Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 20: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Nominate English archaeologists for merge with British archaeologists
Line 61: Line 61:
:* '''Propose deleting''' [[:Category:Debby Ryan]] - {{lc1|Debby Ryan}}<br />
:* '''Propose deleting''' [[:Category:Debby Ryan]] - {{lc1|Debby Ryan}}<br />
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' '''Delete'''. 3 songs articles (1 a redirect) and a character this actress portrays doesn't seem enough to warrant an eponymous cat. All capably linked from the eponymous article. [[WP:OC#Eponymous]] <font color="blue">Star</font><font color="orange">cheers</font><font color="green">peaks</font><font color="red">news</font><font color="black">lost</font><font color="blue">wars</font><sup>[[User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars|Talk to me]]</sup> 00:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' '''Delete'''. 3 songs articles (1 a redirect) and a character this actress portrays doesn't seem enough to warrant an eponymous cat. All capably linked from the eponymous article. [[WP:OC#Eponymous]] <font color="blue">Star</font><font color="orange">cheers</font><font color="green">peaks</font><font color="red">news</font><font color="black">lost</font><font color="blue">wars</font><sup>[[User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars|Talk to me]]</sup> 00:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

==== Category:English archaeologists ====
:* '''Propose merging''' [[:Category:English archaeologists]] to [[:Category:British archaeologists]]
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' These two categories massively overlap and are confusing. British is a larger, more useful and current national category [[User:PatHadley|PatHadley]] ([[User talk:PatHadley|talk]]) 23:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:17, 22 February 2013

< February 19 February 21 >

February 20

Category:Great Reading Adventure

Nominator's rationale: Not defining of any the novels in the category, over-categorisation. Tim! (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not defining of the works involved. This is a horrible idea for a category and could lead to major category clutter. Books are not defined by inclusion in some course, public reading event, etc. This might be different if the books were written for the event, but they were not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Books already listed in Great Reading Adventure. -- Trevj (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scorer of a thousand first-class runs before the end of May

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems a tad specific to be a category. If it's a notable achievement in cricket, perhaps it should be a list? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Cricket has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it might sound rather esoteric, but it's something that has always been regarded as highly notable in English cricket. However it's probably better suited to a list than a category, since as far as I can recall we don't have categories for cricketers achieving other significant statistical milestones. JH (talk page) 09:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete per JH. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly agree with JH. --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like this? -- Ferma (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This type of achievement works way better as a list, and we already have a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and make a list or perhaps a template. Too specific for category per nom. ----Jack | talk page 04:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burials in Krakow

Nominator's rationale: To conform the category with it' main article Kraków and main category Category:Kraków. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, as long as the main article and category contain the diacritic. I'm not clear on what the logic was for not letting this go through WP:CFDS, but it sounds like a gripe with the article name rather than a category issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't all three be called Cracow ? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - the main article and cat are at Kraków, and this is a straightforward C2D. Jsmith1000 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for now. The head article is not stable at its current location (see Talk:Kraków#Requested_move), so this is ineligible for speedy renaming per WP:C2D. However, I see no point in having this category out-of-synch with Category:Kraków and its others subcats, so it's best to rename this now ... but without prejudice to any group renaming of Category:Kraków and all its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Agnew, Washington

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with just one entry. ...William 13:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boneheads (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: administrative close: deleted as hoax by another editor. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Apparently this category was created as part of a truly elaborate WP:HOAX campaign. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boneheads (TV series). The Bushranger One ping only 05:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per the argument at the AfD. A definitely elaborate hoax, indeed. ZappaOMati 05:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also: TfD for template. ZappaOMati 05:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but only after we get rid of the contents, since otherwise it will be harder to find them. When they're gone, this should be deleted as vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William 14:57, 20 February 2013 (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.

Feminism books

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There are two categories for feminism-related books, both the categories "Feminism books" and "Feminist books". I see no need for both categories. Most of the categories related to feminist literature are already labeled under "feminist", rather than "feminism". I figured that the "Black feminism" category should be renamed to fit the overall naming pattern. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nomination The parent categories use the term "feminist" and the scope is identical. Dimadick (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Debby Ryan

Nominator's rationale: Delete. 3 songs articles (1 a redirect) and a character this actress portrays doesn't seem enough to warrant an eponymous cat. All capably linked from the eponymous article. WP:OC#Eponymous StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English archaeologists

Nominator's rationale: These two categories massively overlap and are confusing. British is a larger, more useful and current national category PatHadley (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_20&oldid=539778702"