Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 13 |
==July 13==
=== ===
delete -- 13:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I believe it s redundant with 22:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
What is the purpose of having a separate Current events category for every country I understand an article, but why a category Couldn t it just fit in to two categories: Current events and India Also, isn t this type of specialization better suited for 15:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 08:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC) *Was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_13&diff=next&oldid=18811114 removed] (probably accidentally) by Radiant at 2005-07-14T12:58Z. Restoring 2005-07-14T15:15Z. *Delete. I agree with listing it under Current events and India. -- 15:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to bring this up back again. I think there was not much debate on this. When the cfd vote was started, there was no entry in the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, so I did put my opinion to keep the category on the talk page of the category. I did nt see any more discussion out there, so I assumed nothing more is going on on this. I think this is wrongly deleted. The purpose of having a different category, is so that it does not clutter out the .
Also this not been used much was rectified, by categorizing appropriate articles in the same category. (13:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC))
This should be brought back. 13:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC) *Actually, the discussion has been here since the 13th. If you d like it brought back, you ll need to post it on 14:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete (copyvio) -- 13:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Badly formatted article masquerading as a category. -- 21:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC) *If it didn t put me to sleep while reading it, I d say merge it into an article. -- 13:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
merge -- 13:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
We already have 20:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC) *Merge/delete. 08:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC) *Merge. -- 13:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 13:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Doctrine and teaching are basically the same thing. 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC) *Category is empty, but I m sure it can have some content. Anyway I belive that should be 17:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC) *Delete this, and nominate Teaching of Paul for a rename (as per Radiant!). -- 13:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete and rename the other one per 02:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
listify/delete -- 13:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Redundant with 10:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Redundant. 00:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete. A stub for this suddenly turned up the other day, as well. BTW, why is 06:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC) **Er, rename it and then delete :) 08:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC) ***The list is badly capitalised, not just the categories! 02:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
rename -- 14:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Created from , its intent is to list those pages (and categories) that should be split and/or subcatted. That seems worthwhile but this title doesn t cover its content. Suggest renaming, to something like 07:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC) *SUPPORT 19:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC) *Rename There is already 16:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC) *Rename 20:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
delete -- 14:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
04:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC) *...and can also apply to things that aren t articles, e.g. the copyvio policy. Merge & delete. 07:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Empty, duplicate. -- 13:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
no consensus (keep) -- 14:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Rename to 00:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)I *Rename, consistency of primary term film . 02:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep. -- 16:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
*Rename, agree with the consistency argument. 14:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
(added by )
=== ===
rename -- 14:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I propose these be changed to 00:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC) *Rename per nominator: but also merge 01:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC) :*Actually, that would need a separate CfD. I won t do that right now in case something turns up in this debate of relevance. Someone remind me later... - 01:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC) *All your facilities are belong to us! Merge all military base categories into military facilities . 14:15, July 13, 2005 (UTC) *Merge. 00:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep. I don t understand using a distinction as a reason to combine. Military base categories can be subcategories of military facility categories. To do otherwise is akin to deleting a drummer category and putting all the drummers individually into the musician category. 08:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Agree with Maurreen. Facilities can act as a supercategory to army bases, air bases, etc. -- 14:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC) **If there are a hundred musicians from fifty states, half of whom are drummers, and half pianists, do we really need a hundred and fifty categories What if, instead of drummers and pianists, the options were 2-engine jetlineres and 4-engine jetliners - 06:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC) ***Not sure where you are going with that argument. Your nomination said nothing of merging anything, but renaming two categories. So according to your example, you d still have your hundred and fifty drummer and pianist categories, they d just be named something different. -- 13:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
****I am cautioning against hypercategorization. The category is named Drummers but it actually contains four drummers, two pianists, and the conductor. Rather than create Musicians, Pianists, and Conductors why not simply rename the category Musicians, especially since WP recatting is tedious. - 14:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC) *****You re missing my point. Re-read your nomination, look at how many bases , facilities , etc categories already exist . We re not merging anything. We re not creating anything. Two renames is all you asked for. So in your latest example, you already have your Drummers , Pianists , Conductors , and Musicians categories. They already exist. All this did was rename Pianists to Piano players . Everything else still exists. Just as your bases , facilities , etc, still exist. But this is a moot point now, because the consensus was to rename the two categories and keep everything else as is. And just to let you know, recatting is tedious, but that s exactly what a rename is. You can t rename a category like you can an article. Someone now has to go in, create two new categories, recategorize all of the articles, and delete the original ones. So bottom line, we saved nothing. -- 14:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
It is moot for these particular case, but I m interested in how 15:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
=== ===
stubs to SFD, others delete -- 13:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
These contain a grand total of no articles and not surprising. There are two different sports named rugby union and league so all these categories do is hold sub-categories e.g. 20:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)|
|