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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. It appears from the contents, that the main article is open problem. This clearly restricts the contents to certain scientific problems and the category should be renamed to reflect this. We have no article for unsolved problem, just a list of some unsolved problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While it's under discussion here, does this become a recursive catalogue? After all, it is currently an unsolved problem... (Rename, BTW). Grutness...wha? 23:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See recent CFD discussion regarding former "Unsolved problems in philosophy" category. AllyD (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to clarify scope. Geometry guy 14:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename An excellent idea. Debresser (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2009 (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.
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. --Xdamrtalk 14:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unnecessary level of categorization with the only parent being Category:Problems. If the discussion below indicates support for retaining Category:Problems, then the contents here should probably be upmerged. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that it is also ambiguous with unsolved being a dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or upmerge. Unnecessary level of categorization, as is clear from the adjectival title. Geometry guy 14:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either we had this nomination before, or I had thought about it before. Debresser (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2009 (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.
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. --Xdamrtalk 14:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Following up on the point made for Category:Analysis below. This seems to be a category for inclusion by name of otherwise unrelated material. The case for this is the introduction which suggests that google search should guide editors in what to include. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not mainly for the reason mentioned by the nominator. First of all because the word "problem" is prone to POV: 1. if used objectively, then still what is a problem for one, is easily solvable for the other; 2. if used subjectively, "problem" has a negative connotation, but others may view that as positive. And secondly because this category has become an indiscriminate collection of everything that has in whatever way to do with problems. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a rootcat for Category:Problem solving, you have to name the problems to solve them. And yes many problems exist Category:Unsolved problems, best is to clean the cat once in a while. (and you have to do analysis, decision making, planning, execution etc to solve these problems). Mion (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2009 (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.
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. Given that the main article is a dab page, the contents really are a random collection. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. A categorisation that brings together such diverse and unrelated matter as Archives, Oil Terminals, Food Storage and Bicycle Lockers is totally spurious. The Sage of Stamford (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep a useful collection category especially when considred as part of the corrected parent category Category:Technology by type into which I just placed it. A cateogry requiring some pruning is not a valid reason for deletion. 'Spurious' is also not a valid reason--no realm of knowledge of 'spurious'. Hmains (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sympathetic to Hmains' pruning if achievable. However (a) the Storage main article to which the category points is itself a Disambiguation page and (b) the range of articles under this categor looks near-chaotic (e.g. Category:Memory trying to relate to animal rather than computer memory but then containing the latter anyway). So is a pruning to a technological category achievable - and if so is it better under a different name and reference article? AllyD (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody is willing to do the pruning, then perhaps a delete is the best option, because the nominator is correct that at present this category is an indiscriminate collection of everything that has in whatever way to do with storage. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2009 (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.
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. --Xdamrtalk 14:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a logical category. It just contains things which use the word analysis, even though this word means different things and often just means "study of". Charvest (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the subcategories and articles, they're a grotesque mismatch of well just about everything. If these jostle uncomfortably crammed into the Analysis category, it's even more so under its upward categories. I'm hard pressed to see anything that would be lost by its non-existence? AllyD (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also deleteCategory:Problems which is the same mash-up of any old thing with the word problem in the title. Charvest (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree that this category has become an indiscriminate collection of everything that has in whatever way to do with analysis, I'd like to hear a serious assessment first, whether it isn't possible to establish some good inclusion criteria. If yes, then prune, if not, then delete. Debresser (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , i am, analysis is important enough to keep, secondly this whole proposal for deletion fails and should be ignored as the category is not properly templated which prevents other interested or associated people to join this discussion. Mion (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale:[1] Analysis is a philosophical method which was applied later on in different sciences, which explains the different fields in the cat. Mion (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the definition. And with most of the articles in the category. Debresser (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2009 (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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As is, this category has no role as that role is occupied by two other categories Category:Differential topology and Category:Differential geometry. Keeping this category around would likely cause confusion. So we might as well delete it. Rybu (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If, in set theory, it was necessary to give a name to the intersection of every pair of sets A and B, independent of the sets A and B in question, ensuring that the name is well-defined would certainly be too difficult a task. --PST 13:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The linked discussion shows consensus for two separate categories. While an additional umbrella category might be helpful, it should be deleted unless or until a clear use for it is identified, and one that is not served by the two separate categories. Geometry guy 14:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two subjects of differential geometry and differential topology have a lot of overlap, but they are still distinct. Merging their two categories into one, as this category was intended for, will lead to confusion. Ozob (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2009 (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.
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. — ξxplicit 09:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Current name is ambiguous and does not match the name of the lead article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per both arguments of nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2009 (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.
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:Listify. Since the list exists as noted below, this will be processed as a delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. A classic overcategorization of performer by performance. We don't categorize actors by the characters they have played (or vice versa). Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify if necessary then delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify or keep, being a "companion" in Doctor Who seems to be a career defining event. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorisation, information already well presented at Companion (Doctor Who), which is where people would look for it I imagine. Declan Clam (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2009 (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.
