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:Chuggington
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 Already contains main article, character list and episode list. This is a current TV series, with expansion for both the series and our content. Clear practice for similar shows is that a category is justified for similar series. Where is this Wikipedia byte shortage the nominator seems to be so concerned about?
Andy Dingley (
talk)
08:35, 3 May 2011 (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:Cartoon Network Development Studio Europe
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.
World Wrestling Entertainment → WWE
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: The majority of the list should be moved due to the
orphan initialism of
WWE that was
made last month. "Armageddon" is also listed as despite the event being discontinued in 2008, I feel it should also be moved for consistency's sake with the WWE initials already widely (and perhaps exclusively) linked to World Wrestling Entertainment even before last month. --Θakster13:46, 2 May 2011 (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:Red list
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: To conform with the overall "Wikipedia <blank>" naming scheme, to differentiate between mainspace categories and project space categories. Also more descriptive.
Ϫ12:42, 2 May 2011 (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:Albums with explicit lyrics
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 - trivia per above, plus subjective. There are also numerous albums with such songs - thousands may be - do we include bawdy folk songs?--
MacRusgail (
talk)
17:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep - This can not be subjective at all. The Perental advisory sticker is used in the UK as well. If an album or single released in the UK contains strong language, or expolicit lyrics, it gets this sticker and should therefore be placed in the categories. There is nothing biased about this category. IOt is just there for reference, nothing more.
Cexycy (
talk)
21:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)reply
But that would create a number of problems. The first one is that only fairly recent albums and songs would be included since the Parental Advisory stickers only date back to the eighties. As Mac points out, songs with potentially offensive lyrics were not invented in 1985. The second is that the set of albums declared as potentially offensive by some form of national authority will not be the same from country to country.
Pichpich (
talk)
13:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)reply
delete as a trivial detail and variable depending on where you are. Each country has its own standards of what would constitute "explicit" language. Some words are "explicit" in America that are not explicit elsewhere, and vice versa.
Good Ol’factory(talk)10:01, 4 May 2011 (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:Villages, Towns and Cities in Ghana
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 Populated places as a category contains places that have huge populations in Ghana but the second category does not only profile places that have high numbers of people. So I think that populated places should rather be added to the category about villages, towns and cities in Ghana since populated places would be found in such places but not all unpopulated places can make themselves onto the category Populated places in Ghana.--
CrossTempleJay talk17:40, 4 May 2011 (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:Gamers
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.
Yeah I guess.. I just don't know why you proposed merging when there's nothing to merge. --
Ϫ01:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I guess I could have emptied the cat manually and submitted it for speedy deletion but strictly speaking that wouldn't have been very good procedure.
Pichpich (
talk)
13:31, 3 May 2011 (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:Bridge (game) categories
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 This is a duplicate of
Category:Contract bridge with the subcategory structure removed (i.e. only leaves of the subtree are listed). It's not helpful to have this parallel system and it's confusing for readers.
Pichpich (
talk)
08:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Your comments are noted, but it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not this category is "helpful". I have done most of my editing on contract bridge related articles and I find the category of considerable use in the furtherance of those articles. I agree that when the contract bridge articles are all at a more mature stage, the category would be redundant, but in the interim, it is extremely useful for coordination of efforts on the contract bridge project.
Newwhist (
talk)
13:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)reply
If the objective is maintenance, then the best solution would be to create something akin to
Category:WikiProject Chess articles. The category would then contain Talk pages rather than articles and the duplication problem would be avoided. I can help (a bit) if you need a hand (no bridge pun intended).
Pichpich (
talk)
16:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: If it's categories you need to list for the project's maintenance purposes, I suggest using something similar to
Category:Category-Class Chemistry articles, which is used on category talk pages. The project talk page banner could even be made to add the category automatically.
Jafeluv (
talk)
08:39, 3 June 2011 (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:Richard Wright (author)
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 And a whole subcategory. I thought the current tactic was to empty a category, and then complain there was nothing in it. But clearly an article and a subcategory with a number of articles isn't good enough... --
MacRusgail (
talk)
16:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. This is not a literature/novels category, so it has no need to go there. It is a eponymous bio category which has a whole different set of rules. Just because you can great a "Books by person X" category does not mean there also needs to be a "person X" category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:22, 5 May 2011 (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:Robert Silverberg
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.
Untrue. There is an article, but also a category for works (and as an author, it's the works that represent the bulk of coverage). I find it hard to take these nominations as a serious and well thought-out attempt to improve the encyclopedia when they make false claims like this.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
10:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't see the point of breaking category heirarchies, when subcategories have multiple articles. Why aren't you allowed to navigate the authors category tree? Instead you have to navigate through the works category tree.
64.229.100.153 (
talk)
04:49, 4 May 2011 (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:Peter David
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 I don't see the point of breaking category heirarchies, when subcategories have multiple articles. Why aren't you allowed to navigate the authors category tree? Instead you have to navigate through other category trees.
64.229.100.153 (
talk)
04:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Dream Focus, the very fact that you admit that all articles except the main one can be put in works by person X category is actually support for deleting this article. I really suggest people read the rule on eponymous categories that was linked to above.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:25, 5 May 2011 (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:Paul Krassner
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:Termanology
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:Sam Cooke
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.
That requires discussion which I tried to start up in the past without success. Right now there's only precedent. I like to see something more than just subcats for albums and songs, a discography and a template. Usually eponymous categories for music groups will be kept that have articles on its individual members. For that reason, I say Weak Keep on this one. --
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk)
00:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. All the articles here can be easily linked into the main article. This is the classic example of the type of eponymous category not to create, it is a text book example of a violation of the rules against over-categorization.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. It does not violate
WP:EPON, on the contrary. It does not "contain 3 articles", it contains over 30 in total (including subcats). If this is not reasonable eponymous category, I don't know what is.
No such user (
talk)
13:09, 2 June 2011 (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:Steve Roach
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:Coolhawks88 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.
Keep Vanity category? To assume that Coolhawks88 created this category so that he could bask in his own glory is not exactly assuming good faith. I could see an argument for deletion because this is the only subcategory of
Category:Wikipedia books (user books). However user books are a relatively new thing and organizing them along those lines does not seem far-fetched.
Pichpich (
talk)
12:51, 2 May 2011 (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:LeToya 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.
Rename per nom. Until the other proposed solution is implemented, the nominator is correct. The categories should follow the article name of the person.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:45, 9 May 2011 (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:LeToya 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.
Rename per nom. Until the other proposed solution is implemented, the nominator is correct. The categories should follow the article name of the person.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:45, 9 May 2011 (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:Monifah
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 Also has 2 subcategories, each with a combined 4 more articles. There are several more Monifah songs in the 90s that were hit records that could potentially have articles; they just haven't been written yet.
Shaliya waya (
talk)
15:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment The total number of articles that already exist (not to mention the potential articles that could be added) make this category useful for navigation.
Shaliya waya (
talk)
01:07, 5 May 2011 (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:Hussein Fatal
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:Maude Fay
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.
This was an image category at Wikimedia:Commons which had to be moved to the Wikipedia because of copyright issues. The images need to be categorized somewhere. --
Robert.Allen (
talk)
05:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I'm puzzled. Why was there a copyright issue at Commons, but not apparently here? Why didn't you move the images to your user page? --Kleinzach05:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Fair use images are the usual reason. OK here (with care), not OK at Commons. We also have some legacy issues remaining where old PD images are on Wikipedia and can be tagged for a move to Commons, but haven't yet been moved.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
11:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep but under a name that restricts the scope to images. 12:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
These are PD in the US because they were published before 1923 but not PD in Germany, the source country, because the photographer did not die more than 70 years ago. Commons has a policy that images published before 1923 outside of the US must be PD in the country of origin. Images cannot be uploaded to a User page. All images must have their own page. In addition they are used in an image gallery in a main space article. A user page would not be appropriate. It is my understanding that the Wikipedia is in the US so if the images are PD in the US, its OK for them to be used in Wikipedia articles. Someone from the EU could not legally upload the images however. --
Robert.Allen (
talk)
21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)reply
What is a name for this category that would be acceptable? I used used one that is routinely acceptable for Commons, but apparently it is not acceptable on the English Wikipedia. --
Robert.Allen (
talk)
07:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)reply
This name is perfectly acceptable and the category should be kept as is. There is no need to rename a category to imply that it can only contain a particular namespace (a faintly ridiculous idea, by someone who is evidently unfamiliar with mediawiki).
Andy Dingley (
talk)
08:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)reply
You're completely missing the point. This is not an "other stuff exists" argument it's a "that's how the category structure is organized everywhere else" argument. CfD is very much about ensuring consistency throughout the project. Look around and you'll see that a) categories intended to hold images are named accordingly and b) eponymous categories are avoided when there aren't articles that allow room for growth. In fact, look through the CfD archives and you'll find that time and again, eponymous categories have been deleted along those lines (and in line with the relevant guideline).
Pichpich (
talk)
13:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Category:Images of Maude Fay is just as eponymous as
Category:Maude Fay alone. The only difference is a somewhat tautological, and for Mediawiki, unworkable, attempt to imply a restriction to its members being from a single namespace. This is impractical, but mostly it's pointless. If we have content for Maude Fay, then categorize it. If we have images for Maude Fay, categorize them. If another article was to present itself, then we categorize that identically. It is an inappropriate restriction to build in a future limitation for a container, especially when there is so little use for it.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
15:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)reply
So it sounds to me like I should create
Category:Images of Maude Fay and make it a subcategory of
Category:Images of musicians. This does not sound unreasonable to me. I appreciate all the help and information. I've never had to create a category like this one previously so I was unfamiliar with what I should do. Once that is done, we can go ahead and delete this category. --
Robert.Allen (
talk)
20:57, 3 May 2011 (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:Plan B (British musician)
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:Horatio Nelson
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 one of the main reasons for categories is for readers to be able to find related articles they may be interested in. If I'm interested in Horatio Nelson but have little knowledge about him I'm very unlikely to know to search for
Category:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson. Leave it be, there is enough over catgeorisation on Wikipedia as it is.
NtheP (
talk)
17:39, 5 May 2011 (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:William Makepeace Thackeray
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.
Actually there are a substantial number of articles, which the nominator failed to count because they ignored the two sub-categories. Was this an undisclosed script operation? It's a common error on a number of these careless nominations.
After deletion, would the nominator care to suggest an appropriate structure other than this category, in order to provide a container for the two "Works of" sub-categories?
Andy Dingley (
talk)
08:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Weak delete The "no articles" argument doesn't make sense given the subcategories. Nevertheless, I don't think an eponymous category is necessary in this case and I would prefer to simply link the two subcategories through a {{catseealso}}.
Pichpich (
talk)
13:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I wish that both nominator and supporter would take a bit more interest in projects like
DBpedia, before they seem so keen to damage to knowledge structure it relies upon. {{catseealso}} is a very poor substitute for semantic structure.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
08:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)reply
What consensus? Where? This is exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia. I doubt most of the folk voting on iterary categories here have much knowledge of the subject or are on any of the relevant projects.--
MacRusgail (
talk)
13:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)reply
The consensus established and described at
Wikipedia:Overcategorization, specifically the section on eponymous category. Nobody here is passing judgment on the importance or talent of this or that author. These are not under consideration when determining whether an eponymous category should exist or not. You'll notice the absence (and please don't go out and create them) of
Category:Italo Calvino,
Category:Truman Capote,
Category:Raymond_Chandler,
Category:Russell Banks,
Category:Albert Camus to name a few of my favourite. On the other hand, the existence of
Category:Sylvia Plath and
Category:Mikhail Bulgakov is not an indication that Plath or Bulgakov are more important writers than the previous five. These categories exist to hold articles that can't be placed in the more typical "Works of X" categories for writers. In the case of Bulgakov, two museums and one particularly celebrated character as well as a few images that cannot be moved to Commons for copyright technicalities. I really invite you to browse
Category:Works by author and see that the vast majority of authors do not have an eponymous category. The same is true for actors and musicians. This is not because nobody ever thought of creating them. Many were, only to be deleted time and again as an undesirable layer of categorization. Exceptions are made when there's no other sensible choice.
Pichpich (
talk)
00:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Strong keep - nominator does not understand importance of subcat. Also one of the most notable English writers of the 19th century.--
MacRusgail (
talk)
17:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)reply
delete. Completely unnecessary. The two subcategories can easily be linked through
Template:Catrel and after that there's no reason for the category. Just because someone was "one of the most notable XX" does not mean that they somehow have "earned" a category.
Good Ol’factory(talk)10:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Try not to attack other users, especially when you clearly know little about the user you are commenting on. The point is that your or my personal and subjective assessment of his importance plays little to no role in deciding whether a category is appropriate.
Good Ol’factory(talk)09:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. Mr. Thackeray is not a "literary character" he is an author. The rules on categories for authors is only create them if there is a substantial set of articles related to them other than their works.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:53, 5 May 2011 (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:Richard Trevithick
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.
True, true. One of the reasons for mentioning it is I knew someone would be able to put me right!
BUT, while
WP:OC#SMALL says "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members...", there is certainly scope for more articles in this category.
On the other hand, this cat falls foul of
WP:OC#EPONYMOUS (although that supports the existence of some of the other 'small cat' entries on this page, since it supports eponymous cats that cover sub-cats). --
EdJogg (
talk)
21:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I'm leaning towards deletion because I don't think the scope of the category is entirely clear. And I'm not entirely convinced that there's room for growth. Trevithick is of course a major figure in engineering history but it wouldn't be reasonable to put, say,
steam engine in the category. So we'd mostly be left with a category including a bunch of redirects which isn't a great idea.
Pichpich (
talk)
21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)reply
At risk of getting mauled by the toothless tiger of
WP:WQA, if you don't know who Trevithick is, then please read the convenient article we have on him (unless we're planning to delete that too). He had a small involvement with steam engines, far more with steam locomotives. There are at least half-a-dozen individual locomotives that belong in this category and can easily have articles with clearly sourced notability (so far we have just one). Every one of Trevithick's locomotives is historically significant, although sourcing is too difficult for us to cover all of them. There are at least two other important inventions directly attributable to him, the
Cornish boiler (dismissed as a mere redirect and apparently thus unimportant by the nominator) and
Simple expansion steam engine (still unfinished, owing to me wasting time on arguments like this). There are also his several children, of whom I would suggest three warrant their own articles (so far one).
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:Lord Dunsany
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:Cuthbert Bradley
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.
This category exists as a location for images of works by this artist, without it people can't find them. We can't upload them to Commons yet as he died less than 70 years ago, so for time being this category is the only place to put them.
Rcbutcher (
talk)
04:49, 2 May 2011 (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:Max Beerbohm
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.
This category exists as a location for images of works by this artist, without it people can't find them. We can't upload them to Commons yet as he died less than 70 years ago, so for time being this category is the only place to put them.
Rcbutcher (
talk)
04:50, 2 May 2011 (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:Sandro Botticelli
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.
Two articles and a large sub-category tree too. If we deleted this, we'd then have an orphaned category for works. Would the nominator suggest adding that incongrously to the "artists" tree? Or would we simply re-create the artist category, so as to give a consistent structure with other artists?
I also find this bulk tagging of categories for deletion on the basis of "only two articles" to be simplistic and poorly done. Poorly done because it has counted categories on major artists as "only two articles", ignoring their category children too. Simplistic because it's a scatter-gun approach to find ways to exercise some wiki pseudo admin tasks and feel a false satisfaction for "Doing Adminny Stuff and making the wiki better"; rather than any thought about the significance of these subjects, or the idea of structuring the best encyclopedia.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
08:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete Unnecessary level of categorization. There's no point in having a category whose sole purpose is to hold
Category:Botticelli paintings (which should be renamed but that's another debate). This is a pretty clear-cut case of overcategorization through eponymous category (See
WP:OC).
Pichpich (
talk)
14:06, 4 May 2011 (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:Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
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:Albert Bierstadt
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:Napoleon I
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 ambiguous category names are problems, while it isn't for articles. There's several uses for Napolean that can end up in this category, by indiscriminate categorization, if it is renamed.
65.93.12.8 (
talk)
04:18, 2 May 2011 (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:Paloma Picasso
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 as overcategorization. An eponymous category is not necessary for a single article (not counting the main one).
Pichpich (
talk)
21:14, 3 May 2011 (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:Jean de Paléologue
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.
This category exists as a location for works of art by him so people can find them. They cannot be uploaded to Commons due to copyright, so this is the only place for them. It is anticipated that many images will be added to this category in time.
Rcbutcher (
talk)
03:44, 2 May 2011 (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:André Gide
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.
This is a major novelist. Our common practice for such is to have separate categories for the author and their works. If we delete the author category, is the nominator suggesting that we delete the works category too? That we upmerge the works category into the author cat and delete it? Or how else are we supposed to appropriately link these two distint cats, as we do for other authors, without either having this cat, or by mis-categorising the works cat directly under "French authors"?
Andy Dingley (
talk)
09:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete Yes, major novelist (and one who would deserve a better article). However, an eponymous category doesn't seem warranted. Note that this is the norm rather than the exception in
Category:Works by author. The 'Works' category stays of course and the nominator never suggested otherwise.
Pichpich (
talk)
21:59, 2 May 2011 (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:Louise Bourgeois
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:Madame d'Aulnoy
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.