< February 5 February 7 >

February 6

Category:Introduced freshwater fish

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Introduced freshwater fish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Introduced freshwater fish by country
  • Propose deleting Category:Introduced freshwater fish of South Africa
  • Propose deleting Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Argentina
  • Propose deleting Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Australia
  • Propose deleting Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Chile
  • Propose deleting Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Madagascar
  • Propose deleting Category:Introduced freshwater fish of New Zealand
  • Propose deleting Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Papua New Guinea
  • Propose deleting Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Ukraine
  • Propose deleting Category:Introduced freshwater fish of the United States
  • Propose deleting Category:Introduced freshwater fish by continent
  • Propose deleting Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Africa
  • Propose deleting Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Oceania
  • Propose deleting Category:Introduced freshwater fish of New Guinea
  • Propose deleting Category:Introduced freshwater fish of South America
  • Propose deleting Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Hawaii
Nominator's rationale: Which countries a species has been introduced to is not, generally, a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the species. For example, Brown trout is currently in 6 introduced-to-country categories and the article indicates that it would be eligible for several more. I'd have no objection to listifying, although probably not as a separate list article for each of these categories (some of which just contain 1-2 articles). For info: Example of previous similar CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_17#Category:Introduced_saltwater_fish DexDor (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ouch.... Ok u got me... Sheesh u must be fun at parties :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The life and soul. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The atlantic salmon was likely introduced to dozens of countries. It's simply not defining for that fish, especially at a country level.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the whole tree is in need of purging, most of it should be deleted. I think the conclusions of the 2007 CFD are still correct.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The purposes of (enforcing) rules about categorization include maintaining consistency across Wikipedia (which helps both readers and editors) and avoiding overcategorization (which makes the category system harder to use and requires excessive effort to maintain). Any categorization scheme which allows an article to be in many dozens of categories fails WP:DEFINING and is (IMO) overcategorization. The countries a species has been introduced to may be mentioned in an article, but the article may also list the diseases the species is susceptible to, what it eats etc; there are hundreds of characteristics that a species could be categorized by, but we (try to) limit categorization to just defining characteristics. Categories like this can encourage some editors (working from an off-wiki list) to place articles in categories for characteristics that are not mentioned in the article. Categorization should be (using your words) "a logical and systematic method of arranging ... articles", not an attempt to create a database of facts - a role for which categorization is ill suited (e.g. it doesn't associate a fact to its reference, unlike lists and Wikidata). DexDor (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2014 (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:Kurmi people

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) 17:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is a long-standing consensus that we do not categorise people by caste - eg: here. Such categorisation seems to be the sole purpose of this category. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2014 (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:DC Comics science fiction characters

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. All DC comics characters are science-fiction characters, as the superhero fiction is itself a subgenre of science fiction. We can make the "DC Comics characters" a subcategory of "Science fiction characters" (as it done with Star Wars), and skip this category. All the articles are already included at either the DC comics characters category or specific subcategories, so there's no need to recategorize any articles. Cambalachero (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me why I generally avoid fictional-world-based categorization. Ugh. yet I get drawn to it, like a moth to a flame - but every time I see the categories that have blossomed, I tremble.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2014 (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.

Bridges and tunnels

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 and split as nominated.
I have listed the categories to be split at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Split, because a split can only be performed manually. Would the nominator like to make a start on implementing this decision? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting:

Propose renaming:

Rationalle:I see no advantage to keeping these together. On the other hand, they mess up the category tree (i.e Great Northern Tunnel is in the Category:Railway bridges in the United States category tree, and Bellefontaine Bridge is in the Category:Railway tunnels in the United States category tree. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:13, 6 February 2014 (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 giants

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 split. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split I believe wikipedia article aim to use gender neutral termonology and as none exists for giants/giantesses I believe the examples should be gender specific. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2014 (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:Giants in fiction

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 split. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split This article also uses a gender biased word which doesn't accurately reflect that when taking anime into account most of the entries on this list are giantesses. One in thirteen episodes is a substantial amouunt, at least 1 episode or one character out of three is acceptable to categorize as this. I think Jungle de Ikou! Boccaccio '70 and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers should all count. I Dream of Jeannie is a bit more questionable but she has three episodes specifically about this and she lives in a tiny bottle which can be her room; so technically every episode has that element. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2014 (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:Magnetic

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) 14:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Random adjective category created by new user. Dicklyon (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he populated it also with itself, but I took that out already. Dicklyon (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So he did. A remarkable addition, which I had not anticipated. Oculi (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2014 (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:Articles in the Article Incubator nominated for assessment

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 at CFD 2014 February 13. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Articles in the Article Incubator nominated for assessment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: - The category is empty and the article incubator is now defunct. I do not see any further pages added to this category. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2014 (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:Articles in the Article Incubator nominated for deletion

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 at CFD 2014 February 13. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Articles in the Article Incubator nominated for deletion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: - The category is empty and the article incubator is now defunct. I do not foresee any further pages added to this category. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2014 (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