Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 5

< June 4	June 6 >

June 5

Category:Myst characters

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 Category:Myst characters into Category:Myst franchise. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category has one article in it and will soon have none Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, except for soon will have none. The article in this category if actually worked on could be pretty good, unless it gets deleted for WP:N DA PIE EATER (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question/comment - deletion would leave the one article (Stranger (Myst)) completely uncategorized. Why not upmerge to Category:Myst franchise? Alternatively, even with just one character, why is this not a valid sub-category of Category:Video game characters by game? Bencherlite ^Talk 00:07, 11 June 2008 (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.

ISRO categories

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 all. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Indian Space Research Organisation facilities and Category:Indian Space Research Organisation people, respectively. Few readers will know what these initialisms stand for. Cgingold (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Usually better to expand initialisms and especially so in this case when main article is at Indian Space Research Organisation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks -- I had meant to mention that main article. Cgingold (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:59, 5 June 2008 (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:Argentine FC Basel players

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. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a perfect example of overcategorisation, if kept it would open to door to tens of thousands of similar categories covering all the major teams and all the major footballing nationalities E P 19:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is an inappropriate intersection. – Pee Jay 19:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Whatever next? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sebisthlm (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2008 (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:Area codes in the United States

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: wrong venue for this discussion. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Area codes in the United States to Category:Area codes in the United States

Nominator's rationale: It's not much that the category should be renamed, but I think all included articles should be renamed from "Area code XXX" to "United States area code XXX". _→AzaToth 13:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This sounds like a job for Wikipedia:Requested moves, not a CfD. - Dravecky (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming of those articles was previously discussed here, on the Talk:North American Numbering Plan page; maybe you could make your proposal there. Postdlf (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This area is for discussion of renaming the category, not for discussion of renaming individual articles in the category. Take it to Talk:North American Numbering Plan. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2008 (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:Chereul objects

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is overcategorization. This category is for objects named after Dr. Chereul, lead researcher of that team. And there are only 3 named objects, Chereul 1, 2, and 3, as far as I can find. This is not an astronomical catalogue.70.51.10.246 (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is only one article in this category. I disagree with the nom for overcatergorization because there's only one article, and this category serves almost no purpose. DA PIE EATER (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category:Open clusters is enough.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – category is unnecessary – Ikara ^{talk →} 15:02, 15 June 2008 (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:Athlete infobox templates

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 Category:Athlete infobox templates to Category:Sportsperson infobox templates. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Athlete infobox templates to Category:Sportsperson infobox templates

Nominator's rationale: 'sportsperson' a more universally understood term for one who participates in a sport Mayumashu (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - athletics is a specific group of sports (not including eg golf and darts). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2008 (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:Musicians who died before age 40

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: speedily deleted by PeterSymonds. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Why 40? I believe that this category is subjective and un-encyclopedic, and that it does not aid in navigating the encyclopedia. faithless (^speak) 01:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While I undertand Bdonohue's motivation for creating a category that "serves as a memorial", it just isn't an appropriate basis for a Category. There's a reason we don't have such categories for this or any other field (i.e. Category:Artists who died before age 40 or Category:Sportspeople who died before age 40 or Category:Politicians who died before age 40, etc. etc.): 40 is an arbitrary number, no more inherently significant (or "defining") than age 33 or age 25. It might -- possibly -- make sense to create a list-article of musicians (or others) who died in a range of age brackets. (That would be a very different discussion.) Cgingold (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as a functional recreation of the thrice-deleted Entertainers who died in their 30s and Entertainers who died in their 20s. Tagging. Otto4711 (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation of categories (or variants of) that have been deleted before. Lugnuts (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2008 (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.