Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 29 March 31 >

March 30[edit]

Category:Doomsday films[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:  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 7#Category:Doomsday films. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Doomsday films to Category:Apocalyptic films
Nominator's rationale: Merge. We should choose one or the other. I would prefer "Apocalyptic films" consistent with other "Apocalypticism" cats. Greg Bard 22:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Apocalyptic films contains what are by and large films with a religious purpose and is a subcategory of Category:Films about religion, as one would expect given the word's religious function. These factors suggest that the category has a distinct role which would be ill-served by porting in the many films in Category:Doomsday films, so I'd be heading to an "oppose". However... Category:Doomsday films is a bit of a mess: article reference redirecting to List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction (should the parent article for a category be a list?); sub-categories which use the terms "apocalypse" and "post-apocalypse"; parent categorisation under Category:Eschatology (more appropriate for the religious category). So there's a case that something should be done, though not I think this particular merger. AllyD (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Apocalyptic films do not necessarily have any religious content. Therefore we should either remove or ignore Category:Films about religion. If there is to be further organization of things I would recommend "Cybernetic revolt films" (i.e. "robot apocalypse"), and "zombie apocalypse films." Neither of those would be religious, although they would be apocalyptic.Greg Bard 22:17, 31 March 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 from Bra[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:People from Bra, Italy. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Bra to Category:People from Bra, Italy
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proposing a rename to match main article Bra, Italy. Perhaps it's the only actual place in the world called "Bra". "BRA" is the standard abbreviation for "Brazil", but it might be a bit of stretch to say that confusion could result in that way. But to be safe, I think matching to the main article is a good idea. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 30 March 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:Roman society[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:Ancient Roman society. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Roman society to Category:Ancient Roman society
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity and to match parent category Category:Ancient Rome. The category is not intended to contain articles about contemporary society in Rome. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Makes sense. Although Ancient is probably implied, there's sufficient grounds for confusion as to make such a move appropriate. Orderinchaos 22:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I agree with the nominator's rationale. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:04, 1 April 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:Defunct World War II USAAF Fields - North America[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 as empty, noting a few issues:
  1. There is consensus to rename, but no clear consensus so far for one particular title.
  2. The category appears to have been manually moved to Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in North America (the parent category is still Category:Defunct World War II USAAF Fields). It is generally recommended to not rename categories while a CfD discussion is ongoing, although this discussion suggests that the new title is a significant improvement.
  3. The use of "defunct" could be problematic as it could suggest that the airfields themselves are no longer operational, which seems to be untrue in the majority of cases.
A general discussion of the entire category structure, including the top-level category, would probably be useful at this point. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Defunct World War II USAAF Fields - North America to Category:Defunct World War II USAAF Fields (North America)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To use proper disambiguation. Note, that if this is approved we will need a mass nomination to cleanup a large number of like disambiguated categories created by one user. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions. Isn't "Defunct World War II" redundant? And what's wrong with just using "in FOO"? Why not just Category:World War II USAAF Fields in North America? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My nomination was just to address the issue of disambiguation. The other issues are valid and on the table including Category:World War II United States Army Air Forces fields in North America and Category:Defunct United States Army Air Forces fields in North America. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to whatever consensus agrees to. Personally, I prefer Category:Defunct United States Army Air Forces fields in North America. But I'm happy with any change, because the current format is no good for a number of reasons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "...because the current format is no good for a number of reasons...." Which are ? Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Mentioned above. "Defunct World War II" is redundant; the "- North America" (rather than "in North America") is not standard formatting; "USAAF" is an abbreviation, which are usually avoided in categories ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more than just North America. These categories were created as sub, and sub-sub categories of Category:Defunct World War II USAAF Fields, which originally had over 1,200 pages. It was broken down first by world region, North America being just one region; then each region of the world by countries, or states (United States). If there is a better way, please advise, but a 1,200 page category seemed quite large. When broken down geographically, it is a much better way to group these pages in a logical manner. Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an alternative, if the issue is the dash (-); I can replace that with the word "in" if that is the issue... Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what is being discussed here. Using the dash for disambiguation is not acceptable. But there are other issues with the names used so lets see where consensus winds up after a week. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading though these comments I suggest the following: "United States Army Air Force Airfields" as the top level category (Since the USAAF existed between 1942 and 1947, this encompasses "World War II"). Then using the word "in" as a way to create sub-categories instead of a dash. "in North America" would cover the US and Canada; "in Europe".. and so on. Then break these down by states.. etc.. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any reason for grouping by North America and the like? Why not just leave these are the country level? Even in North America, many of these categories have 1 or 2 entries. How many readers would know that you need to look in the North America category to find Greenland? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason North America right now only has a few in each state is because I've not broken down most of the states; I've just made the categories. There are about 400 airfields not yet categorized, and most of them are in the United States, as I've been working in other areas of the world. The idea was to break them down by region; then by state or country. The idea was to reduce the visual clutter of having a hundred categories on a page, and having the reader search though it all. Also by grouping by continent it provides a way to differentiate by region.. for example the airfields used in the European Theater; Pacific Theater; China-Burma-India; North Africa.. Also Air Transport Command had stations in South America; the Caribbean; the Middle East; Central Africa. . That was the reason for the two-stage grouping, however if that's too detailed breaking down by state or country will work .. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Greenland was grouped into North America basically because the bases established by the United States there have been assigned to commands based in the United States. Iceland, the other major island in the North Atlantic, would have been grouped in Europe, as Iceland is largely associated with Scandinavia... Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus. So from the comments is the consensus for Category:Defunct United States Army Air Forces fields in North America? With WWII being redundant and in some cases inaccurate? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 6 April 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:JavaScript programming language[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:JavaScript. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:JavaScript programming language to Category:JavaScript
Nominator's rationale: There is no other JavaScript than the programming language. Other programming language categories are simply the name of the language (e.g. Category:Perl, Category:C++) unless there is a need for disambiguation. Apoc2400 (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. I have no idea how this excessively verbose name lasted so long. --21:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. A much simpler name and a big improvement. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 12:23, 4 April 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:Wikipedians dislike monotheistic religions[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. Jafeluv (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians dislike monotheistic religions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians dislike semitic one god religions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians dislike institutional religions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians dislike Institutional religions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete both. Presumably these were meant to be "Wikipedias who dislike monotheistic religion" and "Wikipedians who dislike semitic one god religions". Wikipedia is not a battleground and users expressing their personal subjective distaste for an entire class of religions does nothing to foster collaborative building of an encyclopedia. The second one is in particularly bad taste, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:00, 30 March 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:Regional Routes in South Africa[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: Nomination withdrawn by nominator. htonl (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Regional Routes in South Africa to Category:Provincial Roads in South Africa
and also the subcategories:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with the main article Provincial Roads in South Africa and the similar category Category:National Roads in South Africa. htonl (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Note: I have added the sub-categories to the nomination; apart from changing "Regional Routes" to "Provincial Roads" in each one, I have also modified the way that the province names are used to correspond with normal usage. - htonl (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - I'm no longer sure what should be the correct title, so I'm withdrawing this nomination for now. If necessary I'll come back to CFD later once we can decide on a name for the corresponding page(s). - htonl (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly confused - [1] suggests regional and provincial routes are actually different (both R but different shape sign), and [2] (govt) refers to a "Regional Route 21". I see a few reliable online sources using "Provincial Road" in this context, but relating to "P" route roads, not "R". If RR is the official nomenclature, then we should be using that. I'm not based in SA though so I don't know if there's been a change or whether I'm missing some really obvious reliable source. Orderinchaos 22:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the only confused one. I'm pretty sure that your first link (routes.co.za) has it wrong (based on several other egregious mistakes in that site I would say it's not a reliable source); I've never heard of "P"-numbered roads, can you link to where you saw it? "Major Provincial Road" and "Minor Provincial Road" are the terms used by the Automobile Association of South Africa on their roadmaps, which is why I decided to use that terminology. I really couldn't find any reliable source on the net for the numbering system; I think the problem is that it was introduced in the 60's and 70's and none of the official documents from back then have made it onto the Internet. If it becomes absolutely necessary I will do some research in my university library to see if I can come up with any publications from back then that describe the numbering system. - htonl (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(added after close, simply for completeness) I don't doubt you're right. Have sent you the P info on your talk page (it could well be a government records system rather than a route system). Orderinchaos 18:37, 31 March 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:Defunct railway stations in Kingston upon Hull[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 rename (C2.C) to Category:Disused railway stations in Kingston upon Hull, noting that this category will become eligible for speedy renaming once again if Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom is renamed. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Defunct railway stations in Kingston upon Hull to Category:Disused railway stations in Kingston upon Hull
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standardise name to that used in all of the parent categories which use Disused rather than Defunct. Keith D (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - Makes sense to me --Brunnian (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a minor issue - some of the stations don't exist anymore - so I used 'defunct' rather than 'disused' (ie something that doesn't exist can't be disused) - I don't know if other similar categories have the same problem - I will ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Category:Disused station for more info. It's not necessary to not rename - possibly some new naming scheme that can be mass implemented will be worked out later. If you have any general thoughts please comment at wikiprojectUKrailways.Shortfatlad (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too on the subject of matching cats - please feel free to change it to match the current status. (It could be renamed as part of any future block renames)Shortfatlad (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. It's just my opinion, but I don't like the word "defunct". Would Closed railway stations in... be simpler and clearer? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - sorry, I misread the proposal as being the other way round (disused to defunct). Disused (or perhaps Closed as in my previous post) is, in my opinion, a far better word. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral however I think it is probably wise to see if we can agree on a standard before doing any cleanup of individual categories. In terms of "closed", there are a finite number of stations that are disused but not closed (e.g. Watford West railway station). I think that the following table shows all possible scenarios:
Line open Line now freight only Line mothballed Line closed
Station open (Open station) disused
Station closed Buildings extant, unused closed or disused closed, disused or defunct
Buildings extant, in other railway use closed or disused closed, disused or defunct
Buildings extant, in non-railway use closed or disused closed, disused or defunct
Buildings demolished closed or defunct
These are my suggestions for what would be an appropriate description in each case and is more a starter for 10 than a final answer. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that a station being open whilst the line is closed to passengers is a logical possibility. But as part of the wider scheme it seems that "disused" is not the right term for the whole family of categories and either "defunct" or maybe "closed" is.Shortfatlad (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In the past, as I recall, discussions indicated that disused and defunct had different meanings in some countries. Looking at the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary for disused you get 'no longer used or occupied : abandoned <disused buildings>. And for defunct 'no longer living, existing, or functioning <that firm is now defunct>'. Note we do not have an article for disused. On wiktionary we have defunct, disused and closed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "closed" - Shortfatlad makes a good point that "disused" implies still extant but not in use, rather than in some cases disappeared off the planet. Orderinchaos 22:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE NOTE there is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Category:Disused_station on applying the reverse move - to match the standard cat naming as agreed here [3]
  • It would be helpful if you could respond there.Shortfatlad (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to disused as per convention of Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom. Lamberhurst (talk) 00:01, 2 April 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:Electoral reform in New Zealand[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. I will add the article to Category:Electoral reform by country so that it is not removed from the 'Electoral reform' category tree, but feel free to change/revert as appropriate. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Electoral reform in New Zealand as its only article is "Electoral reform in New Zealand". This seems like an obvious deletion candidate. Adabow (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't vote in this one (it's one of those cases where my political science studies probably get in the way of objective Wikipedia reasoning), but the 1986 Royal Commission into electoral reform would be a 4th potential article, as would movements which campaigned strongly for or against it. Agreed that both referenda should have articles - if the NZ guys want to develop them I'm happy to provide academic sources I know of, though I have no time to directly assist myself. Orderinchaos 21:59, 30 March 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:Passenger trains of the CB&Q[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:Passenger trains of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Passenger trains of the CB&Q to Category:Passenger trains of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Remove abbreviation and match name of parent category. Iain Bell (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator to expand abbreviation. In the UK, B&Q is big chain of DIY stores, and CB&Q sounds to me like something to do with that company. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Even when railroads were dominant in the USA, abbreviations this short were not common spoken usage except within the railroad company. very few photographs of the line show less than the full name being used on stock. --Brunnian (talk) 13:47, 30 March 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:Wikipedia:Books[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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia:Books to Category:Wikipedia books
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia:Book tool to Category:Wikipedia book tool or Category:Wikipedia Book tool - added 00:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: I think that Wikipedia books is a less awkward and confusing formulation than Category:Wikipedia:Books, which suggests three distinct namespaces. Note that certain subcategories, such as Category:Wikipedia books (community books) and Category:Wikipedia books (user books), already use this convention.
If there is consensus for the rename, I will nominate the subcategories in a follow-up nomination (there are other issues to consider with the subcategories, so I think it is best that they be discussed separately). (WikiProject Wikipedia-Books notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename - havings two colons makes no sense and there is inconsistancy with those other cat names. Consensus for renaming the subcats will probably follow logically from consensus to rename these top level cats, IMO --Jubilee♫clipman 00:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename, to "Wikipedia books". However, there should be a category redirect from the old cat to the new cat since the book-creator will still place them in that category. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible to modify/update the book-creator so that it places new books in the renamed category? -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and it will be modified, but it won't happen overnight. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename, agree with nom, makes logical sense. -- œ™ 23:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename Yes, that is a sensible change. Reach Out to the Truth 17:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 12:25, 4 April 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_March_30&oldid=1078927830"