Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 23

< August 22	August 24 >

August 23

Category:Halo space weapons

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete as empty and unneeded. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Now-empty category. All articles originally contained in here were merged to a more general article, and it is highly unlikely that any fictional weapon from Halo warrants a standalone article. — TKD::Talk 22:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it was a waaay too specific cat to begin with. David Fuchs^(talk) 22:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't that a Halo space weapon would deserve an individual article, so it is unnecessary to have this cat.--JForget 00:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Empty and unneeded. -- Satori Son 13:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No idea why it was created in the first place :P Bronzey 06:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Timrollpickering 10:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Archaeology in Spain

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was merge to Category:Archaeology of Spain. Kbdank71 16:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A fork for Category:Archaeology in Spain. Ghirla^-трёп- 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a fork of Category:Archaeology of Spain? Should this perhaps be merged there? Otto4711 00:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Merge them. Peterkingiron 16:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom/Otto Johnbod 22:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Yoshi characters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category was created in late 2005, and the user who created manually put characters in it. These were later removed, and most of the character pages have been merged with more general pages. No need for it. — Malcolm (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Timrollpickering 10:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Art of Ecuador

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 15:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Art of Ecuador to Category:Ecuadorian art

Nominator's rationale: Merge to category whose name is consistent with other "Fooian art" cats. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Postlebury 13:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Timrollpickering 10:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Johnbod 22:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Spawn characters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 15:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Spawn characters to Category:Image Comics characters

Nominator's rationale: Merge - per consensus and precedent againstcategorizing comics characters on the basis of their affiliation with a specific character or title. Otto4711 19:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and many precedents. Wryspy 01:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Timrollpickering 10:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Apartheid legislation in South Africa

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Apartheid laws in South Africa; I have moved the one article it contained. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Piccadilly 23:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Timrollpickering 10:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Science Fiction Ground Vehicles

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - nominated once previously, closed no consensus. I'm not sure what happened that consensus couldn't be reached. It contains two vehicles from Space: 1999 which are both already in Category:Space: 1999 vehicles. The name is very poor (all science fiction vehicles are by definition fictional) and the category, which hasn't expanded in months, serves no navigational purpose. Otto4711 17:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did the original name, if you can recategorise it and still keep it in the Space:1999 category, fair enough. The category itself sprung out of a dispute I had with User:Matthew. The stub for one had them under the Fictional Spacecraft entry and he was insistent that since they are vehicles they couldn't go in there. I didn't want the entries deleted though, but if there's a way of working it so that the two articles stay and are just recategorised I'm easy with that. Douglasnicol 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Space: 1999 vehicles is a subcategory of Category:Fictional vehicles. Otto4711 22:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFine, then in my opinion you can do away with Category:Fictional Science Fiction Ground Vehicles, sorry for creating a rather redundant topic. This keeps the Space:1999 category and keeps it under the Fictional Vehicles category which is a lot better. Douglasnicol 22:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Timrollpickering 10:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Home and Away

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV show. Everything in the category is interlinked and elsewhere categorized and the material doesn't warrant the category. Otto4711 15:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The whole of Wikipedia is interlinked, yet we have a category system too, as it allows people to choose how to navigate our content. Postlebury 13:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eponymous television categories aren't needed for the main article and characters subcategory (which is the bulk of this category). The remaining two items are the theme song and Summer Bay, both of which obviously are easily navigated to from the television show's main article. Since the main article is the most straightforward way to get this info, the eponymous category can be safely deleted. Dugwiki 17:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Rectors of Scottish universities

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lord Rectors of the University of Aberdeen to Category:Rectors of the University of Aberdeen

Propose renaming Category:Lord Rectors of the University of Dundee to Category:Rectors of the University of Dundee

Propose renaming Category:Lord Rectors of the University of Edinburgh to Category:Rectors of the University of Edinburgh

Nominator's rationale: Rename to bring these three categories in line with the main articles, all of which just use "Rector". (The other two Scottish Ancients use "Rector" already.) Timrollpickering 15:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Seems a sensible proposal. --Breadandcheese 01:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Asclepiadaceae

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Asclepiadoideae, to match Asclepiadoideae, or Merge into Category:Apocynaceae. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Orchidaceae

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 16:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Orchids, or Keep as a subcategory of Category:Orchids. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you any idea which would be most appropriate, and why? Postlebury 13:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was hoping some of the plant people would have an opinion. I can see arguments for either way, but I think I would prefer a merge. If we do a merge, I'd like to keep a redirect since both names are valid and mean the same thing. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Winnipeg tourism

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Visitor attractions in Winnipeg, convention of Category:Visitor attractions by city. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Postlebury 13:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category for a cancelled series. Everythign is extensively interlinked through the articles and the template and is appropriately categorized elsewhere so the category is superfluous. Otto4711 12:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The whole of Wikipedia is interlinked, yet we have a category system too, as it allows people to choose how to navigate our content. Postlebury 13:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When the main article for a television show serves as a sufficient navigational hub for all the articles about the show, an eponymous category on top of that is largely redundant and can be safely deleted. Dugwiki 17:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:All My Children

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization for a TV series. The small amount of material is appropriately interlinked and does not warrant a category. Otto4711 12:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The whole of Wikipedia is interlinked, yet we have a category system too, as it allows people to choose how to navigate our content. Postlebury 13:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eponymous television categories aren't needed solely for characters and the main show's article and a list of episodes. All those can be navigated to from the main article and other existing category schemes. Dugwiki 17:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Attorneys General of Hawaii

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other members of Category:State Attorneys General in the United States. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 17#Category:Massachusetts Attorneys General. the wub "?!" 11:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support : seems like an obvious rename for consistency sake –SESmith 06:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 10:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Magazines

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was speedied. the wub "?!" 10:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category Lituanian magazines (corrected name) has been created Stephenb (Talk) 08:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Web services brokering companies

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was speedy delete as empty. the wub "?!" 10:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Bound to become a spam magnet. Sander Säde 05:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Zion's Camp participants

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - certainly Zion's Camp is an important event in LDS history but there appears to be a complete list of those participants who have articles in the Zion's Camp article (I added the missing one). I question the long-term utility of categorizing people by this sort of historical incident. Otto4711 16:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : participation in this event is a defining characteristic of a number of the individuals in the category (though perhaps not all). It was not a small group of people (in the 100s) and there is no reason that all participants that are the subject of a present or future WP article should or will be added to the Zion's Camp article. The "long-term utility" of categorizing people this way is that it assigns them to a category that is a notable and defining characteristic or status of the person—isn't this the whole point of WP categories? Alternatively, a list might be useful if it was a comprehensive list of participants. (Full disclosure—I created the cat.) –SESmith 05:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this was a defining characteristic for all of the members, then there would not be an issue about keeping. Since it is not, then some members need to be removed from the category. Since there already is a list, and the membership will not increase or change, I'd lean towards using the list. That way we do not need to monitor this category for participants where this is not a defining characteristic. So unless there is another reason to keep, consider this a Delete. Vegaswikian 22:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what I meant is that it is not necessarily the primary defining characteristic for all included. I would say it is a defining characteristic for all. That's just semantics, but I didn't mean to suggest it was not defining at all for some. It would be hard for such an event to not have a major effect on a person. Certainly, the event is mentioned in every basic biography of every participant. As for the list, it was recently created after the nomination and after my previous comment. –SESmith 01:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify/delete per Otto. >Radiant< 09:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have relisted this to get further attention. --Bduke 02:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a major phase in the history of Mormonism, and not just the brief retreat that the name erroneously suggests. Postlebury 13:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete per Otto. Carlossuarez46 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:National museums of Australia

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was keep. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Meaningless collection of museums with national in their name; category would only be useful if it was museums run by the federal government - but these should already appear in the Government entities of Australia category in addition to the relevant museum categories Peta 01:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all the non-government members; but the usefulness of these categories (many countries have them) eludes me.--Peta 01:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very N in Australia. Twenty Years 10:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the museums in the category actually ARE the national museums of each type and have official status. They are also very notable. JRG 09:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. They "are" national museums. — Giggy 08:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 journals

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Duplicates category Lituanian magazines --Lokyz 12:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.