Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 22 March 24 >

March 23[edit]

Category:Neighbourhoods in Oshawa[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) 21:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This formerly had half a dozen articles in it, but now all but one of them have been either redirected to the city for lacking any real substance besides a single (unsourced) sentence asserting the neighbourhood's mere existence, or have been deleted because they weren't actually articles about neighbourhoods per se, but rather badly-written and unsourced and WP:ORG-failing articles about the community associations that governed services in the neighbourhoods. Which means that this is now a single-item category (and even that single item is a completely unsourced article which might technically also qualify for deletion or redirection — the only thing saving it from having one of those things imposed immediately, rather than pursuant to a larger consensus discussion, is that it contains a lot more than just a one-line assertion of existence.) Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, without prejudice against recreation in the future if genuinely substantive and properly sourced articles about the neighbourhoods can actually be written. Remaining entry should be upmerged to Category:Oshawa and Category:Communities in Durham Region. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Content is lacking, though I would not oppose recreation should somebody actually make some effort to create useful articles on the neighbourhoods. SFB 18:41, 24 March 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.

Category:Christian denominational families[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose merging Category:Christian denominational families to Category:Christian denominations by denominational family

Nominator's rationale: In a recent discussion regarding renaming "Christian denominational families" to "(Major) branches of Christianity", a number of issues were brought up that would not be addressed by merely renaming the category. Instead, I propose a slightly more drastic measure, making "Christian denominations" the parent category. I listed this proposal as a "merge", but it is more of a rearrangement. The end result would be "Christian denominations" appearing directly in "Category:Christianity" rather than indirectly through "Category:Christian denominational families"
As a daughter category, the existing "Christian denominational families" would include each major movement, articles about the history of the movement and related figures. There would then be a subcategory containing denominations within that movement. (This sub category could also be cross listed with the existing "Christian denominations by denominational family" - this parallel listing is why it would not be quite a "merge" of categories). Relocated as a sub-category, "Christian denominational families" would the combine listings found in "Christian denominations by denominational family". The result would be a more easily maintained category, as "denominational families" would more clearly be represented as groupings of related churches and denominations. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is still being disscussed at Categories for discussion/Log/2015_March_10. It should not be disscussed here until that discussion closes-- or maybe unless the parties there withdraw the proposal there to discuss here. I think waiting would be better. tahc chat 14:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:::I made a suggestion to close the other discussion as "no consensus". I think it important to bring up the alternative proposal so that people's time is not wasted discussing issues that may be made moot should this proposal go through. --Zfish118 (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC) @Tahc:; I now concur that it is too confusing to start a second discussion at this time. I withdraw this nomination and ask that it be closed or deleted. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 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.

Category:Об агенстве[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 delete WP:G11. – Fayenatic London 16:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the English-language Wikipedia. DexDor (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the only content is a user and a related digital agency. The whole thing looks like an advert. The user also has some redlinked categories in Cyrillic script, which should be removed before they can be created. I suspect that the user needs a warning. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as SEO/spam. Pichpich (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above arguments ― Padenton |☎  01:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-English. kennethaw88 • talk 04:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as non-English non-English category name and description ; for a user which has no indication that this is not for content categorization, as it doesn't specify "Wikipedia" or "Wikipedian" ; also fails external link use ; if this is an SEO hack, sanction the user as well. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:52, 24 March 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.

Category:Ali–Frazier rivalry[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. Replace with an article is a viable option. So if anyone want to write that article feel free. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary for navigation: all three articles are well interlinked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as the mainstay of Category:Boxing rivalries, which in turn is part of Category:Individual rivalries in sports. – Fayenatic London 22:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The parent boxing rivalries category is sparsely used as it is and upmerging to the main Muhammad Ali category would have benefits as the articles would be placed alongside other fight articles of the boxer. Also, not really any more room for expansion. SFB 18:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to article I agree w/ SFB regarding the boxing rivalries category, perhaps that should be up for discussion as well. If nothing else, it will draw attention to the category and encourage people to fill it with what I am sure are a decent number of articles. As for the category currently under discussion, It doesn't seem to match the other members of the boxing rivalries cat. I would like to see it replaced with an article giving an overview of the fights and the rivalry. ― Padenton |☎  19:03, 24 March 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.

Category:Algiers Metro[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) 21:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. There is only one article, Algiers Metro, so the category doesn't currently aid navigation. No objection to recreating later if more content is created.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified ترجمان05 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Algeria. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This metro appears to have 10 stations. Elsewhere, we have an article on each station, but here they are all redlinks. I suspect that this is a category that we will need. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With an editor who can read French or Arabic, I also think additional notable articles are possible. No objection to re-creating the category later.RevelationDirect (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to all parents, without prejudice to re-creating later. – Fayenatic London 22:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per lack of content and agree on recreation should it appear. SFB 18:44, 24 March 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.

Category:Proposed rail infrastructure in Algeria[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) 21:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:C1, an empty category. These were both created to hold Algiers Metro but that subway has since opened so it's no longer "proposed." The category does still have one article but it's miscategorized. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Aaron-Tripel as the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Algeria. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- There is in fact one "rail" article, but it is adequately categorised as a railway company. I see no purpose in having a "proposed" distinct from and "existing" one. We similarly do not allow a presnet/former split in many cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:25, 23 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_23&oldid=1074815206"