Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 20

< February 19	February 21 >

February 20

Category:Great Reading Adventure

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Great Reading Adventure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not defining of any the novels in the category, over-categorisation. Tim! (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not defining of the works involved. This is a horrible idea for a category and could lead to major category clutter. Books are not defined by inclusion in some course, public reading event, etc. This might be different if the books were written for the event, but they were not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Books already listed in Great Reading Adventure. -- Trevj (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert. Inclusion in a subjective and little used arbitrary list is not defining of the work. Reso lute 00:57, 24 February 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:Scorer of a thousand first-class runs before the end of May

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 11:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Scorer of a thousand first-class runs before the end of May (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems a tad specific to be a category. If it's a notable achievement in cricket, perhaps it should be a list? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cricket has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it might sound rather esoteric, but it's something that has always been regarded as highly notable in English cricket. However it's probably better suited to a list than a category, since as far as I can recall we don't have categories for cricketers achieving other significant statistical milestones. JH (talk page) 09:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Listify and~~ delete per JH. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly agree with JH. --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck the "listify" part of my !vote, because a list already exists at 1,000 first-class runs before the end of May. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like this? -- Ferma (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This type of achievement works way better as a list, and we already have a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make a list or perhaps a template. Too specific for category per nom. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 04:53, 22 February 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:Burials in Krakow

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: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Burials in Krakow to Category:Burials in Kraków

Nominator's rationale: To conform the category with it' main article Kraków and main category Category:Kraków. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as long as the main article and category contain the diacritic. I'm not clear on what the logic was for not letting this go through WP:CFDS, but it sounds like a gripe with the article name rather than a category issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't all three be called Cracow ? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an issue that could be taken up at Talk:Kraków. In the meantime, why shouldn't the categories match the article name? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - the main article and cat are at Kraków, and this is a straightforward C2D. Jsmith1000 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename ~~for now~~. The head article is not stable at its current location (see Talk:Kraków#Requested_move), so this is ineligible for speedy renaming per WP:C2D. However, I see no point in having this category out-of-synch with Category:Kraków and its others subcats, so it's best to rename this now ... but without prejudice to any group renaming of Category:Kraków and all its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That RM you linked to is from 2010. I'd say that the article is stable... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - So it is. Sorry I hadn't spotted the date on it.
    So yes, the article title can be taken as stable. I have struck the "for now" in my !vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, for conformity and standard practice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
REname to conform to local spelling, but retain the present version as a redirect, becuase that is the common English spelling. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match the grandparent article Kraków. Retain the present version as a redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why the delay?Jsmith1000 (talk) 10:35, 14 March 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 Agnew, Washington

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from Agnew, Washington to Category:People from Clallam County, Washington

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with just one entry. ...William 13:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator, but recreate as a {{category redirect|People from Clallam County, Washington}} to facilitate categorisation of any further ppl from that town. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator Yes, I'm okay with changing Anderson to the "People from Clallam County" category. It looks like Agnew is a tiny enough place that there wouldn't be much likelihood of adding a sufficiently-large batch of new people to it.Breffni Whelan (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 8 March 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:Boneheads (TV series)

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: administrative close: deleted as hoax by another editor. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Boneheads (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Apparently this category was created as part of a truly elaborate WP:HOAX campaign. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boneheads (TV series). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the argument at the AfD. A definitely elaborate hoax, indeed. Zappa O Mati 05:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also: TfD for template. Zappa O Mati 05:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but only after we get rid of the contents, since otherwise it will be harder to find them. When they're gone, this should be deleted as vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 14:57, 20 February 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.

Feminism books

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 both.
If editors any of the books in these categories have been miscategorised and should really be in Category:Books about feminism, that can be dealt with through normal editorial processes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Feminism books to Category:Feminist books
Propose merging Category:Black feminism books to Category:Black feminist books

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There are two categories for feminism-related books, both the categories "Feminism books" and "Feminist books". I see no need for both categories. Most of the categories related to feminist literature are already labeled under "feminist", rather than "feminism". I figured that the "Black feminism" category should be renamed to fit the overall naming pattern. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nomination The parent categories use the term "feminist" and the scope is identical. Dimadick (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, however, be aware that some of the titles in this category may actually belong in Category:Books about feminism. See the discussion here. Kaldari (talk) 19:09, 26 February 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:Debby Ryan

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Debby Ryan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. 3 songs articles (1 a redirect) and a character this actress portrays doesn't seem enough to warrant an eponymous cat. All capably linked from the eponymous article. WP:OC#Eponymous Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 3 articles and 3 subcats is enough to make the category useful as a navigational tool. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do readers need to navigate image files. They're already in the articles. It's really 1 subcat and 2 articles (every eponymous category will have the topic article in it). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 11:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than enough pages categorised or sub categorised. if anything, consider upmerging from the subcategories. Reads to not need to navigate for other readers to benefit from navigating. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 8 March 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.