< January 5 January 7 >

January 6

Category:College football bowl seasons

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:American college football bowl seasons. delldot ∇. 00:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:College football bowl seasons to Category:NCAA football bowl seasons
Nominator's rationale: Category contains only NCAA football bowl seasons. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:02, 6 January 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.

Years in the Czech Republic before 1993

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 20th century categories as nominated. Rename 10th century categories to "in Bohemia". I see only enough consensus to rename these, not to get rid of the establishments categories. delldot ∇. 00:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Czech Republic is a name only used from 1993. Czech lands maybe a bit ambiguous so alternatively I suggest Bohemia for the very early years. Tim! (talk) 10:53, 6 January 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:Dope Stars Inc.

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. delldot ∇. 00:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, that's not even close to what I was suggesting. Your stated rationale "too little content" sounds like WP:SMALLCAT (if there is some other way you wish to be read, please advise). My argument is that this category is defining, and WP:SMALLCAT does not apply. It does not follow from my argument that every category of this size is defining. That would be a false syllogism. Andrewaskew (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response We're talking past one another and I still don't understand you. The point that I am making is that there are some 15,000 categories for albums by artist. Are you suggesting that we make 15,000 container categories for all of them? If so, what purpose would that serve? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the point you wish to make ("that there are some 15,000 categories for albums by artist" and you think that this category would be the start of making "container categories for all of them") then kindly make it in your rationale. Other editors can only respond to what you say, not what you mean, and not what you're thinking. Please don't assume we can read your mind. I have replied to your rationale WP:SMALLCAT/"too little content", which is a poor reason to delete this category. But it turns out your rationale does not relate to your reasoning. This sort of discussion goes much smoother if you can provide a concise reason why you feel a particular action ought to be performed. Ideally by either pointing at a policy or precedent, or giving a reason which you feel ought to be policy. In this case I would suggest "we should not have eponymous categories for bands."
I disagree with that reason. Category:Wikipedia categories named after musical groups is well established, and this sort of category is a useful tool for navigation. --Andrewaskew (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response You know that I never assumed that you were psychic—you don't have to be rude and condescending to me. Are you now suggesting that 15,000 container categories is a good idea because it meets some eponymous naming scheme? What about categories that only contain the artists' articles themselves? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my intent to be rude or condescending, I have the deepest respect and WP:WikiLove for your efforts as an editor. But in this instance, I don't think you have conveyed your point well.
To wit, slippery slope arguments like 'if we allow this then we will have 15,000 sister categories in short order' sound allot like WP:ALLORNOTHING. The fact is, we already have a large number of eponymous band categories (over 700 at least), we need to allow them all, argue that all should be deleted, or provide one or more criteria as to why some should be allowed and some not allowed. Ideally we want these criteria to be as objective as possible.
To argue for the deletion of this category, and not for the deletion of its pre-existing sister categories, one needs to provide a criterion; one should demonstrate that this category belongs in the second group (the 'not allowed' group). For my part, I can see no such criterion outlined within this debate, so I still believe that this category should be kept. If someone can demonstrate such a criterion, I will happily reverse my 'vote.'
(My apologies for the long reply. This is a problem within Cfd that I feel strongly on. ☺) --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response First off, thanks so much for your kind words--it's genuinely encouraging. The difference between 700 musician/musical group categories and 15,000 is still quite a bit and although there is not a problem in principle with that many, it's not clear that they are all warranted (in fact, many would not be.) In the past, other editors have used a kind of rule of threes: Category:[Band] can be kept if you have Category:[Band] albums, Category:[Band] members, and Category:[Band] songs (with the main article and possibly [Band] discography, Template:[Band], List of awards received by [Band], etc.) Let me turn it around to you: what do you think is a reasonable minimal standard? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. What you say makes sense. (As a note, I did try to find a policy or precedent, but was unsuccessful. Perhaps it is in the accumulated evidence of dozens of Cfds. (Which is not unreasonable, most legal systems grow that way, for instance.)) In that case, I reverse my 'vote' to delete.
As to what I would declare a minimum standard, I don't think I could sum it up better than you just did. With perhaps a couple of extra notes. At a minimum, an eponymous band category should be avoided unless both of the following are true:
  1. There are at least 3 suitable subcategories or relevant navigation groupings (see WP:CLNT) (i.e: Category:Band albums, Category:Band members, Category:Band songs, Category:Band discography, Template:Band, List of awards received by Band.)
  2. The main article for the band is not a stub.
Thank you. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we don't, but why should this category in particular be singled out for deletion? Andrewaskew (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I concur. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:29, 14 January 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:United Kingdom historic house 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. I'm assuming that the concerns of the folks who had comments or objections were addressed by the nom's response to Peterkingiron; even though they didn't come back and say so it seems likely they would be happy with that. delldot ∇. 01:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete both category and template. Historic house is not clearly defined except by membership on a list, which makes this an ambiguous duplicate of Category:United Kingdom listed building stubs. Of the 177 articles in this category, all but 10 are already are in the other category. Of those 10 (scan), I think only 1 actually makes a claim of being especially historic. No merging is required, as all but 4 articles have other stub tags already - those 4 can be manually readded if needed. --Qetuth (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of the 10 unlisted houses are now in at least one other stub category, and I have also added constructed in, architecture style, demolished in, etc categories where given. So no information lost with a delete except a vague claim of being 'historic'. --Qetuth (talk) 23:09, 9 January 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.

Port settlements

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 and repopulate. The repopulation has already been done, thanks Hmains! delldot ∇. 02:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete? This was apparently emptied out of process as these two showed up in the empty categories for deletion list. Previous discussions on the naming in this area have been rather inconclusive. I think the last one was here. It is interesting when you look at that discussion to see what has been deleted since then. So I guess this is a request to repopulate these categories. Was there a later discussion that I missed? Note that at this point, I'm not advocating deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. HMains has done this before. Good catch Vegaswikian. I'm happy with the previous name. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:51, 8 January 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:Cancelled Xbox games

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 to rename. delldot ∇. 01:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per MOS:ENGVAR, this should use the American-English spelling "Canceled"; not just because of default, but Xbox is a Microsoft product and Microsoft is unarguably an American topic. Salvidrim! 01:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other video game consoles? N. Harmonik (talk) 06:02, 6 January 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.
More