Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 17 August 19 >

August 18[edit]

Historical gas stations[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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I believe that historic is the better word to use here and it better matches what is used in the main category, Category:Historic buildings in the United States Vegaswikian (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Gas stations of the United States and Category:Filling stations. All such stations in WP should be historic[al] in the sense of notable; if historic[al] in the sense of being listed on a registry of historically significant buildings, each entry should be added to the appropriate category for the register. Otherwise, the distinction here is merely current/former, which seems like overcategorization.- choster (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom -- Upmerging would be a bad option as the categories are adequately populated. The second (for non-US cases) only has three articles but it is still worth having. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom for the reasons stated; do not merge anything like this. Look at the distinct parent categories. Hmains (talk) 02:30, 24 August 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:Mizo history[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:Mizo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. I have removed one page from it (it was about a lake) and I removed it from Category:History. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:12, 18 August 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.

Athletes by event[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. The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following on from the previous discussion finding that these categories are adding a needless extra layer from the main Fooian athletes categories. These categories should be deleted under the same rationale. SFB 20:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although these categories have been emptied out of process. Normal procedure would have been to nominate them for upmerging. Anyway, with the same outcome, these can now be speedily deleted as empty. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 18 August 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.

Space programs[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: Option 1 save for changing "programme" to "program" for Argentina. That one's a separate issue best thrashed out on its own Timrollpickering (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most national sub-cats of Category:Space programs currently use "Fooian space program(me)"; although only North Korea currently has the naming format Category:Space program of North Korea, this is a better match with parent categories and sub-cats for "science and technology of Foo" and "Space vehicles of Foo". The spelling "programme" should be used following local usage in Germany,[1] India,[2], Sweden,[3] UK. The others not yet nominated can be speedily renamed later. – Fayenatic London 16:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have noticed that some of the categories have a lead article with a name that matches the current category e.g. British space programme, Soviet space program. In case people think this is a major consideration and the categories should follow these articles, then I have put forward Option 2 as a more modest alternative. – Fayenatic London 18:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I attempted to get a clarification on "program" vs "programme" for space categories. The result was underwhelming. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either, but with no change to the spelling of "program[me]" except for India (the Indian category should use Indian English per WP:TIES). I prefer option 1 as in some cases demonyms can be confusing or misleading - for example "American" could refer to the Americas as a whole, or "British" could refer to Great Britain or the British Isles instead of the UK. While the meaning should be fairly clear, option 1 is still neater. --W. D. Graham 13:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option one. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 1. Clearer. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:06, 20 August 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:French Horse Racing Hall of Fame[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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per the rationale outlined at this AfD. Since they essentially deal with the same subject, it follows that this category is also subject to the same concerns as its corresponding article. Kurtis (talk) 13:44, 18 August 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 I politics[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 (C2C). The Bushranger One ping only 06:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:34, 18 August 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:Filmed deaths[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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The actual filming a death is rarely notable in itself and for the purposes of WP categories it is not really an encyclopaedic defining characteristic. In the previous deletion discussion (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 December 3#Category:Filmed deaths) WP:NOTCENSORED was given as a reason to keep the category. This is a spurious argument since the articles don't actually show the footage (generally speaking?).
While it is a maintenance issue some of the articles have very little relation to the category e.g. Collapse of the World Trade Center and Terry Pratchett: Choosing to Die. If a deletion is recommended some of the subcats should be deleted as well. It looks like there is a need for a Category:Snuff films (or rename Category:Snuff films in fiction) which could then be used for some of the contents of Category:Filmed deaths.
Also, many of the pages are about the incident, person or animal that has been filmed. This is not haw categories are used. Given the name the category should be for actual articles about the filming. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As being the defining characteristic. Lugnuts And the horse 09:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Necessary navigational link between sub-categories for filmed executions, etc. I don't agree with any of the nominator's reasons. – Fayenatic London 21:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have categories for cause of death, place of death, year of death... That a death was filmed is so uncommon as to be a significant circumstance. The comment about snuff films seems irrelevant because that's not what's in this category structure (for good reason, if snuff films are actually just an urban legend). The last complaint is semantic nitpicking; articles about films of deaths and people whose deaths were filmed should obviously be linked (and the WTC collapse involved the filmed deaths of many people), and the names of some of these categories actually track the biographical categories well (Category:Suicides -> Category:Filmed suicides). There seem to be few articles actually about the films, as few of the films themselves are notable like the Zapruder film. If we decided the name was a problem, then the biographical category could easily be renamed to Category:People whose deaths were filmed or some such unnecessarily cumbersome name. postdlf (talk) 21:59, 18 August 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:Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation[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: result. The Bushranger One ping only 06:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: correct spelling per main article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:21, 18 August 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:Television series by RDF Media Group[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. As one of these categories already exists, this can be done without a CfD nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to the main article, Zodiak Media Group, RDF Media was merged into Zodiak Entertainment to form ZMG. Since this isn't a simple rename, renaming the category wouldn't work as it would, IMHO, miscategorise pre-ZMG series that were produced and aired only under RDF, however there are some overlapping/post-merger series here, so a split is called for, I believe. The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 18 August 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:Animated television shows by dic entertainment[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) 09:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Aside from the erroneous capitalisation, this is a breakout that is not needed; animated series are not categorised by studio (these are separate trees). (Plus the majority of the series properly categorised in the main category already are, in fact, animated.) The Bushranger One ping only 00:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The page in the category is already in other appropriate categories for animation. – Fayenatic London 22:09, 18 August 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_August_18&oldid=1138396041"