Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 25

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

September 25[edit]

Junior college football coaches by school[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Delete to Category:Junior college football coaches in the United States (modified my proposal per Jweiss11 below - makes more sense this way) Having specific coaching categories for junior college football coaches is overcategorization. There will never be enough coaches from any junior college specifically to warrant its own category. Having coaches of these programs suffices just fine to have them all together in Category:Junior college football coaches in the United States. The sheer abundance of community college programs across the country make having individual juco school coaching cats a massive undertaking that will never come close to being adequately satisfied. It is also my understanding that WP:CFB does not use individual community college categories. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. We have Category:Minor league baseball coaches, Category:American Hockey League head coaches, and other lower-level coaching categories. Not sure why this would be any different.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think that's the point - that those categories aren't for specific teams within those minor leagues, it's for coaches in those leagues generally. There is a category for Junior college football coaches in the United States and I don't think anyone thinks that should go away - but it should be sufficient on its own. 75 different categories of 1-2 guys each doesn't make much sense. Rikster2 (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one could ask for separate articles on Santa Monica Corsairs and Snow Badgers as a first step (I have no idea if these are notable). Occuli (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Junior college football coaches in the United States. Mike Selinker, those other categories you mention are for minor pro leagues. This category refers to rather minor amateur teams. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I know. But the relationship is the same. Anyway, all I'm saying is that I don't think the number of years in the college's degree is the axis on which the decision of whether a coaching category should exist.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As of now, I don't think we have a single article dedicated to a junior college football team. Until we have at least one of those with established notability, I'm not sure it makes sense to support specific junior college football team categories. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:31, 26 September 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:War correspondents by medium[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:War correspondents by medium to Category:War correspondents
Nominator's rationale: After two recent similar nominations that I merged, we should either merge this two-subcategory category or rename it to Category:Works about war correspondents.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Works about war correspondents and re-parent. These are films and books, not people. A war-correspondent is a person. User:Stefanomione's creations are thoroughly confused. Occuli (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. With only 2 sub-cats there's no real need for this "parent" category; the sub-cats should simply be given "see also" links. If kept it definitely should be renamed as suggested. Occuli is quite right about User:Stefanomione's penchant for creating oddly-conceived categories; he especially likes to come up with quasi-recursive category names like "Media by media", etc. etc. -- most of which make no sense in the real world. Cgingold (talk) 11:04, 5 October 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.

UruguayProject articles by topic[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, Option A for now. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Option A: UruguayProject FOO articles → Uruguay (FOO) articles
Option B: UruguayProject FOO articles → WikiProject Uruguay (FOO) articles
Nominator's rationale: The convention for WikiProject assessment categories is to use the full name of the WikiProject or to omit the word "WikiProject" altogether and identify only the main topic and, if applicable, subtopic (e.g. Category:Biography (military) articles by quality). I have not included Category:UruguayProject maintenance pages in this nomination, as I'm not sure what ought to be done with that particular category, and will nominate it after a consensus is reached in this discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:44, 25 September 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:Korean founders of automobile manufacturers[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Korean founders of automobile manufacturers to Category:South Korean founders of automobile manufacturers
Nominator's rationale: Rename (or maybe keep and diffuse all the members to new subcategory?). All the members of this category are South Korean. North Korea has one automobile manufacturer, but it was also basically "founded" by a South Korean (to the extent you can say it has a founder).
Some background here: Within the category system we're using "Korean" to refer to the nationality of the unified country which existed prior to 1945. (These are not ethnicity categories). South Korea and North Korea both claim to be the only successor state to that historical Korea; as a result, the typical structure of a Korean people by occupation category is to have a parent holding pre-1945 people (e.g. Category:Korean writers), which will have two children for post-1945 people (Category:North Korean writers, Category:South Korean writers). Typically the parent category then fills up with South Koreans, so editors from WikiProject Korea have to come by every so often and clean them up. cab (call) 14:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Did any Korean people found any automobile manufacturers prior to 1945? If yes, just the creation of a South Korean subcategory would be appropriate. If no, then a rename would probably be appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that I know of. On the other hand, after a bit of a look around, current practise seems to be to keep the parent "Korean fooer" category even when there's clearly no such thing, e.g. Category:Korean computer programmers (definitely none of those before 1945 either) solely to hold Category:South Korean computer programmers (no Category:North Korean computer programmers at the moment). cab (call) 01:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is kind of weird. I suppose in such cases, the "Korean" category is just serving as a container for the South Korean category and the North Korean category, if any. I think in this case, if there are no North Korean ones and there are no pre-1945 Korean ones, it makes sense to just do a straight rename. But either way is fine. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:00, 28 September 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:Jagadguru Rambhadracharya[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jagadguru Rambhadracharya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete I don't think the category is of much use. There's a subcategory and Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University but that's basically it. Given the navigation template {{Jagadguru Rambhadracharya}}, I believe that most readers choosing to browse the category will conclude that they've wasted a click. Pichpich (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Category name is too vague, and stands for nothing. Specific categories would serve a better purpose. Lynch7 09:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the template alone will work, so there is no need. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:05, 25 September 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:Categories of Jews and Judaism category tree[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Categories of Jews and Judaism category tree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant to the actual categories themselves. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's hard to look at this and not expect the imminent creation of Category:Categories about the categories of Jews and Judaism category tree. All kidding aside, it's still a confusing category creating unnecessary clutter. I suppose the intention is to use it for maintenance purposes but I don't see what tasks could be made simpler through this category. Moreover, I'm pretty sure that CatScan or some other toolserver software can produce this list of subcategories in a flash and with additional info about their relationship. Pichpich (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the related article are in Category:WikiProject Judaism articles and its subcats. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, because the WP only chose those articles it deemed of interest. Only the master Category:Jews and Judaism has all the various categories and most of those are not in the WP you mention. That's why a navigational tool is required. IZAK (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the articles are not in WikiProject Judaism and they are of interest to that project why not simply add them to the project? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Somehow this cat is populated by Template:Jews and Judaism category tree, which the template is supposed to simplify the process of categorizing pages under Template:Jews and Judaism category tree. But this cat does not do this. Template:Jews and Judaism category tree is more of a visual aid, but using it to populate a cat is redundant.Curb Chain (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category aspect of this only results from the template aspect of it, see Template:Jews and Judaism category tree -- it's a template that creates a category tree that has its own category, hence: template-->category tree-->category. It is a very useful navigational tool carefully designed and implemented. It would be a shame to lose it. IZAK (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this places talk pages of categories into Category:Jews and Judaism, which should include articles, not talk pages of anything. Occuli (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not about categorizing the talk pages at all! If you would look, it is about providing a category tree to help navigate the categories themselves. The talk pages of the categories contain other aids such as guides to various WP Projects and this is placed on the talk page to help prevent clutter on the category page while there is no such limitation on the categories' talk pages. IZAK (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:PROJCATS clearly states that "there is no need to categorize talk pages". Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not about categorizing the talk pages at all! If you would look, it is about providing a category tree to help navigate the categories themselves. The talk pages of the categories contain other aids such as guides to various WP Projects and this is placed on the talk page to help prevent clutter on the category page while there is no such limitation on the categories' talk pages. IZAK (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • REQUEST: The major Jewish holidays of Rosh Hashana, commences on the eve of 28th September 2011, followed by Yom Kippur and Sukkot. Most Jewish and Judaic editors are going to be busy now with these Jewish holidays and will not have enough time to respond fairly. This is not a fair time to put such a vote to the test. The nominator is requested to withdraw this vote until the Jewish holidays are over and more Judaic editors can look into it. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is unfortunate that the nomination was made at an awkward time for Jews however I like to think that the Gentile editors of WP can make a decision that takes Judaism into account. Sorry, I will not withdraw my nomination. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not just about "gentile editors" but when an admittedly Christian-oriented editor as per your user page sets out to make a big change in matters relating to sweeping Jews and Judaism categories at the very time when many Jews worldwide are busy with Rosh Hashanah the Jewish New Year, that has already set in now September 28 2011 in many parts of the world, but evidently you are not worried about hurting the sensibilities of those to whom the Jewish Days of Awe are just that and cannot partake now. The editors who have worked on these categories and all that goes with them are almost all serious Judaic and Jewish editors who cannot now take note of this discussion, something you fail to acknowledge but hopefully some closing admin will over-rule you and put this misguided CfD into cold storage for the time being. IZAK (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not a "sweeping change". It's a cleanup operation affection less than a thousand articles. Unless you are implying that editors who do not observe Rosh Hashanah are somehow not competent to discuss the practicalities of the categorisation of articles on Judaism then you should stop casting aspersions to that effect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really cannot see how you arrive at the conclusion that I am a "Christian-oriented editor" from my user page. I am actually an atheist. And please can you assume good faith. I do not like the insinuation that I put it up for deletion at this particular time to sneak it past Jewish editors. I have very little knowledge about the timing of events in the Jewish calendar. Stop acting as if you are hard done by - sadly a common stance amongst some Jews. Also, as Chris Cunningham points out there is no need to be a Jew in order to carry out a simple cleanup operation. Now stop wasting everyone's time and discuss the merits or lack thereof of the category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This nomination is faulty because this "category" only exists because it's part of a template. The nominator has placed the template for deletion as well at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 25#Template:Jews and Judaism category tree but fails to note that here, or this CfD there. The nominator's "split" and therefore faulty nomination reflects a lack of grasp of this subject's complexity and why a navigation template is required. IZAK (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not assume that I fail to understand how Wikipedia works. That argument can work both ways. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this is not a "category" per se but it is clearly a WP:NAVBOX and Template:Category tree TEMPLATE (i.e. Template {{Jews and Judaism category tree}}) to help in navigating the complex categories relating the vast parent Category:Jews and Judaism. As the creator of both the template and this parent category and a very long time editor of this category (I was its initiator in June 2004 [1]) there have been countless times when questions are raised about how the English WP structures these categories. All I have done is created a map and guide to help WP and its users. There have been constant requests and questions from multiple new users over the years how each sub-category here connects and fits in with the other. This has been a labor of love to help new users and those not familiar with this field to orient them about the lay-out of the categories and how they connect and relate to each other. I carefully chose this to be, and it states quite clearly, that this is a legitimate category tree, as noted at Template {{Jews and Judaism category tree}} that it's a sub-category of 1. Category:Jews and Judaism infobox templates; 2. Category:Jews and Judaism templates; 3. Category:Talk message boxes; 4. Category:Wikipedia classification templates; 5. Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates. All this serves to benefit all users of Wikipedia so it is bewildering and self-defeating to now delete this hard work that's taken me almost one year and see it go down the drain on minor technicalities when the larger good of WP stands to lose from this hasty nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that IZAK copy-pasted exactly this series on non-answers to the TfD, and that it is rather distasteful to suggest that we can't discuss project matter related to Judaism over Jewish holidays (as if non-Jewish editors are either prejudiced against Judaism-related subjects or ignorant of them), there are two problems here which can probably be resolved without deleting everything:
    1. The category relates to the category pages and not the talk pages. This can be resolved by simply moving the cats to the categories themselves.
    2. The category title is confusing and unnecessarily self-referential. Category:Judaism categories should suffice.
  • Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You miss many points. Firstly the categories exist in and of themselves, they do not need to be moved anywhere. The category tree is an added navigational tool to help WP users not familiar with this vast field of categories. Secondly, there should NOT be two deletion votes because the "category" in this case gets created only by the placement of the template on the talk pages, so that rightly speaking it's only a vote about the role of the template. But the nominator obviously has not thought this through, or seeks to widen the scope about this matter by stretching it that it's about a category as well when it's not. Thirdly, how else to correlate two votes in two different places that are actually only one vote about one matter, when the nominator has not done so? I am merely making sure that the carelessness of the nominator is corrected since he did not do his job. Fourthly, you seem to be confused that the parent category is Category:Jews and Judaism that is split into the two main sub-categories of Category:Judaism AND Category:Jews which are co-equal so that referring only to the one results in an imbalance. Fifthly, it is indeed most improper for the nominator to push ahead with a vote on a matter of such scope with the Jewish High Holy Days a day or two away when the nominator himself on his user page declares he is an avid Christian editor, which indicates an obvious conflict of interest and makes it another reason why he should step back and withdraw his nomination. It would look absurd if a bunch of Judaic editors would lunge into major deletions when it's during a Christian holy time. But unfortunately over the years experience has shown that it's often around the Jewish holidays when Jewish editors are busy with other things that all of a sudden controversial nominations and edits by non-Judaic editors (based on their editorial history) start popping up. IZAK (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Shana tova to you all. --Dweller (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IZAK. Useful navigation tool. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it helpful? There are currently 985 entries (or should I say talk pages) in that category and the content is sorted alphabetically. But that's basically the same as saying that it's unsorted content since we want to organize things according to meaning. If you don't already know that we chose the name Category:Synagogues in Ireland rather than Category:Irish synagogues you won't find what you're looking for. That problem doesn't occur if you're browsing using the category tree. At the risk of stating the obvious, the whole point of organizing data as a tree is that you can find it more efficiently. Pichpich (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You miss the point that this category only appears when the template is inserted as an indication of which category talk pages the template is on, and that is both scientific, exact and helpful. IZAK (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the adjective you were looking for there was "arbitrary". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • IZAK, I don't think I understand your sentence. Are you saying that the question "which category talk pages contain this template?" is a scientific question? And if that's the whole point, did you know you can get the very same info by using the "what links here" feature of the Wikipedia toolbox? Pichpich (talk) 21:35, 28 September 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:Occupations[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Occupations to Category:Professions
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Occupations redirects to Occupation, which is a disambiguation page. One might thing of occupations along the line of Category:Occupation of Iraq, but this cat is for professions and should be renamed accordingly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at this point. I'm not convinced that these two are the same thing. I'd be more inclined to support a rename to Category:Careers, but I'm not sure that this would make sense either. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should not remain at Occupations, given the inherent (and recognized) ambiguity of "Occupations"; careers may be better (but that implies only long term jobs, where professions may connote learned jobs - perhaps "Jobs" would be better, but that too redirects to a disambiguation page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest rename to Category:Occupations (employment) to avoid any ambiguity. Occupations does seem to be the most accurate word to used. Cjc13 (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not rename per nom whatever else is done. Professions is clearly not the same; professions are a subset of occupations. Clearly not all occupations of are of learned type. Hmains (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rather fancy that readers familiar with the English language will understand that occasionally a common word will have more than one meaning. It's not obvious to me that there is any potential for confusion here (readers are not going to wonder what job Iraq took up in 2003). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Occupations (employment) per user Cjc13. Not all occupations are professions (e.g. window cleaners). Some occupations are just hobbies or passtimes (e.g. stamp collecting). Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:17, 28 September 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_September_25&oldid=1074808346"