Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 26 May 28 >

May 27[edit]

Category:Military history of the FARC-EP[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) 20:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Military history of the FARC-EP to Category:Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
Nominator's rationale: This category does not facilitate navigation between related articles. There is no pressing need to subdivide Category:Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, which contains only 37 articles, and merging the two articles in this category (one of which already is in the parent too) will not change that. As for the other parent, Category:Military history of Colombia, I note that it serves as a parent to Category:Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia also. If there is no consensus to merge, then rename to expand the abbreviation. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:53, 27 May 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:Image-Class articles[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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 3#Category:Image-Class articles by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — ξxplicit 20:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Image-Class articles to Category:File-Class articles
Nominator's rationale: The Image: namespace was renamed to File: more than a year ago, and it is only natural that this namespace-based assessment be updated (also, these categories may contain multiple types of media and are not limited to images only, so 'File-Class' is more encompassing and more accurate). If there is consensus in this discussion to merge, then I will write a follow-up speedy renaming nomination for the 712 subcategories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't File class be split into Image, Sound, Video, etc? (Perhaps this should be a proposal at Village Pump / WikiProject Council ... for additional classes) 76.66.193.224 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion of that idea at a more general venue might be useful, but I don't think there is a need for such splitting (at least in the context of general project assessments). A WikiProject dedicated to improving, finding, or creating images, sounds and/or videos may find it useful to tag only certain types of files, but I don't think general projects would have a need to do this. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I should point out my nomination of this same category in the past. — ξxplicit 01:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for linking to the previous discussion. It seems that there was general support for the nomination, but moderated by three concerns: unforseen factors (BrownHairedGirl); flexibility for WikiProjects (Martin, Optigan13); and proper follow-through (Happy-melon, Martin, Optigan13). I think it would be worthwhile (for the benefit of the closer and anyone else who participates) to re-address each concern in light of the discussion at the previous CfD:
    To the best of my knowledge, the Image-Class categories are not functionally different than the File-Class categories (there may or may not be one or two exceptions). The comments in the 23 February discussion appear to reinforce this belief, as does the lack of objections at the discussion which you initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council.
    Any WikiProject which wishes to separate categorization of images and other files can do so by one of several means: creating Image-Class as a subcategory of File-Class; using unique sort keys for certain types of files so that they are grouped together at the beginning or end of a general category for files; or creating specialized, project-specific categories such as Category:WikiProject Foo sounds or Category:Foo audio files.
    If there is consensus to change Image-Class to File-Class, I think proper follow-through will involve three steps: speedy renaming the subcategories (Cydebot will create the categories and a change to {{WPBannerMeta}} will take care of the rest); updating incoming links to avoid disruption to WikiProjects; and handling any exceptions that come to light. I am prepared to implement each step; as you did, I nominated only the parent category so that I wouldn't needlessly tag 700+ categories only to discover that there is no consensus for the change. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and the previous discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:10, 3 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.

History of association football by country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all as nominated. — ξxplicit 06:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: To clarify that Fooian football is not a unique variant of football (cf. American football, Australian rules football). For all of the involved countries, with the exception of Ireland, the top-level association football category is Category:Football in Foo. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right - a move to go with 'assocation football' across the board needs to be from the parents down - support rename Mayumashu (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use whatever is used in the other parent: eg it is Category:Football in Scotland so use Category:History of football in Scotland. Occuli (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The usages are mixed up and down the category trees, certainly for Scotland, my main interest. "... football in Scotland" implies a geographical unity, which isn't the case when one considers Berwick Rangers F.C. - geographically in England but playing in the SFL. Note also the article Scotch Professors, again disturbing the geographical focus. Welsh football is probably no clearer, with Cardiff City F.C. and Llanelli A.F.C. in different league systems. AllyD (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom. There is no need to add "association" except in countries where another form of football is played, so that the plain "football" is ambiguous. This is an old argument, which we have had many times. In Ireland, they also play Gaelic football; in Australia, Australian rules football; and in USA, football primarily means American football. As the categories are currently set up it sounds as if English, Danish, and Maltese football are different sports (which they are not). An "in England" category may (not quite logically) include the exploits of the England team abroad or of foreign teams playing in England, but I doubt that matters. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:05, 30 May 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:Organized crime associates[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. The subcategories- none of which will become orphans by this deletion- would need to be nominated separately. Courcelles (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Organized crime associates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: BLP issues. This is the kind of description that's OK in an article, where it can be explained how someone is associated with organised crime and supported with references, but dangerous as a category. 'Associates' is too vague: it could mean a very strong connection, or a weak one. It seems too easy to imply illegal activity by adding someone to this category. I advise deleting it and its subcategories and merging its members (when it is uncontroversial that they are involved in organised crime) into better defined categories. Robofish (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, take one of the people in a subcategory of this one: Giulio Andreotti. Read his article, and tell me, does he belong in this category or not? I think that shows the basic problem with it. Robofish (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article has citations showing he was very much associated with the Mafia until he changed his mind went against it. Hmains (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "associates" is far too weak a term to be a defining characteristic and instead runs the danger of serving as biographical taint. AllyD (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The subcategories need to be tagged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've often thought these categories are vague and too imprecise to be of worth. The subcategories are still not tagged, but they should be properly nominated and deleted, IMO. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 2 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:Internet 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: delete. — ξxplicit 06:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Internet albums to Category:???
Nominator's rationale: There has to be a better name than this. Category:Albums distributed digitally is somewhat better, but a bit cumbersome and it has the same ambiguity that the current name has—hundreds of thousands of albums have been released digitally/through the Internet. As the inclusion criteria listed in the category's introduction makes clear, this is intended only for albums that were primarily released via the Internet, but Category:Albums released primarily through the Internet is even more awkward. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does this category even need to exist? This could be every album in a couple of years. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Right now it seems to be largely a parent category for albums available only over the Internet (which is, of course, different from albums distributed digitally, which every CD is an example of, being a digital, rather than analog, format). "Internet-only albums" might be a better title or maybe "Albums legally available only via download." More important than the title, though, is the fact that many of the individual entries should be in Category:Albums free for download by copyright owner, but are wrongly- or double-listed. For example, Machina is double-listed, while U2.COMmunication seems to be a physical CD with a bonus CD-ROM that is activated over the Internet, hardly what's meant by the category. Reorganization should be just as much a priority as renaming. If we get to a point where online distribution of notable albums without physical distribution is common, this can be recategorized according to time period. Calbaer (talk) 23:19, 18 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]
  • Delete. Based on Such albums can be sold online in the introduction. While it may be possible to create some kind of a category in this area, the scope and focus needs to be clearly defined. I'm not sure that keeping the existing category will save much effort since the current criteria unbounded. Since every album is sold online (look at amazon and e-bay) it effectively makes the category pointless. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:18, 3 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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 11#Category:Electronic music compilation albums. — ξxplicit 06:59, 11 June 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]
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:Dance music by sub-genre[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) 20:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dance music by sub-genre to Category:Dance music by subgenre
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Subgenre is not hyphenated. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:21, 27 May 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:National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities[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) 05:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities to Category:National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities members
Nominator's rationale: The category title is unclear. Currently the category is used for members of the NAICU, the category title should reflect that. If necessary, a new NAICU category can be created for articles directly related to the NAICU. TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 17:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I created the category and agree with the nominator's rationale. - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:35, 27 May 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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 11#Category:Comics article redirects. — ξxplicit 06:59, 11 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]
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:Syringogastridae[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: Already deleted under CSD G7. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Syringogastridae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I built this category yesterday, but was only able to find one valid article. Article has been moved back to parent category. Dawynn (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G7. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:32, 27 May 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:Simian characters in comics[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. — ξxplicit 06:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Simian characters in comics to Category:Gorilla characters in comics
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Gorillas in comics, and nearly all the many articles there in are already gorillas (mostly modified with a human-level mind). Even the so-called Monkeyman and O'Brien and Grease Monkey are really about gorillas, not monkeys. This will also let it fit under Category:Gorillas and Category:Fictional apes much better. (Monkeys are not apes.) şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 22:19, 18 May 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 07:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While Category:Fictional non-human primates in comics would be a little bit better that the current name, there are only 2 or 3 monkeys/non-gorillas out of 28 in the category, so making it for "non-human primates" would make it less useful than just "gorillas."
Also, it would seem a Category:Fictional gorillas, could be rather useful too, as most of the items in Category:Fictional apes (that aren't in a sub-category there of) are in fact gorillas. (Fictional chimpanzees have there own category, and there are only about two fictional orangutans and zero gibbons with there own articles). şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 17:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If we need more categories to create an appropriate tree, let's create them. "Simian" may be a correct biological term, but it is not a common English adjective. The common word is gorilla. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:09, 30 May 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 content guidelines[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to take any action. A subsequent nomination can be made if needed. — ξxplicit 20:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia content guidelines to Category:Wikipedia article content guidelines
Nominator's rationale: Dab to avoid confusion with Wikipedia project content such as user pages ,templates and categories Gnevin (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Gnevin (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But many of the pages in that category are about project content. For example, Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:User pages. If you really want to rename the category you will have to move such pages into another category first. Gurch (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia project content guidelines. I've removed what I think is project content Gnevin (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that category being confused with Wikipedia Project guidelines such as MILHIST and getting polluted; a better name would have been Category:Wikipedia non-article guidelines or some such. An I don't understand Wikipedia:Spam only in that category, as it applies to all pages. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:56, 25 May 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 07:37, 27 May 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:Portal:24[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. A merge can be considered in a further nomination, should anyone wish to pursue it. Courcelles (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Portal:24 to Category:24 portal
Nominator's rationale: To match other portal categories, such as Category:Chess portal. Wouldn't oppose merging into Category:Television portals. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:01, 27 May 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:Template:Swiss populations data[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) 05:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Template:Swiss populations data to Category:Swiss populations data templates
Nominator's rationale: Avoid double prefix, "Category:Template". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with this. The category only exists to collect the templates and isn't used in any articles. Tobyc75 (talk) 13:26, 27 May 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_May_27&oldid=1078928018"