Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 21

< May 20	May 22 >

May 21

Category:Tracked military recovery vehicles

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) 18:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another bizarre and pointless neologism in this saga. No content, other than an already existing category of Category:Tracked armoured recovery vehicles which in turn is a child of Category:Armoured recovery vehicles. All we have ever needed is Category:Armoured recovery vehicles - there is a useful distinction to be made between armoured & unarmoured, but the further distinction into tracked is pointless (with only a couple of exceptions worldwide, armoured RVs are tracked and tracked RVs are armoured, wheeled RVs are unarmoured). Further splitting this into military (and presumably non-military armoured vehicles?) is completely pointless. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was a compromise of this category crossover you created. What you intended to do is beyond me. Tracked armored recovery vehicles belong in the Armored recovery vehicles category not the Military recovery vehicle category. Marcus Qwertyus 23:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Pokemon and you don't have to 'catch them all'. There is no point whatsoever in expanding the cross product of every possible combination expressed by the words in use here, then creating a category for every intersection. Military recovery vehicles are interesting, and it's useful to split this category down further into the tracked & armoured and the wheeled & unarmoured groups, but no further than that. Creating all theses further categories is just editong for the sake of itself, not to give a more usefully structured encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2011 (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:DGC albums

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: Keep. Jafeluv (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. No incoming links, no members, and "X Records albums" is standard for several hundred categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a category redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 23:34, 21 May 2011 (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:Onsen

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) 18:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Onsen to Category:Hot springs of Japan

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Because "onsen" is the Japanese word for "hot spring," "Onsen" category implies "Hot springs of Japan." Even if we figure somewhat randomly to differentiate the two categories, it would be confusing and probably too many categories than what it's good for. "Hot springs of Japan" category follows the "Hot springs of XYZ" pattern. Bxj (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment isn't one supposed to be about hot spring resorts (onsen) while the other is about the geologic feature? 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we made a rule that hot spring resorts were not to be directly added to Category:Hot springs of Japan, then it would be the only subcategory of Category:Hot springs to do so, making it confusing for everyone. I don't see the need for keeping two categories like that. Here is the specific definition of 温泉 (onsen):
1. Underground water heated geothermally above average temperatures. It has various spring water properties, and by bathing or by drinking, it can have therapeutic or health improvement effects. By Japanese onsen law, to be called an onsen it must be over 25℃ or have specified dissolved minerals above a specified amount. See also: 鉱泉 (mineral spring) and 冷泉 (cold spring)
2. A location with a bathing facility that uses 1.
--Bxj (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be bad to place resorts into a geology category. It would be like adding beach resorts to beach categories, so there should be two separate categories, or the resorts should be removed from the category entirely (thus do not merge resorts into hotsprings) 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Hot spring resorts of Japan, and resort both categories. The resorts should not be in the geologic category. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it would be easier if we voted yea or nay, and bring up any other suggestions separately, to prevent derailment of discussion. There aren't any notable hot springs in Japan that aren't resorts, so there's a 100% overlap between the two categories you propose. Also my previous comment regarding consistency with other categories with the "Category:Hot springs of XYZ" name pattern still applies. --Bxj (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2011 (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:Shoeing

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Pointless category with few entries. I don't see how this category has a beneficial future. We don't need a category for every single verb (walking, running, skating, spooning, skipping, anyone?) -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 17:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category isn't needed for the contents which can all be found through the massive and absurd lead article. Harley Hudson (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FWIW, it's badly named too! One person is a victim of, and the other, a perpetrator of, shoeing. And no I am certainly not advocating splitting. It would still be a tivial intersection. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough members to be worthwhile. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems premature, if nothing else. All the information that could be communicated in the category is much better communicated through the article shoeing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:41, 31 May 2011 (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 written by Lady Antebellum

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: Split per consensus at CFD. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Lady Antebellum to Category:Songs written by Dave Haywood (subject to stand alone article being created), Category:Songs written by Charles Kelley and Category:Songs written by Hillary Scott (singer)

Nominator's rationale: Split. Songs are written by people, not by people who are then associated together in some other way. Making categories of songwriters by band member affiliation is a huge headache and not at all helpful to navigation. This has been discussed before in respect of The Bee Gees and The Miracles, which resulted in a split. Richhoncho (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I also nominated the Bee Gees one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I created the category without knowing about the previous discussions. I support the split. Novice7 (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support since there are songs written by only one or two of the members (for instance, Hillary Scott co-wrote A Little Bit Stronger and Haywood and Kelley co-wrote Do I). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:15, 30 May 2011 (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:Huntik: Secrets & Seekers

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Links only into two articles. Appears to be WP:OCAT. We already have Not everything needs a navbox, maybe I can create a Not everything needs a category myself. JJ98 (Talk) 03:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One of the articles, based on my PROD, will likely be deleted and it is unlikely that this series will spawn content that requires a category. Harley Hudson (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2011 (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.