Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 14 March 16 >

March 15[edit]

Category:Conservative Commentators[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: upmerge to Category:Commentators. the wub "?!" 11:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Conservative Commentators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Conservative Female Commentators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories are being used to categorize American media personalities. In previous discussions, we've deleted Category:American conservatives and logical subcategories of it because of problems labelling people simply as being an undifferentiated "conservative" in the context of American politics. See the following related discussions; the last is still ongoing at the time of nomination:
  • Delete, per the extensive precedents cited above. We don't categorise people as 'conservatives', because of the difficulties of defining that term clearly; that extends to subcategories like this as well. Robofish (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into parent category Commentators Greg Comlish (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Can somebody tell me where I can find a policy or guidelines dictating proper categories? Greg Comlish (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (as needed) per Greg Comlish into Category:Commentators, which should itself be renamed to something like Category:Broadcast commentators (it could also be split out by nationality). Cgingold (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cannot say what's conservative per precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to commentators. A person may be a conservative on some issues and a radical on others, so that this is essentially a POV category. They are clearly not commentators on the British Conservative Party, which is what "conservative" means to me as an Englishman. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:53, 17 March 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:American captives in Kabul[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. the wub "?!" 11:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American captives in Kabul to Category:Prisoners of the United States held in Kabul (or something similar)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is ambiguous as it can mean that the category is for capitives of American nationality who are held in Kabul. The suggested name is just a suggestion; it could just as easily be something else if preferred. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started this category, and I agree with the suggested new name. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - I assumed this category referred to the alternate meaning Good Olfactory mentions, which is a bad sign. The proposed name is much less ambiguous. Robofish (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm having trouble seeing a persuasive rationale for this very particular category. There's just one artticle, and the man in question was held at Gitmo until, as the article says at the very end, "the Afghans repatriated to Afghanistan from April 2007 were sent to Afghan custody in the American built and supervised wing of the Pul-e-Charkhi prison near Kabul." So it seems to me that the proposed rename would be inaccurate -- and I don't know if any category, however named, is warranted for a single article. Cgingold (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the category. The cited source in that one article in the category states that the prison facility was built by the U.S. military, but not that the facility is operated by the U.S. Furthermore, the article on Pul-e-Charkhi makes no mention of the U.S. taking part in the operation of the prison. It would appear as if there is no real justification of this category since the United States is, according to this article, not holding prisoners there; Afghanistan is. We could rename the category to "Former Guantanamo Bay Detainees held in Afghanistan", but is it necessary? BWH76 (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename. The present name should refer to American citizens imprisoned in Kabul. I did not know that the taliban was holding American prisoners, and even if they were, I suspect that would get them out of Kabul as quickly as they could. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nom). Just to be clear, as nominator I am indifferent to deletion. It would be fine if that is preferred by consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, per above. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 21:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - rename to what? If the United States cannot be demonstrated (or documented) to be holding prisoners in Afghanistan, and if there are no American citizens be held prisoners in Afghanistan, how can this category be renamed? There are no current articles that would be listed in the category! BWH76 (talk) 09:43, 21 March 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:Weeds[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. Kbdank71 16:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Weeds to Category:Weeds (TV series)
Nominator's rationale: Rename or delete. If kept, needs disambiguation to match article Weeds (TV series). Could probably be deleted as small, eponymous category for media series; all information is linked in main article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's stay away from toxic chemicals - a garden hoe & some mulch should to the job just fine if we decide to delete this! Cgingold (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match title of parent article. The purpose of categories is to allow readers to navigate across similar articles, and this category clearly serves this function. Arbitrary and personal biases on minimum number of articles required should not be used to justify deletion, particularly as continued airing is likely to result in additional articles. Alansohn (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary weeds. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:10, 16 March 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:BYU Cougars athletes[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. the wub "?!" 12:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:BYU Cougars athletes to Category:Brigham Young University Cougars volleyball players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are not "athletes" as in track and field athletes; all are volleyball players, either of the beach or indoor variety. The name of the team is "Brigham Young University Cougars" or "BYU Cougars"; suggest preference for the expanded name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 15 March 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.

Current satellites[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. Kbdank71 13:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging/renaming Category:Artificial satellites currently orbiting Earth to Category:Artificial satellites orbiting Earth
Category:Artificial satellites currently in Lagrange points around the Earth to Category:Artificial satellites in Lagrange points around the Earth
Category:Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth to Category:Artificial satellites orbiting Earth
Category:Artificial satellites currently orbiting Mars to Category:Artificial satellites orbiting Mars
Nominator's rationale: Merge/rename, as a normal rule we don't split categories by current v. former. If these categories need splitting, then it should be by class or type. I will add that there is another factor at play here and that is for satellites in orbit but not functioning. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per nom. Occuli (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - and suggest that an enterprising editor might want to break down the categories by decade of launch. Otto4711 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname all, except perhaps Category:Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth. There may be a logic in having satellites that have fallen from the sky in a special category. I know we do not normally like "former". Peterkingiron (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as a side note, not everything that was formally in earth orbit has fallen out of orbit. Some have been destroyed while in orbit and others, if my memory is correct, are headed to points unknown in the universe. So are there three former categories needed? If we need to make the distinction, then creating a list or two might be better to explain why it is no longer in earth orbit. Also note the special subclass of manned satellites. They orbit and then return to earth, some to return back into orbit multiple times. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Category:Artificial satellites currently orbiting Earth to Category:Artificial satellites orbiting Earth the word currently in this context is superfluous.
    Oppose Category:Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth to Category:Artificial satellites orbiting Earth. There must be a separate category for satellites which no longer orbit their respective planets/moons. If I read this proposal correctly we'd be including sats like Sputnik 1 in the same category as the Advanced Land Observation Satellite. While ALOS would fit neatly into a Category:Artificial satellites orbiting Earth, Sputnik would look a bit out of place considering it isn't orbiting the Earth anymore.
    In short I support losing the word "currently" for the satellites now in orbit (around Earth, Mars, etc.), but keeping separate categories depending on status. (Really, another category should be created for planned satellites too... for example RISAT.) Anynobody(?) 04:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move, oppose proposed destinations, I feel the term "artificial satellites" should be replaced with "spacecraft", as the term "satellite" is not generally used to refer to spacecraft outside of geocentric orbit, or spacecraft used for manned operations. --GW… 18:05, 21 March 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:Satellite pictures[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 Category:Satellite pictures to Category:Images from satellites

Incidentally, note that the subcats (fairly deep) of Category:Images of nature aren't incredibly consistent in naming. - jc37 09:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Satellite pictures to Category:Images from satellites
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is rather ambiguous since it can be either pictures of satellites or pictures taken by satellites. Also we more commonly use images in category names for this class of categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(By the way, the category was never tagged for renaming. - Eureka Lott 18:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Have no idea how that happened. Anyway it is tagged now. Probably will need to stay open for a few more days. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a image category, so "image" should probably be used. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and then rename all the subcats (for which 'imagery' doesn't work very well). Occuli (talk) 02:56, 25 March 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:People of mixed Asian-European ethnicity[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. the wub "?!" 11:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People of mixed Asian-European ethnicity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:British People of mixed Asian-European ethnicity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Recent precedent - Category:Americans of mixed Black African-European ethnicity was just deleted, and Category:People of mixed Asian-Black African ethnicity and Category:People of mixed Black African-European ethnicity are up for deletion. This is more of the same ethnic overcategorization. Skotticus (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Consensus has shown that categories with mixed ethnicity should not be used. DiverseMentality 18:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OCAT by mixing already OCAT cats on race/ethnicity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By what criteria is something over categorized? Tweisbach (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as the other mixed race categories. The correct method is to categorise as of Asian descent AND of European descent, preferably using specific countries )rather than continents. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:03, 18 March 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:Artificial satellites currently orbiting Sun[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 to Category:Artificial satellites orbiting Sun to remove "currently". There was no consensus as to any other rename. Kbdank71 13:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Artificial satellites currently orbiting Sun to Category:Spacecraft currently orbiting the Sun
Nominator's rationale: Quite apart from the grammatical error, the current title is a contradiction in terms. "Satellite" implies a planetary (usually Geocentric) orbit, so spacecraft in heliocentric orbit are not considered satellites. GW… 15:32, 15 March 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:Wikipedia articles to be split from 2009 March[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; already speedily deleted by another admin. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia articles to be split from 2009 March (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Typo. cat exits at Category:Wikipedia articles to be split from March 2009. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:04, 15 March 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:Mandible[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. Kbdank71 16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mandible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category contains only one article. The category is not needed, and there are no other categories for single bones in the body. Scott Alter 02:11, 15 March 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:A*Teens[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. the wub "?!" 11:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:A*Teens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category. Members, albums and songs all interlink through the main article and extensively interlink amongst themselves and the discography article. No need for the category for that article plus the band article and standard subcats. Otto4711 (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, and due to size of category. Versus22 talk 08:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as umbrella parent category for 3 subcats and extensive recent precedents. Occuli (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course for every "recent precedent" you can cite I can cite a dozen or more that resulted in delete. Otto4711 (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go on then (eponymous musician categories with 3 or more subcats):
Not deleted: The Everly Brothers, Allman Brothers, LeToya Luckett, Meshuggah, Dixie Chicks, Shania Twain, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Rush, Musicians X-Y (2 listed, both extant), one of the two has since been deleted Otto4711 (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Musician categories - A (10 listed, 9 still extant), Olivia Newton-John (Jan 09), Sly & the Family Stone (Feb 09);[reply]
Deleted: Corinne Bailey Rae (3 subcats), Toni Braxton (2 subcats) plus unanimous deletions of plenty of smaller such categories with 0 or 1 subcats.
I make that 22 not deleted, 2 deleted. Occuli (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Olivia Newton-John has four sub-cats and Sly has five meaning that neither of them are relevant to this odd notion that "3 subcats = cat". The rest look to have closed no consensus, mostly based on such stellar arguments as "there's a lot of other categories like this one so why pick on this one?" from editors who were not part of the long and fully-thrashed out discussion of this category structure. What you're suggesting here is that every one hit wonder should have a category because, based on the Songs by artist, Albums by artist and Musician by group structures, a band with one song, one album and one notable member automatically qualifies for an eponymous category. In a category structure the size of Category:Categories named after musicians you're talking about adding lord knows how many categories on the basis of as few as four articles. It is doubtful that in the absence of the Songs by, etc. structures that many people would argue in favor of keeping categories with little or no chance of expanding beyond four interlinked articles, yet because some of those articles happen to fit into separate category structures all this fluttering of hands and gaspings of "umbrella category!" have people paying attention to them. Ridiculous. Otto4711 (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I argued in favor of keeping Category:Rush, for reasons that have nothing to do with how many sub-cats it has. I argued keep because it contains articles that are not easily categorized in the absence of that category. The retention was based on that argument, not the number of sub-cats, so including it here smacks of intellectual dishonesty. Otto4711 (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It's taking every ounce of self-restraint not to reply to your last remark. Cgingold (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed eponymous musician categories that have not been deleted, for whatever reason. At no point have I said there was a consensus to keep all these. There is no recent consensus to delete eponymous musician categories with 3 or more subcats - to show that there is such a consensus you must produce recent examples of eponymous musician categories with 3 or more subcats which have been deleted (4, 5, 6, 7 etc are included in '3 or more'; it's not that difficult). Corinne Bailey Rae is the only one of which I am aware. You mentioned a dozen or more - where are they? Occuli (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Occuli's persuasive analysis, and per ample recent consensus on such categories. Cgingold (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category serves productively as an aid to navigation across several well-populated categories based on a well-defined and defining characteristic. This is the exact purpose of what categories are supposed to serve. Any prior "precedent" on the subject only serves as a guide for each subsequent CfD discussion, and it appears that consensus here is to keep the category. Alansohn (talk) 17:38, 20 March 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:Sound Relief[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. Kbdank71 16:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sound Relief (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category redundant to the article Sound Relief. Currently contains only the article on the event itself and one of the bands that played there; material that is better explained in context in the article itself, rather than without any context in this category. To use the example of Augie March, having played at this event is not a defining characteristic, and I doubt it would be for any of the other bands who were on the bill, either. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:44, 15 March 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_March_15&oldid=1138392682"