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: re-listify! We'll show those AFDers! what do you mean, stop joking around? ok, then... keep. Consensus is that abandoned (given up, not in use, but still standing) is different from former (demolished).
Kbdank7115:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Trending toward keep - a "former" building is a building that no longer exists. An "abandoned" building still exists but is not in use. There is a difference between the two which would be lost if the categories were merged.
Otto4711 (
talk)
00:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I think the term abandoned is typically used in a broader sense, so it goes beyond ownership to refer to buildings that are no longer occupied or maintained. A quick Google search for
abandoned buildings gives a pretty clear idea about how the term is applied. -
Eureka Lott01:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Argh. I just noticed that the description of
Category:Former buildings and structures of the United States was changed. It used to read, "This category is meant to incorporate buildings and structures within the United States which no longer exist." Now it says, "This category is meant to incorporate buildings and structures within the United States which no longer exist or are no longer used for their original purpose." I think that it should probably be changed back. -
Eureka Lott04:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I agree with you that the introduction should be changed back.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 07:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)On second thought that introduction gets into the differences between former, abandoned, defunct, demolished and reused. Not sure where that leads.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
07:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete I think. Several are awaiting new uses, subject to planning consent/listed building issues/finance etc. The
Daniel Boone Hotel has been demolished it seems. It all seems rather arbitary, plus there is a "current" issue, as at least some are likely to be used again for something.
Johnbod (
talk)
04:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep "abandoned" = existing, but not in use; "former" = non-existent. There is a meaningful and defining distinction between the two states.
Alansohn (
talk)
18:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I would say "abandoned" means more than that. What if a building has eg security arrangements & at least minimal maintenance, as seems to be the case with many here? Abandoned is falling apart in the countryside in my book.
Johnbod (
talk)
18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose rename because, as noted above, abandoned is different than "former," which means no longer existing. I'm not certain whether the abandoned category should exist at all, however. How concrete of a classification is "abandonment"? How stable is it a condition for a building? Is this category only meant to apply to any building that is currently abandoned, or any building that was ever abandoned, even if it later came into use again or was demolished?
Postdlf (
talk)
19:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)reply
oppose changes By the common English meaning of the words, there is a difference between a 'former building' (demolished) and an 'abandoned building' (no longer being used).
Hmains (
talk)
03:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lincoln scholarship and biography
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 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:Biographies of George Washington
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.
Delete and upmerge the sole article to both parents. I just spent about 20 minutes looking around for other articles about Washington bios, and amazingly, this appears to be the only one we've got. If there were already 2 or 3 articles, I'd just leave the category alone and assume that more will be added over time. With only one article, it just doesn't make sense. Notified creator with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (
talk)
22:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete As the creator, I figured more Washington biographies would be added. Since that hasn't happened, there really isn't a point to a one article category.
~ (The Rebel At) ~00:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Judy Garland biographies
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.
I'm honestly a little surprised by your Keep votes on these. By implication, you appear to be supporting a category structure on a par with books by author. Where would you set the threshhold for such categories? 3 books? 2 books?
Cgingold (
talk)
19:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I believe that the potential exists for additional articles on other Garland biographies (print or otherwise) so I don't believe that an over-arching threshold or category structure is needed.
Otto4711 (
talk)
23:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Tom Cruise biographies
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:upmerge. It's not in Bios by subject (which itself seems to be a small random group of bios; it's missing a lot of "by subject"s), and American bios isn't so big to need subcatting at this point. recreation ok if it grows to need it.
Kbdank7115:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Books about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi
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.
Delete would support a narrower "biographies of..." formulation, otherwise it becomes the unwieldy problem of how much about the subject must it be and what RSes tells us that it's at least that much...
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Indian biographies (books)
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 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:CNET websites
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.
Comment Has CNET been dissolved as an entity? Or is it now a subsidiary brand of CBS Interactive? It's not clear from the articles, and I still see CNET links on a couple of the sites.-
choster (
talk)
22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I mean CNET Networks, not CNET the website. My point is that if it is an intact subsidiary of CBS Interactive, there's no need to delete, because the websites remain part of CNET. If, on the other hand, the unit has been dissolved, it would be appropriate to eliminate the corresponding category.-
choster (
talk)
18:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Victims of communism
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. NPOV, too broad, many unanswered questions, and no good solutions. Is there no existing merge target? Perhaps not all articles will fit in the new category, but that isn't always a bad thing.
Kbdank7116:00, 27 February 2009 (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.
History of country by place
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.
Comment the category mixes cities, bundeslaender (some of which are formerly independent states), etc. Does "location" connote such mixing, or should it be "by geography" or "by geographic entity" or something more nebulous to take in the variants here?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
23:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I've used "by location" in the past to cover a multitude of geographic entities, including both cities and larger regions. I think the proposal is fine on that score. --
Stepheng3 (
talk)
02:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Talk page templates
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge, The functions of these two categories appear to be identical, so merge to the name that fits the existing categorization scheme.
Stepheng3 (
talk)
17:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Windsor Station
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 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:Endocrine-related diseases and the skin
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I started the
WP:DERM taskforce, and have been working to categorize dermatology articles in an organized fashion. The proposed categorization scheme is specifically at
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization, which was developed from discussions at the main wikipedia medicine page (see that link for more details). As per that scheme, the "Endocrine-related diseases and the skin" category should probably be renamed to "Endocrine-related skin conditions" as the proposed name is more concise and less ambiguous. With regard to the category's scope, conditions being included are not inherent diseases of the skin, but, rather, cutaneous manifestation of underlying endocrine conditions (see
List_of_skin-related_conditions#Endocrine-related for a listing of all the conditions considered part of this category)
kilbad (
talk)
16:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Probable Delete - I haven't had time for a comprehensive look at this category, but it After a thorough examination... this category seems to raise the same sorts of issues that I just discussed in the
still-open CFD for Category:Nutritional skin diseases, because much like nutritional deficiencies,
endocrine disorders result in a wide array of signs and symptoms, of which skin conditions are just one (and rarely the foremost). Again, I suspect that a list article or chart of the sort I outlined in the other CFD would serve the subject -- and readers -- better in any event.
Cgingold (
talk)
00:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Could you clarify what you mean by "more self-documenting"? More importantly, I'd like to know what you think about the issue I've raised, which is much more fully elaborated in the related CFD I linked above. It seems to me that this category and
Category:Nutritional skin diseases both suffer from the same fundamental flaw: most of the articles they're being used to categorize are not, in fact, about skin conditions, but rather about other disorders/conditions -- with only brief mentions of skin-related conditions (among many others). As I've explained, that's not really a very sound basis for categorization.
Cgingold (
talk)
07:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. Whether or not the suggested new name for the cat is ideal is a discussion I'll leave to the more medicine-savvy editors; however, I feel that the current name of the cat, Endocrine-related diseases and the skin, does need to be changed (or deleted if an existent cat will suffice). It seems to group two phenomena that are quite dissimilar despite some relations. I'd rather have an article that bears two cats than an article with one omnibus cat that can rarely be used and is difficult to place in the cat hierarchy. Best regards —Eustresstalk05:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak delete, mostly as per Cgingold.Comment There are a few articles in that category which really can be described as "Endocrine-related skin conditions" (e. g.
ANOTHER syndrome,
Acanthosis nigricans), but most of them are simply endocrine diseases with various symptoms, dermal and other (e. g.
Acromegaly,
Hyperparathyroidism). I am not sure whether it will be worth keeping this category if we remove all of the latter. --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
08:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - I wanted to say that after reading
Cgingold's comments at
the other CFD I have come to agree with him that the "Nutritional skin diseases" is probably not an appropriate category given his rational; therefore, I would support a deletion of it. However, I still SupportCategory:Endocrine-related skin conditions as there are several actual skin conditions in this category.
kilbad (
talk)
15:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I can see that there are several articles that would qualify (I had missed one of them), so I suppose there is after all a rationale for this category. :) In which case, Rename per nom (as long as we're agreed that the rest of them should be cleared out for the reasons I've articulated).
Cgingold (
talk)
20:19, 22 February 2009 (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.
Sorting out more cats for the London (UK) area
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.
Whilst we were sorting out the cats for the London area last September, someone sneaked in a new duplicate to the original one of
Category:London boroughs before the bot had finished. I think these changes below will finally put this and the remaining things right:
This should (I hope) almost sort out the last of the London category oddities. Yet not to worry; I'm sure that new editors will soon create some more for us.
These changes were all agreed to last September. However, it was part of such a huge job its not suprising that the bots let some slip through. For any one that wants to read through the debate here is the link.
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_13 --
Aspro (
talk)
13:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment not being a Londoner, I am not sure aboutn this, but several London boroughs contain more than one place. Is the eponymous place not allowed its own article separate from the borough to which it gives its name? All categories need to be carefully checked to ensure that they are all borough-wide categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
01:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Reply: It's OK. All London boroughs contain more than one place. These remaining administrative towns (eponymous places) will still have their own articles. It is only the category name for the borough that is being corrected. Should these administrative towns have their own category? Answer -No! This is because today they have had their boundaries adjusted so they (as districts of London) are now all about the same size (from the administrative point of view) as the other places in the borough. Therefore it would amount to over categorization and so there is nothing that needs checking in this respect.--
Aspro (
talk)
20:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Reply: Thanks for pointing that out. I wonder if that is why the bot didn't do these? It might have found itself looking at a loop condition. Tomorrow I will have to check and manually remove any loop-backs I find. --
Aspro (
talk)
20:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Update: That loop condition appears to have been commons to all those categories that failed to merge last time. So I have removed those links.--
Aspro (
talk)
08:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Hi there, I dropped a note on your talk page about my concerns - but you seem to have them well in hand. You might find this list of
London Categories handy. Pls let me know if there's anyway I can help. To clarify, some central districts of London Boros gave their name to the London Borough itself. It causes problems at the article level, as well as the categories.
Kbthompson (
talk)
10:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Famous Australians
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant to
Category:Australian people, since any Australian person with an article is presumably "notable," i.e., "famous" in some way. If this is meant to be a "step-above" mere notability, it is an entirely subjective category. No need to merge as article is already in a subcategory of
Category:Australian people. (Note: A few days ago I speedily deleted this category as I figured it would be uncontroversial and obviously redundant, but the creator protested on my talk page and re-created it. This is a good lesson that no matter how obvious you think something is, other users will probably disagree.)
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fame is a funny thing. Some "famous" people are more famous than others. If one wanted to separate the "really famous" ones from the others, it would be a very, very subjective assessment. And some people who were famous in days gone by are utter nonentities today. So which time period do we look at? But anyone at all who qualifies for an article is inherently notable, according to our guideline. Notability itself has a degree of subjectivity about it, but we can at least test if by finding - or not - sources that attest to their notability. "Famous Australians" is simply doubling up, and thus redundant. --
JackofOz (
talk)
09:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete: If a person has his/her wikipedia article means that is notable.
User:Lucifero4
Delete - per nom and commend the nominator on the sufficiently circumspect comments in 'Note' - such self realisation is a worthy and commendable level of honest reflection for someone who inhabits Cfd - the obvious is never what you think mate
SatuSuro12:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People associated with Braintree, Massachusetts
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge, redundant. The category's description purports to limit "associated" with those not born in the city, but "from" is not limited to birthplace in wording or in practice, nor would "associated" exclude association by place of birth.
Postdlf (
talk)
07:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment I've always thought that People from X should only include people who were born in X, since that's the usage I'm accustomed to. However, Wikipedia seems to have standardized on People from X including other sorts of association, so I'm sure there's plenty of precedent for the proposed merge. --
Stepheng3 (
talk)
17:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge - ideally also purge of those whose link is too tenuous. I assume that I am "from Hagley", because that is where I live. I might also be "from" another village (which is where I was born). However, I ought not to be categorised as associated with Bournmouth because my grandparents retired there, nor with Leicester on the grounds that I was at university there.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge "associated with" is a weasel word that adds little to the navigation system, that only rivals the use of "-related" in turning a category into a near-meaningless agglomeration of articles, as there is no definition of what makes someone "associated" with an area.
Alansohn (
talk)
18:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Internet advertising by method
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 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:Sly & the Family Stone
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.
Keep - I don't know why 10lbhammer keeps nominating these substantial eponymous categories with multiple subcats (which have nearly all been no-consensus keeps for the last 6 months or so) when there are hundreds of much smaller ones in
Category:Categories named after musicians with 0 or 1 subcats which would be deleted without opposition.
Occuli (
talk)
16:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Examples of substantial epononymous musician cats which have been nominated for deletion (mostly by 10lbhammer) recently are:
Keep These categories are well-defined and defining. While one person's personal opinion about the superiority of one means of navigation may be interesting,
WP:CLN, the relevant Wikipedia editing guideline on the subject emphasizes that Categories AND Lists AND navigation boxes all work synergistically together and that one is not superior to the other. I would fully support the creation of lists and navboxes to support this category.
Alansohn (
talk)
18:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Bloody Roar characters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete All related articles to this subject have been merged to the character list per discussion, leaving it empty.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
03:47, 21 February 2009 (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.