Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 20 June 22 >

June 21[edit]

Category:People who are known by their middle name[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People who are known by their middle name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by trivial characteristic. A form of categorization of unrelated subjects by shared naming characteristic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Good Olfactory. DrKiernan (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If our articles were actually titled "Robert Peabo Bryson", "Michael Trent Reznor", etc., instead of by the subjects' most familiar names, then I could potentially be persuaded to defend this. But they're not. And F. Scott Fitzgerald is always known as "F. Scott", not just "Scott" — which isn't exactly the same thing. So delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. --darolew 10:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - by extensive precedent that using a name other than what's on one's birth certificate is non-defining. We've deleted any number of "people known by nicknames/pseudonyms/etc." and this is no different. Otto4711 (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is an interestin category —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.30.228 (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2009 (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:Born of Ishimbay[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Born of Ishimbay to Category:People from Ishimbay
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per standard naming format for "people from" somewhere. (Place of birth is generally not defining, and we've chosen not to name these categories as "birthplace" categories.) It appears that those in the category could be considered "from" Ishimbay, though we can't be positive without more information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2009 (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:Latina[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Latina to Category:Latina, Italy
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To resolve ambiguity and to match main article Latina, Italy. Latina alone is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. To match parent article and avoid ambiguity. — Σxplicit 22:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (if logically possible) :-) . It's ambiguous as name but not as category, IMHO. I've added disambiguation notes and i can also watch the category. I think (and i hope) it will be not confused: the simple word "Latina", as category, could be simply mean "Latina" (i hope). Greetings - Dэя-Бøяg, 23:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is ambiguous as a category, actually — my first reaction to Category:Latina was "oh, great, a catchall category for Hispanic women?" Rename per nom. Bearcat (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be useful (it exists as redirect) a Category:Latina (city) ? I could transform the Category:Latina in a disambiguation cat and, of course, change categorizations of Latina's articles. Greetings - Dэя-Бøяg, 22:43, 23 June 2009 (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:Developmental proteins[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. Note I'm changing the spelling of protens to proteins. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Developmental proteins to Category:Developmental genes and protens
Nominator's rationale: This category contains articles written from both a gene-centric and protein-centric viewpoint. Notably, there is no category for non-coding RNAs in developmental biology (these are genes that do not encode proteins, such as microRNAs etc.). Celefin (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2009 (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:Renault Theault[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: Administrative close: category never existed as far as I can tell. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Renault Theault (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: It looks like a test page to me. See WP:CSD#G2 Airplaneman (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2009 (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:Telecommunications companies of Africa[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Telecommunications companies of Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No other Telecommunications companies "by continent". All contents appear to be duplicated categories "by country".
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Many of the companies included here are not in a category of telecommunications companies by country, which should be created and used instead of this category. This category should be the parent (and only used as a parent) for all the "by country" categories in Africa and corresponding categories should be created for the other five continents that have such companies. That a clearly useful and defining category should be deleted primarily because other similar categories don't yet exist is WP:WAX at its worst, and deleting this category would not address the several dozen companies included here that are not categorized on a "by county" basis. Alansohn (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully, we will never categorize on a "by county" basis, although it is common in the U.S. to register DBA names by county within a state. By countRy seems more than adequate.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We really don't need to subcategorize every "by country" category "by continent" and/or "by region" as well. There simply aren't that many countries.
    1. As stated in the nomination, all seem to be duplicated by country. Perhaps something was missed during initial review?
    2. "Many" (or any) exceptions are not listed. Or better yet, fix any found, and remove them from Africa. That would be a lot more helpful than pontificating.
    3. I'm really tired of a declaration that everything under the sun is "defining", without any explication. The continent defines nothing about a telecommunication company:
      1. The continent doesn't name a company.
      2. The continent doesn't own a company.
      3. The continent doesn't incorporate a company.
      4. The continent doesn't register a company.
      5. The continent doesn't operate a company.
      6. The continent isn't a customer of a company.
    4. This category is almost 3 years old, so there's been plenty of time to create any needed siblings.
    5. There are only 43 pages in the category. So "several dozen companies" is impossible.
    6. I'm even more tired of egregiously serial prevarication.
  • This is WP:USEFUL at its worst.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the nomination, all seem to be duplicated by country. Perhaps something was missed during initial review? While this is existing alongside general "Companies of country" subcategories on most articles, that's not duplication as the general country categories don't differentiate by industry. I actually just within the last few days did a cleanup to remove any articles where it was being double-filed directly alongside "Telecommunications companies of country". So there shouldn't be any duplication going on — and if there is, it can be fixed anytime you find it. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - part of Category:Economy of Africa; and Category:Economies by region does largely follow continents with a few exceptions. There is say the OAU and African Economic Community, and there is even African Telecommunications Union. (Zain is in 15 African countries. Is it better to categorise it by 15 countries or by 1 continent?) I am also baffled by the nom's claim of duplication since most of the countries in Africa do not seem to have a Telecomms category, and those that do are gathered together rather than duplicated. Occuli (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Keep as a useful sub-cat of Category:Economy of Africa. In cases where we do have national categories, this is a useful top-level category. In cases where national categories do not exist, this is a useful way to group articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd note that we don't have any other "Industry-companies of Africa" siblings for this — its real parent, Category:Companies of Africa, only contains "Companies of Country" subcategories, not "Industry-companies of Africa" ones. A comprehensive "Industry-companies of Africa" tree might be useful, but this isn't useful in isolation. And on the telecom companies side, there are no "Telecommunications companies by continent" siblings, either — the closest equivalent it has is the already CFD-nominated Category:Telecommunication companies of Arab World. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider making the other categories mentioned. This is a good one to start with for Africa because there is relatively more information available in WP than for most other industries. DGG (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2009 (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:2009 swine flu outbreak[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:2009 swine flu outbreak to Category:2009 flu pandemic
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Main article are 2009 flu pandemic now. -- Fernvale (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2009 (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:AFI 100 Years… series[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:AFI 100 Years… series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We already have a category for this series at Category:AFI 100 Years series. There is only one article in the new category, which is also in the older category. I do note that most articles in the older category have "Years…" and consensus may be that it's the older category that is deleted. However, given the typographical limitations of many browsers I think that the unadorned "years" is the better option. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2009 (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.
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. --Xdamrtalk 20:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tributaries of the Boston Harbor[edit]

Category:Tributaries of the Boston Harbor -
Nominator's rationale: Seeking some help to find just the right term. The Boston Harbor is fairly known across the USA. The Boston Tea Party for example took place there. Close-by the battle of Bunker Hill took place close to the shores of the Harbor and so on. So it is a prominent area. I've been trying to fit the harbor articles in general into neater categories but I've come across a stumbling block for one category. Regarding the bodies of water that empty into the Harbor so I'm seeking to find more ideas for a better word to capture all of these waterways that outflow to the Harbor and wider Atlantic ocean. I had come up with "Cat:Tributaries of the Boston Harbor" but that may not be the right term. Anyone have any further suggestion(s)? Here is a copy of the existing discussion that has taken place thus far, I value more input on this.

---

Hello CaribDigita, and thanks for creating Category:Tributaries of the Boston Harbor. I wonder about two things, though. First, is "tributary" appropriate for use with harbors? I'm familiar with its use for rivers but not for harbors. Second, would it be better to remove "the"? The usual expressions being "Boston Harbor" but "the Charles River." You might consider something like "Category:Rivers emptying into Boston Harbor." There might be better names too. If you create a new category before putting too many articles in the existing one, it's not too hard to do. In any case, it's probably good to have a category for these rivers, so thanks again. Fg2 (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really good point. Thanks for alerting me early too! Haha :-)
I'm sure we can brainstorm this out. The suggestion "Cat:Rivers emptying into Boston Harbor" sounds good??? I don't think I've ever heard of the Boston Harbor called a basin or watershed??? (hence I had overlooked that esp. since it opens to the wider Massachusetts Bay.) That could be original research?
I had tried to think of other river areas that may have this same type of situation but the only thing I could think of were Mississippi River and Category:Great Lakes as places where many rivers meet at a larger place (Esp. where that place would likely have a Category to see its current structure on Wikipedia.) I'm going to hold off on adding anything further 'til I hear back from you. CaribDigita (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm out of ideas. You might find some support at one of the projects listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Geographical#Bodies of water. Participants in these projects might have great ideas for categorization schemes. I hope that helps! Best regards, Fg2 (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

  • I'm tending towards delete as well, but if a term is needed, perhaps "catchment" would make more sense. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CaribDigita (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep That all of these bodies drain into Boston Harbor is a defining characteristic, and grouping them together a clear aid to navigation. I also find the usage of "tributaries" unusual, but the sources provided use the term. Barring a consensus change to the title, there appeares to be no reason for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you remove those that don't empty into the harbor, you wind up with a very small category that would likely need deleting as OCAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2009 (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:Sri Lankan Diaspora[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy merge/delete (empty at close); qualifies under speedy criterion #2. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sri Lankan Diaspora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A better page already exists: Category:Sri Lankan diaspora Blackknight12 (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2009 (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:ANCSA[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ANCSA to Category:Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
Nominator's rationale: Rename to full, unabbreviated name of the Act. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. To expand acronym. — Σxplicit 05:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match full title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per all above and per directions in guidelines of categorisation to avoid abreviations. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2009 (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:Honorverse organizations[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 per the rationale in the nomination and WP:CRYSTAL. Given that all of the included redirects, some of which have few if any incoming inks, are include in one place making navigation easy. If these are splitout into articles at some later date, then adding them to Category:Honorverse would be a good starting point. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Honorverse organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I propose to delete this category that contains only one article and a few redirects. The only article in the category is List of organizations in the Honorverse, which is perfect to include the redirected fictional organizations instead of this category. --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment all the former member articles were merged away into lists and other articles. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- odd collection of categorized redirects.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects were merged, and might be unmerged one day. Categorisation very relevant, as proven by the relatively large number of pages (redirects). Debresser (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_21&oldid=1144514643"