Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 23 August 25 >

August 24[edit]

Works inspired by[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename, following CFD for Works inspired by people last year. We recognise that "inspired by" is wider than "based on", but the latter covers what we actually want to categorise as it's more objective. – Fayenatic London 19:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • {Note: this still leaves a few categories with "inspired" to be looked at later.) – Fayenatic London 19:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only looked into the Sherlock Holmes category but "Works based on" seems to work better for that one. Tim! (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the "Based on" is more accurate and neutral, clearer, and - as per the linked CfD - preferred. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: something being inspired by something is not the same being based on it. "Based on" suggests a direct lift, "inspired" suggests a springboard. Anyone of an artistic tendency could understand that difference.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Works inspired by Hercules would include most of comics super-strong characters. (And thus would be a rather vague, pointless category.) Works based on Hercules, on the other hand, would be a much clearer grouping. - jc37 17:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely - the category is for those directly inspired - i.e., based on. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom, and past precedent. - jc37 17:00, 31 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:1979 establishments in Fiji[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. Nouniquenames (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eliminating a WP:SMALLCAT unlikely to grow by merging into another (similar and applicable) category Nouniquenames (talk) 17:17, 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:1981 establishments in Fiji[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. Nouniquenames (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eliminating a WP:SMALLCAT unlikely to grow by merging into another (similar and applicable) category Nouniquenames (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets the WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of an established category tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, part of a range of cats, both on the "Fiji" line and on the "Establishments" line (note that Category:1981 establishments by country so far has entries for 42 countries, and is actively being expanded by me and others). Fram (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have added an article to the category (it had only one at the time of the nomination). Fram (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of the series . Tim! (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:SMALLCAT. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is a lot of potential for growth for all these categories. The vast majority of articles on things have not been placed in the proper establishment by year by country cat, even among those that are in an establishment by year by specific type of thing cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 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.

In other 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I have split Category:Star Trek in other media by creating a new Category:Works about Star Trek, leaving the old one populated with adaptations etc; it should now be renamed to fit the parent and many others within the Category:Works based on works category tree. (After the three that I have nominated, all the remaining "in other media" categories are Category:Comics characters in other media and its sub-cats, which anyone else is welcome to nominate separately.) – Fayenatic London 17:08, 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:Miami Metrorail and Metromover images[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: already deleted as C1. The Bushranger One ping only 21:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: After moving eligible files to Commons, all that's left is one file that's tagged for transfer but also tagged with a licence I've never seen before - so I've left it - but that still leaves just one file, and of a Tri-Rail train and station, not a Metrorail or Metromover one. So this should be merged to the Tri-Rail stations category - unless this file really can be moved to commons, in which case it'll be C1 for this cat. The Bushranger One ping only 16:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only true rationale for this particular Tri-Rail train being in the category, is that it's at the Tri-Rail and Metrorail Transfer Station, which as the name implies, is shared by the Miami Metrorail system and Tri-Rail. Having said that, I'm surprised all the images which are strictly Miami Metrorail and Miami Metromover-related have been moved to the commons. So, I'll move the last image to the Category:Images of railway stations in the United States, remove the commons tags, and you can delete the category. ----DanTD 01:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Alrighy then, thanks for clearing that up - delete as C1 then. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, I have to ask what you were expecting to get with a merger, because it seems like you were hoping for a revival. ----DanTD 03:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I just figured it would be the best way to have the image recategorised and the category deleted without 'emptying out of process'. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:29, 25 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:Indian Premier League 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: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I could not convince myself to tag individual players as representative of the league. Without doing so, I couldn't find many stubs. Propose deleting category as a greatly undersized stub. No prejudice against category recreation once 60+ articles found for template. Dawynn (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All these articles belong to one of the other cricket stub categories, majority in Category:Indian cricket biography stubs, but some under other such national cats too. There's no reason to have this one separately. I'm not convinced of the need for this separate stub either as the number of players in the IPL is a very small subset of the remainder cats. —SpacemanSpiff 13:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no need of it. SpacemanSpiff is completely right, the national cricket-bios ones are enough. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the sport in question should be specified in the name.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:49, 31 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:Terms[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 per nominator.
I note that several editors pointed to a need for a followup merger of the subcats if this one proceeded, so I will open a procedural nomination for the sub-categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Aren't they the same thing since "term" is a contraction of "terminology"? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Terms" and the jargon, especially the technical jargon, used in a well defined field. "Terminology" is the study of terms. So, no, to be pedantic, the first is not simply an abbreviation of the second. But in this specific case, better to use "terminology" because "term" usually means a fixed period of time and so is ambiguous. Do not necessarily make the daughter categories match, as they, "Business terms", "Education-related terms", for example, are not ambiguous. "Political terms" does sound ambiguous. It is tempting to say rename the lot, but the pages at the bottom are not terminology, a branch of linguistics, but terms, as in terms and phrases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that "Terms" is ambiguous, but mere terms do not belong directly in a "terminology" category, not directly. The RfC should be respected or another RfC run. A solution, for the few terms categories that are exclusively not terminology is to remain to something else, such as "terms and phrases". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but every subcat will need to be renamed, and there are a number of merges involved as well. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some immediate page members which are about terminology in general, but after further reflection I would agree that there isn't a need for a separate "terminology by" level. I agree "by subject" would be a better match to other cases. Mangoe (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that we should use the more often used "terminology" in all of the category names. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. There probably is a distinction that could be made between terms and terminology but I think it is too fine for categorisation of wikipedia articles. Tim! (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The category "Terms" was (re)created following this RfC because some believe that "Terminology" should be purely for articles discussing words. The vast majority of members "Terminology" are, however, articles whose title is a subject related term. We need a home for those who want to create subject related categories and we need to put an end to the edit-war-like emptying of subcategories. SpinningSpark 14:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename this and all "terms" subcategories. These are synonyms. Whatever some editors might think about subdividing them, most editors will have no idea what goes in which category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The basic problem here is that there are two types of member of these categories (articles discussing terminology and articles whose title is a term). If you propose merging you need to be clear which type you are proposing to keep, or if both are allowed in the same category. The closer of this debate will also need to assess the consensus on that issue. On the other hand, retaining two categories makes it clear that both types of categorization are wanted. SpinningSpark 10:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no trouble with both of those types of articles in the same category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:08, 26 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:Environment by sector[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 - both C2C and G7 (only edits by editors other than creator-nominator the addition of parent cats and interwiki links). The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per convention. Same goes for the Sustainability by sector‎ category. BTW, I created them but they have since been edited. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:05, 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:Metro Birmingham highways[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 to Category:Transportation in Birmingham, Alabama.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC. Running through Birmingham's metro area (which has no other categories) isn't defining for these roads. Could be upmerged to Category:Transportation in Birmingham, Alabama if desired I suppose. The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, if kept -- All categories relating to Birmingham, AL should contain the word Alabama to disambiguate from "Birmingham, West Midlands". I am largely neutral on the value of the category, but see no objection to its existence, provided the area to which it relates can be adequately defined. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge/rename, but.... Examination of the "transportation by US city" hierarchy shows huge inconsistency on this point. Most cities, if they have subcats, have them for transit systems, bridges, and streets, and most don't have any of these. There are other categories of this particular ilk, however, and there is no consistency in their naming, e.g.:
I would also note that some cats are by actual city, some by metro area; and there are a couple of cases where there is both a city and a metro area main category. I'm inclined in this case to upmerge (that is, rename), given the lack of a parent to merge into. Mangoe (talk) 13:07, 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:Serbian business biography 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: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Found very few stub articles to tag in the permanent category. Propose deleting this category and upmerging (to Category:European business biography stubs and Category:Serbian people stubs) until 60+ articles can be tagged. Dawynn (talk) 00:47, 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:Algerian 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 13:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Even the permanent category (Category:Mosques in Algeria) contains very few articles. Propose upmerging until template used on 60+ articles. Upmerge to Category:Mosque stubs and Category:Algerian building and structure stubs‎. Dawynn (talk) 00:43, 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:Charlotte County, Virginia geography 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 13:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Ditto for this VA geo stub category. Dawynn (talk) 00:27, 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:Southampton County, Virginia geography 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 13:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Ditto for this VA geo stub category. Dawynn (talk) 00:26, 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:Goochland County, Virginia geography 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 13:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Ditto for this VA geo stub category. Dawynn (talk) 00:25, 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:City of Norfolk, Virginia geography 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 13:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Ditto for this VA geo stub category. Dawynn (talk) 00:25, 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:Sussex County, Virginia geography 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 13:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Ditto for this VA geo stub category. Dawynn (talk) 00:24, 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:Campbell County, Virginia geography 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 13:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Ditto for this VA geo stub category. Dawynn (talk) 00:23, 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:Amherst County, Virginia geography 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 13:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Ditto for this VA geo stub category. Dawynn (talk) 00:23, 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:Richmond City, Virginia geography 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 13:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Ditto for this VA geo stub category. Dawynn (talk) 00:22, 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:Lunenburg County, Virginia geography 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 13:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Severely undersized Virginia geography stub category. See previous discussion with agreement that all Virginia geography categories under 10 pages should be deleted, with templates kept but upmerged. Dawynn (talk) 00:22, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_24&oldid=1076621668"