Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 13

< September 12	September 14 >

September 13[edit]

Category:Oriental Orthodox churches[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 keep. Kbdank71 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This cat is pointless because every single article and subcat in this category also contains Category:Oriental Orthodoxy. Seems like two different cats were created with different names to serve the same purpose.Andrew c ^[talk] 17:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and ManageThis category fits better into Category:Christian denominations. It would be better to remove the duplications from Category:Oriental Orthodoxy. Johnbod 18:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the parent cat could probably use some standardization. The reason why I nominated the way I did was because it would be a lot easier to remove the category from 7 articles and 5 subcats, than it would be to remove then add a category to over 100 items. But I guess that is why we have bots. But please note that we have subcats such as "Christian ecumenism", "Old Catholicism", "Eastern Orthodoxy", "Puritanism", "Protestantism", "Quakerism", "Swedenborgianism", "Syriac Christianity", etc, that all lack "Church" from their name. I believe what is going on here is there are overarching parent categories for these movements that have been thrown together as "denominations" in the other parent cat. For example, the category "Oriental Orthodoxy" covers more, in my opinion, than what would be implied by "Oriental Orthodox Churches" (which also connotes physical buildings). So, I think we should keep my original proposal, and perhaps consider as another issue, standardizing Category:Christian denominations.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand. I was just suggesting removing the churches from "Oriental Orthodoxy", and just leaving the subcat we are discussing. Johnbod 21:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manage per Johnbod. Having two different cats could make sense—one could contain the churches, meaning the institutions; the other could contain the beliefs, practices, etc. of the churches. The churches category should be a subcat of the more general category. Ubi Terrarum 05:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or re-scope; Category:Churches is by and large for church buildings, with Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox being the two largest deviating branches— instead of Category:Oriental Orthodox churches, the category is being used for Category:Oriental Orthodox Churches. -choster 21:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is not part of the Category:Churches tree, but the denominatiions one. Johnbod 23:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manage per Johnbod, if this is only meant for church buildings, then we should rescope to fit Category:Churches by denomination. Tewfik^Talk 22:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 22:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC) the wub "?!" 22:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Manage per Johnbod. At the moment Category:Oriental Orthodox churches appears to be correctly populated and correctly placed as a subcat of the much larger Category:Oriental Orthodoxy. All that is wrong is that articles such as Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church should be in the subcat and articles such as Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria should be removed from the larger cat (as it is in it via category inclusions). Which is not a matter for cfd. -- roundhouse0 00:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Ethiopians to this one. As you say, the Coptic church should be removed from Category:Christian denominations and Category:Christianity if the decision is to manage. Johnbod 00:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria should be removed from Category:Oriental Orthodoxy because it is already included in the subcat Category:Oriental Orthodox churches via Category:Coptic Orthodox Church. (It claims to be a Christian denomination.) -- roundhouse0 10:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that too. Johnbod 11:59, 14 September 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:Linux on PDAs[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 15:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Linux on PDAs to Category:Embedded Linux

Nominator's rationale: Rename, "embedded" is a more generic term that will allow better classification and creation of subcategories; e.g. the current Category:Linux based devices is not really a subcategory since not all of the devices are PDAs, but they are embedded devices. -- intgr [talk] 19:51, 13 September 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:Nobel laureates by nationality[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 keep with renaming to standardise on 'Nobel laureates'. Sam Blacketer 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC), corrected 12:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: over-categorisation...and all her children emerson7

addendum: there already exists nobel categories by discipline, [1], and nobel lists by nationality [2]. also many laureates hold multiple citizenships and if properly tended would have several entries.

Keep - Seems like a useful and valid way to organize Nobel laureates. It is also a lot easier to use this category structure rather than try and browse the 39 KB list article. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kralizec, but (whilst we're here) rename to Category:Fooian Nobel laureates of the ones that don't fit this format, so that the sub-categories are consistent with each other - at present, there's a mixture of "Nobel laureates" and "Nobel Prize winners". This would match main articles List of Nobel laureates and Nobel laureates by country and the parent category Category:Nobel laureates. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and standardize per Bencherlite Johnbod 22:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kralizec. Rename as suggested by Bencherlite. I note however that this nomination misses some sub-categories such as the English and Scottish ones. --Bduke 22:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep, rename and populate. A natural way to organize this material and certainly a defining characteristic of these people, recognizing major accomplishments. Hmains 05:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and populate per Hmains and others. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 Brit sub-cats; it's just, as Bduke points out, they aren't mentioned in the nom. No populating necessary, for UK anyway. Johnbod 21:21, 14 September 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:Ship classes by country[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 15:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The WikiProject Ships categorization guidelines categorize ship classes in the Category:Ships by country and Category:Ships by navy structures. For example, in Category:Battleships of the United Kingdom, you can see subcategories for each battleship class at the top, and articles for each individual battleship at the bottom. The Ship classes by country structure is redundant. Moreover, though it's named Ship classes by country, it is being used to categorize ships by navy. TomTheHand 17:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nominator; it is both defunct and self-contradictory. It confuses an already not 100% clear categorisation system. Emoscopes ^Talk 18:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lou Sander 23:34, 13 September 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:Memorial University alumni[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, already moved, no opposition. Kbdank71 14:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This cat was duplicated with Category:Memorial University of Newfoundland alumni. I moved the population over, and the cat should now be deleted. GreenJoe 15:36, 13 September 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:Ubuntu[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 merge. Kbdank71 14:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Ubuntu (Linux distribution) derivatives, or the Reverse, this was a wanted category -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm confused. The only thing in the edit history is the CfD notice. Is it possible that you accidentally re-created the category when attempting to delete it? Note that categories don't have to exist to have members (for example, my non-creation, Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories). If the category doesn't exist, only people with accounts will be able to see the members. I suspect that there were a bunch of articles with red-linked categories which should have simply been cleaned up. If that really is the case, then I think a merge and re-deletion would be simple housekeeping. On the other hand, I see at least three articles between the two categories that aren't derivatives: Ubuntu itself, the parent company, and a Ubuntu-specific tool. And there may be potential for more, what with Ubuntu conferences and forums and such. I think the Category:Ubuntu (Linux distribution) could be a valid one, but I missed the earlier CfD. Xtifr _tälk 09:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a wanted category, non-existing but populated. Either it should exist and be populated, or not exist and be depopulated. I think it should be Renamed to Category:Ubuntu (Linux distribution), to match Ubuntu (Linux distribution). -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:32, 14 September 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:Anna Vissi[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 14:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. The material is interlinked and appropriately categorized. Main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 13:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 16:43, 14 September 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:Vangelis[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 14:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. After clearing out the person by project articles the name article and single subcat don't warrant a category. Otto4711 13:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 16:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:OCAT#Eponymous_categories_for_people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 14 September 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:Deaths by pneumonia[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 14:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A death by pneumnoia is not a notable characteristic of the majority of those listed in this category. A deaths by leprosy or by smallpox is a much more notable attribute, but pneumonia is a fairly common cause of death. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - is this a prelude to a wider examination of the Deaths by cause category structure? Otto4711 15:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the question is really is whether Category:Deaths by cause should be comprehensive. Since this discussion in January, where a few people suggested deleting the whole tree, Category:Deaths by type of illness has continued to grow, and now even contains Category:Deaths from respiratory failure. ×Meegs 06:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. It probably ought to be a precursor to a wider examination, but that wasn't actually my intention when nominating. I suppose that there are really two questions: Meegs's question of whether Category:Deaths by cause should be comprehensive, and a secondary one (if the answer to the first is "no"), of where we draw the line. I suggest that the answer to first should be "no", and to be second should be simply to record only deaths by notable causes, which in most cases would mean people who died young or by unusual means. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cause of death is a defining and notable part of someone's life (or end of it), and saying it's a common cause is a redundant arguement. It's obviously not that common on here, or to put it another way, not that many notable people seem to have died from it, say compared to cancer. Lugnuts 18:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree strongly about the notability; cause of death is very notable in some cases such as Abraham Lincoln, but decidedly non-notable in others. Just thinking for example of a list of Presidents of the United States, cause of death is a notable attribute only in those who died young or in those whose illness caused a notable decline, such as Ronald Reagan. But I see little significance in the cause of death of Richard Nixon or Gerald Ford, both of whom basically died of ailments which would be expected in old age. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of an overall classification scheme that should be discussed together, but how one dies is defining. I disagree with BHG's analysis: many things are correlative with old age: cancer, accidents, etc. But at WP we don't want to be calling deaths due to "old age" which is discouraged at our recent deaths pages - I see no reason not to be equally precise about the less recently dead. Carlossuarez46 16:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone is suggesting anything like category:deaths by old age, but insead simply leaving the majority of biographies out of the Category:Deaths by cause hierarchy altogether. It's not less precision, but merely not trying to tell their entire life story through categories. ×Meegs 08:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not believe Category:Deaths by cause needs to be comprehensive (i.e. contain subcategories for every cause of death and include every dead person's article). I don't know where the line should be drawn, but this cat and Category:Deaths from respiratory failure are surely far short of it. ×Meegs 08:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BHG and Meegs. In general, I don't believe that cause of death needs to be categorized, except when the death and its cause is notable, and in specific, I don't believe this is a notable category of death. For the record, I have similar issues with many of the place-of-burial categories. Xtifr _tälk 23:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concurring with Xtifr. >Radiant< 15:00, 18 September 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:John Mayer[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 14:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category; not needed per WP:OCAT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - contents appear to be largely albums and songs which have their own categories. Absent that material and considering the extensive navtemplates, the category isn't warranted. Otto4711 12:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent.Carlossuarez46 16:49, 14 September 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:Rape anime and manga[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. Sam Blacketer 10:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Generally a bad idea. The series grouped in this category have nothing at all to do with one another except that they, at some point, had a rape scene in them. In other words, it's a category that will end up containing almost every hentai series and a random assortment of others, with no real thematic link. Applicable precedents here may be Category:Panchira (a deleted category for series containing panty shots) and Category:Films with a rape theme.
It also for some reason doesn't have The Rapeman in it, which was a severe oversight on the part of its creator, to say the least. --tjstrf talk 05:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely not worth keeping. Doceirias 05:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and precedent: this is either trivial (in non-pornographic works) or far too common (in pornography). —TangentCube, Dialogues 05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete misleading for users: the category suggest that 'rape' is one of the main themes in these anime and manga, which isn't the case. Ninja neko 05:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary over classification. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Ninja neko's reason. —Quasirandom 14:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unnecessary and misleading category. It is also an Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 18:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Far too inclusive. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:29, 14 September 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:Biography of living persons[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, cat is empty right now so nothing to merge. --cjllw ʘ TALK 16:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty category that was created for questionable administrative purpose, for which it is not used. There were only four members in the category, all which belonged in Living people cat. So I moved them to that category. Unnecessary category that only confuses people, and causes real living people biographies to not be properly categorized. Dean Wormer 02:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not needed we have the dreaded Category:Living people, which I recall someone wanted to change people to persons a while ago but that didn't gain traction. Carlossuarez46 03:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Living people as an un-needed duplicate. Yes, I know it's currently empty, but better to merge in case it's populated at point of deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BHG. Johnbod 15:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 18:34, 13 September 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.