Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 1 February 3 >

February 2[edit]

Category:Hawaii articles needing expansion[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Hawaii articles needing expansion to Category:Articles to be expanded
Nominator's rationale: Only topic-specific subset of Category:Articles to be expanded. Completely against precedent. Just upmerge. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Upmerge not needed. This has nothing to do with any "precedent" as this category was created and designed for early WP:HAWAII project use and development only, and project-use categories are in no way standardized. Because this category is no longer needed (and since the "articles needing expansion" tag and category has been largely deprecated in practice) upmerging is not necessary. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2012 (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:Unicron-related characters[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Unicron-related characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. What are the inclusion criteria for this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining. At best it would be a list article. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete looks like WP:OR if nothing else. - jc37 03:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this has no clear reason to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2012 (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:Indian Poets by Language-Konkani[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 empty category. We already have Category:Konkani-language poets which seems to cover the same ground. If anyone wants to create an article, go ahead.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Indian Poets by Language-Konkani to article Indian poets of Konkani Language
Nominator's rationale: Rahul Mothiya (Talk2Me|Contribs) 08:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – as a category, Category:Indian Poets by Language-Konkani is empty. As a list, Category:Indian Poets by Language-Konkani (unreferenced, no links) couldn't possibly survive either; and is probably redundant to List of Sahitya Akademi Award winners for Konkani. (We have Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award but not as yet Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award in Konkani [which I have now created], to use the format of the existing sibling subcats, all of which use 'in', in contrast to their articles which all use 'for'.) Oculi (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articlise -- This seems to be a list article sitting in category space. Several of the listed people have articles. The populated category appears to be Category:Konkani-language poets, in which some of these appear. I hope that the literary award is significant enough one to avoid the prohibition on award categories, which we habitually listify and delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Konkani language poets. The issue here is the language these poets wrote in. If we come across a British poet who wrote large amounts of his poetry in Konkani, there is no reason not to include him in the category. This is a poets by language used category, and should not be made into a poets by nationality category, except maybe if we have some other group of Konkani-language poets and both are large enough to justify splitting Konkani-language poets by the intersection of nationality into multipl sub-groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on looking at the category contents I see that it is essentially an empty category. I am not sure if any of the listed people have articles, so it might be redemable, but it seems unlikely at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I turned all the listed names into links, and they are all now red-links. Some may exist as articles under different spellings (maybe spelling out the initials or turning the names into initials) but at present this looks like creating the category before the articles. I do not know if any of these people are notable enough to warrant an article. I would guess some are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Konkani has about 3.6 million speakers, is the official language of Goa and one of the official languages of India. However first we should probably have the category Category:Konkani language writers and then if we get enough people there, we can make a poets sub-category. It is probably a pretty minimal number of people for the poets sub-category to be justified, but we should create these categories in an orderly manner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per John Pack Lambert, Rename to Category:Konkani language writers and include the bluelinks from List of Sahitya Akademi Award winners for Konkani. Makes sense as a by-language category, not so much as an intersection of nationality and language used. Jafeluv (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2012 (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:Covermount albums[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Covermount albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: We already have Category:Compilation albums included with magazines. Is this really necessary? Is it important to categorize by method of bundling with periodical? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not all covermounts are compilations, or free with maagzines. Take for example Radio:Active - a studio album given with a newspaper --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not really a defining characteristic of an album. We generally do not categorize artistic works by method of distribution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2012 (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:Gremlins[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gremlins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only four articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:53, 2 February 2012 (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:Stardust[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stardust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only four articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:53, 2 February 2012 (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:Wild Things[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wild Things (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only four articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 2 February 2012 (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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timrollpickering (talk • contribs) 09:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:127 Hours[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 category but don't take Lugnuts's right arm. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:127 Hours (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only five articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How many articles would justify the category? Six? I'd give my right arm to keep this... Lugnuts (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response There is not a strict limit, of course, but if there are only four or five articles, it is likely that they are well-linked together, negating the need for a category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though I'm certainly ok with keeping the category if that means saving Lugnut's right arm. It's true that there's no set definition of "small category" but rather than measuring the size, Justin is correct in pointing out that the articles are very well interlinked and that the category is therefore not so useful in terms of browsing. Pichpich (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lucky for Lugnuts my magic number is 5 articles. (Do wish there was a concrete number in WP:SMALLCAT though.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2012 (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:Films involving amputees[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Films involving amputees to Category:Films about amputees
Nominator's rationale: Per parent and all kinds of [MEDIA] about [X] categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per convention, but manually purge of films which involve amputees but are not about amputees, such as Silent Running (where three robots or drones are played by heavily-disguised amputees). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection to deletion per Carlossuarez. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete suffers the same problems as all "films about" categories - as amply evidenced by BHG's comment - pure OR and SUBJ since no reliable source tells us how much about amputees is sufficient to merit qualification and no reliable source tells us that the categorized entry meets such sufficiency standards. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez. search for "category:films about" gives us 4 categories:rebellion, mathematics, films, filmmaking: neither "involving" nor "about" work as methods of categorization. I would recommend that these films major amputee characters be placed in Category:Fictional amputees if not there already.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2012 (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:Irish local government councils[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Irish local government councils to Category:Local authorities in the Republic of Ireland
Nominator's rationale: The scope of this category has been defined since its creation as "County, city and town councils in the Republic of Ireland", but the use of the word "Irish" in the category name is ambiguous, and could refer to either the 32-county island of Ireland or the 26-county state called Ireland an described as the Republic of Ireland.
This renaming brings the category into line with the many other subcategories of Category:Republic of Ireland, which use the form Foo in/of the Republic of Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Support nominator's rationale. (Note: I created that cat nearly 7 years ago. At the time I didn't pay much attention to naming convention. Possibly best if that was addressed/corrected now). Guliolopez (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The category structure and naming convention has evolved over time, and I'm not sure how well evolved the Irish categories were was back in 2005. There has certainly been a lot of standardisation work since then, so there may not have been much there for you to pay attention to. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 2 February 2012 (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:Ekumen planets[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 to Category:Hainish Cycle. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ekumen planets to Category:Hainish cycle planets
Nominator's rationale: Ekumen was speedily renamed to hainish cycle, but this sub cat was not separately nominated. rename for same reason, the Ekumen is a fictional, in universe name, Hainish cycle is the term used by readers and scholars for the works in general. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
whoops, missed that, you are correct.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2012 (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:Ekumen novels[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 to Category:Hainish Cycle. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ekumen novels to Category:Hainish cycle novels
Nominator's rationale: parent category 2 levels up was speedily renamed, but this sub cat was not separately nominated at the time. rename to follow format of parent cat, for same reasoning. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2012 (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:Ekumen books[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 to Category:Hainish Cycle. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ekumen books to Category:Hainish cycle books
Nominator's rationale: the parent category was speedily renamed, but i didnt separately nominate this sub cat at the time. renaming to follow new parent form, same reasoning. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2012 (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/2012_February_2&oldid=1146511197"