Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 7 February 9 >

February 8[edit]

Category:UK Raves[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Relisted, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 18. Dana boomer (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK Raves to Category:Raves in the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation. No general category Category:Raves yet exists but would seem to be appropriate.Tim! (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Rave culture in the United Kingdom, as the category contains articles about venues, sound systems, organizers, and events variously related to the rave scene. I don't believe we have any articles about individual rave parties, which is what I would think "raves" in a category name would suggest.- choster (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2011 (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:Perpetual motion machines[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Perpetual motion machines to Category:Perpetual motion
Nominator's rationale: The current name suggests a set category, when in fact the category contains articles not only about devices but also people, concepts and theories. Renaming to Category:Perpetual motion would clarify that this is a topic category, create consistency with the main article (Perpetual motion), and avoid any suggestion that any of the devices in the category actually achieved perpetual motion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming for reasons stated. If it would then be appropriate to remove the category from Category:Machines, one of its head categories, this would be no great loss as it is within others. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2011 (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:Film organizations in the United Kingdom[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Film organizations in the United Kingdom to Category:Film organisations in the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Rename. change to British English spelling. Tim! (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2011 (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:Springfield College - Massachusetts alumni[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: There is a consensus that the category needs to be changed, but there is disagreement and no consensus on whether it should be merged to Category:Springfield College alumni or if both the nominated category and the target category should be merged into a new Category:Springfield College (Massachusetts) alumni. For now, to avoid a do-nothing "no consensus" result, we will merge to Category:Springfield College alumni as nominated since the two categories are clearly duplicates. The arguments for renaming the target category to Category:Springfield College (Massachusetts) alumni are good ones, but we cannot do it at this stage because besides there being no consensus to do so, Category:Springfield College alumni was not tagged with Template:Cfr. As some users mentioned, the most productive course may be to propose a rename of the article Springfield College to Springfield College (Massachusetts) and then to nominate Category:Springfield College alumni for renaming if the article is renamed. Anyone looking to do clean-up work in this area note that there is also Category:Springfield College - Massachusetts as a parent category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Springfield College - Massachusetts alumni to Category:Springfield College alumni
Nominator's rationale: These are duplicate categories. GcSwRhIc (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge to match the tile of the parent article. If there is an issue with ambiguity it should be addressed by obtaining consensus to rename the Springfield College article and attempts to "solve" this potential ambiguity by adding the state with either a hyphen or surrounded by parentheses only serves to try to wag the dog from the tail. Having a category title that doesn't match the article title only creates needless confusion for those trying to add the correct category to an article or for readers trying to identify the appropriate category to search. Alansohn (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Springfield College alumni. The Illinois and Missouri institutions now go by other names, and the issue of Springfield College vs The Springfield College vs Springfield College (disambiguation) (which I recently created) is a matter for RM, not CfD.- choster (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I illustrate above, Springfield College is not nearly as ambiguous as Birmingham, nor is the case for renaming the article instead of conforming to it nearly as obvious as, say, Category:Łódź Ghetto vice Ghetto Litzmannstadt. If the article is deemed ambiguous named and moved, we can move the category as well, but the immediate problem here is duplication, not dab.- choster (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the best name would be Category:Springfield College (Massachusetts) alumni. That is consistent with the general naming pattern. This school is normally refered to as "Springfield College" but that name will obviously not work bhecause there are other schools that use the same name. This has been our general method of fixing such problems with other schools, especially colleges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Choster you are ignoring the fact that while Benedictine University of Springfield now goes by a different name there will be lots of references to people going there that will use the old name. According to the article on the institution in Missouri it is still named Springfield College. The fact that in much of the English-speaking world outside of the United States college is used as the name for many secondary institutions makes confusion of college names very likely. Generally I would say that the presence of "The" in a category name is not enough to make it distict from a category that lacks the "The". If they are for two distinct things, they should be distinguished more thoroughly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2011 (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:Rivers of the subbasins of small tributaries of the Black Sea[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Relisted, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 18. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rivers of the subbasins of small tributaries of the Black Sea to Category:Black Sea Drainage Basin rivers Category:Tributaries of the Black Sea
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As it exists, it is a tripple intersection which we generally try to avoid. Move these up to an appropriate level category at the drainage basin level. Open to the best naming. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to believe the parent categories, this probably should have been named Category:Rivers of the subbasins of small tributaries of the Black Sea of Romania. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note based on other categories, I have modified the nomination to better match other categories. This category was not included in the other tree so it was easy to miss. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2011 (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.

Athletes by...[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename both. Many thanks to Occuli for pointing out that that Category:Athletes (track and field) is the parent category—a fact which escaped my attention when I relisted the discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Rationalle: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 18#Category:Athletics - as pointed out by the nominator there, the word "Athlete" is ambiguous. The method of dealing with this ambiguation which I'm proposing is what was decided there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2011 (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:4 Associations' Tournament[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:4 Associations' Tournament to Category:Nations Cup (football)
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article. Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the move is in-keeping with name of parent article. Eldumpo (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2011 (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:Premieres in Baltimore, Maryland[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) 19:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Premieres in Baltimore, Maryland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Saw this on speedy. Is this defining for the movie? If not, then do we want to start categorizing films by where they premiere? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I especially don't think Baltimore is the first city which I'd single out for its premieres, likable as it might be.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as city where the movie premiered is not a defining characteristic of the film. Alansohn (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An enormously bad precedent for the film category, if kept. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most of the category content is not film - Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini is not film. (Admittedly I doubt that La serva padrona premiered in Baltimore - it may have been the American premiere.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 12 February 2011 (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:IAF's CH-53 Yas'ur helicopters disasters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Relisted, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 18. Dana boomer (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:IAF's CH-53 Yas'ur helicopters disasters to Category:Israeli Air Force helicopter disasters
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Seems a bit over-specific to combine IAF, helicopter disasters, and the kind of helicopter. I suggest broadening this to "IAF helicopter disasters" (whether Yas'ur or non-Yas'ur) and expanding "IAF" to read "Israeli Air Force". Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2011 (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:Juglans sect. Rhysocaryon[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: upmerge to Category:Juglans. If separate WP articles about the sections are ever created, this decision could be revisited. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Juglans sect. Rhysocaryon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete and upmerge to Category:Juglans. The three subcategories of Category:Juglans are taxonomic subdivisions of the genus Juglans, but the genus contains only 21 species. Subdividing the category into sections like this prevents easy navigation in the genus category, the genus being arguably the most important relationship among the species. Category:Juglans sect. Rhysocaryon will not have more than 16 articles in it; Category:Juglans sect. Cardiocaryon will only ever have 2 articles; and Category:Juglans sect. Juglans will only ever have 2 articles. These are too small and too narrow to be useful. Rkitko (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge. This type of generic division belongs on Wikispecies with coverage in the article Juglans. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain the category. Taxonomists have divided the genus Juglans into four sections. These sections differ substantially, one from another, in both their fruit and their wood, arguably their most important qualities from an economic standpoint (and therefore to the typical reader). The section being arguably the most important relationship among these species, having separate categories for the separate sections not only facilitates easy navigation between closely related species but also helps to give structure to the articles about the Juglandaceae. Category:Juglans sect. Rhysocaryon, comprising all of the black walnuts and no other species, currently has 11 articles in it; this number could increase (if more species in this section are described and/or if more articles are written about the already listed species) or decrease (if taxonomic authorities combine some of the species). The claim that even 16 articles is too few has no basis in any policy (the Wikipedia policy is at least 2) and is not even accompanied by any opinion about the minimum size for a category: the claim appears to have been proposed simply for the purpose of supporting the deletion a useful category. (If 16, 11, 2, or some other number of members in a category is to be held to be too few, that discussion should be a global discussion of Wikipedia policy, and not a swarm of category-by-category discussions.) — Jay L09 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's irrelevant what taxonomists have done to divide the genus. What's relevant is that subdividing the genus into subcategories based on the subgeneric classification does not improve browsing of the genus. These will forever be WP:SMALLCATs. And since the largest section, Rhysocaryon, contains all but 6(ish?) species, I see no reason to split them off into their own category. With large genera, yes, subdivisions make sense. If you want one to work on, try attacking Category:Bulbophyllum; it's in desperate need of attention. In general, though, there is very little sense in creating these subcats for small genera. Rkitko (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's irrelevant how one editor feels about the sectional classification. What's relevant is the actual existence of these sections (subdivisions), and that this existence is recognized by the taxonomic authorities. Depending on future discoveries, the number of species in this section might grow, so the reference to WP:SMALLCAT is as irrelevant as observations about the sizes of other categories (which might also grow). That the genus Bulbophyllum is in desperate need of attention by taxonomists is also irrelevant to the discussion about the category containing the species in Juglans sect. Rhysocaryon. — Jay L09 (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you've misunderstood my rationale for deletion; let me clarify. My opposition to subcategorization of Category:Juglans is not based on opinions of the taxonomic work. I have no opinions on how the genus has been subdivided. This is why I said it's irrelevant. What I object to is subdividing the genus category into sections. Categories with narrow scopes, small membership, and no immediate future potential growth are upmerged. And small genus categories are never divided into subgenera or sections. It's just not useful to do so. Rkitko (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe we have not yet seen Rkitko's rationale for deletion. The first excuse was that the category had been empty for more than four days (C1), less than an hour after Rkitko began emptying the category. The second excuse was that the category had been speedily renamed (C2), which it had not been: Rkitko had simply emptied and deleted it again. (I would provide diffs for anyone interested, except that by improperly deleting the category twice without any discussion, Rkitko made the diffs very hard for anyone but an administrator to find) Now we are presented with more opinions presented as if they were, or should be, Wikipedia policies (which should be discussed globally and not on a category-by-category basis): that "small" (undefined term) genus categories are "never" divided into subgenera or sections, and that a genus category should not be divided into sections. Finally, we have the unbelievable opinion that it simply is not useful to have categories for taxonomic ranks which taxonomic authorities have decided are useful to categorize taxa. I encourage Rkitko either to state the real reason for opposing the continued existence of a separate category for the several black walnut species or to initiate a global Wikipedia policy discussion on the minimum size of a category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay L09 (talk • contribs)
  • Not sure about this one, but leaning towards upmerge and delete. There is of course nothing wrong with categorising by infrageneric taxon. What it comes down to is whether or not doing so improves the reader's category navigation experience. With only 21 species in this genus, I think the reader is best served by having all Juglans articles together in a single category. There are other options; for example, the creation of Category:Juglans species alongside these section categories. But I think the prospective size of Category:Juglans is just too small to carry something like that off. (Incidentally I have already been through this with Banksia, and ended up self-deleting a number of Banksia subgenus, section and series categories that I had created.) Hesperian 00:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that all genus categories should display all the species articles in alphabetical order "at a glance", without needing any particular taxonomic knowledge to locate them in the category tree. Currently, unless you know what section a species is in, you will need to go through each of the three subcategories to find it. Melburnian (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. Several of the users above say it well. We should avoid trying to duplicate all taxonomic levels in the category tree. If this section is so significant, an article on it should be created, which can explain the significance of the section much better than a category can. Ucucha 00:26, 14 February 2011 (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:Medical College of Georgia[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 an uncontested nomination with a logical rationale. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Medical College of Georgia to Category:Georgia Health Sciences University
Nominator's rationale: According to their website and initially reported by a Redirects for Creation submission, this college changed its name last week. I've already taken care of the page move, but this category ought to be renamed as well. Zachlipton (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2011 (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:Guadalquivir basin[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) 19:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Guadalquivir basin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Two entry category with limited short term growth potential. If needed in the future it should be created as Category:Tributaries of the Guadalquivir unless we get a real article on the drainage basin. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2011 (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:Guadiana basin[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) 19:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Guadiana basin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category with limited short term growth potential. If the need arises to have a category in the area if can be recreated as Category:Tributaries of the Guadiana. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2011 (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/2011_February_8&oldid=1074807357"