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.
Yes, that's the reason users want to change some but not all of the category names. The thinking is "Mayor of Wanganui" is a title which has always been spelled that way regardless of how the name of the city has been spelled, which has changed (or at least been argued about) over time.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Well, it's gone back and forth a couple of times now in the past two years based on various speedy criteria, but it's never been properly discussed, so to prevent the jumping around, I thought a discussion about it would be beneficial.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:29, 5 June 2012 (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:LGBT people from Serbia
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: There is no requirement for false pages to contain not a single entry. The individual intended for this project was a hoax (Marija Šerifović). There was a lot of talk about this between 2007 and 2008 and now it's gone quiet. Many entires appeared in various media attempting to damage the woman, yet those in Serbian and Croatian sources where she spoke and answered questions herself all confirm her position as straight. A discussion on her talk page in 2007 saw no agreement but the general message was to keep all mention of the topic off her article.
Evlekis (Евлекис) (
argue)
18:07, 4 June 2012 (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.
This is an additional comment which I place outside the box in accordance with instruction not to modify - if it could tag along with the box in future archives that will be fine. Ideally I would have placed this remark under Brown HairedGirl's comment. No, despite my nomination, I am not opposed to the page existing once a genuine case arises. Although I am a subject of the former Yugoslavia and our people are largely homophobic almost to the point of denial of such persons from our lands, there is no question there are some. Very recently, the Bosnia and Herzegovina page opened and contains
Vjekoslav Kramer who meets the criteria by having "come out". The information on the woman for whom the page was intended is scanty and moreover from a distant source. The Finnish journal may be good but no way could something hold true if it never travelled back to her homeland and surrounding countries. Meanwhile the media closer to home have dismissed everything on this topic. Not to worry, that's that for now.
Evlekis (Евлекис) (
argue)
22:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Category:Rich Farmbrough bugs
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 they provide a simple way to categorise problems, and are not restricted to automation, templates being included. Moreover the model is not limited to editing on my account, and can certainly include, for example, bugs in published scripts, bugs in published AWB settings, and bugs in other published components or stand alone robot code. RichFarmbrough,
17:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC).reply
Delete - It seems that we have 20+ categories being used to house a total of six pages. I realize that this number can increase, but it seems to me that this could be tracked just as well on a user subpage, such as
User:Rich Farmbrough/bugs. I wasn't even aware of the ArbCom case until now, but it is not a factor in my opinion. -- Black Falcon(
talk)23:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per long-standing consensus against personal categories; there are other ways of organising this material. The arbcom restrictions have no relevance either way. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
10:55, 6 June 2012 (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:Indigenous Hawthorn Hawks 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.
Delete - The intersection is not a significant one: there is nothing uniquely 'special', so to speak, about a Indigenous Australian who happened to play for Hawthorn Hawks as opposed to any other club. While it might be useful to begin subcategorizing the two parent categories,
Category:Hawthorn Hawks players should not be split by descent and
Category:Indigenous Australian players of Australian rules football should not be split by club. There is no need to upmerge at this time, since the member articles have not been removed from the two parents, but this should be checked again prior to deletion. -- Black Falcon(
talk)07:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete all the players are already in the 2 "parent" cats so upmerging effectively has already been done. Catscan or other tools allow for intersections like this to be found, we don't need dedicated cats to do so. Note that there are only 6 articles in this cat, but the Catscan intersection finds 10 who should be, highlighting the problem with dedicated intersection cats- they are rarely kept up to date or complete, compared to "standard" cats.
The-Pope (
talk)
00:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete we do not sub-categorize players on specific sports teams by ethnicity. Even subcategorizing players of specific sports by ethnicity is questionable at best, but we do not do such for specific teams.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:46, 12 June 2012 (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:Nintendo 64 combat flight simulator games
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. Only 1 article (since August 2011, and the Nintendo 64 is not getting new games for over a decade) and no other platform has a such sub-category in Category:Combat flight simulators.
Niemti (
talk)
08:01, 4 June 2012 (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:1717 inventions
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 - I think that inventions do not lend themselves to categorization by year. The process of invention can be, and often is, a long one that involves multiple stages, variants, and inventors (for example, see the
history of the incandescent light bulb). Does the 'year of invention' refer to the year of conception (of the idea), the year of publication, the year of implementation (e.g., when a working model is built) or the year of recognition (i.e., the invention is recognized and/or registered)? If the technology has undergone various revisions, does the year of invention correspond to the invention of the first version or the current/final one? The situation becomes more complex when different variants of the same technology are invented in different years by different people working separately, or when there is a dispute about who first invented something (see
Category:Discovery and invention controversies). -- Black Falcon(
talk)08:15, 5 June 2012 (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:John Williamson 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.
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.
Wikipedia lightbulbs
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.
These categories are humour categories for the essay
Wikipedia:How_many_Wikipedians_does_it_take_to_screw_in_a_lightbulb?, and as such are not content categories, so should not occupy names that can be used for any kind of content categorization. Further as implication of the essay, this is a user categorization, and as evidenced from the only categorized content at the time the Speedy was originally opened, it only contained user pages. Therefore these should be deleted or renamed into Usercategorization space. Deletion was the opinion of two commentators at Speedy, so is the proposal given here. The alternative, renaming, the original option at Speedy, are to rename the two to
Category:Wikipedian Lightbulbs that are out and
Category:Wikipedian Lightbulbs that are unscrewed.
70.24.251.208 (
talk)
04:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't care if these stay or go (read that as neutral) - But I think these and the related templates and such should have all been nominated together at MfD instead of splitting the discussions out amongst several XfD discussions. So at this point, I suggest that the closer please take the other discussions into consideration when considering this close. - jc3704:25, 5 June 2012 (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:Dinosaurs of Appalachia
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: Empty and uneeded. Only one article ever applied and it was moved to Dinosaurs of North America
Kumioko (
talk)
00:52, 4 June 2012 (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.
Decades in transport
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 did create some of these categories, but at the time, they were certainly not empty. Someone must have emptied them later. I suppose they should be deleted as opposed to maintained, since there are so few articles anyway.
Ardric47 (
talk)
15:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete or redirect to 1500s in transport. Unused and unlikely to ever have enough articles to be needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
I could see the argument with keeping the Century cats like 1500s in XX. That to me seems completely reasonable but I do still think that we don't need a large columne of empty or nearly empty categories for things like this.
Kumioko (
talk)
18:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete or redirect to 1500s in transport. Unlikely to ever have enough articles to be needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose deletion. If this is deleted, then the associated article will be removed from any category having to do with 1545. An upmerge to multiple categories would be required for the article. If deleted, recreation should be allowed in the future if this category has more eligible articles.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete or redirect to 1500s in transport. Unlikely to ever have enough articles to be needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete or redirect to 1500s in transport. Unlikely to ever have enough articles to be needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose deletion. If this is deleted, then the associated article will be removed from any category having to do with 1527. An upmerge to multiple categories would be required for the article. If deleted, recreation should be allowed in the future if this category has more eligible articles.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Or re-categorise it into something reasonably big regarding 1527? I do note that this is a subcategory of
Category:1527 disasters, which has as single sub-category
Category:Transport disasters in 1527 which has as a single subcategory
Category:Maritime incidents in 1527, which has as a single page
St Anthony (ship). To me, to make sense, if such a tree is used, then most of the possible end-categories (of which 'Maritime incidents in 1927' is one) should contain at least 3 articles (i.e. a branch comprised of 3 categories for 3 articles ..) Browsing back from there we also get
Category:Maritime incidents in 1545,
Category:Maritime incidents in 1564 (each a container for 1 page),
Category:Maritime incidents in 1591 (2 pages) and
Category:Maritime incidents in 1588 (4 pages). The upper holding category
Category:16th-century_disasters has a tree of subcategories for 16 of the 100 available years, most of those contain 1 subcategory most of which contain 1 page (and the fact that 84 years are not categorised does not give much hope that the lowest level categories hold many more than 2 pages each, whereas for each year the tree expands with, at least, 3-4 categories. And then, in 1527 transport was something that was reasonably prone to 'disaster' - 'mass' transport did come of the ground, we do have
Category:12th-century_maritime_incidents (which has escaped the
Category:Transport disasters in 1120-faith), but already has an absurd tree of 2 categories to hold one article (
Category:12th-century transport disasters,
Category:12th-century maritime incidents, where it is (currently) the only transport disaster between 1100 and 1199. Such a tree makes sense in the twentieth century, but then applying it back to the 15th and 16th century is not making sense. Splitting up large categories, in the end per year, is fine, but setting up trees for single years, or decades which start with having only one, with the expectation that they will have maybe two or three articles in the end if one searches hard enough is the wrong way around. --
Dirk BeetstraTC05:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete or redirect to 1300s in transport. Unused and unlikely to ever have enough articles to be needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete or redirect to 1300s in transport. Unused and unlikely to ever have enough articles to be needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete or redirect to 1300s in transport. Unused and unlikely to ever have enough articles to be needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete or redirect to 1300s in transport. Unused and unlikely to ever have enough articles to be needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete or redirect to 1300s in transport. Unused and unlikely to ever have enough articles to be needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Created in 2008 and still unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Created in 2008 and still unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Created in 2008 and still unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Created in 2008 and still unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Created in 2008 and still unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Created in 2008 and still unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it needed.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Created in 2008 and still unused and its doubtful there there would ever be enough articles to make it worthwhile. This one could potentially be useful if we redirect all the other 11XX categories to this one.
Kumioko (
talk)
00:26, 4 June 2012 (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.