Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 20 August 22 >

August 21[edit]

Category:Transport accidents and incidents[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 Category:Transport incidents to Category:Transport accidents and incidents, and Category:Transport accident lists to Category:Lists of transport accidents and incidents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This matches the existing standard of "Lists of...", and "X-related" and uses "...accidents and incidents" per the category contents, and other varied subcats of Category:Accidents. - jc37 22:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as nom. - jc37 22:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see any consistency in the various accident and incident categories. At any rate I don't see any "-related" categories in the group, and omitting the phrase is better English anyway. Mangoe (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been several CfDs on "accidents and incidents", including a group nom, I believe. That aside, "-related" was directly from Category:Horse-related accidents. (And I'll disagree about "better english" : ) - jc37 01:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A relationship can mean anything. I'm also not that happy with the word "incidents", which is nearly synonymous with "event". But more to the point, the subcategories are almost entirely about accidents. For instance, the entire railroad subcategory tree uses "accidents". Therefore I propose to Rename Category:Transport incidents to Category:Transport accidents with an eye toward renaming subcategories in the same manner and leaving the accident list category alone. And I think the horse category needs renaming along the same lines. I'm not utterly opposed to "accidents and incidents"; I'm just not convinced that the subcategories are about anything but accidents. I do absolutely oppose the "-related" phraseology as weaselly, potentially misleading, and not the way people in the field talk about them. Mangoe (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because some of these incidents were not accidental. (Note the aviation subcat for eample). As for "people in the field", who? transport is a rather wide topic. which people in the field? - jc37 16:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, right on the front page of the Nation Transportation Safety Board ([1]) it says that they investigate "transportation accidents". Mangoe (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    [2] uses the term "incidents".
    As for "transportation", I think we're getting into an ENGVAR issue here. Transport and transportation have differences of definition in some english-speaking countries. And further, I did a quick google search, and it seems that governements prefer "transportation" (possibly to help avoid some of that possible confusion). With that on mind, I would support transportation instead of transport (per many other CfDs where we try to use wordings to avoid ENGVAR confusions, whenever possible). - jc37 18:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Should be called "accidents and incidents" -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Sounds reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have nominated Category:Horse-related accidents for renaming (discussion here) as it appears to be perhaps the only "-related" accident category. Mangoe (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - modified nom to use "transportation" instead of "transport", per the discussion above. - jc37 18:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Catgeory:Transport accidents and incidents and Category:Lists of transport accidents and incidents. "Accidents and incidents" is the phrasing used for aircraft and airline, er, accident and incident articles, and AFAICT it works fine. "-related", though? I agree with Mangoe - "-related" is weasely. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Catgeory:Transport accidents and incidents and Category:Lists of transport accidents and incidents. Most of the world uses "transport" rather than "transportation."--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:24, 17 September 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:Game-Maker media[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 02:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT and it is insufficiently notable to warrant its own category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:41, 21 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 WWE[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 reminds me of Category:TSR, Inc. games. Just because something used to stand for something doesn't mean it still does.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contested speedy: originally suggested "...by the WWE", but it was pointed out that that form is not used based on the main article. However the category still has an awkward name - and slightly ambigiuous, as based on other subcategories of Category:Television series by studio one might assume "WWE" at a glance to be a TV station's call letters. While no other subcategories of Category:WWE spell out "World Wrestling Entertainment", this is also the only subcategory to use "X of Y" name format - but appropriately, as all subcats of Category:Television series by studio use "X of Y" (barring a change to "WWE television series", which would, otherwise, make perfect sense). Therefore, the name WWE should be spelled out for grammar and clarity here, I believe.
Copy of speedy nomination
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Bushranger One ping only 19:42, 21 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:Star Trek crossover episodes[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: listify. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be somewhat WP:OC#ARBITRARY - for example, Q2 (Star Trek: Voyager) isn't in the category, despite Q from Star Trek: The Next Generation playing a significant role in the epsode; nor is Through the Looking Glass (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine), despite the fact that the mirror Tuvok is a character there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • La-la-la-Listify per nom : ) - jc37 00:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That article helped me come up with some good points - for example, is Doctor Bashir, I Presume? a crossover? Dr. Lewis Zimmerman hadn't previously appeard in any episodes in person, although a hologram of him had appeared on Voyager (Projections and The Swarm) as well as the mark I Emergency Medical Hologram; Does In the Flesh count? The likeness of Boothby is there, but it's not really him - it's really a member of Species 8472. A prose article can deal with every one of these issues; a category can't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is the type of thing that can be treated in an article, but does not rise to a defining characteristic of the episodes involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 3 September 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 from the Florida Heartland[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 05:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC. Non-notable with regards for "being from", and doesn't include all the counties in the Florida Heartland region. Not part of an overall category tree. The Bushranger One ping only 18:53, 21 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:Fashion freedom[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 02:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The idea of this category seems to be POV/original research. Note that Wikipedia has no corresponding 'fashion freedom' article; the closest equivalent, Men's fashion freedom, was deleted at AFD as non-notable back in 2006. Perhaps this could be turned into a category on gender-neutral clothing, and expanded to include articles such as Bloomers (clothing) and Victorian dress reform. But the current version, with its description 'efforts by men to gain equality in clothing', is clearly POV. Robofish (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No main article, and a consistent history of deleting any possible main article. Mangoe (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 27 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:Knights and Dames Grand Cross of Justice of the Order of Pedro I of Brazil[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 both to Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Pedro I of Brazil. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See below all three ranks in the Order of Pedro I. Lecen (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There was never a rank called "knight grand cross" in the Order of Pedro I. The ranks were, from lowest to highest: knight, commander and grand cross. See this and this (especially the latter). If you click on the second link, you'll see "A ordem consta [The order is consisted]: 1) De Grão-Cruzes [Of Grand-crosses] 2) De Comendadores [Of Commanders] 3) De Cavaleiros [Of Knights]. Lecen (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But we do categorise people by medals and decorations, which is what this is. This is not an AWARDS category of the usual kind. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 8 September 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:XNA game engines[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Despite the hype that many engines will be built using XNA, we still have only 1 notable included and I don't see this expanding any time soon. Parent category Category:.NET game engines only has 2 entries (duplicating the one in this one as well). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looks to be part of a reasonable tree. - 13:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are several other major XNA games engines which have been added to Category:XNA game engines (which also aren't otherwise in the .NET game engines category), and there are other reasons why to keep, as described below: --Xeonx (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few other engines which to varying degrees may be considered an XNA game engine (or game engine plugin, or toolset, or have a version or build configuration that uses it) include GTA2NET, DXFramework, Axiom, DirectZZT, JigLibX, Farseer Physics Engine, Physics2D.Net, tIDE, uTanks Engine and Editor, XNA RPG Starter Kit, Clickteam TGF, XNA Game Studio, Microsoft Robotics Developer Studio.
    • Also, there are many more engines not yet on wikipedia which are XNA-based, like seen for these XNA-based engines and especially many 2D XNA game engines/builders.
    • Some engines like Clickteam TGF, don't target (or allow developing with) .NET languages, but just provide an XNA-based deployment/exporting option, while there are .NET-based engines like the RealmForge Game Engine which are not built on XNA.
    • It's also important to keep it as a distinct category from .NET game engines considering that many engines that claim to be .NET game engines or engines with .NET scripting really only do so by providing a COM-based API (which therefore can be accessed indirectly from .NET languages, despite the engine not using or building on or simplifying use of .NET with it).
    • However, an XNA-based engine indicates a purely managed solution.
    • Also XNA game engines, to a degree, represents a set of deployment platforms (Zune and Xbox 360) and potentially a different platform than Xbox 360 traditional deployment (providing digital distribution accessible to indies, even without publishers, and development without requiring an Xbox console developer kit)
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:Serbian royalty stubs[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 into Category:Serbian nobility stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty. Propose keeping template, but upmerging to Category:Serbian nobility stubs. Dawynn (talk) 09:52, 21 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:Spanish mosque stubs[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Permanent category only has 9 articles, only about half of which are stubs. Nowhere near the 60 minimum for a stub category. Upmerge template to Category:European mosque stubs. Dawynn (talk) 09:44, 21 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:Formicariidae stubs[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No need for a stub category for a family with only 11 species. Upmerge template to Category:Tyranni stubs. Dawynn (talk) 09:28, 21 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:Melanopareiidae stubs[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No need for a stub category for a family with only 4 species. Upmerge template to Category:Passeroidea stubs. Dawynn (talk) 09:27, 21 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:Authors from Crete[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 06:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to Writers from Crete, per consensus on writer/author use in category names Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:49, 21 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_21&oldid=1084319681"