Trichome

thcscience_admin
< January 28 January 30 >

January 29[edit]

Category:Fictional dragon-hybrids[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 4 articles in category, and only Skeksis are actually considered to be only "part" dragon in their work. JDDJS (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge and remove members from the "hybrid" category. Even the Skekses are only part dragon in their appearance. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2015 (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:Dakar Rally winning vehicles[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. It is possible that a category with a more specific purpose could exist, but this categhory is not defining. Feel free to create, with appropriate content a better defined category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a vehicle model (e.g. Range Rover or Citroën ZX) has won the Dakar Rally is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. This is a form of WP:OC#AWARD. DexDor (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Maybe not for the cars you mention, but some dedicated rally raid cars/bikes/trucks are designed and built specifically for this race. For those, winning the race is a defining characteristic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.101.0 (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC) — 79.65.101.0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
A category for vehicles "designed and built specifically for this race" would be a different category. DexDor (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This category was requested at AFC/R and I created it on behalf of an IP editor. I considered that 'typically' categories such as these are nominated for deletion, but I feel that in this case the argument that it "is a form of WP:OC#AWARD" is no more persuasive a deletion rationale than: 1) as pointed out above, some vehicles are designed specifically for the race 2) winning the race is a notable achievement that Wikipedia readers may feasibly wish to search by category for 3) the policy sighted in the deletion rationale addresses 'over categorisation', meaning either an article that is over populated with categories or a category that is overpopulated with sub categories. The spirit of the policy is to avoid categorisation by pointless trivia. This is not pointless trivia categorisation and deleting this category based on the rationale given amounts to bureaucratic policy wonkery. Bellerophon talk to me 22:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vehicles are often/usually mass produced (sometimes in millions); that a few have taken part in a particular race is hardly a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the model/range. If we categorize vehicles by which races they have been used in then where do we stop ? - e.g. the Volkswagen Touareg could be in several such categories (or many if a "Vehicles that took part in <race> in <year>" category structure was created). Note: categories such as "Gulf War vehicles" and "French Air Force guided missiles" were deleted because categorizing mass-produced items in that way can led to articles being in a lot of categories for non-defining characteristics. DexDor (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this would be a keep if there were articles on the individual cars that won the race, but the car models, this is not defining, much like James Bond cars or Bonnie & Clyde cars, and other cars by association. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a definitive feature of the car models. The most important reason is that usually the winning car model is a modification from the traditional production model (which is the main subject for the articles). However, a list of the winning models is a perfectly valid choice and a more useful one for the ready as categories can give no extra context, which is sorely needed in this instance (e.g. year of win, rider, etc.) We already have this list at Dakar Rally. There is no real need to include this as a navigational point for readers who are not looking at these vehicles from a Dakar Rally perspective. SFB 13:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's very prominent in the articles for Porsche 953, Yamaha XT 500, Peugeot 405 Turbo-16, BMW F series single-cylinder and Mitsubishi Pajero... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.103.14 (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2015 (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:John Maddox Prize winners[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. Lists exists in the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I created this before learning of WP:OCAWARD. So let's replace cat with a list in John Maddox Prize. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- assuming we do not need to listify. Lists do the job much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: sorry, I'm confused: if a list would do the job better, why there's no need to listify? Fgnievinski (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2015 (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:Women's studies journal stubs[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: Upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Have tried to populate from the parent category but could not. Propose deletion of this small stub category. Keep template, upmerging it to Category:Gender studies journal stubs. Dawynn (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to make sense, for many journals it's difficult to discern whether they are on gender studies or on women's studies and the stub cats are not so large that this split-off is needed. --Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. As always with stub categories, the rule is not "anything anytime anybody wants to create it", nor is it "any content category automatically gets its own standalone stubs subcat" — it's "must be preapproved by the stubsorting project on the basis of there being a minimum of sixty articles to file in it right off the top", and I see no evidence of that having happened. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2015 (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/2015_January_29

Leave a Reply