Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 19 November 21 >

November 20[edit]

Category:Proposed airlines of Macau[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Proposed airlines of Macau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A very narrow, now depopulated category. I don't know if there were ever more airlines listed here, but after the merger of Macau Asia Express it became empty. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 20 November 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 from Donnie Darko[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. In considering the arguments, the key issue appears to be that the songs were, in postdlf's words, "non-original material"—i.e., they were not created specifically for use in the film. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs from Donnie Darko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing songs by the soundtrack on which they appear is a bad idea that will lead to an unwieldy number of categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, this is a bad precedent and I believe there have been previous discussions here that reflect that. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. Lugnuts (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining; this was a compilation soundtrack of non-original material, songs that were already twenty-odd years old when they were used in the film. postdlf (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are many similar categories in Category:Songs from films. Jafeluv (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe all of those other categories are for songs that were written for those films and thus were first released on the film's soundtrack, making those categories not similar to this one at all. Being made for a film is different than simply being used in it. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If the film is notable enough to have an article, and the songs are notable enough to have individual articles, then a category for songs of the film is useful. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 22:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining for the songs. BTW, category creator is an old sockpuppeteer who created some other odd Donnie Darko-centric categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 23 November 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:MySpace[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:MySpace to Category:Myspace
Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Makes sense to match the naming of the main article. Jafeluv (talk) 06:49, 25 November 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:Star Wars prequel 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: delete. I verified that all five articles currently are otherwise categorized in the "Star Wars films" category tree (either in Category:Star Wars episodes or Category:Star Wars spin-off films). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Star Wars prequel films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Do we need prequel and sequel categories for media franchises themselves? This seems unwarranted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:57, 20 November 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:SavanesCI geography stubs[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: wrong venue (and no consensus yet), relisted to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/November/28. Stub categories should be nominated and discussed at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:SavanesCI geography stubs to Category:Savanes, Côte d'Ivoire, geography stubs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. While SavanesCI works fine for the template, we typically use full English for the category titles. Template title was approved, but category name was not requested. Please discuss what should be the proper name for this category. Dawynn (talk) 15:49, 20 November 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:Florida Gators golfers[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. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a strong argument for retention. Kbdank71 17:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Florida Gators golfers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category duplicates "Category:Florida Gators men's golfers" and "Category:Florida Gators women's golfers," and adds an unnecessary and redundant intermediate layer of category between the parent category "Florida Gators athletes" and the two previous mentioned subcategories for Florida Gators men's and women's golfers. Let's delete it, please. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to clarify, there are no other contents of this category other than "Category:Florida Gators men's golfers" and "Category:Florida Gators women's golfers," both of which are already direct subcategories of "Category:Florida Gators athletes." This intermediate category serves no purpose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 14:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.- William 14:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are several categories like this that have men's and women's as sub cats. They should either all be deleted or all kept. Tewapack (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They all should be deleted then. Feel free to nominate the others.- William 17:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tewapack. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 04:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above for consistency. I might support deletion if there was a group nom for all similar categories, but nominating just one create a double standard which I think we should try to avoid. changed per below VegaDark (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. FYI, this is inconsistent with the way the Florida Gators athletes subcategories have been classified. The evolutionary pattern for the Florida Gators subcategories has been that they have started as single subcats for both genders, but have been split once a certain critical mass has been reached. Once separated into men's and women's categories, the all-inclusive de facto parent category has been deleted or renamed/retasked to one of the two gender-based subcategories. If this intermediate "Florida Gators" category is maintained for the two gender-based subcats, it will be the only such category among a dozen others [1]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just looked over the category again and compared it with other schools and realized I was mistaken. For some reason I was thinking this was for the "Florida Gators Golf" category rather than "Golfers". I now agree that this intermediary category is unnecessary. Also, I couldn't find another school that has a generic "Golfers" (or other such identifier) then goes in to gender. VegaDark (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are nine other categories with the same structure:

As I said before, they should either all be deleted or all kept. My vote is still keep. Tewapack (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tewapack, I really do appreciate the work you put into these college golfer articles. Many of these articles are de facto "orphans" because the typical college sports fans of these colleges are consumed by college football and college basketball and rarely put any effort into articles about the athletes from the so-called "minor" college sports. I have watched as you have located missing Gator golfers and properly categorized those athletes so they can be found by interested Gators fans. Your efforts are sincerely appreciated.
With regard to the nine combined men's/women's golf categories you listed above, seven of those combined men's/women's golf categories are inconsistent with the manner in which athletes from other sports from the same colleges are categorized. Only the Ohio State Buckeyes (basketball, golf, soccer, track & field) and the Arizona Wildcats (basketball, golf) have combined intermediate categories for men's and women's sports other than golf. So, when we talk about "consistency" then, the question arises: whose consistency are we addressing? It appears that in seven of the nine cases listed above, the combined men's/women's golf category is inconsistent with the way the athletes are categorized for other sports of the same colleges. If we add the Florida Gators to the collection, it's inconsistent with eight of ten of the existing college athlete categorization systems. Surely, you don't believe we should start creating dozens of new intermediate levels of combined men's/women's basketball categories, for example, for every college that has both programs so they can be consistent with these ten combined men's/women's golf categories, do you?
If we have consensus regarding the combined "Florida Gators golfers" category, I would propose that we delete the intermediate level of combined men's/women's golf category for all but the Ohio State Buckeyes and the Arizona Wildcats. There may be some internal logic why those project editors have created those intermediate levels of combined men's/women's sports categories, and I am quite willing to accept that minor inconsistency for those two college sports programs out of the 200+ represented on Wikipedia. If someone will nominate these other seven combined men's/women's golf categories (other than "Category:Ohio State Buckeyes golfers" and "Category:Arizona Wildcats golfers," that is) for deletion, I will certainly support their elimination as well. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Done. And for good measure, I've created two separate main articles as well: (1) Florida Gators men's golf; and (2) Florida Gators women's golf. These two Gators sports teams have had more than enough SEC and NCAA tournament success and media notoriety to deserve their own Wikipedia articles.
My original point regarding the unnecessary intermediate category level still stands, however. The combined men's/women's golfers intermediate category is only consistent with the categorization of athletes for two other NCAA programs (Ohio State Buckeyes and Arizona Wildcats), and it is INconsistent with all other sports programs other than golf at the other eight college cited (the Florida Gators plus those other seven NCAA programs, as listed above, where combined intermediate categorization of male and female golfers is inconsistent with the categorization of athletes of other sports from those same universities). Moreover, this intermediate level of combined men's/women's golfers category serves NO logical purpose. The men's and women's golf squads are completely different teams, with different coaches, different histories and different rivalries. To quote someone far wiser and more clever than me, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Let's banish this goofy goblin and be done with it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:42, 27 November 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:Theatrical historians[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. Kbdank71 17:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
propose rename from Category:Theatrical historians to Category:Historians of theatre
propose rename from Category:Media historians to Category:Historians of mass communications
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous names. The media is flooded with "professional" and, sometimes, quite "theatrical" "media historians" dumping their prophecies onto the unsuspecting peasants... If it's about historians, and not about talking heads, rename to historians of <subject field>. East of Borschov 08:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Perhaps the whole Category:Historians by field of study needs a review, and a general sweep for consistency, but I'm not familiar with existing conventions in the field (that is, is category:Medical historians a generally accepted, preferred term that should stay, or should it be renamed to category:Historians of medicine etc.). East of Borschov 09:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's a reasonable general approach, ideally with the <subject field> corresponding to an article. That said, it could give problems - for example Category:Social historians sits with Social history but a rename to "Category:Historians of social history" would look clunky? (Similar for the "intellectual history" below) AllyD (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not very bothered about the "theatrical" name - Keep that on the whole. I have boldly added the 101 strong Category:Shakespeare scholars as a sub-cat & there are plenty more people who could be added. Again, I'm not sure the media = mass communications, especially in historical periods, so keep that as it is too. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 29 November 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:Intellectual historians[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. Dana boomer (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Intellectual historians to Category:Historians of science
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous name (aren't all scholars also intellectuals?). Looking inside the category, subcats Category:Historians of economic thought, Category:Historians of mathematics address specific branches of history of science; Category:Historiographers is not directly related to history of science (it applies to history in general). Individual entries in the category are misplaced: Louis C. Midgley is a theologician and "professor of political science", not "historian of intellect", Donna Kossy is "an expert on kooks" etc. Very few, like Merle Curti, were actually involved in the field of intellectual history per se. East of Borschov 08:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I take the point that the current name is unsatisfactory but the proposed merge doesn't work. Just from a glance at the pages in the category, Jay and Pocock write in intellectual history, in fields several centuries apart, but can either be classed as a historian of science? AllyD (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago it was called philosophy but then ... :)). East of Borschov 10:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The proposed merge is completely wrong. I'm not all that bothered by the "ambiguity" of the present name either. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 20 November 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:Hookup websites[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. (Note that User:Chuspameinlibya appears to be a single-purpose account created almost solely to comment in this discussion. For this reason, that user's comment was essentially disregarded. I am a little concerned that there was an attempt to vote-stack here. However, it may have been at least somewhat unintentional, as User:Hemanetwork was blocked on 25 Nov as a violation of WP:ORGNAME; after this User:Chuspameinlibya was created and commented here. I'm assuming it is the same user behind both accounts.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hookup websites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category appears to have been created to promote the thesis that these websites promote unsafe sex and drug use (as per the references and text added in conjunction with this category). The term "hookup" is a slang term in this context for looking for sex on dating websites. It is not an appropriate category for the dating websites themselves as it strongly implies that the sites are intended for sex-only and for the sites included this is not the case. Fæ (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that the term hookup website is intended to imply is that the website is commonly used to arrange for casual sex, calling them dating sites is a strech, craigslist for example is both a dating and a hookup site because it has sections in its personals for casual sex and for romance/dating, match.com is online dating only, even if people hookup through this website. gay.com is both dating and hookups, adam4adam, dudesnude, manhunt.net are used predominantly for arranging for sexual encounters, they allow very graphic imagry of penises, buttocks, erections, oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, semen, penetration, and other pictures and these are on most profiles. the websites themselves advertise them selves as a place to get sex, porn is all over them. none of them are intended to promote drug use and any such claim by Fae is a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of my intentions. Her main reason for nominating this category is because she could not have it removed from several articles because they are cited as being hook up sites. Hookup may be a slang term but it is what these websites are referred to as by university studies / reliable sources, as an alternative i suppose it could be changed to casual sex websites, but hookups tends to be gay specific. keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanetwork (talk • contribs)
As discussed on Talk:Adam4Adam you are mis-applying the studies referenced. The tone of your comment here appears to reveal other issues you might have with gay culture articles and perhaps you should address these before considering contributing to other LGBT topics. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look dude, I am gay in the first place and I have no issues with gay people! But that should not matter. I am not misapplying anything, Fae makes the argument that since one of the studies was done by a university in Illinois, the term hookup only applies in Illinois. She is also making the claim that the study's contents are original research somehow.Hemanetwork (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - (and I will remove the category from certain articles pending the outcome here). Although I think it's a valid question, where do hookups happen... and another valid question, where do gay hookups happen... I don't see this as a valid category for distinguishing things on Wkipedia. This has nothing to do with being gay or not or whether you are supportive of gay issues. Categories of the nature, "where does X happen", are for the most part not helpful for the encyclopedia. We don't (I hope) have too many categories for where people kiss, romantic places, places of iniquity, lovely places, etc. If anyone maintains such a list we might have an article about the list if notable. But we don't tag every article in the encyclopedia with categories about what people do there, for the most part. In some cases like Adam4Adam, the category is perhaps a valid note that it is a place where people go to find same-sex dates... something we already cover in another category or two. In other cases, like the repeated attempt to call Craigslist a hookup website, it just doesn't apply. Perhaps people hook up there, but it is not a defining feature of Craigslist. We might as well tag the articles about parks, beds, carnival rides, and dormitories as places where people hook up. It just doesn't work. No offense, and I think the intent is all good, but I just don't see how this can fit in the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The category is not for 'where x happens' its just like any topic such as LGBT websites or Wiccan websites, its a theme, this is a category for websites who's theme is casual sex.Hemanetwork (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Casual sex websites. I agree that there is a distinct difference between websites where people go to look for dating versus casual sex. Grouping websites designed for finding casual sex with websites designed for finding a date are totally different. "Hookup" is very much slang, so I do not support keeping that name, but I do not support having it merged with dating websites. I also think the intro needs to be cleaned up. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 14:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(comment) A category such as Category:Casual sex websites could be argued to include all the websites in Category:Online dating as some people will always be using these sites for casual sex. Fæ (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(comment) Some websites may indeed be used for both, but there are clearly websites that are one and not the other. For example, match.com is clearly a dating website, but manhunt.net is clearly for casual sex- no one legitimately uses it for dating. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 14:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the examples you give and doing a brief search; match.com ran an article on its blog for how to go about having casual sex (here) and manhunt.net carries plenty of profiles for people who explicitly state they are not looking for casual sex but more mates or a long term partner. Defining inclusion/inclusion criteria and enforcing it would be impossible. Fæ (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be at all impossible, dating websites (that may also be used for casual sex or political discussion) such as match.com are not full of sexual solicitations even though they occur, a dating website, hookup/casual sex websites (that may also be used for dating or religious debate) barely have anyone seeking dating or not having graphic sexual imagry. Casual sex websites are clearly distinguished in that they allow explicit nude images. No one would argue that match.com would belong in a category such as HiffingtonPost or Politico.com even though I am sure that people do indeed discuss politics on match.com, it is not the defining purpose of the site, it is not their mission. To claim otherwise is a false dichotomy. Hemanetwork (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this category is nothing more than a characterization, not an objective statement of verifiable facts, and that characterization is based only on original research (such as the opinion expressed above that "explicit nude images" is necessary and sufficient for a "casual sex website"), and is unworkable as a line to divide dating websites. While some sites arguably are less conducive or encouraging than other sites of using the site to seek sex partners rather than marriage partners, it's a spectrum, not a yes-or-no. The online dating site I used to use, for example, had relationship boxes you could check to indicate whether you were looking for a long term relationship, friendship, or "play", and you could check any or all of those. That site did not permit nude photos, but it did provide for couples or group accounts, thus disproving the "explicit nude image" criteria. But it's also an unfounded assumption that a more explicitly sex-oriented website is only for "casual" sex or a hookup, rather than a long-term though purely sexual relationship or even a life partner who shares the same kinks. So I think there's probably a NPOV problem with this category as well, as the intent seems to be to single out sites that are "only" for casual sex rather than for that and/or more, which is unjustifiably reductive and implicitly judgmental. postdlf (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is verifiable if the website is reported as being a hookup website in reliable sources, such as craigslist (which is also a dating website, online marketplace, job board and a slew of other things). [1][2][3][4][5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanetwork (talk • contribs)
  1. ^ Craigslist hookups, Timeout.com, 2009
  2. ^ College student to launch 'sex hookup site: It's safer than CraigList, and cheaper than bars, ABC News
  3. ^ Columbus Sex Survey, The Other Paper
  4. ^ Seven Days of Rage: The Deadly Crime Spree of the Craigslist Killer, By Paul LaRosa, Maria Cramer
  5. ^ Risky Sex- and Drug-Seeking in a Probability Sample of Men-for-Men Online Bulletin Board Postings, by Christian Grov
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 associated with the Shroud of Turin[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: prune to researchers and then rename to Category:Researchers of the Shroud of Turin. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People associated with the Shroud of Turin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: *Delete. Does not follow WP:COP standards. People are not categorized by being "associated with" a monument in some undefined vague manner. Student7 (talk) 03:23, 20 November 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:Fur seals and sea lions[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 as nominated. I'm not going to create subcategories of Category:Otariidae and Category:Phocidae as suggested. "Otariidae" is the family name for "eared seals". "Phocidae" is the family name for "earless seals". I think Kleopatra's comment was misunderstood by subsequent commenters—the families she mentions are not two subtypes of eared seals. This category could be renamed to Category:Otariidae via a new nomination, but for now I will just redirect Category:Otariidae to Category:Eared seals. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fur seals and sea lions to Category:Eared seals
Nominator's rationale: Main article is titled eared seal. Ucucha 22:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about Category:Otariidae and Category:Phocidae? This is just one of the many problems with using commons names for categorizing organisms: you exclude experts or interested editors from even finding the categories and force working editors into creating boondoggles with placements like "Category:fur seals and sea lions." Common names for article titles for very familiar organisms are a benefit to the reader, and an encyclopedia is ultimately written for its readers, but categories are used by both readers and editors. Readers find the categories from the articles, but editors may search out categories without the articles, and having organisms within their taxonomies under their taxonomic names can make navigation easier for editors. It can also provide locations for expert editors to head to for editing groups of articles. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would also be fine with me. Note that "eared seals" is at least more sensible than the current double title. Ucucha 20:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 03:10, 20 November 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:Death Valley region[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Death Valley region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Vague inclusion criteria. I have discussed this with the category creator who agrees with this approach replacing it with more specific and targeted natural history categories. By the time this discussion closes, all articles will have correct parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Delete - per nom. & as cat. creator.---Look2See1 t a l k → 02:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, completed correcting parents on all articles, they are ready for this cat.'s removal if approved.---Look2See1 t a l k → 05:54, 23 November 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 secular humanists[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. If an American humanist's atheism is also defining for them, they can always be categorized in Category:American atheists as well as this category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:American secular humanists to Category:American humanists
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Moved from a Speedy nomination. While I'm not the original nominator, I will say that while this is not completely redundant, it's not a level of thin-slicing I'm inclined to support.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 01:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom. The secular part makes it to fine a distinction. Also, "secular" is not well-enough defined within humanism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom. Distinction not readily apparent, and does not appeared to be used in other countries Hugo999 (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom. There is a case for renaming Category:American humanists to add "secular" as this is what is meant. There are "Christian humanists" etc, but the category is essentially for atheists. Definitions are very messy in this entire area. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This term was invented as a scare tactic, we should not legitimize its use. No one self-applies this term and I don't believe there are any humanist organizations that use it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the term is used fairly widely, it has been self-applied by some, and as noted there are organisations that use it. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 22:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Humanism is today a secular religion (or anti-religion). Care is needed over this tree becasue Renaissance Humanists (such as Erasmus) wer definitely Christian. I would therefore prefer the word "secular" to be retained. I accept that the term is not now usually used of Christian thinkers. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree care is needed (and rarely seen) here, but as I said above, the alternative is not to keep this tiny group but to merge Category:American humanists to this, which I would support, but has not been proposed. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humanism is today a secular religion (or anti-religion)? I think this is not true. Humanism is not anti-religion, but a-religious in terms of assumptions and values. It rejects of appeals to the supernatural or to some higher authority, but does not require rejection of the concept of the supernatural or of some higher authority. This may be unpalatable to some religious people who believe or insist that a religious belief is fundamental, which may explain why some label humanism as anti-religious. I prefer to consider humanism as silent on questions of religion, beyond questions of the meaning of an individual's religion to that individual. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the term today is extremely vague, but mostly a polite term for atheism. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 28 November 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:Former Carolina League teams[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. Kbdank71 17:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Former Carolina League teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Defunct Carolina League teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: MergeThese two categories cover the same topic. Teams that once were part of a baseball minor league. Minor league teams disappear for a variety of reasons. Some fold up shop, others move to a new city. What is the difference between Defunct and Former? I think it is nothing more than hair splitting.
  • Oppose merge. These are distinct categories. Former Carolina League teams are teams that are currently active in another league; they either changed leagues or they folded and subsequently were reorganized in another league. This category is needed to distinguish between the team's current league and its former league. Defunct Carolina League teams are teams that have folded and are no longer in existence. The category is a subcategory of "defunct minor league baseball teams" and should not include any active teams. BRMo (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two of the so called former Carolina League Teams on the category page are actually collegiate level teams that adopted the name of a former Carolina League team. The Wilson Tobs nor the Thomasville Hi-Toms are current minor league teams anywhere.- William 16:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although the current Wilson Tobs and the Thomasville Hi-Toms are amatuer, collegiate-level teams, each article includes a brief history of the former Carolina League team of the same name. Until separate articles are created for the Carolina League teams, I think the "Former Carolina League teams" category is the appropriate one for helping readers to find this information. BRMo (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A similar categorization is used for several other minor leagues; for example, see Category:Defunct American Association (20th century) teams and Category:Former American Association (20th century) teams, Category:Defunct Eastern League baseball teams and Category:Former Eastern League baseball teams, Category:Defunct International League teams and Category:Former International League teams, and Category:Defunct New York - Penn League teams and Category:Former New York - Penn League teams. The minor league baseball categorization scheme is designed to include: (a) a separate category for a league's current teams from its former/defunct teams and (b) separate categories for defunct and current teams, which can necessitate having both "former" and "defunct" categories. BRMo (talk) 21:07, 20 November 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_November_20&oldid=1138394414"