Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 3 March 5 >

March 4[edit]

Category:People from Bender[edit]

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. — ξxplicit 00:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Bender to Category:People from Bender, Moldova
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating to match main article Bender, Moldova and Category:Bender, Moldova. Bender as a place name is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2010 (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:Images with a rationale but unknown copyright status[edit]

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. — ξxplicit 00:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Images with a rationale but unknown copyright status (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty, redundant to Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status, the category that the common template {{Di-no license}} categorizes in. It even contains the shortcut and the category tracker for the "Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status" category. The Evil IP address (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2010 (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:Ford 300[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ford 300 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We've renamed all the NASCAR race categories to categories based on their racetracks, but this one's a bit different. All the ones we renamed were part of the Sprint Cup Series, the main NASCAR circuit. This is part of the Nationwide Series, which is (kind of) a minor league circuit. None of the other Nationwide races have categories, so this one doesn't need one either. (It's already in Category:NASCAR Nationwide Series races, so we don't need a rename.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. With only two articles it is scarcely needed. Insert optional quip about Ford 500 here.- choster (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree, no need for the category here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:12, 9 March 2010 (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:Majority Leaders of the United States House of Representatives[edit]

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. Useful suggestions for reorganising categorisation in this area have been made, however at this stage their implementation is beyond the scope of Cfd. --Xdamrtalk 16:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Right now, there's a category for Majority leaders (which has 21 articles) and a category for Minority leaders (which has 2 articles). I suggest merging the two into one category which could also allow whips to be included. Thus we'd have a more inclusive category. Many Reps go from Whip, to leader, to majority, back to minority, and it makes better sense to capture that in one category. Let's leave Speakers separate, though. —Markles 11:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS Just spotted the minority leaders in a separate nomination below, so will merge the two discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 4 March 2010 (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:ShipsByWikipedian7878[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:ShipsByWikipedian7878 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, per numerous precedents against wikipedians creating categories for pages in their own userspace. I appreciate the desire of an editor to keep track of all their subpages, but the job can be dine quite simply without a category by using Special:Prefixindex. In this case the link is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Wikipedian7878&namespace=2 . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 4 March 2010 (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:Educationists by nationality[edit]

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. Will manually populate shortly. — ξxplicit 00:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Educationists by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a redirect to Category:Educationists that is supposed to remain empty. However, the template {{Fooian fooers}} contains an "#ifexist" clause that automatically populates this category if it exists, and as a result Category:Irish educationists has been placed in this category incorrectly, even though it is also in the redirect target category. Deleting this category will eliminate the duplicate categorization and allow the template to function as intended. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I guess this is my fault, because I spent a few hours yesterday adding {{Fooian fooers}} (or its cousins in Category:Wikipedia classification templates) to all sub-acts of Category:Irish people by occupation, and it was me who added the "#ifexist" clause to {{Fooian fooers}}. I still think that the "#ifexist" clause was an improvement, because it removed a pointless redlink from many categories, but I hadn't considered this side-effect. However, I don't think that the existence of one link to a redirect is a good enough reason to remove that useful redirect. A permalink to a redirect is ugly, but I think that not having the redirect is likely to impede navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'By century', anyone? Gender? Occuli (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2010 (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:Vs. (series)[edit]

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:
--Xdamrtalk 17:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Vs. (series) to Category:Capcom series
Propose merging Category:VS. Capcom series to the renamed category.
Nominator's rationale: Not quite too sure what to name this category, but its current name is very ambiguous. Perhaps rename to Category:Capcom series or something similar, but keeping as is would be very obscure. — ξxplicit 06:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:06, 4 March 2010 (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.

CAT:CSD subcats[edit]

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 all. — ξxplicit 00:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Reason: To match Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all per nominator, for consistency, and to clarify that these are not necessarily pages which "will" be speedy deleted; they are "candidates", because they appear in these categories when tagged by an editor who asserts that zie believes the fit the criteria. They won't be speedy-deleted unless an admin agrees with the nomination, and they won't be speedy-deleted in there is an objection. Note that this discussion is a followup to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 28#Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to more clearly describe the contents of the categories. Alansohn (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use "Wikipedia" in the naming of whatever names are chosen, since these are maintenance categories. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - more descriptive, slightly less bitey, and shows the hierarchy better. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. If we were to add Wikipedia to the name, and I don't have any particular feeling on the matter, then we should also do it to the main category at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. It's less of an issue than it might be, since these are hidden categories. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and per BrownHairedGirl. Anything to get rid of that annoying "This category is being considered for renaming" template from the pages. But seriously, for the sake of consistency, for the fact that all the candidates for speedy deletion will have uniform prefixes in the categorization. Valley2city‽ 21:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per Nom. I'm all for standardization, and I agree it seems a little more friendly towards newbies. Avicennasis @ 05:47, 10 March 2010 (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:Knowles family[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Knowles family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category of four family members per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Articles adequately (at least!) and consistently link to articles of other family members. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2010 (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:FOX network shows[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:FOX network shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary redirect —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Debresser. Redirects are cheap, and there is no claim that this one causes any problems. Mild WP:TROUTing to the nominator for not a) not merging two very similar nominations, and b) not withdrawing this when there was no support for deleting any of the other redirects. It seems an unfortunate use of admin time for these two harmless redirects to be relisted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems like a perfect example of where a redirect would be useful, since the Fox network always capitalizes FOX when it prints it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2010 (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:FOX network affiliates[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:FOX network affiliates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary redirect —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Debresser. Redirects are cheap, and there is no claim that this one causes any problems. Mild WP:TROUTing to the nominator for not a) not merging two very similar nominations, and b) not withdrawing this when there was no support for deleting any of the other redirects. It seems an unfortunate use of admin time for these two harmless redirects to be relisted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems like a perfect example of where a redirect would be useful, since the Fox network always capitalizes FOX when it prints it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2010 (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:Districts of the Constitutional Province of Callao[edit]

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 today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Districts of the Constitutional Province of Callao to Category:Districts of Callao Region
Nominator's rationale: Category:Districts of Peru is subcategorized by region first and by province second. Since the Constitutional Province of Callao is the only province in Callao Region (see Callao and Provinces of Peru), I think that the category should be at the level of the region. Also, as "Callao Region" is a proper noun and should not, therefore, be preceded by a definite article, I have dropped the "the" in the proposed name. If there is no objection to this second change, then I will nominate the approximately 200 similarly-titled Peru-related categories in the next day or two. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2010 (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:Provinces of the Callao Region[edit]

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 today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Provinces of the Callao Region to Category:Provinces of Peru
Nominator's rationale: The Callao Region of Peru contains only one province, the Constitutional Province of Callao (see Callao and Provinces of Peru). In light of this, and since the article Callao is already in Category:Callao Region, this added category layer seems to be unnecessary. On the other hand, its existence ensures that Category:Provinces of Peru contains subcategories for all 25 regions of Peru. (Category creator and WikiProject Peru notified using Template:Cfd-notify)
At this time, I am neutral, and merely want to bring the issue here for discussion. By the way, any thoughts as to whether articles about provinces of Peru should be categorized into the regional subcategories only or into both Category:Provinces of Peru and the regional subcategories? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2010 (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 Antarctica Highways[edit]

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 all the categories. Any other relevant page needs to be taken to other deletion processes. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:WikiProject Antarctica Highways to Category:Wikipedia humor
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: WikiProject Antarctica Highways is a joke project, yet it wields the category structure of a full project; in effect, we have 21 categories to categorize just one page: a userspace template. I have no objection to the project page itself, but I think that the categories perhaps take things a bit too far. They are placed in other, legitimate assessment categories and are indistinguishable from valid WikiProject categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2010 (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 Antarctica Highways participants[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WikiProject Antarctica Highways participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a userbox-populated user category for a joke WikiProject and, as such, does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration between users. Displaying the userbox is quite fine, but the category serves as nothing more than a "bottom-of-the-page" notice and is merely a byproduct of the userbox. The category should be deleted as overcategorization on the basis of a characteristic that is primarily humorous or satirical, and per consistent precedent for deletion of similar categories grouping users by defunct or non-existent project. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abolish project and delete user category and related user box template. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get rid of the whole thing. Debresser (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_4&oldid=1144514023"