Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 24 January 26 >

January 25[edit]

Category:Computer and telecommunication standards[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: split into Category:Computer standards and Category:Telecommunications standards. I will list the task at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual and requested assistance from the members of WikiProject Computing. Any help from knowledgeable editors would be appreciated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Computer and telecommunication standards to Category:Telecommunications standards
Nominator's rationale: Rename and sort. Overlaps with recently created Category:Computer standards, which is a useful category. Splitting seems easy enough. There's a little overlap, but not a lot. Pnm (talk) 22:22, 25 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:Insomniacs[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: Close. The creator has not been notified. Ruslik_Zero 18:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Insomniacs
Nominator's rationale: Pointless and rather absurd category. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sleeping disorders can be serious and we categorize people by other ailments so I don't agree that the category is outright absurd. The existing three articles include people who became addicted to sleeping pills as a result, received shock treatment to try and cure inosmnia and a third that just mentions it but is sourced. I could definitely imagine the cat being wildly over-applied in the future though. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I could definitely imagine the cat being wildly over-applied in the future though."
No, if you accept that this category is legit (which I do not) then any person who suffers/suffered from insomnia deserves to have that categorization added to his/her article. I agree that sleeping disorders can be serious but what has that got to do with anything? The category isn't named Category:People with sleeping disorders. And I would probably still question it even if it were. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If kept, this should only be for people diagnosed with insomnia by a medical professional, and not just people who say they've had trouble sleeping. I can see it being wildly over-applied as well. –anemoneprojectors– 18:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I would think. It doesn't seem to be the sort of disability that rises to the level of being defining for the subjects included. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Likely to lead to considerable POV debate and not really necessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:11, 2 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:One Israel (1999) politicians[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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 18:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:One Israel (1999) politicians to Category:One Israel politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article of category (One Israel, not One Israel (1999)), and the fact that the other party with this name is less known. Additionally, in Hebrew Wikipedia (both parties are Israelli, obviously), there is no disambiguator in the title of this category (he:קטגוריה:חברי כנסת מטעם ישראל אחת, no disambiguator there). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (cat creator). The only reason I named it this was because of One Israel (1980). The 1980 one was a one-man party, so as you say that may not be enough to require disambiguation. Either way is fine with me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 25 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:Al-Ittifaq_players[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:Ettifaq FC players. Ruslik_Zero 18:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merge of Category:Al-Ittifaq_players to Category:Al-Ettifaq_players
Nominator's rationale: I think it means the same category, and Al-Ittifaq redirects to Ettifaq FC. So a rename might also be approproate. Dsp13 (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Ettifaq FC players. There is no reason why the player categiories should not match the main article. The spelling variants are no doubt the result of the difficulty in transliterating Arabic names. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 25 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:Electric power in America[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. Category:Electric power in Central America and Category:Electric power in South America were created during this discussion, so the nominated category (Category:Electric power in America) now exists as a container for the CA, NA, and SA categories only (all three also are in Category:Electric power by region). A separate nomination would be required to delete or merge one or more of those categories, or to reconsider subcategorization of Category:Electric power by region or continent. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Electric power in America
Nominator's rationale: While “the Americas” (not “America”) is useful for some categories related to Prehistory or Geology eg Category:Archaeology of the Americas it is not useful here where the usual categories for North and South America are quite adequate eg Category:Electric power in North America and (required) Category:Electric power in South America; with Central America and the Caribbean as subcategories of North America. Hugo999 (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Watti Renew (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply because a category scheme exists does not mean that all topics should adopt it. Certainly, the "Anglo America" and "Latin America" divisions make no sense as electric power does not vary by language or cultural heritage, and betrays, if I may, a conceptual misunderstanding of WP:Categorization. Neither would we combine Europe and Asia into Category:Electric power in Eurasia.- choster (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Rename to Category:Electric power in South America and also remove non-South American categories from it as “choster” proposes. Electric power should be a subcategory of Energy, not a main category. I do not see any need to link electric power to either Envirionment or Politics. And no “electric power” regional categories for Latin America ie use it for Culture only; likewise no Anglo America (should be Northern America) category. That is, keep to the five continents (Asia is the only continent that justifies regional subdivisions for some categories by country - except for Central America & Caribbean). Hugo999 (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I trust the article contributors to select the best subdivision criteria. I would include North, South and Central America. How do you like this Hugo999? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watti Renew (talk • contribs) 18:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Hugo999. However, there is another problem. This category like all other electric power categories created by this user are heavily overcategorized and needs cleanup. Beagel (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure that a case has been made to keep this, much less to create additional categories. Category:Electric power by country and Category:Electric power provide ample navigation. If we break these down as proposed, I strongly feel that we would be making navigation too difficult. Categorization by continent needs to be carefully considered since in many cases it is a hinderence. Clearly this is likely one of those cases that it should not be used. I'll add that with all of the interconnects, electric power is not limited by continent. If flows where ever the grids are connected. The is no reason why the NA and Asia grids could not be connected other then cost. That would mean that Oceania is the only continental area that would be left out of a worldwide grid. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 5 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: Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 8#Athletes by.... -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:36, 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]

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:Mount Meru (Tanzania)[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mount Meru (Tanzania) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only three articles —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- no reason not to do so, is there? Or can they be linked better by a navbox? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Added a town on the mountain and an endemic moth bringing the total article count to 5. There is room for growth with other endemic animal species and geographic features. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:34, 26 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:Mount Marsabit[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/2011 February 9. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mount Marsabit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only three articles —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- no reason not to do so, is there? Or can they be linked better by a navbox? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: I wouldn't have created the cat with only 3 articles, but it's a conceptually sound grouping. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually only two since the Marsabit article does not discuss the mount it should not have been in there in the first place. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Marsabit. There are just 4 articles between the two categories, and small, eponymous categories for individual landforms generally are no help to navigation. Marsabit and Marsabit National Park are both easily accessible from the article about the mountain. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:47, 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:River Lea[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 since article was moved to River Lea since nomination was opened. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:River Lea to Category:River Lee (England)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The river has alternate spellings of Lea/Lee, but the article is at River Lee (England). I suggest renaming it to match to avoid confusion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support clearly needs dabbing. We should follow the spelling of main article title. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, rename to match the name of the main article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no strong feeling one way or the other, but it may be worth noting that the article Lower Lea Valley makes the following (unsourced) claim: "After years of dispute about the spelling, now it is agreed that natural features such as the river are spelt Lea, whilst man-made features are spelt Lee, such as the Lee Valley Regional Park and the Lee Navigation canal and towpath." -- Dr Greg  talk  19:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have realised this discussion at Talk:River Lee (England) was never concluded so I have probably at a bad time set it up as a move request so can this be put on hold for the mo? Simply south...... 13:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose why should it be dabbed when there's a name that doesn't need it? 184.144.161.95 (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC) — 184.144.161.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • So that the article name and the category name are the same, to avoid confusion. That's what the original nomination statement says. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why don't you just rename the article then? 184.144.161.95 (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a possibility, and such a discussion has been opened, and if there's consensus for it, it will happen. If it does, there would be no need to change this category, as I mentioned above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until discussion at Talk:River Lee (England) resolves naming of parent article. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The River Lee (England) article should be renamed to match this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pterre (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose and await outcome of this discussion – if the page is not moved, then renominate this category, otherwise we'll just end up having to move this back again. anemoneprojectors
  • Oppose until the RM for the main article has concluded. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:49, 27 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:Rivers by 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. Ruslik_Zero 18:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rivers by basin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. With one exception, this is being used for basins which have their own category tree. If we need something like this, I suggest we consider the commons structure which is Category:Tributaries by ocean. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:43, 25 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:Helmand 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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Helmand basin to Category:Helmand River Drainage Basin
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Basin is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:39, 25 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: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 to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 8. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:32, 8 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]
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_25&oldid=1138395127"