Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 26

June 26[edit]

Category:Malazan Book of the Fallen[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 --Kbdank71 6 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)

Never a large category, now all the articles formerly in it have been merged into a single article, the only remening member of the category. DES 22:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete now empty, redundant cat. -Splash 22:58, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice; given the sheer length of this series (12 books, literally hundreds of characters) it is likely that this category will be recreated at some point in the future when there are more articles to fill it with. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 06:55 (UTC)
- of course, if there are enough future contents the category should be recreated. But I think this series is a cese where a main article, and a few associated articles (for eample: characters in... places in.. events in.. timeline of...) are all we are ever likely to need. DES 28 June 2005 23:59 (UTC)

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:Amputees[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 no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 6 July 2005 14:01 (UTC)

IMHO a rather arbitrary criterium to categorite people. Also all these people are for one reason or another of encyclopedical relevance, why should the number of limbs be of primary interest? --Pjacobi 16:47, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Delete, not a useful categorization. R adiant _>|< 21:14, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. I don't think this is at all arbitrary - it's really quite specific if anything. However, I'm not sure the information extracted by this category is of use. -Splash 23:06, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Instead of category there should be representative list/article. Having category you may get e.g. Josip Broz Tito whose leg got amputated just before his death and endless discussions. Pavel Vozenilek 02:13, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I changed the category definition to avoid the problem you pointed out. MK2 28 June 2005 16:23 (UTC)
  - I'd still prefere list. Name of amputee doesn't bear much of information - life story of the person does and list may have short description. If the category is kept then there should be subcategories like "Amputed sportsmen", "Amputees active in ...", etc to give readers more clue. Pavel Vozenilek 29 June 2005 01:09 (UTC)
My vote's for Keep obviously (I started the category). I'm surprised to see the category described as "arbitrary" - either somebody's lost a limb or they haven't. As for usefulness, I feel this list is no less useful than 90% of the information in Wikipedia. MK2 05:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It's somewhat informative but it's not really a useful categorization. You may want to consider converting it to a List of amputees. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 07:40 (UTC)
  - A year ago people were complaining about the growing number of lists. So categories were developed to replace the list articles. Are we going back now? MK2 28 June 2005 15:56 (UTC)
    - Yes. We appear to have overcompensated. The difference is that a list links one way, but a category links both ways. From an article on an amputee, the link to Amputation is useful since it provides background. Links to other amputees are not very useful, since they really don't have that much in common with one another. Hence, a list would be more appropriate. R adiant _>|< June 29, 2005 07:40 (UTC)
Delete. Not useful nor encyclopedic. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)
Keep. The criteria are specific enough, and the category may be of use to somebody involved in the field of disability studies. -Seth Mahoney July 5, 2005 23:58 (UTC)

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:Royal Australian Army[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 --Kbdank71 6 July 2005 13:58 (UTC)

A misnomer, since the army (like the British Army) has never had the "royal" appellation (unlike the Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force). I suggest it be renamed Category:Australian Army. Grant65 (Talk) 02:05, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Rename per nomination. -Splash 14:18, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

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:American Dad[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 no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 6 July 2005 13:55 (UTC)

Duplicates Category:American Dad! (yes, the exclamation mark is part of the official title, though I probably would have stuck with the !-less version for the cat name). tregoweth 00:48, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, move the existing articles into this cat and soft-redirect the existing category (with the '!') to this one. -Splash 14:17, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, I'd prefer the non-exlamatory form simply because it's one of those things people forget. A lot. R adiant _>|< 21:14, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

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.