Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 23 April 25 >

April 24[edit]

Category:Interwiki templates with deprecated parameters[edit]

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created before interwiking was handled by WikiData and is now empty. DexDor (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not actually used for those interwiki links shown on the left but agree that it should be deleted. It's used in {{Interwikitmp-grp}} and the code should be removed from there as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WikiData is only used for the sidebar analogous article linkages, it is not used for other types of interwiki linking. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2015 (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 that use a Medicine navs subtemplate[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 06:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That an article uses a particular (type of) template is not something that we normally categorize articles by (except where the template indicates that the article needs some form of maintenance - which isn't the case here). This category currently puts article pages under Category:Wikipedia templates which is incorrect categorization. DexDor (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepsee my comment 22:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC). It serves in the tri-level cat check "Template A links to template B, but does B cover A" (or so; for A, B, and C). It served the grand {{Medicine navs}} organisation, and back last January it was actually used to list that cross checks (and did clean up all). Some time in the future, we'd like to create that cross-check once more (3-category disjounts lists). See also major talk central Template talk:Medicine navs.
btw, A, B, C are in Category:Medicine navs templates. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Venn diagram of set intersection
Let me clarify and add background :-). I think the cat might be useful to perform some cross-usage checks, once more. Like we did last January in with those 36 {{Medicine navs}}. (See the archived talk here).
Last December, the 36 {{Medicine navs}} (=topic home page) subtemplates were simply cleaned up: we expanded abbreviations (illegible codes) into meaningful & readable wordings (from this). These templates are 'child navbox' templates (i.e., child navboxes used in a parent navbox).
Then in January, we cross-checked subtemplates with their target templates ("if page A links to page B, does page B mention page A?"). Edits were made. This was a very valuable approach. (the edits in this done by LT910001). All in all, the 28,000 related medical articles now have a better navigation backbone.
To keep open the option to cross-check the index -- parent -- article set, this category might be useful again. (yes, without this category one could use AWB or some cat/WLH-crossing tool. But still).
(Let's not get distracted. 1. the ~800 intermediate templates should not be A reader's target I can agree. They should be WP:set index pages. However: that is not a reason to delete. That is for improvement. 2. re nom's final sentence: I say that is solved by an edit not by deleting). -DePiep (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, let's delete, this proposal makes sense. I have no proof that this category would help me in a future cleanup action (that action would require AWB or a bot always). And BTW template-technically, it requires an edit in ~42 Medicine nav templates (ask me). @LT910001:. -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this category is currently being used by contributors (me included) to help improve the encyclopedia, by using it to evaluate what pages have a template and what use an embedded navbox as DePiep has noted. It is quite useful currently. So I vote keep and then maybe in some months delete once we have finished using it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with revised opinion by DePiep above. Even if we were to hypothetically use this template, we've both agreed we wouldn't use it in the next 12 or so months anyway (Template_talk:Medicine_navs). --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting DexDor. -DePiep (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I brutally did this. -DePiep (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note to the closing admin: as I read this now, deletion is OK. It will take ~42 templates to have an edit like [1]. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See [2] in {{Breast navs}}, a pilot. -DePiep (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2015 (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:Talk pages cleaned up by the Talk Page Cleanup Crew[edit]

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. MER-C 04:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a talk page has been "blessed by the magic broom of the Talk Page Cleanup Crew" does not really require categorization. If a particular editor(s) want to keep a list of which pages they've edited then there's Special:Contributions and they can keep a list (e.g. in their userspace). DexDor (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the status of being cleaned up is temporary, as talk pages collect new discussions, so being in a cleaned-up state will expire whenever a new discussion appears, thus this is not defining. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment instead of a category, this should have a talk page banner, like how GOCE operates, which lists the date at which cleanup occurred -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Over time such tags just add to the clutter at the top of talk pages without (afaics) performing any useful purpose (unless you count advertising the wikiproject as useful). I don't put "the categories on this page were corrected by DexDor" tags on talk pages of articles I edit. DexDor (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noted above, cleanup is only a temporay state of affairs, and there is no special task being performed here, it's the sort of cleanup that any editor can do. I can apreciate a WikiProject wanting to keep track of it's activities, but there is surely a better way of doing this. PC78 (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2015 (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:Reliable sources[edit]

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:Wikipedia reliable sources . Liz Read! Talk! 11:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a category for articles within the topic of reliable sources; it's a category for Wikipedia administration pages and as such should have "Wikipedia" in its name. Alternatively a rename or an upmerge to Category:Wikipedia verifiability could also be considered. DexDor (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2015 (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:AntiSunnism in Iraq[edit]

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. MER-C 11:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale; per Category:Anti-Sunnism. Charles Essie (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge This tree is barely populated as it is (6 articles) and it doesn't help to divide down by country at this point. I see no reason to diffuse the main category. SFB 18:25, 26 April 2015 (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:Sikhism and violence[edit]

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 delete (G7). MER-C 03:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These terrorist events are associated with Khalistan, not Sikhism. Gsingh (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2015 (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.

13th century BC[edit]

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/delete as specified. MER-C 11:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: this was later reversed for births & deaths categories, see Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#RfC:_BC_births_and_deaths_categorization_scheme. – Fayenatic London 13:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


the rest of the years and decades of 13th century BC
Nominator's rationale: merge just over 20 categories of this list, per WP:SMALLCAT, most of these categories contain one article (or in a few cases two articles). After merging, the other categories of this list become empty. This is a continuation of this previous nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is going to be the last nomination for upmerging all to century level, because starting 1200 BC there is a guaranteed minimum number of 2 articles per decade category so then it makes sense to keep the decade categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I hope this leaves nothing orphaned. I hope Marcocapelle will continue his good work, to merge annual categories into decades for at least another four or five centuries, until we get to a point where decades have a significant population. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all - thanks for doing this, Marcocapelle. Neutralitytalk 19:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per my last comments. Such narrow categories aren't grouping like material effectively. SFB 18:26, 26 April 2015 (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:Holidays and observances by scheduling (may vary)‎[edit]

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. MER-C 11:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, for the one article in this category, scheduling is not a defining characteristic. Instead it concerns a generic type of holiday, and it is already correctly categorized in Category:Generic types of holidays. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is a hidden category, and part of a tree with hidden categories, but it's entirely unclear to me why it's hidden. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you have an article about a type of holiday (not a specific holiday), of course the timing will vary. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2015 (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:Added cats[edit]

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:Infobox comic book title param (addpubcat). For the record, the following templates needed updating: {{Infobox comic book title‎}}, {{Infobox comics character}}, {{Infobox comics character and title}} (coded in two places), and {{Comics infobox sec/addcat}} which is used by various other comics infoboxes. – Fayenatic London 06:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no explanation of what this category is for. If kept it should be renamed to make clear what characteristic the pages in it have. DexDor (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2015 (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:Moveable holidays (US Constitution Day date based)[edit]

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. MER-C 03:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2015 (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:Holidays and observances by duration (1 day)[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 14:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING. These categories group holidays that are 1 day long and always occur on the same day of the year. The vast majority of holidays fit both of those characteristics so this isn't defining. Note that both of these categories are hidden but they are in the article space, not on talk pages. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Docu as the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is a hidden category, and part of a tree with hidden categories, but it's entirely unclear to me why it's hidden. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment implementation of this nomination will probably require editing Template:Infobox holiday. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have just taken a look at the template, and it already includes conditional logic ("ifexist" tests). Therefore once an admin deletes such categories, a dummy edit on a page should remove any such red category links. – Fayenatic London 18:13, 4 May 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_24&oldid=1074814236"