Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 1 January 3 >

January 2[edit]

Category:Divided regions between Canada and the 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: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Divided regions between Canada and the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Is it defining for a land form to exist in two countries? I'm not convinced it is, but that appears to be the purpose of this category, to list landforms that are in both the US and Canada. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete before user:Hike gets to Central America. Unfortunately it is much quicker to create a category than it is to get it deleted. Occuli (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had questions about this category myself, but had decided to populate it rather than nominate it, and see what the reaction is. For what it's worth, there is a master category, Category:Divided regions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I was looking at the parent category and trying to decide what to do with it. Some features like islands that are shared by two nations seems like they would be candidates for a category. However do the British Virgin Islands and the United States Virgin Islands belong? My guess is that the parent category needs a good cleaning and then based on what remains decide on what path to follow. Any category where someone needs to copy a good percentage of the main article as the introduction and has extended logic yells about a category with inclusion criteria issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, gee, if the British Virgin Islands were part of Canada, I'd be living there already.....so if they're in the category, who put them there?Skookum1 (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, they have been in the parent since before March 2007. I think you missed the point that the last replies are about the parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I think this is a "junk" category, as is its parent. North America, for example, is a divided region, so is Europe. And who defines a "region"? Is a landform a "region"? Is a basin a "region"? I don't think so, not in the usual use of those words, e.g. the Okanagan and Okanogan County are both part of the Okanagan Basin, which also includes the Similkameen Valley, which is part of neither. Dividing geo-landforms by political boundaries as a way to categorize them is a non-starter; Whatcom County and the Lower Mainland are both part of the Fraser Lowland, but both are distinct regions, whereas the Fraser Lowland is a landform. What this category seems to be intended for is "Landforms divided by political boundaries", i.e. "landforms traversed by the US-Canada border" and, well, gee, that's pretty much damn near everything under t he sun huh? I was running this through my head earlier while walking; the North Slope, the Brooks Range, the Yukon Basin, the St Elias Mountains, the Alsek Basin, the Fairweather Range, the Boundary Ranges, the Cascades, the Monashees (even though that name isn't on the US side), ad nauseam. "List of divided eco-regions" would be the next step; I say call the whole thing to a halt now before it's a plague and spawns subcategories.....Skookum1 (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too expansive and not particularly defining, as described above by Skookum. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as populater, per Skookum. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without Precedent: This one is ridiculous, but some of the groupings in the parent categories are worth keeping. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This seems to be about regions straddling the border, but how far does one go? This is too imprecisely defined to make a valid category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Its creator just tried adding the Canada-United States relations category to it, I took it off promptly; it's clear he/she has no clear concept of what this category is for, just wants to include it wherever possible, not matter how illogical or a-contextual. Delete it already (I know it's not been 7 days enough but I'm tired of having to "pick up sticks").Skookum1 (talk) 20:31, 4 January 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:English people convicted of actual bodily harm[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; Category:British people convicted of assault could be discussed via a new nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:English people convicted of actual bodily harm to Category:British people convicted of assault
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Actual bodily harm is just English term for "aggravated assault". Merge per WP:OCAT. Karppinen (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. Assault is defined very broadly in English law, but Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is much more serious matter. I am not sure whether it is a good idea to conflate the two, and think we coukd benefit from some legal advice, so I will ask for input from WP:LAW. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:LAW has been notfied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it and target -- As stated "assault occasioning actual bodily harm" is a more serious crime than common assault. My question is however whether either the subject or target category is a sufficiently important characteristic of a person to warrant a category existing. Furthermore, I think this is a crime at a level where they become "spent" after five years, so that if a person was so categorised over five years after the conviction, they might have cause for complaint. This applies even more to common assault. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Peterkingiron makes an important point which I hadn't thought of, and I think may be right to recommend deleting them both. However, I don't think it would be right to delete the target when it has not been tagged for deletion, so maybe we should stick to discussing the nominated category and have a separate discussion on the other one? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:51, 7 January 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:Ice Age characters[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 08:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ice Age characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles; rest were merged. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:40, 2 January 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:Split albums with contributions by Excel[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) 02:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Split albums with contributions by Excel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 2 January 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:Preserved 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: no consensus to rename/rename proposal withdrawn. The nominator changed his opinion to "delete" and no one commented after that, so I suggest a re-nomination where the discussion can focus on whether to delete the category or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:Propose renaming Category:Preserved machines to Category:Preserved vehicles

Nominator's rationale: While the steam engines category does have a sub-cat for stationary steam engines, this appears to be a category by Hike for Category:Vehicles that have been "preserved," in one way or another. If renamed, we should substitute master category Category:Vehicles for Category:Machines. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – I don't share User:Hike796's enthusiasm for creating umbrella 'Preserved foos' categories and then adding on a whim various dubious subcategories. User:Hike796's categories are seldom the result of deep thought or consensus and should be deleted as unlikely (on past record) to be of value. Like the earlier User:Pastorwayne, Hike796 should be asked to refrain from unilateral category creation and banned from category space if he does not comply. (Category:Preserved machines is not too bad as it happens, although it does does combine 2 rather vague words. Is Big Ben a preserved machine?) Occuli (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Whatever the creator's past transgressions (and there are many), this category seems workable and Shawn's rename helps fine tune it. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep unchanged There is no way that the items in the category can be considered 'vehicles' in common English. Vehicles are cars, trucks, buses, etc and not ships, locomotives, aircraft and steam engines. Hmains (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? Have you bothered to look at the contents of Category:Vehicles? They include Category:Aircraft, Category:Rail vehicles (containing Locomotives) and Category:Watercraft, containing Ships. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could have pointed out facts in a nicer way--it always helps to move things along peacefully. I stand corrected. Rename per nom. Hmains (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could say the same to you. I don't usually use this tone at these discussions, but I have been on the receiving end from some lectures from you at CfD that I felt were as high-handed as they were ill-informed, and so that influences my response. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be one subcategory here, Category:Preserved steam engines,that contains non-vehicles. OTOH all the entries (with the exception noted below) seem to be British museums that incorporate a preserved steam engine, so one could I suppose argue for abolishing that category entirely. Locomotives are also included (dubiously in my opinion). Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a misconceived nom. Not all machines are vehicles. "Preserved steam engines" will contain stationary engines for pumping or driving machinery. These are certainly NOT vehicles. The vehicles category might be made a sub-cat of machines (if not already one). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have not decided on the need for this category, so I'm still neutral. However, if kept, shouldn't this be renamed to Category:Individual machines which is how we tend to name these (Category:Individual robots, Category:Individual aircraft noting that there is also Category:Preserved aircraft, and Category:Individual locomotives noting that we also have Category:Preserved steam locomotives of Great Britain)? Using preserved, would imply that anything that is not preserved would need a different category. This also raises the issue of what qualifies as preserved? Is there a definition? Is this a country specific definition? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete change my own !vote. Hike has just added Category:Grinding mills, which includes all manner of structures, regardless of whether they have been preserved as "machines" or not. And I have since nominated another new subcategory Category:Preserved computers for other reasons. This is getting out of hand, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 4 January 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:Districts in New Taipei[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) 02:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Districts in New Taipei to Category:Districts of New Taipei
Nominator's rationale: I believe that "of" is syntactically more correct than "in." --Nlu (talk) 15:39, 2 January 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:Anti-Muslim organizations[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 and make sure the category contents reflect the stated purpose of the category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Anti-Muslim organizations to Category:Anti-Islamism organizations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It appears that the trend among the included organizations is to distinguish between private, peaceful practitioners of Islam and Islamists who want to introduce e.g. Sharia law into Western societies and who are associated with global terrorism. meco (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That may be true, but at least some of the items currently in this category are anti-Muslim as they are anti-any-religion-that-is-not-their-own. Hmains (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then those articles would no longer belong in the category and should be moved to either Category:Anti-Islam sentiment or Category:Opposition against Islam (or both). __meco (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure the rename meets the nominator's objective. Islamism, per the article, is turning the Islamic religion into a political system. Islamism is more likely to appear in majority Muslim countries than western ones and is not automatically tied to terrorism.
And I'm not sure distinguishings between good anti-Islamist organizations and those bad anti-Islam organizations is workable. While the Westboro Baptist Church will have statements and sources clearly outlining that they are against "private, peaceful practitioners of Islam", there is debate about what the British Nationalist Party's true sentiment really is. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are bringing forth relevant points to be considered, however I suggest making the distinction which I propose through this nomination would be a step in the right direction, especially so as so many of these groups find it a top priority to emphasize exactly the difference which I have attempted to formulate. There is another term that might be appropriately considered as well, viz. anti-jihadist. However, I don't think that term is so much in use in the public discourse. __meco (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Not all of these organizations oppose only Islamism. I recognize that articles can be removed from categories, but I'd be much more comfortable with a rename if the relevant organizations were removed first. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, previous precedent in analogous categories makes the presence of this category problematic (which is why I'm considering bringing the whole lot to discussion at once), but renaming it would only make it inaccurate, rather than solving that problem. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split/create new. Anti-Muslim organizations and Anti-Islamism organizations are two different sets of organizations with different goals and missions. Pereant antiburchius (talk) 21:16, 10 January 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:Soriculus[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Soriculus to Category:Red-toothed shrews
Nominator's rationale: This genus only has one species, and therefore should not have its own category per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_16#One-page_mammals_categories. I just removed the species of Chodsigoa and Episoriculus from the category, since they were incorrectly placed here. Ucucha 09:16, 2 January 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:Geologic provinces of California[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 2011 JAN 13 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Geologic provinces of California to Category:Geomorphic provinces of California
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The introduction points to Geography of California as the source of information. That article claims there are 11 and not 12 provinces as stated in the category and that they are geomorphic provinces. In any case neither of of those numbers seems to be mappable to the contents of this category. So while this is proposed as a rename, I suspect that some cleanup is called for here. A delete is also a possibility since I suspect that the current contents are not appropriate for inclusion since their reason for inclusion here is not mentioned in the articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:21, 2 January 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:Members of the pre-1801 Parliament of 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: rename to Category:Members of the Parliament of Ireland (pre-1801). Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Members of the pre-1801 Parliament of Ireland to Category:Members of the Parliament of Ireland
Nominator's rationale: As far as I know, the Parliament of Ireland is by nature pre-1801. Those more familiar with the subject might be able to shed more light on this. Mike Selinker (talk) 04:13, 2 January 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:People with Aspergers[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 to Category:People with Asperger syndrome. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People with Aspergers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Entirely subjective list: there's no reliable test for it, and if there were I doubt most of this list has been tested. BLP issues with the living members too. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator of this category added it to seven articles. Five of those additions have been reverted by myself or others; it's wholly inappropriate to add a category with this title to people only suspected of having Aspergers, and especially so for living people per WP:BLP. Only Dan Aykroyd and Gary Numan currently retain the category, as both articles contain reliably sourced claims the subjects have been diagnosed with Aspergers. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:41, 2 January 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_January_2&oldid=1138395094"