Category talk:Chess openings
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Msh210 in topic Category:Chess openings
Deletion debate
[edit]
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Overly specific.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. The discussed category is virtually empty, with its mere three members. However, multiple Wikipedia articles (including w:List of chess openings named after animals) together list dozens of chess openings. If anything, the coverage of chess openings on Wiktionary should be expanded eventually. --Daniel. 18:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not just dozens: the ECO has 500 categories of chess openings, most (though not all) of which have names different from other codes' names, and some of which have multiple names (e.g., A00). Probably at least 500 names altogether; 1000 is probably an underestimate when you count attested synonyms and variant capitalizations. Nonetheless, I think that a dictionary should not be categorizing these more finely than in Category:Chess.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why not? What does it harm? DAVilla 20:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- (1) If someone wants chess openings, he should (and will) look at ECO — or one of its GUIs, like Wikipedia — so this category doesn't help anyone. (2) A category of words from specific fields' jargon is lexical information we should have, and Chess is such a category, but Chess openings is so easily subsumed into Chess (all the openings' names are chess jargon). (3) We've included topical categories also, like Animals, but Chess openings is semantically similar enough to Chess that it should not be its own category.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, this might be the only "overly specific" nomination I could see deleting other than Category:Constructed languages, but my reason for doing so is that they are not topical, per se, rather more in the fashion of a list. I couldn't think of organization as a flaw except at its lowest degree. DAVilla 21:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- (1) If someone wants chess openings, he should (and will) look at ECO — or one of its GUIs, like Wikipedia — so this category doesn't help anyone. (2) A category of words from specific fields' jargon is lexical information we should have, and Chess is such a category, but Chess openings is so easily subsumed into Chess (all the openings' names are chess jargon). (3) We've included topical categories also, like Animals, but Chess openings is semantically similar enough to Chess that it should not be its own category.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why not? What does it harm? DAVilla 20:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not just dozens: the ECO has 500 categories of chess openings, most (though not all) of which have names different from other codes' names, and some of which have multiple names (e.g., A00). Probably at least 500 names altogether; 1000 is probably an underestimate when you count attested synonyms and variant capitalizations. Nonetheless, I think that a dictionary should not be categorizing these more finely than in Category:Chess.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Just like other topical categories, this category is especially useful to people looking for a word they don't remember, but they could remember when seeing it. For such a category to be useful, it should not be too large. Sometimes, it's difficult to define subcatgories conveniently, but when it's possible, there is no reason not to do it. Lmaltier 21:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Weak delete (or very weak delete). Category:Chess only has 100 entries, so if this category were deleted, that would be 103, still not very much. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept as no consensus.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)