Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 18 November 20 >

November 19[edit]

Category:Batman: The Brave and the Bold 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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 19. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Batman: The Brave and the Bold characters to [[:Category:]]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. No characters from this now-canceled series are likely to become notable enough for articles so this category isn't needed just for the list. Merge to the two super-categories. 76.201.152.215 (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I have never heard of this TV serial, which ran to 3 series (that I would only watch if you paid me to). A look at the article on the serial Batman: The Brave and the Bold has a list of characters - and they have articles on them. These characters also appear in various children's comics. All that is required is to add this category to the articles, and perhaps add to the articles a reference to this serial (if this has not already been done). So the premise on which this deletion request is made is false. Presumably there is value in Wikipedia having articles that are only of interest to children.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close. I suppose Batman, Black Canary, Catwoman etc. aren't notable in the IP OP's opinion. Borderline bad-faith nomination. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a very nice thing to say. None of the characters you mention became notable because they are included in the series and none of the characters created for the show are notable on their own either. DC uses a lot of characters in a lot of shows and having two dozen categories on a character because they made one appearance in each series is a bad use of categories. 76.201.152.215 (talk) 22:29, 20 November 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:WikiProject Computer networking[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) 23:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WikiProject Computer networking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WikiProject has become a task force and this category has been superseded by Category:WikiProject Computing task forces. Already ran this by the other involved editors at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing/Computer_networking_task_force#WikiProject_restructuring. Pnm (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support —Ruud 20:49, 2 December 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:Dry Docks of Kingston upon Hull[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 15:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dry Docks of Kingston upon Hull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: All of these are redirects to Port of Hull, which has its own Category:Port of Hull.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 16:50, 19 November 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:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield[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 14:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield to Category:Battle of Gettysburg
Propose merging Category:Defunct places of the Gettysburg Battlefield to Category:Battle of Gettysburg
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally subcategorize sites in a battle into their own category.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DISAGREE WITH RATIONALIZATION ALLEGED AS RATIONALE: The claim that "We don't normally subcategorize sites in a battle into their own category" is misleading (which is why the claimant used the irrelevant qualifier "normally" to mislead), as categories for notable locations are acceptable and used for notable events--i.e., their use is normal (e.g. for venue categories as siblings of event categories, and for Civil War battles such as Category:Richmond National Battlefield Park & the category for Perryville battlefield). That is, when the amount of wikiarticles regarding a place (a battlefield in this case) is significant, they are to be split to allow readers to more easily navigate (the whole purpose of categorization). This is particularly true for the places on the Gettysburg Battlefield--which are so numerous as to warrant 7 subcategories. The issue of normal/abnormal is irrelevant and an unfounded and false rationale, as the number of notable places on the Gettysburg Battlefield is high (so having a category is normal for a such a military site--actually a region with numerous sites--having the high magnitude of Civil War and postbellum events that has warranted the large number of articles on notable topics). All those wikiarticles warrant a separate category in the Category:Battlefield tree. 208.54.38.151 (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The subcategories and their targets each have so many articles that it looks more tidy and makes navigation easier to use subcategories here. Tatterfly (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE MERGE to Category:Battle of Gettysburg: Battle and Battlefield are 2 different things (per Category:Battles & Category:Battlefields) with the battle being just 1 three-day event on the battlefield (i.e., subcategory of the battlefield category, which has had events over more than a century with several distinct periods (e.g., memorial association era, commemorative era, etc.). The battle category has all the wikiarticles for events during the battle, while the populated Battlefield category has all the places on the battlefield (some not related to the battle such as the postbellum railroad(s)). Likewise as an example, Pickett's Charge is a different topic than the Field of Pickett's Charge, so placing the field article in the battle category is improper categorization as little of the article's information is about the battle (e.g., the Camp Colt, Pennsylvania and other postbellum places and events on that field). Moreover, many of the Gettysburg Battlefield places don't have anything to do with the Battle of Gettysburg, so merging those articles into Category:Battle of Gettysburg would be unreasonably clutter the battle category with irrelevant articles (which "we don't normally" do). This is particularly true of the numerous articles in the subCategory:Defunct places of the Gettysburg Battlefield, few of which have anything to do with the battle and would be ridiculous additions to Category:Battle of Gettysburg (and is evident to anyone who has even a simple knowledge--e.g., from the the titles--of the defunct place articles). Hopefully there won't be a rationalization for those articles to instead be in a Battle of Gettysburg subcategory called Category:Battle of Gettysburg sites which are on the Gettysburg Battlefield but which don't actually have anything to do with the Battle of Gettysburg? 208.54.38.151 (talk) 22:57, 21 November 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.

Western Australia people[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 C2C. The Bushranger One ping only 17:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Standardise category Category:People from Western Australia by occupation. I. A. 04:45, 19 November 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:Bathrooms[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. A significant number of articles were added to this category during the discussion, which complicates matters. Category:Restrooms was renamed in the previous discussion to Category:Public toilets, so what I'd suggest is a re-evaluation of this category in light of that rename and the additions to this category. The category can be immediately re-nominated if desired. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bathrooms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Keeping my mind in the toilet (please previous CfD on November 18), there are just three articles here. Two can be added to the public toilets category, now under consideration in the previous CfD, and the third, Duravit is for a bathroom fixture supply company. However, even such a venerable brand as Grohe is under Category:Plumbing and we could move it there; or create some sort of category for fixture makers, though there's no parent article for that industry, yet, that I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. I don't remember creating this category; I don't know much about categories; and I have no particular attachment to this category other than it's really helpful when the urge to upchuck comes on suddenly. Okay to flush it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fully agree with Shawn's analysis. Pichpich (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wipe up through merging with the public-toilets and plumbing categories, then flush via deletion. And don't forget to wash your hands before returning to work with the admin tools. OK, I'm done here. ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 11:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know, but two of the items in this category do not belong in this category (Aircraft lavatory and Changing room). If a decision is made to keep Category:Bathrooms, these two articles should be removed from the category. It is possible that one day there will be articles on bathrooms and bathroom fittings manufacturers, so if a decision is made to delete this category, it should be without prejudice to its future recreation.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, absolutely. We do have a category Category:Kitchen that includes domestic kitchen related articles and I don't see why personal bathrooms wouldn't work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only is there the potential to populate this category with more articles, but it also has the potential to be a parent category in itself and hold other categories. It can hold articles about types of bathrooms (which there are plenty of) and categories pertaining to various forms of equipment found in bathrooms. This is a matter of organization. I am not up to doing that this very moment, but this can be worked on. Tatterfly (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's the case, then we'd need to make Restooms a subcat of Bathrooms, rather than the other way around, as it is now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do American public toilets have baths then? European ones do not.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populate properly -- The problem with this category is that it is being used to deal with the euphemism for a toilet. Some bathrooms contain toilet pans. My parents had a room with a bath and a sink and no toilet. Restroom is similarly a eupohemism. I am letting a shop to a bus company as a restroom where their drivers can take a break during their working day; it does contain a toilet, but that is not its primary purpose. The present category ought to contain articles on "bath" "shower", "wash basin", "bidet" (yes) and "toilet pan". It might also contain articles on personal hygene (i.e. washing). Get rid of the euphemisms! Peterkingiron (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have made an effort to implement your suggestion.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:Restrooms; while bathroom connotes more than the toilet (bathing perhaps), when someone says they have to go to the bathroom it's rarely for bathing purposes.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the opposite as being more plausible. A restroom is a type of bathroom, not the other way around. Though the word "bathroom" contains "bath," in the English language, it implies a room that has a toilet. Another option is for the category "restrooms" to contain articles pertaining to public restrooms, and the category "bathrooms" for private ones, both in a common parent category. I can't see deleting either over a low number of articles because there really are plenty of articles having to do with both. Tatterfly (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proper meaning of the word bathroom is a room where you can wash your whole body - in modern times this means a room with a bath or a shower. Though the word is sometimes used as a euphemism for toilet/lavatory, that is not its encyclopedic meaning. The English language has many euphemisms and colloquialisms for private and public toilets/lavatories, including bog, little room, bathroom, loo, WC... There are also euphemisms and colloquialisms that are only used for public toilets/lavatories: ladies, gents, men's room, washroom, rest room... For categories in an encyclopedia we should avoid euphemisms and colloquialisms.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:20, 4 December 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_November_19&oldid=1146512556"