Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 11

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< March 10 March 12 >

March 11

Category:Crescents

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, to match head article Crescent (architecture). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. While I think deletion might be the best solution here since this is not likely defining, this category should at least be renamed to follow the name of the main article. I suppose that Category:Terraced houses may also be an option on the rename/split. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 11 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:Poor Law

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) 14:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. After some discussions with BHG on her talk page, this seems like a sensible rename. The main article is at poor relief but the focus is really Britain and Ireland so adding UK in the title is not appropriate. If this rename receives consensus, the main article should be renamed to sync up with the category. The backlog at RM appears to be worst then then one here so that is why I'm choosing to discuss here. Note that if this is approved, there is the possibility that a worldwide article on poor relief could be created. If that was done, then a corresponding category could follow. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Search term Google web
hits		 Google News
hits
"Britain and Ireland" 10,900,000 747
"Great Britain and Ireland" 3,890,000 175
Hope that helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:17, 7 April 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.

Gaelic loanwords

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Gaelic loanwords
  • Nominator's rationale we classify things by what they are, not what they are named. This groups together unlike things just because the names applied to them share a common origin. As it is we have decided to delete and listify all the sub-cats. This category was only missed in that discussion because it was not in Category:Celtic loanwords.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose. I support the nominator's rationale, and support following the listify-and-delete approach taken in previous discussions. However, this category contains only one article, but it has two sub-cats: Category:Scottish Gaelic loanwords and Category:Welsh loanwords. To avoid orphaning those categories, this one should be retained unless and until the subcats are deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - BHG's concern should be addressed before this debate has run its course. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication of whether this is for loanwords in non-Gaelic originating from Gaelic, or loanards in Gaelic originating from non-Gaelic, or some other. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle, delete, but some tidying up will be needed to empty the category first. "Manx loanwords" is currently in the category. I am not sure that that is a Gaelic language, but it needs to be listified and deleted, like the others. WE also have one article, which needs to be added to the appropriate list. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Manx category has already been agreed to be listified and deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, Category:Manx loanwords has not yet been listified. This container category is still needed until its subcats are listified. It was JPL who nominated them all for listification, and since there was a consensus to do that, JPL should go ahead and do it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Manx category has been listified and its contents removed per previous CfD decsions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 23 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:United States House of Representatives special elections

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 delete all per
WP:CSD#C1, without prejudice to re-creation. The nominator's cryptic statement "excessive, although not at the time" provides no explanation of why the categories became empty, and it appears that they may have been emptied out of process. Since editors viewing these nominations could not see what the categories used to contain, there can be consensus on what to do with them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not needed. It was excessive, although not at the time. —GoldRingChip 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not needed. It was excessive, although not at the time. —GoldRingChip 17:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not needed. It was excessive, although not at the time. —GoldRingChip 17:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty, not needed, accidentally created. —GoldRingChip 16:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty, not needed, accidentally created. —GoldRingChip 14:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete' per {{db-c1}}. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty, not needed, accidentally created. —GoldRingChip 14:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty, not needed, accidentally created. —GoldRingChip 14:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty, not needed, accidentally created. —GoldRingChip 14:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have combiuned all these as they raise exactly the same issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- While these byelections categories are legitimate, they are probably much better handled by the lists (which we also have. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 19 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:California congressional elections, 2006

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 delete per
WP:CSD#C1, without prejudice to re-creation. The nominator's cryptic statement "excessive, although not at the time" provides no explanation of why the category became empty, and it appears that itmay have been emptied out of process. Since editors viewing these nominations could not see what the categories used to contain, there can be consensus on what to do with it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not needed. It was excessive, although not at the time. —GoldRingChip 16:57, 11 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:United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2006

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 delete per
WP:CSD#C1, without prejudice to re-creation. The nominator's cryptic statement "excessive, although not at the time" provides no explanation of why the category became empty, and it appears that it may have been emptied out of process. Since editors viewing these nominations could not see what the categories used to contain, there can be consensus on what to do with it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not needed. It was excessive, although not at the time. —GoldRingChip 16:56, 11 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:Template- Konia Kshetra

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 delete per
WP:CSD#G2 (test page). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: I think the author wanted to make a template which already exists at Template:Konia Kshetra by the same author and made this page by mistake. SeanZCampbell (talk) 11:40, 11 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:Media in Kosovo

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I (improperly) moved it to Category:Kosovar media to put it in line with the other countries. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 10:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    WP:C2C. This not only by-passes the consensus-building process, but involves a lot more work for the nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep -- It would be better to rename the rest (or many of them). These will mainly be Albanian language media, as that is the main language of Kosovo. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there are one or two exceptions to the general rule of "Fooian media" when using the adjectival demonym is politically sensitive or otherwise problematic (Northern Ireland and Georgia (country) are the other obvious ones). Given that the term "Kosovar" is seen as loaded by some, perhaps this should also be an exception? Grutness...wha? 14:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Kosovar media. That is the form we use for all countries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 31 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_11&oldid=1138398280"