Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 5



Category:Rhyming slang

 * 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. I'll make sure the head article is properly categorized.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting rhyming slang


 * Nominator's rationale: Contains just one article (following removal of articles that are not about rhyming slang). DexDor (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  Merge  to all parents. This category now fails WP:SMALLCAT, so it should go ... but merger rather than deletion ensures that the head article will remain properly categorised. It looks at the moment as if merger will have the same effect as deletion, but that may not be the case when this discussion is closed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete (changing my !vote). The category has been populated with articles which are not about rhyming slang, and are categorised by the fcat that another use is made of their name. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep — there are articles that cover the rhyming slang meaning of the phrase. I have added some, I am sure there are more. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles like Mae West should not be in the category; that article is about a person, not about slang - rhyming slang is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of Mae West. DexDor (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't exactly see what "slang" has to do with some articles currently included. "Artful Dodger" is about a literary character and not an expression. "Mutt and Jeff (spies)" is about a pair of World War II spies codenamed after comic strip characters. Could someone elaborate on the subject? Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All the articles include information on the rhyming slang meaning. Search for "rhyming slang" in the article to find information on this. All the above are rhyming slang expressions derived from the person/character/phrase concerned. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not how categories are used - for example the London article mentions transport, religion, education, warfare etc, but we don't put the article in all those categories. The Mutt and Jeff (spies) article probably shouldn't even mention rhyming slang as the codenames were (I believe) derived from the cartoon characters not from slang for "deaf". DexDor (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing other than the article with this name belongs here at all. How do Posh and Becks belong here at all?  That is an article on a celebrity couple (or on the coverage of the involved celebrities as a couple) not about slang.  The category has accumulated so much rubbish that alone would convince me to delete it.  Articles on real couples or on fictional characters do not go in this category.  Most of the stuff should not be upmerged, and the main article, which is really the only thing worth moving, is already in the approapriate parent categories, so just get rid of the mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note — The Posh and Becks article includes referenced information on the rhyming slang meaning. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That does not change the fact that it is an article on a duo, not an article on language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete -- The contnets (other than the main article) are not about the subject. If the main article is inadequately categorised, that can be corrected manually.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment One more time, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we categorize things by what they are, not what they are named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2013 (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:Uruguayan political party stubs

 * 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 until enough stubs (60) are using the template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting uruguayan political party stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Underpopulated stub category. Delete category and upmerge template until sufficient articles found. Dawynn (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete category, but keep template. There are currently 31 articles in Category:Uruguayan political party stubs, which is too small for a stub category just enough for a template. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not every template necessarily has to have its own corresponding category, granted — we have many stub templates which funnel their articles into more generalized categories, such as Guam-radio-station-stub feeding its articles into and  instead of having its own Guam-specific subcategory — but it still has to feed its articles into a category. WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals does indeed have a minimum requirement of 60 articles before a category of this type should exist, so delete per nom — but there's no minimum size requirement on the existence of a template (and CFD wouldn't be the correct venue for discussing its possible deletion anyway), so keep the template and make sure that it's revised to feed its articles into  and . Bearcat (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2013 (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:Azadliq

 * 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: Convert to a dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Convert Category:Azadliq to disambiguation page Azadliq
 * Nominator's rationale: Convert. This category is acting as a disambiguation page, grouping things that are named "Azadliq". I suggest making a disambiguation page at Azadliq (currently a redirect page to one of the meanings) and deleting the category per WP:OC. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Convert per nom. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Convert per nominator. This should be disambiguation page rather than a category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, the articlespace title Azadliq is currently a redirect to one particular Azadliq rather than a dab page or an article — so I suspect that this category exists because somebody didn't know how to convert the title properly. But yep, as a category it's a WP:OC violation. Listify per nom. Bearcat (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Articlise probably per nom. The present article is a redirect to an article that is a mere stub.  Some of the content of that might also be merged in, so that the word was explained.  Alternatively, the new article could be Azadliq (disambiguation), with a "redirects here/other uses capnote on the presetn target.  No strong views on which is better, but the present situation will not do.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2013 (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.