April 11
Category:Star Wars books
- 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, except no consensus to rename Category:Star Wars music. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Rename following parent Category:Works based on Star Wars and rationale & precedents set out at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 17#Works based on Doctor Who. – Fayenatic London 21:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose renaming Category:Star Wars music, since a good deal of its articles are about music from the Star Wars movies, not based on them. The category name also aligns with its lead article, Star Wars music. No objection to creating Category:Music based on Star Wars as a subcategory, if needed. - Eureka Lott 17:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom to make the categories more clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2013 (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:Tityridae stubs
- 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) 11:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Tried to fill, but still a half-size category. Delete category, upmerge template to Category:Tyranni stubs. Dawynn (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, keep template in case, at some point, we have plenty of stubs for this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:29, 19 April 2013 (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:Russ Freeman albums
- 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) 14:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: There is also a guitarist with the same name, who is just as notable as (if not more than) the pianist. Needed for disambiguation. ANDROS1337TALK 18:00, 11 April 2013 (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:2000s Western film stubs
- 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, category can be recreated when there are enough stubs for this category - we can use the template to do this quickly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Premature stub category, not enough articles to justify. Delete category, upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2013 (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:1990s Western film stubs
- 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 category to Category:Western (genre) film stubs and Category:1990s films stubs; no consensus on upmerging template. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Premature stub category, not enough articles to justify. Delete category, upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge category, keep template. ((1990s-Western-film-stub)) categorises pages Category:1990s Western film stubs, which is a subcat of both Category:Western film stubs and Category:1990s film stubs. I agree that the category is too small, but merging the template to ((Western-film-stub)) will remove the films from Category:1990s film stubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete category, upmerge template to Category:Western film stubs and Category:1990s film stubs. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:1990s Western films (genre) stubs. As it is we might believe these are "Western film" as opposed to Oriental ones, and meant to hold all Argentine, Brazilian, British, American, French, German, ITalian and such films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2013 (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:1980s Western film stubs
- 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 category to Category:Western (genre) film stubs and Category:1980s films stubs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Premature stub category, not enough articles to justify. Delete category, upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2013 (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:Vilnius geography stubs
- 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. Wizardman 02:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Undersized stub category. Delete category, upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2013 (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:Rudbar-e Jonubi County geography stubs
- 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: withdrawn. Dawynn (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very undersized stub category. Delete category, upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; the nomination is premature as other nominations of Iranian geography stubs have proven to be; there will be dozens of places in this category when it's filled in which is shortly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2013 (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:Lithuanian winter sports biography stubs
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only 1 tagged article makes a heavily underpopulated stub category. Upmerge all the templates and delete the category. Dawynn (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2013 (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:Upper Hunter Shire geography stubs
- 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. Dawynn (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very underpopulated stub category. Delete category, upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This cat is hardly undersized. It has 14 articles presently. The purpose of this category is to identify stub articles related to a specific geographical area, which is one of 11 in a larger geographical area. It was created because the parent cat included almost 200 stubs, and it was impossible to readily identify which articles belonged to a specific geographical area, which makes things difficult for editors who are actually maintaining the articles. Rather than create a few cats it was decided to create cats for all 11 areas for consistency. That there are only a few stubs now is actually a good thing, but there are at least 60 other articles yet to be created for this region; history has shown that they are created sporadically and often are created as mere stubs, so the cat has a very definite purpose. It's common practice to keep even small cats (not that this is one of the smaller cats - there are plenty with only 3 or 4 articles) that form part of a larger tree. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:33, 12 April 2013 (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:Muswellbrook Shire geography stubs
- 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. Dawynn (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Undersized stub category. Upmerge template, delete category. Dawynn (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This cat is hardly undersized. It has 10 articles presently. The purpose of this category is to identify stub articles related to a specific geographical area, which is one of 11 in a larger geographical area. It was created because the parent cat included almost 200 stubs, and it was impossible to readily identify which articles belonged to a specific geographical area, which makes things difficult for editors who are actually maintaining the articles. Rather than create a few cats it was decided to create cats for all 11 areas for consistency. That there are only a few stubs now is actually a good thing, but there are at least 47 other articles yet to be created for this region; history has shown that they are created sporadically and often are created as mere stubs, so the cat has a very definite purpose. It's common practice to keep even small cats (not that this is one of the smaller cats - there are plenty with only 3 or 4 articles) that form part of a larger tree. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:31, 12 April 2013 (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:Gloucester Shire geography stubs
- 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. Dawynn (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very undersized category. Upmerge template, delete category. Dawynn (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The purpose of this category is to identify stub articles related to a specific geographical area, which is one of 11 in a larger geographical area. It was created because the parent cat included almost 200 stubs, and it was impossible to readily identify which articles belonged to a specific geographical area, which makes things difficult for editors who are actually maintaining the articles. Rather than create a few cats it was decided to create cats for all 11 areas for consistency. That there are only a few stubs now is actually a good thing, but there are at least 63 other articles yet to be created for this region; history has shown that they are created sporadically and often are created as mere stubs, so the cat has a very definite purpose. It's common practice to keep small cats that form part of a larger tree, this is such a case. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:29, 12 April 2013 (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:Dungog Shire geography stubs
- 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. Dawynn (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very undersized stub category. Upmerge template, delete category. Dawynn (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This cat is hardly undersized. It has 11 articles presently. The purpose of this category is to identify stub articles related to a specific geographical area, which is one of 11 in a larger geographical area. It was created because the parent cat included almost 200 stubs, and it was impossible to readily identify which articles belonged to a specific geographical area, which makes things difficult for editors who are actually maintaining the articles. Rather than create a few cats it was decided to create cats for all 11 areas for consistency. That there are only a few stubs now is actually a good thing, but there are at least 76 other articles yet to be created for this region; history has shown that they are created sporadically and often are created as mere stubs, so the cat has a very definite purpose. It's common practice to keep even small cats (not that this is one of the smaller cats - there are plenty with only 3 or 4 articles) that form part of a larger tree. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:25, 12 April 2013 (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:Cessnock geography stubs
- 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. Dawynn (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very undersized category. Upmerge template, delete category. Dawynn (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This cat is hardly undersized. It has 14 articles presently. The purpose of this category is to identify stub articles related to a specific geographical area, which is one of 11 in a larger geographical area. It was created because the parent cat included almost 200 stubs, and it was impossible to readily identify which articles belonged to a specific geographical area, which makes things difficult for editors who are actually maintaining the articles. Rather than create a few cats it was decided to create cats for all 11 areas for consistency. That there are only a few stubs now is actually a good thing, but there are at least 59 other articles yet to be created for this region; history has shown that they are created sporadically and often are created as mere stubs, so the cat has a very definite purpose. It's common practice to keep even small cats (not that this is one of the smaller cats - there are plenty with only 3 or 4 articles) that form part of a larger tree. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:23, 12 April 2013 (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:Forester stubs
- 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: withdrawn. Dawynn (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Put together, this category and its subcategory can't justify a stub category. Propose deleting both Category:Forester stubs and Category:Forestry researcher stubs and double-upmerging to appropriate categories (Category:Forestry stubs and some scientific biography category? Suggestions needed). Dawynn (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep New categories (2); have not yet been fully populated. Please keep both and give them a chance to demonstrate their usefulness. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Willing to allow for now, although it has been a month and little progress has occurred. Please keep in mind that articles can be tagged with a template even before a category is built. General rule of thumb for stub sorting is to build the template, tag at least 60 articles, *then* build the category. Dawynn (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2013 (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:People killed by Nazi Germany
- 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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Right now, this category is somewhat of an anomaly — it is a subcategory of Category:People executed by Germany, but does not parallel itself with other similar categories (e.g., Category:People executed by the German Empire, Category:People executed by the Weimar Republic). It appears to try to cover both people executed by the Nazis and people who otherwise died as a result, but if that were the case, there should be a different (sub)category for executions. I think a rename and paring is one option; another option is to add a subcategory that would be just executions. Anyway, I'd like a discussion on this. --Nlu (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 'comment. Not all those who died were executed, at least not in the sense I think of that term. Then again, people killed would have to include the millions of russian soldiers who died on the eastern front. This is a problematic category... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep as is the new name will not suffice for what is in the contents Hmains (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as is The distinction of which of them were legally executed and which were killed by other means seems trivial for this subject. Dimadick (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- "executed" normally refers to a judicial process, but the victims of the holocaust receieved no trial. I see no reason why deaths by wartime military action should not be dealt with under this category, provided that is done thorugh a subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - "Killed" is legally distinct from "executed". --Lquilter (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename If we have an executed category for the Ottoman Empire that perpetrated the first genocide of the 20th-century, we can have one for the Nazis that followed in their footsteps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet Category:People executed by the Ottoman Empire makes no reference and includes no link to Category:Armenian Genocide. By this example Category:People executed by Nazi Germany should not include the people killed at extermination camps? Dimadick (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the extermination camp executed people (as opposed to people who died of relatively natural causes, even by malnutrition, &c.) should be included into the execution category. As for Armenian Genocide, I've added Category:Armenian Genocide victims (note that it would be just the victims who were people who were executed) as a subcategory under Category:People executed by the Ottoman Empire and Category:20th-century executions by Turkey. (I know, that may be opening a can of worms...) --Nlu (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Killed" also covers soldiers & civilians killed in military actions; not just criminal executions and extermination camps. I think that's the major distinction. --Lquilter (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But are we really prepared to categorize people by the opposing side that killed them in a war. Also, do we really know if British soldiers who died fighting in Greece in WWII were killed by Naiz Germany or Facisicst Italy?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it's problematic to have "manner of death by FOO", but it appears that we have a variety of executed-by / killed-with / dead-by sorts of categories. Honestly I don't like any of the death-by categories. But if we're going to have them, then we should be using the terminology correctly, and killed != executed. If someone wanted to propose to delete them all I could probably be persuaded, since I think people are rarely defined by the manner of their death. (-: --Lquilter (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2013 (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:Locomotive Dump Sites
- 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. Wizardman 01:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: A list of the sites in Rail transport in New Zealand would suffice and would be in the interest of readers since full articles for all the sites may never be written. Note that it is not part of a series and there are only three entries relevant to the category topic. See also Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Category:Locomotive_Dump_Sites. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:24, 11 April 2013 (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:Liberace
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#EPONYMOUS Dusty|💬|You can help! 02:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No such speedy deletion criterion. Tim! (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – no subcats, no inclusion criteria. Oculi (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The category currently contains 6 articles, which is just enough to meet my minimum size threshold. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as an aid to navigation for readers across a common set of articles related by the topic. Alansohn (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Liberace is the sort of person for whom WP:EPONYMOUS provides exceptions. There will no doubt be other articles that are basically "about" Liberace. --Lquilter (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per analysis by Lquilter (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2013 (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:Debbie Reynolds
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: see WP:OC#EPONYMOUS Dusty|💬|You can help! 02:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedily delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – 1 valid subcat, no inclusion criteria otherwise. Oculi (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G5. The creator is a sock. Nymf talk to me 05:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We do not categorize items by every known owner, which is what caused one of the articles to be put in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2013 (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.