Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 20

< December 19	December 21 >

December 20[edit]

Two "Great Lakes" categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename to Foo of the Great Lakes region (North America). Kbdank71 20:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from the speedy section:

Category:Trees of the Great Lakes U.S. to Category:Trees of the Great Lakes (United States) — Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flora of the Great Lakes U.S. to Category:Flora of the Great Lakes (United States) — Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - shouldn't these be "...of the Great Lakes region..."? Grutness...wha? 00:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that would be better. Want to move this to CfD since that change would not be a speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Grutness...wha? 22:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the trees themselves nor the article Great Lakes region (North America) appear to adhere to the border between the United States and Canada. I think having Category:Trees of the Great Lakes region (North America) and Category:Flora of the Great Lakes region (North America), as daughter categories of the respective Canadian and American categories, would be the most appropriate option. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not the United States one - shades of Wetman's "Dinosaurs of Minnesota". We should be moving away from all biological/political categories. Rename to some version closer to article, or just "Great Lakes", which is hardly ambiguous. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is a Great Lakes (disambiguation) article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - Nth Am per Aecis. Johnbod (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Aecis - The American Great Lakes also border Canada. A regional descriptor is necessary sicne there is a Great Lakes region in Africa too. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Trees of the Great Lakes region (North America) and Category:Flora of the Great Lakes region (North America) would be fine. I nominated to expand the abbrev. and did not notice the larger problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Limburg (province)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Limburg (Belgian province). Kbdank71 20:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Limburg (province) to Category:Limburg (Belgium)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current title doesn't make it clear which Limburg is involved: the Dutch province or the Belgian province. It is the latter. The category should be renamed to make that clear. A ecis^Brievenbus 21:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, but since the province contains the town of Limbourg, to Category:Limburg (Belgian province) for maximum clarity. Some Dutch articles have (unsurprisingly) crept in here too. Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to match the article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Limburg" (aka Limbourg) is also the main town of the province, so I have renamed the province article to Limburg (Belgian province). The category should match. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Hipper class cruisers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename. Kralizec! (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hipper class cruisers to Category:Admiral Hipper class cruisers

Nominator's rationale: Rename to agree with the class article Admiral Hipper class cruiser. The corrected name is also supported by the German article at [1]. Maralia (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - could it be, a straight-forward ship class nom at last? Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Gatoclass (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Lists of tallest buildings in the Canada[edit]

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: Speedy deleted by User:Vegaswikian at author's request (WP:CSD#G7). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Created category with a grammatically error, proper category was created at Category:Lists of tallest buildings in Canada. VerruckteDan (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge/delete as obvious typo/duplicate. Otto4711 (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:YMS-1 class auxiliary motor minesweepers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 20:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:YMS-1 class auxiliary motor minesweepers to Category:YMS-1 class minesweepers

Nominator's rationale: In accordance with the recent rename of the class article YMS-1 class minesweeper, per this discussion at WP:Ships. Maralia (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - appears to be in accordance with Wikiship guidelines not to be overspecific in naming of classes. Gatoclass (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Wikipedia categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete, per nom would appear to duplicate Category:Wikipedia administration. Kbdank71 20:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories - This is a sprawling category populated by Template:Wikipedia category. It's inclusion criteria seems to be any page which has that template, and that template could potentially go on every category not directly related to mainspace (including every Wikipedian category). Not sure how this could be seen as "helpful", and Category:Wikipedia administration would seem to cover this better. This would seem to fall under the suggestion that "not every template needs to have an associated category.". - jc37 14:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 14:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup use as parent to all non-mainspace categories, remove the categorization from the template (ie. "&ltnoinclude&gt" ) , Wikipedia administration would seem to be more specialized, going by its name. I don't see user categories as administration... 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User categories are also currently top level in Category:Contents. If this should become parent, all 4 Category:Contents categories beginning with W should be put under it. The category should be emptied of transclusions either way. –Pomte 07:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that "Wikipedia categories" could refer to all of the categories in category:Contents, since "Wikipedia" could refer to the encyclopedia, to Wikipedia-space, or both... That said, there seems to be consensus (so far) that it shouldn't be populated by the template. (Which, I presume, will empty the category.) - jc37 23:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Karolyi Six Pack[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 20:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A well-intentioned, but really unnecessary category. The real term "Karolyi Six Pack" referred to six specific American gymnasts who trained with Bela Karolyi in 1990-1992; as a category it's being used to describe any American gymnast who trained with Karolyi, including those who worked with him before the term was even invented. There are less than 10 gymnasts who could be accurately added to the category, and many of them are non-notable and don't have Wiki articles anyway (not all the legit Six Pack gymnasts were Olympians or World Championships team members)--it just doesn't seem to be a large enough or notable enough group to justify a category. DanielEng (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Not even worth its own list artricle, I'd say. Johnbod (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Transgressive art[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 20:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete we have deleted Category:Transgressive artists because there is no firm definition of what it is, this suffers the same infirmity: Warhol's opus & the Danish Muhammad cartoons have little in common. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent - once again, a ridiculously recentist selection. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent for lack of clear definition. Doczilla (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While this could be a great topic for an article it is a poor choice for a category. "Transgressive art" is not the name of a genre, per se, and although it's a common phrase it will certainly be applied to arbitrary & capricious ways. --Lquilter (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:HR & Innovation Ratios[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 20:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category not required and only one entry. Chessy999 (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete underpopulated category not clearly needed by parent category. Doczilla (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Wikipedians who listen to The Dan Patrick Show[edit]

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: moving to UCFD where it belongs....Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The Dan Patrick Show went off the air on 17 August 2007. J B 82^c 02:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.