Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 1 February 3 >

February 2[edit]

Category:Clinical medicine articles needing expert attention[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clinical medicine articles needing expert attention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Category was used for articles needing expert attention within WikiProject Clinical medicine. WikiProject Clinical medicine has merged with WikiProject Medicine, and this category is no longer needed. Scott Alter 22:26, 2 February 2008 (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:David Ball songs[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 discussion was rename to "country musician". Kbdank71 14:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:David Ball songs to Category:David Ball (country music) songs Category:David Ball (country musician) songs
Nominator's rationale: Suggesting move to match the naming standards on the singer's page, which is David Ball (country music). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree, since there are 3 other David Ball musicians, but shouldn't the article be called David Ball (country music artist) or something? Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)(article title now changed)[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:Urban Townships[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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 14:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Urban Townships to Category:Urban townships in Ohio
Nominator's rationale: This is not a topic of global interest, contrary to the current name. The category consists exclusively of urban townships in Ohio. If "urban townships" exist elsewhere, they probably should be separately categorized by geography. (Also, the first letter of "townships" should not be capitalized.) Orlady (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody familiar with Ohio will have to address that question (I merely stumbled across the oddly named category). From what I read in List of urban townships in Ohio, it seems that in Ohio the "urban township" is a distinctly different governmental unit from a garden-variety "township." --Orlady (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an Ohioan, I can say that it's a very good thing to have these categorised separately, as "urban township" is a specific sort of township. This is a useful category for a distinct type of entity, not simply a category for townships that happen to be urbanized. On the other hand, I've long wondered why it has the title it does...support [changed; see below] moving it as suggested by Orlady. I don't know enough about other states, but the term may be unique to Ohio; still, we have Category:Alaska census areas (not Category:Census areas), even though who knows, Alaska may be the only place with census areas. It's like communities: even if it's unique (how many places are named Mentor-on-the-Lake?), we generally include the state name. Nyttend (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or keep. I was going to vote rename alone, but it appears from urban township that other states have this designation. For whatever reason, though, the category has yet to be populated with articles from outside Ohio. In any case, urban township (Ohio) reveals a specific governmental unit called an "urban township"; one that is not a municipality, but one with governmental powers and organization very distinct from other civil townships in Ohio. The category should therefore be kept, and either renamed (with additional categories for these other states, per nom) or populated with these other articles. -- JeffBillman (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Orlady as Category:Urban townships in Ohio. I don't see much point to creating Category:Urban townships in the United States yet. It remains to be seen whether this particular label has significance as a defining characteristic for other states. There are articles describing urban townships for a couple of states. But, for example, in Michigan, unlike charter townships, being an urban township is not really a defining characteristic, merely an enabling status that allowed the township to form a development finance authority. It appears that urban townships might be more of a defining characteristic in Minnesota, but so far there are no Minnesota township articles identified as such. older ≠ wiser 22:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Orlady as Category:Urban townships in Ohio. I think this is an Ohio statutory phenomenon. It may be self-limiting, though, because Ohio townships are born to die, i.e., when they become completely incorporated, they cease to exist. The township has no power to stop being annexed. The former Madison Township in Montgomery County, Ohio, is an example. It had one city, Trotwood, in its boundaries and Dayton had annexed into it. In 1996 Trotwood annexed the remaining unincorporated areas of the township which then ceased to exist. Also some of the townships on the List of urban townships in Ohio don't belong there. I've deleted one already. clariosophic (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may be confusing urban townships with paper townships, another Ohio concept. Urban townships were devised by Ohio law (ORC 504) in part to prevent their annexation. (By allowing townships home-rule government similar to that of municipalities, the theory goes, the townships can provide services that would discourage residents from voting for annexation. Of course, the theory is not without its critics.) Boardman Township is one such example; the resolution establishing Boardman as an urban township may be found here. -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2008 (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:Priory of Sion hoax[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 discussion was keep. Kbdank71 14:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Priory of Sion hoax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: POV category based on original research, not supported by reliable sources. 217.168.130.38 (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The nominator's only 3 edits to date are to do this nomination. Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Category has been in use since 2004 and seems to be populated based on reliable sources. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename maybe but don't delete. There are plenty of RS testifying to the unreliability of the whole subject. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most of the contents are people, not hoaxes, once these are removed, as they ought, there isn't much left but OR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Their relation to the hoax seems verifiable. Dimadick (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2008 (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:Tribal societies that have practiced headhunting[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 discussion was relisted on feb 8. Kbdank71 14:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tribal societies that have practiced headhunting to Category:Societies that have practiced headhunting
Nominator's rationale: "Tribe" has specific connotations and a particular meaning within anthropology. Not all of the societies included in this category can or should be described as "tribal". Robotforaday (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would Dr S say? Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should not necessarily make the assumption that headhunting is a phenomenon restricted to the past. Robotforaday (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly Rename, though perhaps Peoples' with Headhunting Traditions or more simple Headhunting Traditions might better suit - given the uncertain and variable scale of the named groups of people listed?? Bruceanthro (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment .. having randomly sampled a few of the named groups listed, and knowing the often contested, unreliable nature of 'headhunting' and 'cannibal' type reputations and claims about others .. it is of some concern that some of these groups should be so readily identified/described/and listed on Wikipedia as headhunters, most often without citations or relevant Wikipedia standard verification!! Perhaps, in addition to renaming the category and associated list, it should be tagged as unverfied and in need of verfication? Bruceanthro (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not see how headhunting is a defining aspect of a society, and if it is, let's also include "societies that have practiced bayoneting of infants", "societies that blow their enemies up with bombs", and "societies that send agents to assassinate or kidnap foreign leaders". Moreover, since the practice varies, it seems much more appropriate to simply discuss peoples that practice headhunting, as appropriate and as sourced, in the headhunting article(s). --Lquilter (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining for the society - many peoples do things that others think odd or distinctive but these are so numerous to make nearly every cultural aspect a category and hence not defining: think of cannibalism, slavery, nudity, intolerance of nudity, polygymy, shunning, taboo, adoption, eating meat, not eating meat, pedophilia, incest, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, celibacy, circumcision, scarification, foot binding, head flattening, neck elongation, and thousands of others... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2008 (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:Toledo Mercurys (1950-55) players[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Toledo Mercurys (1950-55) players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Only had one article in it, that was miscategorized. Flibirigit (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE:The Toledo Mercurys had several slight name changes, but were one continuous franchise. Breaking up by dates is unnecessary. Flibirigit (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2008 (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:The Kliq[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Kliq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with no growth potential. Complete list exists in the main article. Otto4711 (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Underride Keep, this was one of the most powerful groups in professional wrestling history. They need to be kept. --Crash Underride 04:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as unnecessary overcat. List should suffice. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:40, 2 February 2008 (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:Ireland national football team (IFA)[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ireland national football team (IFA) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: replaced by Category:Ireland national football team (1882-1950). Fasach Nua (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_2&oldid=1138390134"