Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 4 August 6 >

August 5[edit]

Category:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals[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. —fetch·comms 02:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - minus the improperly categorized people there really isn't enough material to warrant a standalone category. Articles about the organization and a couple of its campaigns plus some articles that are "PETA was involved" tangetial relationships. Navigation through the lead article is sufficient. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm afraid I have to disagree with CoP's assessment of this category. Even if every single celebrity is cleared out, that still leaves 8 or 9 articles -- plus all of the photo files. (And I suspect that at least 1 or 2 of those celebs has had substantial enough involvement to warrant use of this category.) Cgingold (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was under the impression that galleries in categories were improper. Some of those 8 or 9 articles (Running of the Nudes for one) are of the tenuous connection variety that don't warrant inclusion. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the only one that's borderline, hence the "8 or 9" articles -- and possibly 1 or 2 more among all of the celebs. Not to mention the great likelihood that there will be additional articles in the future. Cgingold (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – amongst the people there is a lobster ... little did I realise that there had been a notable lobster. Occuli (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean out the celebrity endorsers. We don't categorize by endorsement or cause espoused. The category probably has enough otherwise. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge -- The headnote says this is about PETA (which I have expanded) not about people, but the category is full of people. Some one needs manually to purge this category so that it contains PETA, its campaigns, staff, and board members. The rest need to go into a subcat of "supporters" or "endorsers", but since this will rarely be a notable characteristic, I suspect that the new supporters category would quickly be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup There is more than enough articles to justify a category once any tangential articles are removed. Alansohn (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Cgingold's rationale.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is. Articles are sufficient. There are a few people articles that need to be deleted as there is no content in the article to support the category. In other cases, these people have been involved in PETA campaigns, ads, etc and this info is found in the bio articles. Category is appropriate. Hmains (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep category but limit it to articles direclty related to the organization, not to celebrity endorsers. Per Wikipedia:Categorization of people we should be limiting categories of people to what's truly important about them, and most of these people are not notable for this activity. The celebrities who've endorsed PETA may be an appropriate list at the PETA page and, if they are legion, might warrant a separate catogory, but generally categories about people should be kept separate from categories about general subjects. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2010 (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:The Bionic series[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated. There really doesn't seem to be a perfect answer to this, but Category:Bionic franchise is better than the other two options, as neither "series" nor "Man" is helpful in defining something that contains multiple series about men and women.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:The Bionic series to Category:Bionic franchise
Nominator's rationale: Rename - "series" isn't an accurate description of a collection of articles that refer to three TV series and a book series. Not married to the word "franchise" so please suggest any alternatives that may be better. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Category:Bionic Man franchise ... as it combines the names of the two most prominent pieces of the franchise, and it was also a product of the franchise (see this website: activerain.com/blogsview/584437/bionic-man-doll-six-million-dollar-memories- :for scans of the packaging) (hence, not an WP:OR name, since it was used by the franchise). 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2010 (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:Albums produced by A.B. Quintanilla[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. Courcelles 03:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Albums produced by A.B. Quintanilla to Category:Albums produced by Abraham Quintanilla III
Nominator's rationale: Per Abraham Quintanilla III/A.B. Quintanilla —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:42, 5 August 2010 (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:Archie Comics locations[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: double upmerge. Courcelles 03:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Archie Comics locations to Category:Archie Comics
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge to main category per WP:SMALLCAT, no prospect for growth, not part of an existing sub-categorization scheme. Tassedethe (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2010 (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:Archie comic book covers[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. Courcelles 03:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Archie comic book covers to Category:Archie Comics covers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Two categories with identical inclusion criteria, merge per main article Archie Comics. Tassedethe (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Actually the intended change though it hit a batch of SES (Slow Editor Syndrome). - J Greb (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2010 (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:Eclipse[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. Courcelles 03:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Eclipse to Category:Eclipse (software)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article Eclipse (software) and to avoid confusion with the primary topic, astronomical eclipses. Tassedethe (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to avoid confusion and match parent article.--Lenticel (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2010 (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.

sub-categories of Category:Carnivorans[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Courcelles 03:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Carnivores of Africa to Category:Carnivorans of Africa
Propose renaming Category:Extinct carnivores to Category:Extinct carnivorans
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Remove ambiguity in category names - for example (yes, I know that these examples are irrelevant for the specific categoruis under discussion), the Cobra is a carnivore (it eats meat), but isn't a member of order Carnivora; the Giant Panda is a carnivoran, but not a carnovore. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:48, 5 August 2010 (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:International venture capital firms[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all. Courcelles 03:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:International venture capital firms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Nordic venture capital firms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Two categories for a single article. No need to upmerge. Anyone want to guess which article? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the whole bunch with wireless and mobile. Cellphones are evil. :) East of Borschov 08:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. International VC's may be better of group into a multinational VC firm cat.--Lenticel (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2010 (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:Mobile venture capital firms[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. Courcelles 03:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mobile venture capital firms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category with limited short term growth potential. Article has ample categorization. Note the article here is the same one that is also in Category:Wireless venture capital firms. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2010 (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:Wireless venture capital firms[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. Courcelles 03:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wireless venture capital firms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category with limited short term growth potential. Article has ample categorization. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2010 (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:Michael Jackson images and files[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. Further splitting may be done as desired.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Michael Jackson images and files to Category:Images of Michael Jackson
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Normal name for this type of category. I would not be opposed to a rename to Category:Michael Jackson files if that is where consensus lies. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2010 (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 by city district or neighborhood[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People by city district or neighborhood to Category:People by neighborhood
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure if this is overcategorization but at the very least, to match Category:Neighborhoods it should be renamed (and the subcategories changed afterwards). If this is kept, there are hundreds of subcategories from Category:Neighbourhoods by country (second and third levels) that should be included. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way too specific. Other than the New York boroughs, which I can see, everything else needs to go.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are no more specific than by U.S. county or small city. If anything, I d rename it to Category:People by city neighborhood, district, or locality to be more inclusive of terminology that varies from country to country. Mayumashu (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an appropriate means of organizing such categories as a parent. Its existence does not mean that all neighborhoods in all localities will be categorized, but for those that do merit categorization this is an appropriate parent. Alansohn (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – some think the name is too long, others think it too short; so it will do just fine. (The London ones seem perfectly valid. As Alansohn remarks, some cities are not vast enough to require splitting by sub-region but others are.) Occuli (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The parent category is Category:Neighborhoods. Is a city district not a neighborhood? Per our article, city districts exist in Pakistan and Croatia. So rename for clarity. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname but Monte Carlo does not belong since this is the main settlement on Monaco, not a neighbourhood of a larger city. Since most members are American, I do not object to the American spelling. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2010 (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.

Córdoba, Argentina (city)[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate per conventional style from both the alike named province in Argentina (Córdoba Province (Argentina)) and city in Spain (Córdoba, Spain). Mayumashu (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames, but drop '(city)' from proposed titles The article Córdoba, Argentina is properly titled to distinguish it both from the city of the same name in Spain and the larger province in Argentina. There appears to be no benefit in having the category titles conflict with that of the parent article, and only the prospect of added confusion caused by the discrepancy. If the article title is not sufficiently clear, any ambiguity should be addressed by proposing a rename of the article, not here. Alansohn (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are listed at the bottom of article pages without any explanation/hatnotes - extra disambiguation is needed Mayumashu (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nominator formulated it. Category names should not be as ambiguous as article names, since it causes maintainence issues. As the province has the same name, it is highly likely that province articles not directly related to the city will be dumped into the category. It would reduce confusion due to better naming. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2010 (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:Geothermal energy[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: reverse merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Geothermal energy to Category:Geothermal power
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the main article and replace a category redirect. Geothermal energy is a redirect to Geothermal gradient. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom to match the main article which from its contents is named correctly. Hmains (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
change of mind: reverse merge to match the now current article name Hmains (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In general I support this proposal to make this category to be in line with the main article but at the same time geothermal power is a product generated by using geothermal energy. It seems that the name of the main article's title Geothermal power is misleading as it talks about the geothermal electricity and geothermal heating both. Heating is not classified usually under 'power'. Several wikies in other languages use in their articles' titles word 'energy' not 'power', or just 'geothermal' as the German wiki. Beagel (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the articles are rewritten then we can reverse any decision here to match the articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice: I asked to move the main article to Geothermal energy. Beagel (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge as this would provide a broader category, including the use of Geothermal energy directly for heating, for example in a district heating system. I suspect this is widely done in Iceland. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per remarks of Beagel and Peterkingiron. Regardless of the main article situation, it makes more sense to have the broader category. Cgingold (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2010 (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:Meritas members[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. Courcelles 03:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meritas members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - This one-article category is not the sort of thing we endorse having categories for -- membership in ordinary, run-of-the-mill organizations, of which there are 100s of 1000s. Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate - If I understand the articel correctly, Meritas is an international network of law firms, on its way to being an international conglomerate. The members will thus be major law firms in various countries. This is clearly a notable and defining characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I don't see how membership in this group is "notable and defining", PKI. Please elaborate. Cgingold (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I definitely think this is not defining. Once upon a time I worked for a law firm that has since become a member of Meritas, and it's certainly not defining for this particular firm. Law firms are often part of these international or intranational "groups", but it doesn't really mean much. We have no overarching scheme of "law firms by inter-association". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2010 (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:Platforms of the SSP[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: Closer's choice?. We'll go with rename for now, as the more conservative option, with leave to renominate for a dual upmerge if desired. Courcelles 03:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Platforms of the SSP to Category:Factions of the Scottish Socialist Party (or upmerge to Category:Scottish Socialist Party and Category:Political party factions in Scotland)
Nominator's rationale: Rename or upmerge. I suggest expanding the abbreviation per the parent category Category:Scottish Socialist Party and renaming this "factions" to better communicate what the category is for. It is part of the tree Category:Political party factions. It is not for political platforms (ie, campaign proposals) of the party, though it could be interpreted as such from the current name. It is for these type of platforms. There are only two articles in this so alternatively it could be upmerged to Category:Scottish Socialist Party and Category:Political party factions in Scotland. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or upmerge – I (UK-based and moderately well-informed) have never heard the word used in this sense (although I see it is used in this sense in both articles - indeed we have the phrase "with its members becoming non-platform members of the SSP", which could do with translating from the original gibberish). Occuli (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2010 (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/2010_August_5&oldid=1074804553"