Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 19

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< March 18 March 20 >

March 19

edit

Category:Ancient Japan to Category:Classical Japan

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was split, will contact nominator to see about them doing the splitting work. Syrthiss 15:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I can certainly see the Asuka-Nara period as being somewhat borderline and iffy, I have always felt the Heian period is Classical Japan or Early Feudal Japan and represents a quite significant departure from the culture, politics, etc of the Kofun, Asuka, and earlier (Stone Age) periods. I am in fact advocating not a rename but a split. I know it's just semantics/terminology, but I hope that some people are with me on this. LordAmeth 00:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Possibly living people to Category:People who may still be alive Category:People who may be alive

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep current name. Syrthiss 15:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use rather than abuse the English language in an English-language encyclopedia.

  • Rename as proposer. David Kernow 17:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, with the (or a) shorter version. User:Docu who is still alive.
  • Rename to Category:People who may be alive; the "still" does not sit well with me as it biases the reader against the possibility. -choster 01:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; have amended proposal accordingly. David Kernow 02:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. There's no abuse of language , and coordinates well with Category:Living people. Gene Nygaard 08:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename People, unlike Schrödinger's cat are actually alive or dead, there is no "possibly". Only we (the whole of Wikipedia who cares) don't know which is true: dead or alive. So People who may be alive is more descriptive. And from a use/abuse perspective, possibility includes possibility zero and one. Carlossuarez46 01:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get real. Possibly modifies "living people". There is no usage problem. Gene Nygaard 03:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gene Nygaard, with slightly more civility. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 03:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Perhaps I need to be clearer (or, at least, a little less jocular) as regards my reason for proposing this move. Syntactically, if nothing else, "Possibly living people" is clumsy English. To me it reads as an overly contrived effort to render a concise category name. Although a little longer, "People who may be alive" is clearer English and presents the subject of the category – people – as the first word read. I believe this follows the pattern many other categories now follow. Regards, David Kernow 05:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not basically a "people" category. It's basically a maintenance category, in support of the maintenance category Category:Living people which Jimbo Wales insists we must have. Gene Nygaard 07:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point, of course, is that it is easier for someone who is entering the "Living people" entries to remember the alternative "Possibly living people" than to have to try to remember the longer form and whether or not we included the word "still" in that longer form, and was it "may" or "might", and all that stuff. 66.97.254.212 08:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC) That was me, not noticing I'd been logged out. Gene Nygaard[reply]
Well, here's at least one user who didn't come by it via maintenance or the "Living people" category. It just seems a pity to compromise Wikipedia's otherwise high standards with over-compressed category names; consider also that many non-native speakers may be reading these names. I realise that "Possibly living people" is but one example, but amending it would be a start. Thanks for your thoughts. David Kernow 09:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, because the proposed new name is too long for a maintenance category. I can see the proposer's point, but if the name is to be changed there should first be discussion to find suitably short alternatives. --BrownHairedGirl 15:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion seems to be here; I recognise that some categories are treated by those in the know as 'maintenance' categories, but my point is that I found (and anyone else visiting Wikipedia may well find) this category with anything but 'maintenance' in mind... Thanks, though, for your input. David Kernow 17:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have only been contributing to Wikipedia for about 6 weeks, so I wouldn't classify myself as 'in the know'! However, it seems to me that the length of category names can be a problem, because if they stretch to two lines or more they can start to get unreadable. A 'maintenance category', which will be added to a lot of pages, should to my mind be kept short to help avoid this problem, rather than exacerbating it.
I think that the existing title is reasonably clear, and any ambiguity can be resolved by a sentence or two on the category page.--BrownHairedGirl 00:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for more insight. Not sure if knowing what something means means it's okay to express it clumsily (see what I means?).  Meanwhile, I'm beginning to think the method Wikipedia uses to list categories at the ends of articles might benefit from a vertical rather the current horizontal approach, i.e. more along the lines of a TOC than a string of words with dividers... Regards, David Kernow 01:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS Thinking further, this category seems to me to be of sufficient interest in its own right. David 17:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it curious that this category to temporarily hold people until some Wikipedian has determined whether they are alive or not also contains articles for the GI and Interbellum generations. --JeffW 18:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Islands in English Channel to Category:Islands in the English Channel

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as the islands are in the English Channel, as the text in the category suggests. Mattbr30 16:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as proposed. The current form is just not correct English. CalJW 17:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as above. David Kernow 17:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as fitting for people who say a patient is "in hospital". Gene Nygaard 18:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Abstain. 01:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename. Yes, except no one in England ever says, "in English Channel."--Mike Selinker 23:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In hospital = in a hospital. In church = in a church. In prison = in a prison. In English Channel = In an English Channel? How many English Channels are there? (rename) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree actually. One can be "in hospital" even when at an off-campus clinic for the day, or "in prison" while picking up litter by the highway; the phrase describes a condition, not necessarily a location. WP uses the definite article for all "Islands in body of water" categories. Rename. -choster 16:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think you're actually disagreeing. Both of you are saying rename for the same reason.--Mike Selinker 09:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. Shrew 19:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. Adds clarity, minimal extra length. --BrownHairedGirl 22:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Births of the last 123 years

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 05:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Says it's maintenance but I don't see the point of it. Empty anyway -- Gurch 16:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not empty. Calsicol 17:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's not empty (should only include subcategories of Category:Births by year. Anyone born earlier is dead. Quite handy for the CategoryIntersect tool. -- User:Docu
  • Keep, for reasons set out by Docu. --BrownHairedGirl 21:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- why 123? why not births in the last 120 years, or 125? or why does this catagory exsist at all? --T-rex 17:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Multiple Categories: System of a Down

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 05:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:System of a Down albums

Category:System of a Down singles

  • Delete Both lists do not contain enough elements to be pertinent. Also, the main article System of a Down provides enough information about discography. Maybe we could create an article about the whole discography of the band who provides more complete information than the band article. —This unsigned comment was added by Frédérick Lacasse (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. Yes, they do. Even one such article is enough for these categories. This is a well established precedent; see Category:Blind Faith albums on the March 10 discussions below.--Mike Selinker 16:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Now there is a Template:System of a Down which is a better tool and provides information from both categories in each album and single articles. Could anybody explain to me how the increase of the number of album categories could be more helpful for users? Many of those categories have no pages that link there. See Category:Albums by artist Frédérick Lacasse 17:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Templates do not replace categories. These are standard category types for good reasons and it inappropriate to delete one at random. CalJW 17:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that we should not delete categories randomly but all the categories that are not pertinent. Please, tell me the good reasons to keep these categories. To much categorization seems not pertinent and useful to me.Frédérick Lacasse 19:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has voted twice Golfcam 14:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good reason #1: category:Albums by artist and category:Singles by artist need to collect albums and singles, and so fourteen articles have homes under this system. Good reason #2: Without this method of categorization, you get huge categories of songs and albums with no connection to their artists. Good reason #3: A System of a Down fan now can see which of his favorite songs and albums have articles without having to guess. Good reason #4: Even if it's not pertinent or useful to you, it might be pertinent or useful to a lot of other people. (By the way, there's no need to vote more than once.)--Mike Selinker 23:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Standard categories for organizing under Category:Albums by artist and Category:Singles by artist. - EurekaLott 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per EurekaLott Golfcam 13:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precedent explicitly permits individual articles on albums and songs by notable bands; precedent explicitly permits dedicated categories to group them. The genre categories would be utterly uncontrollable if we didn't break them down in this manner. Keep. Bearcat 06:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the normal practice. Valiantis 19:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Multiple Categories: Listed buildings in Liverpool

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 15:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Grade I listed buildings in Liverpool

Category:Grade II* listed buildings in Liverpool

Category:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool

  • Delete. All three categories have been replaced by a single list, Listed buildings in Merseyside, which is more comprehensive and also includes information for the other four Merseyside boroughs eliminating the need for extra categories to include them. All the articles should be placed as pages in the parent Category:Buildings and structures in Liverpool, which would be better anyway as most people using the category system will not want to search through the three Grades to find what they are looking for (it's certainly not as obvious as Churches or Railway stations). I can easily tidy the few internal links affected if the proposal is accepted. Shrew 14:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it fits in with the Listed building cats at a higher level. You need to know how that cat system works, and check it out. Will you be adding the London and shefield cats be removed aswell? Is ut that as a wirral resident you want to play down liverpool?.--84.9.210.82 22:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per standard. James F. (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. Far from playing anything down I'm trying to increase the amount of information available. There are over 5000 listed buildings in Merseyside, but only half of them are in Liverpool. The new list provides a reference point which includes the other half, something that was not previously available. Contrary to what you might think, I did give some thought to the category structure before creating the list but I couldn't see a simple way of incorporating everything - check out the current position:
  • ???
  • ???
  • ???
  • ???

Does the system require Grade I, II* and II categories for Knowsley, Sefton, St Helens and Wirral or is there a simpler way that I'm missing (but nothing quite as simple as a single county list, no categories, and all the information) ? Shrew 13:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A structure can only be taken so far. Once we get down to the data we have to take the body of data into account. It may be worth creating Grade I and II* in Sefton if not. then Listed in Sefton. That may not be useful for the listed building Cats but it is usefull here.--84.9.192.175 02:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue you need to consider is that categories are not arranged in a tree-like form as you have described above. Category:Grade I listed buildings in Liverpool is not just a subcat of Category:Buildings and structures in Liverpool but also of Category:Grade I listed buildings. Someone using the site may be coming down a different path to the category you want to delete. This is where categories win out over lists as a means of organising articles. (Which is not to say we cannot have a list as well). Valiantis 20:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Thanks, if I understand correctly we would have three categories for Liverpool (Grades I, II* and II), maybe two for Sefton (Grades I and II*) and then presumably two more for Wirral (Grades I and II*) on the basis that Wirral has twice as many listed buildings as Sefton. So the choice seems to be between seven categories that don't even manage to include all the Grade I listed buildings in Merseyside v's one all-inclusive list.
Seven cats that don't do the job v's one list that does.
And please check out the effect, see Category:Grade II* listed buildings. Simply selecting the page Listed buildings in Merseyside and not the subcategory Category:Grade II* listed buildings in Liverpool displays another 39 Grade II* listed buildings. Sorry, but I've got to stick with delete. Shrew 09:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A list is not an appropriate replacement here; it may be an alternative and supplementary reference but you can't append a list to an article. There are sufficient listed buildings in Liverpool to make subcats by city appropriate here (20, 48 & 34 articles respectively). I don't believe it would be appropriate to subdivide the Category:Grade I listed buildings,Category:Grade II* listed buildings and Category:Grade II listed buildings for every city and district in the UK as this would result in lots of sparsely populated subcats, but for large cities with a lot of architectural heritage this subdivision is worthwhile. That is to say, listed buildings in, say, Sefton can go directly into the appropriate grade cat, there's no need for 3 separate subcats for Sefton - there aren't enough articles. Alternatively, 3 intermediate cats - "Grade I listed buildings in Merseyside" etc. - might be created to group together all the Merseyside entries and then the Liverpool subcats could be subcats of the intermediate cats as they are large enough to exist independently. Listed buildings in other parts of Merseyside could go directly into the Merseyside level. Again there is no need to create a subcat for every district in the country, which appears to be what Shrew feels we would need to do and what he wants to avoid. Valiantis 20:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Crimean towns to Category:Towns in Crimea

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to standard form as per naming conventions. Darwinek 11:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. CalJW 17:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. Mattbr30 17:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as above. David Kernow 17:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Historic United States political parties → Category:Historic United States political movements and parties

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, created Historic US political movements as a sub...but its empty for now so get thee populating it or I'm going to delete it (if I see its empty a few weeks from now) and let it be recreated when there's content. Syrthiss 15:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting this because it would allow any U.S.-based political movement that played a significant role in U.S. political history, whether it is a movement or a party, to be included in the category. (This is, in my view, what the category should be used for anyway-- both past and present groupings-- rather than simply just those in the dustbin of U.S. history.) What do others think? Kiko 07:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Bionicle characters

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the few articles in this category to Category:Bionicle some time ago; the "characters" subcategory has been empty since then. And as nearly half of the articles are on characters or character groups, the main Bionicle category seems too small to split that drastically. Drakhan 05:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Rock opera

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a redundant category, as Category:Rock operas is used instead.

  • Delete as proposer. Olessi 05:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete empty mispluralized duplicate. - choster 07:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per above. David Kernow 13:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Political parties in Europe to Category:Pan-European political parties

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current title makes it seem as if this is a generalized parent for any political party operating in a European nation, when in fact it only encompasses some very specific creatures. Rename, s.v.p. The Tom 04:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cities in Brazil to Category:Cities of Brazil and Category:Cities in Angola to Category:Cities of Angola

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn. Syrthiss 15:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"X of [place]" seems to be the standard. David Kernow 03:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:1848 Revolutions people to Category:People of the 1848 Revolutions

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename (Revolutions seems a proper noun here). Syrthiss 15:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current name awkward; proposed name longer but (a) grammatical, (b) mentions people first.

  • Rename as proposer. David Kernow 02:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as this does sound better. Mattbr30 11:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but with a lower case "r" in "Revolutions or it will have to be brought back for speedy renaming. CalJW 17:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but perhaps "1848 Revolutions" is considered a proper noun in the context. Advice please, anyone. David Kernow 05:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Flyff

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category written as an article, it should be deleted and moved to article space. -- Jbamb 01:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Delete merge the text with the article Flyff that already exists. There are 3 articles in the category that can remain. -- Samuel Wantman 01:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's nothing on this page that hasn't been covered in the actual text of the Flyff article. Aside from that, I tagged it for having terrible NPOV problems in the Character Classes section. --Antoshi~! T | C 05:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the text already exists in Flyff. The articles that are in the category are against WP:NOT and I have prod'd them as such (with the exception of the empty one which I db-noncontent'd). kotepho


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Overpopulated categories to Category:Very large categories

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia gets bigger, categories are getting bigger. Many categories will be well over 200 articles. There is {{CategoryTOC}} which makes it possible to navigate large categories. The need to break-up large categories is not what it was 18 months ago. There has been discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization about leaving some categories fully populated even though subcategories are created. This reached fairly strong consensus that categories should remain fully populated up to the level of topic articles. So for example, it was decided to keep Category:Film actors fully populated even though there are subcategories by nationality. There is still utility in making subcategories for very large categories, but that doesn't automatically mean that they should also be depopulated. Because of this, it seems reasonable to change the name of this category from "overpopulated" to "very large". The related template has the same name, and I have already edited the text of this category to reflect the current reality. -- Samuel Wantman 01:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure, really. You make a good point, but I'm concerned that a side effect of renaming would be to deemphasize the importance of depopulating categories that really do need to be depopulated: Category:Film actors may not need to be adjusted, but there may still be topic-level categories that do need to be reduced to managable sizes. I would suggest creating the proposed new category and placing the existing category within it, myself, though this may lead to some messy turf fights.... – Seancdaug 08:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how I see the process working: Someone thinks the category is too large, and puts the tag on it. Discussion happens about how to subcategorize. There is also discussion about whether to depopulate the category once subcategories are made. (At this point in Wikipedia's developement, I suspect that very few categories should be depopulated except for stub categories. If anything, too many categories have already been depopulated that probably didn't need to be.) Once the subcategories are created, the tag is no longer needed. By calling the category "Very big" instead of "Overpopulated" you leave the outcome of what to do about it open to discussion. These decisions should be made category by category after discussion, not just the result of someone having tagged it with a template. Too often in the past, large categories were subdivided and depopulated much too quickly, and without enough discussion. I find it very frustrating to browse through many categories, especially occupation categories like Category:Film directors because of this. -- Samuel Wantman 09:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, as Category:Overpopulated categories does carry a bias. Regards, David Kernow 11:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree that there is no more need to break up large categories. There is still the problem that subcategories of pages with more than 200 entries also get split which is very counter-intuitive and can lead to people not seeing some or in some cases most or all of the subcategories. Some pages have sorted all the subcategories under * or space but this is an ugly kluge. There may be isolated cases where very large categories are ok, but I would very much prefer to depopulate the large categories until this problem is fixed. --JeffW 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many ways to handle these problems, and renaming this category does not imply that categories should never be split and depopulated. The point is that this should not be the automatic action without discussion, which is what has been happening. A very small number of sub-categories can be put under the * as you say. If there is a large number of sub-categories, perhaps they should be recategorized so that there is a large category for articles and a large category for the numerous subcategories. Often, categories filled with articles about people have subcategories for the same people. In cases like this, often the subcategories do not belong. -- Samuel Wantman 21:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. I am very opposed to the current practice of stating that an inappropriate subdivision of a category (e.g. by multiple ethnicity and sexuality like Category:LGBT Jewish Albanian-American opera singers) is necessary "because the category is too big". Categories are browsable over multiple pages thanks to the Category:TOC template and as Samuel Wantman says over-sub-categorisation to avoid large categories is an annoyance in itself. The current name of this cat implies that there is maintenance required. In some cases, a cat of over 200 articles is quite appropriate. Valiantis 20:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_19&oldid=1132245806"