Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Sheep8144402 (talk | contribs) at 00:18, 15 November 2022 (fix linter errors (22x obsolete font tags)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< July 12 July 14 >

July 13

[edit]

Category:Indian current events

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's redundant with Category:Current events and also isn't being used much. - McCart42 (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of having a separate "Current events" category for every country? I understand an article, but why a category? Couldn't it just fit in to two categories: Current events and India? Also, isn't this type of specialization better suited for Wikinews? - McCart42 (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Sorry to bring this up back again. I think there was not much debate on this. When the cfd vote was started, there was no entry in the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, so I did put my opinion to keep the category on the talk page of the category. I did'nt see any more discussion out there, so I assumed nothing more is going on on this. I think this is wrongly deleted. The purpose of having a different category, is so that it does not clutter out the Category:India.

Also this not been used much was rectified, by categorizing appropriate articles in the same category. (13:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC))

This should be brought back. alren (talk · contribs)13:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Information Technology Asset Management

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (copyvio) --Kbdank71 13:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Badly formatted article masquerading as a category. --Tabor 21:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Mountains of Wales

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 13:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Category:Mountains and hills of Wales. Do we need this one too? --Tabor 20:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Doctrines and teachings of Paul

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Doctrine" and "teaching" are basically the same thing. Category:Teachings of Paul will be adequate. 205.217.105.2 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was listify/delete --Kbdank71 13:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Lists of Ayyavazhi Related Articles. We do not generally have categories for something as broad as 'topics related to <foo>'. Subcategorizing may be useful, but this current version isn't. Radiant_>|< 10:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Heavily expanded articles/categories

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created from {{verylarge}}, its intent is to list those pages (and categories) that should be split and/or subcatted. That seems worthwhile but this title doesn't cover its content. Suggest renaming, to something like Category:Very large articles and categories. Radiant_>|< 07:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT 132.205.44.43 19:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename There is already Special:Longpages for articles and lists, and that is more inclusive than the current category (which has only 7 articles anyway). Can't we just rename it to something like Category:Very large categories? --Kbdank71 16:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Kbdank71 has a good idea. of course we are then recreating Category:Overpopulated categories so i suggest renaming this to that now available name, with appropriate changes to the text so that it clearly apples exclusively to categories. The main reason i think this should be done is that the actions needed for splitting an overpopulated category are quite different from those needed for dealing with a very large or "Heavily expanded" (a term i dislike, for one thing it could also apply to a former stub recently rewritten to a good-size article) article; and the people interested in dealing with splitting a category may well be different feom thsoe intersted in dealing with splitting and article. DES 20:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Protected articles

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protected already exists. -- Beland 04:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Movie genres

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 14:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Film genres. -Sean Curtin 00:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)I

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Rename, agree with the consistency argument. 14:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Category:Military bases in Kansas

[edit]

(added by Choster 00:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC) entry notes listed on Category:Military bases in North Carolina)[reply]

Category:Military bases in North Carolina

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I propose these be changed to Category:Military facilities in Kansas and Category:Military facilities in North Carolina. Wikipedia apparently draws a distinction between, e.g. Category:Military facilities of the United States and Category:United States military bases or between Category:United States Army facilities and Category:Bases of the U.S. Army. Let us leave aside for the moment the overlap with Category:United States Army bases. "Facilities" is both more inclusive and more accurate, as the categories include articles about installations which fall outside the bureaucratic designation of "base," and future categories of this type are likely to be populated at the hands of non-experts. The new nomenclature is still well-understood by the public, but would invite less ambiguity. - choster 00:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, that would need a separate CfD. I won't do that right now in case something turns up in this debate of relevance. Someone remind me later... -Splash 01:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • All your facilities are belong to us! Merge all 'military base' categories into 'military facilities'. Radiant_>|< 14:15, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. siafu 00:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand using a distinction as a reason to combine. "Military base" categories can be subcategories of "military facility" categories. To do otherwise is akin to deleting a "drummer" category and putting all the drummers individually into the "musician" category. Maurreen 08:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Maurreen. Facilities can act as a supercategory to army bases, air bases, etc. --Kbdank71 14:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are a hundred musicians from fifty states, half of whom are drummers, and half pianists, do we really need a hundred and fifty categories? What if, instead of drummers and pianists, the options were 2-engine jetlineres and 4-engine jetliners? - choster 06:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure where you are going with that argument. Your nomination said nothing of merging anything, but renaming two categories. So according to your example, you'd still have your hundred and fifty drummer and pianist categories, they'd just be named something different. --Kbdank71 13:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
        • I am cautioning against hypercategorization. The category is named "Drummers" but it actually contains four drummers, two pianists, and the conductor. Rather than create "Musicians," "Pianists," and "Conductors" why not simply rename the category "Musicians," especially since WP recatting is tedious. -choster 14:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're missing my point. Re-read your nomination, look at how many "bases", "facilities", etc categories already exist. We're not merging anything. We're not creating anything. Two renames is all you asked for. So in your latest example, you already have your "Drummers", "Pianists", "Conductors", and "Musicians" categories. They already exist. All this did was rename "Pianists" to "Piano players". Everything else still exists. Just as your "bases", "facilities", etc, still exist. But this is a moot point now, because the consensus was to rename the two categories and keep everything else as is. And just to let you know, recatting is tedious, but that's exactly what a rename is. You can't "rename" a category like you can an article. Someone now has to go in, create two new categories, recategorize all of the articles, and delete the original ones. So bottom line, we saved nothing. --Kbdank71 14:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is moot for these particular case, but I'm interested in how Choster sees "bases" as "hypercategorization." I don't understand what you're trying to illustrate above. Maurreen 15:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was stubs to SFD, others delete --Kbdank71 13:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These contain a grand total of no articles and not surprising. There are two different sports named 'rugby' union and league so all these categories do is hold sub-categories e.g. Category:Rugby league teams and Category:Rugby union teams. It doesn't take any more clicks to go Category:Rugby => Category:Rugby league => Category:Rugby league teams.GordyB 20:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_13&oldid=1121942612"