Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 20 March 22 >

March 21[edit]

Category:Songs written by Tim Wheeler[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: Keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs written by Tim Wheeler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is entirely redundant to Ash songs - Tim Wheeler writes or co-writes most of Ash's songs, and (unless I'm very much mistaken) doesn't write for anyone else, so... not needed. Bobyllib (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs specifically says categorise songs by songwriter (unless there is no head article to support the category). --Richhoncho (talk) 09:23, 22 March 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.

Category:Yaroslavl State Medical Academy[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Yaroslavl State Medical Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation. Eponymous category for the article Yaroslavl State Medical Academy. No sign of any prospect of expanding the category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – but allow recreation in due course if nec. Occuli (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; but I note that a userspace draft is the only thing in this category- the actual article is not. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:56, 28 March 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.

Category:931 BC disestablishments[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:931 BC disestablishments to Category:10th-century BC disestablishments
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per WP:OC#SMALL, this category has little prospect of expansion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but not 9th century - it's 10th century. --Regnator (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooops! you are quite right. I have corrected the nomination, and since Category:10th-century BC disestablishments already exists, I have relabelled it as a merger rather than a renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – and Category:1st-millennium BC disestablishments is a rather magnificent structure for a handful of articles. Occuli (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- I am far from convinced of the merits of establishment and disestablishment categories. Certainly at such remote dates (and even 10th-century AD), categories dealing with long periods (such as a century) should be quite adequate. I therefore hope this is a sample nomination to be followed by a much wider one in due course. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 21 March 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.

Category:Goddess of Democracy[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Goddess of Democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation. Eponymous category for a single article and its associated image. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 21 March 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.

Category:Single-player games that require a constant internet connection[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Single-player games that require a constant internet connection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation. This may be something worth mentioning in the article on a video game, but it doesn't need a category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is an important distinction to make nowadays, as it is a new phenomenon. This is not games that require an internet connection to merely load the game, but require a connection the entire time the game is being played. Any break in connectivity for any reason, whether it's a hiccup in the local router, failure at the game company's server, or anything in between, will stop gameplay immediately until the connection is restored. Oftentimes, this stop will include a loss of game progress. This is an extremely controversial new development, and it is definitely worthwhile to be able to find a list of all games that do this, as many gamers are looking for this type of information for a list of games not to buy. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 14:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sales catalogue. And it's perverse to have a list of things not to buy. If anyone is interested in the game, they can read the article and see the note about internet-required, but if they aren't interested enough to read the article, then a reasons-not-to-buy category is irrelevant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The category isn't saying "this is a reason not to buy." The category isn't being judgmental of the worth or value or desirability the game, it's just responding to an overwhelming amount of media interest in this kind of DRM. - Chardish (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then write an article on the topic. Except, of course that your comment below about that being appropraite " at some point", implies that you think not yet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been a notable and significant topic of press coverage lately. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ... and I could go on and on. This topic might even be worthy of its own article at some point, but since there's a lot of interest in this phenomenon, it makes sense to at least have a category to track it. - Chardish (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tracking things is what blogs are for. This is an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, categorize instead of "track" then. My point stands. - Chardish (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. If, as you imply, the topic is not yet worthy of an article then it definitely doesn't need a category. The news media get into a flurry about all sorts of things which don't make appropriate categories . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come now, not every category should have an article and now every article should have a category. Do we need an article for Characters in British novels of the 20th century? What about Museums in Vancouver? What about People associated with solar power? There are plenty of worthwhile categories that don't need articles or don't have articles, and the lack of a basis for an article is not a reason to delete. I'm assuming good faith here, but you really haven't built a case for deletion except for just saying "overcategorization." - Chardish (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The test is not whether a head article does exist, but whether an encyclopedic head article could be written on the subject. Are you seriously suggesting that there would be any problem in writing a an encyclopedic head article on the three topics you mentioned? There are lots reliable sources for all three of them, to establish notability for the topic ... but all you have on these games is a few websites and a Globe & Mail blog. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of those websites are the UK Register and CNN. I think those imply notability. Also, I think that an article about the theory of requiring an always on internet connection for single player games could be written, while the category could list games that actually do it in practice. The list and the concept are two separate things, and require different implementations. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 05:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated above. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 15:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an aid to navigation across articles for games with this defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a clear example of overcategorization, and, if I may say so, fancruft. It would make more sense to mention this is the articles about the game and to write an article about it if that could be done at this time. It's also a triple intersection. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This category will become more and more notable and useful as time goes by and the number of games using this form of Digital Rights Management increases. And it is quite distinct from the category of multiplayer games that require an internet connection, as that is simply required because of sheer functionality; this is something distinct from a simple gameplay factor. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 01:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great—write an article about it that survives and I would consider a category being appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete through characterization as well as implicit POV-ness (as right now, it specifically applies to game from one publisher that is currently being ridiculed by gamers because of this.) There is possibly a need for a category about SP games that share data with a network to advance the SP game - things like Spore and CitiesXL - but this is purposely designed to isolate DRM-loaded games, and thats POV. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to overcategorization, if a major amount of games start requiring a constant net connection and the topic becomes notable rather than just a Ubisoft thing, then we should reconsider it. Right now the category is biased against constant internet DRM.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just Ubisoft that is using this form of DRM. Electronic Arts is using it in Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight. Again, this is a category that is only going to grow and increase in notablity. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 15:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say keep it as well, it is not as much overcategorization as categorizing every kind of arcade system board. The average reader doesn't even know what an arcade system board is. NeoGenPT (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Torchiest, saying that the category "is only going to grow and increase in notablity" is crystal-ball gazing, and possibly an illustration of the POV-pushing which Masem noted.
@NeoGenPT, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS before, and I guess I can't agree with it. In my opinion it's purely an official excuse to look the other way. If we have the power to correct things but only correct one and sweep the others under the rug we are being highly biased to say the least. And also, if we did correct things as we should, there would be no need for WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS because there would be no examples of it. There is also one other very common argument used in these kind of debates that I'm wondering how it didn't become an official policy yet, the one that says "I agree but there is too much work and too few editors." There is no such thing as too much work in Wikipedia, just look at the size of it. NeoGenPT (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an excuse to look the other way, quite the reverse. It's a reminder both that one piece of junk is different from another, and we have to start somewhere, so removing one piece of junk is a first step to removing other bits of junk. If there are other categories which you think should be deleted, please go ahead and open a CFD on them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ubisoft is using this DRM in all their new games. Thus, by definition, the category will grow as long as they are making games. Electronic Arts is one of the top five biggest video game companies in the world, and their usage of this new technology is notable. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 22:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Torchiest, the size of the category as a separate issue from any "increase in notablity". Your suggestion that anything done by a big company is notable is wrong; see WP:NOTINHERITED. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming it's notable solely because it's EA. It's notable because it's a change in the core functionality of the games. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 22:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you completely misunderstand what Wikipedia:Notability is all about. Please read the guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per explanation by User:Masem, and "This is an extremely controversial new development, and it is definitely worthwhile to be able to find a list of all games that do this, as many gamers are looking for this type of information for a list of games not to buy." written above by User:Torchiest, which is totally at odds with what an encyclopedia should be. A careful look should be made of the title, too, 'Single-player games that require a constant internet connection,' that word 'constant' is a weasel word in this context, especially in an unreferenced category. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that my initial remarks were inappropriate. However, this is a notable category. I'm not sure how constant could be considered a weasel word, since it accurately describes what is required. I suppose other options would be continuous or uninterrupted. Could you elaborate on what makes you think it's a weasel word? Torchiest (talk | contribs) 22:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed that it's overcategorization, and regardless of why it was created there is a strong whiff of soap accompanying the DRM issue across the net, let's not invite it here with a category for black-marking particular games. If particular games have non-trivially documented associations with DRM then that should be handled in the game articles within the boundaries of WP:WEIGHT. Someoneanother 22:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:IAR. This is not improving Wikipedia by downsizing it, it is appropriate. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, substantial media coverage on the matter makes an index valuable enough to keep. HawkShark (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as over-categorisation. Saying this will "become more notable" is little more than engaging in crystal balling, and while you eventually may be able to write an article about this subject, this is inherently a better topic for a list than a category. This is a topic where time will reveal how important a phenomenon it really is. (Lots of things get media coverage- this doesn't mean we need a category on them- how many award winners categories come here every month? Those get news coverage, as well. Just because it can be sourced doesn't mean it's sufficiently defining to have the category.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I've decided this would probably be better as an article at first, or perhaps even just a sub-section of the main Digital rights management article.
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:Industrial articles needing attention[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: Speedy keep. I have withdrawn the nomination, because both the concerns I set out have been addressed. The category is now being applied correctly to talk pages through the project banner {{WikiProject Industrial Notice}}, and the project is being revived. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Industrial articles needing attention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Maintenance category apparently added directly to articles rather than to their talk pages. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that this type of category was supposed to be added to the talk page rather than the article page. I will move the category tags to the associated talk pages. This category is useful to WikiProject Industrial, however, and should not be deleted. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 14:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of category is normally populated through the WikiProject banners, rather than by directly adding the category to a page. However, the lack of activity at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Industrial suggests that the project is either moribund or defunct, so the category serves no useful purpose even if applied correctly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original founder of the project has been MIA for a few months, but half of the members are still active editors, and I'm trying to revive the project. However, I'm still learning how to use all of the features of wiki, including things like adding categories and tags correctly. I feel like this is a case of WP:BITE. It would be more constructive if you could offer some guidance on how to add the categorization through banners functionality. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 14:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree that this is a case of WP:BITE. Torchiest and I have been working to organize this project again. As he said, we both are still in the learning process. Xe7al (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All tags have been removed from articles, and the category is now controlled through the project banner. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 17:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Provided it becomes a talk page maintenance category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Our group is getting back on its feet, and we are in the process of recruiting more collaborators. The category will be extremely helpful to our WikiProject. Xe7al (talk) 23:04, 25 March 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.

Category:Perennials of Ontario[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. Currently empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Perennials of Ontario (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation. Both of the plants in this category are widely-distributed in North America, and categorising them by every state or province in which they are found would cause massive category-clutter. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment most states/provinces in Anglo North America are geographically larger than any country in Europe aside from European Russia... 76.66.194.4 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not so: of the US States, only Texas & Califoria are bigger than France, and only 11 states are bigger than the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find it hard to believe that including it's maritime area, Hawaii is not larger that most countries in Europe, or that Alaska is smaller than France, since Alaska is bigger than Texas and California. And isn't Ontario larger than France? 76.66.194.32 (talk) 03:56, 24 March 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.

Category:Songs with lyrics by Bobby Troup[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:  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 5#Category:Songs with lyrics by Bobby Troup. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Songs with lyrics by Bobby Troup to Category:Songs written by Bobby Troup
Nominator's rationale: Merge. A songwriter is a person who writes either lyrics and music, Therefore the sole entry in the 'lyrics by' would fit just as snugly in the songwriter category. Richhoncho (talk) 13:34, 21 March 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.

Category:Songs with music by Mylène Farmer[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:  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 5#Category:Songs with music by Mylène Farmer. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Songs with music by Mylène Farmer to Category:Songs written by Mylène Farmer
Nominator's rationale: Merge. A songwriter is some one who writes either lyrics or music, therefore any entry in the music category would be equally at home in the "songwriter" category. It is also overcategorization. Richhoncho (talk) 13:26, 21 March 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.

Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in Myanmar[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 Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in Myanmar to Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in Burma, and rename Category:Christian college in Burma to Category:Christian colleges in Burma, with no prejudice against renominating (such a nomination should perhaps also include Category:Christian colleges in China). There was no consensus about what to do with Category:Christian college in Burma, but we can at least rename it to contain the correct plural form of "college". -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The three categories are recently-created duplicates which I found in Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 21 March 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.

Category:Round churches in England[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: Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Round churches in England to Category:Churches in England
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is overcategorisation: I have found find no other church-by-shape categories in Category:Churches in England or in the sub-categories of Category:Church buildings. There is already a list at Round church. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Round churches are few in number and thus unnusual. They thus constitute a legitimate category. There may be other architectural features that could provide a legitimate category, but they are probably relatively few in number, since most features will be too common to provide a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Precisely because of limited scope it's far better defined and manageable. "Round buildings" [not limited to churches] might be seen as an unnecessary sub of Category:Rotundas but the latter, in addition to true "round buildings" also lists just "big domes" like the United States Capitol rotunda and Palladian villas which actually have square floorplans. NVO (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are more in England, and categories could be added for other countries. There are also a few other "plan-types", mostly more ancient, that could usefully be added - see Cross-in-square, triconch etc. Generally our "categorization by architecture" schemes are extremely rudimentary, & have a long way to go. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 22 March 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.

Category:Fruits of Florida[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fruits of Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Many fruits are grown in a wide variety of countries, and categorising them by all the countries in which they are grown would create massive category clutter. That's why we do not have a Category:Fruits of the United States of Category:Fruits of France.
This newly-created category goes even further, and starts categorising fruits by national sub-division, which is a recipe for even worse category clutter. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand your logic in this case. I'm new and really do not have a good understanding yet of 'Category' and 'Sub-Category'.

Could I have instead a Category:Mangoes of Florida with all 103 photos that are now in Fruits of Florida?

Any other suggestions?

Thanks. Langra (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard the above entry. I just found out that you were talking about Fruit Of Florida in Wikipedia and NOT in Wikimedia Commons. Sorry about that.

I have no problem with your deletion plan for Wikipedia 'Fruits Of Florida'. Thanks. Langra (talk) 21:01, 21 March 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.

Category:Bus routes in Cardiff[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 to Category:Bus transport in Cardiff, with no prejudice against recreating Category:Bus routes in Cardiff if the number of articles about bus routes in Caridff increases significantly (whether it should is outside the scope of CfD). -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bus routes in Cardiff to Category:Bus transport in Cardiff
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category currently contains only 3 articles, and there does not seem to be much scope for expanding it with currently-existing articles. The renaming widens its scope, and allows for a better possibility of expansion, by allowing the inclusion of bus operators such as Cardiff Bus and infrastructure such as Cardiff Central bus station. No objection to re-creating the category if there is a flood of new articles on notable bus routes in the city of Cardiff. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notifications. WikiProject Cardiff has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I intend to create articles for all of Cardiff Bus's routes over the coming months which would greatly expand this category. However, it would be a good idea to include infrastructure. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category and articles -- Unlike train routes which cannot easily be varied, because the permanent way cannot easily be altered, bus routes can be and frequently are altered, so that a WP article on a bus route will need to be regularly maintained. The right place for information on bus routes is on the bus operator or Transport Executive website, becasue they will pay some one to maintain theri own site. Articles on bus routes have frequently been deleted in the past. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The articles are not being discussed here, just the category name. Besides there are articles on hundreds of other bus routes so why should these be an exception? Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it hard to believe that Cardiff has many individual bus routes which meet the notability threshold of WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As do I, actually, but since this is CFD, support original proposal. Bus routes and bus stops don't get the presumption of notability over at AfD that train routes do, so I urge discretion when creating more articles. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:45, 29 March 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.

Category:Cities of Turkey on River[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cities of Turkey on River to Category:Coastal cities and towns in Turkey
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found doing cleanup as an apparent incomplete speedy. I don't believe that the previous proposal would fly. I'm also not sure about the name I added to the proposal, but this is the form used elsewhere on the wiki. So feel free to offer a better alternative. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:22, 21 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_21&oldid=1077425624"