January 7
Category:Compound fruit
- 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) 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Accessory fruit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Compound fruit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Relisting after partial restoration of category contents. There are more articles that were deleted out of process before nomination, but these should give enough to judge the category's merits.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Original nominator's rationale: Delete. There has long been a circumscription problem with Category:Fruit, which recently was brought up at WT:PLANTS. However, this is not the remit of the project, and the issue with the twin use of the category for fruit as edible things and fruit as botanical objects lead to the split of the latter into the newcategory:fruit morphology. These two categories were odd hybrids of the two concepts, and inappropriate too (from a culinary point of view, which is now the relevant one for Category:Fruit, the botanical nature of the fruit is irrelevant, especially since many vegetable are botanical fruits). Their contents have thus been removed to either Category:Fruit orcategory:fruit morphology, and they are no longer needed at all. this does not affect the issue of what specific species should be in Category:Fruit. Circéus (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reconstitute for discussion -- CFD rules require categories not to be emptied before discussion. The noms reference appears to be to WT:PLANTS#Tree and fruit categories, where there has indeed been a discussion. With two now-empty categories, we can presumably expect automatic deletion in due course. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad for not being aware of new procedures. I haven't really done much here in years. Circéus (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the Accessory fruit category back in 2005 and think this should just be deleted per the nomination. Looks like someone has a better idea of how to categorize things now. Thanks for your work in making the site better, and I really wish you didn't have to go through all this bureaucracy just to re-categorize things. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I objected to the out of process emptying. However, I am not a botanist and do not feel qualified to comment. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:31, 10 January 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:People educated at Bretton Woods Community School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Unpopulated category, (only two names) and highly likely never to be populated - only two people not notable for their own wikipedia articles, it seems an internal to The Voyager School is plenty without the cat - This cat as it stands is two redirected names 1, 2 pointing to another redirect. Youreallycan (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Youreallycan (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- This contains two redirects both pointing to the same article, on a murder victim. The practice with alumni categoriues for merged institutions is that the alumni of the old one are treated as attending the successor, but here there is really no content, so that it seems hardly appropriate to rename it or merge it to Category:People educated at The Voyager School or whatever its alumni category may be. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:27, 10 January 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:Old Deaconians
- 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:People educated at Deacon's School. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Old Deaconians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This one is connected to the one above and also might need consideration for deletion. Category seems of little possible benefit and created primarily to add to a person that was convicted of a crimes redirect page. in my experiance, it's not usual to create cats for two or three people for al the schools they went to when a internal link will clearly suffice. Only four names and none of them cited as "old deaconians" - Deacon's School#Notable_alumni - was the section User:Shakehandsman added the person convicted of murder Ahmed Ali Awan, as you see there are six uncited names there - Shakehandsman added the murderer in this diff - the addition was removed by User:Tedder in this diff a few hours later. Youreallycan (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is the wrong solution to the problem you've identified. There are half a dozen entries identified in the text who could be members of this category. The Ali link you identify appears to be mis-categorised as its not about that person. Be bold and fix the categories of the referring pages. Ephebi (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or rename to Category:Former students of Deacon's School (Peterborough), since the school article notes confusion with another school. And this is not about former residents of Deacon, Indiana. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to Category:People educated at Deacon's School to use a clear, non-jargon form that identifies the category for those not versed in the terms; this particular form for UK schools has been established across multiple CFDs. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't a cat need a decent chance of being populated? Is it normal to have a cat for any school with two or three people in them, this school doesn't even exist anymore, it was knocked down so the chances of more people being added to the cat is pretty limited. What are the benefits of a cat with two tree or four people in them that an internal link and a cited addition ot the article doesn't suffice ? Youreallycan (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The school was demolished less than five years ago so there's a strong likeliehood of more of its output reaching notability, to say nothing of expansion as and when other relevant articles are spotted and added. WP:SMALLCAT allows for small categories that are part of a developed overall scheme and alumni categories are one of the most common such cases. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Timrollpickering. We have alumni categories for many schools. In this case the Old Fooian format is too obscure, so that I cannot support the poresent name. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Timrollpickering and per much recent precedence. Occuli (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:People educated at Deacon's School to fit the standard, clear, jargon-free format. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: most commentators here wish to keep the category, but it appears several of the above editors also wish to rename it. This means revisiting a discussion about what to call people who had been to particular schools. This had a much broader participation and resulted in agreeing that the two formats were acceptable. This new proposal to rename looks like Forum shopping as the participants inb that discussion have not been contacted. If they wish to do this then please close this discussion here as keep and re-open the archived discussion here in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools Ephebi (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a misrepresentation of the previous discussion; it basically deadlocked on the very issue of whether to use accessible names or obscure jargon, with accusations of canvassing flying around. And it is not forum shopping to propose an alternative name when a category with an unhelpful name is proposed for deletion; otherwise a successful keep might be taken as endorsement of such an undesirable format. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to Category:People educated at Deacon's School. It will be more likely people will be put in the category once it is renamed. Since wikipedia does not have articles on all the MPs in England since 1850 among other groups that might well include people educated at this school, it would be premature to claim it has no chance of ever being populated. Anyway, the small cat rules allow cats that are inherently small. I have seen cats survive that at present could only possibly have one article, no matter how loosely we defined notability. The rename will make this category more accessible to the general user, and so we should not make assumptions about the potential size of the category until after renaming it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:00, 16 January 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:Flora of the Alps
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Flora of the Alps to Category:Flora of the European Alps
- Nominator's rationale: more descriptive. There is more than one set of Alps. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:25, 7 January 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:Libre
- 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Libre to Category:Open methodologies
- Nominator's rationale: Rename to a non-judgmental descriptive title. The definition of "libre" is unsourced and there is no main article: libre redirects to gratis and libre. The new main article will be Open source whose lead gives this good but badly sourced definition: "practices in production and development that promote free redistribution and access to the end product's source materials." Renaming Category:Libre to Category:Open source is another option, but I'm not sure it's better given the lack of sourcing. Category:Open source became a redirect in 2006. (For more background, see recent discussion at Talk:Open_source#Re-creating_Category:Open_source.) Pnm (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment when I see libre in English, I think of libertels... 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:04, 8 January 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:Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine songs
- 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) 18:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unless I'm mistaken, none of these songs are defining or notable as Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine songs. Without notability, this just results in overcategorization by including a category for every artist who ever recorded a popular song. A bit of an offshoot of WP:SONGCOVER. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I checked several of the song articles, none of which mentioned Cheese. WP:SONGCOVER should perhaps include an explicit mention about categorisation: no independent notability implies no mention and no category. Occuli (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:SONGS states, Per WP:CATEGORY, a song may be categorized by a characteristic (such as producer, composer, record-label, etc.) only if it is a defining characteristic of the song (i.e. reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define the song as having the characteristic—not just mention it in passing or for completeness). I think that is more than strong enough for deletion in this case. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As a general rule, we only categorize songs by the artist who originated them, or at least recorded definitive versions that are famous in their own right, and not necessarily by every artist who's ever performed them — Annie Lennox recorded a rendition of "Keep Young and Beautiful", frex, but that article hasn't been (and correctly shouldn't be) added to Category:Annie Lennox songs. Her version is essentially irrelevant for the purposes of categorization, because the song would most likely still have an article even if she'd never touched it. Conversely, Elvis Presley's cover of "Ain't That Lovin' You, Baby" is the primary reason the song is notable enough for an article; its actual originator doesn't even have an article, meaning it would be a forgotten footnote in the dusty annals of music if Elvis hadn't taken it on. Richard Cheese is a covers artist with a modest, cultish-at-best audience, meaning that the songs here were "defined" by other artists' performances, not by his; the fact that he covered them is irrelevant to whether they're notable enough to have their own articles or not. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 11 January 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:Drake (entertainer)
- 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 11:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Drake (entertainer) to Category:Drake
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. This isn't my nomination, but a procedural add after noticing that the CfR notice was added to the category itself rather than here. This was just speedied recently from the proposed category name. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rationale given by User:DrizzyDrakeFan: Category:Drake should be his work's main category. There isn't a another person who performs under the mononym Drake. DrizzyDrakeFan (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC) ))[reply]
- Oppose – convention is to match category to article: Drake (entertainer). (Drake is a dab page.) Occuli (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - disambiguation is most likely necessary, as the article name suggests Mayumashu (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose clearly not about the circumnavigating sailor. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A bot wikipedian kept deleting this category without giving a reason. Category:Drake (entertainer) should be moved to Category:Drake. There is not another mononymous musician or entertainer named Drake. It is empty anyway. DrizzyDrakeFan (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop doing what you're doing. Your proposal has not been accepted as yet, so the bot is acting properly. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose rename - disambiguation is required; this does not refer to sailors, male ducks, dragons, or Drake Mallard. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose -- "drake" either refers to a male duck or to Sir Francis Drake. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 11 January 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.