Category:Biographies without real biographical information[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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 17:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category, added by the template {{cleanup-biography}}, is somewhat poorly named. It suggests that the biographical information in the article isn't 'real', which implies it might be a hoax or fiction. What it's meant for, judging by the template, is for articles which contain some biographical information but lack important details. This proposed name would make that purpose clearer. Robofish (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the cat and any articles that happen to be there. A Bio without real bio information ought not be here. As for the proposed name change: What's sufficient or not is often in the eye of the beholder. We have stub categories galore to mark insufficiency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
REname -- I would suggest "limited" rather than "insufficient". However, I am not clear how this differs from tagging it as a bio-stub, which does the job much better, because there is a whole tree of stub types. Some of the articles have quite a bit of detail. However since this is being populated by a template, should we not be discussing the merits of that template? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. I think we should save discussion on the merits of the template for a TfD, so long as the template exists so will the category and it shouldn't exist under this name. As for biographies having insufficient biographical information, perhaps what was meant was when you have an article about a person, yet it's discussing a different subject related to that person, and not really focused about the person's life, which is what a biography is supposed to be. I see that as somewhat different from a lacking detail stub, more closer to a Coatrack article actually, or a WP:BLP1E article discussing only a notable event in the person's life and not about the person (in which case the article should probably be renamed, but I digress). Either way, the category is poorly named and should be renamed. -- Ϫ 01:59, 4 December 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.
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. Rename to be consistent with the main article, named Guaratinguetá Futebol. Carioca (talk) 20:36, 2 December 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.
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:Delete. There don't appear to be any articles for characters from this strip. The only article in the category is for a story, not a character. 70.226.163.210 (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also potentially confusing with the Scream (film) movie franchise. Robofish (talk) 01:18, 3 December 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.
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 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. There is a subtle difference between 'algorithm' and 'method', but no one agrees on the difference, and most people consider them the same. Right now, about 30% of articles are in the method category, and 70% are in the algorithm category. Lavaka (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine with me. Lavaka (talk) 09:50, 6 December 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.
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: This category contains nothing more than articles about the submarine involved in the accidental explosion, and the submarine tied up alongside that was badly damaged. Neither is more than a stub, and the incident itself is highly unlikely to ever have an article on its own vs. being covered in the Soviet submarine B-37 article. Therefore, I believe this to be overcategorisation and that this category should be deleted. The BushrangerOne ping only 00:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The category exists because the explosion destroying this submarine damaged another. This is not a sufficient basis for a category. The other sub is linked from the article, so that no furnter navigatioon ais is necessary
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.
