Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 28 January 30 >

January 29[edit]

Category:Mental hospitals[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: rename. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename category:mental hospitals to category:psychiatric hospitals

  • Rename as this is the more generally accepted term and is consistent with the names of similar categories. --Vince 22:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to Rename this, then it would have to be Category:Psychiatric hospitals. —mikedk9109SIGN 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Mental hopital is clearer and shorter. In the UK and Ireland, the most accurate name would be "loony bin", the name used by most of the former patients I have met; but I don't know whether that term is used elsewhere in the world. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. and consistency with other term usage. If you try to find a Mental hospital article in Wikipedia, you'll just get redirected to Psychiatric hospital. Doczilla 09:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per consistency - also, I know several ex-psychiatric patients who find the term 'mental hospital' offensive --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 18:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency with articlespace redirect. --Xdamrtalk 20:14, 30 January 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:Selectively mute people[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: delete. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Selectively mute people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete underpopulated category with only one member article.

1. A category of one is not a category.

2. Category is nearly a year old and has not grown.

3. Use of the term "selectively mute" is debatable. It is an actual diagnostic term. If you read the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for it, however, you'll see that even the one cited case may not fit at all, in which case it's a category of zero. DSM-IV-TR criterion 313.23.E = Do not use this term if the communication problem is attributable to another disorder.

4. Term normally applies to transient, temporary condition. DSM-IV-TR criterion 313.23.C = Duration is at least one month. A transient, temporary condition is not a defining characteristic.

Doczilla 21:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Isn't this the same thing as below? —mikedk9109SIGN 21:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but good question. Selective mutism is a psychological condition. People can be mute for physical reasons. Doczilla 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doczilla. Lesnail 15:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essentially empty (disagree with #4) Delete category as essentially empty (only one article). However, I disagree with point #4 in the nomination. A temporary condition can possibly be an important factor in a person's history, even if the condition is later cured, if the condition received notable attention and had a significant impact on the person's life. It is not an actual condition, which might be transitory, that's at issue for categorization, but rather the repercusions of the condition on the person's life and their historical biography, which can be much longer lasting. Dugwiki 20:02, 30 January 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:Mute people[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: keep. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mute people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete category that is nearly unpopulated, with only one member article, and merge that one article back into Category:People with disabilities. Perhaps there are too few cases of muteness that do not overlap with another category like deafness for this to stand alone. Category has existed for nearly a year without getting populated. A category of one is not a category. Doczilla 21:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Doczilla. —mikedk9109SIGN 21:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The size of the category is not an issue. Sumahoy 02:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. I think some people need to reread category policies... or maybe I'm just pissed off at the nomination for category:UTC-5 which had 1000+ article and is being deleted because it added, oh no! (sarcastically), "a red link!" at the bottom of over 5000+ article. Really, either way. Keep anyway
  • Weak keep It seems like a decent idea for a category, at least--if only there were something to categorize in it. Lesnail 15:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Normally, with only one article, I'd suggested upmerging. However in this case, the category seperates a non-fictional mute person Frank Hubner from a batch of fictional mute people in Category:Fictional mute characters. So in this case it looks like this category might be a necessary way to keep fictional mutes seperated from actual mutes (even though currently there is only one article about a mute person). Dugwiki 20:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm reasonably certain there have been people who were mute, but not deaf. I think cancer of the larynx, or throat, could occasionally produce muteness or something near muteness. For example there's a Ronaldo Martinez who uses an artificial voice box. In an earlier era people like him, when they survived, would've been mute or effectively so. Oddly I guess such people were rarely notable though as Wikipedia seems to have nothing about them.--T. Anthony 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn per Dugwiki. Clearly separating the one nonfictional person from fictional mute people is important. Doczilla 05:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You know, this cfd makes me wonder if maybe interested editors in this topic might want to take a look at further populating the category with notable actual people who were mute. It seems unlikely there was just one such person. Dugwiki 23:58, 31 January 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:Kazakh culture[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: rename. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Kazakh culture to Category:Kazakhstani culture
Propose renaming Category:Kazakh media to Category:Kazakhstani media
Propose renaming Category:Kazakh music to Category:Kazakhstani music
Propose renaming Category:Kazakh albums to Category:Kazakhstani albums
Propose renaming Category:Kazakh dance musicians to Category:Kazakhstani dance musicians
  • Rename, These category relates to the country, not just to the ethnic group. Only about 60% of the population of Kazakhstan is Kazakh and only about two thirds of ethnic Kazakhs live in Kazakhstan. Pinoakcourt 17:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger 18:48, 29 January 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:Northern Irish terrorists[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: rename to paramilitary. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Northern Irish terrorists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Impossible to manage. At the minute it only contains loyalists. So it is always going to be point of view, one way or another. Stu ’Bout ye! 17:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as per above--Vintagekits 17:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WTA#Terrorist.2C_terrorism. (What rename are you suggesting anyway? No suggested name was posted "above".) Doczilla 17:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I'm suggesting deletion not renaming. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Northern Irish Paramilitaries Abu ali 20:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doczilla. —mikedk9109SIGN 21:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Northern Irish paramilitaries", because "paramilitaries" is the neutral term used in Northern Ireland. Otherise, Delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doczilla. --Xdamrtalk 20:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Northern Irish paramilitaries - which could include those who took part in paramilitary activity, using a locally neutral term. Rgds, - Trident13 22:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Northern Irish paramilitaries, reluctantly because this is an essential category. "Terrorist" is more neutral than the evasive and flattering euphemism "paramilitary" but the category will be constantly vandalised by partisan editors if it is kept at its proper name. Piccadilly 01:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no problem with this category. If it is only currently populated by loyalist terrorists, then fix it. --Mal 02:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Northern Irish paramilitaries. If it is repeatedly vandalised (and I'm not surprised about that) then it is time to respond more imaginatively. AshbyJnr 16:51, 4 February 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:Assassinated Northern Irish people[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: no consensus. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Assassinated Northern Irish people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In terms of The Troubles, using "assasination" or "murder" is highly problematic. I propose deleting this category. The articles categorised as such can easily be recateogorised in other existing categories. Stu ’Bout ye! 17:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as per above - maybe there could be a new category for those killed which have no political connection--Vintagekits 17:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing deletion, not renaming. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why does it matter who was assassinated. Unless they are important. —mikedk9109SIGN 21:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is to be assumed that all people with Wikipedia articles are important. Piccadilly 01:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Xdamrtalk 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Part of a global system. Editors who interfere with it for partisan reasons should be banned. Piccadilly 01:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same reason as Piccadilly above: cat is part of an existing category structure. If there is a problem with it, then nominate the whole tree. --Mal 06:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't like the idea of banning the categorisation of people from just one place in a certain way in response to local sensibilities. AshbyJnr 16:52, 4 February 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:Republican murder victims[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: delete as empty. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Republican murder victims to Category:People killed by republican paramilitaries
Rename, as per above--Vintagekits 17:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete empty category. Doczilla 17:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as empty Empty category, so delete. If later populated, use suggested rename since "Republican" is an ambiguous term (eg Ronald Reagan was a Republican, but obviously not a member of the IRA.) Dugwiki 18:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename are you talking about IRA republicans or are any G.O.P. victims included. TonyTheTiger 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Empty. —mikedk9109SIGN 21:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as empty. The current and proposed names are both problematical since republican is so ambiguous. If kept a better name would be required. Vegaswikian 02:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed People killed by republican paramilitaries as a catch-all for for all the republican groups apart from the IRA. Alternatively, a category could be created for each one, but I don't see the point. If the consensus is delete I'm happy to go with that. It is likely the category will eventually be populated though. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Murdered by Republicans, or a Republican who was murdered? Whichever it is, 'Republican' has many and varied meanings by nation. There is nothing to mark out this category as being Northern Irish in scope. All this aside from the fact that it is empty.
Xdamrtalk 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is this category supposed to be for victims of the Red Terror (French Revolution)? or victimes of the Roundheads? or the Romanoff family? 70.51.9.86 05:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and rename per nom, and repopulate. I can only assume that it was emptied for partisan reasons, and we should not play along with that sort of thing. Piccadilly 02:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Mal 06:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom (or possibly with a capital R). AshbyJnr 16:53, 4 February 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:Loyalist murder victims[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: rename.
Propose renaming Category:Loyalist murder victims to Category:People killed by loyalist paramilitaries
Rename, as per above--Vintagekits 17:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename To match other categorys like this. —mikedk9109SIGN 21:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Piccadilly 02:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Mal 06:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom (or possibly with a capital L). AshbyJnr 16:53, 4 February 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:UTC-5[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: delete. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, better served as a list. Also the North American Eastern Time Zone observes daylight savings time, spends the summer in UTC-4. -- Prove It (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 18:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Bad faith nomination based on a lack of communication on indicating that there may be problem which doesn't exist. DST programing to convert cities into UTC-4 instead of UTC-5 is a simple equation that can be and has been added to the complicated template at {{template:Infobox city}}. No reason to delete this category which serves a great purpose in finding city name anomolies and possible errors in city UTC time as demonstrated on the discussion page of WP:CCT. This is a valid category which had more than 1000+ cities (and that's only UTC-5)(see WP:CCT) until this nominator decided to half hazardly remove the template because he believe the category shouldn't exist assides for the reason that the other 20+ categories are still red. Honestly! If you don't call that agrevating because of some bonified vandeta because of the recent stir-up that this may cause with the entire city naming, then I don't what you can call this nomination. If you want a pick your brain at getting those 1000+ cities... I think you'dd better start typing... b.t.w. this category meets WP:LIST requirements... but if you want to frankly hire a monkey to add category:UTC-5 to those 1000+ article go right a head. Next before nominating a category why don't you have the guts to be WP:BOLD and ask a question instead pissing people off. --CyclePat 06:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.: This goes even further than just a blank category. The issue is that it has "Red links"! Seriously! Red links? As discussed at user:Bkonrad about a nomination that happened more than 2 years ago for a totally different (empty category). Well now this is appears to be empty because... We've edited the afformentioned infobox template. What a vicious circle of what I would almost consider self destruction! This is sad. Please! Please, take a look at WP:CCT talk to see what this project is trully bring to wikipedia. Thank you. My faith in wikipedia rest upon this. --CyclePat 08:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't especially care whether the category exists or not, but since CyclePat has mentioned his comments on my talk page here, I thought I'd chime in. CyclePat had made some changes to {{Infobox city}} that added a red-linked Category:UTC to articles containing the template. I reverted those changes. That problem appears to have been fixed. That was really my only objection at the time (people really should do their experimentation and bug-testing in a sandbox before applying them to high-profile templates). Though CyclePat seems to have conflated my objections with the current objections regarding DST. My understanding of the situation is limited, but the concerns expressed about DST seem to make the category rather pointless in that the information it generates will be unreliable. Until that is addressed, I don't think the category is of much use. older ≠ wiser 16:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This category is currently underpopulated (and the other categories in the series don't exist at all yet), but WP:CCT are planning to populate them (even coming up with a daylight-saving correction method, apparently). If they aren't populated within about a month, renomination is a good idea, but at the moment it would seem as though the categories will be thriving and useful in a month's time. --ais523 09:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. 1) The name is not clear, it should be Category:Locations in the UTC-5 time zone, or something like that. 2) The current implementation of this category is defective: it is (going to be) populated from the city infobox, but DST is not yet implemented correctly, which already creates problems with southern hemisphere cities. I predict that an implementation taking into account all DST rules in the world would be too complex, and too difficult to maintain. 3) I do not understand how such a category, containing up to 50,000 articles or more, is useful. Therefore, delete; primarily because of reason number 3. -- Eugène van der Pijll 10:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to add the the category is usefull to not only find anomolies in citie name spelling (which may help identify those that a spelt contrary to the convention that currently exists) but it places all the cities in the "alleged" correct UTC category. The only instance of error I can see would be if someone put in the wrong UTC time in the infobox city template. If of course the information is wrong, as someone questioned on the WP:CCT project, then it proves that the list is or was being used and was useful in identifying a mistake. The usefullness as per WP:LIST demonstrates that the category is usefull (One might argue that the reliability of the information is not the best. I may agree with this. I must stipulate that the category is all the more important to verify what cities currently exist in UTC-5 and ensure that the templates are in fact properly sourced per WP:V and being properly utilized for their regionality. Such a category is the preliminary steps toward having templates for cities categorized by not only region (location), but by time. Furthermore, should we add a permutation which automatically calculates the current UTC of a region. Hence if DST is in effect this would recalculate the categories, placing for example Ottawa, once spring arrives, in UTC-4, instead of UTC-5. (as sort of living category that automatically updates) Or, should we a city in both respective UTC categories. (Take note that some regions... including cities don't respect the daylight savings time. Some move back only 30 minutes and many move back 1 hour and all depend on the region). Hence perhaps the 2 categories may be easier to do (conceive). Take for example we may have [[:Category:Cities in the UTC-5 [DST] timezone]] and [[:Category:Cities in the UTC-4. The difference would be to chose on putting an emphasis on the word "current" and name the category category:Current cities in the UTC-5 timezone. This would be keeping in line with the spirit of WP:CCT but again, what a headack to add a parser function for all these exceptions. It's going to take me a long time to think of how to program that (considering I'm not really a programmer). I think whatever we chose there will always be something we can improve. --CyclePat 17:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have 3 objections; changing the name of the category would take away one objection; the other ones remain. A split between cities, towns, villages, hamlets, and "uncategorized" would be a bad idea, because the choice whether a location is, for example, a city or a town can be very subjective. Also, the city infobox is not only meant for cities, but also for other types of settlements.
My most important concern is still the usefulness of the proposal. I don't think the reasons you name are valid. 1) Finding anomalies in city naming: there are no anomalies, because there is no single global naming convention for settlements. See the discussions on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). 2) Finding mistakes in UTC data: nobody is going to check 50,000 articles in a category for mistakes. 3) Per WP:LIST: that page is all about lists, not categories.
Essentially, my problem with these category is that the time zone is basically not a property of cities, but of the countries they are in. For a few countries, you have to go to a lower government level (for example states in the US), but almost never to city level. Neither would I support Category:Cities using the U.S. dollar as currency, or Category:English speaking cities. -- Eugène van der Pijll 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should never say never. I once heard someone say "ignorance can be bliss." 1) What we have hear is a fear of toppling the status quo with perfectly reasonable category, perfectly generate quickly with the use of a template. If all those 5000+ cities where already categorized I bet you wouldn't be saying the same thing now wouldn’t you? 2) As demonstrated in the example on the talk page of WP:CCT someone pointed out that a certain city didn't actually belong within a time zone. You may not find this practical, but I and others do. We obviously found this useful in finding a wrongly categorized city. According to Wikipedia's policy on deletion if someone find it functional and useful it's probably because it is! But I’ll play along and demonstrate the importance. As I've demonstrated, someone has already been checking, non-including myself the list (when it was there!) 3) Okay so you don't like lists! Personally it’s the same difference as a category as demonstrated by this essay. You say “po-tay-toh” and I say “pa-tah-to.” Though that essay doesn't take into consideration that, what we have a category that can be turn on like that through the template:Infobox city. Essentially if anyone changes that template it will be evident to the entire category system. Hence what we have is something that is almost as good as a list (but better because we can get all the cities, and all the work that people did… TEAM WORK! And generally know if someone tried to remove them from the category! Unlike a self centered, WP:OWN “List” usually limited to few select editor’s knowledge this method is a no “brainer”. Bigger category or list, less work, more productivity! Anyway, it appears that you wish to whack at this with countless arguments, so here you go: for your reading pleasure:
As per Purpose of the lists, lists have 3 main purposes... and so do these cities in UTC categories... 1) ’’’Information’’’: Grouped by theme 2) ‘’’Navigation’’’: as a table of contents for UTC articles (or as someone that would be browsing may click on the bottom of the article in the (See also) or as the WP:LIST states “If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).” 3) ‘’’Development’’’: as previously discussed, used for clean-up, ensuring accuracy, fixing or finding possible errors. Not only that, but again as per WP:LIST, this category is handy because it gives “an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written.”
As per WP:CG there are a couple question we can use to test the validity of this category:
’’’Q’’’: If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it?
’’’A’’’: Dam right! There are more than 5+ articles on time zones, (ie.:UTC, DST, etc..) and even individual article exist on the UTC’s. (ie.: UTC-5, UTC(0), UTC-14, UTC-3, etc… we could easily have the category being a part of the see also of those articles.
’’’Q’’’: If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
‘’’A’’’: Well let me see… category UTC-5 and article UTC-5… I think so! And I think the category subject may need a little more development within the article but not much since there is already a list of countries and other regions in the article.
Lets continue on refuting and using every element from the WP:CG as per Some general guidelines this category passes the test for : 1, 2, 3, 4 (yes! Because we are placing them in their respective UTC sub-category: Essentially that would be; --> UTC : UTC-(subcategory#) : Cities in UTC-(subcategory#) : (maybe another sub-category for the ambitious?) <--, 5, 6 (Many articles where placed in the Category:UTC-5, rule 6 permits for the temporary placement in this category.), 7 (bend the rule a bit! Yah! Exactly!), 8 (hard to have a POV on this one considering it’s all auto generated!), 9 (The template places the cities that do not currently have the UTC time stamp in the template and permits a category for this, so users that wish to add this information may easily scroll through a single list!)
Since you insist on this refutation, let’s continue on with just WP:CG… (I can’t wait to get to other better a bigger well know rules though!) as per How to put an article into a category: “The topic may be associated with a geographic area.” Similar articles are listed and UTC ones are aforementioned.
According to Naming conventions for categories the closest naming convention I could find is Miscellaneous in country naming convention. Which appears to support the naming of Category:Cities in UTC.
The only perhaps real problem… and that’s not really a big problem is the “red linked” categories which aren’t made yet! As per Look before you leap
So I’m going to stop there for now because obviously we need to do a little work and I believe that I have successfully refuted the above comments. Nevertheless just in case, I would like to point you to the image:Timezones optimized.png. If you take a look at Canada, (near Manitoba and Ontario) you will notice that the time zones are not truly divided by province. Some of the cities belong to UTC-5. However most of Manitoba belongs to UTC-6. So your statement that “the time zone is basically not a property of cities, but of the countries they are in…” is wrong! This link shows that Nunavut has 3 different time zones. And yes! You may have meant that the time zones are generally governed and encouraged by the countries, I actually remember hearing some cities and provinces that decided that they where going to move their DST. The Canadian Governments standards can be found here and explain the changes for Canada and even North America! To something different then the standard! (Take Newfoundland which is 30 minutes)
Again semantics on how pertinent this category can truly be! --CyclePat 22:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a map. Piccadilly 02:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just a waste of time. The connection between say Warsaw and a small city in Africa in the same time zone is slender to the point of invisibility and in no way justifies putting them in the same category when Warsaw is not in the same category as many other cities with which it has far more in common. Cloachland 00:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a time zone map somewhere in Wikipedia. AshbyJnr 16:54, 4 February 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:Female Furies[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: delete. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Female Furies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Listify and Delete, As per previous precedents with regard to comic book teams. J Greb 16:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 18:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons we deleted the others. Doczilla 21:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —mikedk9109SIGN 21:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment as per WP:SOCK. --SockingIt 07:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for all the above reasons and because this is very confusing and assuming a comic-book-centric view of the world. I immediately thought "But all the furies were female." --lquilter 16:29, 3 February 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:Medical Schools in the District of Columbia[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: merge. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Schools of Medicine in the United States, of which there are currently about 80. -- Prove It (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, no need to split parent cat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, I removed two invalid entries (i.e. universities rather than their medical units); overcat.-choster 16:49, 2 February 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:Events in Salt Lake City, Utah[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: merge. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Events in Salt Lake City, Utah into Category:Festivals in Utah
  • Merge, there are "Festivals by country/state/city" categories but I don't see (m)any other "Events by country/state/city" categories. Most of these articles here are festivals anyway. There aren't many festivals that are in Utah but not Salt Lake City, so we might as well put them at the Utah level. --Vossanova o< 17:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. —mikedk9109SIGN 21:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. "Events" is ambiguous. Cloachland
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:Jersey Pressure Groups[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: rename. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Jersey Pressure Groups to Category:Pressure groups of Jersey
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:Italian national symbols[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: merge. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Italian national symbols into Category:National symbols of Italy
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:Mythomaniacs[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: delete. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mythomaniacs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete vaguely defined category that is not a recognized mental illness in and of itself. When it is seen, it is a symptom of some other condition. Mythomania is not a psychiatric diagnosis applied by the criteria of the DSM-IV or ICD-10. This is a descriptive term that refers to compulsive lying, not an Axis I or Axis II disorder. Category is underpopulated with only two members. Those two member articles illustrate the problem with listing this as a subcategory of people by medical condition because half of the individuals (ergo, one) so categorized lived before the term even existed. Identification of him by that term therefore invokes POV and OR. The article for the living example mentions the term only once, when it says a cartoonist used that person as an example of mythomania. We do not typically license cartoonists as diagnosticians. Doczilla 09:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Lesnail 14:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and also recommend deleting Mythomania As pointed out above, the main article that describes Mythomania appears to be unreferenced original research. So I'd not only deleting both this category, but also nominating Mythomania for deletion as well. Dugwiki 18:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I am would like the article to stay if properly referenced. TonyTheTiger 18:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —mikedk9109SIGN 21:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I would say delete even it was in the DSM: most of humanity can be classified under some DSM label, and wikipedia should not be used to apply these labels to people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Piccadilly 02:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • no comment even though I think you guy are a bunch of... oh wait! no comment! Anyway... I just wanted to say as per WP:SOCK., I can't comment on this! --SockingIt 07:38, 1 February 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:AfD debates (Indiscernable or unclassifiable topic)[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: rename. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:AfD debates (Indiscernable or unclassifiable topic) to Category:AfD debates (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic)
  • Rename, spelling correction. Trovatore 06:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (as category creator; sorry for getting it wrong in the first place). Note that I have created the target category to prevent AfD being broken during the debate (as {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} has already been changed anticipating this move). --ais523 09:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename spelling. —mikedk9109SIGN 21:39, 29 January 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:Fictional universes[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: rename to "settings" seems to be the best solution. >Radiant< 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional universes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - this category is far too broad in scope. As noted in the category description, any work of fiction by definition takes place in a fictional universe. The description attempts to restrict the category but the phrasing of the restriction ("a reality unlike our own in some way") is so vague as to be useless. Every work of fiction is set in a reality unlike our own in some way by virtue of, well, not existing and deciding that one "reality unlike our own" is enough unlike our own to warrant inclusion while another isn't introduces tremendous POV problems. I see some utility in grouping established settings of works of fiction but as it is now being utilized the category is an indiscriminate catch-all for any fiction category or article it occurs to an editor to add. The category is diluted beyond the point of usefulness. Otto4711 04:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but purge greatly. The concept of a fictional universe category makes sense when it is confined to complete universes, such as the DC Universe. But James Bond is about our earth, and like so many other things in here, has no business being here.--Mike Selinker 06:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but perhaps clarify the inclusion criteria. The category should be for universes that extend over multiple works of fiction, like Larry Niven's Known Space or Heinlein's Future History. Tolkein's Middle Earth is a bit borderline, I think, because the cast of characters is too nearly constant between the different works, making them seem more a single cycle of novels, rather than separate works set in the same universe. Similarly for the Star Wars and Babylon 5 universes -- these are epics plotted out in advance. But the Star Trek universe qualifies, because of the distinctness of the different series. --Trovatore 06:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor quibble or two: The "Star Wars universe" includes the movies (as you note one long story) along with the various side novels and comic books that deal with things other than the "main" story. The same can be said, to a lesser extent, for Middle Earth and the Babylon 5 universe. Additionally, all three have seen details expanded when they were used as the basis for licensed role-playing games. — J Greb 16:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge like heck, as it seems this has become a catch-all for every fictional setting, and that's just going to make for a useless category. (That said, I would say Star Wars has enough different media besides the movies to qualify, not so sure about Babylon 5). But it would need some real maintenance done to the page to keep it. FrozenPurpleCube 06:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge per above. This one might be difficult to get right, so re-assess at a later date. Doczilla 08:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the comments that accompany each opinion are illustrative of why this category probably isn't going to work. Everyone has a differing opinion on what "universe" is different enough to qualify and within the course of four !votes we've had diametrically opposed opinions. Otto4711 14:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus of tricky subjects is often difficult to reach, often having more than four different thoughts, that eventually have to be synthesized. I would need more evidence that no consensus is possible than just a few different ideas being suggested. In any case, I substantially agree with both of the previous editors, only differing on one example, so your description of diametrically opposed opinions is highly inaccurate. I also agree with Doczilla's opinion that this will be difficult to get right. I even agree with you that the category as it is now has indeed become less than useful. FrozenPurpleCube 16:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Trovatore. The category works fine for those editors who use it frequently. Some purging and clarifying may be necessary, but not complete obliteration. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge especially with the other cats tagged. — J Greb 16:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "Purging" is not a long term solution. Pinoakcourt 18:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Far too broad and subjective criteria for category inclusion. Virtually every video game and piece of fantasy or science fiction book or movie can be included in this category, as well as every piece of "alternative history" fiction or film. It would almost be easier to categorize fiction that doesn't fall under this category. Not maintainable in the long run and too subject to inclusion debate. Dugwiki 19:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is there really a difference between "Fictional universes" and "Works of fiction"? --Tango 20:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I see it, yes, absolutely. Works of fiction is a catchall, but fictional universe is meant to cover only multiple fictional works that take place in a shared universe. If you just write a book(or series of books), sure it's technically in its own universe, but it should only be in this category if other people also contribute to the setting, or you add in another series that is substantially unrelated except for the setting. Thus, not all works of fiction would qualify as belonging this category. Or we could have this category as only including articles that cover a specific universe. Thus, if there's an article on say Buffyverse it would qualify, but an article on some other work of fiction, would not. FrozenPurpleCube 16:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A work of fiction is a work, A fictional Universe is a universe. —mikedk9109SIGN 21:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Many fantasy and sci-fi works take place in their own "universes". Cataloging all of them would be like cataloging all of the fantasy and sci-fi series that have been published. This is not practical for categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 23:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is overcat. I agree with Dr. Submillimeter. Carlossuarez46 03:21, 30 January 2007
  • I strongly suggest that we rename Category:Fictional settings or rename Category:Fictons - this is a useful category, should be reduced to actual articles on fictional settings such as Buffyverse, Whoniverse, Wizarding world, Discworld etc. The rename will remove inclusion of fictional universes as in dimensions in series which feature several, which is a far more long term solution that purging. Sorry I couldn't vote sooner so this could have more weight.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, don't worry, this isn't a vote, but an expression of opinions, and while certainly it would help if other people could read your position and arguments and modify their comments accordingly, it is the responsibility of the admin who closes this discussion to carefully weigh all arguments, and it would be highly inappropriate for an admin to decide to delete if a new position or issue was raised late in the discussion without other editors given a chance to react to it. Not saying this always happens, but it is a better practice. FrozenPurpleCube 16:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have a vast categorization scheme under Category:Fictional locations so I don't know that renaming to "Fictional settings" is worthwhile. "Fictons" strikes me as a neologism which I understand we are supposed to avoid in category names. Otto4711 17:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I read the article. I googled it though and it doesn't look like it's gained a wide currency. Otto4711 22:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would say that the Category:Fictional locations is in need of some serious clean-up. Just a quick look at it shows that there's at least 3 things I would say are out of place. (Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance and Greyhawk should be under Fantasy Worlds, same with Earthsea and Wheel of Time among others, would belong in Category:Fantasy worlds not the main category). It's almost as bad as this category. Some of the sub-categories are also bad. (How the heck is Bridge to Terebithia a fictional micronation?? ) And this category should also be included in it, no matter what the name. Ficton is new word, but one created by Heinlein, not Wikipedia, but I think the real problem is that it's not in common usage. "Fictional (with some appropriate modifier)" would be better I fee, as it would be much clearer. Just not sure of what modifier to use. I'm happy with universe, but I can see how setting might be better. But damn, looking at it, I'm almost inclined to say wipe the whole mess. FrozenPurpleCube 17:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BTW, I found this page [[1]] that might help provide some perspective on this subject. FrozenPurpleCube 16:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As has been observed, practically every work of fiction can be said to take place in its own 'fictional universe'. Even if this expansive definition could be restricted, this would still be a case of overcategorisation.
Xdamrtalk 21:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shared universe doesn't seem to fit the bill, since if I'm understanding the SU article it refers to authors borrowing one another's characters (c.f. Anno Dracula). There is already a Category:Shared universe to capture such universes. Expanded universe seems to refer mostly to franchising and possibly canon. Not sure if, as it's being used, "Expanded universe" works either. Otto4711 22:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shared Universe is something I would say refers primarily to a cooperative effort between authors, rather than merely using the same setting characters, which I would call simply derivative works. Never seen expanded universe outside of the Star Wars series, so I don't think it's a widely used term either. FrozenPurpleCube 04:26, 1 February 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:Saskatechewan Roughriders players[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: delete.--Mike Selinker 03:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I created this category, but it contains a typo in the name. The correct category already exists. --Rbraunwa 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete misspelled, duplicate category. Doczilla 09:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per creator.Neonblak 16:06, 30 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_29&oldid=1138388129"