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.
Jafeluv (
talk) 18:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Proposed deletion of category due to deletion of
Category:Liberal websites. To copy the reason provided by
User:Loonymonkey, and reword it to fit the alternate side: Just as the previous
category "American Conservatives" was deleted, this one should also be deleted for the same reason. "Conservative" is completely subjective designation and is therefore far too vague of a criteria for a category. Inclusion in this category could never be determined objectively, but rather merely supported by the opinion of others.
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk) 23:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Inclusion criteria will be hopelessly NPOV.
Debresser (
talk) 06:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete hopelessly confused. "Conservative" is the name of many political parties.
76.66.197.30 (
talk) 14:40, 4 October 2009 (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:Corvettes of Austria
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:Rename. The only current member of this category was a corvette of Austria–Hungary, not of just Austria. —
Bellhalla (
talk) 18:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)reply
looks like a doubtless speedy rename to me.
NVO (
talk) 06:17, 6 October 2009 (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:Agricultural tractor manufacturers of Greece
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:90210 episodes
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename per nominator.
Debresser (
talk) 06:36, 4 October 2009 (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 by Benn Jordan pseudonyms
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. Superfluous, incorrectly named category. The only contents (
Category:The Flashbulb albums) are described thus: "This is a category of articles about albums by
Benn Jordan under his "
The Flashbulb" pseudonym", so a further level of categorisation is unneeded.
Tassedethe (
talk) 17:44, 2 October 2009 (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 by Zarif
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:Albums by UK
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:Album by David Garett
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.
Agree as nom, don't know how I missed that.
Tassedethe (
talk) 12:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator(s). :)
Debresser (
talk) 06:35, 4 October 2009 (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:United Arab Emirates racecar drivers
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:Project-Class Project articles
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:Deleted per
CSD#G7 by
MSGJ. Non-admin closure.
PC78 (
talk) 13:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Typing error after dozens of cats. Very sorry.
Sebastian scha. (
talk) 14:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Deleted. Next time, you can just tag it with {{db-user}}. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 14:19, 2 October 2009 (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:Evangelic Mission Supporters
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:Merge. The category has only one article,
Apostolic Faith Mission. This one article appears to be a Christian mission.
Kevinkor2 (
talk) 13:26, 2 October 2009 (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:List of former schools in England
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Category does not contain lists of schools merely individual schools and as such should be upmerged.
Tassedethe (
talk) 10:05, 2 October 2009 (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:List of rivers 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:merge.
BencherliteTalk 14:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Disputed as a speedy merge candidate
here (at bottom). Category contains lists of rivers (albeit 1 list broken down alphabetically) and as such should be correctly pluralized to Lists (e.g see subcats of
Category:United States-related lists). The category can be merged to the parent category with no problems as there are only 7 articles in that category.
Tassedethe (
talk) 09:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge. This is a clear duplication, IMO, and is the type of case for which speedy renaming exists. There is certainly no need for both categories. The nominated category contains multiple list articles—one for each letter of the alphabet. The fact that the lists were originally part of one non-broken-up list doesn't mean there are not now multiple lists.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge – the 7 articles in the parent category could themselves be subcatted (relating to US territories) leaving the alphabetical lists in prime position in the parent, if desired.
Occuli (
talk) 11:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)reply
All categories are in alphabetical order so that is redundant.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 20:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Mind you,
Category:Alphabetical lists of rivers in the United States would make sense... but it would be unique - no other split-lists are categorised in that way, so a merge seems appropriate. Hmains' criticism could easily be met by adding piped links in the articles' category links, e.g. [[Category:Lists of rivers in the United States|AlphabeticalA-C]]
Grutness...wha? 22:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Grutness suggestion would work for me.
Hmains (
talk) 16:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. Exactly why do we need to have the list that is behind this problem broken down into 24 pieces? If it was combined into 1 piece it would also solve the problem. If it was then converted into a table that included the length, the list would become more valuable and a better resource.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)reply
comment It works fine as it is for the readers and maintainers. See the master article here named
List of rivers of the United States. This is the only article that readers need know about; the alphabet articles are for maintainers. Same as done for
List of rivers of Romania (alphabetic), the only other country that seems to have documented its rivers in as much detail as the US. Why fiddle with what works?
Hmains (
talk) 04:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)reply
"Why fiddle with what works?" I think that was exactly the point. Why did we need to break down the master list into smaller chunks? The main list was working fine. It should have been broken down internally, not through the creation of 20-odd new articles.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Never heard of large article, hard to maintain problems, hard to load problems? This setup of 20-odd articles has worked fine since October 2005. It is not new. Read history.
Hmains (
talk) 01:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)reply
It doesn't matter when it was done or by whom—the question is why does it need to be that way? How are multiple small articles easier to maintain than one large one? I had assumed they had been separated into separate articles at the same time you placed them in this newly-created subcategory, which was much more recently. It looks like prior to your edits, these were happily sitting in
Category:Lists of rivers of the United States, so yes—some fiddling was done by you. Anyway, the setup of the article(s) is beyond the scope of this discussion. The real issue is why are you trying to have multiple lists considered as one list from a linguistic standpoint? Is your only reason because you think these articles are "buried" by being included in a category with 7 other list articles?
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, that was my reason, as I stated above. And Grutness offered a solution that I accepted above.
Hmains (
talk) 04:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I have learned that what was put together on this wiki a few years ago can often be improved. So that fact that this has existed for 4 years is not an indication that the implementation is correct. It may well be an indication that there may be a better way to display this information. Given the multiple overlapping lists, converting the entire mess to a consolidated sortable table would appear to be a better solution for everyone. Especially since it would reduce duplicated material which is always an maintenance problem.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge. Why these 24 articles should be difficult to find in a category which as yet only contains seven articles I have no idea. "nearly invisibly buried, out of sight"? Do me a favour! They would outnumber the other articles in the cat by more than three to one! Why on earth this should be regarded as a special case I also have no idea. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 08:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)reply
If you read what I wrote, I said the 7 would be buried, not the 24. In any case, I agree with Grutness on his solution, so what is your point?
Hmains (
talk) 03:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Oh, I do apologise. I wasn't aware that I wasn't allowed to make a comment because you had agreed with a previous one! An AfD is a discussion to which all are invited. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 08:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I should not have written that. Sorry.
Hmains (
talk) 06:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge. If the material gets lost, then simply don't include these in the category since they already include a nav box. I'd also recommend that these articles be combined into one.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:19, 16 October 2009 (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:List of Bangladesh Navy Ship
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.
Jafeluv (
talk) 18:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete article masquerading as a category.
76.66.197.30 (
talk) 14:41, 4 October 2009 (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:Sierra 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.
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:Skip 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:Rename. To match name of company
Skip Ltd. and to reduce possible confusion with
skipping games.
Tassedethe (
talk) 08:55, 2 October 2009 (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:Prison wardens
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.
Jafeluv (
talk) 18:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. For clarity. Note that this should not be the general category title since "warden" in this context is almost exclusively a North American usage - most countries use other terms such as governor, superintendent etc. Nevertheless it should be renamed for clarity (as Canada, at least, also uses the term). --
Necrothesp (
talk) 08:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)reply
REname per nom by all means, but does it not need merging with one of its parents? As an Englishman, I am not familiar with Us terminology.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 13:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Which parent? It is a specific category referring to wardens, the people who we in the UK would call governors. As such, I think it is a perfectly acceptably named category (or will be when renamed). --
Necrothesp (
talk) 08:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Rename to clarify category content.
Alansohn (
talk) 17:12, 5 October 2009 (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:Editors who are not getting feedback from their good edits
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. –
xenotalk 13:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Category fails to meet the criteria at
WP:USERCAT as it does not seem to be intended in facilitating coordination nor collaboration. —
ξxplicit 05:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - This category was created to notify other wikipedians that a particular user is not getting feedback from his/her good edits. -
Porchcrop(
talk|
contributions) 06:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete This category seems like whining, and is somewhat bitey to me. A good editor should not expect any feedback on their edits, but will sometimes receive barnstars based on their editng. Therefore this category can be deleted.
ArcAngel (
talk) 07:39, 2 October 2009 (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:Gangs in Nevada
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:Keep.
Jafeluv (
talk) 18:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I'm bring this up here for a discussion since I'm not convinced that we need the current category as named. If you look at the
Hells Angels article, the gang appears to be included in this category because of a notable fight with another gang. I think these clubs should be handled the same way we do a restaurant where the company is listed where the headquarters is (with some exceptions) or fraternities where we have an article for the main group with appropriate categories and not for every chapter. Comments? This is a trial nomination and if we agree that we need to change something, there will be a need for follow on nominations.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 02:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)reply
do not rename a better argument than this is needed to make this major change in the content meaning of this and all its sibling categories. Where exactly would one find the hdq of a particular gang when many they appear to be made up of various chapters, without a centralized control element located in a particular state. As best, one might find something in the articles saying in which US state they originated.
Hmains (
talk) 18:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose renaming for essentially the reasons explained by Hmains. This seems to fundamentally change the meaning of all the subcats in
Category:Gangs in the United States by state, and in a way that could be difficult to verify. It's not as if most criminal organizations put their name on a building in the manner of big corporations like AIG or Worldcom. --
RL0919 (
talk) 22:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Then these can simply be dropped as not being supported by the article text?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 03:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Or just leave things are they are, since the categories are already supported by article text. Read the articles, showing where gang chapters exist.
Hmains (
talk) 16:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)reply
And how is that different from using a category for every state where foo incorporated has a store? Something that we clearly have decided not to do,
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)reply
The purpose of WP categories is to help readers find things, not make things 'neat' for the sake of consistency or other irrelevant ideas. A parent of
Category:Gangs in Nevada is
Category:Crime in Nevada as is the case with all similar state gang categories. Someone looking for crime in Nevada and the criminal gangs involved therein surely does much care whether the US headquarters or founding location of the gang is in Nevada or not, but very much cares that the gang is operating in Nevada. There is what we have now and there is no good reason to change that.
Hmains (
talk) 04:50, 4 October 2009 (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.