Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 24



Category:Featured Indian Articles

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * featured indian articles


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Redundant as Category:WikiProject India articles and Category:FA-Class India articles exists. I have never seen such a cat on any FA before. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 14:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – yes, we have Category:FA-Class India articles with various subcats but this goes on talk pages. Is there an equivalent of upmerge? Occuli (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I now see it has been created today so 'delete' as redundant. Occuli (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This would set an completely untenable precedent. There's a reason a given FA is listed under only one topic area at WP:FA: the alternative would be unmanageable—and categories are more problematic in that they add clutter directly to an article. Conservative similar treatment of, say, Barack Obama would result in the additional categories Category:Featured Biography articles, Category:Featured U.S. Presidents articles, Category:Featured U.S. Congress articles, Category:Featured Illinois articles, and Category:Featured Chicago articles (and that's leaving out 4 more WikiProjects). Similar treatment of Samuel Johnson would result in 7 'Featured x articles' categories on that article. I understand the desire, but I don't see any reasonable method of achieving it short of category intersections. Maralia (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To elaborate: we already have to monitor what's contained in Category:Featured articles to catch and remove random user-'promoted' additions. It would be impossible to monitor an entire additional category scheme—which has the potential to be enormous—to ensure that only actual FAs are represented as Featured. Maralia (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as redundant to Category:Featured Articles and Category:FA-Class India articles. BencherliteTalk 19:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above and simply use featured article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:GFDL

 * 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: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:GFDL to Category:?
 * Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure exactly what the purpose of this category is. It contains a few articles related to the GNU Free Documentation License, but most of its contents appear to have been added because they themselves are licensed using the GFDL. (It also has subcategories for GFDL-licensed sounds and images.) I'm not sure that we need a category for that - aren't *all* pages on Wikipedia licensed under the GFDL? Many pages have been placed here by Template:GFDLSource - perhaps that template shouldn't be adding articles to this category. Or perhaps the category should be renamed to reflect what it actually contains. Robofish (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Question. Since the template is used to populate the category, and since there is an issue with the name, is deletion of the category an option?  I noticed that there are several subcategories, so deletion may not be an option.  Vegaswikian (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletion would be an option, yes. I'm not sure it's the best one, since even if the GFDL-licensed articles are removed, there might still be some value in having a category for articles related to the GFDL. Then again, they could just be recategorised elsewhere, and there aren't that many of them anyway. As for the subcategories, I think they can be preserved while deleting the main category. Robofish (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Capitals serving as first-level administrative divisions

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * capitals serving as first-level administrative divisions


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Already listed at List of capitals serving as administrative divisions by country. Not particularly important or interesting enough as a category. Chanheigeorge (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Neither category nor list seem very complete to me - Paris? - but the list is much larger with more details. Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Île-de-France (region) is the first level administrative division of France that encompasses not only Paris, but a significant swath of territory well outside of the French capital. Paris is a department, a second-order administrative division. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the departments have been there 200 yrs, & the regions about 5 minutes, so what is first-level or first-order, or more important, well, who knows. The Mayor of Paris is a vastly more important figure than the head of the Ile de France. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep seems defining for the subjects, some of them have upleveled legislative or executive governments that function both at the city level and at the first-level administrative division level. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete; the list is sufficient here. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.