Trichome

thcscience_admin
< June 4 June 6 >

June 5[edit]

Category:South Georgia (U.S. state)[edit]

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 06:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This topic category lacks a head article: see South Georgia (U.S. state). Even if a head article could be created, we have no similar categories (nor need of them) for other regions of Georgia, nor is any part of the Georgia (U.S. state) category tree divided by region. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2012 (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:Endemic fauna of Canary Islands[edit]

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 merge per WP:IAR as obvious duplicate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Speedy merge Obviously identical scopes. Pichpich (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2012 (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:User:Dainomite[edit]

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 by user-author's agreement. The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per precedent. Categories for the benefit of a single user are usually deleted. Pichpich (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and I've posted a note on the user's talk page that points to Special:PrefixIndex as an alternative method of tracking pages within one's userspace. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • go for it, it's all good.—  dainomite  
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:FC Dinamo Barnaul players[edit]

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: result. The Bushranger One ping only 06:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to Name of team FC Dynamo Barnaul (WildCherry06 06:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC))
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:30, 10 June 2012 (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.

Albumchart and Singlechart[edit]

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Apparently a tracking category, but it's not tracking a problem or microformat data, so it seems redundant to WhatLinksHere. Imagine if we had tracking categories for {{!}} or {{Navbox}}. I was alerted about this and gave a similar rationale on Good Olfactory's talk. For what it's worth, he suggested to the creator that it be renamed, but in the absence of an apparent rationale, I figured we might was well discuss deletion. If anyone wants to offer an alternate proposal for renaming or explain why this tracking is necessary, I'm all ears. (Also note that the creator has been notified by way of Twinkle.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. I can see that this gives an alphabetic list and a instant count (unlike 'what links here') but this does not seem sufficient justification. Oculi (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have a position about the categories. I created the Albumchart category because the Singlechart template had a similar category to track the articles. I notified Kww, which is the creator of the Singlechart category, i think, to see what he says about it. Thanks. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 16:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if one chart changes its method to archive the artists information, say Billboard changes the artistid for other identifier, the category permits the use of AWB to track and easily fix the articles using the chart identifier, which i think the "WhatLinksHere" button doesn't. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 16:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's best served by Category:Singlechart usages for Billboardpopsongs and related categories, which I hope no one would consider deleting.—Kww(talk) 17:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should work. Still having a hard time seeing how having me edit {{singlechart}} to eliminate this category is a good use of anyone's time. There isn't a real cost to an automatically created and maintained category, and the bots won't be able to handle deletion of this one.—Kww(talk) 17:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone is asking you to edit anything. The amount of work needed is not a criteria that determines how a decision here should turn out. Generally the closer will adjust the template if the category is deleted or renamed. They may ask for help if the template is convoluted and they are not able to find where the category entry is being generated. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Truly confusing in purpose (especially because when I inquire about its use all I get is reminders about WP:IDONTLIKEIT). I can't see that these fit within any greater category scheme, and it would not make sense to me to create a scheme of categories that categorize every article that uses a particular template. (It would be quite a simple task to edit the templates to delete the category from being automatically applied, so I don't think that is a concern here.) The only "advantage" I can see is that it alphabetizes the listing whereas "what links here" does it by age of content, but I don't understand how that is a benefit. If someone could explain it I could change my mind, but no one has yet, and not for lack of me asking. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't remember you ever asking me about it. The purpose of the main Singlechart category is to drive the script I keep tinkering with and not completing that will verify all uses of singlechart against the original source. I agree that the backlinks call will work for that. The subcategories are for the occasions when I need to modify all calls that are against an individual chart or when I have changed the expansion for an individual chart and need to check that it actually worked for all existing calls.—Kww(talk) 22:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not particularly, but I'm having a hard time in general understanding the use of any of these categories. I take your word for it that they are useful for some administrative/editing purpose. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is AWB able to identify and make a high amout of changes on templates used in +1000 articles, as an example, using WhatLinksHere? As an example, i was lately fixing some artistids used on the template calls for Billboard charts, and the existence of the category made the work easy, since all the articles calling the template on that specific parameter were on a single category, indexable by AWB. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 23:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Of course. I'm not sure what the changes were you made, but I feel confident that AWB would be able to assist you in performing them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - per my comments here. - jc37 20:20, 3 July 2012 (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.

Stargate franchise categories[edit]

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 Category:Wikipedia Stargate task force and Category:Wikipedia Stargate task force articles. – Fayenatic London 12:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
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.

Submarine torpedo accidents[edit]

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 to Category:Submarine accidents caused by torpedoes. – Fayenatic London 12:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These two categories are very small, and (one hopes!) not likely to be expanded very much. I believe that while the topic is notable enough for a category, merging these two into a single category would be more appropriate than the current, seperate scheme. The Bushranger One ping only 04:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both per nominator. A single category is quite sufficient to accommodate all the 5 articles here, and will make for easier navigation than 2 very small categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks okay for merging--Lenticel (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is "accident" the right word. Generally torpedos are deliberately fired with the intent to destroy the submarine in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are not submarines sunk by torpedoes fired in anger. These are submarines whose own torpedoes destroyed them accidentally. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:07, 12 June 2012 (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:K-219 submarine sinking accident[edit]

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 10:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT with little chance of expansion, that includes the submarine itself, a film about the accident, the ship's captain (performance by performer?) and a US submarine that was claimed by the Russians to have caused the accident. Essentially, a non-defining group of items tossed together, and unsuitable for categorisation. The Bushranger One ping only 04:11, 5 June 2012 (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:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing[edit]

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 both. The Bushranger One ping only 06:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. This project was merged into WikiProject Horse racing so this category is no longer needed Kumioko (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing articles[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category and the associated project was merged into WikiProject Horse racing Kumioko (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2012 (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 requested photographs in South Georgia (U.S. state)[edit]

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 category's creator. – Fayenatic London 22:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need for this category. Images are already categorized for the state and by county. This is overly redundant Kumioko (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2012 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_5

Leave a Reply