Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 25 September 27 >

September 26[edit]

Category:Construction projects[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: Relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 9. Dana boomer (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Construction projects to Category:Buildings and structures under construction or Category:Proposed buildings and structures
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Most of the items in here are questionable as to really belonging rather then being in other better categories. Inclusion in this and the previous Category:Building projects was mostly based on ongoing construction activity. In how many cases does retaining a construction related category work correctly past the construction phase? Project City Center was a construction project. However, the article morphed over time into the post construction name and purpose, CityCenter. Since it no longer is an under development project, it probably does not belong in this category. Also I'll note that the introduction here is for Building and structures that are proposed or under construction. Which just happens to be the names for two of the subcategories. So at best if we keep this, it's parent should be Category:Buildings and structures under construction and/or Category:Proposed buildings and structures. I think that once we decide how to deal with this category, it may be acceptable to allow recreation of this category for notable building projects like Big Dig, Project City Center and maybe a few others. However the introduction for the category needs to establish objective inclusion criteria unlike the current version. Clearly over time we have not devoted articles to major construction projects like the Pyramids. Even something more modern like the Panama Canal does not have a construction article but History of the Panama Canal comes close. I'm still considering how to address Category:Development projects. I'll add in closing that virtually everything in Category:Buildings and structures under construction could be called a construction project so do we really have just have this as an unnecessary level of categorization that does not improve clarity? We lack articles on construction project and development project so we lack a common form of guidance. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:48, 26 September 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:Variations of hockey[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) 22:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Variations of hockey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No !vote at this time. This category appears to me to have been created to say that field hockey is hockey, and all the others are "variations". My reason for that inference is that field hockey was not added, and the creator comes from the UK. I have for now added field hockey to the cat, and as long as it stays there, the category is not entirely implausible, though I also don't see any particularly good reason for it. Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Above nominatator very quick to jump the gun. I had not even got round to fully populating category. Perfectly valid cat see for example Category:Variations of rugby union DjlnDjln (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category replicates what the category Category:Hockey does. -DJSasso (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Djln. This is a very neat way of organising the hierarchy of categories relating to the different types of hockey. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is what the category hockey does. Hockey is an overall name, no one variation is just hockey through the entire world. So Hockey is the name of the family of sports which fall under it. Why have two cats which are identical in purpose. His example is different rugby union is a sport in itself and the things in the category are a variation of it. This is not true of hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please look again at Category:Hockey. It has sub-cats such as Category:Hockey players and Category:Hockey by country, which in turn have sub-cats relating to variants of hockey; lumping the variants directly in with them would be placing apples and oranges together. The current structure is incomplete, but the best solution is to complete it rather than demolish it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right but if I am going to the hockey category which is just the overall name of the group of sports and not a sport in and of itself. I expect the subcategories of that category to be the different sports that make up the family called hockey. I shouldn't have to go to a middle category to get there. The different types of hockey are a direct sub category of hockey. Just like you would do Category:Provinces and territories of Canada and the sub-category would not be "variations of canadian provinces" but the actual provinces themselves like Category:Ontario. -DJSasso (talk) 23:57, 30 September 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:LGBT case law[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:LGBT case law to Category:LGBT rights case law

:Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the parent, the child and many of the siblings in Category:Case law by topic. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC) :Rename per CoP. Roscelese (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Bbb23 as I am doubtful about the existence of LGBT case law that does not pertain to LGBT rights. Roscelese (talk) 04:05, 27 September 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 20:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Per QuAzGaA, the nominator is being ignored; as only one other user has commented, this nomination is being treated as a nomination where no one but one user (usually trhe nominator) has expressed any opinion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Original rationale is inaccurate - it's not consistent. Category:Case law by topic has 23 subcategories, of which Category:LGBT case law is one. Only two of the 23 (besides LGBT) use the word rights: Category:Student rights case law and Category:Reproductive rights case law. LGBT case law itself has only two subcategories, one of which uses the word rights (Category:United States LGBT rights case law) and other does not (Category:Same-sex union case law. The real issue is whether there any LGBT cases that are not about LGBT rights. If not, then renaming it is more descriptive, even if not more consistent. If we rename it, we should rename the others that are similar to LGBT. If, on the other hand, there are LGBT cases that are about issues other than LBGT rights, then the new name would be imprecise.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tend to concur on rename given that one of the parents is Category:LGBT rights. If there were case law references about same-sex unions that didn't deal with their validity I think there would be a better argument for the present name. Mangoe (talk) 15:20, 27 September 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:Public transport in Maine[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. — ξxplicit 06:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Public transport in Maine to Category:Public transportation in Maine
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match Category:Public transportation in the United States. TM 18:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I didn't even see that. Withdrawn.--TM 04:03, 27 September 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.

People from the Southern United States[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: Relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 9. Dana boomer (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. To coincide with the nomination below, these categories are just an extra category level that does not aid in navigation. These two Foo from the Southern United States are also the only two of their kind, as the other regions aren't covered at all. — ξxplicit 04:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – these are redundant to the 'by state' schemes. Occuli (talk) 11:39, 26 September 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.

American musicians by 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Essentially, these are useless category. It's equivalent to the American rappers by location scheme that was deleted in May, which serves no purpose, as any page categorized here at any time would need to be refined into the state-specific categories. Best to delete this now before it grows. — ξxplicit 03:34, 26 September 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_September_26&oldid=1074806738"