling for Novell's network operating systems is NetWare, not Netware.
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 15:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
rename per Armbrust to match the main article; no good reason for a different name
Hmains (
talk) 04:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename per Armbrust -- always was called Novell NetWare, it says so on the box over there on my shelf. Indeed, I wrote RFC 1552, and Novell didn't like breaking their monopoly one bit! --
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 05:29, 24 September 2011 (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:Literature by theme
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. These two concepts are not the same, though they are regrettably inexact. Perhaps some hatnotes are in order.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 13:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The concepts of genre and theme may well be different, however, based on the existing subcategories, it doesn't seem to be especially helpful, since the sorting seems to be pretty arbitrary (e.g. "Prison writings" or "Philatelic literature" don't seem to be clearly and obviously different from themes as such, or why "African diaspora literature" is here while "Postcolonial literature" is there, etc.).
Adam78 (
talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I've found in the past that "genre" does get applied very inexactly, in just the way you point out. But I think the answer is to stick to our guns and recategorize things from genre to topic or theme, as need be. It's what I've tried to do in the doc film category, over the years. So regretfully, oppose.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 18:26, 21 September 2011 (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:Miracles attributed to Muhammad
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. For paralleling the Jesus category, if nothing else. Clearly "attributed to" is better than "of," since that makes no claim as to whether the miracles actually happened. This is a thinly populated category, and those who wish to keep it might do well to fill it with more articles.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 13:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep: There are dozens of miracles attributed to Muhammad in the literature, so the category, which was created to parallel
Category:Miracles attributed to Jesus, has a potential to grow. The title "Miracles of Muhammad" might raise POV concerns.
Al-Andalusi (
talk) 01:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep -- There's no reason to start removing categories merely because they are small. Better to work on adding more articles. --
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 05:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep per Al-Andalusi.
Tachfin (
talk) 19:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete The overcat rules clearly state we should delete categories because they are small. If there are other articles that can be placed here than that is why we wait a week to go through with a delete, so people can find the articles. The fact that 8 days after nomination it still only has 2 articles seems to suggest it is overly small to be worth keeping.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
In principle Keep -- Perhaps the significance is that they were so few in contrast to Jesus. If it had just one item, I would have wanted to delete. An alternative might be to merge with a parent.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:40, 2 October 2011 (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:Burials at Symonds Street Cemetery
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. The underlying principle of the nomination has been invalidated, since someone has created the article.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 12:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is a bit of a test nomination. I'm curious to know: it is appropriate to categorize people by burial place when the specific burial place has no article in Wikipedia? If the burial place is of low notability, it seems strange to categorize people for being buried there. In this case, there is no article about
Symonds Street Cemetery.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep, I believe this cemetery would meet the GNG, for example:
[1].
XLerate (
talk) 09:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The more interesting question, though, is what if it didn't? (This one may well meet the GNG, but it does seem back-to-front to create a category before an article about it exists.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
It would be better if the article existed before the category. I had a search for
cemetery in the AFD archives, it appears opinion is divided as to whether cemeteries are inherently notable (like schools).
XLerate (
talk) 00:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete We have no article on such burials and this is not notable. If we could categorize everything by stuff that happened but we don't have an article, how are we to prove we are right?
Curb Chain (
talk) 05:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The reference for where a person is buried goes in their biography.
XLerate (
talk) 07:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I mean the individual burial sites have no articles.
Curb Chain (
talk) 09:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)reply
keep this and all other burial by cemetery categories There is no requirement anywhere in WP that categories must have a main article in order to exist and many categories do not. Categories are for navigation to articles and to other categories--that is all. There is no reason to single out those people who happen to buried in cemeteries and delete their category while keeping all the categories for people who are buried at other places, such as cathedrals. See
Category:Burials by place for a full picture of the situation.
Hmains (
talk) 21:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Actually, there has been a strong consensus that if an article does not exist for a record producer or record label, we should not create categories that categorize albums by being produced by that producer or released by that label. So the underlying premise of your comment is flawed—incorrect, I would say.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Note the article has now been created.
XLerate (
talk) 07:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep The fact that no corresponding article exists is definitely not a good reason to delete. Many articles on perfectly fine topics are absent from Wikipedia and we must avoid the circular reasoning according to which a topic is not notable because it's not on Wikipedia and therefore doesn't deserve an article on Wikipedia. I certainly wouldn't claim that all cemeteries are notable in the WP sense but I suspect most because they so often are a subject of interest to local historians. That doesn't necessarily translate into easily accessible references but before I consider deleting a category of this form, I would at least need to see a convincing demonstration that the cemetery is hopelessly obscure.
Pichpich (
talk) 14:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Extra note regarding Good Ol’factory's comment about creating the category before the article. It's certainly doesn't appear to be the natural order but it's a rather harmless oddity. Wikipedia is a work in progress and things aren't always built in the order that seems most sensible. For instance I've always found it amusing that
Pyongyang was created nine months after
Mariah Carey. Of course there's no link between the two articles but my point is simply that we should take the long view and be patient and optimistic. Assuming that a cemetery is sufficiently notable, we expect that ten years from now, somebody at some point will have created
Foo Cemetery, someone else will have created
Category:Burials at Foo Cemetery and many others will have populated the category. We expect things to happen in that order but if they don't we shouldn't destroy the partial work on the category. The existence of the category is an incentive for the creation of the article.
Pichpich (
talk) 14:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep all I concur with Pichpich. And in my opinion, this is quite different to record labels or producers. From my observations, in the music world, a lot of the work is being done by marketing companies on behalf of the label, for obvious promotional reasons and not because something is inherently notable. Most cemeteries, on the other hand, would be notable (I accept that some may not be notable), and the work here is being done by WP editors in good faith. I see no reason to undo this work, even if things are being done in the 'wrong order', but I can see the rationale for being quite strict about sticking to the right order in the music world. Schwede66 17:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete I do not see how location of burial is a notable trait about someone. We do not categorize by location of birth, it seems even less relevant to their biography to make classifications based on what occured after they died.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment Well, if that's the case, why don't you put
Category:Burials by cemetery up for deletion? And good luck with that. Schwede66 02:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Johnpacklambert also makes a good point here. If someone is buried in a place and being buried in that place is unusual, I can somewhat understand categorizing by burial place because it's akin to an "award" or "honour" of sorts—I'm think about examples like
Category:Burials at Westminster Abbey, and the like. However, categorizing individuals for being buried at a garden-variety public cemetery does seem to be quite a trivial form of categorization. John is right to point out that it's somewhat comparable to categorizing by birthplace, and there has long been agreement that this should not be done. Many of these burial categories were created by sockpuppets of Pastorwayne, who was not exactly adept at determining when and when not to categorize by a characteristic.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Wouldn't it be fair to say that once you've got a bunch of notable people buried in a cemetery, the cemetery itself gains notability? If that logic is followed, then it would appear to make sense to look for this, and categorisation would appear to be a good tool to do so. Schwede66 03:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Perhaps yes, given the relatively permanent nature of headstones/cemetery monuments, etc. If we do compare it to birthplace, it's not quite the same, since a birthplace usually doesn't have a permanent monument. But still one could ask—would a hospital become notable if it was the birthplace of several notable people, and would we categorize by that birthplace? Probably not. Does the monument make all the difference then? Or it because that's where the body or its remains will be, presumably forever?, whereas a person leaves his birthplace behind?
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Place of birth isn't such a good comparison, because the cemetery is almost never the place of death (
Thomas Henderson (New Zealand) for example). I don't think the argument "only exclusive cemeteries can have a burial category" holds water either, we don't categorise alumni only for Ivy League universities, but the garden variety ones as well. Some of the references discuss people who are buried at the cemetery as a group:
To me, the comparison to school alumni is probably a good one, because I don't think either burial place or school attended are defining, but good luck trying to convince the fans of the categories of that fact. These things would be much better dealt with by lists. Most of the early examples of both were created by users who didn't give a fig of difference between verifiability and what is a defining characteristic, and the sheer mass of categories made the trees gain lives of their own.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:38, 30 September 2011 (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:Redirects from quotations
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 12:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Overly specific. I can't see this growing beyond four, ever. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 07:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I can imagine that a number of sayings or slogans that aren't quite article-worthy are still worth redirecting. We have articles on
it's the economy stupid and
I have a dream, for instance, but I can that prior to those articles being expanded, redirecting them would have been appropriate. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 10:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Response Maintenance categories are far more effective at this, plus I always add them with HotCat rather than templates, so "What Links Here" wouldn't work. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 20:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
It does annoy me when people (especially you :P) add the categories with HotCat but there are other problems with "What links here" that prevent it being an accurate tool for measuring the transclusions. McLerristarr |
Mclay1 06:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep (as creator) – Redirect categories can become huge and I feel it is easier to keep track of things when they're diffused. It is highly likely that there are many, many more redirects from quotations that are not in the category. Also, it's a subcategory of
Category:Quotations. McLerristarr |
Mclay1 06:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep -- populated by {{
R from quotation}}, assuming all other R from populate categories. But of course, Vegaswikian has an excellent point. Make sure the category is only populated by the template! Not by HotCat. --
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 05:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep There may be only a few redirects, but I am sure more can be added. Justin's point that such quotations at times will be made into articles of their own also suggests that measuring the current size is not all that useful.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:10, 30 September 2011 (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:Families in The Simpsons
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 12:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete (as nom); probably also unreferenced
Curb Chain (
talk) 05:02, 22 September 2011 (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:BTAS screenshots and pictures
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 rename C2D.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 09:53, 23 September 2011 (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:TNBA screenshots and pictures
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 rename C2D.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 09:52, 23 September 2011 (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:Modern Buddhist writers
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:upmerge.
Courcelles 08:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
comment We do not delete and leave orphans; we upmerge.
Hmains (
talk) 03:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to
Category:Buddhist writers. The article
Modern Buddhism suggests that this is either involving Buddhist modernism or Buddhism in the "West". However a look at the category suggests it is just being used for Buddhist writers who lived after 1900 or so.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge as previous comment. We do not like "modern" categories, as the term is imprecise.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:44, 2 October 2011 (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:Back to Mine 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.
The result of the discussion was:keep.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
It now has nine entries.
Gnu andrew (
talk) 06:15, 21 September 2011 (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:Press Your Luck
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 12:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The Incredible Hulk (1977 TV series)
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Response There are thousands of American television programs--are you suggesting that we create thousands of categories with one to four articles each? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 05:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The X Factor (U.S.)
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. Whatever its content now, I think it's reasonable to imagine it will be as full as the other X Factor categories very shortly.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only three articles. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 05:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep You're jumping the gun a bit. The first series hasn't even started yet. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gnu andrew (
talk •
contribs)
That sounds back to front to me: creating the category before the series begins is jumping the gun a bit.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
If it was unique, I'd agree. But there are existing X Factor categories for other countries (e.g.
Category:The X Factor (UK)) so it's highly likely this will become more populated very soon.
Gnu andrew (
talk) 06:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Response Then recreate it when the material exists. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 06:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Response Material exists now. Exactly what harm is this category doing? (and I didn't create it BTW)
Gnu andrew (
talk) 15:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
No category, no matter how inappropriate, really causes that much "harm": categories are a relatively minor part of WP and a single category very likely goes largely unnoticed. That's why there's
WP:NOHARM.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete overly small. There is no consensus that just because more than one article exists on a TV show it should have a category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. Probably not enough in this case, and anyway one of the three articles now categorized is an inappropriate performer by performance categorization. I agree that this is not really the sort of thing meant by an "overall scheme" in
WP:OC#SMALL.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:17, 4 October 2011 (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:Petrochemistry
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:upmerge.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Possible category for
petrochemicals, but we already have
Category:Petroleum products. (Fairly recently; about 2 weeks) created category by an editor unable to follow consensus. —
Arthur Rubin(talk) 02:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Change to upmerge, the creator decategorized the article
Petrochemistry (which quite possibly should be moved or merged elsewhere) not to have categories. —
Arthur Rubin(talk) 02:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to all parents. We are unlikely to need sub-cats for this or to be able to populate it further.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:46, 2 October 2011 (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:Top-importance Orissa districts 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:Delete.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 12:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete Very small and in some cases empty categories that are unlikely to be populated further. There are no WikiProjects or task forces dedicated to districts of Orissa and no template that categorizes articles along those lines. These categories will only create clutter and confusion.
Pichpich (
talk) 02:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Currently the project is inactive. You can delete them. --
SrikantKedia 12:49, 21 September 2011 (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:Works about guerrilla warfare
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 12:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. The contents are too broad to be narrowed like this.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 18:01, 25 September 2011 (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:keep, for now. The carnivore category seems like it deserves to stay, given that there are analogous categories for
Category:Herbivorous animals and
Category:Detritivores. All of these would need more contents to deserve continued existence, in my opinion.
Category:Predators is more suspect, as it is a subset of all carnivores. But it hasn't been nominated for merging. If someone wants to continue the reverse-merge argument, please nominate it.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 12:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
keep as is. They are not the same, despite any overlap. Carnivorous animals may be either predators or scavengers. See the relevent WP articles.
Hmains (
talk) 02:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment as Hmains points out, merging to Carnivorous animals is the only option that makes sense. I'm sort of surprised to see how thinly populated these are. For now, I'd rather keep both alive and see how they evolve.
Pichpich (
talk) 22:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge. These categories are not large enough at present to justify both.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:59, 30 September 2011 (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:Scheduled human spaceflights
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 13:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. I noticed that this includes
Category:Scheduled manned Soyuz missions which only has one entry. That one and all of the other Soyuz flights are directly listed in the parent category. So maybe if the parent is renamed, this one should just be deleted.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete after conversion to template along with
Category:Future spaceflights. I just went through these to clean out some of the ones that have already flown. The category is a maintenance issue that would be better dealt with as a template that broke this stuff out by year.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 07:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
OK, the template is available {{tl:User:Vegaswikian/Template:Future spaceflights}} if there are any comments. In creating the template, the category was cleaned up to remove flights already flown, programs that are not actually flights and proposals which are not flights.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Even given the maintance problem of this category? I'll note that after my cleanup while creating the template, the parent category is already out of date. These categories are maintenance nightmares.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 17:35, 1 October 2011 (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:Netware
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: I request the renaming of this category, because the proper spelling for Novell's network operating systems is NetWare, not Netware.
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 15:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
rename per Armbrust to match the main article; no good reason for a different name
Hmains (
talk) 04:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename per Armbrust -- always was called Novell NetWare, it says so on the box over there on my shelf. Indeed, I wrote RFC 1552, and Novell didn't like breaking their monopoly one bit! --
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 05:29, 24 September 2011 (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:Literature by theme
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. These two concepts are not the same, though they are regrettably inexact. Perhaps some hatnotes are in order.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 13:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The concepts of genre and theme may well be different, however, based on the existing subcategories, it doesn't seem to be especially helpful, since the sorting seems to be pretty arbitrary (e.g. "Prison writings" or "Philatelic literature" don't seem to be clearly and obviously different from themes as such, or why "African diaspora literature" is here while "Postcolonial literature" is there, etc.).
Adam78 (
talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I've found in the past that "genre" does get applied very inexactly, in just the way you point out. But I think the answer is to stick to our guns and recategorize things from genre to topic or theme, as need be. It's what I've tried to do in the doc film category, over the years. So regretfully, oppose.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 18:26, 21 September 2011 (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:Miracles attributed to Muhammad
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. For paralleling the Jesus category, if nothing else. Clearly "attributed to" is better than "of," since that makes no claim as to whether the miracles actually happened. This is a thinly populated category, and those who wish to keep it might do well to fill it with more articles.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 13:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep: There are dozens of miracles attributed to Muhammad in the literature, so the category, which was created to parallel
Category:Miracles attributed to Jesus, has a potential to grow. The title "Miracles of Muhammad" might raise POV concerns.
Al-Andalusi (
talk) 01:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep -- There's no reason to start removing categories merely because they are small. Better to work on adding more articles. --
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 05:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep per Al-Andalusi.
Tachfin (
talk) 19:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete The overcat rules clearly state we should delete categories because they are small. If there are other articles that can be placed here than that is why we wait a week to go through with a delete, so people can find the articles. The fact that 8 days after nomination it still only has 2 articles seems to suggest it is overly small to be worth keeping.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
In principle Keep -- Perhaps the significance is that they were so few in contrast to Jesus. If it had just one item, I would have wanted to delete. An alternative might be to merge with a parent.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:40, 2 October 2011 (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:Burials at Symonds Street Cemetery
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. The underlying principle of the nomination has been invalidated, since someone has created the article.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 12:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is a bit of a test nomination. I'm curious to know: it is appropriate to categorize people by burial place when the specific burial place has no article in Wikipedia? If the burial place is of low notability, it seems strange to categorize people for being buried there. In this case, there is no article about
Symonds Street Cemetery.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep, I believe this cemetery would meet the GNG, for example:
[1].
XLerate (
talk) 09:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The more interesting question, though, is what if it didn't? (This one may well meet the GNG, but it does seem back-to-front to create a category before an article about it exists.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
It would be better if the article existed before the category. I had a search for
cemetery in the AFD archives, it appears opinion is divided as to whether cemeteries are inherently notable (like schools).
XLerate (
talk) 00:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete We have no article on such burials and this is not notable. If we could categorize everything by stuff that happened but we don't have an article, how are we to prove we are right?
Curb Chain (
talk) 05:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The reference for where a person is buried goes in their biography.
XLerate (
talk) 07:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I mean the individual burial sites have no articles.
Curb Chain (
talk) 09:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)reply
keep this and all other burial by cemetery categories There is no requirement anywhere in WP that categories must have a main article in order to exist and many categories do not. Categories are for navigation to articles and to other categories--that is all. There is no reason to single out those people who happen to buried in cemeteries and delete their category while keeping all the categories for people who are buried at other places, such as cathedrals. See
Category:Burials by place for a full picture of the situation.
Hmains (
talk) 21:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Actually, there has been a strong consensus that if an article does not exist for a record producer or record label, we should not create categories that categorize albums by being produced by that producer or released by that label. So the underlying premise of your comment is flawed—incorrect, I would say.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Note the article has now been created.
XLerate (
talk) 07:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep The fact that no corresponding article exists is definitely not a good reason to delete. Many articles on perfectly fine topics are absent from Wikipedia and we must avoid the circular reasoning according to which a topic is not notable because it's not on Wikipedia and therefore doesn't deserve an article on Wikipedia. I certainly wouldn't claim that all cemeteries are notable in the WP sense but I suspect most because they so often are a subject of interest to local historians. That doesn't necessarily translate into easily accessible references but before I consider deleting a category of this form, I would at least need to see a convincing demonstration that the cemetery is hopelessly obscure.
Pichpich (
talk) 14:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Extra note regarding Good Ol’factory's comment about creating the category before the article. It's certainly doesn't appear to be the natural order but it's a rather harmless oddity. Wikipedia is a work in progress and things aren't always built in the order that seems most sensible. For instance I've always found it amusing that
Pyongyang was created nine months after
Mariah Carey. Of course there's no link between the two articles but my point is simply that we should take the long view and be patient and optimistic. Assuming that a cemetery is sufficiently notable, we expect that ten years from now, somebody at some point will have created
Foo Cemetery, someone else will have created
Category:Burials at Foo Cemetery and many others will have populated the category. We expect things to happen in that order but if they don't we shouldn't destroy the partial work on the category. The existence of the category is an incentive for the creation of the article.
Pichpich (
talk) 14:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep all I concur with Pichpich. And in my opinion, this is quite different to record labels or producers. From my observations, in the music world, a lot of the work is being done by marketing companies on behalf of the label, for obvious promotional reasons and not because something is inherently notable. Most cemeteries, on the other hand, would be notable (I accept that some may not be notable), and the work here is being done by WP editors in good faith. I see no reason to undo this work, even if things are being done in the 'wrong order', but I can see the rationale for being quite strict about sticking to the right order in the music world. Schwede66 17:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete I do not see how location of burial is a notable trait about someone. We do not categorize by location of birth, it seems even less relevant to their biography to make classifications based on what occured after they died.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment Well, if that's the case, why don't you put
Category:Burials by cemetery up for deletion? And good luck with that. Schwede66 02:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Johnpacklambert also makes a good point here. If someone is buried in a place and being buried in that place is unusual, I can somewhat understand categorizing by burial place because it's akin to an "award" or "honour" of sorts—I'm think about examples like
Category:Burials at Westminster Abbey, and the like. However, categorizing individuals for being buried at a garden-variety public cemetery does seem to be quite a trivial form of categorization. John is right to point out that it's somewhat comparable to categorizing by birthplace, and there has long been agreement that this should not be done. Many of these burial categories were created by sockpuppets of Pastorwayne, who was not exactly adept at determining when and when not to categorize by a characteristic.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Wouldn't it be fair to say that once you've got a bunch of notable people buried in a cemetery, the cemetery itself gains notability? If that logic is followed, then it would appear to make sense to look for this, and categorisation would appear to be a good tool to do so. Schwede66 03:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Perhaps yes, given the relatively permanent nature of headstones/cemetery monuments, etc. If we do compare it to birthplace, it's not quite the same, since a birthplace usually doesn't have a permanent monument. But still one could ask—would a hospital become notable if it was the birthplace of several notable people, and would we categorize by that birthplace? Probably not. Does the monument make all the difference then? Or it because that's where the body or its remains will be, presumably forever?, whereas a person leaves his birthplace behind?
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Place of birth isn't such a good comparison, because the cemetery is almost never the place of death (
Thomas Henderson (New Zealand) for example). I don't think the argument "only exclusive cemeteries can have a burial category" holds water either, we don't categorise alumni only for Ivy League universities, but the garden variety ones as well. Some of the references discuss people who are buried at the cemetery as a group:
To me, the comparison to school alumni is probably a good one, because I don't think either burial place or school attended are defining, but good luck trying to convince the fans of the categories of that fact. These things would be much better dealt with by lists. Most of the early examples of both were created by users who didn't give a fig of difference between verifiability and what is a defining characteristic, and the sheer mass of categories made the trees gain lives of their own.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:38, 30 September 2011 (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:Redirects from quotations
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 12:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Overly specific. I can't see this growing beyond four, ever. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 07:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I can imagine that a number of sayings or slogans that aren't quite article-worthy are still worth redirecting. We have articles on
it's the economy stupid and
I have a dream, for instance, but I can that prior to those articles being expanded, redirecting them would have been appropriate. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 10:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Response Maintenance categories are far more effective at this, plus I always add them with HotCat rather than templates, so "What Links Here" wouldn't work. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 20:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
It does annoy me when people (especially you :P) add the categories with HotCat but there are other problems with "What links here" that prevent it being an accurate tool for measuring the transclusions. McLerristarr |
Mclay1 06:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep (as creator) – Redirect categories can become huge and I feel it is easier to keep track of things when they're diffused. It is highly likely that there are many, many more redirects from quotations that are not in the category. Also, it's a subcategory of
Category:Quotations. McLerristarr |
Mclay1 06:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep -- populated by {{
R from quotation}}, assuming all other R from populate categories. But of course, Vegaswikian has an excellent point. Make sure the category is only populated by the template! Not by HotCat. --
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 05:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep There may be only a few redirects, but I am sure more can be added. Justin's point that such quotations at times will be made into articles of their own also suggests that measuring the current size is not all that useful.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:10, 30 September 2011 (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:Families in The Simpsons
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 12:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete (as nom); probably also unreferenced
Curb Chain (
talk) 05:02, 22 September 2011 (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:BTAS screenshots and pictures
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 rename C2D.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 09:53, 23 September 2011 (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:TNBA screenshots and pictures
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 rename C2D.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 09:52, 23 September 2011 (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:Modern Buddhist writers
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:upmerge.
Courcelles 08:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
comment We do not delete and leave orphans; we upmerge.
Hmains (
talk) 03:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to
Category:Buddhist writers. The article
Modern Buddhism suggests that this is either involving Buddhist modernism or Buddhism in the "West". However a look at the category suggests it is just being used for Buddhist writers who lived after 1900 or so.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge as previous comment. We do not like "modern" categories, as the term is imprecise.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:44, 2 October 2011 (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:Back to Mine 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.
The result of the discussion was:keep.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
It now has nine entries.
Gnu andrew (
talk) 06:15, 21 September 2011 (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:Press Your Luck
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 12:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The Incredible Hulk (1977 TV series)
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Response There are thousands of American television programs--are you suggesting that we create thousands of categories with one to four articles each? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 05:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The X Factor (U.S.)
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. Whatever its content now, I think it's reasonable to imagine it will be as full as the other X Factor categories very shortly.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only three articles. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 05:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep You're jumping the gun a bit. The first series hasn't even started yet. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gnu andrew (
talk •
contribs)
That sounds back to front to me: creating the category before the series begins is jumping the gun a bit.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
If it was unique, I'd agree. But there are existing X Factor categories for other countries (e.g.
Category:The X Factor (UK)) so it's highly likely this will become more populated very soon.
Gnu andrew (
talk) 06:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Response Then recreate it when the material exists. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 06:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Response Material exists now. Exactly what harm is this category doing? (and I didn't create it BTW)
Gnu andrew (
talk) 15:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
No category, no matter how inappropriate, really causes that much "harm": categories are a relatively minor part of WP and a single category very likely goes largely unnoticed. That's why there's
WP:NOHARM.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete overly small. There is no consensus that just because more than one article exists on a TV show it should have a category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. Probably not enough in this case, and anyway one of the three articles now categorized is an inappropriate performer by performance categorization. I agree that this is not really the sort of thing meant by an "overall scheme" in
WP:OC#SMALL.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:17, 4 October 2011 (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:Petrochemistry
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:upmerge.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 03:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Possible category for
petrochemicals, but we already have
Category:Petroleum products. (Fairly recently; about 2 weeks) created category by an editor unable to follow consensus. —
Arthur Rubin(talk) 02:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Change to upmerge, the creator decategorized the article
Petrochemistry (which quite possibly should be moved or merged elsewhere) not to have categories. —
Arthur Rubin(talk) 02:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to all parents. We are unlikely to need sub-cats for this or to be able to populate it further.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:46, 2 October 2011 (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:Top-importance Orissa districts 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:Delete.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 12:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete Very small and in some cases empty categories that are unlikely to be populated further. There are no WikiProjects or task forces dedicated to districts of Orissa and no template that categorizes articles along those lines. These categories will only create clutter and confusion.
Pichpich (
talk) 02:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Currently the project is inactive. You can delete them. --
SrikantKedia 12:49, 21 September 2011 (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:Works about guerrilla warfare
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 12:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. The contents are too broad to be narrowed like this.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 18:01, 25 September 2011 (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.