Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 29

< May 28	May 30 >

May 29[edit]

Category:Ecology of the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Incorrect use if the word "ecology". De-populate and de-lete... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree; it seems acceptable to me to have such articles as Ecology of California and Ecology of Georgia (U.S. state), and this is the category to put them in. Ecology can be about local systems as well as worldwide ones. Robofish (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of the ecology article. Ecology is not limited by political boundaries. Do not use the word ecology as a synonym of environment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to environment cats, not exactly per nom The opening of ecology, defining it only as a field of study, is surely crap: "Ecology (from Greek oîkos, "house"; -λογία, -logos, study of) is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the distribution and abundance of organisms and their interactions with their environment". However we already have enough other trees. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the most common and main definition of ecology. There is a second meaning which is the effects of humans on the environment. The eco- prefix is often used and is making ecology seem like a synonym for environment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the first sense here, from Princeton, is the most common [1]. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to this. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is already in Category:Environment of the United States. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see nothing wrong. Debresser (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology is not limited by political boundaries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment. What the creators of Category:Ecology by country articles are trying to achieve is probably covered by Category:Environment by country, Category:Natural history by country and Category:Environmental issues by country all of which are well populated categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well populated maybe, but not with many of the articles this series of noms covers. In this sort of case, I suggest you add other appropriate categories before nominating a deletion. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Productively organizes the subject as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Ecology is the study of the balance of nature. The first element is dierived from a Greek word for equal, not oikos (which does indeed mean house). It would be appropriate to have articles on that for particular regions, whether US states, countries, or geographic regions (such as mountain chains or a particular coast). Unfortunately the word is widely misused, but that would suggest purging the category, not deleting it. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep impossible to evaluate as nominator deleted the contents. Hmains (talk) 02:02, 2 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:Ecology by country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Consensus made more difficult by the premature emptying of the category by the nominator.--Aervanath (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Ecology has no political boundaries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yeah, neither does biota, but you'll see how well pointing that out went over. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, but only because we don't really have the articles to fill it yet, not for the reason given by the nominator. I don't think there'd be anything wrong with, say, Ecology of Madagascar, but as no articles like that have been written there's really no need for this category. Robofish (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment. What the creators of Category:Ecology by country articles are trying to achieve is probably covered by Category:Environment by country, Category:Natural history by country and Category:Environmental issues by country all of which are well populated categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well populated maybe, but not with many of the articles this series of noms covers. In this sort of case, I suggest you add other appropriate categories before nominating a deletion. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one article, already categorized elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - see my comments on the US category (above). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep impossible to evaluate as nominator deleted the contents. Hmains (talk) 02:02, 2 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:Tropical ecology[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:Ecology and Category:Tropics. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not likely to be populated See ecology for the use of the word. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Ecology and delete. Small category with no current potential for future growth. Robofish (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to both parents. If the nom is to delete, as it appears to be, this would leave the only article completely uncategorized! Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 30 May 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:Russian World War II pilots[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) 05:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Russian World War II pilots to Category:Soviet World War II pilots

Nominator's rationale: Rename – The Soviet Union was comprised of 16 republics between 1940 and 1956 (15 of these republics other than the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic). There was no independent Russia and no "Russian Air Force" during the Second World War, and many of the pilots were not ethnic Russians. Since this is a subcategory of the parent category Category:Soviet military personnel of World War II, we should change the name to cohere with the accepted pattern of category naming for this topic, as well as abide by historical integrity with regard to the subject. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - makes perfect sense. Robofish (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious. Debresser (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. just a little insignificant 20:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to reflect realities of the period. Alansohn (talk) 03:32, 31 May 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:2010s automobiles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: delete....this is crystallball category and speaks as they were already in producing phase and we are still in 2009, not needed category until next year. --Typ932 ^T·C 16:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This would indeed be a speculative ("crystal ball") category. PasswordUsername (talk)
Keep The few articles I checked in the category support the production of the cars from 2010 onwards. As long as they're sourced, I see no problem. We're only 6/7 months away from 2010, and we have categories for films, for example, that are going to be released post 2009. Lugnuts (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. The ones I looked at are in an early production phase in 2009. Occuli (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Lugnuts. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2010 model year cars can start coming out very early in 2009. As it's already about Juen, I wouldn't be surprised if some haven't already been released. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is production not model years, if you read the category intro it says they are NOW in production, should delete definetly. --Typ932 ^T·C 16:35, 1 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:Ferry terminals in the San Francisco Bay Area[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.--Aervanath (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: delete....over-categorised. contents should be placed in parent category emerson7 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep if these are deleted, it disorganizes the county parent category in each case: 'Public transportation in xxx County, California' Hmains (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Ferry terminals in the San Francisco Bay Area and the public transportation by county categories. The categories are overly-small and unlikely to substantially grow. The county public transportation categories are not overcrowded and would not suffer from the merge. - Eureka Lott 04:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge in each case to all parent cats ('Buildings and structures' as well, if present). The categories are not tagged, however. Occuli (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was relisted because the categories were not tagged. --Kbdank71 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: properly tagged today. --emerson7 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories fit productively within Category:Public transport in California by county as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: i honestly cannot see how a one member category is in any way useful. --emerson7 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to all of the parent categories. The most populated of these contains 3 articles and many only contain 1 article. I don't see how an upmerge disorganizes the parent categories. An upmerge retains the productivity of navigation by Category:Public transport in California by county. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:55, 5 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:Alabama Catholics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:American Catholics.--Aervanath (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is the only U.S. state category for Catholics. How is it defined? Anyone who lived in Alabama at any point? It seems purposeless unless every biography in the encyclopedia is going to be allocated by intersection between locality and religion. What's next? Catholics by zip code? Drawn Some (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:American Catholics. Per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection by location, geographical subcategories should only be used if they have a relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics. Therefore, "American Catholics" is probably defendable, but I don't think "Alabama Catholics" is. Jafeluv (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this is a new category (28 May) and its pages (from the few I've checked) either don't mention Catholic at all or are already in a suitable category (eg Category:American Roman Catholics). Occuli (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because there are not categories for the other 49 states does not mean that you delete this category. It means the obvious solution is to create the same article for the other 49 states. However, the reason that this is relevant and deserves its category specifically by region is due to the fact that Catholics have often faced discrimination in Alabama, and so it is a good idea to have a category linking prominent Catholic individuals associated with the state, who have not only made an impact in the history in the state, but who can also serve as examples to other Catholics in the overwhelmingly Protestant state. It is clearly notable and so the obvious step is to create categories for the other states. This category is being challenged simply because it is the first --Genovese12345 (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why this flame needs to be smothered before the entire forest is on fire. Drawn Some (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What flame? The United States is a big country. It is unreasonable to treat the U.S. as "just a country" the way you would Swaziland or Belize. The United States stretches across a continent and has various cultures spread across it. The average U.S. state will have as much territory as a third world country and will often have much more of an impact on the world than the same third world country. I wonder why the expansion of knowledge is such a bad thing? I ask this of those who oppose this category? Would you oppose a category that would list all of the people included but as a "list". It is clearly notable, and no one will even think to link these people like this unless they are organized together, but the fact that all of the subjects are Catholic and are from Alabama is central to who they are and what they accomplished.--Genovese12345 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is Category:Roman Catholics by nationality, subcat Category:American Roman Catholics. There is Category:People from Alabama. There is no need to intersect these 2. If there is something unusual about Alabama then Catholicism in Alabama might be a feasible article with a list of people. Occuli (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is nothing about being Catholic in Alabama (or any other US state) that warrants breaking out articles at the state level. Otto4711 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:American Catholics and Delete. Unnecessary overcategorisation by religion and state origin. Robofish (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:American Catholics and/or Delete per Robofish - overcategorized. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With over 2,000 entries, this category should be broken down by state, and there is a clear problem of undercategorization, an issue that has absolutely nothing about any need for unique characteristic of Catholicism in Alabama or any other state. I will be happy to create categories for the other 49 states, and unless someone can offer a reason why it would violate Wikipedia policy to do so I'll be more than happy to get started. We have no problem defining any of the several dozen catgeories for people from Alabama, and there seems to be no issue here. Alansohn (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and create the other 49 (or so) compeers. A category of 2000 is too big to be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not realizing that, I would like to concur with it. If there really are 2000 subjects in the category of "American Catholics" then it probably is too cumbersome and would need to be broken up by state and territory. America is a big place after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genovese12345 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why cumbersome, exactly? Categories auto-sort by alphabet, so no matter how many there are they are quite well organized with no additional effort on our part. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary religion category. Alabama Catholics; is this a competitor to Roman Catholics? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Occuli's various comments above. If upmerged, merge to Category:American Roman Catholics, not Category:American Catholics. Examining both the purpose of both categories should make it clear why. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UpMerge to Category:American Roman Catholics. Deleting may drop some individuals from this tree, so the upmerge is needed. Of course if someone can explain why religion at the state level is defining, then we can reconsider. Consider that most Americans move about every 5 years. So over 30 years, we could list many of these individuals in 6 or more categories at the state level. Clearly a case of OCAT. Let's not create a mess that does not really help anyone. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 3 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:Original Dixieland Jazz Band works[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Original Dixieland Jazz Band songs.--Aervanath (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category is empty and has been replaced by its only subcategory, Category:Original Dixieland Jazz Band songs. Jafeluv (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Object; none of the ODJB's original works is a song. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge Tiger Rag to Category:Original Dixieland Jazz Band songs. I'm going to support the nomination after looking at the contents. Given this and the long questioned concerns of the songs by categories, I think we need to simply merge the one song as listed above and delete this parent. Weather they are a song or not, this is the most appropriate category for the works based on the existing names used. I think that most readers would consider a jazz standard or a tune to be a song. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As Tiger Rag is not a song, it certainly doesn't belong in "Category:Original Dixieland Jazz Band songs". With a single exception where they had a guest vocalist, all of this group's recordings are instrumentals, so if there is no need for an "Original Dixieland Jazz Band works" category there is even less need for an "Original Dixieland Jazz Band songs" category. I have nominated the "Category:Original Dixieland Jazz Band songs" for deletion as well. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:48, 5 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:Users tricked by Muzekal Mike[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) 21:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Unencyclopedic category, individual user cat, doesn't benefit encyclopedia in any way to categorize these users, IMO we should create a speedy deletion criteria for cats like these. VegaDark (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ just a little insignificant 01:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:NOHARM. "Made in good humor" is not a good reason to keep. We wouldn't keep a hoax article space category because it is funny. Also, from WP:User categories, "considering the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a social networking site[3] or personal webhost,[4] the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." - This clearly violates this guideline. VegaDark (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete Actually , I like User:Resolute's idea. It makes sense and ensures Muzekal Mike can have his way without violating guidelines. Good idea! just a little insignificant 14:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic and has absolutely no value in building an encyclopedia. The user can maintain a list on their userpage if they like. Reso lute 13:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Resolute. Improper category. — Σ xplicit 21:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Come on, people. Where's your sense of humor? I thought it would be funny if someone could look down at their categories and have a little reminder of the trick on my userpage. Also, this is more of a user subpage than an encyclopedia category. I wanted to call it "User:Category:Users tricked by Muzekal Mike", but I didn't think that it would work. If completely necessary, delete it, but I belive that it will make a fine addition. --Muzekal Mike (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it work for you to keep the list on your userpage, or in a subcategory of your userpage, per Resolute? Another suggestion: you could create a userbox and offer it to those people you have tricked. "This user has been tricked by Muzekal Mike" or something like that. It's a good joke, it can be recorded for posterity, but the only option unavailable is that of a category. There are tons of other ways for you to express it. just a little insignificant 18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use one of those userboxes that has its own category? I can't remember what they're called. Is that still a category, technically? --Muzekal Mike (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How was I "tricked"? I just noticed that a new category was placed on my userpage without my permission, but I wasn't tricked into clicking on anything. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 06:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh nevermind, User:Muzekal Mike/tricked people. Oh well. Keep.
Delete. Why are we even discussing this? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:12, 3 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.