Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 8#Category:Dramedy

: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 merge --Kbdank71 15:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

:Category:Volcanoes in the Central Cordillera of Ecuador, :Category:Volcanoes in the Eastern Cordillera of Ecuador, :Category:Volcanoes in the Western Cordillera of Ecuador, :Category:Volcanoes of Ecuador by province,

:Category:Volcanoes of Pichincha converted to cfdu ∞Who?¿? 06:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Too complicated. I think we should delete these categories and put that volcanoes just to the :Category:Volcanoes of Ecuador. This is common practice here, for example look at :Category:Volcanoes of Argentina. -- Darwinek 17:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge all per nom. Though this has been rather informative in that I never knew there were quite so many volcanoes in Ecuador, it's not helpful to have them seperately categorized by region. siafu 22:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with merge. Ecuador is extremely volcanic, but I'm not convinced that different categories are needed unless the volcanoes are part of different volcanic zones (e.g., if all the ones in the Central Cordillera form one volcanic field based around one magma hot-spot) Grutness...wha? 00:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - no real need for separate categories by region, one for the country is enough. Worldtraveller 11:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge them together as suggested. Keep it simple. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Ecuador's three cordilleras were created in different geological periods, and there is a natural order. The western cordillera is the oldest one, and that is why volcanoes there are more eroded than volcanoes in the east. If you just wanna be ignorant, then be it, you ignorants. And the three volcanic zones are different and were created at different geological times. And not all volcanic zones have to do with hot spots. This is not Hawaii, it's Ecuador. The three parallel zones were created because of the fucking subduction zone between the Nazca Plate and the fucking South American Plate. Now if you wanna merge it, then it's you who wanna be so ignorant about nature. It's just irritating to see you wanna merge everything, as if there were no natural order. The category of the volcanoes of Pichinchs is not natural, of course, but the other three are. And anyway, I don't find it productive at all to just delete the "Volcanoes of Pichincha" category because even there there's an order, even if it's not natural. I'm not gonna tone down my language, because it's just so irritating to see you wanna merge everything like there's no need to organize the volcanoes in categories. You don't even wanna check the facts before putting the categories in the deletion list. And if you don't believe what I say, then go check it out in a decent geology book or Web site, and not just a book or Web site for f*cking tourists that doesn't explain the details. And if wanna add volcanoes between the western and the central cordilleras , you just create a category called "Interandean volcanoes" or similar. The zones are natural, not arbitrary or artificial. Now I also don't see why you didn't put the category of Galapagos volcanoes on the deletion list as well. That's ridiculous. I don't care about the comparison with the volcanoes of Argentina. Ecuador is not Argentina. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Suggest you adopt a civil tone, avoid personal attacks, and state your opinion in a friendly way, if you want others to give it any consideration. Worldtraveller 22:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Well, anyaway. It's just irritating to see they don't care about checking a book or Web site about the geology of Ecuador. Instead you just put it on the deletion list. You don't care about it. Geologists and mountaineers alike they use that classification. Again, it's just so frustrating to see they wanna merge everything as if it didn't make a difference to classify the volcanoes. Another example: there were some volcanoes that in the articles were described as belonging to the eastern cordillera, when in fact they belong to the central cordillera. They just don't care about distinguishing between the two. Look at this Web page for example: http://www.igepn.edu.ec/vulcanologia/volcanes/arcovolcanico.htm The central cordillera ("Cordillera Central") is also called "Cordillera Real". And those three cordilleras exist in northrn Ecuador, and are well defined. You don't just have a volcano here, a volcano there, and everything scattered around and totally disorganized. There is a natural order. Then I don't see why they just want to delete the categories. It's frustrating. Why do I classify the volcanoes accordingly, if someone's gonna come and delete the categories whimsically just because they ignore that the volcanoes are part of cordilleras? Again, it's just frustrating. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 22:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Who is this "they" you keep referring to? Regardless, the geological distinction is interesting and notable, and should be included in the relevant articles. However since the number of articles placed into each category is so low, it makes little sense to over-categorize in this manner. One could just as well set up seperate subcategories under this list based on age ranges, type of volcano, height, etc. They would be valid distinctions, geologically, but not very useful for seperate categories in wikipedia. siafu 23:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• The "they" is all those who put the articles on the deletion list and voted for the deletion of it all. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:15, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• There are no articles on the list. This is categories for deletion. siafu 23:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Well, anyway, the categories. You're right. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:19, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge The cordilleras issue is better explained in articles. Osomec 08:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merege--BaronLarf 18:33, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, and create another sorting scheme according to geology, e.g. :category:Volcanoes in the Central Cordillera, :category:Volcanoes in the Eastern Cordillera. — Instantnood 19:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Note that the above proposal would only make sense for northern Ecuador and southern Colombia, since the cordilleras in Perú, for example, have different geological origins than those in Ecuador and Colombia and are not continuous with them. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per nomination. -Splash 21:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per nominator. When the category creator first created this and started the division into the three regions, I questioned how useful that would really be on their talk page. WikiProject Mountains has not further subdivided volcanoes or mountains of a country, state or province based on the range. This would just be over-categorization IMHO. RedWolf 07:51, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Well, back then, when User:RedWolf asked his question, I answered the question, but he didn't put the categories on the deletion list, and now, months later, he complains about it. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 16:38, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• And besides, I don't understand why none of you who complain about the categories still don't put the Galápagos category (:Category:Volcanoes of Galápagos) on the list, since Galápagos is also a province of Ecuador and since it has only one volcano on the list. That's ridiculous. User:Variable (siafu) above said that one of the reasons for deleting the categories is that they don't have enough articles. Well, why don't you put the Galápagos category also on the list? Just when you see me create a new category, that's when you put it on the deletion list, whoever the "you" is that put the categories on the deletion list. At least be consistent with your argumentations. If you say you're gonna delete the categories because you say they are all for one country or because you say they have few articles in them, then delete all of them. Be consistent with what you say. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 16:56, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• This is what RedWolf asked more than two months ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2004-12-29T22:45Z&oldid=15363542 here]: "Hi. Please explain why you think Category:Volcanoes of Ecuador needs to be subdivided into subcats for the specific mountain range? Otherwise, I will list them for deletion on CFD as over-categorization. Thanks. RedWolf 01:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)" 2004-12-29T22:45Z 17:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• This is what I answered on User talk:RedWolf: "The Andes in Ecuador are divided into three ranges that were created at different geological times. That's why there are three categories. People generally classify the volcanoes in Ecuador that way. Don't delete the categories. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 02:05, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)" 2004-12-29T22:45Z 17:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• I mean, User:RedWolf, why didn't you put the categories on the deletion list back then, if you really didn't like my explanation and you said you would "otherwise" put them on the deletion list? Two months later you vote for deletion of them. That is so inconsistent with what you did two months earlier. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 17:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• And as for User:Who, I really don't like the fact that you don't include :Category:Volcanoes of Galápagos on the list. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 17:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Also, I don't like the fact that User:Who changed the template from "CFD" to CFDU". That is inconsistent again. If the votes-for-deletion process started with "CFD", it should remain that way. Also, the template for "CFDU" redirects to a page different from this one, and you did not include the categories on that page. That means we would have two deletion processes for the same group of categories. That's inconsistent. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 17:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Also, I disagree with the content of the CFDU template for this particular group of categories that is listed on this page here. The template says: "This category has been listed for deletion. This is mass deletion of multiple categories with similar but inconsistent form. Please see the relevant entry on the categories for deletion page for the proposal, justification, and discussion. Please do not remove this notice or empty the category while the question is being considered." Yes, the categories have similar form, but the form is not inconsistent. I totally disagree with that. The categories are consistent with each other. There is a category to calssify volcanoes by province, and there is a category to classify volcanoes by geological group. That is not inconsistent at all. The argumentation is bogus. Besides, the original reason why User:Darwinek listed the categories here is because he said they're "Too complicated." And besides, User:Darwinek put the CFD template, whose text is different from the text on the CFDU template. As for Darwinek's point, in my opinion, the categories are not "Too complicated." First of all, if you know in which category the volcano goes, it's not too complicated. Secondly, if you really doubt in which category to put the volcano, you just leave it in the main category, which is ":Category:Volcanoes of Ecuador". I don't see why that should be "Too complicated." And, just because the people who work on the "Volcanoes of Argentina" category, or similar categories, don't further subdivide their volcanoes, that doesn't mean we can't subdivide the volcanoes of Ecuador. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 17:49, August 14, 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.

: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 15:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Rename to :Category:Fantasy characters (written) or to :Category:Fictional characters in written fantasy or some similer name that a) does not use the word "literary" or "literature" and b) does use the word "written" in some form. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 5#:Category:Literary science fiction characters and at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 6#:Category:Literary characters. DES ^(talk) 17:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Suspend till "Literary characters" is resolved. K1Bond007 17:45, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename (and Suspend), as per discussion on "Literary characters", though I also agree that the fate of this one should wait for the fate of it's parent category. TexasAndroid 17:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Note the recent decision to rename {{cl|Literary characters}} to {{cl|Characters in written fiction}}. This should follow suit. DES ^(talk) 15:06, 15 August 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.

: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 14:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Only four articles so far, but looks like a candidate for a list. JW 14:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and list. No argument. siafu 22:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and list --BaronLarf 19:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above, someone can (and surely will) create the list in time. -Splash 21:43, 10 August 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.

: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 14:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

There are presently two templates for 'original research' and this category is on the least-used of them, so it doesn't really work at the moment. However, the question is whether anyone would find such a category useful, given the plethora of 'dispute' categories we have already. Radiantmeta:mergist 14:08, August 8, 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.

: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 14:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Blank, empty, and likely to remain so. Agentsoo 10:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Redundant with :Category:Famous courtesans and prostitutes. siafu 22:23, 8 August 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.

: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 14:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggest rename to :Category:Comedy-drama. "Comedy-drama" is a much more common term than "dramedy", which is slightly obscure. Two of the three articles in the category also use "comedy-drama" in their titles, not dramedy. A quick Google produced 68,800 results for "dramedy" and 593,000 for "comedy-drama". JW 12:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

:...and 28,000 for "comic drama", the third well-known term. Agree with move. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Rename. No argument. siafu 22:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. Agree with Jeff Watts et al.
• Rename as above Osomec 08:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as above. The term "dramedy" was in vogue in the late 80s but failed to catch on in a lasting way. 23skidoo 17:08, 10 August 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.

: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 14:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This position hasn't had a lot of turnover (it currently has two entries); a whole category is unnecessary. tregoweth 00:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No argument. siafu 00:35, 9 August 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.

: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 14:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Currently has one article, Camp Lazlo. tregoweth 03:37, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete And lets hope no one writes any more. We have far too many detailed articles on this sort of thing. Osomec 08:07, 10 August 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.