Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 3 April 5 >

April 4[edit]

Category:World Heritage Sites in the Kingdom of Denmark[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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:World Heritage Sites in the Kingdom of Denmark to Category:World Heritage Sites in Denmark
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Kingdom of Denmark" looks like an unnecessary qualifier. Tim! (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename C2C - all other Denmark categories use "in/of Denmark" including the parents here. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:07, 5 April 2012 (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:Free data recovery software[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 merge - jc37 19:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Free data recovery software to Category:Data recovery
Nominator's rationale: Contains only four items. I advise merging it with its parent category where all other data recovery software are kept. Fleet Command (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2012 (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.

Japanese films[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. This is indeed a logical way to subdivide the films by year categories--but only if it happens. If a month goes by and these are the only ones subdivided, these should be nominated for up merging again, with the standards for keeping being raised quite a bit. (I deleted one of the categories, as it was empty.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:1999 Japanese films to Category:1999 films
Propose merging Category:1989 Japanese films to Category:1989 films
Propose merging Category:1998 Japanese films to Category:1998 films
Nominator's rationale: No other scheme for breaking down country by years exists or has been discussed with the Film Project. I think this would need a consensus to happen before it is implemented. Lugnuts (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger. Correct me if I am wrong, but nominator's reason seems to be "I just don't like it; either my/our way or highway", akin to WP:OWN, which is not a good reason for nomination. On the other hand, this categorization seems logical and effective. Category:1999 Japanese films seems well populated. Others are underpopulated but their merger should only be considered after deciding whether there is sufficient articles to populate them. Fleet Command (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to assume good faith. Where do I say IDONTLIKEIT or hint at WP:OWN? I don't. This is over-categorisation. No other country/year scheme currently exists, and if it was to exist, I've suggested this should be raised at the Film Project to reach a consensus to modify this long-established existing structure. Lugnuts (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Computers, cars, airplanes, satellites and Wikipedia also did not exist until one decided that they were very good ideas. Well, this categorization is good. Yes, there have always been people who said "Whenever did the sacred [noun] permit you to invent airplanes? If the God wanted us to fly, he would have given us wings in the first place." Fleet Command (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Now is there anyone with any worthwhile comments on this? Lugnuts (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed. I think the objective of keeping track of Japanese film production on a yearly basis is better served by Category:Lists of Japanese films by year. Categories like Category:1999 Japanese films result in clutter because one is more or less forced to categorize films as both Category:1999 Japanese films and Category:Japanese films. Not doing that makes it hard for readers to find what they're looking for in Category:Japanese films because they need to guess the year of production for the film they're interested in. Pichpich (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they don't. We already have search feature. Besides, they already need to guess that it is Japanese. And I do not see what "forces" people to put films in both categories. Child category alone is enough. Fleet Command (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Are the contents of the subject categories films in the Japanese language? If so, they should be renamed and kept. The language used in a film is clearly highly significant. The alternative is a multiple upmerge, to "films in Japanese" and "1999 films" (etc). I do not think this has bene thought out properly. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I see no reason why categories that can get 25+ entries should be upmerged. Anyway, if we are to upmerge we should also upmerge to Category:1999 in Japan and the other specific years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:OCAT#Mostly_overlapping_categories. A lot of work has been done to standadize the film cats (per WP:FILMCAT), with the infobox being customised to force the year, country and language to appear as the primary categories on all articles. With this breakdown, you'll have multiple child categories and parent categories on the same article. Lugnuts (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: All of these categories have been made by one disruptive editor.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Lucasmoura (talk · contribs · count) has been blocked for disruptive editing: edit warring, anti-consensus category creation. This category is up for speedy deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the year and country cats. Lugnuts (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now on whether an upmerger should take place. So far, the reasons advanced by those seeking upmerger seem to consist solely of a complaint that the films project had not agreed this in advance. That seems to me to be a very poor reason for any decision, because it doesn't address whether or not this is a good form of categorisation.
    I see that Category:Japanese films contains 2417 pages, so it may be that some form of subcategorisation woukd help. If so, it may or may not be best to sub-categorise by year ... but before deleting the year categories, I would like to hear some substantive reason for why they are a good or a bad idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American films is even larger. Ditto Category:English-language films. These along with the year are the parent categories for all films and would require consensus if a split was going to be made, rather than some random ad-hoc creations. Lugnuts (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement to seek consensus before creating a category. Maybe there should be, but there isn't.
The creation of these categories has now been challenged, which is why we are having a discussion to seek consensus on whether to retain them. Your objections seem to be based primarily on a misunderstanding of procedure, and secondarily on the notion that since the categories are currently populated by an infobox then the infobox must dictate the shape of the categories. Neither of those points has anything to do with the substantive merits or demerits of the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And your objections seem to be based primarily on a misunderstanding of what the Film Project has setup. The user who's created these ad-hoc random categories has been blocked twice for disruptive edits (one admin citing non-consensus creation). I guess they're wrong too and you're right. Something on this scale should be discussed first to gain a consensus. Lugnuts (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the film project has set up a system of categorisation by year and categorisation by country, but not for the intersection of the two. You have provided have provided no explanation for why the project opposes the intersection categories, nor linked to one ... and until you provide an explanation, there is nothing to understand. Your objection remains purely procedural. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (changing my !vote). Grouping by an intersection of year and country seems to be a logical way of subdividing two trees of large categories to assist navigation of both, and this call for merger seems to be based solely on dubious procedural claims rather than on any substantive rationale for avoiding an intersection of year and country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 11 April 2012 (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:World War II ghetto inmates[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 by nominator. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:Propose renaming Category:World War II ghetto inmates to Category:World War II ghetto inhabitants

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think that it is self-explanatory that this is a more appropriate title for the category. "Inmate" can be a misnomer. Of course the subcategories would also need to be renamed to "inhabitants".Hoops gza (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As far as I can see from a basic search in google books and google scholar, both terms are used to describe people who lived in WWII ghettos. Perhaps you should explain a bit more as to why the proposed name is more appropriate, as I'm not finding it self-explanatory. My dictionary defines "inmate" as "one of a number of inhabitants of a closed space", which seems on target. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, "inmate" is often applied to those who are in correctional facilities, it might suggest that placing these people there was within the bounds of human rights.Hoops gza (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? Forcing people to live in a particular area of a city, with shoot-on-sight curfew laws and often armed guards at the edge of the ghetto? The WP article Jewish ghetto states: "Many ghettos were walled off or enclosed with barbed wire. In the case of sealed ghettos, any Jew found leaving them was shot." None of that sounds very human-rightsy to me, and it sounds an awful lot like a prison, too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are proving my point. So "inhabitants" is a better term than "inmate". The people imprisoned were not there for correctional purposes. They had done nothing wrong deserving of being placed there. "Inmate" is frequently viewed with this type of negative connotation. "Inmate" is frequently associated with "criminal".Hoops gza (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand exactly what you mean, unless you are assuming more meaning to the word "inmate" than I think has to exist. "Inmate" has no necessary connection to correctional incarceration. The dictionary definition includes no such connotation. It is more connected to incarceration against one's will, whether or not it is for legitimate correctional purposes. For instance, psychiatric hospital patients committed against their will are also commonly called "inmates" as well, and in most cases that has nothing to do with correctional imprisonment either. I would also expect people who are unjustly imprisoned by a repressive regime to be referred to as "inmates" of the prison ("concentration camp inmates", for example), and I think the that situation and these ones are comparable. One could just as easily argue that "inhabitants" implies willful residence as make the argument you are making, since I think "inmate" connotes being held against ones will more than it does legitimate correctional incarceration. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you have convinced me to keep.Hoops gza (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- Jews confined in Nazi ghettos were in a position very similar to prison detainees. The original ghetto at Venice was less stringent - the Jews merely had to live there and be back home at night. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2012 (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 spasmodic dysphonia[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People with spasmodic dysphonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a new creation. Most of the conditions categorized in Category:People by medical or psychological condition are quite serious conditions—either life threatening or significantly life altering. I don't think spasmodic dysphonia is of that type. This category is more similar to People with asthma, Insomniacs, People with gastritis, or People with Celiac Disease, each of which has been deleted. A list already exists within the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can make neither head nor tail out of your nomination. Just say what is wrong with this category. Fleet Command (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a defining condition for those so afflicted. It's a factoid about the person, but that doesn't mean we need to categorize by it. Other categories for afflications of a similar seriousness (or lack thereof) have been deleted and I think that this one should be too for the same reasons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Much better. Now I get it: You do not think a category about people inflicted with Spasmodic Dysphonia is worthy of presence and maintenance. At least I have decision making material. Fleet Command (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: per WP:DEFINING: "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject." This condition is not defining. I looked at a few of the articles, and none of them mention this affliction in the lead. --Karl.brown (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have serious issues with categorizing people by their conditions. It strikes me too much of making the person into the condition. It definantly should be done in only a limited number of cases, otherwise we could get people with way too many categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2012 (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:Health and the European Union[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 by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Health and the European Union to Category:Health in Europe
Nominator's rationale: These two categories seem very similar. I don't see why they can't be merged. Karl.brown (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger. The similarity is only superficial.
    Firstly, Europe != European Union. (The EU is a supranational political whose geographical scope covers most, but not all, of the continent of Europe). Secondly, Category:Health in Europe is a geographical container category, mostly containing categories for "health in county xxx". OTOH, Category:Health and the European Union is explicitly for "health matters concerning the European Union as a whole". It consists of articles relating the institutions and laws of the EU which relate to health, and mergeing it to Category:Health in Europe will remove those articles from the Category:European Union. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger. Merging it to Category:Health in Europe would remove the articles from the Category:European Union. Category:Health in Europe is a geographical container category, containing categories for "health in country xxx". This category is analogous to those categories, but for health matters pertaining to the EU as a whole, such as EU legislation on health. There are similar categories for transport, education, energy, foreign relations, etc. All these categories are useful because many things to do with these topics are regulated at an EU level. --Boson (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: While I agree that Europe != European Union, if you look at the articles, some do not apply to just the EU level, since there is a broad overlapping of various European agreements/treaties/etc. See this for example: [1]. If eds find it remains useful to categorize EU-level health initiatives, perhaps the cat could be renamed as European Union Health Institutions or European Union Health Entities something similar, and clean up description of the category and add similar language to 'Health in Europe' to make it clear when something should be in one or another. --Karl.brown (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger, instead rename to Category:UNKNOWN and purge per above comment I'm not sure what the best rename is, but it is clear that two categories need to exist. It is very much the case that Europe != European Union, and these categories are important parts of different trees. LeSnail (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: given the comments to date I withdraw the nomination for merging. However suggestions on a rename for Category:Health and the European Union would be appreciated. --Karl.brown (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2012 (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:Open universities[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Open universities to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not sure what the common thread here is other then post secondary schools offering distance learning. This is too easily confused with Category:Open University, which probably should be renamed to Category:The Open University which is the correct name for the school from the article. Open universities is a dab page. If these are really schools without entry requirements, then a rename to something like Category:Universities without entry requirements could make sense. Open to suggestions. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The list at Open universities clearly shows the ambiguity of the term. But besides that, we probably shouldn't be categorising institutions by one or more of their in-house policies. - jc37 00:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and start again if necessary) Glancing through the articles I get the impression that just about every institution with "Open University" in the name has partially modelled itself on the British institution, but has tended to take the distance learning aspect first and foremost, and not all of them have copied the admissions policy. I suspect this confusion over what an "open university" is has created confusion and the category has become a catch-all for institutions with some similar features to OU. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this category is not built on any of the standard ways of categorizing educational institutions we use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2012 (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:Locomotion[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:Locomotion (biological). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Locomotion to Category:Animal locomotion or Category:Locomotion (biological)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not sure this is the best name but we have the article animal locomotion and locomotion is a dab page. Animal does not cover all biological processes so an alternative name should considered if anyone has any suggestions. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2012 (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/2012_April_4&oldid=1138395909"