Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 7

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< February 6 February 8 >

February 7

Category:Recipients of the Médaille Militaire

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
NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 12:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: The correct name has a lowercase m. The previous CfD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_30#Military_awards probably did not realize the error in capitalization Werieth (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Order is the highest decoration in France and is divided into five degrees: Chevalier (Knight), Officier (Officer), Commandeur (Commander), Grand Officier (Grand Officer) and Grand Croix (Grand Cross)."
Alright, now let's look at Médaille militaire:
"An interesting feature of the médaille is that it is also the supreme award for leadership, being awarded to generals and admirals who had been commanders-in-chief. This particular médaille is considered superior even to the grand cross of the Légion d'honneur."
...therefore it's clear that this is, in fact, an extremely defining award. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:50, 8 February 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:Fictional drugs

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 per criterion C2D. The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with List of fictional medicines and drugs. --173.51.221.24 (talk) 08:05, 7 February 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:Commons category with local link same as on Wikidata

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This Wikipedia category currently contains over 300,000 categories/pages (e.g. Category:1009 and 10), and was presumably created for a good reason, but queries about the purpose and accuracy of the category on its talk page have gone unanswered since October. Why should a Wikipedia category/page be tagged for having a "a local link that is the same as the one stored in Wikidata" (whatever that means) ? How does it help Wikipedia readers/editors ? Note: Many categories/pages in this category are placed there by a template rather than containing a category tag. Note: This is just one of several categories below Category:Wikidata tracking categories.
Note: Due to the size of this category (and hence the disruption if this is deleted then recreated) this CFD shouldn't be closed as delete until a discussion period well in excess of the 7 day minimum. If someone (perhaps User:Multichill) can explain the purpose of this category and whether it is intended to be permanent or temporary then I may withdraw this CFD. Note: Closer integration of (English) Wikipedia with Wikidata may bring many benefits - e.g. it may reduce the attempts by some editors to use the Wikipedia categorization system as a sort of database (e.g. Category:Birds of Ukraine). DexDor (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No one has explained why we need to track the categories that do not need work. 'Needed' is not really made clear on the metadata page, which basically says these are done. How does knowing the number fixed help? How is it used? While constancy across languages may be nice, that does not affect this discussion. If it is not really needed here then is it really needed anywhere? So if it goes here, maybe the same should happen on the other language wikis. What is important are the categories that need work. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I myself, despite having been active at Wikidata until only a few months ago, have no idea what this category is supposed to do. I do not see a problem, however, with leaving a hidden tracking category in articles if it helps a sister project, and I trust
    Wha? 06:29, 22 February 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:People from Adair, Oklahoma

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with just 2 entries. Kennethaw88 (talk) 01:39, 7 February 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:People from Blair, Oklahoma

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with just 3 entries. Kennethaw88 (talk) 01:39, 7 February 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:People from East Duke, Oklahoma

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with just 1 entry. Kennethaw88 (talk) 01:39, 7 February 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:People from Eldorado, Oklahoma

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with just 2 entries. Kennethaw88 (talk) 01:39, 7 February 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:People from Wilson, Oklahoma

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with just 1 entry. Kennethaw88 (talk) 01:39, 7 February 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:People from Healdton, Oklahoma

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with just 1 entry. Kennethaw88 (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There are actually two notable people from Healdton but that still isn't enough for a one county small community....William 17:06, 11 February 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:People from Mannford, Oklahoma

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with just 1 entry. Although this is categorized under 3 different counties, the article at Mannford, Oklahoma only has Creek County listed. I don't know why the other county categories were added. Kennethaw88 (talk) 01:39, 7 February 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:People from Geary, Oklahoma

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with just 1 entry. Although Geary is listed as being in both Blaine and Canadian Counties, it appears to be primarily in Blaine. Kennethaw88 (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per previous consensus that multi county towns get their own category....William 18:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The single entry can easily be placed in both county categories. Geary's population was only 1,280 at the 2010 census, so it is unlikely to expand. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree this is a better solution than having a single-member category. Kennethaw88 (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, municipalities that cross multiple counties have their by-city categories kept per
    WP:CONSENSUS. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @The Bushranger: Where is the evidence of that consensus? And what purpose is served by a single-article category with very little prospect of expansion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It has been my observation of events at CfD that categories of this sort are generally kept. The pupose that is served is by not having people categorised in multiple by-county categories, thus causing confusion. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:00, 15 February 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:2Cellos

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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Head article + subcat + 3 other articles = 5 pages, which is enough to keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the involved pages are sufficiently linked from the main article itself. There is no need for a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lest anyone accuse me again of skullduggery, I created Category:2Cellos members and moved the articles for the members from Category:2Cellos to the new category and parented the new category in Category:2Cellos. Now, if that is deemed abusive editing by anyone (looking at you, Lugnuts) I will happily undo all of the edits and request the new category be speedily deleted. With the new category, there are two articles in the nominated category along with two sub-categories. This in no way requires an eponymous category to house them as the lead article links all of this material. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 05:06, 7 February 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.

Club Championship Cats

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 deletion vs. retention, but for now we will rename all to "FOO matches". This is without prejudice to a future nomination of the new categories for deletion based on any rationale. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. All these categories contain Championship matches from a certain year. These categories are unnecessary and I'm pretty sure these are a clear example of
WP:NOTDEFINING. – Michael (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply @GiantSnowman: Notability is a concept relating to articles, and the items listed here are categories. I see no grounds to claim that the articles in these categories are non-notable, so a !vote based on notability seems to have no basis in policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree on that - notability could and should apply across the board. To expand on my initial !vote - these categories serve no purpose, many contain only one article, and there is no precedent at all to have categories of this sort on Wikipedia. Furthermore, they were all created by an editor who had a track record of this kind of editing, and a large number of catrgories he previously created have been deleted/merged. I know that that in itself is not reason to delete, but it certainly makes me question them more. That is what I meant when I said they weren't notable. GiantSnowman 17:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability should and does apply to all articles. A category is just a navigational device, an editorial artefact; it is assessed differently. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. As far as I can see, a football match has 5
    WP:SMALLCAT. I tried populating Category:Atlanta Chiefs championships, and brought it ip to 3 articles, which is still on the small side. I could accept a category of that size as part of a series, but don't know at this point whether any of the other categories would reach a minimum of 5 articles.
    I see that in soccer, the convention is categorise all articles on a clubs matches together, under Category:Association football matches by club (see for example Category:Sunderland A.F.C. matches), rather than just championship matches. These categories may be better renamed to "Foo matches", to broaden their scope. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I think we are coming to a bit of agreement here, because I agree no point in keeping them all if they are tiny; but a few tiny ones as part of a series can serve a useful purpose. Unfortunately, we don't yet know how much material exists to populate these categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to re-creation if they will be properly populated. These seem to be single article categories, about the fact that the team appeared in a certain final. That is in the nature of a performance by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Foo matches, like the convention is for football-matches. See for instance
    talk) 21:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Foo matches, and add any other articles about matches involving Foo. A notable match Foo v Boo should go under 'Foo matches' and 'Boo matches' (defining characteristics) but I'm not sure whether we need to note the winner in the categorisation scheme.
    Oculi (talk) 15:25, 8 February 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:Cuca (band)

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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If only the nominator would formulate proper nominations as he has been asked so many times before. He could simply write out a complete nomination and save it as a document, pasting it in as needed for each new nomination. This is a small category with no prospect of expansion that is not required to navigate the contents. The lead article is sufficient. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 05:08, 7 February 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:Sports Night

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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If only the nominator would formulate proper nominations as he has been asked so many times before. He could simply write out a complete nomination and save it as a document, pasting it in as needed for each new nomination. This is a small category with no prospect of expansion that is not required to navigate the contents. The lead article is sufficient. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 05:08, 7 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_7&oldid=1138399333"