Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 21

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, for now. The carnivore category seems like it deserves to stay, given that there are analogous categories for Category:Herbivorous animals and Category:Detritivores. All of these would need more contents to deserve continued existence, in my opinion. Category:Predators is more suspect, as it is a subset of all carnivores. But it hasn't been nominated for merging. If someone wants to continue the reverse-merge argument, please nominate it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Carnivorous animals to Category:Predators

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Strong overlap in meaning. Reverse merge is an option as there is also Category:Herbivorous animals. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as is. They are not the same, despite any overlap. Carnivorous animals may be either predators or scavengers. See the relevent WP articles. Hmains (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as Hmains points out, merging to Carnivorous animals is the only option that makes sense. I'm sort of surprised to see how thinly populated these are. For now, I'd rather keep both alive and see how they evolve. Pichpich (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. These categories are not large enough at present to justify both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2011 (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.

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Scheduled human spaceflights to Category:Future human spaceflights

Nominator's rationale: To match parent category Category:Future spaceflights and per this CfD discussion. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 17:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I noticed that this includes Category:Scheduled manned Soyuz missions which only has one entry. That one and all of the other Soyuz flights are directly listed in the parent category. So maybe if the parent is renamed, this one should just be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Scheduled manned Soyuz missions is now empty since the only entry was for a flight already flown. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after conversion to template along with Category:Future spaceflights. I just went through these to clean out some of the ones that have already flown. The category is a maintenance issue that would be better dealt with as a template that broke this stuff out by year. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, the template is available {{tl:User:Vegaswikian/Template:Future spaceflights}} if there are any comments. In creating the template, the category was cleaned up to remove flights already flown, programs that are not actually flights and proposals which are not flights.Vegaswikian (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even given the maintance problem of this category? I'll note that after my cleanup while creating the template, the parent category is already out of date. These categories are maintenance nightmares. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2011 (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.

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 to Category:Novell NetWare. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Netware to Category:NetWare

Nominator's rationale: I request the renaming of this category, because the proper spelling for Novell's network operating systems is NetWare, not Netware. Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Novell NetWare, as the main article of the category is Novell NetWare. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 18:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per Armbrust to match the main article; no good reason for a different name Hmains (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Armbrust -- always was called Novell NetWare, it says so on the box over there on my shelf. Indeed, I wrote RFC 1552, and Novell didn't like breaking their monopoly one bit!
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Armburst.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2011 (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.

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. These two concepts are not the same, though they are regrettably inexact. Perhaps some hatnotes are in order.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Literature by theme to Category:Literature by genre

Nominator's rationale: The concepts of genre and theme may well be different, however, based on the existing subcategories, it doesn't seem to be especially helpful, since the sorting seems to be pretty arbitrary (e.g. "Prison writings" or "Philatelic literature" don't seem to be clearly and obviously different from themes as such, or why "African diaspora literature" is here while "Postcolonial literature" is there, etc.). Adam78 (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've found in the past that "genre" does get applied very inexactly, in just the way you point out. But I think the answer is to stick to our guns and recategorize things from genre to topic or theme, as need be. It's what I've tried to do in the doc film category, over the years. So regretfully, oppose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2011 (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.

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. For paralleling the Jesus category, if nothing else. Clearly "attributed to" is better than "of," since that makes no claim as to whether the miracles actually happened. This is a thinly populated category, and those who wish to keep it might do well to fill it with more articles.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Miracles attributed to Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As overcategorization or at the very least Rename Category:Miracles of Muhammad per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are dozens of miracles attributed to Muhammad in the literature, so the category, which was created to parallel Category:Miracles attributed to Jesus, has a potential to grow. The title "Miracles of Muhammad" might raise POV concerns. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- There's no reason to start removing categories merely because they are small. Better to work on adding more articles.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Al-Andalusi. Tachfin (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The overcat rules clearly state we should delete categories because they are small. If there are other articles that can be placed here than that is why we wait a week to go through with a delete, so people can find the articles. The fact that 8 days after nomination it still only has 2 articles seems to suggest it is overly small to be worth keeping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• In principle Keep -- Perhaps the significance is that they were so few in contrast to Jesus. If it had just one item, I would have wanted to delete. An alternative might be to merge with a parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2011 (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.

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. The underlying principle of the nomination has been invalidated, since someone has created the article.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burials at Symonds Street Cemetery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a bit of a test nomination. I'm curious to know: it is appropriate to categorize people by burial place when the specific burial place has no article in Wikipedia? If the burial place is of low notability, it seems strange to categorize people for being buried there. In this case, there is no article about Symonds Street Cemetery. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I believe this cemetery would meet the GNG, for example: [1]. XLerate (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more interesting question, though, is what if it didn't? (This one may well meet the GNG, but it does seem back-to-front to create a category before an article about it exists.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if the article existed before the category. I had a search for cemetery in the AFD archives, it appears opinion is divided as to whether cemeteries are inherently notable (like schools). XLerate (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We have no article on such burials and this is not notable. If we could categorize everything by stuff that happened but we don't have an article, how are we to prove we are right?Curb Chain (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference for where a person is buried goes in their biography. XLerate (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the individual burial sites have no articles.Curb Chain (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep this and all other burial by cemetery categories There is no requirement anywhere in WP that categories must have a main article in order to exist and many categories do not. Categories are for navigation to articles and to other categories--that is all. There is no reason to single out those people who happen to buried in cemeteries and delete their category while keeping all the categories for people who are buried at other places, such as cathedrals. See Category:Burials by place for a full picture of the situation. Hmains (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there has been a strong consensus that if an article does not exist for a record producer or record label, we should not create categories that categorize albums by being produced by that producer or released by that label. So the underlying premise of your comment is flawed—incorrect, I would say. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note the article has now been created. XLerate (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fact that no corresponding article exists is definitely not a good reason to delete. Many articles on perfectly fine topics are absent from Wikipedia and we must avoid the circular reasoning according to which a topic is not notable because it's not on Wikipedia and therefore doesn't deserve an article on Wikipedia. I certainly wouldn't claim that all cemeteries are notable in the WP sense but I suspect most because they so often are a subject of interest to local historians. That doesn't necessarily translate into easily accessible references but before I consider deleting a category of this form, I would at least need to see a convincing demonstration that the cemetery is hopelessly obscure. Pichpich (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Extra note regarding Good Ol’factory's comment about creating the category before the article. It's certainly doesn't appear to be the natural order but it's a rather harmless oddity. Wikipedia is a work in progress and things aren't always built in the order that seems most sensible. For instance I've always found it amusing that Pyongyang was created nine months after Mariah Carey. Of course there's no link between the two articles but my point is simply that we should take the long view and be patient and optimistic. Assuming that a cemetery is sufficiently notable, we expect that ten years from now, somebody at some point will have created Foo Cemetery, someone else will have created Category:Burials at Foo Cemetery and many others will have populated the category. We expect things to happen in that order but if they don't we shouldn't destroy the partial work on the category. The existence of the category is an incentive for the creation of the article. Pichpich (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all I concur with Pichpich. And in my opinion, this is quite different to record labels or producers. From my observations, in the music world, a lot of the work is being done by marketing companies on behalf of the label, for obvious promotional reasons and not because something is inherently notable. Most cemeteries, on the other hand, would be notable (I accept that some may not be notable), and the work here is being done by WP editors in good faith. I see no reason to undo this work, even if things are being done in the 'wrong order', but I can see the rationale for being quite strict about sticking to the right order in the music world. Schwede66 17:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some good points are being made, I think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not see how location of burial is a notable trait about someone. We do not categorize by location of birth, it seems even less relevant to their biography to make classifications based on what occured after they died.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well, if that's the case, why don't you put Category:Burials by cemetery up for deletion? And good luck with that. Schwede66 02:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnpacklambert also makes a good point here. If someone is buried in a place and being buried in that place is unusual, I can somewhat understand categorizing by burial place because it's akin to an "award" or "honour" of sorts—I'm think about examples like Category:Burials at Westminster Abbey, and the like. However, categorizing individuals for being buried at a garden-variety public cemetery does seem to be quite a trivial form of categorization. John is right to point out that it's somewhat comparable to categorizing by birthplace, and there has long been agreement that this should not be done. Many of these burial categories were created by sockpuppets of Pastorwayne, who was not exactly adept at determining when and when not to categorize by a characteristic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't it be fair to say that once you've got a bunch of notable people buried in a cemetery, the cemetery itself gains notability? If that logic is followed, then it would appear to make sense to look for this, and categorisation would appear to be a good tool to do so. Schwede66 03:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps yes, given the relatively permanent nature of headstones/cemetery monuments, etc. If we do compare it to birthplace, it's not quite the same, since a birthplace usually doesn't have a permanent monument. But still one could ask—would a hospital become notable if it was the birthplace of several notable people, and would we categorize by that birthplace? Probably not. Does the monument make all the difference then? Or it because that's where the body or its remains will be, presumably forever?, whereas a person leaves his birthplace behind? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Place of birth isn't such a good comparison, because the cemetery is almost never the place of death (Thomas Henderson (New Zealand) for example). I don't think the argument "only exclusive cemeteries can have a burial category" holds water either, we don't categorise alumni only for Ivy League universities, but the garden variety ones as well. Some of the references discuss people who are buried at the cemetery as a group:

• Prominent individuals laid to rest in the cemetery include...
• Long forgotten chaps like....
• cemetery holds the grave of Captain William Hobson and many other well-known New Zealanders

XLerate (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To me, the comparison to school alumni is probably a good one, because I don't think either burial place or school attended are defining, but good luck trying to convince the fans of the categories of that fact. These things would be much better dealt with by lists. Most of the early examples of both were created by users who didn't give a fig of difference between verifiability and what is a defining characteristic, and the sheer mass of categories made the trees gain lives of their own. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:38, 30 September 2011 (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.

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Redirects from quotations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overly specific. I can't see this growing beyond four, ever. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I can imagine that a number of sayings or slogans that aren't quite article-worthy are still worth redirecting. We have articles on it's the economy stupid and I have a dream, for instance, but I can that prior to those articles being expanded, redirecting them would have been appropriate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this link not a reasonable alternative? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Maintenance categories are far more effective at this, plus I always add them with HotCat rather than templates, so "What Links Here" wouldn't work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does annoy me when people (especially you :P) add the categories with HotCat but there are other problems with "What links here" that prevent it being an accurate tool for measuring the transclusions. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as creator) – Redirect categories can become huge and I feel it is easier to keep track of things when they're diffused. It is highly likely that there are many, many more redirects from quotations that are not in the category. Also, it's a subcategory of Category:Quotations. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- populated by {{R from quotation}}, assuming all other R from populate categories. But of course, Vegaswikian has an excellent point. Make sure the category is only populated by the template! Not by HotCat.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There may be only a few redirects, but I am sure more can be added. Justin's point that such quotations at times will be made into articles of their own also suggests that measuring the current size is not all that useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2011 (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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Families in The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (as nom); probably also unreferencedCurb Chain (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2011 (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.

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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:BTAS screenshots and pictures to Category:Batman: The Animated Series screenshots and pictures

Nominator's rationale: per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename (obviously) ambiguousCurb Chain (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2011 (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.

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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:TNBA screenshots and pictures to Category:The New Batman Adventures screenshots and pictures

Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename (obviously) ambiguousCurb Chain (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2011 (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.

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: upmerge. Courcelles 08:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modern Buddhist writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme for Category:Buddhist writers by period and no definition of what makes someone "modern". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment We do not delete and leave orphans; we upmerge. Hmains (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Buddhist writers. The article Modern Buddhism suggests that this is either involving Buddhist modernism or Buddhism in the "West". However a look at the category suggests it is just being used for Buddhist writers who lived after 1900 or so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge as previous comment. We do not like "modern" categories, as the term is imprecise. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2011 (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.

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Back to Mine albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of possible entries; they just haven't been added. Back to Mine: Adam Freeland is the 21st such release. Gnu andrew (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It now has nine entries. Gnu andrew (talk) 06:15, 21 September 2011 (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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Press Your Luck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even if you added Whammy! The All-New Press Your Luck, Michael Larson and each series' respective hosts, it'd be a little too thin for a category. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:06, 21 September 2011 (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.

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Incredible Hulk (1977 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only five articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- WP:OC#SMALL clearly states: ...unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme.... There are currently 272 such categories in Category:Categories named after American television series. It's not like categories are expensive.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response There are thousands of American television programs--are you suggesting that we create thousands of categories with one to four articles each? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 25 September 2011 (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.

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. Whatever its content now, I think it's reasonable to imagine it will be as full as the other X Factor categories very shortly.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The X Factor (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only three articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You're jumping the gun a bit. The first series hasn't even started yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnu andrew (talk • contribs)
  • That sounds back to front to me: creating the category before the series begins is jumping the gun a bit. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it was unique, I'd agree. But there are existing X Factor categories for other countries (e.g. Category:The X Factor (UK)) so it's highly likely this will become more populated very soon. Gnu andrew (talk) 06:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Then recreate it when the material exists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response Material exists now. Exactly what harm is this category doing? (and I didn't create it BTW) Gnu andrew (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • No category, no matter how inappropriate, really causes that much "harm": categories are a relatively minor part of WP and a single category very likely goes largely unnoticed. That's why there's WP:NOHARM. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- WP:OC#SMALL clearly states: ...unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme.... There are currently 272 such categories in Category:Categories named after American television series. It's not like categories are expensive.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overly small. There is no consensus that just because more than one article exists on a TV show it should have a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Category:Categories named after foo is not the sort of parent category to which the exceptions in WP:OC#SMALL apply (otherwise any eponymous category would be justified). Category:Categories named after foo is a category of categories, not a category of articles. Occuli (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Probably not enough in this case, and anyway one of the three articles now categorized is an inappropriate performer by performance categorization. I agree that this is not really the sort of thing meant by an "overall scheme" in WP:OC#SMALL. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 4 October 2011 (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.

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: upmerge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Petrochemistry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Possible category for petrochemicals, but we already have Category:Petroleum products. (Fairly recently; about 2 weeks) created category by an editor unable to follow consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to upmerge, the creator decategorized the article Petrochemistry (which quite possibly should be moved or merged elsewhere) not to have categories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to all parents. We are unlikely to need sub-cats for this or to be able to populate it further. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2011 (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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Top-importance Orissa districts articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Top-importance Orissa cities articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Top-importance Cuttack articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Top-importance Balasore articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Top-importance Bhubaneswar articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Very small and in some cases empty categories that are unlikely to be populated further. There are no WikiProjects or task forces dedicated to districts of Orissa and no template that categorizes articles along those lines. These categories will only create clutter and confusion. Pichpich (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as/per nomCurb Chain (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Currently the project is inactive. You can delete them. --Srikant Kedia 12:49, 21 September 2011 (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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works about guerrilla warfare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Films about guerrilla warfare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Novels about guerrilla warfare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: User:Stefanomione's previous category for "guerrilla warfare" doc films was deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_29#Category:Documentary_films_about_guerrilla_warfare. So he's creating a more general Works category, without reposting the doc one (which might result in a speedy). I guess the central issue remains: creating a container cat that includes subcats like Category:Vietnam War films are bound to include lots of articles that aren't actually about guerrilla warfare, even though the war featured a lot of it. An alternative to deleting this would be to prune it vigorously: turn it from a container cat to one where only articles and cats for works that actually address guerrilla warfare are included, such as Stefanomione's pre-existing Category:Guerrilla warfare handbooks and manuals and his new parent, Category:Non-fiction books about guerrilla warfare, which I am not nominating for deletion: they both seem to be accurately applied. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The contents are too broad to be narrowed like this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2011 (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.