Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 22 June 24 >

June 23[edit]

Category:Alumni of Templeton College, Oxford[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 all 3. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Templeton College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Green Templeton College, Oxford
Nominator's rationale: Rename as Templeton and Green colleges have merged to form Green Templeton College, Oxford, and we tend to follow the most recent institution name for alumni whenever they attended. BencherliteTalk 23:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tee-hee, I now notice that I created this category back in 2007 (pre-merger) - how time flies... also nominating for the same reason the following two (one of which I created):

Category:Fellows of Green College, Oxford to Category:Fellows of Green Templeton College, Oxford
Category:Fellows of Templeton College, Oxford to Category:Fellows of Green Templeton College, Oxford
  • Rename / Merge -- There is long precedent for treating the alumni of institutions which have sicne merged (or changed name) as alumni of the successor institution. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename / Merge – per above remarks. Occuli (talk) 14:58, 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:Deaths due to stag attacks[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) 04:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Deaths due to stag attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, far too narrow of a "death by" category. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to delete per the arguments below that the article does not establish a causal connection between the attack and the death two years later. The C. Reeve argument is particularly persuasive. Otto4711 (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's about definite that there is more than one notable person killed by a stag in history. Off the top of my head I recall a Brit aristocrat gored to death by an Indian stag, but don't quite recall his name. Point is, it has room for expansion and is part of two established trees ("Death due to X attacks" and "Deer"). MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Otto; the one article here is a stretch in any event - the guy died two years after he was attacked by the stag. Cf. Christopher Reeve, never recovered from the horse accident, but died of sepsis or heart failure and is properly not categorized as "death by horse". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as it has occurred and is part of a structure that includes the even-better populated Category:Deaths due to hippopotamus attacks. Alansohn (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only entry in the category, Samuel Greg, states in the article that he died 2 years after being attacked by the stag. He was in his 70s at the time too! As a side note, the article for List of fictional deer and moose has just gone survived AfD, and I wonder if "stag" attack is too narrow, and should include deer, elk and moose. Lugnuts (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Deaths due to animal attacks per Otto; ditto its siblings (which are certainly interesting). I don't agree that someone killed by an even-toed ungulate should be included in Category:Deer. Someone killed by a tractor does not fit in Category:Agriculture. Occuli (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support an upmerge. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing in the article suggests that the attack resulted in the death. Without that link, no claim should be made by including it in this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- <sarcasm>would this include hitting the stag with an automobile?</sarcasm>
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:16, 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:Ideologically motivated attacks in the United States perpetrated by Muslims[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) 04:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ideologically motivated attacks in the United States perpetrated by Muslims to Category:Islamist terrorism in the United States
Nominator's rationale: For succinctness and consistency with other similar categories, such as Category:Islamist terrorism in Europe. The present title is problematic on at least one count: by failing to establish a clear link between the ideological motivation behind an attack and the identity of its perpetrator(s), the title leaves open the possibility for including non-Islamist ideological attacks perpetrated by people who happen to be Muslims, but where religion did not motivate the attack. Also, the use of "attacks ... perpetrated by" automatically excludes biographies and articles about terrorist plots which failed to materialize into actual attacks. (This nomination also includes Category:Ideologically motivated attacks in New York perpetrated by Muslims, which should either be upmerged or renamed to Category:Islamist terrorism in New York. Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, also cuts down on the verbosity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as long as it isn't viewed as too politicized a title. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 21:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nom.Historicist (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nom. Length of current title ridiculously long. Should be succinct like the European one. ShamWow (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Islamist seems to be the common thread here In practice, however, some of the content in the articles are not clear as to the motivation of the attackers. Hmains (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree per the first sentence of the nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 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.

Wikipedia license migration subcategories[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) 04:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Note: In light of the post-closing comment made by User:Dragons flight on the talk page, I'm renaming Category:Templates using the license migration system to Category:Templates using the Wikipedia license migration system. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match parent, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 13#Category:License migration.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree to avoid ambiguity with outside Wikipedia, as per guideline on categorisation. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, it's a logical choice. RabidDeity (talk) 00:00, 1 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:Organizations based in Germany[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: Redirect (category was empty at close). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Organizations based in Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: duplicate, there is a cat. Category:Organisations based in Germany already. Euku 10:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest – make it into a category redirect? Do the same with the other examples of 'organization' within Category:Organisations based in Germany? Or vice versa? Occuli (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{categoryredirect}} per Occuli. Given the fact that we have categories named in both the "Organizations based in..." and "Organisations based in..." formats, depending on which spelling is more appropriate in any given country, we should probably have a standing policy of always having a z→s or s→z redirect in place for each category in order to capture cross-dialect editing errors. Bearcat (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the previous two editors. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 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:Hawaii Warriors athletic directors[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) 04:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hawaii Warriors athletic directors to Category:University of Hawaii athletic directors
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The school does not have a single athletic nickname.
  • Only the football, men's golf, and men's volleyball programs use the nickname "Warriors".
  • The men's programs in basketball, swimming and diving, and tennis use "Rainbow Warriors".
  • The baseball program uses "Rainbows".
  • All women's sports use "Rainbow Wahine".
For more details on the situation with the men's teams, see Hawaii Rainbow Warriors. Dale Arnett (talk) 07:08, 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:Prominent JD/MBAs[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. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 16:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Prominent JD/MBAs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a second nomination, with the first discussion resulting in "no consensus". (I don't usually re-nominate categories I've nominated for deletion in the past, but for this one I'll make an exception.) A number of problems here. First, we have no other categories that categorize people by academic degree or combination of academic degrees. They have been created in the past but have been deleted. As far as I know, this one is a one-of-a-kind. Second, membership in the category is not defining for a person—no one has an article in WP because they have a J.D. and an M.B.A. Third, a list exists, so deletion would lead to no data loss. Finally, if the category is going to be kept again, can we at least purge the word "prominent" from the category name? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and fifthly, wtf is a JD?? - "Doctor of Jurisprudence"? The article is no help. Johnbod (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • JD is a Juris Doctor. In British terminology, a LLB, or a law degree. Only American schools (and some Canadian, Australian, and Hong Kong ones) call it a JD, and they do so to emphasise the fact that it is a degree can only be completed after completion of another bachelor's degree, whereas traditionally the LLB can be completed as a first degree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks - strictly a Master of Laws is the equivalent then. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not really, except in perhaps the fact that both are "second" degrees. Most employers and academic institutions who hire both American and non-American lawyers treat the LLB and JD as equivalent, and some schools in Canada are doing conversions of all their degrees from LLB degrees to JD degrees, with nothing changing apart from the name. Americans and Canadians who get JDs go on to get LLMs if they want to pursue law studies further. Some LLM programs are only one-year programmes, but the JD is almost always 3 years. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per clear consensus against categorizing people on the basis of academic degree and as non-notable intersection. No one is either notable for nor defined by happening to have both an MBA and a law degree. J.D./M.B.A. gives no hint as to why this concept is even notable enough for an article, being sourced entirely to documents produced by a pair of law firms. Arguments for keeping last time were quite weak and I'm rather surprised that the category wasn't deleted then. To answer what will be a likely response before such response is made: WP:CLN does not in any way require or mandate that there must be a list for every category and a category for every list. It notes that lists and categories can function synergistically in some cases and offers guidance on when one or another may be more or less appropriate. Otto4711 (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice per nom and comments above. — Dale Arnett (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is of borderline notability, the list is mostly unsourced and there will be plenty of joint degrees held by not all that many notable people. Having such a degree is not a defining characteristic. Occuli (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Apart from arguments over the equivalence of degrees, this seems a trivial intersection. A few British universities award LLB as a second degree (equivalent ot masters). I would be sorry to learn that some countries are weakening the significance of a doctorate, which I would expect to be a 3-year programme. WP should not encourage the implication that the value of higher degrees has been diluted. My own doctorate (in another subject) took me a long period of hard work. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rest at ease: the JD is not a doctorate, it just uses the word "doctor" in its name. It's still technically a bachelor's degree, though one that requires a previous degree. Recipients do not use the title "Dr". It's probably best designated as a "professional" degree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This might just be the conceit of lawyers, but because the JD is a terminal degree, it's considered (by legal professionals and academics at least) the equivalent of a doctorate, not a bachelor's. Lawyers in the U.S. do not refer to themselves as "Doctor [Surname]," but that's just a matter of convention and I think that it wasn't an unheard of practice at one time. Maybe I should start calling myself "Doctor Postdlf"...though my PhD wife would probably slap me. "Postdlf, Esq." is enough pretension for my tastes. Postdlf (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think what you say is correct within the United States (which is primarily where it matters since it's mostly a U.S. degree). I guess I was speaking from a largely outside of the United States view, where the JD is viewed as a degree that is some weird hybrid of a bachelor's and master's level. The U.S. focuses on it being terminal, whereas the rest of the word focuses on the fact that it's still the first degree a person obtains in the study of law. It's my theory that the American lawyers just invented the JD to parallel the MD. If I'm right, maybe your suggestion of the use of the title is not far off!. I apologize to all for my off-topic tangents in this thread! Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Postdlf (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Not to mention the use of abbreviations which is not per guidelines on categorisation. Debresser (talk) 21:24, 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:Films by length[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 all. The list of articles that were included in the categories for five hours and above have been placed in a list on the article talkpage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Films by length to Category:Films by run time

Nominated for deletion:

Category:Films over three hours long (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Films over four hours long (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Films over five hours long (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Films over six hours long (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Films over seven hours long (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Films over eight hours long (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Films over nine hours long (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Films over twelve hours long (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Films over twenty-four hours long (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: To match the main list article: List of longest films by running time. I would also like to prompt more general discussion about categories of the type Films over X hours long. The current scheme has resulted in one category with many members, a few categories with several members, and several categories with only a few members:
  • >3 hours: 184 articles
  • >4 hours: 22 articles
  • >5 hours: 11 articles
  • >6 hours: 4 articles
  • >7 hours: 11 articles
  • >8 hours: 3 articles
  • >9 hours: 1 articles
  • >12 hours: 5 articles
  • >24 hours: 5 articles
In addition, the cutoff points seem to be somewhat arbitrary. For instance, why should Matrjoschka be in Category:Films over twenty-four hours long instead of Category:Films over ninety-five hours long? If we are not willing to create a bunch of essentially single-member categories for films that are 8, 9, 10 or more hours long, since doing so would run counter to WP:OC#SMALL, then we are forced to impose arbitrary cut-offs for our categories. For instance, why should 24 hours be the last cut-off and not 27 hours, the length of the longest mainstream film? (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 04:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename of parent cat "by length" is ambigious, as many early films have their length given in feet (of film reel), rather than time. Unsure though of how to name the sub-cats. The run time is definitly a defining feature for some films (take Empire, for example). Lugnuts (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify into List of longest films by length Delete. This could then use a time cutoff for one table of say 5 hours and have a second table for films released using footage length for the inclusion criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete arbitrary, no objection to listifying per Vegaswikian. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If renamed, Category:Films by run time would not match the key article - Category:Films by running time would. So any renaming should be to the latter, not the former. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - arbitrary inclusion standard. The length of one film does not establish an encyclopedic relationship to another film of similar length, any more than the number of pages in one book links it to another book with the same number of pages. Suggest adding the subcats to this nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added. Also, based on the expanded scope of the nomination and the discussion so far, I am changing my position to delete, though I would ask for the closer to listify to Talk:List of longest films by running time the categories for films that are more than 5 hours in length. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep The length of a film is a defining feature (with the possible exception of films over 3 hours in length). Saying that there is no relationship between another film of similar length is neither here nor there. The same rationale could be used for films released in the same year or films from the same country. Lugnuts (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it couldn't. Films released in the same year are historically contemporaneous. Films produced by the same country are created within a particular country's film industry and are more likely to arise from a similar cultural context than those that are not. Time and place are strongly defining contexts for films to share. Films that have the same running time are related only by coincidence. But more importantly than the relationships we can infer, film critics and historians actually classify and study films by time period and/or by place of origin. Can you say the same of running length? Postdlf (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very long films will be unusual, and hence notable, but anything less that (perhaps) 5 hours should not be allowed a length category, sicne its length will not be unusual, and hence NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I listed the nominated sub-cats and notified editors who commented before the nomination was expanded. Otto4711 (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge everything 7 hours and over into one category. 76.66.203.200 (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete. We don't need categories for this. Bearcat (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial. Note that notability is not a criteria for categorisation. Debresser (talk) 21:25, 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:Decapitated[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. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 16:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Decapitated to Category:Decapitated (band)
Nominator's rationale: Rename or delete. Although the article for this band is at the (undisambiguated) Decapitated, in the context of a category I'm concerned that this category may be confused with Category:Deaths by decapitation, since the past tense "decapitated" could apply to a person who died from decapitation. Or, some might prefer just deleting it as a small, eponymous category for a band. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – it is a small, eponymous category for a band, of the sort that is difficult to defend. (There is the associated Category:Decapitated members which may also be open to alternative interpretations.) Occuli (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - small eponymous category of the sort that rarely survives these CFDs. The existing navtemplate links the various articles with no need for the category. Otto4711 (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, overly small category. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. Most musical groups should not have their own dedicated category, with the obvious exception of those which are so highly notable that they have an absurdly high number of spinoff articles, such as Category:The Beatles. For most bands, a navbox is all we need. I'm not sure we need Category:Decapitated members, either, but the standard for Category:Musicians by band subcategories isn't as rarefied as the standard for eponymous categories, so it needs to be considered separately. Bearcat (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_23&oldid=1138392585"