Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 27

< October 26	October 28 >

October 27

Category:Land animals

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. A side note, if user continues to create 'bad' categories, they need to receive formal warnings on their talk page to get an administrator to take action. So if the creation of suspect categories continues, please leave formal warnings to make administrator follow up likely. Feel free to nominate other categories that are considered to be 'bad' for discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Land animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category would, if ever completed, be huge. There are many animals (e.g. penguins) that spend part of their life on land - would they count as land animals? Note: I've removed Category:Insects from this category (there are many aquatic insects). Note: I'm not sure this category really belongs under Category:Landforms. DexDor (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion This category really makes no sense. It can't be a high level category with a reasonable number of large subcategories since most animal groups have some aquatic members. So there would have to be a large number of entries. What about all the insects that have aquatic larval stages? (Unfortunately the creator of this category, NotWith, has a history of creating problematic categories but never responds to attempts to discuss them on his/her talk page, so appears impervious to community reaction.) Peter coxhead (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – and endorse the criticism above of User:NotWith who pays no attention to consensus and continues to create unnecessary and piece-meal categories at random and at great speed. Oculi (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NON-DEFINING. Too broad and common to be useful. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NON-DEFINING. Endorse characterization of NotWith as problematic and uncommunicative. --Randykitty (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:NotWith has now created another pointless category Category:Land organisms into which the category being discussed here has been placed. Category:Amphibious organisms is another of his creations. What's the point of discussing one of these categories here while NotWith continues creating others? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should bump this up to ANI and ask for a topic ban. --Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always reluctant to support bans, but NotWith is an exception, having left a trail of categories that need to be sorted out but to my knowledge never having responded to any requests to discuss them, however reasonable. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notwith created many of the categories listed at Spiders by European country after the discussion started. A ban on all edits in category space was imposed on user:Pastorwayne after similar serial obduracy. Oculi (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:NotWith is continuing to make numerous useless categories every few days, and does not reply at all to messages left on his talk page about this problem. I feel that a ban on all edits in category space would be appropriate. Invertzoo (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Category:Tool-using mammals is now being filled up – another ill-defined and non-defining category. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2014 (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:Wikipedia articles incorporating text CNX Anatomy & Physiology

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text CNX Anatomy & Physiology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We do not usually categorize articles by what sources they use (e.g. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_18#Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_Appleton.27s_Cyclopedia). Such categorization is unlikely to be of use to readers and could lead to some articles being in many such categories. DexDor (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a similar category invoked by the Template:Grays. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Talk Pages/If Kept I'm not clear on how this is useful so no opinion on whether to keep. If kept, this category should be applied to the Talk pages, not the actual articles though. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a non-defining characteristic and may only be temporarily applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-definitive of the topic that text is describing. If such categories are required, they should at least be hidden or have the category on the talk page. I think Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica is the mother of this tree found at Category:Wikipedia sources. @DexDor: I think we should nominate this tree also, as the arguments above are nothing to do with the given source of the nominated category and more around the idea of categorising by source (usage data will still be available via a template transclusion count anyway). SFB 18:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the articles that use this source can also be found using the 'what links here' of the template. I do agree with most of the users here that either all the categories should be kept (including the Gray's) or for consistency they should all be deleted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2014 (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.