< February 15 February 17 >

February 16

Category:Spanish and English-language journals

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 to Category:Multilingual journals. There is a clear consensus not to keep this category at this time, but no consensus to remove its contents from Category:Multilingual journals. So the result is is to upmerge rather than delete .--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. In this category tree, we have categories for different languages (in these cases: Category:English-language journals and Category:Spanish-language journals. For journals that are not written exclusively in one language but in a mix of two or more languages, there is the Category:Multilingual journals. Creating separate categories for different language combinations seems impractical: some journals are in two languages, some in three. Having a Category:Portuguese, Spanish and English-language journals does not really seem workable (not to mention all the problems one can get into when asking which language should be mentioned first). I propose to stick to the conventions in this area: an "English-language journal" is a journal written (entirely) in English, a journal published partly in English and partly in Spanish is a "Multilingual journal" and therefore to delete this category. Randykitty (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi, glad that communication has been re-established. To put your comment about easing the pressure on the multilingual journals category into perspective, we're talking here about 6 journals out of 291. Even if a few were missed that could fit into this cat, that barely deserves the word "easing"... (BTW, I find the name of the category counter-intuitive, too. "English- and Spanish-language journals" would have been more logical (alphabetical order) and in the title as it is, I think that, grammatically, there should be a dash after "Spanish"). --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • These six are ones I have had time to categorize. Spanish-English languages are many more. Dentren | Talk 21:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still wont make a real dent in that cat, it opens the door to endless discussions (shouldn't this be English-Spanish?), it starts a category tree that is going to be very difficult to define (English-Portuguese-Spanish journals, English-Esperanto-French journals, Dutch-Hindi journals, whatever). --Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2013 (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:Television series by RDF Media Group

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: no consensus. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The category should be merged as the company itself was merged into Zodiak. Bbb2007 (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2013 (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.

Drug-related suicides in U.S. 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: keep all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Nominator's rationale: Over-categorisation. Each of these state categories contains a pitifully small number of entries: CA has 33, NY has 27, the rest have 4 or less entries, mostly only 1. Each death should be listed under Category:Drug-related suicides in the United States only, rather than maintain an excessive sub-set of upto 50 categories. Whether this would count as a merger, I'm unsure. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 21:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. has almost 300 years of recorded history yet can only come up with ~80 notable drug-related suicides. Given another 300 years, maybe the total can come to ~80 more... Sarcasm aside, this leaves only a few thoughts: either the categories are not being utilised to their full extent, i.e. bios not being added to the cats, or they have been created in the "hopes" of being populated, which goes against WP:CRYSTAL, even though suicides are generally inevitable. Even if there are 500 such bios on Wiki, 500/50 states still only leaves an average of 10 names per state, given even distribution. I have no objection to retaining the cats if an effort can be made to actually populate them, instead of one here, one there.. as attention seems only for NY and CA, which represents 4% of U.S. states on the matter. I have heard editors comment that Categories can be misused or manipulated, creating a sense of imbalance and/or OR if they are selectively filled.. this is one such example, by fault of design rather than abuse, as it gives the wrong impression that NY/CA are full of suicidals, smackheads, and pill-poppers, compared to other states; more attention needs to be paid to adding names and moving names from the top U.S. cat to the relevant sub-cat state, should these be kept. Perhaps WP:CATP could be given such a request? Ma®©usBritish{chat} 04:54, 18 February 2013 (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.

Alcohol-related deaths in U.S. 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: keep all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Nominator's rationale: Over-categorisation. Each of these state categories contains a pitifully small number of entries: CA has 28, NY has 17, the rest have 5 or less entries, mostly only 1. Each death should be listed under Category:Alcohol-related deaths in the United States only, rather than maintain an excessive sub-set of upto 50 categories. Whether this would count as a merger, I'm unsure. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 21:32, 16 February 2013 (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:LivingTV television programmes

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 (C2D). The Bushranger One ping only 02:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The channel's name was changed two years ago. Bbb2007 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2013 (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:Global internet community

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. – Fayenatic London 13:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too vague; seems to mostly be used in self-promotional articles that also get tagged with overbroad categories like Category:Community, Category:Social media, and Category:Web 2.0. Trivialist (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2013 (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:Eidolon

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 per WP:C2D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Eidolon is a disambiguation page; the intended meaning is Eidolon (genus). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:46, 16 February 2013 (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:Eidolon albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename per WP:C2D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Eidolon is a disambiguation page; the band which this category is named for is Eidolon (band). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:44, 16 February 2013 (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.

Alumni of Panadura Royal College

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. – Fayenatic London 13:26, 25 February 2013 (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:Radio stations in Colorado Springs & Pueblo

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 24 February 2013 (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:Law firms in India

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 delete under CSD G7 (author request). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This can be speedied. DexDor (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2013 (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:Military equipment of the Second Boer War

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. See my earlier close for the rationale. Additionally, at this point, none of the categories contain anything except an article about a horse breed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Military equipment of the Second Boer War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Second Boer War military equipment of Australia
  • Propose deleting Category:Second Boer War weapons of Australia
  • Propose deleting Category:Second Boer War weapons
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing a type of weapon by a war in which it's been used is against WP:DEFINING and WP:OC#PERF. Previous discussions about similar categories include Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_24#Category:Military_equipment_of_the_Falklands_War. Note: This nom is a step towards the deletion of most/all of Category:Military equipment by conflict. Note: These 4 categories were accidentally omitted from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_11#Boer_War_weapons_and_Gulf_War_equipment. DexDor (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Sea Harrier and the Saracen illustrate some of the problems with these categories; why choose the Falklands rather than Bosnia? Why choose the Troubles rather than Malaya? If WP had existed in 1982 would we have moved the Sea Harrier article from a Cold War category to a Falklands War category? If so, the categorization is non-permanent. If, on the other hand, we categorize by every conflict in which a type of equipment is used then some articles (AK-47, M16, CH-47, C-130 ...) could be in hundreds of such categories (Centurion tank is currently in 5 such categories). There are also cases where it's not clear whether or not a particular type has been involved in a particular conflict - e.g. does delivering supplies to Kandahar count as taking part in the Afghanistan conflict? What if there is disagreement about whether a weapon was used in a conflict? - such issues can be handled in lists, but not in categorization. Categorizing by when the equipment was first introduced (year/decade/period/century) avoids these problems - military aircraft (e.g. Hawker Typhoon) are already mostly categorized by date rather than by conflict. DexDor (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe those two weapons are defined by their use in two conflict rather than one; but they are still very much defined by their use, just as David Owen is defined by his membership of two political parties rather than the usual one. I note too that you didn't respond to either the Camel or the Spitfire.
I quite agree that the AKJ-47 is an example of a wepapon used in so many conflicts that it is defined by none of the. It's probably the most extreme example possible, but there other less extreme examples of the many weapons which are not defined by their role in a particular conflict. However, these nominations have been justified by a sweeping assertion that usage is non-defining. Since it clearly is defining in some cases, the basis for deletion is false.
Some discrimination is required between these different types of case, and we need a better solution than blanket deletion on the basis of the false assertion that none of the weapons are defined in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Usage is not a defining characteristic of a weapon/vehicle type - being wheeled, armoured, designed by Alvis etc are defining characteristics (if a vehicle doesn't have those characteristics then it's not a Saracen), but having been used in Ulster/Malaya is not a characteristic that every Saracen has. To take another example: Some Ford Transits have been used as ambulances, but we don't put the Ford Transit article in Category:Ambulances.
Where an article is about a single item (the David Steel analogy) then it may be reasonable to categorize by the usage of that item. Such articles have not been included in these CFD nominations - e.g. HMS Hermes (R12) is still in a Falklands War category, but Mark 82 bomb is not. The Camel and Spitfire are examples of types whose use was almost exclusively in a single conflict, but many (probably most) weapons etc don't easily fit into one/two by-conflict categories. The AK-47 isn't that unusual (e.g. see the DShK or the CH-47 which has been used in virtually every US/UK conflict since the 60s). DexDor (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2013 (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.

American monarchists

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: no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 24 February 2013 (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.

Algonquin loanwords

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: listify and delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Missinipi Broadcasting Corporation is an even more extreme case of this category being misapplied. Here we have three words, one of which might be from an Algonquian language. Plus as the name of a very specific thing, I do not think it could ever be considered a "loanword". The same could be said for the cases where the articles are on specific places in Pennsylvania or Virginia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2013 (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.
More