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:keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. One-voiced category for a little German municipality. Its subcategory is also one-voiced. IMHO, by now it is not necessary. Dэя-Бøяg 22:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all these categories nominated in this batch, including those in the next day's noms. They're part of an overarching established category tree. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is work in progress as part of WikiProject Germany. There is now a second article and at least 4 more could be added. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Same argument as for Hallenberg above (10 Dec), namely that there is no 'overarching established category tree' whatever, and these are merely very small eponymous categories with no inclusion criteria other than some vague connection with Nortorf. Occuli (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Populated places in Europe > Populated places in Germany > Type of populated place in Germany > Type of place in subregion of Germany > Town in Germany. Looks like a tree to me? - The BushrangerOne ping only 18:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: I can only repeat what Bermicourt and The Bushranger have already stated. In regards to the tree, note WP:DUCK. It is only a shame this tree can't quack, but still no reason to annihilate it. Jared Preston (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see Bermicourt, The Bushranger and Jared Preston. --Cvf-ps (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2010 (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:keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category for a tiny German village with only 2 articles reguarding rivers. IMHO redundant by now. Dэя-Бøяg 22:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the reasons shown. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've added the article Aukrug on category. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all these categories nominated in this batch, including those in the next day's noms. They're part of an overarching established category tree. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is work in progress. The article tally is already up to 6 and more articles will be added. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Same argument as for Hallenberg above (10 Dec). Occuli (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see Bermicourt, The Bushranger and Jared Preston. --Cvf-ps (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I change my vote because now there are 10 articles. IMHO it could be saved. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:42, 11 December 2010 (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:keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. One-voiced category for a tiny German municipality. IMHO redundant. Dэя-Бøяg 22:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all these categories nominated in this batch, including those in the next day's noms. They're part of an overarching established category tree. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is work in progress as part of WikiProject Germany and there are up to 21 articles to be added. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Same argument as for Hallenberg above (10 Dec). Occuli (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see Bermicourt, The Bushranger and Jared Preston. --Cvf-ps (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2010 (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:keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category for a little German town that has simply one article, not the main one. IMHO redundant by now. Dэя-Бøяg 22:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've added the main article. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the reasons shown. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all these categories nominated in this batch, including those in the next day's noms. They're part of an overarching established category tree. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is work in progress as part of WikiProject Germany. There are now 7 articles and 5 still to be included. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Same argument as for Hallenberg above (10 Dec). Occuli (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I changed my vote because today there are 7 articles included in the category. IMHO by now, also considering the notable history of this little town, is sufficient to save its category. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:13, 15 December 2010 (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:Merge. Jafeluv (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: If additional articles come along, subcats can be revisited.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2010 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: These days there are many software which branch into different or specific applications. They are regarded as applications. e.g. Office or productivity, Anti-Virus, web browsers. It will be nice to keep them in a single category for easier access and neatness. --Takamaxa (Talk) 13:31, 9 December 2010 (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:keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge Subcategories are placed under one or the other with no discernible pattern.Swap: make Computing the parent and Computer the subcategory. Categories' scope substantially overlap. Main article of parent cat is more specific than main article of subcat. Pnm (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resort seems to be very mixed up. Computers are physical objects, computing is an action. 64.229.101.17 (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the two categories should be 'hardware' (Category:Computers) and 'software' (Category:Computing), but I do agree there is considerable confusion inside the categories. A lot of recategorisation needs to be done. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - but it needs complete reorganisation as at present Category:Computers is (ludicrously) a parent of Category:Computing (which includes people). Category:Computing is the more general category and should include related software, hardware, people etc. Occuli (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Category:Computers needs a good overhaul, its a mess. Category:Computing should be the all misc category. It would be nice if there were clear definition and categorization of whats in there. --Takamaxa (Talk) 13:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Category has a proper main article computer and is a wide-enough and society-interested subject for this to be a high level category of its own. And Computers is a Category:Main topic classifications; it would take more than this discussion to delete/change something in this category. Hmains (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Looking around at past history, it seems that this is the proper/only place to discuss this. So fine here. Hmains (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but.... according to the categorization standards, Category:Computers only contains articles about specific computers and is a top-level eponymous category. Category:Computing contains everything else. Mangoe (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's impossible to reasonably resort with Computers at the top and Computing underneath. The matter of Category:Main topic classifications is on point. Do those who oppose the proposed merge support (1) swapping parent and child and thereby (2) substituting Computing for Computers in Category:Main topic classifications? --Pnm (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of dealing with eponymous categories is being argued out again but my understanding of the present system there would be no relationship between the two categories other than that computer would be in Category:Computing and would be the parent article of Category:Computers (but would not be a member of the latter category). YMMV-- the point is after all contested. Mangoe (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support the swapping of parent and child. The sense of the word computing has probably evolved, and though its origins (in the sense we're talking about, rather than in the mathematical sense) are the physical computers themselves, IMHO computers are now a valid subcategory of computing. I also support the recategorisation of articles required to tidy things up. --trevj (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, computing has the wider meaning and should be at the top of the tree with computers as a sub-cat. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes to the two categories along the lines of what's been discussed – everything but switching the parent–child relationship. As multiple editors noted above, the two categories were quite mixed up to begin with. I don't think I did any harm by moving ahead with it. If discussion picks up again or the closer sees a different outcome, I'll re-sort again. --Pnm (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2011 (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:Leaders of the Communist Party of Canada (Ontario)/Labour-Progressive Party[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, if we only stuck to what people actually said, we would be in trouble. (That's the entire argument against using Category:Victoria (Australia) law and so forth -- no one really talks like that. Of course they don't -- but this is a category name, and sometimes clarity coupled with compactness is preferred over conversational felicity. But I digress ... .) Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. "Leaders of party" seems to fit better with the "X of Y" naming pattern. - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:56, 9 December 2010 (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. Jafeluv (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename or delete. Not sure this needs to exist, but if it is kept it needs to be renamed to match the article Maddox (writer) since Maddox is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unpopulated and unnecessary category. Karppinen (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). Deletion is fine with me now that the subcategory has been created. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:15, 13 December 2010 (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.
