Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 24



Category:Articles that need to be wikified

 * 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 * The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Articles that need to be wikified to Category:Articles with too few wikilinks
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. As noted in the TfD regarding Wikify, the term "Wikify" is ambiguous and unclear. It is currently used to refer to both "needs more links" and "needs general formatting/links improvement". Therefore, the category in question (and all subcategories) should be renamed to match Category:Articles with too many wikilinks. Category:Dead-end pages should be a subcategory of this category, and only of this category. Meanwhile, Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify (currently under discussion here) should be renamed as Category:Articles that need to be wikified, unless a better, more descriptive name can be established. In other words, we are clarifying the meaning of the word "wikify" so that it means "needs general formatting/links improvement" rather than "needs more links". This clarification is compatible with the decision made in the TfD for Wikify and should be made while the backlog is cleared. Guoguo12 (Talk)  20:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional information can be found via the category tree of the supercategory (Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify). Note that this discussion should focus on the category in question; the meaning of "wikify" has already been determined in the aforementioned TfD for Wikify. Thanks. Guoguo12 (Talk)  20:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see how your proposal would clarify the meaning of "wikify"; if I've understood it, it would mean that all articles tagged with wikify would now be in a category called Category:Articles with too few wikilinks. Have I got that right?


 * As an aside, I do support the creation of Category:Articles with too few wikilinks, which could then be populated by the currently-defunct Template:Internal links (I've proposed its re-creation here). I also agree that Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify should be renamed Category:Articles that need to be wikified, but only when the backlog is cleared and Category:Articles that need to be wikified is empty. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The clarification comes from an assumption: that the majority of pages in Category:Articles that need to be wikified are tagged because they have too few wikilinks. This is not an irrational assumption; AWB tags articles with Wikify "if article has < 3 wikilinks or the number of wikilinks is smaller than 0.25% of article's size". A quick survey of the category reveals that a vast majority of the articles were tagged automatically, rather than manually. If the assumption is valid, then we are clearing things up with this renaming because "Category:Articles with too few wikilinks" is much more explanatory than "Category:Articles that need to be wikified". Guoguo12 (Talk)  15:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I guess that makes sense. I'm hopeful that we'll have cleared the backlog in a month or two, though, so I don't think this will make much difference in the long run. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 19,000 articles? I'm thinking at least six months. Clearing backlogs requires group effort, and even the most successful WikiProject Wikify drive resulted in less than 3,000 articles removed from the backlog. The most recent drive resulted in less than 500 articles being removed from the backlog. Guoguo12 (Talk)  18:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to say we'll have emptied the category, not cleared the backlog. Within a month or two, we'll hopefully have transferred the backlog into Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify by replacing all the wikify tags with more specific cleanup templates. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. One to two months makes a lot more sense in that case. Guoguo12 (Talk)  20:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, what this comes down to is whether or not replacing all 20,000 Wikify tags is worth the trouble or not. If it is, then this CfD should be withdrawn, Internal links should be recreated, and it should place articles into Category:Articles with too few wikilinks. If it's not worth the trouble to replace all Wikify tags, I think the proposed renaming should take place. (But in that case, why not just redirect Wikify to Internal links?) Guoguo12 (Talk)  20:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If an overwhelming majority of Wikify tags actually mean Internal links, then we could just redirect the template, and change the category linked within the target template. However, if a notable minority actually mean different things e.g. Copy edit or Cleanup, then I don't think we should change the template; just create the new category, populate it by editing the Dead end template (with or without using Internal links too), and start replacing the Wikify template with more specific ones. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Working through a random sample of 100 articles tagged with wikify, I found that 92 of them could have been tagged with dead end or internal links instead. Is that an overwhelming majority? I don't know (and obviously we need a larger sample size, so I'll keep going for now), but I am coming around to the idea of redirecting wikify to internal links. If we assume that my 100 articles are representative of the entire category, redirecting the template would leave 8% (about 1,500) of the 19,000 incorrectly tagged, which is a lot, but that state of affairs wouldn't last for long, as it would be obvious which articles the template doesn't apply to. One of the problems with the wikify tag is that people are never sure when they can remove it, whereas internal links is (or will be) unambiguous. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, turning Template:Wikify into a redirect would contradict the decision reached at the TfD, but we could have a bot replace every wikify tag with internal links instead. And that would be even better, because then it could leave a clear edit summary that might mitigate any potential confusion. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO it would not be appropriate to have a bot do the replacement on 2 grounds: (i) 8% is a significant minority, and (ii) that action would be worse than redirecting wikify. At least redirecting would still gives a chance to see what pages wikify is transcluded onto, and to check each one re what replacement template(s) is/are required. But I don't see the hurry anyway. Why not just set up the new category, and change the category encoded in dead end right now? I think there has been enough approval already to go ahead with those actions. The nominated category can be left and wikify can be replaced manually over the coming months. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it's worth it to manually replace each individual Wikify tag? It took DoctorKubla about one minute to manually replace one tag. That's 19,000 minutes we're talking about, or three hundred hours of work in total. Why not redirect Wikify to Internal links, then have users use AWB to find articles with transclusions of Wikify to find and fix the 8% of articles that shouldn't have Internal links? That makes a lot more sense (I think). Guoguo12 (Talk)  16:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If Wikify is not replaced, how would anyone know that it has been checked and found OK as only meaning "Internal links" rather than "Cleanup"? – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Touché. In that case, I concur; we should proceed as you and DoctorKubla said. This discussion, given the consensus, shall be considered withdrawn, and may be closed. All Wikify tags shall be replaced with more specific tags. Though not necessarily based on this discussion alone, Internal links shall be recreated and shall place articles into Category:Articles with too few wikilinks (to be created). Guoguo12 (Talk)  20:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether this is the correct places to discuss this, but is (imho) a horribly ambiguous name for a template - I'd expect it to be an information template that could be placed on user talk pages, etc to educate new users about links and their purpose, or (with parameters) to be an internal navigation template. May I suggest instead something like, ,  (although this could be confused with ),  or . Thryduulf (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a valid point. Guoguo12 (Talk)  03:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll go ahead and create the template. I'll call it underlinked, to contrast with overlinked. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2012 (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:Asbestos-containing Product Manufacturers

 * 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 00:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Asbestos-containing Product Manufacturers to Category:Asbestos-containing product manufacturers
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Needs speedy renaming per WP:Capitalization. However, I nominated it here for broader discussion if the existence of this category is justified as there is no clear cut which companies should be included and the category itself seems some way incriminating. Beagel (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, unless we are going to start categorising manufacturers by the full list of their raw ingredients. I am trying to assume good faith, but this does look rather like an attempt to label companies as "makers of nasty things". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per BHG. No need to go into this mess with categories. Vegaswikian (talk)
 * Delete per nom. Surely the quality of coverage for this is not good. Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per BHG. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Listify (and then let AfD decide its merits). Categorisation is not appropriate, but a list could contain encyclopedic info. Asbestosis, Asbestos and Asbestos and the law contain relevant info to support a list. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:01, 28 September 2012 (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:WikiProject Holby

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Holby to Category:Holby task force
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. I've converted WP:WikiProject Holby into a task force. There must be a special guideline about naming task forces, but I don't know which one. George Ho (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Holby participants to Category:Holby task force participants – added to nomination – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Holby articles to Category:Holby task force articles

I also suggest renaming the two subcats Category:WikiProject Holby participants and Category:WikiProject Holby articles by adding them to this nomination. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator. There is no guideline AFAIK, but the convention is "Foo task force" as nominated (see this search for >1500 examples).
 * Support Rename per Nom and BHG.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename all. I have tagged and added the sub-cats as suggested. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:05, 26 September 2012 (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:Buildings and structures in India in Bhubaneswar

 * 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 (C1). The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting buildings and structures in india in bhubaneswar


 * Nominator's rationale: Similar category exist. Category:Buildings and structures in Bhubaneswar Amartyabag   TALK2ME  04:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete A duplicate and empty category.Shyamsunder (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:CSD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 24 September 2012 (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:Pirate Party India

 * 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: plundered. The Bushranger One ping only 00:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting pirate party india


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Who knows what the future holds for this party but for now it's a recently created marginal party with, as far as I can tell, no leader, no member elected to any position and no detailed program. This means that we have no articles relating to this party (beyond the main article) and don't expect any in the very near future so there's no need for a category. Pichpich (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, this category is worse than useless. Categories exist to facilitate navigation between articles, by grouping those with a shared defining characteristic, and a single-article category creates no group only; it just wastes the reader's time. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and per WP:OC. This is a single-article category with no reasonable expectation of growth. If this tiny party does become more prominent, and there there are more articles to categorise, then the category can be recreated.
 * Delete there is no reason to have a category on a political party that merely consists of the article on the party.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:OC. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:35, 25 September 2012 (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:Undefeated mixed martial artists

 * 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 19:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting undefeated mixed martial artists


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete This might work as a list but it's a flawed basis for a category. For one thing, it doesn't distinguish between a fighter with a record of 1-0 (who cares?) and a fighter with a record of 15-0 (very impressive). There are also huge differences between the quality of fighters in different promotions and a 3-0 record in the Ultimate Fighting Championship says more about a fighter than a 10-0 record in a local promotion. Case in point, Donald Brashear is officially (correct me if I'm wrong) 1-0 in MMA and is therefore undefeated although everyone agrees he would get destroyed by any fighter in the UFC. In fact, 99% of UFC fans would ask "Donald who?" In a list, details like that can be included but as a category, this is a bad idea. Pichpich (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * i wasn't aware that a category was intended to quality or quantity or content, just that it fits the criteria. case in point Category:Olympic_medalists_in_judo contains both Paul Barth who won a single silver medal in 1972, and Tadahiro Nomura three time gold medal winner. --Kevlar (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Winning one Olympic gold medal is a highly notable achievement for any sportsperson, placing them at the pinnacle of their sport. It is definitely a defining characteristic, and leads to their name being routinely prefixed with "Olympic gold medalist". However, being undefeated in a single competition is usually a transient characteristic, and attempts to constrain the category by a numerical threshold fail WP:OC. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

However, this is effectively a "current" category, because any living person in this category is only currently undefeated: one loss, and they are out of it. This makes for an unstable category which will include inaccurate entries unless actively maintained, which is why "current foo" categories are routinely deleted. The similar Category:Undefeated national football teams was deleted at CfD 2006 July 19, and we also have Category:Undefeated racehorses and Category:College football undefeated seasons, both of which should also be deleted. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I support the nominator's concerns that this category is indiscriminate, and groups sportspeople with wildly differing records.
 * The college football cat is a little trivia-ish but it's not transient since it's categorizing complete seasons rather than teams. The fact that a team had a perfect season at some point in its history is not a defining characteristic of a team. However, "being perfect" is one of the most notable characteristics of a given season. Pichpich (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – the racehorses one is different (retired without being beaten) as is the 'seasons' one. This does seem to be a 'currently unbeaten' category, which is not workable. Oculi (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete in general most categories are supposed to be of a nature that once they apply they always apply. Living people is an exception for well defined reasons, but being undefeated in fights is not one.  The problem that someone can qualify for this with a 1-0 record also shows that it is not neccesarily very meaningful. I am not convinced the racehorse category is justified, but that would be a seperate discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There's also a precedence in deleting these types of cats.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:34, 25 September 2012 (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:Dune on film and television

 * 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 to Category:Dune universe media. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:Dune on film and television to Category:Dune films and Category:Dune television series Category:Television series based on Dune
 * Nominator's rationale: Generally we split film categories and television categories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Split per nom. - jc37 18:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with splitting the films to the parent, with no prejudice against future creation if necessary. - jc37 01:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Split but to the parent and to Category:Television series based on Dune, following various recent precedents; this is the way we are going with Category:works based on works. For the TV category, "series" beats arguing over the spelling of program/programme, and the Dune TV programmes were series rather than one-offs. As there is only one film so far, Category:Films based on Dune would currently be WP:OCAT. After this CfD, the parent should be nominated for renaming to Category:Works based on Dune. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if splitting to a separate film cat (instead of the parent as FL suggests) then that should be a "based on" cat as well. Category:Films based on science fiction novels seems to have both formats. (group nom in the future? : ) - jc37 01:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete based on the fact that there are very few articles that would fit in either category and that there are other categories that would serve to associate these three articles with Dune without having to have two entire categories to find a mere three articles. Buck Winston (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: in that case the outcome should be "upmerge to appropriate parents" rather than delete. Following my own suggestion above, the film article should be upmerged into as well as Category:Dune universe media. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to the appropriate parents. Per WP:SMALLCAT, we don't need to keep a category with only 3 articles unless it is part of an established series, and this isn't. Splitting it would only produce even smaller categories. There may be a case for creating a new, which would be more heavily-populated. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO, that category already exists as Category:Dune universe media and needs to be renamed thusly. It would become part of "Works based on novels". would become "Books based on Dune" and  would move up into the top category, Category:Dune universe, as the original work category alongside . – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds good, and it's just a matter of finding the simplest way of getting there. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per FL/BHG above. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear: me too : ) - jc37 02:08, 30 October 2012 (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.