Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 29

< October 28	October 30 >

October 29[edit]

Category:Vii[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles 04:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in category. All other articles redirected for lack of notability. Mika1h (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Mika1h (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:12, 30 October 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.

Watersheds[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete all. — ξ ^xplicit 06:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a part of series of USGS features that is being categorized. I'm not sure of the growth potential, but the only article that even mentions Gabbs Watershed is the one that was a redirect prior to my moving the text from the category into the article. In doing a search, there were 4 hits for "Gabbs Watershed", all of them on this wiki. Not sure we should be categorizing this mess when we don't have articles. I suspect that if we had an editor that was familiar with this area, they could write a few articles that adequately addressed this. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm trying to figure out what's going on with this watershed business, but the creators of these categories are speaking an entirely foreign language to me. I agree that without corresponding articles, creation of these categories is very pre-mature. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've been fighting this thing for the entire second half of 2010. I keep trying to get the point across that things should be categorized by drainage basins and not arbitrary USGS cataloging units. Shannon^talk _contribs 04:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the problem larger then the ones I found? If so, we probably will need a follow up nomination for the rest. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it's huge. I've found at least 50 pages/categories and more are showing up. I'll have a list soon. Shannon ^talk _contribs 00:11, 6 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.

Proposed merger of Category:Burials in Dublin into Category:Burials in Ireland.[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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale. The category is poorly populated with only 3 entries. The proposed destination has only 2 entries, both of which are in Dublin city. It's most unlikely that other cemetary categories will be opened in future. A single national category exists Category:Burials in Ireland. It makes more sense to merge the Dublin category into the national one as this avoids over sub-categorisation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced -- I am not a fan of burial place categories. For the most part, people are buried where they die, or at least they were until recent times. If we are to have burial categories they need to be reasonably specific, so that if we keep these at all, "Burials in Dublin" is likely to be more useful than burials in Ireland. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – part of Category:Burials by city. 'Over sub-categorisation' is a new one to me. There are over 100 articles in this category so it is not small. There should be one for Belfast; and there should be Category:Cemeteries in Dublin, subcat of Category:Cemeteries by city and Category:Buildings and structures in Dublin. Dublin is the capital and should have more categories, not fewer. (Why is it unlikely that more categories of this sort will be created?) Occuli (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification please. Is it the opinion of both above authors that the cat:Burials in Ireland is not needed? Should that cat be deleted and its contents (both of which treat of Dublin only) be transferred into Burials in Dublin? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of Category:Burials by city. I think the other 2 cemeteries would be considered part of County Dublin rather than the City of Dublin. There are cemeteries in other parts of the Republic of Ireland and categories for burials at those locations could be created. Cjc13 (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicting signals. If I may summarise the position to date. Everyone is against the merger but for different reasons. #burial categories need to be reasonably specific. Therefore a city is preferred over a state category. #The Category:Burials by city is a good thing. But Dublin County is not a city. Would it be clearer to rename the cat as "Burials in Dublin City" and forget the merger altogether? #As for the remaining 2 Burials categories, what's to be done with them? Although they are in County Dublin, they are not in Dublin City. Should new categories of "Burials in South Dublin County" and "Burials in Fingal County" be created for them (even though each would only contain 1 article? I ca submit a new proposal fot these later in order to increase clarity on the present quesrtion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support rename to Category:Burials in Dublin City to avoid ambiguity. The other 2 could go into Category:Burials in County Dublin with Burials in Dublin City as a subcategory but this does not seem necessary as you would still need Category:Burials in Ireland as the parent category. Cjc13 (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the broader structure of burials by city. Alansohn (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all. A highly misleading nom: it does not have "3 entries"; it has 3 subcats with over 150 "entries". But even if it did have only 3 it should be kept as part of a wider scheme. Trying to confuse matters by introducing the county is completely unecessary. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the Category:Burials by city structure. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:54, 4 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:Collusion during the Northern Ireland Troubles[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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The basic problem with the category is that its name implies collusion has taken place, yet the description says it includes cases where collusion is alleged. Some articles included in this category did not even have collusion alleged but are in the category based on the bizarre fantasies of an editor, those are in the process of being removed by me. We don't generally do "alleged" categories, and the number of cases in which collusion is 100% confirmed is incredibly tiny. As we don't do "alleged" it can't really be renamed, and it's going to be an incredibly small category if the inclusion critera are firmed up to match the name of the category, so that only really leaves deletion as it can't stay as it is. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is all about conspiracy theories. Collusion (presumably between the security forces and paramilitaries on one side of the other) is almost impossible to prove, however often some one may allege it in the sectarian press of one side or the other. Even where a link can be shown, perhaps in the sense of prior knowledge, it is highly unlikely that the perpetrator or a murder was acting on the orders of the security forces. The Troubles were a mirky time, and full of accusations one way or the other. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:29, 30 October 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:Indiana in WWII[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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indiana in WWII to Category:Indiana in World War II

Nominator's rationale: Per main article/category. Possible speedy? If this passes, then subcategory Category:People from Indiana in WWII should be speedy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as category creator —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to fully match and spell out title of related article. Alansohn (talk) 00:48, 1 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:People from Rufisque[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. As Occuli mention, this category is an exception to WP:OC#SMALL as part of Category:People by city in Senegal. — ξ ^xplicit 06:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from Rufisque to Category:People from Dakar Region

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is a few people from Rufisque that had a wiki article, should be merged into Dakar Region that covered more widespread area . Matthew_hk t c 05:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've wondered what is the threshold for creating a category of People from x. If the location is notable and a notable person comes from it, is it fine to have just one entry in that category, or should there be a minimum limit (5, 10, or something else)? Lugnuts (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and populate. Rufisque is a substantial place, pop 180,000. It's not difficult to find people with articles in 'what links here' (eg several footballers). (One could argue that it is part of Category:People by city and so the number of entries is moot.) Occuli (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the sound rationale of Occuli. Lugnuts (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Have you check what link here? To me having 30+ people should be subcated. or wikipedia would be full of category. Matthew_hk t c 22:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper, so there is no limit to how many categories (or articles) there can be. This is part of a well-established tree of people from x location. Where someone is from is notable and defining, so it makes no difference if there is only one entry in the category or a thousand and one. Lugnuts (talk) 07:54, 1 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:Genie Award winners for Best Achievement in Film Editing[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. — ξ ^xplicit 06:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Genie Award winners for Best Achievement in Film Editing to Category:Films whose editor won the Genie Award for Best Achievement in Film Editing

Nominator's rationale: Using the Academy Award model Category:Films whose editor won the Best Film Editing Academy Award as my guide, this category is for the films and not the editors, who have their own category. Up until now, these categor~~ies have been virtually indistinguishable, however. Not all helpful to easy navigation in the current form.~~ Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)WITHDRAWN[reply]

Keep I am not aware of there being a rule to follow the American equivalent. NorthernThunder (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My rationale was not clear enough, I see. Sorry. It is not simply that I want to follow the American model. My issue is that the category as currently named is ambiguous: it can be either for the winning editors or the films. I think we should probably have categories for both -- Genie winning editors and the films who've won for best editing. Others might disagree on the basis that a film whose editor has won a craft Genie award Best Film Editing is not as defining as, say, an Oscar in the same category. So what we do with the Oscars need not apply here. That's a reasonable position, but I wonder if that the category as currently named could be tweaked to make it clear to users when it's for editors or the films. If this proposal receives no support I'll withdraw it and simply move all the craft categories to the newly created Category:Genie Award winning people, which perhaps the best and easiest way make the role of these Genie craft cats clearer. Thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- so that's what I'll do: withdraw this and do some reorganizing. The mid level categories for "film" and "people" will make it clearer what's what, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 29 October 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:Global 200 ecoregions[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles 04:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Global 200 is a list of ecoregions published by the World Wildlife Fund as what they deem to be the 200 ecoregions that should be prioritized for conservation. The list is complete at the article Global 200 and this seems to be similar to the type of thing referred to in WP:OC#TOPTEN, which discourages the creation of categories for published lists. The inclusion of 200 is also an arbitrarily chosen number: WP:OC#ARBITRARY. These ecoregions will be adequately categorized in the other subcategories of Category:Ecoregions, whether they be done by country or continent. Just because one group has prioritized these ecosystems doesn't mean we should have a special category for them, since there is no real objective standards for inclusion apart from the WWF including it on the list. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a straightforward case of overcategorization based on a published list. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:59, 6 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:Estévez family[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 November 6#Category:Estévez family. — ξ ^xplicit 06:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Estévez family to Category:Estevez family

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category includes the brother, wife, and children of Martin Sheen, born Ramón Estévez in Ohio. Some members of the family use "Sheen", while others use "Estevez". In the latter group, none of them use an accent in the name. While "Estevez" may be spelled with an accent in Spanish, in English-language sources, including credits, the accent is never used for the members of this family in this category. Will Beback talk 00:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week oppose as parent article contains this accent. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "parent article"? Martin Sheen no longer calls himself "Estévez", nor does anyone else in the family. No living member uses the accent. Will Beback talk 10:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Armbrust was referring to Estévez family. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:00, 6 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.