Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 20 November 22 >

November 21

Category:Places associated with The Beatles

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: Delete all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Places associated with The Beatles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Places associated with John Lennon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Places associated with George Harrison ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Associated with is totally subjective as inclusion criteria. The top level category might be kept and renamed to be for lists which would show why the association was significant. If this nomination gain traction, there are other like purposed categories that will need nomination. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:49, 21 November 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:Places associated with, part 2

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: Delete both and upmerge into the respective personal categories. Ruslik_ Zero 18:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Places associated with James Joyce ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Places associated with Malcolm X ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Associated with is totally subjective as inclusion criteria. The top level category might be kept and renamed to be for lists which would show why the association was significant. If this nomination gain traction, there are other like purposed categories that will need nomination. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:49, 21 November 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:Non-profit organizations based in New York, New York

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: Speedy rename (C2C). The Bushranger One ping only 22:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Non-profit organizations based in New York, New York to Category:Non-profit organizations based in New York City
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To standardize NYC categorization tree. See for example the Category:Organizations based in New York City, or the subcat names in the Category:New York City. Dэя- Бøяg 21:44, 21 November 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:Witnesses of the Iraq Inquiry

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: Delete. Ruslik_ Zero 18:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Witnesses of the Iraq Inquiry ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Generally speaking, I don't believe that having been a witness in a particular public inquiry is defining for a person. Looking at the articles in this category, it's not defining for those who testified at the Iraq Inquiry. It should be mentioned in their bio article and they are already listed at List of witnesses of the Iraq Inquiry, but we don't need a category for it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 21 November 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:Punjabi folk

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_19#Category:Punjabi_folk. Ruslik_ Zero 10:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Punjabi folk to Category:Punjabi culture
Nominator's rationale: Merge or rename?. I'm not quite sure what to do with this category. It is defined as including "article about any folk thing/cultural activity of Punjab region like, folk dances, folk music, folk instruments, folk songs, folk singers, festivals related to Punjab region or any tradition or cultural activity etc." I'm not sure that "folk" is commonly used as a broad noun in this sense, except maybe to refer to "folk music". But this includes dances and festivals as well. Is it so broad that it just needs to be upmerged? Or is there a way we could rename this? (Note that folk is about the word meaning "people".) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:16, 21 November 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:Looting

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: do not delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Looting ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is too vague a label and is (therefore) being placed everywhere there was or might have been, an instance of "looting." This is best placed on individual bios who were prosecuted for looting (theft). Vague categories with poor definition of scope should have no place in an encyclopedia. Great for tabloids! Student7 ( talk) 17:00, 21 November 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:Wikipedians who like Halo

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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Wikipedians who like Halo to Category:Wikipedians interested in Halo (series)
Nominator's rationale: Merge The point is to foster collaboration between Halo aficionados so the two categories have the same intended scope. Pichpich ( talk) 16:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Support: Did not know that category existed. Rusted AutoParts ( talk) 18:17 21 November 2011 (UTC)
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:Wikipedians with Top3violations Userbox

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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Wikipedians with Top3violations Userbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Recently created. This category serves no useful purpose for collaboration and "What links here" would work just as well in any case. Pichpich ( talk) 15:44, 21 November 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:Shortcuts that are English words

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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Shortcuts that are English words ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I can't think of any reason for this category to exist, and a request for explanation on the category's talk page received no response. Theoldsparkle ( talk) 15:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Can't see the point. These English words are often relevant but they're sometimes complete accidents of acronyms, e.g. WP:ACE, WP:ACRE, WP:ADD, WP:AID, WP:AM and so on. Pichpich ( talk) 17:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Non-notable intersection, and mislabled category (should be "Wikipedia shortcuts...") to boot. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete How could this be useful? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Ever since I stumbled upon this curious category a couple years ago it's become somewhat of a pet project of mine to collate these as I come across them. Please don't tell me all those edits and time I spent categorizing these was a complete waste. I agree that it's not the most useful category, but it exists, and has existed for some time, and it's not hurting anything. And it's interesting. So let's not delete a harmless category just for the sake of having something to delete. Please? ps. I replied at the category talk page. -- œ ™ 18:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's a bit of harmless fun. I created it eons ago as a testament to the way Wikipedia sometimes devolves into acronym soup. It is linked from Wikipedia:Shortcut and Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia (among a few other places) to help newbies recognize that sometimes we use acronyms that look like English words but aren't actually intended to be understood that way. It's not the most helpful category in the world, but I don't see how it is harmful either. Just let it be. Dragons flight ( talk) 19:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    PS. I also find it a little odd that I was notified of this deletion discussion only 6 days after it was posted... Dragons flight ( talk) 21:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    I believe it's because the nominator did it manually, instead of using Twinkle which automatically notifies the creator. -- œ ™ 08:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    I believe I followed all instructions on this page. The instructions here for nominating a category for discussion did not direct me either to use Twinkle nor to notify the category's creator. I do not use Twinkle because I have no interest in it and the only time I hear about it is in discussions about ways it doesn't seem to work very well. I did not notify the creator because I think if you care about a page, you should watch it. (If you don't mind that the category you created could look like this in perpetuity, I don't know why you should mind if it's deleted altogether.) Theoldsparkle ( talk) 17:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    Of course I care, and have always had the page on my watchlist, and had I been online at the time that would of been reverted instantly. (PS. nothing wrong with doing it manually; of course you're not obligated to use Twinkle, but it is a common courtesy to notify a category's creator if you intend to have their creation deleted. Oh, and although the creator of the category may have abandoned it, I certainly have not, and it is being maintained and looked after, so I hope that's taken into consideration when the final decision is made.) -- œ ™ 11:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    I would expect that anyone who cared about the category, whether or not that includes the category's creator, to have it on his watchlist, and to be thus notified that I was proposing the category's deletion. If you think I should have had to leave additional notification for the creator, or for someone who had left a single Talk page comment 2 years ago but hadn't acknowledged my own query in the 19 days since I'd left it or left any other indication he had taken over any responsibility for the category (would Twinkle have made that assumption?), then you can propose changing the CFD instructions to encourage or require such, but I have no apology for not doing so. Theoldsparkle ( talk) 16:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    There are such things as wikibreaks that people go on ya know. And I have no intention of changing any instructions nor did I ever expect you to apologize, just wanted to remind you of something else that people often do, and that's to have common courtesy. -- œ ™ 15:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    Okay, I believe you, you watch the page obsessively except when you happened to not be watching it during the three weeks that led me to believe nobody gave a crap about it. Let the record show: I am firmly convinced of User:OlEnglish's strong interest in this category, for whatever relevance that may have. I think we've also established beyond all doubt that notification of CFDs is a courtesy that is commonly extended and which I did not feel the need to extend, for whatever relevance that may have. Theoldsparkle ( talk) 21:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    Good. Glad I could get through to you. -- œ ™ 09:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    I wasn't online during the two day period during which it was vandalized. Given my current low level of activity, I'm not sure I would have noticed even if I was. I've been involved with a huge number of pages over the last eight years, many of which I don't watch and of those I do watch I rarely check every edit. Notifications to page creators aren't required, but it is generally considered courteous to do so. My bigger concern is that this deletion discussion was already six days old before anyone mentioned that this category has prominent links from Wikipedia:Shortcut and a widely used welcome message. Perhaps those uses are of low utility, but if people are asking "how is this useful?", then at least someone ought to explain how it is actually used. Shrug. Dragons flight ( talk) 17:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    Yes, that might have been good information for someone to point out when I asked on the category's Talk page for anyone to give me any explanation of how the category is or could be useful. I have no objection to this discussion being relisted, if there's a concern that it might have gone differently if that information had been provided earlier. Personally, though, I think the purpose served by linking the category from those two pages could also be met simply by listing a few examples of this type of shortcut. Theoldsparkle ( talk) 20:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete; if kept, restrict it to shortcuts which are intentionally English words (such as WP:BEAR, WP:CIVIL) and rename to a name which reflects that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
By "intentionally" do you mean excluding the 'accidents of acronyms' as mentioned by Pichpich above? I can go through the category and remove all of those if that's what people want, but I don't think it really matters that it's an acronym, it's still an English word. I'm also okay with renaming it to whatever's suitable. I just really don't want to have all the time I spent expanding this category be for naught. -- œ ™ 11:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Perhaps the category could be converted to a list that could be kept on User:OlEnglish's userspace. I can't bring myself to support keeping a category that appears to have no value simply because someone (for some reason) enjoyed putting their time into it, but it seems to me a userspace list would preserve the work just as well for anyone who did find this interesting. Theoldsparkle ( talk) 16:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as Theoldsparkle suggests above, this would be fine as a list kept in userspace, but categories should be useful, and this category is of absolutely no use whatsoever. Robofish ( talk) 00:26, 3 December 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.

Ships of the line of the Royal Navy

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: delete British Isles category; merge all UK category contents into Category:Ships of the line of the Royal Navy, but leave that as a subcategory of UK category.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 23:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Ships of the line of the United Kingdom to Category:Ships of the line of the Royal Navy
Propose merging Category:Ships of the line of the British Isles to Category:Ships of the line of the Royal Navy
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Am I missing something here? Are there any ships of the line of the British Isles or of the United Kingdom which were not part of the Royal Navy? I really don't think so and I therefore don't see the need for three separate categories. I suppose it could be argued that Royal Navy doesn't specify the country, but since it's the title of our article and so well-known as the title of the British navy I don't think that's really an issue. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:47, 21 November 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:Snooker leagues

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: delete; contents upmerged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Snooker leagues ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There are simply not enough articles for this category. Armbrust Talk to me about my edits review 13:23, 21 November 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:Kingdoms of the extreme south

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: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Kingdoms of the extreme south to Category:Kingdoms of the extreme south of ancient India Category:Southern kingdoms of ancient India
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The "extreme south" of what? And when? Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:49, 21 November 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.

Ambassadors of the United States

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: rename.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming
nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It was suggested here that these categories be nominated for renaming. These proposed renames have some advantages and some disadvantages, but I believe the benefits of renaming outweigh the costs of doing so.
Disadvantages:
  • The main drawback of this rename is that most of the specific articles that are "main articles" for these categories are named in the format of "United States Ambassador to COUNTRY", as with United States Ambassador to Iceland.
Advantages:
  1. The main article is Ambassadors of the United States and the main category is Category:Ambassadors of the United States. These renames would establish the same "Ambassadors of the United States ..." format for all of these.
  2. With the exception of the nominated categories, all of the by-country subcategories of Category:Ambassadors universally use the "Ambassadors of COUNTRY1 to COUNTRY2" format. Renaming these categories would solidify a universal standard, which is very helpful when adding categories such as these to articles because it removes the necessity of remembering or guessing what format is used for a particular set of ambassadors category. In other words, there's not really any good reason for the U.S. ones to be different than those for all other countries.
  3. Other U.S. categories for ambassadors already use this format when the precise word used is not "ambassador", as with Category:Permanent Representatives of the United States to the United Nations and Category:Permanent Delegates of the United States to UNESCO.
  4. This name format would also remove the use of "United States" as an adjective, which we generally avoid in category names in favor of "American".
— Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
But which is more compliant, matching the article name or matching the rest of the tree? And if the articles themselves need to be renamed... - The Bushranger One ping only 20:04, 27 November 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:Boat magazines

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: rename to Category:Boating magazines; no merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Boat magazines to Category:Sailing magazines
Nominator's rationale: Near complete overlap between these categories. Not 100% sure which one should be merged with which, but I don't believe there should be two - There can be only one. The Bushranger One ping only 03:32, 21 November 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:Sailing ship elements

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: rename per amended nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Sailing ship elements to Category:Sailing ship and sailboat components Category:Sailing ship components
Propose renaming Category:Sailboat anatomy to Category:Sailboat components
Nominator's rationale: More logical names (following Category:Aircraft components) that are also more inclusive and descriptive. The Bushranger One ping only 03:26, 21 November 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:International Sailing Federation Members

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: split for now as nominated. A rename for either or both could be considered in the future. This will be placed at WP:CFDWM for processing.
Propose splitting Category:International Sailing Federation Members
to Category:Members of the International Sailing Federation
and Category:Classes of the International Sailing Federation
Nominator's rationale: At the moment there is a mish-mash of content in this category, including both boating clubs that are affiliated with the ISF, and ship types that define classes of the ISF - which having classed as "members" is very confusing. Proposing this split to make things more logical. The Bushranger One ping only 03:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

When I created this category my plan was simply to have all the ISAF members grouped in hindsight your suggestion follows the structure of the two templates I created which appear on International Sailing Federation which is what I am more interested in maintaining. I have no concerns with you implementing your suggestion but at present very few ISAF member nations have pages although I plan to slowly address this.

Template:International Sailing Federation Template:International Sailing Federation Classes

Maybe the naming protocol for the groups could follow what the templates should have been named.

to International Sailing Federation Member National Authorities
and International Sailing Federation Classes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yachty4000 ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment by User Yachty4000 / 21st Nov 2011

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:Parks and public spaces in Montreal

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: Speedy renamed (C2C). The Bushranger One ping only 04:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Parks and public spaces in Montreal to Category:Parks in Montreal
Nominator's rationale: I think that this category should be renamed to Parks in Montreal for consistency with other Canadian cities. ( Category:Parks by city in Canada)

-- MTLskyline ( talk) 01:32, 21 November 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_21&oldid=1145820269"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE