May 26
Category:Gray's Anatomy images
- 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 as empty. Since neither WikiProject Anatomy nor WikiProject Medicine expressed any interest in the lists, and in light of Magnus Manske's comment, I will delete all of the lists under speedy deletion criterion G7 (author-requested deletion), leaving this category empty. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Or rename. The category does not contain images, these all having been moved to Commons. It contains a set of pages which seems to be an index of Gray's Anatomy images, which could itself probably be transwikied to Commons. It's misleading in its current state. If kept, it needs a new name and a better parent category. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see how they could exist on Commons, since they are indices of pages that do not exist on en.wiki ; I suggest that they be parented to a wikiproject, probably
Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy, so the category would be renamed to
Category:WikiProject Anatomy - missing Gray's Anatomy articles --
70.49.124.225 (
talk) 10:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- The names of the pages inside the category are wrong. They contain an indiscriminate list of all Gray's Anatomy slides and not just those without articles. 124.149.84.97 ( talk) 09:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to
Category:Gray's Anatomy images with missing Wikipedia articles for clarity at least, per nom. Neutral on the rest of the concerns above. -
jc37 01:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, don't do that! It's wrong. The pages contain a list of all Gray's Anatomy images, most of which are actually used in articles.
124.149.84.97 (
talk) 08:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- More than one list. And I also would be fine with: Category:Lists of Gray's Anatomy images with missing Wikipedia articles - jc37 06:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, don't do that! It's wrong. The pages contain a list of all Gray's Anatomy images, most of which are actually used in articles.
124.149.84.97 (
talk) 08:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: It will be difficult to reach a consensus unless we know the intended function of the category's contents and whether they are still needed (they were created in 2004). If this is truly an index of missing articles, then it could be placed under a WikiProject and/or
Category:Wikipedia missing topics. If it is just an index of Gray's Anatomy slides, then it would appear to duplicate the contents of
Category:Gray's Anatomy-related lists.
In the interest of moving things along, I will post a neutrally worded request for clarification/participation at the following locations: Talk:Gray's Anatomy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. I will also notify User:Magnus Manske, who created most of the member pages and perhaps can shed additional light on the issue. - Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 23:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I originally created these lists after uploading many of the images, at a time when images were scarce, to help illustrate medical articles. Today, several of the images are actually in use, so the lists are both incomplete and out-of-date. Category:Gray's Anatomy-related lists contains better lists of Gray images, as does List of images and subjects in Gray's Anatomy. I therefore propose to delete the category and the lists, unless someone volunteers to maintain them, in which case the category should become Category:Lists of Gray's Anatomy images with missing Wikipedia articles. -- Magnus Manske ( talk) 10:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Resource conflict
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename to
Category:Natural resource conflicts.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 09:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Resource conflict to Category:Natural-resource conflicts
- Nominator's rationale: The proposed change serves two functions: first, it clarifies the type of resource that is at issue – natural resources, as opposed to capital, computer resources, or human resources such as labor and trust; and second, it reflects the parentage of this set-and-topic category, a subcategory of Category:Natural resources and Category:Conflicts. The phrase 'Natural-resource' needs to be hyphenated since it functions as a compound modifier; without the hyphen, the meaning becomes grammatically ambiguous and could suggest "resource conflicts that are natural". The unhyphenated title, Category:Natural resource conflicts, should be created as a category redirect. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 22:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename as proposed - but minus the hyphen (ergo,
Category:Natural resource conflicts). I am always alert to potential ambiguity in Category names, BF... but in this case, the compound term "Natural resource" is so very commonly used that any hypothetical ambiguity is exceedingly far-fetched. I was unable to find even a single instance of the hyphenated term "Natural-resource" being used anywhere on the internet (and I don't recall ever coming across it anywhere in print). And besides, wouldn't there need to be such a thing as "UN-natural resources" for someone to perceive the hypothetical ambiguity? All in all, I think this is a "solution" in search of a problem! :)
Cgingold (
talk) 23:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have seen the hyphenated form in some print sources, though I readily admit that the unhyphenated form is more common. One example I found via search is Managing Armed Conflicts in the 21st Century (Taylor & Francis, 2001). To be certain, I won't be bothered if the hyphen is omitted.
- The ambiguity extends to the naturalness of the conflict, not the resources: i.e., 'resource conflicts that are natural' versus 'resource conflicts that are unnatural'. It's likely that most readers will understand the meaning, regardless of whether the phrase is hyphenated, but the same could be said for most compound modifiers. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 23:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename Per Cgingold. Probably could be speedied. Non-controversial. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 03:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per Cgingold. (This was tried at Speedy, see here.) Like the sibling Category:Organized crime conflicts, the first two words are so well known as a phrase that there is no need to hyphenate them. – Fayenatic London (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wu-Tang Clan affiliated 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: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Wu-Tang have marketed themselves as a brand and have a near-infinite group of extended affiliates. Previous discussions about categorizing albums as side-projects of a main artist have resulted in deletion. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Meaningful categorization with a clear scope and an accompanying list List of Wu-Tang Clan affiliate albums. I don't see the problem. This is best understood as a variant of Category:Albums by record label. Pichpich ( talk) 19:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Response But it's not a record label. How is this any different than Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_3#Category:Sonic_Youth_side_project_albums? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Like the nominator, it is my understanding that we have agreed several times by consensus not to categorize albums for being a side project or affiliated project of another musical group. I'm not familiar enough with rap or Wu-Tang to argue whether or not this is defining, but based solely on precedence, I would have thought this category should be deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Albums has been notified. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – I share the views voiced above that there has been a consensus not to categorise albums by affiliations of their respective artists. Oculi ( talk) 23:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- If this category is deleted, then List of Wu-Tang Clan affiliate albums needs to be recategorized so that it is not completely removed from Category:Wu-Tang Clan. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as going against consensus. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Thai Buddhist art
- 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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 09:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Thai Buddhist art to Category:Thai Buddhist art and architecture
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Better represents scope of articles within the category.
Paul_012 (
talk) 20:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support Makes sense to me. About half the articles concern buildings and structures. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 03:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Mathematicians by era
- 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 the Italian category to Category:Italian mathematicians by century, and merge the rest. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 01:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging:
- Category:Italian mathematicians by era to Category:Italian mathematicians
- Category:Lithuanian mathematicians by era to Category:Lithuanian mathematicians
- Category:Polish mathematicians by era to Category:Polish mathematicians
- Category:Russian mathematicians by era to Category:Russian mathematicians
- Category:Swiss mathematicians by era to Category:Swiss mathematicians
- Propose merging:
- Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need the triple intersection of nationality/field/century. If kept, though, then rename to "by period" (or, maybe better, by century) as below.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Italian looks like an exception waiting to happen. The rest are just 18th and 19th centuries, so upmerging doesn't sound like a bad idea. - jc37 20:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge - Overcategorization. Neutrality talk 00:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- comment I'm unsure on this one. Some of the mathematics categories are quite large, and separating by time period would seem to make sense, so one could see which mathematicians were more or less peers of the others. The fact that some of the cats are not filled in is just a question of someone taking the time to diffuse. -- KarlB ( talk) 01:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - To be clear, this nom looks like it is only deleting the parents of the subcats. The "by century" subcats will still apparently exist after this nom. - jc37 09:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Italian mathematicians by era to Category:Italian mathematicians by century. Upmerge the rest per nom. In addition, these small "18th/19th-century <nationality> mathematicians" subcats might be better served being upmerged to the parents: Category:18th-century mathematicians and Category:19th-century mathematicians - jc37 09:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- rename per jc37. worth keeping the italians for now. -- KarlB ( talk) 03:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Categories by era
- 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 Category:Video games set in China by era to Category:Video games set in China; rename rest. Timrollpickering ( talk) 09:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Nominator's rationale: Per this April 30 nomination, we eliminated the concept of "Categories by era" in favor of "Categories by period." I did not want to presume all these were speediable, however.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 19:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename/Merge all per nom. Just want to say that wow that was a lot to click through. MS always seems to have the largest noms lol. I do wonder about deleting a few though. For example, Mobsters by era only holding depression era mobsters seemed kind of unnecessary. -
jc37 19:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed on the Mobsters category. And
Category:Video games set in China by era looks like an obvious upmerge candidate.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 20:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ugh didn't spot that (they were all starting blur together towards the end : ) - both subcats need a rename badly, and the modern one kinda looks like a deletion candidate. - jc37 20:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed on the Mobsters category. And
Category:Video games set in China by era looks like an obvious upmerge candidate.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 20:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge all. Let's get this done.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 03:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- eh? to what? –
Fayenatic London
(talk) 18:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Blah - Rename. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 00:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- eh? to what? –
Fayenatic London
(talk) 18:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename -- no objection on behalf of the philosophy categories. Greg Bard ( talk) 19:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename all except Video games set in China, upmerge that one instead. The grandparent Category:China in fiction needs work, but that one does not help. I added Prohibition and French Connection into Category:Mobsters by era, so with 3 sub-cats it is now worth keeping. I thought longest about Category:Arabic poets by era as the sub-cats are each named "... era", but the article Ummayad does not use the word "era" and refers to the subsequent "Abbasid period", so I think this justifies the change even though "Abbasid era" is more common for the Abbasid Caliphate. – Fayenatic London (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename as nominated. No objection as creator of the civil wars category. Era was the popular descriptor at that point in wiki time. BusterD ( talk) 23:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kart racing drivers
- 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: move subcategories into Category:Kart racing drivers by series, then delete category.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This is a case of a category whose scope is simply
too broad. Virtually all racing drivers race karts at some early point in their careers; it's hardly a definining characteristic. What is defining is a driver who makes a career of racing in karts - and for that categories such as
Category:CIK-FIA Karting World Championship drivers, diffusing the drivers by series, should be used; simply having a "these drivers raced karts" category isn't appropriate, IMHO, any more than
Category:Stock car drivers would be. (A possible alternative would be to Rename to
Category:Kart racing drivers by series and purge.)
The Bushranger
One ping only 18:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. 300+ Members isn't too many. If you want to sub-cat, "Kart drivers" by nationality would be one way to do it, a-la 'Hockey players' by nationality. That they did race Karts at a professional level is both notable and defining.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 03:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- It currently has 300+ drivers, however it potentally has hundreds more. My point is that being a "kart racing driver" is not defining. Racing at a professional level of karting is, but then they should be categoried by series - per
Category:Stock car racing drivers by series - and I suspect the majority of drivers currently in the category are there because they "raced karts" at some point in their careers, not because they became or were notable for doing so. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 20:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- "I suspect the majority of drivers currently in the category" Well then. Are they or aren't they? "I suspect" isn's sufficient evidence. If they are professional kart drivers, then they should be properly catted then we can move on and nominate the cat for deletion.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 20:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have the time at the moment to go through them, but I know quite a few of the NASCAR drivers are in the category just because they raced karts when young (and I freely admit to adding some of them - it was the light bulb going on over my head when adding
Stephen Leicht, in fact, that led to this nomination). I might see about sorting them into by-series cats after the
World 600. ;) -
The Bushranger
One ping only 20:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not trying to be tenditious. Going through it, some raced with the world karting association, some won juniors titles. Seems to me that it's possible to be a notable Kart driver and not fit in any of the established categories. Some of these folks did kart while young, true. But some seem to meet the notability requirements for driving as a Kart driver. I'm going to stand on my nomination as Keep.
- No worries! :) At the very least though if kept a mop needs to be taken to it to sort out the chaff from the wheat. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 21:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Seems we've been down this route before. :p I'm adding lots of boxen now since I have boxen envy. Enjoy your racing! Benkenobi18 ( talk) 21:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- No worries! :) At the very least though if kept a mop needs to be taken to it to sort out the chaff from the wheat. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 21:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not trying to be tenditious. Going through it, some raced with the world karting association, some won juniors titles. Seems to me that it's possible to be a notable Kart driver and not fit in any of the established categories. Some of these folks did kart while young, true. But some seem to meet the notability requirements for driving as a Kart driver. I'm going to stand on my nomination as Keep.
- I don't have the time at the moment to go through them, but I know quite a few of the NASCAR drivers are in the category just because they raced karts when young (and I freely admit to adding some of them - it was the light bulb going on over my head when adding
Stephen Leicht, in fact, that led to this nomination). I might see about sorting them into by-series cats after the
World 600. ;) -
The Bushranger
One ping only 20:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- "I suspect the majority of drivers currently in the category" Well then. Are they or aren't they? "I suspect" isn's sufficient evidence. If they are professional kart drivers, then they should be properly catted then we can move on and nominate the cat for deletion.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 20:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- It currently has 300+ drivers, however it potentally has hundreds more. My point is that being a "kart racing driver" is not defining. Racing at a professional level of karting is, but then they should be categoried by series - per
Category:Stock car racing drivers by series - and I suspect the majority of drivers currently in the category are there because they "raced karts" at some point in their careers, not because they became or were notable for doing so. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 20:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and Purge. I agree with both The Bushranger and Benkenobi18. I did create the category but it is getting overpopulated as it is too generic. Maybe by splitting it into 'Kart Racing drivers by series' or 'Kart Racing drivers by nationality' we could get the information in a better way. Regards, Mxcatania ( talk) 20:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. 300+ Members isn't too many. If you want to sub-cat, "Kart drivers" by nationality would be one way to do it, a-la 'Hockey players' by nationality. That they did race Karts at a professional level is both notable and defining.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 03:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to
Category:Kart racing drivers by series and purge, per nominator; then label it as a {{
container category}}. The current category is being filled with articles for which this is not a defining characteristic. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 11:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with that. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Crematoriums in Bangkok
- 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) 09:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Likely almost every Buddhist temple in Thailand has a crematorium on its premises, and those not within temple grounds are rare (and not yet represented in Wikipedia). This isn't a useful categorisation scheme. Paul_012 ( talk) 15:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Time in the Republic of Ireland
- 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 Bushranger
One ping only 23:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Time in the Republic of Ireland
- Nominator's rationale: This contained two articles moved to Date and time notation in Ireland and Time in Ireland and now categorized in Category:Time in Ireland. The category is thus now empty is not likely to every serve any purpose. -- RA ( talk) 09:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- keep per established convention of Ireland category tree. There could potentially be articles written about time in northern ireland [1] which may not always synch with time in RoI. -- KarlB ( talk) 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Procedural objection. Before nominating this category for deletion, the nominator depopulated it and removed its parent categories. This step was unnecessary (if the category is deleted, that will be done by the bot), and disruptive (because it prebents other editors from seeing the scope and context of the category).
I have therefore restored the category's contents and parents, without prejudice to the outcome of this discussion. --- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC) - Keep per KarlB. Time may not always be standardised between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, so the distinction is needed. (The nominator also renamed the head article from Time in Ireland to Time in the Republic of Ireland, and I have reverted the move). In any case, the category is on a series under Category:Time by country, and the convention of Category:Republic of Ireland and its subcats is that the sunbcats are called "Foo in the RoI". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per BHG and KarlB. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 20:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:17th century in the United Kingdom
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. The United Kingdom did not exist in the 17th century. Tim! ( talk) 07:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename To "Category:17th century in England". Most of the articles have to do with the Empire in the 17th century. Odd. There really isn't a good name for this period of time concerning these articles. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 03:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. If anything, the Empire category should be a head category, not a sub-category, but it is up for renaming as English anyway; and the sub-cat for people is also up for deletion. (There is already a Category:17th century in England.) – Fayenatic London (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment -- UK did not exist, but GB did in the sense of a united monarchy. There was no such thing as a "British Empire" in the 17th century: all the colonies were English ones; even Ireland was a possession of the English crown, not the Scottish one. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- strong keep per convention of the category. Otherwise we're going to have to go after things like
Category:510_BC_in_Italy. The only way to have a rational category structure is to accept some anachronism; otherwise, if you want to name every category after the correct name of the governmental entity which surrounded it at the time you would have an absolute mess on your hands. This has absolutely *nothing* to do with what existed or didn't exist in the 17th century. Do you really think Scotland was called Scotland in the 1st century?
Category:1st_century_in_Scotland. This is a can of worms, and opening it will cause an absolute mess. There should be clear guidance; these century categories should be for the most part be based on the current nation state boundaries, with a few exceptions allowed. --
KarlB (
talk) 23:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I see your point about the "can of worms", but I completely disagree that century categories should "for the most part be based on the current nation state boundaries". Most states that exist today attained sovereignty in the 19th or 20th centuries, and I do not consider it to be logical to categorize events that predate their formation (let alone sovereignty) by hundreds of years according to their current boundaries. For example: the Battle of Cajamarca was not an event of the 16th century in Peru, because Peru did not exist until the 19th century. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you look at any book on the history of Peru, it will detail the Battle of Cajamarca. This sort of anachronism is common. We should not invent a different pattern in wikipedia. Again, this is a can of worms; if you start going after not naming categories after countries that didn't exist at a certain moment, then this on 17th century category is the tip of the iceberg.--
KarlB (
talk) 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- The invention here is the notion that the UK existed in 17th century; it didn't. The comparison with Peru is misleading, because in this case we have a clear and straightforward alternative set of geographical containers.
- If you look at any book on the history of Peru, it will detail the Battle of Cajamarca. This sort of anachronism is common. We should not invent a different pattern in wikipedia. Again, this is a can of worms; if you start going after not naming categories after countries that didn't exist at a certain moment, then this on 17th century category is the tip of the iceberg.--
KarlB (
talk) 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Fayenatic london. The discussion about the sub-categories seems likely to end with a change from 'British' to 'English' (in some form), so this category becomes redundant to Category:17th century in England. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 23:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Fayenatic London. The Kingdom of Great Britain was not created until the 18th century, and it is anachronism to apply the term to the 17th century. Everything can be accommodated in the existing categories Category:17th century in England, Category:17th century in Scotland and Category:17th century in Wales. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Films co-produced by studios that reunite with their old parent companies
- 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) 09:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I'm not an expert in film, but this seems very trivial to me. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, very trivial intersection. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I am an expert in film, and this seems very trivial to me. Lugnuts ( talk) 09:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- delete i have no idea what this means, but it certainly doesnt' seem like a defining intersection -- KarlB ( talk) 04:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete'. Trivial. Neutrality talk 00:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sony/ATV Music Publishing artists
- 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 Bushranger One ping only 22:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: No precedent for an artists-by-publisher category. This is not as defining as artist by record label. The small size shows that no one is maintaining the category. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Weak keep I've noticed that lately there have been subcategory schemes of Category:Music publishing companies created such as Category:Music by publisher. It's possible that this is a work-in-progress and so is the entirety of the category system. Of course, there was a time when there were minimal entries under Category:Artists by record label or even Category:Albums by artist, but those are clearly schemes that are meaningful and useful for navigation that simply need to be populated (the former still has a lot of gaps.) The real question to me is whether or not this could be a useful way of navigating articles and it seems like it could be, but I'm open to other perspectives. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:EXO (band) 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: Moved to speedy section, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 04:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:EXO (band) albums) to Category:EXO (band) albums
- Nominator's rationale: per Category:EXO (band) songs Morning Sunshine ( talk) 04:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:EXO (band) songs)
- 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: Moved to speedy section, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 04:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:EXO (band) songs) to Category:EXO (band) songs
- Nominator's rationale: Obviously wrong category name Morning Sunshine ( talk) 04:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Replacement theology
- 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) 10:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Replacement theology to Category:Supersessionism
- Nominator's rationale: Replacement theology currently redirects to Supersessionism which says in its lead section that the term "Replacement theology" is disputed. Hence, the neutral, technical, article name should also be the category name. St Anselm ( talk) 04:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy rename — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 18:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:User ff
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy delete ( CSD G6: uncontroversial maintenance). As far as I can tell, this category for speakers of the Fula language was populated by {{ User ff-0}}, a template used by those who do not speak the language. The template recently was modified (per Wikipedia:Babel) to remove the category code and the category was left empty. It may be recreated, as a part of Category:Wikipedians by language, if there is anyone to (properly) categorize. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 17:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Unneeded category. Not used and probably not needed Kumioko ( talk) 02:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Watermill 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: Already deleted. Timrollpickering ( talk) 09:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category with no practical purpose or encyclopedic value Kumioko ( talk) 02:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
May 26
Category:Gray's Anatomy images
- 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 as empty. Since neither WikiProject Anatomy nor WikiProject Medicine expressed any interest in the lists, and in light of Magnus Manske's comment, I will delete all of the lists under speedy deletion criterion G7 (author-requested deletion), leaving this category empty. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Or rename. The category does not contain images, these all having been moved to Commons. It contains a set of pages which seems to be an index of Gray's Anatomy images, which could itself probably be transwikied to Commons. It's misleading in its current state. If kept, it needs a new name and a better parent category. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see how they could exist on Commons, since they are indices of pages that do not exist on en.wiki ; I suggest that they be parented to a wikiproject, probably
Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy, so the category would be renamed to
Category:WikiProject Anatomy - missing Gray's Anatomy articles --
70.49.124.225 (
talk) 10:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- The names of the pages inside the category are wrong. They contain an indiscriminate list of all Gray's Anatomy slides and not just those without articles. 124.149.84.97 ( talk) 09:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to
Category:Gray's Anatomy images with missing Wikipedia articles for clarity at least, per nom. Neutral on the rest of the concerns above. -
jc37 01:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, don't do that! It's wrong. The pages contain a list of all Gray's Anatomy images, most of which are actually used in articles.
124.149.84.97 (
talk) 08:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- More than one list. And I also would be fine with: Category:Lists of Gray's Anatomy images with missing Wikipedia articles - jc37 06:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, don't do that! It's wrong. The pages contain a list of all Gray's Anatomy images, most of which are actually used in articles.
124.149.84.97 (
talk) 08:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: It will be difficult to reach a consensus unless we know the intended function of the category's contents and whether they are still needed (they were created in 2004). If this is truly an index of missing articles, then it could be placed under a WikiProject and/or
Category:Wikipedia missing topics. If it is just an index of Gray's Anatomy slides, then it would appear to duplicate the contents of
Category:Gray's Anatomy-related lists.
In the interest of moving things along, I will post a neutrally worded request for clarification/participation at the following locations: Talk:Gray's Anatomy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. I will also notify User:Magnus Manske, who created most of the member pages and perhaps can shed additional light on the issue. - Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 23:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I originally created these lists after uploading many of the images, at a time when images were scarce, to help illustrate medical articles. Today, several of the images are actually in use, so the lists are both incomplete and out-of-date. Category:Gray's Anatomy-related lists contains better lists of Gray images, as does List of images and subjects in Gray's Anatomy. I therefore propose to delete the category and the lists, unless someone volunteers to maintain them, in which case the category should become Category:Lists of Gray's Anatomy images with missing Wikipedia articles. -- Magnus Manske ( talk) 10:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Resource conflict
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename to
Category:Natural resource conflicts.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 09:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Resource conflict to Category:Natural-resource conflicts
- Nominator's rationale: The proposed change serves two functions: first, it clarifies the type of resource that is at issue – natural resources, as opposed to capital, computer resources, or human resources such as labor and trust; and second, it reflects the parentage of this set-and-topic category, a subcategory of Category:Natural resources and Category:Conflicts. The phrase 'Natural-resource' needs to be hyphenated since it functions as a compound modifier; without the hyphen, the meaning becomes grammatically ambiguous and could suggest "resource conflicts that are natural". The unhyphenated title, Category:Natural resource conflicts, should be created as a category redirect. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 22:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename as proposed - but minus the hyphen (ergo,
Category:Natural resource conflicts). I am always alert to potential ambiguity in Category names, BF... but in this case, the compound term "Natural resource" is so very commonly used that any hypothetical ambiguity is exceedingly far-fetched. I was unable to find even a single instance of the hyphenated term "Natural-resource" being used anywhere on the internet (and I don't recall ever coming across it anywhere in print). And besides, wouldn't there need to be such a thing as "UN-natural resources" for someone to perceive the hypothetical ambiguity? All in all, I think this is a "solution" in search of a problem! :)
Cgingold (
talk) 23:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have seen the hyphenated form in some print sources, though I readily admit that the unhyphenated form is more common. One example I found via search is Managing Armed Conflicts in the 21st Century (Taylor & Francis, 2001). To be certain, I won't be bothered if the hyphen is omitted.
- The ambiguity extends to the naturalness of the conflict, not the resources: i.e., 'resource conflicts that are natural' versus 'resource conflicts that are unnatural'. It's likely that most readers will understand the meaning, regardless of whether the phrase is hyphenated, but the same could be said for most compound modifiers. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 23:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename Per Cgingold. Probably could be speedied. Non-controversial. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 03:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per Cgingold. (This was tried at Speedy, see here.) Like the sibling Category:Organized crime conflicts, the first two words are so well known as a phrase that there is no need to hyphenate them. – Fayenatic London (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wu-Tang Clan affiliated 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: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Wu-Tang have marketed themselves as a brand and have a near-infinite group of extended affiliates. Previous discussions about categorizing albums as side-projects of a main artist have resulted in deletion. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Meaningful categorization with a clear scope and an accompanying list List of Wu-Tang Clan affiliate albums. I don't see the problem. This is best understood as a variant of Category:Albums by record label. Pichpich ( talk) 19:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Response But it's not a record label. How is this any different than Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_3#Category:Sonic_Youth_side_project_albums? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Like the nominator, it is my understanding that we have agreed several times by consensus not to categorize albums for being a side project or affiliated project of another musical group. I'm not familiar enough with rap or Wu-Tang to argue whether or not this is defining, but based solely on precedence, I would have thought this category should be deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Albums has been notified. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – I share the views voiced above that there has been a consensus not to categorise albums by affiliations of their respective artists. Oculi ( talk) 23:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- If this category is deleted, then List of Wu-Tang Clan affiliate albums needs to be recategorized so that it is not completely removed from Category:Wu-Tang Clan. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as going against consensus. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Thai Buddhist art
- 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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 09:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Thai Buddhist art to Category:Thai Buddhist art and architecture
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Better represents scope of articles within the category.
Paul_012 (
talk) 20:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support Makes sense to me. About half the articles concern buildings and structures. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 03:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Mathematicians by era
- 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 the Italian category to Category:Italian mathematicians by century, and merge the rest. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 01:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging:
- Category:Italian mathematicians by era to Category:Italian mathematicians
- Category:Lithuanian mathematicians by era to Category:Lithuanian mathematicians
- Category:Polish mathematicians by era to Category:Polish mathematicians
- Category:Russian mathematicians by era to Category:Russian mathematicians
- Category:Swiss mathematicians by era to Category:Swiss mathematicians
- Propose merging:
- Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need the triple intersection of nationality/field/century. If kept, though, then rename to "by period" (or, maybe better, by century) as below.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Italian looks like an exception waiting to happen. The rest are just 18th and 19th centuries, so upmerging doesn't sound like a bad idea. - jc37 20:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge - Overcategorization. Neutrality talk 00:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- comment I'm unsure on this one. Some of the mathematics categories are quite large, and separating by time period would seem to make sense, so one could see which mathematicians were more or less peers of the others. The fact that some of the cats are not filled in is just a question of someone taking the time to diffuse. -- KarlB ( talk) 01:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - To be clear, this nom looks like it is only deleting the parents of the subcats. The "by century" subcats will still apparently exist after this nom. - jc37 09:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Italian mathematicians by era to Category:Italian mathematicians by century. Upmerge the rest per nom. In addition, these small "18th/19th-century <nationality> mathematicians" subcats might be better served being upmerged to the parents: Category:18th-century mathematicians and Category:19th-century mathematicians - jc37 09:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- rename per jc37. worth keeping the italians for now. -- KarlB ( talk) 03:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Categories by era
- 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 Category:Video games set in China by era to Category:Video games set in China; rename rest. Timrollpickering ( talk) 09:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Nominator's rationale: Per this April 30 nomination, we eliminated the concept of "Categories by era" in favor of "Categories by period." I did not want to presume all these were speediable, however.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 19:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename/Merge all per nom. Just want to say that wow that was a lot to click through. MS always seems to have the largest noms lol. I do wonder about deleting a few though. For example, Mobsters by era only holding depression era mobsters seemed kind of unnecessary. -
jc37 19:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed on the Mobsters category. And
Category:Video games set in China by era looks like an obvious upmerge candidate.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 20:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ugh didn't spot that (they were all starting blur together towards the end : ) - both subcats need a rename badly, and the modern one kinda looks like a deletion candidate. - jc37 20:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed on the Mobsters category. And
Category:Video games set in China by era looks like an obvious upmerge candidate.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 20:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge all. Let's get this done.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 03:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- eh? to what? –
Fayenatic London
(talk) 18:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Blah - Rename. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 00:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- eh? to what? –
Fayenatic London
(talk) 18:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename -- no objection on behalf of the philosophy categories. Greg Bard ( talk) 19:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename all except Video games set in China, upmerge that one instead. The grandparent Category:China in fiction needs work, but that one does not help. I added Prohibition and French Connection into Category:Mobsters by era, so with 3 sub-cats it is now worth keeping. I thought longest about Category:Arabic poets by era as the sub-cats are each named "... era", but the article Ummayad does not use the word "era" and refers to the subsequent "Abbasid period", so I think this justifies the change even though "Abbasid era" is more common for the Abbasid Caliphate. – Fayenatic London (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename as nominated. No objection as creator of the civil wars category. Era was the popular descriptor at that point in wiki time. BusterD ( talk) 23:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kart racing drivers
- 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: move subcategories into Category:Kart racing drivers by series, then delete category.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This is a case of a category whose scope is simply
too broad. Virtually all racing drivers race karts at some early point in their careers; it's hardly a definining characteristic. What is defining is a driver who makes a career of racing in karts - and for that categories such as
Category:CIK-FIA Karting World Championship drivers, diffusing the drivers by series, should be used; simply having a "these drivers raced karts" category isn't appropriate, IMHO, any more than
Category:Stock car drivers would be. (A possible alternative would be to Rename to
Category:Kart racing drivers by series and purge.)
The Bushranger
One ping only 18:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. 300+ Members isn't too many. If you want to sub-cat, "Kart drivers" by nationality would be one way to do it, a-la 'Hockey players' by nationality. That they did race Karts at a professional level is both notable and defining.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 03:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- It currently has 300+ drivers, however it potentally has hundreds more. My point is that being a "kart racing driver" is not defining. Racing at a professional level of karting is, but then they should be categoried by series - per
Category:Stock car racing drivers by series - and I suspect the majority of drivers currently in the category are there because they "raced karts" at some point in their careers, not because they became or were notable for doing so. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 20:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- "I suspect the majority of drivers currently in the category" Well then. Are they or aren't they? "I suspect" isn's sufficient evidence. If they are professional kart drivers, then they should be properly catted then we can move on and nominate the cat for deletion.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 20:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have the time at the moment to go through them, but I know quite a few of the NASCAR drivers are in the category just because they raced karts when young (and I freely admit to adding some of them - it was the light bulb going on over my head when adding
Stephen Leicht, in fact, that led to this nomination). I might see about sorting them into by-series cats after the
World 600. ;) -
The Bushranger
One ping only 20:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not trying to be tenditious. Going through it, some raced with the world karting association, some won juniors titles. Seems to me that it's possible to be a notable Kart driver and not fit in any of the established categories. Some of these folks did kart while young, true. But some seem to meet the notability requirements for driving as a Kart driver. I'm going to stand on my nomination as Keep.
- No worries! :) At the very least though if kept a mop needs to be taken to it to sort out the chaff from the wheat. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 21:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Seems we've been down this route before. :p I'm adding lots of boxen now since I have boxen envy. Enjoy your racing! Benkenobi18 ( talk) 21:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- No worries! :) At the very least though if kept a mop needs to be taken to it to sort out the chaff from the wheat. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 21:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not trying to be tenditious. Going through it, some raced with the world karting association, some won juniors titles. Seems to me that it's possible to be a notable Kart driver and not fit in any of the established categories. Some of these folks did kart while young, true. But some seem to meet the notability requirements for driving as a Kart driver. I'm going to stand on my nomination as Keep.
- I don't have the time at the moment to go through them, but I know quite a few of the NASCAR drivers are in the category just because they raced karts when young (and I freely admit to adding some of them - it was the light bulb going on over my head when adding
Stephen Leicht, in fact, that led to this nomination). I might see about sorting them into by-series cats after the
World 600. ;) -
The Bushranger
One ping only 20:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- "I suspect the majority of drivers currently in the category" Well then. Are they or aren't they? "I suspect" isn's sufficient evidence. If they are professional kart drivers, then they should be properly catted then we can move on and nominate the cat for deletion.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 20:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- It currently has 300+ drivers, however it potentally has hundreds more. My point is that being a "kart racing driver" is not defining. Racing at a professional level of karting is, but then they should be categoried by series - per
Category:Stock car racing drivers by series - and I suspect the majority of drivers currently in the category are there because they "raced karts" at some point in their careers, not because they became or were notable for doing so. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 20:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and Purge. I agree with both The Bushranger and Benkenobi18. I did create the category but it is getting overpopulated as it is too generic. Maybe by splitting it into 'Kart Racing drivers by series' or 'Kart Racing drivers by nationality' we could get the information in a better way. Regards, Mxcatania ( talk) 20:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. 300+ Members isn't too many. If you want to sub-cat, "Kart drivers" by nationality would be one way to do it, a-la 'Hockey players' by nationality. That they did race Karts at a professional level is both notable and defining.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 03:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to
Category:Kart racing drivers by series and purge, per nominator; then label it as a {{
container category}}. The current category is being filled with articles for which this is not a defining characteristic. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 11:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with that. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Crematoriums in Bangkok
- 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) 09:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Likely almost every Buddhist temple in Thailand has a crematorium on its premises, and those not within temple grounds are rare (and not yet represented in Wikipedia). This isn't a useful categorisation scheme. Paul_012 ( talk) 15:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Time in the Republic of Ireland
- 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 Bushranger
One ping only 23:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Time in the Republic of Ireland
- Nominator's rationale: This contained two articles moved to Date and time notation in Ireland and Time in Ireland and now categorized in Category:Time in Ireland. The category is thus now empty is not likely to every serve any purpose. -- RA ( talk) 09:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- keep per established convention of Ireland category tree. There could potentially be articles written about time in northern ireland [1] which may not always synch with time in RoI. -- KarlB ( talk) 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Procedural objection. Before nominating this category for deletion, the nominator depopulated it and removed its parent categories. This step was unnecessary (if the category is deleted, that will be done by the bot), and disruptive (because it prebents other editors from seeing the scope and context of the category).
I have therefore restored the category's contents and parents, without prejudice to the outcome of this discussion. --- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC) - Keep per KarlB. Time may not always be standardised between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, so the distinction is needed. (The nominator also renamed the head article from Time in Ireland to Time in the Republic of Ireland, and I have reverted the move). In any case, the category is on a series under Category:Time by country, and the convention of Category:Republic of Ireland and its subcats is that the sunbcats are called "Foo in the RoI". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per BHG and KarlB. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 20:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:17th century in the United Kingdom
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. The United Kingdom did not exist in the 17th century. Tim! ( talk) 07:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rename To "Category:17th century in England". Most of the articles have to do with the Empire in the 17th century. Odd. There really isn't a good name for this period of time concerning these articles. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 03:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. If anything, the Empire category should be a head category, not a sub-category, but it is up for renaming as English anyway; and the sub-cat for people is also up for deletion. (There is already a Category:17th century in England.) – Fayenatic London (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment -- UK did not exist, but GB did in the sense of a united monarchy. There was no such thing as a "British Empire" in the 17th century: all the colonies were English ones; even Ireland was a possession of the English crown, not the Scottish one. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- strong keep per convention of the category. Otherwise we're going to have to go after things like
Category:510_BC_in_Italy. The only way to have a rational category structure is to accept some anachronism; otherwise, if you want to name every category after the correct name of the governmental entity which surrounded it at the time you would have an absolute mess on your hands. This has absolutely *nothing* to do with what existed or didn't exist in the 17th century. Do you really think Scotland was called Scotland in the 1st century?
Category:1st_century_in_Scotland. This is a can of worms, and opening it will cause an absolute mess. There should be clear guidance; these century categories should be for the most part be based on the current nation state boundaries, with a few exceptions allowed. --
KarlB (
talk) 23:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I see your point about the "can of worms", but I completely disagree that century categories should "for the most part be based on the current nation state boundaries". Most states that exist today attained sovereignty in the 19th or 20th centuries, and I do not consider it to be logical to categorize events that predate their formation (let alone sovereignty) by hundreds of years according to their current boundaries. For example: the Battle of Cajamarca was not an event of the 16th century in Peru, because Peru did not exist until the 19th century. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you look at any book on the history of Peru, it will detail the Battle of Cajamarca. This sort of anachronism is common. We should not invent a different pattern in wikipedia. Again, this is a can of worms; if you start going after not naming categories after countries that didn't exist at a certain moment, then this on 17th century category is the tip of the iceberg.--
KarlB (
talk) 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- The invention here is the notion that the UK existed in 17th century; it didn't. The comparison with Peru is misleading, because in this case we have a clear and straightforward alternative set of geographical containers.
- If you look at any book on the history of Peru, it will detail the Battle of Cajamarca. This sort of anachronism is common. We should not invent a different pattern in wikipedia. Again, this is a can of worms; if you start going after not naming categories after countries that didn't exist at a certain moment, then this on 17th century category is the tip of the iceberg.--
KarlB (
talk) 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Fayenatic london. The discussion about the sub-categories seems likely to end with a change from 'British' to 'English' (in some form), so this category becomes redundant to Category:17th century in England. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 23:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Fayenatic London. The Kingdom of Great Britain was not created until the 18th century, and it is anachronism to apply the term to the 17th century. Everything can be accommodated in the existing categories Category:17th century in England, Category:17th century in Scotland and Category:17th century in Wales. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Films co-produced by studios that reunite with their old parent companies
- 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) 09:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I'm not an expert in film, but this seems very trivial to me. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, very trivial intersection. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I am an expert in film, and this seems very trivial to me. Lugnuts ( talk) 09:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- delete i have no idea what this means, but it certainly doesnt' seem like a defining intersection -- KarlB ( talk) 04:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete'. Trivial. Neutrality talk 00:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sony/ATV Music Publishing artists
- 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 Bushranger One ping only 22:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: No precedent for an artists-by-publisher category. This is not as defining as artist by record label. The small size shows that no one is maintaining the category. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Weak keep I've noticed that lately there have been subcategory schemes of Category:Music publishing companies created such as Category:Music by publisher. It's possible that this is a work-in-progress and so is the entirety of the category system. Of course, there was a time when there were minimal entries under Category:Artists by record label or even Category:Albums by artist, but those are clearly schemes that are meaningful and useful for navigation that simply need to be populated (the former still has a lot of gaps.) The real question to me is whether or not this could be a useful way of navigating articles and it seems like it could be, but I'm open to other perspectives. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:EXO (band) 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: Moved to speedy section, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 04:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:EXO (band) albums) to Category:EXO (band) albums
- Nominator's rationale: per Category:EXO (band) songs Morning Sunshine ( talk) 04:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:EXO (band) songs)
- 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: Moved to speedy section, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 04:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:EXO (band) songs) to Category:EXO (band) songs
- Nominator's rationale: Obviously wrong category name Morning Sunshine ( talk) 04:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Replacement theology
- 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) 10:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Replacement theology to Category:Supersessionism
- Nominator's rationale: Replacement theology currently redirects to Supersessionism which says in its lead section that the term "Replacement theology" is disputed. Hence, the neutral, technical, article name should also be the category name. St Anselm ( talk) 04:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy rename — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 18:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:User ff
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy delete ( CSD G6: uncontroversial maintenance). As far as I can tell, this category for speakers of the Fula language was populated by {{ User ff-0}}, a template used by those who do not speak the language. The template recently was modified (per Wikipedia:Babel) to remove the category code and the category was left empty. It may be recreated, as a part of Category:Wikipedians by language, if there is anyone to (properly) categorize. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 17:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Unneeded category. Not used and probably not needed Kumioko ( talk) 02:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Watermill 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: Already deleted. Timrollpickering ( talk) 09:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category with no practical purpose or encyclopedic value Kumioko ( talk) 02:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.