Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 17 March 19 >

March 18[edit]

Category:GFDL[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: relisted on 24th. Kbdank71 13:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:GFDL to Category:?
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure exactly what the purpose of this category is. It contains a few articles related to the GNU Free Documentation License, but most of its contents appear to have been added because they themselves are licensed using the GFDL. (It also has subcategories for GFDL-licensed sounds and images.) I'm not sure that we need a category for that - aren't *all* pages on Wikipedia licensed under the GFDL? Many pages have been placed here by Template:GFDLSource - perhaps that template shouldn't be adding articles to this category. Or perhaps the category should be renamed to reflect what it actually contains. Robofish (talk) 23:31, 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:Organizations related to Mormonism[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 13:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Organizations related to Mormonism to Category:Latter Day Saint organizations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Two problems with the current name: (1) It uses "Mormonism". This term usually restricts its coverage to things directly relating to the LDS Church or its direct offshoots (like the Mormon fundamentalists), and therefore excludes the rest of the Latter Day Saint movement. This category is categorizing things for the entire movement, not just the LDS Church and offshoots. (2) The other categories in Category:Christian organizations by denomination are formatted "FOO organizations", not "Organizations related to FOO", so I'm suggesting a rename for consistency. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:48, 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:Songs written by Jonathan Singleton[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs written by Jonathan Singleton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overly small category with little chance of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - part of Category:Country songs by songwriter. (Although as both the songs were co-written, there might be an argument for deletion on different grounds, cf Category:Albums by producer where there was a view that multiple producers should be discounted. I would lean towards categorising by both writers as the writer(s) must surely be a defining characteristic of a song.) Occuli (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think that we need to take a serious look at the "songs by songwriter" tree. Is two co-writes really enough for a category? The same goes for all the other tiny categories like Category:Songs written by Stephanie Bentley (sure, she wrote Breathe and Concrete Angel, but it might be a while before Wild at Heart is a big enough single for its own article). Personally, I think that writers must have larger repertoires than two or three songs to get such categories. (And what if Singleton's article were deleted? His notability is very thin right now.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's Jonathan Singleton and the Grove that are signed to Universal South, not Singleton proper. So technically, Singleton himself shouldn't have an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with that - as far as I can see from googling, The Grove have existed (non-notably) since 2003 and JS had an independent song-writing existence (with 2 notable co-written songs) until 2008 or 2009. (I don't see why you say 'little chance of expansion' as a single seems to have been released yesterday.) Occuli (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The single charted on April 4, and it was listed as "Jonathan Singleton & the Grove". So The Grove is notable, but I'm not sure if Jonathan is significantly notable enough for his own article. And if he doesn't have his own article, he shouldn't have his own category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nobody has sold me on the "1 article categories are enough" argument, and until someone does, I remain convinced that these are useless for categorization. --Kbdank71 13:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Yes, they're part of a structure, and yes, I typically support keeping such due to that. However, do we categorise every song by every songwriter? It doesn't look like it. It looks like we only do for the prolific songwriters who are also "famous", specifically for their songwriting. No prejudice against recreation in the future if there's more (and more reason) to categorise. - jc37 09:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We categorise every album by its artist, every novel by its author, every recorded song by its recording artist(s) (in practice by rather random ones). It is true that there has been no concerted attempt to categorise songs by song-writer (particularly co-written songs) and indeed there is no category for 'songs written by Lennon/McCartney' AFAIK (my recollection is that there were quite a few L/M songs never recorded by the Beatles). Or Jagger/Richards for that matter. Occuli (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with the point that User:Occuli is making—making the categorization scheme of "Country songs by songwriter" complete and useful may necessitate having a few small categories. We wouldn't create such small categories on their own, but as part of a larger system for navigating among country songs, it's appropriate to have a few small categories. BRMo (talk) 03:22, 1 April 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:Alleged ET races[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 all. Kbdank71 13:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Alleged ET races to Category:Alleged UFO-related entities
Nominator's rationale: The claim of real contact doesn't seem a notable distinction. Created a little over a week ago by a known disruptive editor, said disruption including adding impossible categories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also suggest upmerging the recently created subcategories.
Category:Pleiadeans
Category:Zeta Reticulans
Category:Sirians
Category:Reptilians
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By "impossible", I mean "impossible to maintain", usually because a lack of definition, or the criteria for membership being entirely subjective. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this isn't renamed to ...UFO..., then atleast the acronym should be expanded. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge All to Category:Alleged UFO-related entities. I really don't see a good rationale for separating these articles out from the main category. And since their supposed races are literally impossible to verify, there is no valid basis for any specific sub-categories. Cgingold (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per Cgingold. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:23, 19 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.

Media[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/delete as in the amended nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media:

Propose renaming: Category:Chicago media to Category:Media in Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming: Category:Kansas City metropolitan area media to Category:Media in the Kansas City metropolitan area
Propose renaming: Category:South Florida metropolitan area media to Category:Media in the South Florida metropolitan area
Propose renaming: Category:Mass media in Sonoma County, California to Category:Media in Sonoma County, California
Propose renaming: Category:Mass media in the San Francisco Bay Area to Category:Media in the San Francisco Bay Area

Radio and television:

Propose renaming: Category:Radio in Chicago to Category:Radio in Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming: Category:Cleveland television to Category:Television in Cleveland, Ohio
Propose renaming: Category:Detroit television to Category:Television in Detroit, Michigan

Radio personalities:

Propose renaming: Category:Atlanta radio personalities to Category:Atlanta, Georgia radio personalities
Propose renaming: Category:Chicago radio personalities to Category:Chicago, Illinois radio personalities
Propose renaming: Category:Cincinnati radio personalities to Category:Cincinnati, Ohio radio personalities
Propose renaming: Category:New York radio personalities to Category:New York City radio personalities
Propose renaming: Category:Philadelphia radio personalities to Category:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania radio personalities
Propose renaming: Category:Pittsburgh radio personalities to Category:Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania radio personalities

Television anchors:

Propose renaming: Category:Baltimore television anchors to Category:Baltimore, Maryland television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:Boston television anchors to Category:Boston, Massachusetts television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:Chicago television anchors to Category:Chicago, Illinois television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:Cincinnati television anchors to Category:Cincinnati, Ohio television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:Cleveland television anchors to Category:Cleveland, Ohio television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:Denver television anchors to Category:Denver, Colorado television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:Detroit television anchors to Category:Detroit, Michigan television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:Evansville television anchors to Category:Evansville, Indiana television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:Grand Rapids television anchors to Category:Grand Rapids, Michigan television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:Houston television anchors to Category:Houston, Texas television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:Las Vegas television anchors to Category:Las Vegas, Nevada television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:Los Angeles television anchors to Category:Los Angeles, California television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:Miami television anchors to Category:Miami, Florida television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:New Orleans television anchors to Category:New Orleans, Louisiana television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:Philadelphia television anchors to Category:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:Portland television anchors to Category:Portland, Oregon television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:Sacramento television anchors to Category:Sacramento, California television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:San Diego television anchors to Category:San Diego, California television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:San Francisco television anchors to Category:San Francisco, California television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:Seattle television anchors to Category:Seattle, Washington television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:South Bend television anchors to Category:South Bend, Indiana television anchors
Propose renaming: Category:Spokane television anchors to Category:Spokane, Washington television anchors

Television stations:

Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Alpena to Category:Television stations in Alpena, Michigan
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Amarillo to Category:Television stations in Amarillo, Texas
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Anchorage to Category:Television stations in Anchorage, Alaska
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Atlanta to Category:Television stations in Atlanta, Georgia
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Bakersfield to Category:Television stations in Bakersfield, California
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Baltimore to Category:Television stations in Baltimore, Maryland
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Baton Rouge to Category:Television stations in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Billings to Category:Television stations in Billings, Montana
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Binghamton to Category:Television stations in Binghamton, New York
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Butte / Bozeman to Category:Television stations in Butte, Montana
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Cedar Rapids to Category:Television stations in Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Charleston to Category:Television stations in Charleston, South Carolina
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Chattanooga to Category:Television stations in Chattanooga, Tennessee
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Cheyenne to Category:Television stations in Cheyenne, Wyoming
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Chicago to Category:Television stations in Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Clarksburg / Morgantown / Weston to Category:Television stations in Bridgeport, West Virginia
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Cleveland to Category:Television stations in Cleveland, Ohio
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Colorado Springs-Pueblo to Category:Television stations in Colorado Springs, Colorado
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Columbia / Jefferson City to Category:Television stations in Jefferson City, Missouri
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Denver to Category:Television stations in Denver, Colorado
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Detroit to Category:Television stations in Detroit, Michigan
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Eureka to Category:Television stations in Eureka, California
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Fairbanks to Category:Television stations in Fairbanks, Alaska
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Flint-Saginaw-Bay City to Category:Television stations in Flint, Michigan
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Fresno to Category:Television stations in Fresno, California
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Ft. Myers to Category:Television stations in Fort Myers, Florida
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Greenville/New Bern/Washington to Category:Television stations in Greenville, North Carolina
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Greenville / Spartanburg / Anderson to Category:Television stations in Greenville, South Carolina
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Huntington / Charleston to Category:Television stations in Portsmouth, Ohio
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Huntsville/Decatur to Category:Television stations in Huntsville, Alabama
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Juneau to Category:Television stations in Juneau, Alaska
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Kansas City to Category:Television stations in the Kansas City metropolitan area
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Knoxville to Category:Television stations in Knoxville, Tennessee
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Lake Charles to Category:Television stations in Lake Charles, Louisiana
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Laredo to Category:Television stations in Laredo, Texas
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Miami and Fort Lauderdale to Category:Television stations in Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Savannah to Category:Television stations in Savannah, Georgia
Propose renaming: Category:Television stations in Seattle to Category:Television stations in Seattle, Washington
Propose deleting: Category:Television stations in Fargo / Grand Forks
Propose deleting: Category:Television stations in Lincoln/Hastings/Kearney
Propose deleting: Category:Television stations in Jonesboro
if this nomination passes, I will create a new nomination for the rest of the TV and radio stations later
Nominator's rationale: Of all the "City, State" conversions I have been nominating, this is the one I have looked forward to least. These are about media markets, which are sometimes clearly defined ("Chicago") and sometimes not (the West Virginia region of "Clarksburg / Morgantown / Weston"—but where is Waynesburg, PA, which is also in that region?). I'm suggesting a rule that might be possible to live with: Use the name of the big city and its state, or if no big city, then where the transmitter is. I'll be adding lots more radio and television station categories. I might also argue that the anchors categories should be "Television anchors from (X), (Y)," but none of the other categories of that kind are like that. The ones I'm proposing deleting are all redirects from articles that are not about the stations in question. I'd suggest letting this nomination go on until 5 days after I get the last one into this list.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States, which specifically names most of the cities listed here as ones that should NOT use the state modifier because they are generally recognized without it. --M@rēino 15:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Television stations in Jonesboro. Not at all sure that this one is needed since at present, the wiki project basically suggests that the stations there not have articles, just redirects. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am going to suggest that the remainder be looked at more closely. Are we talking about the market areas, the coverage areas, the Nielsen grouping, the actual location of the studio, or the city of license? I'd avoid any attempt to use the Nielsen groupings. I'd suggest renaming the area ones to match the template names that they are included in or the full heading from the navigation boxes. In the case of Chicago, this would be either Category:Chicago TV or Category:Television Stations in Chicagoland. Please note that legally we need to stay away from Nielsen's usage per an official office action. If the categories are specifically for cities, then the rename could be allowed to proceed. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • These categories bounce all over the place. I'm trying to streamline them to cities, or at least very close to the cities. (Sometimes, the transmitter is on a nearby hill, for example.) I'd rather get to more specific then find outliers, rather than leave everything bunched in vague categories. Anyway, I'm going to stop nominating things in this category for a while, and see how this gets closed. (By the way, it seems like we need some more opinions on this Culture nomination before it can be closed.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. We are not adding anything by doing this that would cause confusion. Of course, the rename doesn't answer such questions that Vegas brought up, but then, neither do the currently named categories. And as I've always said, if you have Television in Las Vegas, it means Television in Las Vegas, Nevada, not Las Vegas and the area around it. In this case, if you want market or coverage areas (I have no idea how you'd reference that, but whatever), then create categories like in the Las Vegas, Nevada coverage area. But that doesn't mean these renames shouldn't go through (esp as the nomination is to get them to cities). --Kbdank71 13:28, 24 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.

European navigational boxes categories[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 13:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming the following—
Category:Dutch navigational boxes to Category:Netherlands templates
Category:Estonian navigational boxes to Category:Estonia templates
Category:Finnish navigational boxes to Category:Finland templates
Category:French navigational boxes to Category:France templates
Category:Georgian navigational boxes to Category:Georgia (country) templates
Category:Icelandic navigational boxes to Category:Iceland templates
Category:Irish navigational boxes to Category:Republic of Ireland templates
Category:Latvian navigational boxes to Category:Latvia templates
Category:Luxembourg navigational boxes to Category:Luxembourg templates
Category:Portuguese navigational boxes to Category:Portugal templates
Category:Scottish navigational boxes to Category:Scotland templates
Category:Spanish navigational boxes to Category:Spain templates
Category:Ukrainian navigational boxes to Category:Ukraine templates
Category:United Kingdom navigational boxes to Category:United Kingdom templates
and merging the following:
Category:Hungarian navigational boxes to Category:Hungary templates
Category:Moldovan navigational boxes to Category:Moldova templates
Category:Romanian navigational boxes to Category:Romania templates
Category:Swiss navigational boxes to Category:Switzerland templates
Nominator's rationale: Rename/merge. For consistency with various other subcats of Category:Europe country templates. Note that the existing titles are (generally) linked to by {{European navigational boxes}}, while the proposed new titles are linked to by {{Europe templates}}. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:32, 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.

Urban forests[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 parent, rename subcats from "of" to "in". Kbdank71 13:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Urban forests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

and subcategories:

Category:Urban forests of Belgium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Urban forests of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Urban forests of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category created without a definition by a known disruptive editor, with the creation of categories being part of the disruption he's presently blocked for. I added one (a definition for the main category; some of the subcategories may require a definition), but the question of whether this category is these categories are helpful is still open. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change nomination to "Rename "of" to "in" in the subcategories." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Category seems self-explanatory to me. They cover forests that are located in urban areas. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep perfectly acceptable set of categories to help readers get to the articles. This is the purpose of categories. See main article for questions. Hmains (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. Although I don't see it as a defining characteristic, and some of the initial entries aren't forests by any stretch of the imagination, I see the potential usefullness of the categories — provided that the creating editor is not allowed to edit them or add items. That being said, deletion is not appropriate if the categories are monitored. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is an ill-defined concept of "urban area". Is the comune of Rome an urban area - even its outlying portions? Can this be defined better? Does Bois de Boulogne belong in here - it is technically inside the city limits of Paris, France (since 1929) - did it belong prior to 1929. I fear that without a proper definition such as "forests within the municipal or city limits of an urban center," with some density or population threshhold for what centers are "urban" this basically is little different than Category:Urban public parks, which suffers the same definitional problems. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:30, 19 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:Green urban planning[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:Sustainable urban planning. Without prejudice to a renomination for a name change to Category:Green development, if this name is determined to be more appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Green urban planning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Undefined category, created by a known disruptive editor. In the event that a definition could be found, it should still be cleared and re-created, as the additions made are arbitrary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Seems like a very reasonable name to pull together these subcats and articles. Catetory servies its purpose of navigation to them. Certainly it is a timely subject that is much in the media. Hmains (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment some of the subcategories, and a few of the articles, are not related to urban planning. "Forest Park" should only be in the subcategory "Urban forests", which I now agree should be kept. That being said, if a definition could be provided, I'd withdraw. But I don't see a possible definition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The concept is valid, but the term green urban planning is not in common usage. Category:Sustainable urban planning (which would be a subcategory of Category:Sustainable development) would be more a appropriate name. - Eureka Lott 19:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to either Green development or, as Eureka Lott suggested, Sustainable urban planning. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 20:08, 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:China–Africa relations[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: procedural close, this was speedied by FayssalF on the day it was nominated. User did a poor job of it, however, as the deleted category wasn't emptied. Might want to get on that. Kbdank71 13:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:China–Africa relations to Category:Africa–China relations
Nominator's rationale: Rename in order to alphabetize and add dash. TM 14:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have no personal preference but I believe we have to be consistent with the lot (total of 8) of the sub-categories found here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, we alphabetize. Africa goes before China, but China goes before India, Soviet Union etc.--TM 14:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, fair enough. There's another thing; the whole parent category is a mess. 'China', 'People's Republic of China' and 'Sino' are used inconsistently. I don't know what to do with that. One thing is sure; only renaming articles would be the right solution but that requires a separate discussion. What do you think? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Occuli. Well, it wasn't; I've just deleted the first and created the new one per the request. The second point you raise is important... in fact, I've been working recently on the main article Sino-African relations and I haven't touched that title issue and have gone on using 'China' inside the article. There has been a discussion about the naming (see talk page). A concern about the use of Sino/China vs People's Republic of China (that is like not to confuse RPC/China with Taiwan) was raised there before. The mess in the parent category is due mainly to minor disagreements about the naming. But well, since Sino==China then I'll go on move it and get it included at PrefixIndex/Category:China. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be pioneering 'mega-speedy' renaming. Prepare for flak. Occuli (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, considering the subject, 'mega' is the word! Well, I am not sure about the 'mega' wiki-resistance I'd face. Can you help? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even an en-dash provokes controversy in category names. The usual idea is to wait for cfd to run its course before renaming ... seems a perfectly reasonable rename to me (per nom). Occuli (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is it normal to refer to "COUNTRY–CONTINENT" relations? We just lump all of Africa together this way, and then break it down by subcategory? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 23 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:National Hockey League players with retired numbers[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.--Aervanath (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National Hockey League players with retired numbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Co-nominations:
Category:National Basketball Association players with retired numbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Major League Baseball players with retired numbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Sorting by non-defining characteristic. Having your number retired by a team is the result of a good career, but really has nothing to with the player themselves.TM 01:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-defining characteristic. A list article would undoubtedly be of interest to hockey researchers but this isn't category material. Otto4711 (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what a "defining" characteristic is, but having one's number retired is pretty much the highest honour a team can give to a player. Only a limited number ever get this honour. It's just below being inducted into Category:Hockey Hall of Fame inductees. I would think that is defining. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 17:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In Hockey, as in most sports, teams have retired far fewer numbers than players inducted into the Hockey hall of Fame. There are 240 hall-of-fame players, and the 30 NHL teams have retired far fewer than eight per team. I couldn't think of a characteristic that could be much more defining for a hockey player. I am baffled as to how the determination is made that this would only "be of interest to hockey researchers", a rather obfuscatory way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT, unsupported byanything other personal biases. Being inducted into the [Hockey Hall of Fame]] is equally indicative of having had a good career, something that we certainly categorize. Alansohn (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh for god's sake. Choosing to interpret "of interest to hockey researchers" as "I don't like the category" is ridiculous. Otto4711 (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. I know that you don't like to be contradicted (in addition to problems with the word "agreement"). Can you support your claim that this category is only of interest to hockey researchers? Alansohn (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you support your claim that I said this is "only" of interest to hockey researchers? Otto4711 (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This general idea has been discussed once before that I know of in a different context. This is the type of thing that a list would be great for, since you could include dates on which the number was retired, etc. A template (for by-team organization) could be used as well. But a category—well, to me it seems like overcategorization by award. This is not as prestigious as Hall of Fame induction. Some teams retire numbers for reasons that would not get a person inducted into the Hall of Fame, e.g., if a player was exceptionally popular among fans. Bill Goldsworthy is in the category—he was extremely popular when he played for Minnesota, but he doesn't look like HofF material to me. Same deal with Dale Hunter, who was great at fighting and getting penalties and was popular, but not exactly a top-tier player. Since in general sports award categories should be limited to Halls of Fame, MVP awards, and so forth, this looks like overcategorization to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete. Comment - This is useless as a category, but with the list's ability to present more information like team, number, when they played, it can be useful. --Kbdank71 23:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed the above to a comment, since your comments below are more expansive. You're obviously welcome to revert and clarify this yourself : ) - jc37 09:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First off, as Kevlar stated it is a defining aspect of hockey players. Around 5,000 people have played in the NHL, and only 96 have had their number retired. In regards to the comments stating that a list article would be more appropriate, there is a list that corresponds with this article, List of NHL retired numbers. Regardless, several categories exist that have corresponding lists. An example would be the categories for every NHL award, or those for players who were with NHL teams. Both have lists and categories, yet the category for them are not being debated. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resistance is futile. Don't bother trying to use logic when all that is necessary to counter any argument is an insistence that a category is not justified. Alansohn (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alansohn, for reasons that I'm sure you'll be aware of, I'd really be happy if you withdrew your comment immediately above. I was going to strike it myself, but I thought it would be better to make the request so you can reflect on whether you really want to say that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I stand by my remarks and your response only adds further evidence of the problem here. Do you truly believe that an approach of deleting comments you don't agree with is a serious option? Alansohn (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe giving users the opportunity of withdrawing personal attacks of the kind that you have repeatedly been warned about (and blocked for) making in the past at CfD. No one is is countering arguments by merely "insist[ing] that a category is not justified", and your suggestion that they are is unnecessarily inflammatory. I think you probably know that, and there would be no "problem here" at all if you could refrain from making such suggestions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no personal attack here and I see no personal attack in this diff. "This is useless as a category" is an example of an insistence that a category is not justified. "Inculcated fanship cruftiness" is another example of opposing views being trivialised. There are in fact (CatScan) 65 players in the intersection of the 2 categories; that is about 30 in RetNo who are not HofF material and about 300 in HofF who are not 'retired number' material. Catscan is one advantage of categories over lists as there is no listScan to my knowledge (tho AWB will do it). Occuli (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with your analysis if this were an isolated incident. However, based on the similarity to past comments that this particular user has been repeatedly sanctioned for, the analysis changes somewhat. Alansohn has been specifically asked by ArbCom to avoid trolling and "baiting" or attacking other editors, and in that vein has specifically been asked to be careful with his remarks with respect to one editor in particular. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally Occuli, if you or anyone else expressed to me in good faith that you were offended or offput by my "cruftiness" comments in the other CfD, I would be very willing to consider withdrawing them or modifying them. I think when requested to change a comment I've only refused two times (the reasons for which I'd be happy to explain to you in painful detail elsewhere). That's why I asked Alansohn if he would be willing to do so—many editors don't have a problem with doing that and it's an easy way to step-down a potential confrontation. I can't say that I thought there was a greater than 50% that it would be done here, but it is usually worth a try. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good Olfactory, under no circumstances will I retract my remarks, as the claims of "trolling" and "baiting" or "attacking other editors" are entirely baseless. Again, the repeated threats accomplish absolutely nothing other than to prove my point. You would be far better served by addressing the underlying issues at CfD than by trying to prevent the issues from being raised. Alansohn (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...are entirely baseless." (Yeah, "baseless", just as virtually every editor who is placed under any editing restriction repeatedly claims...) That's good to know for future circumstances. I'm not sure where you're reading a "threat" into my comments, however. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As little as you are accomplishing here, you are doing an exceedingly good job of demonstrating the strategy of bullying and threats used to push away people who have views and opinions that dare contradict your own. Alansohn (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, interesting, especially since I still can't identify a "threat", even after asking for one to be identified. And "strategy" would imply that if it's even being done, it's purposeful, which of course it would not be since I don't even know what you're talking about. As for my own opinion on the specific issue, it's pretty much irrelevant to what I'm talking about. You've obviously misunderstood me, and I'm not entirely clear on what you are thinking either. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the 'Hall of fame' accolade, with over 300 recipients, is agreed to be defining. It follows that the 'retired number' accolade, available to exactly the same set of players, with about 100 recipients, is more defining. As Good Olfactory points out, it is capturing a different aspect of the player, local popularity, not necessarily appreciated nationwide or reflected in statistics. And, as is pointed out repeatedly, lists and categories can coexist in harmony and synergy, like human beings and fish, as GWB once observed. (Are lists and templates deleted on the grounds that parallel categories exist?) Occuli (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, yes, lists are sometimes deleted in favor of categories. In this instance, a list would be superior because, as has been pointed out, the reasons why a player's number might be retired are potentially more complex than the reasons for induction into the HoF. The number may be retired because of a stellar local career, because of the extraordinary popularity of the player, to honor a player who died an untimely death, as a crass publicity stunt, etc. The membership of a HoF inductees category is unified by the common understanding that being inducted into a HoF is the mark of an extraordinary career connected to the sport; not so with retired jersey numbers. A list, explaining the circumstances behind the retirement, would be far more interesting than a bare alphabetical categorization and would be far more beneficial to the project from an informational standpoint. Otto4711 (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify; or if kepte, rename to Category:National Hockey League players whose jersey numbers have been retired Why delete, because it's trivial - the most glaring examples are (1) the Minnesota Wild which retired number "1" which "belonged" to its fans - which of course were all more notable than the NHL Hall of Famers if you believe some of the drivel and statistics ballyhooed above, and (2) that numbers which have been retired have been (surprise) unretired - I don't know about the Hall of Fame, but my guess is once you're in, you're in for good, not until someone with your number playing for another team gets traded in or the team moves, or what-have-you. (for details see List_of_NHL_retired_numbers) Which brings about why if this is kept it needs to be renamed. As currently formulated Category:National Hockey League players with retired numbers means literally a NHL player with a number that's been retired. As discussed above, #1 is retired. So all #1's have "retired numbers" regardless of who they play for or when they played. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's already a list, and List of NHL retired numbers is listed first in the category. I agree that a few clubs have retired some numbers for non-players, but the category couldn't be any clearer in specifying that it includes "National Hockey League players with retired numbers". Your bizarre straw man misinterpretation that anyone who has ever worn Bobby Orr's number 4 should be included in the category is patently ludicrous. Alansohn (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with the above points mentioning that a list is necessary because it can contain more information and context. However, before I can concede that a category is unwarranted, someone will have to convince me that being honoured by one's team is somehow less defining than being honoured by the HHoF, by fans (Category:National Hockey League All-Stars), sportwriters (Category:Hart Trophy winners), or fellow players (Category:Lester Pearson Award winners), etc. Or should they all be deleted as well? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that team honors are less notable than league-wide honors. As has been argued above, players are not always honored for their careers, but often for other reasons like publicity. Likewise, no one can take away a Hart Trophy or an all-star appearance, but "retired" numbers are given to players on a regular basis.--TM 23:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, team honours are not the same as league honours. However, the NHL does recognise retired numbers, something they don't do for any other team-oriented event. Retired numbers are included in the NHL Record Book, and given a large amount of coverage when a number is retired. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that league honors are more notable, I believe that the retirement of a player's number to be almost as notable. I don't think it would be considered "regular basis" when in the entire history of the league that it is happened only 96 times. -Pparazorback (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability" is not the standard for categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extremely defining of a player. Categories and Lists are not mutually exclusive. You can have both. To have your number retired in many circles is an even higher honour than reaching the hall of fame. -Djsasso (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Djsasso above. -Pparazorback (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete. I'm not convinced by the comments that this honor is defining. Part of my problem is that as I understand it, each team has its own criteria for selecting players for this honor. Are those criteria even published? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since a list already exists at List of NHL retired numbers. Again, this is a perfect example of why a list is better than a category. A list can have the team, the number, date retired, it can contain references, and it can be watchlisted against vandalism, whereas the category can have none of that. In addition, the list can be sorted by team or number, the category cannot. --Kbdank71 13:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A list of authors can include sources and titles of the books they are best known for. A list of states can include their population and capital cities. Categories can do none of these things. No category can have details or references. No category can be sorted. They're lists of articles. Your rationalization for deletion of this category is a justification to delete the entire category system. Do we delete all categories, or only the ones you don't like? Alansohn (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Alan, that's exactly what that means. Delete every single category. Burn them with fire, and salt them so they never come back. As usual, you are completely correct in twisting my words about this one category to come up with the most ridiculous example. How about you stop that? If you are confused about what I said, ask. This category is called "National Hockey League players with retired numbers". It is logical when listing them to have at least, oh I don't know, the retired number? If the category was called "Retired NHL players", then a category (or list) would be fine. In your irrelevant examples, a "list of authors" would be equal to Category:Authors. A "list of states" would be equal to Category:States. Neither of which necessarily needs a list (although per your arguments using CLN, you would say we need both, but whatever). A category is fine in both of those cases. You don't need any additional information that a list could provide. In this particular case do I really need to preface everything I say around here with that so you aren't continually confused by my intent? (players with retired numbers), a list would be better. --Kbdank71 14:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete the category - this material is better served by a list than a category. The list can carry more information and be monitored for quality (as noted by Kbdank71), and can include similar people who don't fit the category; such as the Honoured numbers that the Leafs have been celebrating. PKT(alk) 13:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's "incredibly defining" for an employee of a company to receive a gold watch for their work at the company. (There's also certificates, plaques, naming locations after them, etc. I know someone who has a whole day set aside for them at a certain company. It's even affected what's served in the commissary : ) - This is absolutely no different. WP:OC#AWARD. Feel free to listify if wanted. - jc37 09:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that one is a notable defining of a person and the other is not. Having your number retired is no different than winning a major award which is something that we have categories for in every sport and no one would suggest is not defining. When less than a hundred people have had the honour of having their number retured vs the many tens of thousands of hockey players throughout history, it is definate a defining (ie sets apart from others) aspect of a player. -Djsasso (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wasn't the whole point of jc37's comment that an employer award would be defining for the employee, and that this is no different, and that neither would warrant a category? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly GO. My apologies for any unintended confusion. - jc37 23:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • How many newspaper column inches does the gold watch get? Do a gnews search for Maddux+number+retired" and see how many hits you get for March 2009. Apparently the AP feels having your number retired is a bit different than a gold watch.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a serious nomination for deletion, then the same rationale should be applicable to the analogous categories in other professional sport leagues. Those who want this category deleted should co-nominate Category:Major League Baseball players with retired numbers and Category:National Basketball Association players with retired numbers, and inform members of the appropriate WikiProjects. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will follow this nomination up with similar deletion proposals after (if) this category is deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh yes, that makes it easier to convince people: "See, the NHL one was deleted, so these should be deleted, too!" Nevermind, I will nominate them. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you may think there's a need to be sarcastic. You made a statement which I assumed was sincere and I gave a sincere answer. If the NHL category is not deleted, obviously there would have been no need to nominate the other ones either, so it's possible that doing so now was redundant, that's all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I find fault with the rationale, that "Having your number retired by a team is the result of a good career, but really has nothing to with the player themselves". What does that even mean? I am pretty sure that having a good career has a lot to do with the players themselves. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, especially as per Twas Now. Having your number retired is pretty much the highest honor in baseball, and probably other sports. Higher than making an all-star team, higher than making the Hall of Fame. If any of these categories are deleted, then please listify them first.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no brainer. Per preceding two reasons. Chensiyuan (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - From Wikipedia's guidelines for what categories should be created: "Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles" - Readers of sports articles may want to navigate between articles on players with retired numbers, so this criterion is satisfied. "They should be based on essential, 'defining' features of article subjects... Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features." Having a number retired is one of the highest honors in these sports and how a team identifies its most respected players. It is not incidental or subjective information. "Other tools which may be used instead of or alongside categories in particular instances include lists and navigation boxes." Categories and lists are not either/or options - both can coexist. Each has advantages and disadvantages, and the availability of a list does not necessarily render a category useless. BRMo (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Twas Now pretty much made the only necessary argument. -Dewelar (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I disagree strongly that this is not a defining characteristic, given the rarity and prestige of it. Being rarer than Hall of Fame induction, to have your number retired by a team in the NHL has to be credited as the highest honor in the sport, worldwide. Any biography of a player who had had their number retired, no matter how short, would mention that their jersey was retired by their team. See no reason why the category couldn't exist alongside a list- surely having the category and the list is no more inelegant than creating the list, and then maintaining a link to it from every article about a player with a retired number. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are each finite lists, with clear NPOV criteria. Kingturtle (talk) 12:43, 3 April 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_18&oldid=1140255940"