< April 25 April 27 >

April 26

Category:WikiProject PlayStation articles

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 on may 2. Kbdank71 13:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:WikiProject PlayStation articles to Category:WikiProject PlayStation
Nominator's rationale: It is not just articles, and it will be the same as all of the other VG WikiProjects. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2008 (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:Z Fighters

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. Kbdank71 13:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Z Fighters to Category:Dragon Ball superhuman characters
Nominator's rationale: merge to Category:Dragon Ball superhuman characters, then delete, as well the redirects which link there. There is no WP:SOURCE that qualifies or asertains what a Dragon Ball character needs to be categorized as a "Z-Fighter" (what is "Z-Fighter" anyway?). This probably adapted from fan-made terminology, and there is nothing which implies Akira Toriyama or Toei Animation having anything to do with the idea of "Z-Figher". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:08, 26 April 2008 (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:Carrie Underwood

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Carrie Underwood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a singer (one of my favorites too); overcategorization per WP:OCAT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:14, 26 April 2008 (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:British Rail Class 66

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, doesn't look like the articles will be deleted. Kbdank71 13:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:British Rail Class 66 to Category:British Rail diesel locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Following on from discussion of other British Rail loco categories, below. This one contains pages about the sub-types of British Rail Class 66, which are adequately linked together by ((Class 66 subclasses)). BencherliteTalk 14:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't actually think it's needed. The sub class articles are all stubs, most of which is repeated in the main article, so are they needed? I will wait ~5 minutes for response then AfD BG7 14:35, 26 April 2008 (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:Korean astronauts

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. Kbdank71 13:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Korean astronauts to Category:South Korean astronauts
Nominator's rationale: The two astronauts in this category are South Korean. AFAIK North Korea doesn't even have a space program. PC78 (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2008 (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:Local Government Areas of Darwin

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Local Government Areas of Darwin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is over categorization. It can only have four entries and even some of these are possibly not considered as being in Darwin. All are already in the wider parent category at Category:Local Government Areas of the Northern Territory and that is all that is needed. This category should just be deleted. Bduke (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2008 (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:Argentine ministers

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. Kbdank71 13:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Argentine ministers to Category:Government ministers of Argentina
Nominator's rationale: Follows WP standard for government ministers. Martín (saying/doing) 09:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2008 (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:Gambrinus liga

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, main article at Gambrinus liga. Kbdank71 13:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gambrinus liga to Category:Czech Liga
Nominator's rationale: Per the Portuguese Liga case, drop the sponsor name, and more common outside Czech Republic. Matthew_hk tc 08:14, 26 April 2008 (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:Diesel Locomotives of Ireland

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 fix capitalization for now, as there seems to be a desire to rename the others to "diesel locomotives of foo". Another nomination of the others is probably in order. Kbdank71 13:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Diesel Locomotives of Ireland to Category:Irish diesel locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match form used by other categories in parent. Fix capitalization error. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2008 (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:British Rail Class 57

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British Rail Class 57 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Single entry category. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:27, 26 April 2008 (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:British Rail Class 37

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British Rail Class 37 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: the only page in it is also up for deletion BG7 00:27, 26 April 2008 (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:Marc Chagall

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 until a navigational hub like a template is created. Kbdank71 13:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Marc Chagall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Chagall was a great artist, but no single artist deserves an entire category. This one is all muddled anyhow, very poorly organized. --Wassermann (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except, as explained above, it doesn't (yet). Johnbod (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So fix the article by inserting the appropriate links instead of advocating the keeping of an unnecessary category. Otto4711 (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have prodded one of the articles, if that makes you any happier. I can't be bothered to work the others in to the article, but arguably the nom should have done so before, if he wanted my support anyway. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I can't be bothered" doesn't strike me as a particularly strong justification for the category. Otto4711 (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument for deletion will not apply until someone fixes it. Nominators of such categories are often too lazy, in my view, in checking whether the article actually does function as the famous "navigational hub" before nominating. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article is a navigational hub, because links to other relevant articles are included within it. Expecting a category to do the job of an article not only would lead to the creation of innumerable unnecessary eponymous categories but promotes laziness amongst Wikipedia editors, who should be including appropriate wikilinks in articles. Otto4711 (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before Otto4711 begins his inevitable process of creating his own definitions and his interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines, let me affirm that by any reasonable standard, of course, an article cannot be a "navigational hub". That's why we have categories. Ward3001 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And templates. But with relative few articles, and a rather short main article, I am happy that the article should be the hub, but it doesn't yet fulfill this fuunction, which the nominator should have checked before nominating. We certainly wouldn't want all the "what links here" stuff in the category - that list is available at a click of the mouse anyway. Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Ward, I certainly am sorry that your bitterness about another CFD has spilled over into this CFD, but I am afraid that your insistence that an article can't serve as a navigational hub is unsupported by Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia guidelines and common sense. Otto4711 (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'm not bitter, but I agree with Roundhouse here. An article is too disorganized to serve as a navigational hub. It's like saying a supermarket is a dinner menu. I can sometimes buy the argument for a template serving the purpose better, but not an article.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2008 (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:Actors who have studied Ballet

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Actors who have studied Ballet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete: Nominator's rationale - No indication as to why this should be something worth categorizing. Why actors? Why ballet? Sets precedent to create any "(profession) who studied (subject)" category. At minimum needs a rename to fix "Ballet" being capitalized. VegaDark (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator notified with ((subst:cfd-notify))
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:Burials at Fair Haven Union Cemetery

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 to save information until wider discussion can be held. Kbdank71 13:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Burials at Fair Haven Union Cemetery to Category:Burials in Connecticut
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single entry category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but look at (first one) James Cannon Jr "buried at Richmond, Virginia" (sic). This is not to be encouraged. None of the Virgina 3 give a cemetery. Johnbod (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many things that the Victorians valued (the extensive use of calling cards, or imprisoning people for sodomy, for instance) that most of us no longer think are of the utmost importance. Simply because something is mentioned in a standard biography does not mean that it is a defining characteristic of the person. We do not except in fairly extraordinary circumstances (e.g. Category:Wives of Henry VIII) categorize people as spouses of others yet spouses are almost invariably mentioned in biographical articles. Many biographies mention grade school attendance but not even the most hardcore alumni proponent has to the best of my knowledge suggested establishing a grade school alumni category structure. Otto4711 (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spouses are normally caught by the "small and unlikely to expand" rule. Now, if our coverage of the females in the Saudi royal family were better .... Actually looking at Category:Saudi royal family, some "sons of" sub-cats would not be a bad idea. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point still stands that just somethign is biographical it doesn't autimatically make it categorizable. Otto4711 (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More