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.
Support. Rationalizes the category naming system to match other Candidates for speedy deletion as ... categories. Categorizing as by user could be misinterpreted as intended to be broken out by creator or something silly like that. -
2/0 (
cont.)
03:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The meaning of the present category name was clear to me when I first saw it four years ago, as I imagine it is to most experienced Wikipedians. I've thought about the proposed change for the past week and do not see a real benefit from renaming the category. –
Athaenara ✉ 05:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose Current name makes sense, proposed change is much more awkward. Conforming to the category naming system is a lousy reason to make such a change.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
08:03, 20 September 2010 (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:Literary series by number of entries
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 - as with television series (nominated
here) and film series (nominated
here), non-defining of the literary series. There is no encyclopedic relationship between one series and another just because they both happen to have four or six or more than ten entires.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk)
22:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep some of these.
The Alexandria Quartet for instance is obviously a work in 4 parts, and 4 is a defining characteristic of it.
Palliser novels in contrast happened to end up with 6, so 6 is not defining. (Categories are determined by 'defining characteristics', not by anything else.)
Occuli (
talk)
10:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete already - ten day old discussion, no arguments advanced for maintaining the category structure, structures for TV and film series by number of entries deleted, sack up and delete these already.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk)
09:24, 19 September 2010 (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:Honorary doctorates of the University of Calcutta
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. We have always deleted categories for recipients of honorary degrees based on
the category guidelines for awards. If this scheme were fully developed it would result in tremendous category clutter on the article pages of especially prominent individuals who often receive dozens of honorary degrees in a lifetime. A list of similar categories deleted is found
here.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:34, 9 September 2010 (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:Ancient Old Jade
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:Transportation in Kosovo
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.
Oppose under the rubric don't change what isn't broken. Neither of the terms is correct in the local languages. There should be no push for consistency on this topic transport/transportation for the obvious reason that has been laid out is so many of these CFDs. q.v. --
Bejnar (
talk)
15:05, 18 September 2010 (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:Lost ITV episodes
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:Middle-earth radio
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:Lost BBC episodes
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:procedural keep as nominator is blocked. If a split is warranted, that's at the discretion of editors which doesn't necessarily need CFD. —
ξxplicit06:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)reply
:Nominator's rationale:Delete - contrary to its name, the category is not only capturing articles about actual missing episodes of BBC programmes but BBC programmes which have been entirely lost through
wiping and BBC programmes that are missing one or more episodes. Unless something changes radically in
this CFD the very near future, missing some episodes is not an appropriate way to categorize articles. I reviewed everything that's in the category. Of what's currently housed there, 22 articles are for TV programmes that are completely lost (either broadcast before recording was possible or wiped), four articles are actual lost episodes, four are for lost one-off programmes and one is for a lost radio series. See breakdown
here with some additional comments. I also removed about ten articles that made no mention of the programme's being lost in full or in part. There are also a few oddball articles like
British television Apollo 11 coverage and
The Goon Show episodes and archiving along with a couple of articles that are about lost episodes at the programme level like
Doctor Who missing episodes. Everything else is for programmes that are simply missing some episodes. This category should be deleted as non-defining, with a new
Category:Lost BBC television programmes created for the completely gone series and a new
Category:Lost television episodes for the individual episode articles and the programme-level lost episodes articles.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk) 21:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3
WP:SK.
QuAzGaA16:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)reply
:* There is only one article for a lost BBC radio programme (
The Lord of the Rings (1955 radio series)) in the category so there doesn't really need to be a separate category just for it. I cross-catted it in
Category:Lost radio programs where it's one of two entries. Given the deletion of
Category:Television series with missing episodes I can't agree that creating two new categories which would be the children of a deleted parent category is an appropriate outcome. I went ahead and created
Category:Lost television episodes. Since I gleaned its contents from this category they are all BBC episodes but since there are probably non-BBC lost episodes that are notable I don't see the need to restrict it just to BBC episodes.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk) 22:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3
WP:SK.
QuAzGaA16:15, 25 September 2010 (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:Transport in Germany
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:John Bernard Partridge
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 category will grow as he was a significant artist. Creating the category now gives future uploaders somewhere to collect images of his work. Deleting the category in contrast adds no value to Wikipedia.
Rcbutcher (
talk)
13:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)reply
* Delete - small category with little or no growth potential. Also an eponymous category for a person which should be avoided unless the material about the person is so complex that normal textlinks are insufficient for navigating it. If other PD images are uploaded they should be placed in a category that is image-specific, not a general category for the person.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk) 19:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet.
QuAzGaA16:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment ) I do see some possibility for growth, but at the moment it seemed too small. If Rcbutcher thinks it's likely we'll upload more images for Mr. Partridge in the next 5 years before they will be eligible for commons, and can explain his reasoning well, I'd be willing to concede.
Magog the Ogre (
talk)
21:26, 13 September 2010 (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:Brainstorm 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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category not needed for a single individual, and probably not a good idea to add to individuals anyway. This could lead to very large number of categories on the bios of career politicians .
Tassedethe (
talk)
12:27, 9 September 2010 (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:Leona Lewis
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 – it is some years since an eponymous musician category with 3 subcats has been deleted. (
overcategorisation relates to category clutter, in other words potentially large numbers of articles being placed in tangentially related categories, rather than this elegant collection of 3 tightly defined subcats + 3 pages which evidently belong at the top level.)
Occuli (
talk)
12:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep - I have taken lesser eponymous cats to CFD (at most the main article, discography, navbox template, and subcats for albums and songs), resulting in no consensus or keep. This one not only has those but a third subcat (tours) and a list of awards page, making it more useful as an additional aid for users. --
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk)
16:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - per
WP:OC eponymous categories should be avoided unless normal textlinking is impractical because of the volume and complexity of the material. That is not the case here as the lead article is going to contain links to the material about albums, singles and tours, and the template further links the material. This arbitrary "three subcats and it stays" rule of thumb is just that, arbitrary. It's having a category for the sake of having it, not an actual useful aid to categorization. Overcategorization is not just about "category clutter". It's also about category maintenance and the overall utility of the category system.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk)
20:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep per Occuli, etc. It's no more "arbitrary" than any other common-sense rule of thumb that most editors have agreed on with regard to Categories.
Cgingold (
talk)
22:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Thanks - I note that we are keeping (or failing to muster a consensus to delete) such eponymous categories with just 2 subcats these days, in the absence of their eloquent arch-foe Otto4711. Here is
another one with 2 subcats in 2010, which was a unanimous keep (apart from the nom): consensus can change, and I merely reflect this.
Occuli (
talk)
02:13, 10 September 2010 (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:Boston Bulldogs seasons
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:Boston Bulldogs players
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:Pleas
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:procedural keep. Nominator was blocked and there was insufficient discussion to justify a final decision. Category may be renominated without prejudice.Good Ol’factory(talk)22:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)reply
:Nominator's rationale:Rename - potentially ambiguous, although I don't know if any individual plea (e.g. for assistance) could become notable enough for its own article.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk) 07:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3
WP:SK.
QuAzGaA16:17, 25 September 2010 (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:American legal phrases
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.
oppose phrases is more descriptive of the contents. Consistency for consistency's sake benefits no one. There are reason for consistency, but consistency is not one of them. If you want to rename categories, you need a better reason. --
Bejnar (
talk)
04:54, 18 September 2010 (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:English legal terms
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.
Oppose This category has nothing to do with "English language", many of the terms are Latin or French. If changed many of these terms which are legal terms in South Africa (Anglo-Dutch law) and the United States will have to have added categories for the various jurisdictions. Some English legal terms are no longer used in England or Wales, but are preserved in foreign jurisdictions. Should such terms be treated differently? Right now this is not such a large category (74 entries) that it requires subdividing. --
Bejnar (
talk)
04:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)reply
I understand that the category is not intended for all English-language legal terms. That is precisely the reason for the nomination, because a reasonable person would easily be confused by the category name, believing it to mean "legal terms in the English language". If a legal term was at one time used in England and Wales it should still be categorized as such even if the term is no longer used. If they are used in other jurisdictions then the articles should be categorized as such.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk)
20:17, 18 September 2010 (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:Female prisons in England
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:Political parties in Tuvalu
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:Execration texts
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.
Upmerge to Ancient Levant. I do not see the need to do anything with the people category, for which the article will become the main article, if it is not already.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:40, 30 September 2010 (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:Transportation in Venezuela
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.
Oppose Discussions over British English usage vs. Americanisms is usually fruitless. The solution is don't change it for consistency's sake. (Avoid hobgoblins!) Only change when an instance is undeniably one or the other. This is not such a case, therefore don't change it. In some of the examples given, such as
Transport in Venezuela the change in the article name from transportation to transport was made "for the purpose of consistency". Which is why we don't do this. --
Bejnar (
talk)
05:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose until the related discussions finish. Does Venezuela favour US or UK usage in its official English? (These transport/ation cfds are becoming disruptive.) It was
transportation until 2008.
Occuli (
talk)
12:48, 9 September 2010 (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:Transportation in Iraq
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.
Oppose Discussions over British English usage vs. Americanisms is usually fruitless. The solution is don't change it for consistency's sake. (Avoid hobgoblins!) Only change when an instance is undeniably one or the other. --
Bejnar (
talk)
05:10, 9 September 2010 (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:Transportation in Iran
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.
Oppose. If it is correct let it be. Changing to something that is not correct to make it shorter or to conform to some other usage is wrong. If the main article is wrong, fix that.
Vegaswikian1 (
talk)
07:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. as perVegaswikian1 Consistency is a tool not a goal. Given the transport/transportation variance in English language usage, consistency on these titles cannot be achieved. To keep pushing these changes would appear to be disruptive. Let it be. --
Bejnar (
talk)
14:58, 18 September 2010 (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:Transportation in Indonesia
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.
Oppose Discussions over British English usage vs. Americanisms is usually fruitless. The solution is don't change it for consistency's sake. (Avoid hobgoblins!) Only change when an instance is undeniably one or the other. --
Bejnar (
talk)
05:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Support -main article and subcats - good reason - my support is less less to do with Asia per se - more to do with using Southeast Asia wide issues wherever possible
SatuSuro10:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. If it is correct let it be. Changing to something that is not correct to make it shorter or to conform to some other usage is wrong. If the main article is wrong fix it instead.
Vegaswikian1 (
talk)
07:02, 16 September 2010 (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.