Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
June 5
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 13:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
These two were listed on Wikipedia:Duplicate articles, so I am moving it here. I abstain. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge since they are redundant. And possibly rename to something like 'organization of professions'... 'professional organizations' sounds simply like the opposite of 'amateur organizations'. Radiant_* 07:23, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Professional associations to alleviate Radiant!’s concern. Sebastian (talk) 07:45, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
- Merge as per Sebastian's suggestion. --Kbdank71 15:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not my nomination, just moving here from VfD, where the entry could not be properly formatted. --Tabor 18:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Note: The only article in this category is marked for deletion.
Maybe hold?— Sebastian (talk) 06:59, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC) - Delete. If the article isn't deleted, it can be recatted under, say, Category:Google. --Kbdank71 15:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree. — Sebastian (talk) 20:15, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not my nomination, just moving here from VfD, where the entry could not be properly formatted. --Tabor 18:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Note: The only article in this category is marked for deletion – it's the same as above.
Maybe hold?— Sebastian (talk) 07:02, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC) - Delete. If the article isn't deleted, it can be recatted under, say, Category:Google. --Kbdank71 15:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree. — Sebastian (talk) 20:18, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Foo articles that need to be wikified
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 13:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: This nomination includes all the different subcategories of Category:Articles that need to be wikified:
Category:Biology articles that need to be wikified
Category:Geography articles that need to be wikified
Category:History articles that need to be wikified
Category:Music articles that need to be wikified
Category:Office holder articles that need to be wikified
Category:Organization or Building Articles that Need to be Wikified
Category:People Articles that Need to be Wikified
Category:Political articles that need to be wikified
Category:Popular culture articles that need to be wikified
Category:Sports articles that need to be wikified
I realize that this may be a little bit premature, and I apologize if it is. All these categories are meant to store different types of articles that need to be wikified. While this worked with stub-sorting, I don't think that it's effective or helpful for wikification. While stubs need attention by people who are knowledgable in that specific area, anybody can wikify an article, regardless of their knowledge on the subject. An unwikified article does not necessarily imply one that is lacking, just one that is formatted incorrectly.
All of these categories' associated templates are up for deletion[1]. If deleted, these categories will be deprecated. Please note that a valid vote might be "delete iff Template:foo-wikify is deleted". -Frazzydee|✍ 18:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The reason for stub sorting was because the category had grown too large, and needed to be broken up. At that point, a breakdown by category was deemed more useful than, say, breakdown by initial letter. Presumably, there was an attempt to reduce the size of Category:Articles that need to be wikified. Whether that is arbitrary (by initial letter) or by subject matter might be less important here. Then again, since the person doing wikification will also be reading the articles, it is possible that a breakdown by subject may make the task more attractive for volunteers. --Tabor 18:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete since expanding a stub requires knowledge of the subject field, and wikefaction does not. It is unfortunate if the wikify-cat grows too large (maybe it needs a wikiproject to go along with it) but subcatting it like this is more trouble than it's worth. Radiant_* 07:26, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with Radiant%21 – again! ;-) This could be solved elegantly if my wish Wikipedia:Categorization_policy#Combining_categories came true. Sebastian (talk) 07:08, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with Sebastian. --Kbdank71 15:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Frazzydee is right. These should be easy for anyone to do. I'll see if I can't publicize the main category a bit more. -- Beland 20:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Usefull category. We shouldn't be deleting these, but instead bring them under the attention of some wikiprojects. Besides there are 199 articles in Category:People Articles that Need to be Wikified so they seem justified to me. A lot of others are still empty a few have 10-30 articles, but this is mainly the work of one person I think. I for one would perhaps wikify some articles if I could choose them from a category that I'm interested in, but not random articles. If such a category was a part of "my" wikiproject a might have already wikified a lot of articles, or it might already have been done for me by the other members. --MarSch 13:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep These categories keep the Articles to be Wikified page from ballooning out of control Shanedidona 14:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 13:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Marvel Comics mutants, as every entry in the category is a Marvel Comics character, and renaming would allow it to be a subcategory of Marvel Comics. - SoM 17:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)Per the fact that most of the Marvel entries have been moved to MCM and the category now has non-Marvel entries, Keep/WithdrawKeepthis category is a sub of Category:Fictional universes, altho comic characters appear in it, it is not necessarily just for comic characters. <>Who?¿? 19:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)- Delete, change my vote. Actually, what is a non-fiction mutant? And pretty much everyone in marvel comics is a mutant (almost). So the cat is really unnecesary. Depopulate, as they are all pretty much already categorized in the comics sections; superpowered, non-superpowered, or characters. (which i have been working on for 2 days). <>Who?¿? 19:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - Actually, Spider-Man, most of the Avengers, all of the Thunderbolts, many of the Defenders, etc aren't mutants. There's a semi-official dividing line between the X-Men & spinoffs (almost all mutants) and "everything else" (mostly not) - SoM
- Delete, change my vote. Actually, what is a non-fiction mutant? And pretty much everyone in marvel comics is a mutant (almost). So the cat is really unnecesary. Depopulate, as they are all pretty much already categorized in the comics sections; superpowered, non-superpowered, or characters. (which i have been working on for 2 days). <>Who?¿? 19:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Also, Category:Marvel Comics mutants is already pretty redundant imo, unless we want to make the categories like Category:X-Men members and Category:Brotherhood of Evil Mutants members subcategories of it. --DrBat 13:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment As far as I'm concerned, make it so on the subcats. - SoM 15:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I have no major problem with Category:Marvel Comics mutants, but would prefer to see it as a list. One less category to add and manage. However, if its kept, wouldnt be too difficult to add the other cat's and indvidual's not already cat'd to it. <>Who?¿? 21:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree - there are already enough such lists. I think it's easier to leave it as a category. -Sean Curtin 00:26, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Category no longer unpopulated by non-Marvel entries. Keep. -Sean Curtin 00:26, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Comment The purpose of this discussion is to come to a consenus or what should come of a category, deleting, creating or populating, with knowledge of the discussion and without the general consensus, makes the point of having policies obsolete. Being an admin, you should know this. Please do not take this as a personal attack, however taking such quick and decisive action without taking in consideration of the group consenus, after only 2 days, is a bit rash. Seeings the category was childless, it was a candidate for renaming, deletion or keeping, making those changes should not negate that fact. Moreover, there are some guidelines for lists and cats, as we were discussing the possibility for either. <>Who?¿? 01:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with Sean. --Kbdank71 15:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and depopulate it's one article to Category:Buddy Holly songs, it's parent category. There's no need for seperate categories, 'singles' only has one article, and 'songs' only has two. Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and listify. <>Who?¿? 04:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as Lachatdelarue proposes. Sebastian (talk) 07:41, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 13:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Rename to category:People of Queensland for consistency with other children of category:Australian people by states and territories such as category:People of Victoria, category:People of Tasmania, also other countries use this standard. clarkk 09:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Rename. --Kbdank71 15:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Rename, but NONE of the categories for USA or Canada people use this standard. All of the US/Canada people categories use the format "People from {state/province/territory}". If you want consistency with other English-language categories, it might be better to rename all of the Australian categories to that format. Dale Arnett 06:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant category in the Comics category sections. Category:Supervillains by team is better suited and matches the current format of the category trees currently in use in this section. Category has already been depopulated. <>Who?¿? 04:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant category in the Comics category sections. Category:Superheroes by team is better suited and matches the current format of the category trees currently in use in this section. Category has already been depopulated. <>Who?¿? 06:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Extremely redundant category in the Comics category sections. Previous sub Category:Wildstorm Comics superhero teams is better suited directly under "by publisher" and matches the current format of the category trees currently in use in this section. Category has already been depopulated. <>Who?¿? 06:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.