Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 27 June 29 >

June 28[edit]

Category:Soundtracks by property[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:Soundtracks by media franchise. Courcelles (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Soundtracks by property (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems like overcategorization as all of these are already categorized under the Soundtrack umbrella in more specific "film", "television", "anime", "video games" soundtrack categories. Not sure that they need to be lumped together in this new category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:45, 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, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It's not clutter because there's not that many, but most of these are already in a subcategory of soundtracks already and would not clutter the parent anyway.
  2. If kept, I'd suggest a better name of Category:Soundtracks by media franchise as a little more defining. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:10, 4 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:Songs named for women[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 (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs named for women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by shared naming feature. Similar to "songs that contain the word 'love' in the title" or "songs named after other artists"—there is nothing that connects these songs other than the fact that a female's name is chosen for the title. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 28 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:Fingerprint[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 and merge. Courcelles (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Fingerprint to Category:Fingerprints
Propose merging Category:Dactyloscopy to Category:Fingerprints
Nominator's rationale: I propose to merge Category:Fingerprint and Category:Dactyloscopy into a new Category:Fingerprints, because they appear to have the same scope, i.e., topics reated to fingerprints in biometrics or forensics. "Fingerprints" (plural, as is usual) is probably the most inclusive name for this category (in articlespace, Dactyloscopy redirects to Fingerprint).  Sandstein  15:13, 28 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:Articles requiring tables[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 Category:All articles requiring tables into Category:Articles requiring tables. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Articles requiring tables (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The template {{make table}}, that was apparently used to populate this category, was redirected to {{listtable}} that uses Category:All articles requiring tables, so this category is no longer used and should be deleted. Alternative option is to use this category and delete Category:All articles requiring tables. Svick (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administritive note: Category:All articles requiring tables was tagged for merge immediately after relisting this discussion, with a section link to here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:51, 28 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:Sandy Bay[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 (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sandy Bay to Category:Sandy Bay, Hong Kong
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming this category to match the article Sandy Bay, Hong Kong. Sandy Bay is ambiguous and is a disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:53, 29 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:Boka Kotorska[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 and merge. Courcelles (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Boka Kotorska to Category:Bay of Kotor
Propose merging Category:Gulf of Kotor to Category:Bay of Kotor
Nominator's rationale: Rename/merge. I suggest merging both of these duplicate categories into a new category which will be named to match the article Bay of Kotor. Boka Kotorska and Gulf of Kotor both redirectd there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:44, 28 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.

Islands of the Faroe Islands[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Each of these is a one-article category, each of which is the same name as the category. I suggest upmerging to the parent category. (Strictly speaking, there is no need to upmerge these to Category:Islands of the Faroe Islands, because all of the articles are already in that category as well. So a straight delete of these will have the same result.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 28 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:Nursing skills[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 (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Nursing skills to Category:Medical skills
Nominator's rationale: Merge - in the time since this category was previously nominated, there appears not to have been any great explication as to those skills that are performed by nurses ("nursing skills") that are not skills that are medical in nature ("medical skills") which are and can be performed exclusively by nurses. In the absence of reliable information that there are skills which are exclusively performed by and cannot be performed by other than nurses, this category is redundant. Otto4711 (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - in practice (as it were) the main article for the category is practically the only member. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 28 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:Happy Valley[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 (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Happy Valley to Category:Happy Valley, Hong Kong
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming this to match the article Happy Valley, Hong Kong. Happy Valley is ambiguous and is a disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:56, 28 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:Katyn Massacre Victims[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:Katyn massacre victims. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Katyn Massacre Victims to Category:Katyn massacre victims
Nominator's rationale: Speedy rename Main article is Katyn massacre, so there's no reason for the category to be capitalized. And certainly no reason for "victims" to be capitalized. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article and use correct capitalization. Alansohn (talk) 02:56, 28 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:Sierra Nevada[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 (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sierra Nevada to Category:Sierra Nevada (U.S.)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest disambiguating to match the article name Sierra Nevada (U.S.). Sierra Nevada is ambiguous and is a disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 28 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:Mount Meru[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 (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mount Meru to Category:Mount Meru (Tanzania)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest disambiguating to match the article Mount Meru (Tanzania). Mount Meru redirects to Mount Meru (mythology). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:55, 28 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:Fictional prisoners[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 (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional prisoners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - while this category has been discussed a few times before (see talk page fo rlinks) it remains a wholly unworkable category. Being imprisoned by someone or something is so common a trope in fiction, especially serial fiction, that the vast majority of fictional characters will wind up being imprisoned by someone or something for a greater or lesser amount of time. For the vastly overwhelming majority of fictional characters this is in no way a defining characteristic. The category is also hopelessly vague. Does it mean imprisoned by the state? Does it mean imprisoned by an antagonist character? Held hostage? How long of an "imprisonment" qualifies one as a "prisoner"? Are the detectives of Law & Order or the lawyers of L.A. Law "fictional prisoners" because they were held in contempt of court and thrown in a cell? Most supervillains are in and out of detention facilities on sometimes as frequently as an issue-by-issue basis. Most if not all superheroes along with their ancillary characters have been "imprisoned" hundreds of times in various cells and death traps. I acknowledge that there are some characters for whom being a prisoner may be their most important character trait. But for every one Number Six there are hundreds if not thousands of Daniel Meades or Gordon Gekkos for which imprisonment is a temporary or tangential characteristic. It's easy enough to say "keep and prune" as has been done in the past; problem is that this never happens, and this category ends up on just the sort of article that tends to accumulate long and clutterful category lists. There's no rule that says that we have to have a category for every conceivable character trait which may be defining for a very small subset of characters, especially if having the category is more trouble than it's worth, as this one is. At the very least, if retained, this needs to be renamed to Category:Fictional prisoners and detainees to match its parent. Otto4711 (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a defining characteristic of the characters included in the category. Any issues with particular entries should addressed in the article or discussed on its talk page to reach consensus that the category is appropriate. Alansohn (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh nonsense. This is not even remotely defining of the vast majority of characters included in it, who were included only because at some point in their (usually) multi-decade existence they were in the klink for a while. Otto4711 (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. It is a defining characteristic for many fictional characters, such as the man in the iron mask, the Count of Monte-Cristo, Number 6, etc. characters from prison dramas, etc. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep defining, and cleanup, per IP above. Lugnuts (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems like this has been discussed multiple times before, and the result is always "keep but clean-up". But it never gets cleaned up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
In practice this category seems to contain three subcategories:
  • Characters from prison dramas such as Oz (TV series). It could be argued that these are the only proper members of the category.
  • Supervillains who end up in jail at some point.
  • Soap opera characters who at some point in their checkered careers end up in jail.
Given how it seems to be being populated (someone working on a particular show or comic runs through all the characters in the show) there seems to be little hope of pruning it effectively. As long as it exists, it's going to collect entries that consist of "anyone who has ever been in jail". And that's before the ambiguity of the title is addressed; as has been pointed out over and over, it could just as well mean any character who is ever held captive for any reason, which is pretty much any protagonist in huge swathes of literature and film. If nothing else it needs to be renamed if it is supposed to signify "characters who are notable as prison inmates". Mangoe (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Supervillains"??? Why do these arguments always revolve around the abuse by comic book crap? We should ban comic book characters from ever being categorized into any of these categories since nothing is ever defining to comic books. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You apparently didn't read any further than the word "supervillain". If there were a well-defined category, there would be no problem with comic book characters being included if they met the criteria. The point in this case is that someone who takes an interest in comics went through and added those he thought fit the bill; people who follow other genres did not. It's inevitable that some such characters have a prison backstory, and maybe that means they should be included, maybe not. I was simply reporting the state of how the category was actually being populated, not engaging in a vendetta against comics. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a problem with characters in serial/franchise fiction generally, in that over time many different plot devices may be introduced in one or few episodes of the narrative and leave no lasting impact (Kirk and Bones in Star Trek VI, Picard in "Chain of Command", Hodgins and Angela in "The Witch In The Wardrobe"...um...Dan Fielding in "The Night Off"). One might as well categorize Category:Fictional characters stuck in elevators. So it's not limited to comic book characters, but the triviality of many plot elements relative to such characters overall may be more marked because those have been published for so many decades and "rebooted" so many times. Obviously there are some fictional characters whose narratives are substantively, if not entirely, about being a prisoner, but even presuming this category could be refactored in some way to meaningfully target such characters (which no one has shown), I would still question how useful it is to lump in together characters portrayed as prisoners in some kind of realistic prison setting (Count of Monte Cristo, Shawshank Redemption) with prisoners in science fiction/fantasy settings (The Prisoner). But that's a question for another day, because the comments in favor of keeping are far from reaching that level of analysis. postdlf (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's roughly the direction of my remark about renaming the category: that there is some point, perhaps, to categorizing characters whose imprisonment is the point of the story. And I would agree that the notion is not attracting interest. One might further comment that on that level it makes more sense to categorize the work by genre rather than the character. Mangoe (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I've been willing to give this category the benefit of the doubt in the past, but I've tried to raise questions about how it could be fixed and maintained that no one has seemed interested in answering. In none of the previous CFDs (nor in this one yet) has anyone even suggested meaningful threshold criteria, or a qualified rename, that would give any guidance in filtering out the trivial examples that belong in a literal reading of the category name. "Defining, cleanup" does not explain why this should be kept and how it can be made into a meaningful, rather than trivial, grouping of articles. If anyone can move beyond the boilerplate in defending this, and provide a workable and coherent method for cleaning it up rather than just insisting that it can be, I will change my conclusion. postdlf (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My thoughts are pretty much the same as postdlf's, who phrased this more insightfully than I did above. The category has been given more than ample chance, but no one has decided to provide the work on it that is needed if it's to be a meaningful category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a general rule this is not defining. The option if we keep would be to only restrict to those characters where it is defining. But that is simply not going to work. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 5 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:Natural gas fields in Israel[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: Withdrawn by nominator. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Natural gas fields in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: single page in this category Tamar gas field, redundant category. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 00:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is very interesting, did you know that 18 of the 36 pages in Category:Natural gas fields by country are the only pages in their country category? -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 02:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I do not nominate categories often, and have learned something here. I withdraw this nomination. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 13:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a global categorization structure. Alansohn (talk) 02:55, 28 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_28&oldid=1074805213"