Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 12 June 14 >

June 13

[edit]

Category:Environmental protection

[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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This page was created by a blocked sockpuppet who had a bit of a history of creating pages that were not suitable. The category contains a real mishmash of articles that are suitably categorised elsewhere. If we carry on with the same theme the category could quite easily fill up with 1000s of article and subcats thereby diminishing its usefulness as a category. There is an Environmental protection article but it does not need a matching category. I have done a lot of work on the environment categories and I would struggle to fit this one into the established structure. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, maybe the categories could be merged in some way? --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2012 (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:Fictional Incans

[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. Courcelles 18:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only two redirects to the list of The Adventures of Tintin characters. Redirects generally need not be categorized within content categories, and there is no need for a content category which contains only redirects. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2012 (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:Latter Day Saint Wikipedians

[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. The Bushranger One ping only 21:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All userboxes associated with this category (which are actually in use) refer only to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest denomination within the larger Latter Day Saint movement. Our options are to either include members of other Latter Day Saint denominations within this category, or change the name accordingly. For a complete list of reasons as to why I would prefer that the name be changed, see Category talk:Latter Day Saint Wikipedians#Requested move. Steele W. FarnsworthTalk 17:59, 13 June 2012 (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:Alexia (condition)

[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. No prejudice against speedy renaming if the article is renamed. The Bushranger One ping only 22:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Alexia is the term used for acquired dyslexia, Alexia is a symptom of an acute brain injury such as a stroke, or a progressive illness or dementia. Alexia is not a condition rather a shared symptom of multiple conditions dolfrog (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2012 (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.

Women activists

[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. Courcelles 18:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the head category Category:Women activists and its other three national sub-categories. The hyphen being inserted into Asian-American is explained below in the recent discussion on the Speedy page. – Fayenatic London 12:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed nomination on Speedy page
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:?fD-Class articles

[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. The Bushranger One ping only 21:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete this category is supposed to be populated automatically using project banner templates. However no such template supports a ?fD class so the category is empty and unlikely to ever be populated. I also doubt that an ?fD will ever be created since it's pretty useless to assess pages headed to deletion. Pichpich (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not opposed to seeing this category deleted. If there was any kind of WP:BEFORE, we could have worked this out. Mostly because we're not determined to add the new tracking class as the current parameters are sufficiently robust. Pichpich, it would be good of you to consider using the project talk page if ever you have regards in the future. My76Strat (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's an interesting idea, though I admit that I lack the technical knowledge to determine how it could be implemented on talk pages, but I think that Wikipedia:Article alerts is a more straightforward system. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment deletion processes are called WP:XFD "XFD", so why is this "?FD" ? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When it was postulated as an additional tracking class the focus was on "questionable" articles. That followed with choosing the ? opposed to the X. Additionally the code displayed for unassessed is ??? so it seemed ?FD was reasonable. My76Strat (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are up "for deletion/discussion", it is still XFD, or does "FD" stand for something other than deletion/discussion? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This was not to be a category for articles already under a deletion discussion but rather for articles that could be nominated if not corrected. And we have abandoned the inclination to track it as an additional class. My76Strat (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2012 (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:WPRECP

[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 - already merged. The Bushranger One ping only 21:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge As far as I can tell, the two categories have the same intended scope and we usually use a WikiProject's full title to name the corresponding category. Pichpich (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2012 (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:Energy WikiProjects

[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. Dana boomer (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant and low popn. Downmerge into WikiProject Energy. Note that there is no actual WikiProject Energy development. A minor point - the naming does not follow convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:40, 13 June 2012 (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 Seinfeld

[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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I have recently converted this Project into a task force of WP:WikiProject Television. I wanted these requests to be speedy, but someone wanted inclusion of "Wikipedia" in the name. In this logic, Category:Friends task force and Category:Dexter task force must include "Wikipedia". George Ho (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2012 (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:High school sports associations in Illinois

[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. The Bushranger One ping only 22:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT/WP:OC#NARROW: single-article category with no hope of expansion Closeapple (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2012 (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:Europe-athletics-bio-stub

[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: no consensus; delayed till SFD merger is sorted out.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consensus has been reached to eliminate Stub types for deletion and move current discussion to categories for discussion. The original proposal is to delete this template and makes its associated category a container category only. The original discussion is at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2012/January/19 D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:19, 13 June 2012 (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:Superfund sites in New Jersey

[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, withdrawn by nominator after category tree established. While there is a 'support' !vote, that was placed before the expansion occured, and as it stands now there isn't a snowball's chance of there being a consensus to delete, hence closing per WP:BURO. The Bushranger One ping only 00:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is the only state with its own Superfund site category. The Category:Lists of Superfund sites in the United States is a better option than individual categories for each state. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on adding to the categories, is it alright then to remove the cfd templates off the categories?? --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have to wait for the Cfd to close. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:45, 16 June 2012 (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:US-painter-1800s-stub

[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: no consensus; delayed till SFD merger is sorted out.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are ten different stub templates that all direct to Category:American painters, 19th century birth stubs. The templates are:
  1. Template:US-painter-1800s-stub
  2. Template:US-painter-1810s-stub
  3. Template:US-painter-1820s-stub
  4. Template:US-painter-1830s-stub
  5. Template:US-painter-1840s-stub
  6. Template:US-painter-1850s-stub
  7. Template:US-painter-1860s-stub
  8. Template:US-painter-1870s-stub
  9. Template:US-painter-1880s-stub
  10. Template:US-painter-1890s-stub

I recommend merging all these stub templates into one for Template:US-painter-19th-century-stub or something similar. There are only about 120 articles affected by all of these templates and IMO we would be better off with one template for the century if that's how we are going to categorize them. Kumioko (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you oppose the deletion of these stub templates then that's but if you have a problem with the venue that consensus decided then that is not a valid reason to oppose deleting these and should be addressed in the discussion you started not here. Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not persuaded that the decision on venue has been fully thought-through, but even if editors do want to use CFD for stub template discussions, the practicalities need to be fixed. It is highly misleading to have a discussion headlined by the name of a category which has never existed, and which there is no proposal to create. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 16 June 2012 (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:US-painter-1900s-stub

[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: no consensus; delayed till SFD merger is sorted out.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Currently there are ten different Stub templates that all direct to Category:American painters, 20th century birth stubs. The templates are:
  1. Template:US-painter-1900s-stub
  2. Template:US-painter-1910s-stub
  3. Template:US-painter-1920s-stub
  4. Template:US-painter-1930s-stub
  5. Template:US-painter-1940s-stub
  6. Template:US-painter-1950s-stub
  7. Template:US-painter-1960s-stub
  8. Template:US-painter-1970s-stub
  9. Template:US-painter-1980s-stub
  10. Template:US-painter-1990s-stub

I recommend merging all these stub templates into one for Template:US-painter-20th-century-stub or something similar. There are only about 175 articles affected by all of these templates and IMO we would be better off with one template for the century if that's how we are going to categorize them. Kumioko (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion, same as above, I think the templates have to be nominated for deletion first, or else you won't have the right category to contain the stubs. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawing my vote, didn't realize that procedure had changed. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion for both of these proposals. This is not unheard of amongst stub categories. Basically, at the time, there are not enough articles for each of these templates to support individual categories (would need > 60 articles per template), so for now, they are upmerging to a century category. It is possible that each of these templates may grow enough to support individual categories. Even now, the text that appears on each tagged article is specific to the decade of the template, which would not be, if a single template was created covering the entire century. Dawynn (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see what your saying but to me, we are over burdening ourselves by forcing a more specific template to be used than necessary. I look at it like this, what do we gain from breaking it by decade? Not much. It doesn't help us categorize, it doesn't help us expand the articles, it just makes it more time consuming to tag them. I understand your reasoning but IMO we should create the split when its needed not in anticipation that some day we might need it. Kumioko (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that there was much support for taking on the stub stuff here. However since the move was apparently supported, you are now going to have a different culture with a different viewpoint chiming in. So a more typical question might be how do the categories generated by these templates improve navigation? A question in that direction might be, do editors really look for stub articles to flesh out in these smaller categories? Or are editors working with modern painters rather then painters in 10 year blocks? I know when I look at stub categories I gravitate to subcategories in an area that I might have an interest. Do editors actually focus on painters in groups of ten years based on birth years which has little to do with then they started painting or became notable? My personal feeling is that, if appropriate, grouping by style or medium would make more sense to me. But then this is not an area I'm normally involved with. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah I thought it would be better to send them to TFD since they are templates but it was decided that since the deal with categorization this was the best place for them. Good points. Kumioko (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose. The practicalities of the closure of SFD need to be sorted out, so I have opened a discusssion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Implementing_the_merger_of_SFD_to_CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you oppose the deletion of these stub templates then that's but if you have a problem with the venue that consensus decided then that is not a valid reason to oppose deleting these and should be addressed in the discussion you started not here. Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not persuaded that the decision on venue has been fully thought-through, but even if editors do want to use CFD for stub template discussions, the practicalities need to be fixed. It is highly misleading to have a discussion headlined by the name of a category which has never existed, and which there is no proposal to create. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace all with Template:US-painter-20thC-stub (easy enough with WP:AWB ... I'll volunteer if that's how the discussion closes) and delete, per nom. That title better matches the likes of {{US-composer-20thC-stub}} and {{France-painter-20thC-stub}}. Currently, the ten templates are used on a total of 163 articles, which comes to an average of 16.3 articles per decade—far below the 60-article threshhold for creating a new stub category. More important for me, however, is the fact that I concur with Vegaswikian's assessment that categorizing biographical stubs by decade of birth is a less-than-optimal approach. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge to a single template per Black Falcon. I'll also say to not allow recreation but if and when subcategories are needed use a media related type of structure since the by years is not likely helpful in addressing the expansion of these stub articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion - I'm willing to support a category merge. These templates are severely underused, in my experience - there are far more than 175 articles on which they may be used. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:03, 23 June 2012 (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/2012_June_13&oldid=1091637883"