Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 28 June 30 >

June 29[edit]

Category:Parade songs[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: Speedy rename per C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Parade songs to Category:Parade (band) songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is for songs by Parade (band), not songs one might commonly hear in a parade. I suggest renaming to clarify and to match the article name for the band. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 29 June 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:Nazis killed in the Beer Hall Putsch[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. Note that the list is (now?) already in the article. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Nazis killed in the Beer Hall Putsch to article Beer Hall Putsch
Nominator's rationale: Convert. The pages are all more or less stubs, with no additional information to the Beer Hall Putsch article. It's also discussable if these people were 'Nazis'. E-Kartoffel (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Best served by a list since annotation can be added and all notable deaths can be listed regardless of whether the person has an article. The fact that the articles in the category are stubs is not relevant in CfD's. We should inspect the articles in the category for notability. They seem short and of suggest low notability (at least for the ones that I briefly checked). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The stubs are not a relevant grounds for deletion or conversion. And it is not discussable that these people were Nazis. They were all Nazi Party members. It is a documented, historical fact. I don't know what would make you think otherwise. The Beer Hall Putsch involved Nazi Party members against opposing forces. Grouping this all under "Beer Hall Putsch" would be the equivalent of grouping both Democrats and Republicans under "U.S. politics". It is critical and easily definable to keep the opposing parties separated, as they currently are into three subcategories. These are very clear subcategories, and each article in each subcategory clearly falls into only one of the three subcategories.Hoops gza (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, these people are all notable. They were considered martyrs by the Nazi party and influenced the Nazi movement and Hitler's worldview and agenda in the aftermath. They have influenced world history.Hoops gza (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Their biographies, are in most cases not notable, except for their death at the "Beer Hall Putsch". It is enough to have the names listed in the Beer Hall Putsch article, with links to those who have a notable biography beyond the putsch, that is only one as far as I can see : Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter
Only the articles -Ehrentempel- and -Beer Hall Putsch- link to these people, their individual biographies are not relevant, the one incident is relevant E-Kartoffel (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not sufficient to group them in with "Beer Hall Putsch". Doing so likens them to the very people they were opposing. It would be like grouping Axis and Allied military personnel together in the same category under a "World War II soldiers" or something of the like. It makes no sense. And their notability is not relevant to having a category for them, at least so is my understanding of category policies.Hoops gza (talk) 01:54, 1 July 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:Nazi mysticism[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Nazi mysticism to Category:Nazism and occultism
Nominator's rationale: Rename. the category contains both 1: mysticism and occultism in/during the NS era and 2: the retrospective mysticism 'of' the era itself ("Nazi martyrs"). A more specific name is needed E-Kartoffel (talk) 20:27, 29 June 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:Waste legislation in Asia / Pacific[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Waste legislation in Asia / Pacific (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Waste legislation in Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added 2011 JUL 6 00.36 UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Legislation is enacted within political boundaries but this category ascribes geographical boundaries. It would not even be an acceptable category name if there were numerous subcategories since, given WP convention, it would be separated out into Asia and Oceania. As it currently stands the category only has one article and two redirects. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Author's rationale: This category is only going to get bigger as more Asian and Oceanian countries decide they need their own RoHS type directives, as China and Turkey already have. There are three other similar/related categories (See Category:Waste_legislation). To make the standards needed to operate in a region of the world easy to find, Asia-Pacific is a standard reference among US based corporations. Bassplr19 (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Asia-Pacific is a standard reference among US based corporations is not relevant on WP. The Asia-Pacific is often recognised as an entity but on WP categories are split into regions, continents and countries. At some point in the future I would expect Category:Waste legislation by region and Category:Waste legislation by country. I doubt that we will ever get We will not need Category:Waste legislation in the Pacific and given the trends I have seen we may see Category:Waste legislation in Asia and Category:Waste legislation in Oceania, but that would be years down the track. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The similar/related categories that you mention are for distinct political entities whereas this category is not. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:02, 1 July 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:LGBT-themed musical groups[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 without prejudice to a future renaming. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LGBT-themed musical groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No clear inclusion criteria and no larger scheme of Category:Musical groups by theme. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was a CFD discussion that renamed the category from Category:LGBT musical groups to this in the first place. In theory, the inclusion criterion would be that it's band with one or more LGBT members who at least sometimes address LGBT topics directly in their lyrics (as opposed to bands which happen to have one or more LGBT members but aren't defined by that fact lyrically or musically.) Some version of this category does need to exist as long as Category:LGBT-related music does; however, I do agree that this isn't the right name for it. Rename if someone can figure out a better name for it — but keep (with provision for future renaming) otherwise, because we do need a category for this (just not necessarily named this way.) Bearcat (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearcat, with the option to rename if something better can be found. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 5 July 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:American city councillors[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American city councillors to Category:American city council members
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Even the main article councillor recognizes that this is not the normal name for this position in the US. The word councillor is not valid in American English spelling in my spell check programs. Since we have renamed California we need to change the parent to reflect the common usage in the US. I will note that Boston was renamed in the opposite direction, but moving that back can be discussed after we rename the rest of the US tree to reflect common usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as city council member is the common term in most states. On a side note, I was the user who proposed the renaming of both California and Boston. While this may seem counter-intuitive for an American city, Boston actually does use councillor as the main term for its members, so if the rest of the US tree is moved to city council members, Boston should be left alone at city councillors. OCNative (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. GcSwRhIc (talk) 22:37, 1 July 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:DC Comics covers[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: reverse merge the first three, merge the rest.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:DC Comics covers to Category:DC comic book covers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Having both of them as sub-categories under Category:Comic book covers is redundant. The "DC comic book" category is more in line with the naming of the other sub-categories, and is more populated. In addition:

Fortdj33 (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As with the category below, the intent was to move to the title tithe the full company name (DC Comics) and drop "comic book" as it does not fit all cases. The same holds for the imprints - not everything published under the "Vertigo" or "Wildstorm" imprint is a comic book per se. The merge for those 3 should be flipped. Other wise I agree with the change. - J Greb (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I can see the advantage of having the full name of DC Comics in the name of the category. As long as all of the files (and sub-categories) are together under one category, I would be fine with Category:DC Comics covers, Category:Vertigo imprint covers and Category:Wildstorm imprint covers being the dominant categories. However, the rest of the specific sub-categories should start with the format "Category:Covers from titles related to", because most of the sub-categories that are not duplicates are named this way. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:44, 29 June 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:Marvel Comics covers[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: reverse merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Marvel Comics covers to Category:Marvel comic book covers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Having both of them as sub-categories under Category:Comic book covers is redundant. The "Marvel comic book" category is more in line with the naming of the other sub-categories, and is more populated. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 points...
    1. The nom should not have denuded one category while/before making the nom.
    2. The intent was to move to the title tithe the full company name and drop "comic book" as it does not fit all cases.
In othere words, flip the merge.
- J Greb (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per J Greb, I can see the advantage of having the full name of Marvel Comics in the name of the category. My intention in editing the files in Category:Marvel Comics covers, was to consolidate all those files in one category, and Category:Marvel comic book covers looked like it was more comprehensive. As long as all of the files (and sub-categories) are together under one category, I would be fine with the merge being flipped. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:36, 29 June 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:Enterprise ships (Star Trek)[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Enterprise ships (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The head category:Ships named Enterprise is being deleted, see CFD June 10; this should follow. All the pages are adequately categorised already so no upmerge is needed. There is already a list-type article and a navbox template. Fayenatic (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: also upmerge Category:Star Trek Earth ships. I have only just tagged it but this is not likely to be contentious. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:07, 4 July 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:Foods making health related claims[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Foods making health related claims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Foods don't make claims, health-related or otherwise. Category seems to have been created to single out controversy over pomegranate juice.64.93.125.3 (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Utterly subjective. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per all comments above. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. GcSwRhIc (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. I suppose a sheep bleating before the slaughter could be making a claim related to its own health, but not verifiable of course. GcSwRhIc (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on and think this through... as in Europe this was a major issue which brought about EU legislation, requiring 'healthful' foods to undergo medically-valid testing. The category should include a wide range of foods containing statins, and other cholesterol-reducing spreads, etc. Ephebi (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A more accepted name for this kind of food product is functional food. But, note that the only article currently in the category -- pomegranate juice -- refers to a food product that the FDA has ruled does not have the demonstrated health benefits that were claimed in marketing the product. Generally I think most of these marketing claims are unverifiable and bordering on quackery, much like other forms of food faddism. 64.93.125.3 (talk) 00:15, 6 July 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 of the 2011 Egyptian Revolution[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: Speedy rename per C2D - match main article. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People of the 2011 Egyptian Revolution to Category:People of the 2011 Egyptian revolution
Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:57, 29 June 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:Egyptian Revolution of 2011[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: Speedy rename per C2D - match main article. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Egyptian Revolution of 2011 to Category:2011 Egyptian revolution
Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The main article may have been recently renamed.Curb Chain (talk) 10:03, 29 June 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_June_29&oldid=1074807743"