Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 10 June 12 >

June 11[edit]

Category:Electric vehicle corporation user[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Electric vehicle corporation user (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Created by banned User:Mac (now User:Nopetro and User:Nudecline) this category is characteristically a) badly named and b) unpopulated. I suspect that we could find more corporations that are using electric vehicles. However, rather than renaming and populating, I suggest we delete as a non-defining characteristic. I'd have no objection to listifying if there was much in the way of useful content, but as is often the case with this editor in his various incarnations, there is not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Incoherent and uninteresting. Mangoe (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic and unnecessary. Does anyone really care about whether corporations use hybrid, electric or petrol-powered vehicles? Better question actually, does it really matter? --Kilibarda (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To answer your question, the category's creator has proven to be unresponsive on this point over several years. When such questions have been raised, his responses -- if any -- have tended to advance WP:SOAP and WP:OR arguments about the overriding need for such categories, based on his stated goal of using Wikipedia to promote his views on renewable energy and critique fossil and fission power. The most that be said is that he has held off on creating new categories under his latest SOCK account, however, as he had created such categories under the last three identities, I think it likely that he will resume his category creation activities at some point, unless blocked from doing so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 12 June 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.

LGBT 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: keep. — ξxplicit 04:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:LGBT rights activists to Category:Advocates of LGBT rights
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I recently added Jeremy Bentham to the UK subcategory of "LGBT rights activists". However, of the essays Bentham wrote which argued against regarding homosexuality as something criminal, the first wasn't published until almost 150 years later, long after his death. I propose that it's inaccurate to refer to people such as Bentham as "LGBT rights activists". I would categorize him as an "Advocate of LGBT rights", except that the category doesn't exist, and would seem redundant if it was created.

More than mere advocacy/expression of support (which is valuable, don't get me wrong), the word "activism" connotes a more active involvement, e.g. campaigning, legal challenges, involvement in protest marches, etc.

While everyone who is an activist on behalf of gay rights can be considered an advocate of LGBT rights, the opposite is not necessarily true: Not everyone who has expressed advocacy of gay rights can accurately be referred to as an "activist" on behalf of gay rights.

The proposed name would broaden the scope of the category's intent and more accurately describe the status of several of the people within it regarding the issue of LGBT rights. Also, phrasing it "of LGBT" could perhaps help further clarify that those who are included in the category may not necessarily have been/be LGBT themselves.

I do still think there should be "activist" subcategories, for people for whom that term specifically applies. Adrigon (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - A category for everyone who has expressed support for LGBT rights would be far too broad. Being an LGBT rights activist is potentially notable; having a pro-LGBT opinion is not. For the example you mention, maybe we need Category:LGBT rights writings or something? To address your "may not have been LGBT" point, I think that's adequately covered by calling the category "LGBT rights activists" and not "LGBT activists"; "LGBT" couldn't be mistaken as modifying "activists". --Alynna (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 22:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, sorry... I support the nom's intent of better categorizing/describing the articles, but think the proposed name would be too broad. It would become a catch-all for all Hollywood celebrities and pop stars who have ever expressed support for LGBT rights. I will add the article mentioned into the Category:LGBT history in the United Kingdom category, that will help categorize it some. (also seems like he might fit as a human rights activist since his advocacy of human rights was not limited to LGBT rights?) Wikignome0530 (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the fact that "activism" "connotes a more active involvement," as the nom observes, is precisely why this category is named the way it is. It is reserved for people who have actually done something in support of LGBT rights, not merely anyone who has ever expressed an opinion in favor of LGBT rights, which is what "advocate" would naturally include. postdlf (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think the nomination is very well intentioned, and I get the problem. However, I agree with the arguments that "advocate" would be overly broad. Is there another term for historical figures in this context? Remember that the concept of homosexuality didn't exist until the late 19th century, so the term would mean something quite different, certainly as applied to people before the cultural sea change of Stonewall, and probably before much of the 20th century. — Becksguy (talk) 05:55, 15 June 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:John Taylor albums[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:John Taylor albums to Category:John Taylor (bass guitarist) albums
Nominator's rationale: Per John Taylor (bass guitarist) and John Taylor. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:36, 11 June 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:Candidates in United States elections[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. — ξxplicit 04:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Candidates in United States elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. fails WP:OC#CANDIDATES. TM 14:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: See nomination (#Category:American political candidates) below. Category:American political candidates already exists and has no WP:OC problem. —Markles 14:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There is no crystal ball in saying someone is, or has been, a 'candidate', since these are known facts, not future predictions. WP:OC#CANDIDATES is not therefore relevant--there is no prediction that the candidate will win. Hmains (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Once we have articles for these folks we should have a means to organize them, and that's what this category does. Alansohn (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the nom's rationale at all. The linked section of WP:OC is talking about potential candidates, i.e., categorizing someone based purely on speculation that they might run in a future election. This category, however, is clearly for actual candidates. TM, can you clarify what you meant, or were you simply mistaken? postdlf (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BUT this should only be used for those who are notable for otehr reasons than being a candidate. Being a candidate (except perhaps for President) is in itself NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:13, 18 June 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:American political candidates[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. — ξxplicit 20:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:American political candidates to Category:Candidates in United States elections
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Identifies the election, not the person. That is, the election is in the United States, it doesn't matter if the person is am "American" thereby avoiding all the vagaries of the word. —Markles 13:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point, but it's a problematic solution and we might be better off leaving it the way it is. All but one of the other categories of Category:Political candidates are by nationality (the exception being one you created). It's also currently a subcategory of Category:American politicians, so removing "American" from its definition might require upmerging a bunch of articles on Americans there if they aren't otherwise linked to that structure. There are only three subcategories for specific elections, two of which do in fact require the candidate to be an American (a natural-born American, at that). So are there actually any people categorized by this who aren't American? postdlf (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. Category:Candidates in United States elections is an odd duck. There is almost nothing in it; Jill Stein is in all of its subcategories, because it supposedly lists people who have not won their elections. Categorizing by failure is a bad idea, and if this nomination fails, I recommend nominating the new category and all of its subcategories for merging into Category:American political candidates.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:09, 6 July 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:Electric vehicle incentives[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Electric vehicle incentives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, unnecessary because there are no applicable articles. This is following another CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 2#Category:Electric vehicle legislation, in which a highly similar category was deleted, but this one was unfortunately not tagged, so I'll just copy and paste the argument from there.

None of the included articles are specifically about electric vehicles; all rather cover a much broader range of subject matter, with some not even limited to energy policy. It seems rather myopic and arbitrary to categorize a very broad spending act such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, for example, by one very specific area of spending. Even those laws specifically dealing with energy policy cover it much more broadly than just electric cars; take a look at the summary list of just "key provisions" of one such act to see how many categories this level of specificity would produce per article. Further, Directorate-General for Energy (European Commission) is a governmental agency and so doesn't fit in either of them as an "incentive" or as "legislation". Finally, even if articles just about electric vehicle legislation could be found or created, the rather small numbers of articles in much more general categories, such as Category:Renewable-energy law or Category:United States federal energy legislation, illustrate well that more specific categories are, at the very least, unnecessary at this time. It makes a lot more sense to address this through article content than through categories. postdlf (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator of previously mentioned CfD. I had proposed a merge but agreed with postdlf's deletion rationale, as I do again. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 11 June 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.

Slovak footballers[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Category:Inter Bratislava players to Category:FK Inter Bratislava players
Category:FC Artmedia Bratislava players to Category:MFK Petržalka players
Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect current official names of the clubs, and to match main article names. - Darwinek (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support category names should logically change to reflect the club article name Eldumpo (talk) 21:11, 14 June 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:Transportation in Strafford, New Hampshire[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 as G7 and and typo per creator and created under the correct name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Strafford, New Hampshire to Category:Transportation in Strafford County, New Hampshire
Nominator's rationale: This category is categorized under Category:Transportation in New Hampshire by county. Strafford, New Hampshire is a town, part of the Strafford County. This category should be renamed to correctly re-purpose its contents; it currently holds one page—an airport that's in the Strafford County—so nothing will need to be recategorized. — ξxplicit 07:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom (which I have corrected, timidly). Occuli (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    D'oh, thanks for that. County and country shouldn't be allowed to be spelled so similarly. — ξxplicit 21:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • please rename I left out the word 'county' by mistake when I created this category. Hmains (talk) 15:30, 11 June 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:Electronic music compilation albums[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. Further subcategorization can continue thereafter.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Electronic music compilation albums to Category:Electronic compilation albums
Nominator's rationale: Per parent, Category:Electronic albums, not Category:Electronic music albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 18:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 06:59, 11 June 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:Comics article redirects[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. — ξxplicit 04:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Comics article redirects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and subcategories)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Hopelessly over-categorised redirects. Merge to normal redriect category structure Rich Farmbrough, 14:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 06:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems consistant with the purpose and use of the similar cats under the parent Category:Redirects by WikiProject. Also, standing practice seems that most "backend" pages can be categorized on both the talk page, generally the more generalized list, and the actual page, alowing for finer groupings. - J Greb (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a useful set of categories as there are a lot of comics-related redirects (for minor character and series), I just must remember to make more use of it. (Emperor (talk) 14:49, 11 June 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:Apatow productions[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Apatow productions to Category:Apatow Productions
Nominator's rationale: Rename - I found this category for a renaming proposal. This category needs to rename Apatow Productions, the word "Productions" is need a capital P instead of a small "p" and this category is to match the English main article and in French Wikipedia there is a French category already has a capital "P" fr:Catégorie:Apatow Productions. This category has to rename to a capital P to match the English main article and the other category from the French Wikipedia. Steam5 (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Support as nominator. Steam5 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • As nominator, you already support the move. No need to reiterate your stance on the matter. --Kilibarda (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Based on English grammar and conventions, and the eponymous article, which itself is a proper noun, the P in Productions is supposed to be capitalized in this case. --Kilibarda (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 05:13, 13 June 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:Bar[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bar to Category:Bar, Montenegro
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate and match main article Bar, Montenegro. Bar is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - By all means, go right ahead and rename it. I just figured, because it was non-existent at the time of creation, I would create the category for the sole purpose of containing articles pertaining to the city of Bar. --Kilibarda (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might I also suggest that instead of renaming it to Bar, Montenegro, rename it to Bar (Montenegro) to distinguish the categories from each other. Just a thought. --Kilibarda (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Bar" is a useless category name. Could be used for the bar, as in law, bar as in pub, bar as in ban, bar as in rod, etc. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – 'useless' is about right. There are several places called Bar in France too. Occuli (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can anyone actually point me to an existing category that uses the name "Bar" that requires this category to be disambiguated? Pre-emptive disambiguation is pointless and unnecessary. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say it's "pointless". It does have a point when it's used in categories: it eliminates confusion and makes finding a category that corresponds to an article of known name easier. Many would argue that it's "pointless" for an article and a category on the same topic to have different names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, "pointless" is perhaps an exaggeration. How about this then: In my very humble opinion, the minor gain in consistency is greatly outweighed by the unnecessarily verbose and complicated category name. I assume the answer to my question above is no, then? -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The answer to your original question is "no", at least as far as I know. However, I view it to be largely irrelevant in the context of a category name, since there has been a fairly long-standing consensus that category names can and should depart from the rules of disambiguation that are applied to articles. However #2, it is interesting to read a viewpoint that "Bar, Montenegro" is verbose and complicated. Those four syllable country names are killers ... almost as bad as "Aus-tra-li-a". :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not the common English use for "Bar", so would be stuffed with "Bar"s from English and require constant patrolling. Further, "Bar" is a unit of measurement, and you'd get international articles about air pressure filtering into this category on top of English usage. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but purge of any unrelated items. Bar could also refer to the Duc de Bar, a title held by members of the French royal family. I presume that this has a territorial origin. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:17, 18 June 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_June_11&oldid=1078927517"