Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 26
May 26
[edit]Category:English coast and countryside by county and sub-categories
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 14:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is not a useful category, for several reasons, which stem from the fact that it's not a natural category, and it's way too vague:
- It cuts across too many categories: geology, rural and coastal landforms, urban coastal features such as buildings and industry, etc etc.
- Any item can go in another category as required and many already are. You seem to fail to appreciate that categories are complementary, not exclusive. CalJW 22:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm well aware of how the system works, I just think this is an incredibly bad name for a category.
- For example, in Category:Dorset coast and countryside the inland nature reserve Holt Heath sits beside a large artificial Royal Navy harbour, Portland Harbour, a coastal suburb, Sandbanks, and a long distance footpath, the South West Coast Path. That, IMO, isn't a natural "category".
- You have taken an extreme example. Sandbanks is also a beach (coast) and in any case if you disagree with individual examples you can change them.
- Not really, this appears to be the case in most of the categories, and I would argue it's a systemic problem.
- You have taken an extreme example. Sandbanks is also a beach (coast) and in any case if you disagree with individual examples you can change them.
- For counties that are mainly rural, this category basically serves as an "everything else" category, for things that haven't already been sub-categorised. But there's no need to sub-categorise "everything else", it can just go in the parent category.
- The parent categories suffer from the problems you are complaining of to a far greater degree. CalJW 22:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While it's too vague for some purposes, it cuts other potential categories in two. The Dorset category (linked above) contains several landforms, geology info and the subcategories "hills" and "rivers". "Geology" or "landforms" would be a category that instantly makes sense to me, but this category excludes urban geology and landforms.
I left a note about this here, ten days ago, though I have no idea if anybody actually read it. I propose moving all articles into their parent category and coming up with a better system. Joe D (t) 20:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is perfectly natural. It is easy to understand and provides clarity by reducing the number of items in the main county category. Geology is too narrow at the county level. "Landforms" is rather an academic word, and not very suitable for a general readers encyclopedia. It also excludes some things. Deleting these would be a disaster for the country menu system. The proposal is contradictory in that it says at the same time that subcategories aren't needed and that narrower subcategories are. With the current system additional subcategories can be added for any county with so many items that they are appropriate. CalJW 22:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say that narrower subcategories are neccesary at all, I just named some categories whose name would make more sense than this one. That doesn't mean I want them created, I just want the removal of categories that make no sense. My proposal was to move the articles up to the parent category and create new categories if and when they are needed. Please explain why you think the deletion of these would be a disaster for the country menu system. Joe D (t) 23:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm here, please also explain why you think this is a "natural" category. "Countryside" and "coast" are most definitely not the same thing, unless this is being viewed from a citycentric view as being a category for the homogenous group of all things "not city". Joe D (t) 23:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Joe has a point, and this could bear some re-organizing. Support merge with parent, take it from there. A RFC may be useful to get consensus on a meaningful subcategorization. Radiant_* 14:58, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with parent. (btw, when did we stop signing our entries?) --Kbdank71 17:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was wait for rfc --Kbdank71 14:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The people in this category have nothing in common but the same surname. But you can see the surname even from the title of the article, so you don't need to declare it in the category names. Also, a surname isn't anything essential about the person. I have copied the contents of this category to Hanke (surname) and List of people by name: Han. -Hapsiainen 20:57, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I prefer cats to lists. SchmuckyTheCat 01:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, manual of style prefers lists to cats for things like this. Prevent overcategorization. (e.g. category:people who are five feet tall, category:people without a moustache etc) Radiant_* 07:16, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Is Mr. Hanke from South Park on it? ℬastique▼talk 01:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Move this vote This category is one of a whole series of sub-categories of Category:People by surname. It makes no sense to delete just Category:Hanke, and leave the rest to stand. Either we have categories of people by surname, in which case this category is fine, or we don't, in which case the whole structure must go. So I would suggest this vote be moved to Category:People by surname.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fairtrade categories
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 14:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I propose merging the following categories into Category:Fairtrade settlements, as there are a total of only 9 settlement articles and 1 explanatory article between them. Thryduulf 20:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Fair trade status - Currently the parent of category:Fairtrade settlements and the grandparent of the others.
- Category:Fairtrade cities - This and the following categories are sub-categories of Category:Fairtrade settlements
- Category:Fairtrade islands
- Category:Fairtrade towns
- Category:Fairtrade villages
- I'm not sure if "Fairtrade settlements" isn't too artificial a name; maybe this would just as well be at "Fairtrade Towns", which seems to be the generic term. That said, I think I might agree with the comment at Talk:Fairtrade Town that this may be inappropriate for a category and would work better listify -ed, presumably at the bottom of Fairtrade Town. It seems to me that "Fairtrade Town" status is a mostly symbolic and relatively minor aspect of, say, a city like Edinburgh, being that is is largely dependant on a "[l]ocal council pass[ing] a resolution supporting Fairtrade, and agree[ing] to serve Fairtrade tea and coffee at its meetings and in its offices and canteens". There are probably many similar conventions to which municipalities apply that could likewise be overcategorized.--Pharos 04:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. --Kbdank71 17:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please delete, I emptied this after replacing it with Category:British racehorse owners & breeders. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 19:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Empty version of Category:Proto-punk albums. --Henrygb 17:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy delete Capitalization ℬastique▼talk 18:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All (few) entries are on the transwiki list, and are already covered in main article Numerical prefix. Category is no longer useful. Radiant_* 12:02, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
delete - Redundant - ℬastique▼talk 12:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)Withdrawn jumped the gun. I want more info ℬastique▼talk[reply]- Certainly. Read Numerical prefix and compare it with the category, please. You'll see that the former is a more comprehensive way of containing the information. Radiant_* 12:44, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I would say "listify", but of course the main article is acting as a list all by itself here. Beta m (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:SI derived units of acceleration, Category:SI derived units of area, Category:SI derived units of density, Category:SI derived units of length, Category:SI derived units of mass, Category:SI derived units of solid angle, Category:SI derived units of time, Category:SI derived units of velocity and Category:SI derived units of volume
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not a very useful way of organizing information; please merge the lot of them with the parent category, Category:SI derived units. Most of these cats contain some possible variations on <prefix><unit>, e.g. centimetre, and I'm working on merging those articles since they're trivial. Radiant_* 11:59, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete because <prefix><unit> combination are not derived units in the first place; that particular phrase has a more specific meaning in metrology jargon (see what is listed in the article SI derived unit). The articles which are for prefix combinations of "base units" (length, mass, etc) don't even belong in the parent category, which should only have entries such as metre per second and joule. Gene Nygaard 08:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but make sure that the articles in question receive "category:units of mass", "category:units of volume", etc. appropriately. Bryan 00:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Obsolete; contains only three disambig pages since all those prefixes don't actually have articles. The valid list is at unofficial SI prefixes. Radiant_* 11:56, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Too small to be useful. (contains only 'myria/myrio') Radiant_* 11:44, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete because even the ones mentioned by Radiant which were there never were "SI" prefixes in the first place (SI didn't exist until 1960, and the original prefix list didn't include them). The article Obsolete SI prefixes has been renamed to the more correct Obsolete metric prefixes. Gene Nygaard 08:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 13:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Proposed renaming to Category:British nobility stubs. Current name is troublesome for several reasons: 1) "peerage", to many minds, seems to mean nobility from anywhere, not just the UK; 2) many of the stubs which should go in there are not technically of peerage (mediaeval Scottish kings and Welsh princes, for instance, not to mention current royalty); 3) Life peers are being added to the category when they aren't technically nobility, and would be better suited to other categories. All other nobility related stub categories are of the form "X nobility stubs", therefore this name change would also be for the sake of consistency. (Note: this category is fed by a template, so will require null-edits to empty to a newly named category!). Grutness...wha? 10:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, for stub-consistency's sake.--Pharos 04:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree, the whole point is that it includes Life Peers; "nobility", as you yourself point out, does not. James F. (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ...most of whom are far better stubbed according to what they did to get a life peerage: politician-stub, business-bio-stub, actor-stub, etc etc etc. Remember this category is not for the sake of readers but for editors, who would be far more likely to be able to find people they can edit according to profession than according to them having been awarded a title. Grutness...wha? 00:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- SUPPORT!15:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as per Grutness. -- grm_wnr Esc 03:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as part of cleanup. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Half-decent articles.
(The idea behind this is to have a system similar to WP:FAC, to determine when an article is 'half-decent' and label it as such. This system has not been advertised, discussed or even used, and frankly I fail to see the point. Is it by itself half-decent? I don't think we should bother archiving this since it isn't even a failed proposal.) Radiant_* 09:27, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Inherently POV, too, I would have thought. Either delete or add it to Category: Half-baked policy candidates. Grutness...wha? 10:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently, the theory is that about 50% of Wikipedia is "half-decent", and we should categorize all these "half-decent" articles together. Even if this weren't a bad idea in general, one has to realize 50% of Wikipedia is about 250,000 to 300,000 articles. A category of that size seems like an inherently Bad Thing. --Azkar 15:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we should use a meta-template for Template:Half-decent. Radiant_* 15:40, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Now that's just cruel .. --Azkar 17:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC) (better make it a meta-template that incorporates another meta-template .. --Azkar 17:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- I think we should use a meta-template for Template:Half-decent. Radiant_* 15:40, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I could see something like this, but 50% is just useless. Maybe a top 1% threshhold, given that FA is about 0.1%. Call them "Tantalus articles".--Pharos 04:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 13:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Should be merged with its parent Category:BitTorrent which currently has only one article and one subcategory, and not much potential for expansion. --cesarb 05:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete SchmuckyTheCat 01:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.You have there 3 articles. Also "Category:BitTorrent clients" is in Category "Application software",and articles "Super seeding","The Pirate Bay" dont fit there.Vorash 11:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. --Kbdank71 19:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The term expressway means different things in different places, so this category is ambiguous. --SPUI (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain ℬastique▼talk
- Any reason for that vote? Using the term is misleading at best. --SPUI (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with SPUI, so delete. Radiant_* 21:00, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. --Kbdank71 19:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Same as Cardassian and Romulan cats. Stub pages were merged to single page and moved to parent cat. AlistairMcMillan 01:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done! Thanks for taking the effort of organizing information. Oh, and delete the cat. Radiant_* 07:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Good work Alistair. Delete (ditto for the following three). Grutness...wha? 10:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete*4 and congratulations on your hard work. ℬastique▼talk 12:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete SchmuckyTheCat 01:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Only a couple of stub pages in this cat. They've been moved to parent. AlistairMcMillan 01:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Same as Romulan ship classes. Stub pages have been merged and moved to parent cat. AlistairMcMillan 01:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Parent category was broken up into individual races, but there were only about four stub pages in this category. Those stubs have been merged as per WP:FICT so nothing remains under this cat. AlistairMcMillan 01:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.