Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 3 November 5 >

November 4[edit]

Category:Lists of anime television series episodes[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lists of anime television series episodes to Category:Lists of anime episodes
Nominator's rationale: Contrary to its name, this category also currently contains episode lists for OVA and ONA series, neither of which are "television series" media types. However, there aren't enough lists of either type (yet) to justify splitting out separate categories, so this category should be renamed to reflect the wider scope. —Dinoguy1000 19:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and actual usage of the current category (and my constantly typing "Lists of anime episodes" then having to fix it :P). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Name to reflect content if content is appropriate.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems fine with me. The media in which the episodes were broadcasted on seems to matter less and less these days, anyways. -- Ned Scott 04:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and other comments. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all comments above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:14, 6 November 2008 (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:Buildings and structures by country[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. Create the other cat and split as desired. Kbdank71 15:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose spliting Category:Buildings and structures by country into Category:Buildings and structures by particular country and Category:Building and structure type by country
Nominator's rationale: Split. Category:Buildings and structures by country has some 280 categories, so they cannot even fit on one page. About 230 of this categories are of this sort:
And another 50 or so categories are of this sort:
A split will make it much easier for users to find what they need.--Carlaude (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that "following the naming convention of the parent" is a moot rationale.
The are two parent categories. One parent category has only categories of the Category:Buildings and structures in Foo-Bar type and the other parent category only has categories of the Category:Foo-Bars by country type. To follow the naming conventions of the parent categories would be a good reason to split this category into the two.
Let's say I am looking for one of the two sorts of subcategories (e.g. Category:Buildings and structures in Costa Rica), a name like Category:Buildings and structures by type and country doesn't communicate which of the two sorts of subcategories it has within it. Category:Building and structure type (or types) by country is much more useful for this.--Carlaude (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The format I suggested is similar to that used in other categories. For example, Category:People by nationality and occupation splits first by nationality, then occupation. Category:Companies by industry and country splits first by industry, then country. --Eliyak T·C 17:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that is the intent, but is still not clear. Some of these Category:A by B and C have also been used to mix the two sorts of subcats togther. We need not follow this vague pattern if another format is an improvment.--Carlaude (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2008 (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 wizards[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. Kbdank71 15:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Fictional wizards to Category:Fictional characters who use magic

This was apparently a "catch-all" cat, from before the target cat above existed. Most of the members aren't actually called "wizards", but simply use magic.

As noted at Magician (fantasy)#Names and terminology, what the names applied to magic-using characters means varies depending on the author.

And finally, having these separate would seem to be a hindrance, rather than a help, to navigation. - jc37 19:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - as nominator. - jc37 19:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Where magic users can be more definitively identified they should be in subcats like this one, just as with all of the fictional alchemists, fairies and sprites, necromancers, shamans and witches that are already existing within the Category:Fictional characters who use magic structure. If individual entries are miscategorized they should be corrected, but that would not be a valid argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as per nom. Pretty much says it all. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn's concerns. I think we just need to split it off further to Category:Fictional sorcerers for characters who are only known for their use of sorcery, not wizardry, regardless of the similar terminology. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise wizadry is defined as "sorcery" according to your source.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; I don't see any definition in magician (fantasy) (to which wizard redirects) that would distinguish wizards from magic users generally, unless it's meant as a catch-all dumping ground for any character that can't be fit into the more specific sub-character types of necromancer, shaman, etc. The Wiktionary entries for sorcery and wizardry define them both in terms of using magic, and treat them as synonyms, so I'm very confused by Lord Sesshormaru's post. That we can find sources (or the primary works themselves) using a term consistently to label characters as "wizards" or "sorcerors" doesn't necessarily mean anything if we can't determine that those sources are using those words to mean the same concretely definable, and distinguishable things. Postdlf (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge difference between wizardry, sorcery and witchcraft is hardly credible or reliable, especially when dealing witha fictional setting.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've already voted, but I wanted to say that I wished I had brought up ZayZayEm's point. Who the heck can actually (and non-speculatively) differentiate between different forms of magic? Finding a non-fictional source to explain the difference between folk magic, magick, witchcraft and veiled psionic abilities would be a test, to be sure. A better category would be something along the lines of "Users of Magic" (as per the subsection of the article on magic [fantasy]), and a separate category of practitioners of magic, which could be used to note the difference between those who have a talent for the Gift, and those who study it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:25, 5 November 2008 (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 lords and ladies[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Fictional lords and ladies to Category:Fictional nobility

Duplicative.

And has the additional problem of drawing any character which has self-professed as a "Lord" or "Lady", or has merely appended "Lord" or "Lady" to their name.

See also: User:Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the user page of the user populating this cat. He makes it clear that he disregards Wikipedia policy on WP:OR. - jc37 13:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Delete as nominator. - jc37 13:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. But Lord Voldemort should not be included. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge nom has a good point. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and Johnbod. As for taking our policy with a "pinch of salt", I would dare say that the size of that pinch could de-ice the roads of Buffalo, NY in high winter. He doesn't follow it. Period. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is no reason to limit the category to lords and ladies, and thusly excluding all the dukes (including archdukes), earls, viscounts and all the other fictional equivalents thereof. Any issues regarding failures to observe or misinterpretations of Wikipedia WP:OR policy should be dealt with promptly at WP:ORN, the appropriate forum to address these issues. Alansohn (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and per Alansohn; it's pointless to separate "lord" and "lady" from other titles of notability, and it's senseless to categorize fictional characters by superficial name similarities where it doesn't necessarily indicate an underlying relationship (there are any number of supervillains calling themselves "Lord" this or "Lady" that who aren't actually fictional nobility). Postdlf (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge nominators rationale. Current category unclear.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:18, 5 November 2008 (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:Byronic heroes[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Byronic heroes

None of the category members have sources establishing that they belong in such a category. This is simply WP:OR.

See also: User:Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the user page of the user populating this cat. He makes it clear that he disregards Wikipedia policy on WP:OR. - jc37 13:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 13:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom. As well, there is no cited connection that the populated articles are in fact noted as being Byronic; indeed George Bush, my Aunt Carol and Bugs Bunny could all be considered Byronic heroes, according to the loose and very large choice of characteristics. And that - apart from the actual missing citation - is part of the problem. Who isn't a Byronic hero? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: And no I don't disregard WP:NOR, I just take it with a pinch of salt. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, too vague a term, and none of the artricler included really meet the description. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORIGINAL. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2008 (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 Cape Province[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename.
  1. so that the main category name matches the main article at Northern Cape.
  2. to establish uniformity of naming across the various subcategories.
  3. to match the way that the name is normally used.
See also the similar previous nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 24#Category:Western Cape Province, and the discussion at User talk:Htonl/South Africa provincial category renaming.

- htonl (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. "Province" is not part of the proper name. Zaian (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2008 (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:Eastern Cape Province[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename.
  1. so that the main category name matches the main article at Eastern Cape.
  2. to establish uniformity of naming across the various subcategories.
  3. to match the way that the name is normally used.
See also the similar previous nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 24#Category:Western Cape Province, and the discussion at User talk:Htonl/South Africa provincial category renaming.

- htonl (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. "Province" is not part of the proper name. Zaian (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2008 (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:Valley girl[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Valley girl

While I understand what the category is attempting to group, the title is simply WP:OR, due to synthesis, interpretation, etc.

If anything, this should be a list, so that the context can be noted, and sourced comparisons explained. - jc37 12:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listify/Delete - as nominator. - jc37 12:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - utterly destroy, pee on and scatter to the winds (but in a nice way). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking about creating Category:California girl. Would that run into problems? (Btw, there are lots of well-known Valleys in California.) Cgingold (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment = I would oppose that, as well; who decides who is a girl and who is a woman, or a transgendered? Who do we call California girls, those who are born there, work there, lived there for a time, work there, appear in films about California? It's far too vague. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ooops... that was entirely tongue-in-cheek. Sorry 'bout that, Arcayne! Folks who are familiar with my penchant for sly humor probably chuckled (at least, I hope so...) -- but I clearly should have made it a bit more obvious that I was kidding! Cgingold (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Topics related to X. Appears to be a collection miscellaneous slightly related subjects. Noc lear qualification for what counts as inclusion.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I wonder who reads the articles in the category. They might then know what the category is about. Hmains (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I actually scanned the articles in the cat, and I am not sure that Essex girl, Dumb blonde or - get this - Jersey Girls (NJ) are actually connected outside of the creator's imagination. There is no citable connection between Jersey Girls, Essex Girls or Swiss Miss - and Essex isn't even in a hilly region. Yeah, this category is pejorative, speculative and needs to be kicked to death with steel-toed jackboots. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:35, 6 November 2008 (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:Palestinian terrorism[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. Kbdank71 15:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Palestinian terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Two main reasons. Usage of category is clearly a way to circumvent the established consensus on categorizing only designated terrorist organizations. Also, category ought to be largely a duplicate of Category:Terrorism in the Palestinian territories. Soman (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see:

keep Terrorism in the Palestinian territories can include actions by Zionist terrorists, Palestinian terrorists can commit acts of terror outside the territories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 November 2008

Keep. See Category:Terrorism by genre and the discussion in the talk section below. Category:Terrorism in the Palestinian territories is only a small part of the regional terrorism. There are overlapping terrorism categories. Palestinian and Zionist terrorism occurred in various locations around the world. {{Terrorism category definition}} covers what should be in a terrorism or terrorist category. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:OR terms like terrorist , nationalist can't be defined in WP:V and WP:NPOV way Gnevin (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this?:
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 25#Unqualified "Terrorism"
Talk:Nationalist terrorism - see the top talk section.
"Terrorism" and "terrorist" can be used in category names and in articles. I am not unsympathetic to the efforts to completely outlaw the use of the words on Wikipedia. But since they are allowed it is up to us to keep refining the guidelines. For example; the guidelines at WP:TERRORIST and Template:Terrorism category definition. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2008 (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:Nationalist terrorism[edit]

relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 15#Category:Nationalist terrorism. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_4&oldid=1074801245"