Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 15

< April 14 April 16 >

April 15

Category:All knots

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 per WP:CSD#C1 as empty, without prejudice to re-creating it.
I have not been able to determine how the category came to be emptied while the discussion was underway, but once a category has been emptied it is removed from the attention of editors who might have found it through the articles, and thereby seen the link to this discussion. So even tho most editors commenting prefer merger, I can't count that as a valid consensus. If anyone finds out how the category was emptied, please leave a note on my talk page, and I will administer a WP:TROUTING to whoever emptied it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. It is unclear how this category is different than Category:Knots. I suggest merging the two. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge these is no meaningful difference, just category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Knots by type, it helps the main category to keep subcats like Knot components‎, Knot theory‎ and Knot stubs‎. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hyacinth (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really unclear how "All knots" and "Knots" are different, it's explained on both pages. For instance, Category:Necktie knots is not visible from Category:Knots. "All knots" also includes mathematical knots, which are not visible from Category:Knots. Hyacinth (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The explanations themselves are opaque and hard to understand. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the decision is made to keep, then the category should be renamed to Category:Wikipedia categories named after knots since that appears to be the inclusion criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I'll let my comment above stand if somehow this is not merged. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2013 (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:Films refused classification by the British Board of Film Classification

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Films refused classification by the British Board of Film Classification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Films originally refused classification by the British Board of Film Classification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is a long history of consensus on WP regarding not categorizing films by rating or by status of being "banned" or prohibited for viewing in certain jurisdictions. The reason is the multitude of classification systems and jurisdictions in the world. This is appropriate information for a list, and I would have no objection to the information being transferred to such a list. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have decided against this type of classification of films in categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial information. Dimadick (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2013 (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:Washington (state) musician stubs

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 per nonminator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Low populated stub category. No category scheme of stubs for musicians by state. Suggest upmerge to Category:American musician stubs and Category:Washington (state) people stubs. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:20, 15 April 2013 (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 Bale

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Christian Bale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Are we seeing a trend here? Fails WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Too small. Nymf talk to me 20:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails creation guidelines for epnymous cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tiny category. Dimadick (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2013 (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:People from Cooper City, Florida

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly small category. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:SMALLCAT....William 23:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge populated place is too small to have a category. Valenciano (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. If and when Wikipedia actually has enough articles about people from these places to warrant a category, then they can be recreated at that time — but as long as we only have one or two possible entries we should indeed stick to categorizing people by county rather than individual town until more articles actually show up. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2013 (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:People from Coconut Creek, Florida

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly small category. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:SMALLCAT....William 10:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. If and when Wikipedia actually has enough articles about people from these places to warrant a category, then they can be recreated at that time — but as long as we only have one or two possible entries we should indeed stick to categorizing people by county rather than individual town until more articles actually show up. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2013 (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:People from Decherd, Tennessee

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with just two entries. ...William 17:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Town is too small to justify a category of its own. Valenciano (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. If and when Wikipedia actually has enough articles about people from these places to warrant a category, then they can be recreated at that time — but as long as we only have one or two possible entries we should indeed stick to categorizing people by county rather than individual town until more articles actually show up. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2013 (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:Scottish English surnames

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 to Category:Surnames of Scottish origin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Scottish English surnames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 22#Category:Scottish surnames, we should not categorise names by nationality. Category:Surnames of Scottish origin as sufficient links to related categories for navigation to surnames where a Scottish connection is documented. – Fayenatic London 13:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not categorize surnames by language or nationality, and this is maybe one or the other but not really clear what it is, so we should just get rid of this mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & precedent & common sense. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Surnames of Scottish origin. Scottish English is acontradiction: the Scottish language (similar to English) is called Scots. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2013 (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:Recipients of the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD. The main article includes a list. DexDor (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the award isn't relevant. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plain delete-- since it is unnecessary to listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2013 (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:University of Missouri Intercollegiate Hall of Fame Inductees

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. No need to listify, because a list already exists at List of University of Missouri Intercollegiate Athletics Hall of Fame Inductees. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:University of Missouri Intercollegiate Hall of Fame Inductees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD. There is a list. DexDor (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2013 (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/2013_April_15&oldid=1138397488"