Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 10 March 12 >

March 11[edit]

Category:Former Army of the Pharaohs members[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) 01:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is no categorization scheme for former members of bands, nor do I believe there is a need for one. Upmerge to parent. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's working good as one, as it differentiates it and makes it more clearer, so as a subcategory I think it'll be alright. Also this is a group that has been through and is is going to go through signifact changes over time as more members will leave and be added to the group. TwinTurbo (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At some point, though, every member will be a former member. The distinction would be better made in a list format, such as List of Army of the Pharaohs members, much like Category:Menudo members and List of Menudo members. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:48, 15 March 2014 (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:Wikipedians cheering up[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) 01:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC/U. DexDor (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I created these three categories to underpin three userboxes: one userbox to rally together those Wikipedians who, like me, may think we should all cheer up some, and two userboxes to link to the 'Thanks' logs of those Wikipedians who wish to display the thanks they've given or received. It was all done in the spirit of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, and to counter-balance the reputation of "famed grumpiness" highlighted in an article about Wikipedia in The Economist on 1-7 March 2014. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If these are just categories that contain userboxes, can they be grouped together? I don't think three separate categories is really necessary. Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Violates WP:USERCAT in that it has an arbitrary grouping of people simply based on using a userbox. "Userboxes should not automatically include categories by default." - These categories seemingly violate that directly. This has absolutely no encyclopedic benefit to the encyclopedia. User categories are to be used for collaboration, and categorizing users in these groups can not possibly foster collaboration for improving the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per vegadark. additionally, this is a somewhat trivial aspect of editing, and will be vastly unused and not reflect the actual thanking patterns (few who thank will use the ubx). the userboxes are more than adequate, if anyone wants to acknowledge the thanking function. I appreciate the effort to create civility, of course, i just agree w/ vega that it also gets in the way of the actual structure here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Violates the guidelines on usercats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2014 (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:Nationalist parties in Russia[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: withdrawn by nominator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are Russian nationalist political parties in other countries (like Belarus and Ukraine), just like there are Arab nationalist political parties in many countries, and the current title dosn't specify that this category is specifically meant for "Russian nationalist political parties", "Nationalist parties" could refer Chechen or Tatar nationalist parties. Charles Essie (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming is not required. There are difference between "Russian [ethnic] nationalist organisations" (that ruwiki category is subcategory of "Russian [ethnic] nationalism") and "Nationalistic organisations in Russia" (other ruwiki category is subcategory of "Nationalism in Russia"). We need both categories. --TarzanASG (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there are no such separate categories in English Wikipedia, and the current title dosn't acknowledge the existence of Russian nationalist parties in some of the former Soviet republics (such as Belarus and Ukraine). Charles Essie (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant is that there is no category for "Nationalisms in Russia". Charles Essie (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is no good reason to conflate groups across national borders.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the only reason I oppose the current title, "Nationalist parties" is not specific enough, the title should make clear that this category is only for Russian nationalist political parties. Charles Essie (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's come to my attention that a new category was created titled Category:Russian nationalist organizations, my requested move was really because I wanted a category like this, now that it exists, there's no reason move after all, let's close this thing, it never really had support anyway. Charles Essie (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2014 (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:Athletics events at the Commonwealth Games navigational boxes[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 (category has remained empty). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Replaced by Category:Athletics at the Commonwealth Games navigational boxes, which follows usual category style. SFB 20:16, 11 March 2014 (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:AFC U-14 Football Championship[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) 01:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable youth tournament, which fails WP:NFOOTBALL... JMHamo (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are only two entries and both look to be non-notable (currently at AFD), making the category redundant. GiantSnowman 19:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I am very dubious whether any under 14 sporting event is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2014 (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:Foo Games foo-ers by year[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) 00:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent "Foo Games foo-ers" categories almost exclusively exist as containers for the by year categories. There is no reason why the year categories cannot by contained at the main "Foo Games foo-ers" categories - these categories add an additional layer of categories with no clear benefit (there is a reason why the upper categories allow viewing "by sport" or "by year" - as it is "by sport" ones are just empty containers that lead into the "by year" category) SFB 16:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can I get some bot help in tagging these? It's turning into a sisyphean task. SFB 18:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all -- We seem to have a by year and a by country tree in parallel. I cannot beleive that we need both branches of the tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2014 (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:Angry Administrators[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: administrative close: category was speedily deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't appear to be a useful category. If kept should be renamed (e.g. to "Wikipedia administrators who are angry") DexDor (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and salt if kept? Seriously? Kill this one with fire - serves no useful collaborative purpose. Red links would work better for this category in any case since red is the color of anger.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • G7'd - Move along. :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:12, 11 March 2014 (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 about coffee[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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and see Wikipedia:Overcategorization and specifically, WP:DEFINING. "Songs about..." categories remain a repository of original research with no redeeming factors. Richhoncho (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some of these articles (e.g. The Coffee Song) do look like they're about coffee and others (based on their name) probably are on the theme of coffee. DexDor (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually your words, ""probably are on the theme of coffee" doesn't cut it. Either they are and it is defining, or they are not. The Coffee Song is about the economics of Brazil... None of the other songs in the category have any text claiming the song is "about coffee" so my claim that is non-defining still stands. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • move discussion elsewhere We need to have a broader conversation, without a 1-week time limit, on (Fictional media) about (noun). These things are proliferating, but we need a broader consensus on which nouns are acceptable, and why.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Obi-Wan but, in the meantime, delete this one per Richhoncho's rationale as being indiscriminate and nondefining. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate and non-defining. As an example of the problem, I see that Suzanne Vega's "Tom's Diner" has been added here — a song which certainly mentions the word "coffee" in the lyrics, but very much fails to be about coffee per se. I would not object to a List of songs about coffee if somebody actually felt that was warranted (though other people still might), but a category is definitely a step too far over the line. Bearcat (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat. Few of the songs are explicitly about coffee (for instance, the Lacy J. Dalton song is really about loneliness after a breakup). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat. --Lquilter (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2014 (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/2014_March_11&oldid=1136462648"