Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Grocer's Encyclopedia[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.
I think so - don't we already? "This is a maintenance category. It is used for maintenance of the Wikipedia project and is not part of the encyclopedia. It contains pages that are not articles, or it groups articles by status rather than content. Do not include this category in content categories." it says on the head cat. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The subcategories of Wikipedia Sources contain Wikipedia articles (not talk pages) about encyclopedic topics and (currently) place them under Category:Wikipedia administration which (IMO) doesn't make much sense and is the sort of anomaly that I'm trying to remove (to make category intersection more workable). Currently the categories are under Category:Reader help (which isn't correct) and they wouldn't belong under Category:Wikipedia editor help either (that says "should not be used to categorise articles"). Three options: (1) leave unchanged, (2) re-parent these categories (e.g. so they are not under Category:Wikipedia administration etc), (3) delete these categories. Option 3 is the cleanest from a categorization perspective. Another reason for not categorizing articles in this way is that if an article is placed in an "abnormal" category and not placed in any "normal" article categories then it won't be flagged up as an uncategorized page. If these categories were being used in some sort of editor workflow then that could be a good reason to keep them, but afaics (e.g. by looking at what-links-here on a sample of the categories) that isn't the case (i.e. I haven't found any WikiProject instructions that involve these categories). I guess these categories have been created because it's easy to include a bit of code in a template to populate what is in effect a "template tracking category" - regardless of whether the resulting category provides benefits that outweigh its costs. DexDor(talk) 05:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia categories need to aid the development of the encyclopedia and no one is coming forward to explain how these help. I'm up for deleting the source-specific subcategories of Category:Wikipedia sources. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2015 (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. Upmerging isn't applicable because the parent categories are only relevant for the eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. With a population of below 10,000 and having no substantial history except Battle of Kopychyntsi to its credit, it has absolutely less chance of finding a place in multiple articles. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am against. It can possible to create several articles about Kopychyntsi.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About churches and people from town. Please, see cat. in Ukrainain wiki. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Too small to need a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- I am asked if I have changed my mind. The answer is "No". There has to be a limit on how small a place justifies having a category, and I still think this is too small. I note there are now an article on the place, a church and a battle, together with a subcat for people from it (which should also be upmerged. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2015 (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. MER-C 12:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. seems like it is too broad to be a category. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination. Contents of this category has too little in common. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete Since one cannot have preparation for the past, a proper name would be Category:Preparation, which is even more obviously hopelessly broad. Mangoe (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This just groups together too many totally unlike things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2015 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It will be a very rare street that is notable enough to warrant having a category for it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2015 (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.
@RevelationDirect: (1) I agree, matching to parent category looks like a no-brainer. (2) I am a blues fan, and IMO your second thought was correct. Blind musicians exerted a major influence on the development of blues (which is OC my opinion, and OR etc etc). Narky Blert (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because such types of categories need header articles, does not mean we have to create them in every case there is a header article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed to Stand-Alone Deletion I'd be strongly opposed to deleting just this genre of blind musicians without also deleting the classical and parent categories. Note that this is my 2nd vote. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if this category is going to disappear, it should be upmerged to its parents, rather than plainly deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2015 (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.
