Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 17

< December 16	December 18 >

December 17[edit]

Category:Maritime incidents in Switzerland[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Switzerland is a landlocked country and as such does not have access to the sea. The term "maritime" is therefore misleading. The only article within this category is the Bevaix Boat, within the subcategory "Shipwrecks of Switzerland", which was found in Lake Neuchâtel rather than the sea. The Celestial City (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to be part of a tree covering Shipwrecks by country. Since Switzerland is a country there needs to be an entry for it; and you can be shipwrecked on a lake just as easily as on the sea. I agree that maritime is not the best description for this country but if deleted the article may become unfindable. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Category:Shipwrecks by country is parallel to Category:Maritime incidents by country and there is no reason they need to intersect except at pages on specific wrecks/incidents. A wreck in a mountain lake cannot by any stretch be considered maritime. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although Switzerland is landlocked, it has extensive traffic on its lakes and the Rhine is navigable to Berne. Therefore any maritime accident occuring within Swiss territory would fit nicely in this category. A "maritime incident" is not necessarily a "shipwreck". Mjroots (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is part of an established series of categories, so it's OK per WP:OC#SMALL, and per per Mjroots Switzerland does have maritime incidents, unless we are being unhelpfully pedantic about the saltiness of the water. Note that Category:Shipwrecks in the Great Lakes is a sub-sub-cat of Category:Maritime incidents in Canada. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any accident occuring within a Swiss lake or river would not be a maritime incident. The term "maritime" is a piece of specialist terminology with a very precise meaning referring to seas, and does not cover all bodies of water as the above editors seem to imply; it shouldn't be used as a more 'sophisticated' word for "water". I agree with Mangoe's suggestion below. The Celestial City (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment The subsuming of shipwrecks under "maritime incidents" is problematic at best. When one is talking about a case such as this where there is a wreck but no incident per se to write about, it seems reasonable to include it in the former category but not the latter. Indeed the similar case of the Hasholme Logboat is categorized only under Category:Maritime archaeology and is not listed as a wreck at all. If we pull the Bevaix Boat out of the incident category then there is no reason for it to exist, and as there is no incident, I would suggest that decategorization. Mangoe (talk) 17:41, 20 December 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:Lords/Barons of Armenian Cilicia[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:Lords of Armenian Cilicia. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lords/Barons of Armenian Cilicia to Category:Barons and Lords of Armenian Cilicia

Nominator's rationale: WP:SLASH, also I'm pretty much always in favor of alphabetizing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Lords of Armenian Cilicia. The category title suggests it categorizes two kinds of people, but per the articles, everyone here is a lord of Armenian Cilicia, and only as an afterthought a baron.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:03, 28 December 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:Fictional American people of Filipino descent[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: Speedy delete. Category was empty and had been blanked by its creator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Excessive categorisation. Unlikely to be populated. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:21, 17 December 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:Journal of Economic Literature 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 to Category:Journal of Economic Literature.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only reason for creation seems to be to create a shadow of the JEL categories within Wikipedia. Deletion discussion of a previous incarnation of Category:JEL: Q at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 30#Category:Agricultural and natural resource economics; environmental and ecological economics suggests this is inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppoae You yourself suggested this alternative name in the previous discussion, where the main objection was to length and unwieldiness.JQ (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's an interesting interpretation of my statement. Inaccurate, but interesting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did suggest it as a less-favored alternative, but the result of the discussion was delete. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In principle Change somehow, but this leaves the question of how the one article in the category should be categorised. One anaswer might be to place Journal of Economic Literature and JEL classification codes in a single category, perhaps Category:Journal of Economic Literature, in which case the solution is Rename and populate. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be happy with this proposalJQ (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1T: On the latter proposal, respectfully oppose. It is very convenient to refer to JEL classification codes on Econ-page disputed points, of which there is no lack, [1] and [2]. Why weigh down those discussions linked to the "JEL classification codes" page with "Journal of Economic Literature" freight? Per discussion below, I withdraw this. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2T: I do think that it is a fair question (& AR's?) to ask what the likely value added would be from "Category:Journal of Economic Literature Categories" over categories that display the JEL logo in the upper right hand corner, such as at Category:Monetary economics. As it is now, an Econ article should be able to find some broad or narrow JEL-codes category, since the JEL codes seem designed to be taxonomically complete. If any classification claiming to be on Econ has no JEL-category attestation, that might be reason for stripping it of a JEL classification logo.

Comment 3T: JEL classification codes footnote 2 has criteria for classifying by category. If the "Category:Journal of Economic Literature Categories" is a move to restrict allegedly econ articles to those articles that fit only JEL classification(s), I'd oppose the above proposal. Let the orphan non-JEL-classifiable articles (say the World Series Theory of Economic Forecasting) go their Wikipedia way (say to deletion), untroubled by any niceties as to where it fits into the scheme of a merely world-wide-use classification system. That is to say, don't give strictly WP articles as valid econ articles if they are not definable into 1 or more JEL categories. I'm not sufficiently informed as to the rationale of Category:Journal of Economic Literature Categories, but it could have a good scholarly use for the future on WP. Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this category initially as a container for Category:JEL Q which was meant as a convenient short name for the previously deleted Category:Agricultural and natural resource economics; environmental and ecological economics. My idea was to do the same for a couple of similarly unwieldy categories, and then include redirects for the rest of the top level JEL categories. But I obviously set off some deletion alarm bells, and so the plan was derailed before it was started. JQ (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see (and regret that I did not read from the top closely enough). So, the same problem applies to multiple different sections of JEL classification codes. I would support some way of addressing that problem as directly as possible. (I wish that I could give a less wp:weaselly response at this point.) If there is a precedent for a Category of categories, that might be cited here or above. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:54, 19 December 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:Female athletes[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Female athletes to Category:Female athletes (track and field)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The intent of this category seems to be to categorize female track and field athletes, but its name unfortunately leaves it open to being a duplicate of Category:Sportswomen by sport. The category's parent is Category:Athletes (track and field). Giving this a parenthetical and purging anything that doesn't fit this mission seems the safest course.Mike Selinker (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – another parent is Category:Women's athletics (track and field). Occuli (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Occuli. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:25, 17 December 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:MTA[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: renamed by category creator.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:MTA to Category:Muslim Television Ahmadiyya International

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest expanding this abbreviation to match Muslim Television Ahmadiyya International. MTA is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. I see "MTA" and think "Metropolitan Transit Authority." Roscelese (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure rename if it is that ambiguous, though I created the page. Peaceworld111 (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done problem sorted Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:45, 17 December 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:Terrorist incidents against Israelis and Jews[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) 08:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Singles out attacks against a certain ethnic group and a nationality which may have absolutely nothing to do with each other.TM 00:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All other subcats of "Terrorist attacks by target" are locations, not people; as the nom point out, this conflates two separate groups in a POV way, and without that POV conflation, adequate categories already exist (see "terrorism in Israel/in Gaza/in the West Bank," "attacks on synagogues" or whatever). Roscelese (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's please not characterize acts of terrorism by the religions or ethnicities of their victims. I'd also like to add Category:Terrorist incidents against Israelis and Jews in 2009 and Category:Terrorist incidents against Israelis and Jews in 2010 to this nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I tagged them but forgot to mention them. Thanks for catching that.--TM 01:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added them above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but do we need Category:Terrorist incidents against Jews outside Israel to cover the international activities of Palestinian and other resistance groups? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we already have Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents. Roscelese (talk) 00:05, 20 December 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.