Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 18 August 20 >

August 19[edit]

Category:Elemental superheroes[edit]

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 delete. the wub "?!" 09:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elemental superheroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Near recreation of Category:Fictional elementals. Not objectively definable, not useful for categorisation or for real world analysis, and certainly too broad. ~ZytheTalk to me! 22:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see no easy way to define the inclusion criteria and it seems largely arbitrary. (Emperor 23:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Based on the parent and the title, the cat is being applied inconsistently and incorrectly. What it looks intended to be is either too small to justify a cat, or it is a cat to collect characters in fiction that a fictional job description. Neither is needed. - J Greb 00:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Isn't this a recreation? Wryspy 00:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • More or less... the original CfD is here. There is a lot of latitude though since that was last September. The creater of the new cat may not have been aware of the previous CfD and/or, since consensus can change, it may have been put up in the belife that had happened. - J Greb 00:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes -- I created this category and it seemed that others liked it as new additions were incorporated. Also -- I didn't see the "Fictional Elementals" category -- I figured it had been deleted. As far as this category being "broad" -- Storm is an mutant who controls the weather, while other characters like Iceman, Sunfire, Black Lightning and Polaris contol some other natural phenomena, i.e. the ELEMENTS. Others have added Swamp Thing and such, who -- since he has a tie to plant life -- is considered an icon of the "earth" element (though I didn't necessarily AGREE with this addition). (Mwmalone 13:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Here's the problem, the parent, Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings, implies that the article grouped here fall into that broader cat, and more specifically conform to the articles Elemental, Classical element which does present traditional schema that include plants as a separate element, and Elementals in fiction. As the cat stands right now, only 7 of the articles cover topics that fit those criteria. The rest, at best, are "elementalists", characters that manipulate one or more of the elements as defined by those articles, either through magic or mutation, but are not manifestations of that element. - J Greb 17:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why on Earth would such a thing require categorization, regardless?~ZytheTalk to me! 19:10, 22 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:Dinosaurs of Eastern North America[edit]

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 delete. the wub "?!" 09:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dinosaurs of Eastern North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Wikiproject:Dinosaurs has tried to avoid geographic divisions finer than continent because of the movement of landmasses during and since the Mesozoic. In this case, the supporting text is incorrect in that it is not actually difficult to track down information about dinosaurs from eastern North America (the info is just poor because most such dinosaurs are based on poor remains). Also, although the category mentions the Western Interior Seaway that split the continent in the Cretaceous, half of the dinosaurs in the category are from the Jurassic, when there wasn't a geographic division in the continent. It may be better to include information about the Cretaceous split in the Seaway article. J. Spencer 19:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category violates Wikipedia's naming convention policy. Category was also created without discussion, and the consensus for over a year at WP:DINO has been to keep to continent-level geographic categories. Per J, the correct information on the Cretaceous split can be included elsewhere without the need for a category, and the incorrect information on the "hard to track down" aspect can be deleted. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. Fine geographic regions also result in some species being included in many many cats. We have similar problems abound in Category:Biota by country. ×Meegs 01:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and cleanup 70.51.11.204 03:45, 20 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:Heterodontosaurs[edit]

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 delete per convincing arguments by Firsfron. the wub "?!" 09:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heterodontosaurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - This category is for a very small group of dinosaurs and has little growth potential; good-faith but tiny category. J. Spencer 18:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable group, would be silly to up-merge due to the inconscistancy this would produce in the dinoaur tree. Adam Cuerden talk 20:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What do you mean about the inconsistency? They had been listed solely under Category:Ornithischia up until a couple of weeks ago (and still are, actually). J. Spencer 20:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:DINO asks that editors run proposed dinosaur categories by WP:DINO first, because hundreds of poorly-defined or tiny categories could be created. It is requested that editors "use these pre-existing categories rather than creating new ones without running them by the Project talk page first" because many of these groups are quite small, and some groupings are now considered artificial. There are currently five genera articles in this category. Of these, Lanasaurus = Lycorhinus (Gow 1990) and Geranosaurus is dubious, leaving only three valid dinosaurs in this category. By consensus, WP:DINO has only been creating categories for large, well-established groupings (15+ genera, as a general guideline) because it keeps things more organized than having many tiny categories for only three dinosaurs. As Wikipedia has a thousand dinosaur articles, this is critical. These articles are all already in biological category Category:Ornithischians, which suffices. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify 70.51.11.204 03:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do have Heterodontosauridae, which is a Good Article, and includes the names. J. Spencer 04:31, 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:Fabrosaurs[edit]

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 delete. the wub "?!" 09:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fabrosaurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - This category is based on a poorly-defined group of dinosaurs that is no longer recognized as a natural group, is small and with little chance for growth, and, if fully-utilized, would be largely redundant with Category:Ornithischians J. Spencer 18:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Fabrosaurs" have been found to be paraphyletic[1] (not a natural family grouping). The Fabrosauridae are a historic grouping, but only Fabrosaurus belongs in it, and even that is a dubious name (it may actually be Lesothosaurus). With no valid genera in the group, there's absolutely no reason for an empty category. Fabrosaurus and Lesothosaurus are just fine in Category:Ornithischians (and in fact, that was their biological category before someone created the category without consensus and without reviewing WP:DINO's guideline on categories, which requests editors use the "pre-existing categories rather than creating new ones without running them by the Project talk page first," because creating new categories for groupings now known to be artificial is unscientific). Serious editors must keep up on current scientific understanding of these groups before creating categories for them, because family groupings are in a state of flux, and our understanding of these groups is always evolving. Delete and ask category creator to run new categories by the community before creating future categories for invalid (no longer recognized) family-level categories. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify 70.51.11.204 03:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A list of valid Fabrosaurs would be:
  1. Fabrosaurus (if it is not actually Lesothosaurus).
Gongbusaurus and Agilisaurus have been removed from the Fabrosauridae by several studies (references available in Gongbusaurus and Agilisaurus). One item does not warrant a list, and the material is already covered in Fabrosauridae. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:09, 21 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.

Georgia category[edit]

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 rename all. the wub "?!" 11:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename --Won3161 17:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all. I'm also adding the following cats to this nomination:
For completeness, here are the remainer of "from/of/in Georgia" cats that turned up in my search. They are all, I think, unambiguous, and may or may not be worth renaming for consistancy. I have not tagged any of these cats.
About the country:
About the U.S. state:
×Meegs 02:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, including the ones added by Meegs. I also think the ones Meegs wasn't sure about should be renamed for the sake of consistency, to avoid even a hint of ambiguity, and to ensure that they aren't used as a model for creating more categories that are ambiguous. But I won't insist that they be included in this debate (read: I'm too lazy to try to tag them and link them in right now). :) Xtifr tälk 02:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, renaming them all is a good idea so that they don't act as models for future cats. Tagging them all isn't absolutely necessary, but I'll do it now anyway. Note, I omitted a few other cats that were even less ambiguous, like "United States Senators from Georgia."×Meegs 02:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not unambiguous. If an immigrant from Georgia (nation) becomes a senator for New Jersey, they'd properly fit in this category. 70.51.11.204 03:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree that it's necessary, but I've added the U.S. House and Senate to the list. ×Meegs 04:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be for consistency. If all the subcategories for the country and spelled the same way it will make it easier for readers searching for categories about the country or state and for editors creating categories about them to guess the name of a category they're interested in without even using the category tree (ie just type it directly into the search box). Ideally you want categories within the same scheme to use similar naming conventions as much as possible. Dugwiki 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there might be some exemptions. King of Georgia (country) sounds a bit awkward. Nobody will ever browse through the Georgia categories in search of King of Georgia (U.S. state).--KoberTalk 19:44, 22 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:Louisville religion[edit]

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 rename. the wub "?!" 09:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Louisville religion to Category:Religion in Louisville
Nominator's rationale: Rename, as per Category:religion by city and because Louisville is a place where religion is practiced, not a type or religion. Jamie Mercer 16:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, to fit the general naming scheme used here. BencherliteTalk 22:10, 19 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:Religion in Birmingham[edit]

Category:Christianity in Birmingham[edit]

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 rename. the wub "?!" 09:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Religion in Birmingham to Category:Religion in Birmingham, England
Propose renaming Category:Christianity in Birmingham to Category:Christianity in Birmingham, England
Nominator's rationale: Rename, in line with other Birmingham, England categories, due to the existence of the large city of Birmingham, Alabama. Jamie Mercer 16:25, 19 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:Mega64[edit]

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 delete. the wub "?!" 09:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mega64 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV series. Everything is interlinked through the articles and template. Otto4711 16:16, 19 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:Non-article Cities pages[edit]

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 already deleted. Bduke 06:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-article Cities pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category empty, and name inconsistent with others in project (all others are "WikiProject Cities", not just "Cities"). Appropriately named category also now exists. Ebyabe 16:11, 19 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 parks of Portugal[edit]

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 keep. Bduke 05:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:National parks of Portugal to Category:Protected areas of Portugal
Nominator's rationale: There's only one national park in Portugal, so unless a new national park is created in the country (which seems unlikely in the near future), this category shall remain unnecessary with a single occupant. Renaming this category to "protected areas" would allow the many natural parks to be included and thus turn it into a useful category. Húsönd 16:01, 19 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:Kongs[edit]

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 merge to Category:Donkey Kong characters and Category:Fictional apes. the wub "?!" 11:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Kongs to Category:Donkey Kong characters
Nominator's rationale: Merge - overcategorization as a small category with little or no potential for growth and to a lesser extent as a shared name category. There is no need to split out these four characters based on their names all containing "Kong." Otto4711 15:56, 19 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:"Related ethnic groups" needing confirmation[edit]

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 Keep. Contrary to the nomination, there is some latitude for having maintenance and cleanup cats on article mainspace (cf. Category:Wikipedia infobox cleanup, Category:Wikipedia maintenance). However, if migration of this template-generated category to article talk is to be considered, it should be run with the involvement/consultation of the wikiproject WP:ETHNIC which instituted this (temp) measure; it seems that no-one had provided a notification there that this was under discussion here. Will do so, as if it is to be done will require some further modifications to the project's template banner code. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:"Related ethnic groups" needing confirmation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Speedy Delete WP:SELF.Nkeep12 15:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Reason for deletion nomination does not match category content. Hmains 20:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or if kept move to talk pages This oddly named category appears in many ethnic groups' articles and merely is used as a WikiProject label that something needs attention of the project. It has no bearing on what confirmation is needed on the substance of the article itself and is therefore both a self reference and a poorly named category. If kept - like if the project really needs this - it should be moved to talk pages so as not to distract from the encyclopedic articles. Carlossuarez46 18:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Talk Pages per Carlossuarez46. Categories of this sort are always supposed to be used on Talk Pages, not on the articles themselves. I suspect somebody just wasn't thinking clearly when these articles were tagged. Cgingold 23:00, 22 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:Taiwanese Dancers[edit]

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 rename. Bduke 05:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Taiwanese Dancers to Category:Taiwanese dancers

Reason: to follow Wikipedia's naming (upper/lower case) convention

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:Thomas Corker[edit]

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 delete. Bduke 05:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thomas Corker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as an eponymous person category. -- Prove It (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:OC. Otto4711 14:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction - delete as an inappropriate eponymous category. There is ample precedent that some eponymous categories are useful. Please don't give newcomers the impression that all eponymous categories are bad. Also, before deletion, make sure all the articles in the category are in fact mentioned in the main article - sometimes eponymous categories function like a "see also", and like a "see also", it should be properly integrated before removal. If you don't have time to integrate the cross-references, add them to a "see also" list, as I did here. This improves the encyclopedia, as well as reducing over categorisation. Carcharoth 23:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All articles in this category are already mentioned in the main article. --Bduke 05:14, 25 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:Long articles[edit]

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 delete. Bduke 05:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Long articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as suhjective, see also discussion of June 2nd. -- Prove It (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Special:Longpages already ranks pages by length. --Metropolitan90 15:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-defining and not required for administrative purposes. Dominictimms 23:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not needed and POV. Carlossuarez46 03:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but this isn't POV, that's an out of context misapplication of wiki-jargon. Golfcam 16:56, 20 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:Monumental wastes of human energy[edit]

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. "Politically motivated nonsense" is right. ×Meegs 01:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monumental wastes of human energy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as vague and suhjective. -- Prove It (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. Otto4711 15:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Politically motivated nonsense. Jamie Mercer 16:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has great potential to categorize much of the human condition. Wasted Time R 17:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense, per Otto. Wasted Time R's support indicates a major reason why the category is useless: if it includes much of the human condition, it's too broad to be an use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as disruptive patent nonsense. Dominictimms 23:11, 19 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:Indie Record Stores[edit]

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 delete. Bduke 04:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indie Record Stores (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rather than being populated by category links within the respective articles, this category page is actually being used as the repository for a list filled with redlinks. Metropolitan90 03:44, 19 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:Roads in Simcoe County[edit]

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 no consensus. the wub "?!" 11:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roads in Simcoe County (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Suggest merging Category:Roads in Simcoe County with List of Simcoe County Roads & Category:Ontario provincial highways

Nominator's rationale: This Catagory seems redundant. This seems to be the only County (within the province) to have a catagory devoted to listing the roads and highways within it. I propose to move the few articles (ahem, 10) in this catagory to a seemingly more appropriate location. Please note - this Article is a reverse view of the Article nominated in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_1#Category:Highways_in_Simcoe_County. Both this and the previously deleted Article contain BOTH Roads and Highways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs)

For the record, it isn't the only county/region in Ontario with a roads category; there are also roads cats for Prescott and Russell, Waterloo, Peel, Durham and York. I don't think any of them are needed (they all seem to invite the notion that any road in those counties, even a dinky little residential cul-de-sac with three houses on it, is notable enough for an article), but would request that they all be considered together. Category:Roads in Ontario should be subdivided in some way and should not directly contain all of these articles. Bearcat 00:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm seems you are correct... I only noticed a few lists (eg. List of Roads in Prescott and Russell County) before, which I do not have any problem with (I endorse the idea of a [[LIST of Roads in <pick your county>]]). My worst fear is, what happens when the point arises that there IS a difference between a 'Cresent', 'Line, 'BackLine'(and their ilk) and a 'Road" ? I am hoping we can head off other categories being created and direct them towards becomming Lists. Would it be acceptable to modify this Nomination to include the removal of all [[:catagory:roads in <pick your county>]] and move listings into [[List of roads in <pick your county>]] or when appropriate Category:Ontario provincial highways ? The List pages may get huge, but at that point they can be broken down by road number, or into alphabetical listings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs)
I'd support that; I don't generally think most county roads actually merit their own articles. Bearcat 01:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that roads by county categories invite articles about residential cul-de-sacs any more than Category:Canadian tennis players encourages articles about nn players. We build categories around the articles that we have, not the other way around. That said, I do agree that counties are probably not the best was to break up the roads by province cats. ×Meegs 11:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong disagree. I agree with what Meegs said: We BUILD categories around articles we have, NOT the other way around, and that, what is the point for merging the category with the list. If we do that for every county or for every other so-called "minor" topics in Wikipedia, then what are categories designed for? We might as well stuff everything into a confusing list. And then, the only thing I DO NOT AGREE with Meegs is that counties are not the best to break up the roads by province cats. If we don't use categories, what shall we use? Local Muncipalities? (Too specific) A general area? (Like Northern Ontario, southern Ontario, etc. -- then the categories would be WAY too big). There is NOTHING wrong with what is done right now.
One more thing. Why would we be merging the category into a category like Ontario provincial highways, when most of the Simcoe County Roads HAS NOTHING to do with provincial highway.  Smcafirst | Chat  at 23:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, roads by county is not that bad, but one problem is that some long roads will end-up in of the cats. I have no strong opinion either way, but an alternative is to have a catchall category for the provence (Category:Roads in Ontario), and subcats only for short roads confined to major cities (e.g. Category:Roads in Hamilton, Ontario, Category:Ottawa roads). ×Meegs 01:41, 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:Roman governors[edit]

Category:Roman governors by province[edit]

Category:Roman governors by type[edit]

Category:Roman proconsuls[edit]

Category:Roman propraetors[edit]

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 rename as nominated, but merge Category:Roman governors by type to Category:Ancient Roman governors. ×Meegs 09:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman governors to Category:Ancient Roman governors
Propose renaming Category:Roman governors by province to Category:Ancient Roman governors by province
Propose renaming Category:Roman governors by type to Category:Ancient Roman governors by type
Propose renaming Category:Roman proconsuls to Category:Ancient Roman proconsuls
Propose renaming Category:Roman propraetors to Category:Ancient Roman propraetors
Nominator's rationale: Rename, for clarity per several precedents. Ravenhurst 01:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Oliver Han 10:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom, except delete the "by type" subcat as an unnecessary intermediate layer of subcategorization. The two subcats can be directly in the governors category without having a "by type" parent cat. Otto4711 12:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, with deletion of by type, per Otto. Adam Cuerden talk 20:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, with deletion of by type, per Otto. Carlossuarez46 18:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Otto. Neranei (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom for consistency with all related categories. No opinion on Otto's suggested deletion. Xtifr tälk 12:01, 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_19&oldid=1144565926"