January 24
Category:Military equipment of the Falklands 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose deleting Category:Military equipment of the Falklands War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deletion Category:Falklands War military equipment of Argentina
- Propose deletion Category:Falklands War vehicles
- Nominator's rationale:: Categorizing a type of weapon by a war in which it's been used is against WP:DEFINING and WP:OC#PERFORM. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_31#Category:Falklands_War_weapons and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_7#Category:Falklands_War_aircraft. Note: The 2 categories containing articles about individual ships are not included in this nom. DexDor (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify to whatever article contains the equipment lists for the order of battle. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - these are "performance by performer". Service in a conflict will only very, very, very rarely be defining for a weapons system - it should be covered in lists and articles, not categories. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Use in the Falklands is very much defining for the Sea Harrier and the Exocet missile. I am not a military history buff, but there may well be other weapon systems for which this conflict is defining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which leaves it as WP:SMALLCAT. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Sea Harrier and Exocet are both weapon types that have been used (I believe) in several conflicts of which the Falklands War is the most well known (best documented etc). If we were to categorise weapon types by "war for which the weapon type is best known" then this would be both subjective and non-permanent. DexDor (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete These are what performances by performer cats would be like if we had articles on British actors of Indian descent and then put that article into something like Category:Harry Potter actors. Not that I am sure that would be the right thing, but the problem here is that the articles are not on individual things like actor articles, but mass produced things that there were generally a few hundred copies of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify then delete -- These are performacne by performer categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These categories are part of a well-developed series under Category:Military equipment by conflict. I see nothing in the nomination which explains why we can have categories for military equipment of the Chaco War, the Iraq War, the Iran–Iraq War, the Spanish Civil War etc ... but not the Falklands War.
Unless there are particular reasons to make the Falklands War an exception, the sub-categories of Category:Military equipment by conflict should either be all deleted or all kept. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiProject Military history has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That entire tree needs to go, as it is all performer by performance, and none of those are defining. It's just being done one step at a time. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You link to WP:DEMOLISH, but that's an essay on not demolishing a structure while it's being built. In this case, you want to demolish a whole structure, so which is the opposite of that essay's subject. So WP:DEMOLISH doesn't apply.
If you want to demolish the whole thing, rather than pruning out what you (or the nominator) consider to be weak parts, then nominate the whole thing. Doing it one step at a time just leads to the same discussion being repeated in several places, with less participation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The next step (assuming that these 2 CFDs succeed) may well be to propose deleting much of the whole structure (possibly moving WWI / WW2 under a by period/era category). IMO it's generally better to try deleting some example categories to establish the principle before nominating dozens of categories in one go. DexDor (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The category system works by maintaining consistency. Consistency in naming, consistency in what makes an appropriate characteristic, consistency in intersections. In this case, we have two adjacent discussions on very similar categories, and so far as I can see no editor supporting deletion has offered any reason to distinguish these two categories from the other similar categories. So on this page we have a duplicated discussion, which is a disruptive waste of editors time (same comments get posted in 2 places) ... and because there are several other very similar categories which the nominator proposes to discuss at a later date, we risk inconsistent decisions. I respect the reasons for seeking this change (an arguable case has been made) ... but this is no way to go about such a change. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @BHG: I take the point that it might have been better if I'd combined these two noms, but I was just expecting a few delete !votes. However this is a discussion about whether or not to delete these categories - it's not the best place to discuss procedure. Regarding "no editor ... has offered any reason to distinguish these two categories from the other similar categories" - I wasn't aware that the nom was expected to include the reason for not proposing deletion of WP:OTHERSTUFF. I expect this tree to be demolished, but for some of the categories in it a move or a merge (e.g. to Category:20th-century military equipment) may be more appropriate than deletion hence the reason for taking this step-by-step (although I'll take larger steps from here). If you now accept the reasons for deletion of these categories will you strike your keep !votes ? DexDor (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, any perceived procedural failings of an XFD are factor routinely discussed in that XFD, because they have a critical impact on its outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 1 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 Iran–Iraq 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose deleting Category:Weapons of the Iran–Iraq War
- Propose deleting Category:Iran–Iraq War guided missiles
- Propose deleting Category:Iran–Iraq War artillery
- Nominator's rationale: Categorizing a weapon type by a war in which it's been used is against WP:DEFINING and WP:OC#PERFORM. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_31#Category:Falklands_War_weapons. DexDor (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and precedent; a form of perfomer by performance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify to whatever article contains the equipment lists for the order of battle. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - these are "performance by performer". Service in a conflict will only very, very, very rarely be defining for a weapons system - it should be covered in lists and articles, not categories. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my explanation of this being a really bad category idea in the discussion on the Falkland War category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify then delete as performance by performer categories; per Falkand Islands war precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These categories are part of a well-developed series under Category:Military equipment by conflict. I see nothing in the nomination which explains why we can have categories for military equipment of the Chaco War, the Iraq War, the Second Boer War, the Spanish Civil War etc ... but not the Iran–Iraq War.
Unless there are particular reasons to make the Iran–Iraq War an exception, the sub-categories of Category:Military equipment by conflict should either be all deleted or all kept. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That entire tree needs to go, as it is all performer by performance, and none of those are defining. It's just being done one step at a time. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You link to WP:DEMOLISH, but that's an essay on not demolishing a structure while it's being built. In this case, you want to demolish a whole structure, so which is the opposite of that essay's subject. So WP:DEMOLISH doesn't apply.
If you want to demolish the whole thing, rather than pruning out what you (or the nominator) consider to be weak parts, then nominate the whole thing. Doing it one step at a time just leads to the same discussion being repeated in several places, with less participation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fly in that ointment has been my observation that if you nominate the whole thing, you get opposes based on the fact you nominated the whole thing, instead of individually... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:10, 29 January 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:Elementary mathematics
- 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 Category:Elementary algebra and Category:Elementary geometry, no consensus on the others. – Fayenatic London 19:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This categorization fails WP:DEFINING (for example the Integer article should not be under Category:Education), is not a useful way to categorise things (for example Category:Trigonometry includes articles about aspects of trigonometry that are unlikely to be taught in schools). The contents of a mathcs curriculum will vary from year to year and from country to country. If someone wants to create a list of mathematics topics taught in schools (in a particular country/period) then that would be fine - as long as it's referenced of course. Apart from the Elementary mathematics article there should be no need to upmerge as it's unlikely that any/many of these articles are not already in more appropriate places under Category:Mathematics. We don't (AFAIK) have any other similar categories for other subjects (Category:Introductory physics was deleted a while back). DexDor (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've withdrawn Category:Elementary special functions from the nom as result of discussions below. DexDor (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose more detailed vote below The second article I checked, Semicircle had only Category:Elementary geometry. I agree 'elementary' is not the clearest name, but either deleting or upmerging leaves a categorisation basically useless to readers, with articles like Addition having their only category one which contains things like Nijenhuis–Richardson bracket. This is one example of many where articles belong in elementary algebra/arithmetic (or some similar category) and also somewhere in the abstract algebra tree, when the majority of readers who might be interested in the article know nothing of abstract algebra. It is possible that the geometry category could be merged, with some work on properly categorising exceptions, into Category:Euclidean geometry, but overall these categories serve a purpose which has no replacement offered. --Qetuth (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, Category:Elementary special functions is a completely different beast to the others. It is well defined, not based on educational levels, and should not be part of this nomination, nor I believe a subcategory of Category:Elementary mathematics, although I can't quite pick where it should go instead without more thought. --Qetuth (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which probably goes to show we should get rid of this whole tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge to the various mathmatics parents articles. This is a misguided way to categorize these topics. Math curriculum will varry, especially on the secondary level. I find the well reasoned arguments for why this is bad categorizing very well explained.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised vote after examining contents in more detail:
- No opposition to upmerging Category:Elementary arithmetic or Category:Elementary number theory to their non-elementary counterparts. Also check what articles in the latter would need to be readded to the Category:Number theory tree.
- Strongly oppose doing anything with Category:Elementary special functions besides removing it from Category:Elementary mathematics, as this is a completely different use of the word 'elementary' and irrelevant to this discussion.
- Oppose a simple upmerge or deletion of Category:Elementary algebra or Category:Elementary geometry, but agree that a rename/resort might be a good idea. The problem with these is that there is a very big difference between the contents of these categories and their non-elementary parents. What schools call 'algebra', and what mathematicians call 'algebra', are in practice different topics, although there are links between them, so merging these would be categorisation by shared name. This is not so much a matter of WP separating things out because they are on a school curriculum, as both WP and schools separating things out because they are of a different nature, and WP then linking the school curriculum to show a more objective definition.
- Selectively upmerge the contents of Category:Elementary mathematics to Category:Mathematics, Category:History of mathematics and Category:Elementary algebra. Currently Category:Mathematics is kept virtually empty, there is no reason it could not hold most of these basic concepts. --Qetuth (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose upmerging elementary algebra and geometry to their parent categories (because there is a huge difference between what "algebra" and "geometry" mean to a school student and to a professional mathematician, and these category differences largely reflect that distinction). Also oppose upmerging elementary mathematics to mathematics for a different reason: I think the main mathematics category should be reserved for major branches of mathematics (i.e. the few articles there now should be diffused to lower categories), and the articles now in elementary mathematics just don't belong at that level of prominence within the mathematics hierarchy. And of course oppose any change to elementary special functions: that's a different usage of the word "elementary", a term of art for a very specific topic, and is almost as far off-topic for this CfD as Category:Elementary schools in the United States would have been. I would support removing the elementary special functions category from being a child of the elementary mathematics category, though, because that seems to reflect the same confusion rather than being a natural subcategory relation. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose all proposed remedies. The purpose of categories is to provide readers with a useful way to navigate between pages on related topics that share a defining characteristic. It seems clear to me that "Elementary geometry" and "Elementary algebra" are such useful navigation aids. I don't buy the argument that "elementary" is not a defining characteristic, in the sense that what people learn in school called "algebra" is a different subject from what mathematicians call "algebra", and there should be separate categories for these different notions. Readers will want to navigate related pages that include things like addition and multiplication, but exclude things like the Fundamental theorem of Galois theory. So it seems to me that these categories serve a clear purpose. I don't agree with an upmerge of Category:Elementary mathematics, basically for the same reasons articulated by David Eppstein, but that category could use some trimming and diffusing into subcategories. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose merger or deletion per David Eppstein and Sławomir Biały. Nominator argues that the categories are not useful. They may not be useful to him, but they are certainly useful to whomever created them. And I personally think that they are more useful than upmerging or simply deleting them. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 05:23, 19 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:Recipients of the Philippe Chatrier Award
- 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. I will invite the nominator to consider creating the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Listified by DexDor to Talk:Philippe Chatrier#Award_category, as explained here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD. It's also a strange categorization scheme that puts a Japanese multinational below Category:Tennis players. DexDor (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not strange categorisation it's listed ABC. It just so happend that the NEC won the award for services to wheelchair tennis. GAtechnical (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So the mysterious award is not limited to tennis players, and accordingly Category:Tennis players is not a parent category. Oculi (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We have a very high bar for awards cats, although it has never been officially set. It is way above having an article on the award, and more something like being the prevmier, at least national if not international award, in a very broad field, with very broad recognition that you can get enough editors to believe is a truly worthwhile thing to have a category and vote keep on. This award does not come anywhere near that. It may or may not be notable enough to have an article, but certainly does not need a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify and then delete, as we invariably do with award categories. Lists do the job better than categories as they can place the people in date order. As we do not have Philippe Chatrier Award, whatever it may be, plain deletion would destroy potentially valuable information. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 26 January 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:Eurovision Song Contest venues
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD DexDor (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#VENUES DexDor (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Location by performer is a form of over categorizations; Category:Beatles concert venues, Category:Super Bowl venues, Category:Witch trial venues, Category:Marian apparition venues, etc., would all be reasonable creations if this is kept. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OC#VENUES; I think that's the section of the guidelines the nominator must have meant to reference. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The category was only created temporarily to assist myself in a task on behalf of ProjectEurovision to roll out templates across the correct articles using ATB. I pointed out a few months ago that the project on a whole didn't have all articles assigned to them. And thus we set about this task to get the correct contest templates placed on the respective articles. I was informed the category would have been deleted a couple of months afterwards, but it seems this hasn't been the case. Apologies for any inconvenience. Wesley♦Mouse 13:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I dont see a problem in having a category and list of the host venues of the worlds largest music competition. Neither do I see any issue with having a super bowl venues category if someone makes one. Lets not make everything into a problem. I would assume that had the Eurovision been the US biggest show then no one would object to this category. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OC#VENUES, which is clear on the issue. Oculi (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clearly fails the venues rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- The appropriate place for the infoamtion is in a list article relating to the contest and its winners. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 26 January 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:EC 3.5.1
- 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 CfD 2013 February 9. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:EC 3.5.1 to
Category:Triphosphoric Monoester Hydrolases Category:Linear amides
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Ran into this one by accident. EC 3.5.1 seems to be a short hand standardized notation for Triphosphoric Monoester Hydrolases. Since neither the short form or the long form have articles, it is not clear what term should be used. This is a trial nomination. If there is a consensus, then the related categories will need renaming. Comments especially welcome. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Shouldn't it be Category:Triphosphoric monoester hydrolases as classes of chemicals aren't normally title cased in WP ? DexDor (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How did you establish that that's the meaning ? DexDor (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Category:Enzymes by function contains a swath of these EC #.#.# categories. Do they all have name descriptors, or is the only way to describe some by the Enzyme Commission number? The current names are vague, to say the least. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most appear to have names. In going through the list, I found this entry, EC 3.1.2.24: transferred entry now EC 3.13.1.3, interesting. I think it adds support for not using this method of classification. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: The nom specifically asked for comments so I assume people would be ok with relisting to give the opportunity to have more discussion. It doesn't seem like enough conversation has taken place here to come up with a plan.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 19:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- rename to Category:Linear amidases per entry at List of EC numbers (EC 3) and usual syntax for enzymes. This term is also used in a couple of the articles. Mangoe (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know the correct form for the plural names here. So it this is it, I don't object to this. While it may mean nothing here, amides passes my spell checker, amidases does not. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmm... the IUBMB standard suggests that this ought to be Category:Hydrolases action on carbon-nitrogen bonds on than peptide bonds in linear amidines. Maybe we should opt for Category:Enzymes in the EC 3.5.1 group and stick a headnote on it explaining what that means. Mangoe (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yuch! If we went with the formal definition, then it is a quadruple intersection where one of the conditions is a not something. I have to wonder at this point if deletion may be the best option for the entire series. We already have a list... Vegaswikian (talk) 03:21, 30 January 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:WikiProject Medicine descendant projects
- 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. There was no consensus on whether the wider point of whether or not a WikiProject should have unfettered freedom to organise its own categories, but there a is a consensus that this is an appropriate way to group the large number of descendant categories of this project. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Most descendant projects are simply listed in the category of the parent project. Adding this middleman is overcategorization. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there certainly are enough contents that it makes sense from an organizational standpoint, so I don't see how this is overcategorization. Since most projects don't have many descendant projects, I doubt they'd need it, but there aren't just a handful here. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For an example of a project with a lot of descendants that doesn't seem to need this subcat, see Category:WikiProject Biology. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's really up to WikiProjects to decide how to manage their stuff. OVERCAT is irrelevant, because it's about cats in the main namespace. Also, unlike WP Biology, WPMED has a lot of subcats about WPMED. Mushing 16 other WikiProjects' cats into a list that already contains 9 WPMED-specific cats (for task forces, the collaboration, etc) is just going to make it harder to find the WPMED-specific cats. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I created the category 4.5 years ago to organize WPMED's categories, which were previously a mess - everything was dumped in Category:WikiProject Medicine. Having all of the descendant categories in a subcategory makes it easy for WPMED to determine which categories are part of WPMED, and which are dumped there for lack of a better categorization. All of the categories directly in Category:WikiProject Medicine WPMED directly looks after and are within its scope. Anything in Category:WikiProject Medicine descendant projects WPMED does not look after. (Excluding Category:WikiProject Hospitals, which the nominator just added to Category:WikiProject Medicine today - which is likely the impetus of this CfD.) All of WPMED's categories are neatly categorized into subcategories. Throwing all of the descendent categories into the main category just adds clutter. And surely 16 categories is enough to warrant a subcategory. Looking at Category:WikiProject Biology, their category structure is a mess. You shouldn't have to look through 23 unrelated categories to find which ones are actually relevant to the project (which is likely what you are looking for in a category named for the WikiProject - not descendent projects). --Scott Alter (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree that it's up to a WikiProject to manage its own stuff, but the choice of parent category is up to the children, as is the choice of wikiproject parents. I suspect that you made the choice for them when you created this category. Also, I think that 23 subcategories doesn't really qualify as a "mess". RockMagnetist (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When I made this category, I just moved all of the projects already in Category:WikiProject Medicine to Category:WikiProject Medicine descendant projects. The decision to place the "child" projects within WPMED was made either by the individual project's membership, or (more often) by other people trying to appropriately categorize the eponymous project categories. I would even argue that none of the projects in this category are actually children of WPMED. Because WPMED is the largest and most active of them all, it has subsumed the role of parent without actually being one. If you look at WPMED, the project does not list any children or parent projects - just "Related projects." Almost all of the former descendent projects have been converted to task forces and are now part of the project (see related projects prior to WPMED task forces creation). If the assigning of parentage is entirely necessary, all of these projects should be descendents of WP:Health (which is barely semi-active now, and had been inactive when this category was created) - not WPMED. And when I say "mess", I just mean the clutter of mixing WPMED-related articles and categories with the other projects' categories and pages. Members of one project are not necessarily interested in another, and should not have to go through a mix of content to find what you are looking for...thus leading to my related proposal linked below. --Scott Alter (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Scott, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#WikProject_category_categorization, you have proposed an intriguing idea that is relevant to this discussion. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If my proposal is followed through, this category would end up being not needed. However, that is for a different rationale - unrelated to this CfD. The two issues should be evaluated separately. This discussion will be moot if the proposal is enacted...but this CfD will likely close before the other discussion. --Scott Alter (talk) 22:35, 29 January 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:Influential Kenyans
- 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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Not an objective categorisation. PamD 13:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Presumably any uninfluential Kenyan would not be notable. Mangoe (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no clear definition of what makes someone "influential".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete purely subjective; I assume most Kenyans, like most Fooians in general, have influence on something or somewhat - even the butterfly effect??? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as subjective and not defining. --Qetuth (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete And which sources would define influence? Dimadick (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator and per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- "Influential" makews this a POV category. Both articles are already in "People from Nairobi", an appropriate Kenyan people category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 26 January 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.
Postal history by country
- 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 Category:Postal history of Slovenia, but merge all the others without prejudice to re-creating them if they can be populated with more than one article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:Postal history of Bhutan to all parents (Category:Postal history by country, Philately of Bhutan, History of Bhutan)
- Propose merging Category:Postal history of Cyprus to all parents
- Propose merging Category:Postal history of Estonia to all parents
- Propose merging Category:Postal history of Italy to all parents
- Propose merging Category:Postal history of Pakistan to all parents
- Propose merging Category:Postal history of Slovenia to all parents -- see discussion below on this one.
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, without prejudice to re-creation if related articles are found. Currently, these categories each only contain the like-named main article. (Note: parent categories are not uniform as some countries have a sub-cat "History of Foo by topic".) – Fayenatic London 13:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge for now. No reason to have this as one article cats where the article shares the cat name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge per nom seems appropriate as there is little chance of filling the sub cats. ww2censor (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. How many articles would be needed to keep a category? It's clear that these categories have the potential to grow. I see that the categories 'Postal history of Germany' and 'Postal history of Canada' have three members and have not been nominated. I've found a related article for 'Postal history of Slovenia' and can create another one (e.g. Museum of Post and Telecommunications),[1] so that this category may also be kept. Would this be ok? --Eleassar my talk 20:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine by me; that's why I added "without prejudice..." in the nomination. – Fayenatic London 21:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, as promised, I've created this article at Museum of Post and Telecommunications (hopefully it will be expanded through time). --Eleassar my talk 13:30, 30 January 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:Harz Mountain geography stubs
- 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 category and template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unproposed template and category for an area that is not an official administrative region. All of the subcategories here are already subcategorized under the official regions. Propose deleting category and template. All articles tagged with the template should be examined for better placement in the official regions. Dawynn (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; unofficial location stubs would mess up an well-laid out geographical stub tree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Quoting Harz: "The following districts (Kreise) fall wholly or partly within the Harz:" so for any 'partly' districts it would not be an appropriate parent anyway. --Qetuth (talk) 01:09, 25 January 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:Postage by country
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not needed; contains only 3 cats, of which 2 are already in the other one (Category:Postal systems by country). There is no need to upmerge to any parent either. – Fayenatic London 12:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Postage is a charge for sending a letter. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not clear what would go in this category that would not fall under the postal system cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 26 January 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:Six Flags rides
- 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 - C2C, matching standard for sort of category as used in others. The Bushranger One ping only 02:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Category doesn't just contain rides. Astros4477 (Talk) 02:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment This is not a single park, so I'm dubious this is an appropriate level of classification. Mangoe (talk) 02:35, 24 January 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:Cedar Fair rides
- 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 - C2C, matching standard for sort of category as used in others. The Bushranger One ping only 02:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Category doesn't just contain rides. Astros4477 (Talk) 02:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment This is not a single park, so I'm dubious this is an appropriate level of classification. Mangoe (talk) 02:35, 24 January 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:Films about dragons
- 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 procedural keep. The only editor to support the nominator's proposal to delete asked "how much about dragons must the film be?", which does not appear to be a fully resolved question. However, since the same editor noted that this question also applies to most "films about Foo" categories, there is no particular reason to single this category out from all the other "films about Foo" categories, or from the huge set of categories under Category:Works by topic.
Since Category:Works by topic is a huge category tree, a group nomination of such categories would be unwieldy. Editors who want to discuss appropriateness of this type of categorisation may want to consider opening a WP:RFC on the subject. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. I note that in any case, this category had not been tagged to indicate that it was the subject of a deletion discussion, so the result of this discussion cannot be considered to represent a consensus. I have therefore changed the result of this discussion to "procedural keep" ... and will administer a ((minnow)) to the nominator for this oversight. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Category:Films about dragons
- Nominator's rationale when I realized that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was in here, I just knew this category was over used. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is not in anyway about a dragon, it just happens to have a dragon as a character. We do not want to categorize films by all the characters who appear in them, so this is just a bad idea and should be deleted. The fact that that film is not in Category:Films about Dwarves, Category:Films about goblins and Category:Films about elves and even Category:Films about wizards, since we see multiple of all of those beings in the film and only one dragon, and since those other beings have arguably larger roles, just makes one wonder why this category exists. The good news is we do not have those categories, so I see no reason to have this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a justifiable sub-cat of Category:Dragons in popular culture, Category:Films about animals and Category:Works about dragons. There are also categories for Category:Elves in popular culture, Category:Dwarves in popular culture and Category:Wizards in film; the last two are currently under-populated, but they all look justifiable to me. This franchise should probably be in them all. As for goblins, Category:Fictional goblins which includes Orc (Middle-earth) may be enough. – Fayenatic London 13:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup—While I agree that the Hobbit films don't belong here as the films are not "about" Smaug, many of the contents are appropriate. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; suffers the same problem as most "films about Foo"; how much about dragons mus the film be? and what reliable source tells us that it is at least that much? Take The Hobbit (2012 film) which is in this category, but not in Category:Films about horses, despite the length of time horses appear is multiple times the length of time the dragon (singular) appears; so someone is making some subjective judgments - and in category space, that's not permitted (see WP:SUBJ and WP:POV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a good point. Is The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers in the Horses category, because that film has at least one horse with a specific name, maybe more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Fayenatic london. To address Carlossuarez46s concern, 4 different paragraphs in the plot section of the article in question mention a dragon, and the lead links to Dragon (Middle-earth), yet no mention of horses is given at all. To address JPLs question, again no mention of horses (or Dragons) in that article that I can see, but if it were to be added to the Horses category (which I am not suggesting) I think being largely set in Rohan (Middle-earth) would be a stronger argument than the clearly undefining "has a named horse". --Qetuth (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The characteristic is a defining one and should be based on reliable and verifiable sources supporting the description. Borderline cases -- if any exist -- should be addressed on the talk pages of any article in question, and the excuse is never a valid reason to delete a category. Alansohn (talk) 21:33, 27 January 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.