Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 7 January 9 >

January 8[edit]

Category:Images uploaded by User:Cretanforever[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 20:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Images uploaded by User:Cretanforever (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't categorize images by who uploaded them, or we would have thousands of unnecessary categories. Previous categories like this have been deleted time and time again, if someone wants to keep track of this they can look at their upload history. VegaDark (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree, we don't need categories by image uploaders. JIP | Talk 05:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - images should be uploaded to Commons and they have a mechanism for tracking one's uploads (Special:Uploads). Therefore this type of category is redundant to the correct process. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't meaningful content-wise and it's unnecessary from an administrative point of view. Pichpich (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- we do not have categories for the work of any class of WP user. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:00, 10 January 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:Josef Breuer[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Josef Breuer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete From what I can tell, the only objective is to have a parent category for Category:Josef Breuer in fiction but Category:Fictional versions of real people is a better parent. An eponymous category doesn't seem warranted. Pichpich (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pointless nomination of a perfectly worthwhile category. Breuer was a major historical figure, and it makes sense to have a category for him, just as it does for Sigmund Freud. It may be that there are no other articles to which this category could currently be applied than Josef Breuer itself, but that doesn't mean that this will always be the case. Wikipedia aims to improve its coverage of historically important figures and increase both the quality and quantity of articles relating to them. Deleting the category will look stupid the moment any other article to which it could be applied is created, which is only a matter of time. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a category has nothing to do with one's historical importance. (Note for instance the absence of category:Neville Chamberlain versus the existence Category:Rod Blagojevich). The deletion of the category now does not prevent its recreation when there is sufficient material to justify an eponymous category. Pichpich (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – serves no purpose whatever (1 subcat + the eponymous article). Category:Sigmund Freud has 3 subcats and 13 articles, a different case altogether. Occuli (talk) 00:37, 9 January 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:Members of the American Civil Liberties 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: Keep and rename to Category:People associated with the American Civil Liberties Union; revisit if this is not satisfactory. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Members of the American Civil Liberties Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The ACLU is a general membership organization in which literally anyone can be a part of for a small donation.[1] Delete as a non-defining characteristic. TM 19:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True but I could use the the same argument for Category:California Democrats. There are millions of democrats in California so why keep a list on Wikipedia? It's only for California Democrats with a Wikipedia article. Likewise the list of members of the ACLU is only for the ones who have a Wikipedia article. Sbrianhicks (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why the special rule ("mere membership is insufficient ") for the ACLU category? None of the other WP categories based on group membership have a similar limitation. In all such categories, any person notable enough to have a WP article can be listed in the category (e.g. Category:Eagle Scouts, Category:Members of Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization), Category:National Rifle Association members, etc etc). None of those categories carry the rule that the person's "association with the the group is defining". Contrast with categories based on religion or sexual orientation, in which case the WP:BLPCAT guideline requires that the membership group be related to their notability. But for categories other than religion or sexual orientation, no such limitation applies. --Noleander (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a special rule, it is the standard. For open membership organizations, by definition, simply being a member is not a defining characteristic and therefore adding an individual to a members category is overcategorization. Numerous categories for political party members, business association members, and so on have been removed. If you see categories where this guideline is being ignored— Category:National Rifle Association members certainly, you may take it upon yourself to orchestrate a cleanup, and to propose renames if necessary. - choster (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I've never heard that membership categories are invalid. I looked in WP:CATEGORIES but didn't see that prohibition ... can you point me to a guideline on that? It's hard to believe that you are suggesting that all the categories in Category:Members of organizations should be eliminated. --Noleander (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Membership categories are not invalid in and of themselves. For general membership groups, however, only individuals with a close association to the topic are listed (i.e. where the membership is one of the primary characteristics of the individual). Otherwise, these categories would quickly become meaningless and undefining. Only politicians and activists are listed in Category:California Democrats, for example, not just any California resident or native reported to be a registered member of the Democratic Party. Clerics and public figures known for their Catholicism are listed in Category:Roman Catholics, not just anyone with a baptismal certificate to that effect. That is why I oppose a rename as opposed to deletion. Clearly, Ira Glasser derives a good measure of his notability from his work with the ACLU. On the other hand, the inclusion of Jane Addams is not justified in my opinion; there is no mention of any ACLU work in the article, although there are mentions of numerous other groups with which she was involved. You'll note further that the great majority of subcategories in Category:Members of organizations are not general membership organziations, but groups whose memberships are restricted— just anyone cannot walk in off the street, write a check, and declare herself a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature.- choster (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying. But surely this has come up scores of times, so there must be a guideline on it. Are you saying there is no such guideline? (By "it" I mean your assertion that " For general membership groups, however, only individuals with a close association to the topic are listed (i.e. where the membership is one of the primary characteristics of the individual). " ) --Noleander (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- ACLU is a very significant campaigning organisation in US. It would be appropriate to have a category for members of its governing body or for key activists, but not one for ordinary subscription-paying members, because that is not a notable characteristic. However, I do not think we generally allow categories for members of the Conservative Party (UK), or of the National Trust, or of Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, or even academic societies. (I am British, so that my examples are British ones). On the other hand we do allow Fellows of the Royal Society (because the award of a fellowship is itself a mark of distinction), and we have Conservative Party politicians. It ought to be possible to define a category with an appropriately limited scope that would cover the activists, etc. (but not the ordinary members) without raising POV issues over who was entiutled to inclusion. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that the persons included in the category should be limited to people that are notable in the legal/political/civil rights arena. A famous TV actor, for example, who just happens to be a member, should not be in the category. On the other hand, I do not believe there is a requirement that the person's association with the ACLU must be why they are notable. For example, a famous TV actor who is a civil rights activist (and a member of the ACLU) could be included. --Noleander (talk) 00:51, 10 January 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:Berlin Wall 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Berlin Wall films to Category:Films about the Berlin Wall
Nominator's rationale: To match the naming conventions used for films by topic/theme. Lugnuts (talk) 18:20, 8 January 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:Ships damaged by naval mines[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Ships damaged by naval mines
Nominator rationale: Merely being damaged by mines doesn't seem worthy of note; not a defining characteristic at all.--Darius (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it really of so little significance? Hitting a mine won't necessarily sink a ship but it can cause damage significant enough to disable the ship and force lengthy repairs on it. Pichpich (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. Surviving a mine hit is notewhorty for the ship's operational history section, but not for an entire category, for the same reason that we categorize people by 'cause of death' but we do not categorize people by 'disease'. Actually few actions where naval mine warfare was involved brought about decisive results, even when the ship sank outright (one exception may be the sinkings of HMS Neptune or the fate of some ironclads during the American Civil War). IMHO a vessel could have been damaged by a number of naval or aerial weapons, but the defining characteristic is obviously when the ship is sent to the bottom for good.--Darius (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we do categorize people by disease Category:Survivors of diseases and disorders. We need to decide whether hitting a mine is like surviving smallpox or more like surviving chickenpox. Pichpich (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Diseases and disorders' often left long-term or permanent consequence for the health (I guess we don't have a category for 'survivors of a headache'); damage aboard a ship is usually completely repaired. Vessels written-off by damage (from any weapon or cause) represent a small percentage, and in any case they deserve a category of their own.--Darius (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just browsing through the category, there are plenty of examples where the mines are a central part of the ship's history, say HMS Abercrombie (F109) or Greek destroyer Adrias (L67). And for a naval ship like USS Abner Read (DD-526), four months of repairs during a 21 month lifespan seems pretty significant. More so than a headache. :-) Pichpich (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...but in all the cases you cited, the ships survived anyway: the damage was significant, but not defining. I propose to create a category for ships written off after combat damage, which could reasonably include vessels scrapped after hitting a mine; I think this is the only categorisation suitable for damaged ships.--Darius (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Pichpich (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Category:Ships sunk by mines would certainly provide a worthwhile category. I think the word naval is redundant: who heard of a ship being sunk by a landmine? I am dubious about a category for ships merely damaged by mines. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless it's something remarkable (say, a ballistic missile or a kamikaze...), a ship being damaged by something isn't defining. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:01, 11 January 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:Films set in Hyderabad, India[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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Films shot in Hyderabad is more appropriate because it also includes not only movies with stories based in Hyderabad but also shot in Hyderabad. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Incorrectly listed. It relates to Category:Films set in Hyderabad, India. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Films set in Hyderabad, India to Category:Films shot in Hyderabad, India Sarvagyana guru (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is already a Category:Films shot in India not subcategorised by state. And there is the Category:Films set in India with many films in the main category plus subcategories for about ten states/cities and some subcategories by period. Suggest that any films in Category:Films set in Hyderabad, India but not set in Hyderabad be moved to Category:Films shot in India. Is there a need to subcategorise Category:Films shot in India by state or by city (eg Hyderabad)? PS: I suppose “Films shot in India” would include most “Bollywood” and Hindi-language films? Hugo999 (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In India only less than 20% of films are shot in Bollywood or in Hindi language. Since already a Category:Films shot in India is existing, a sub-category can be created.Sarvagyana guru (talk) 05:15, 10 January 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:Mickey Mouse universe characters[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) 23:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mickey Mouse universe characters to Category:Disney core universe characters
Nominator's rationale: The category Category:Donald Duck universe characters was merged into this category by this discussion. I do not agree at all with the result. In my opinion, the Donald Duck universe and the Mickey Mouse universe are pretty much distinct. True, there have been, what, about 40 comics or cartoons in the history of the world where Donald and Mickey appear together, but this is an exception, not a rule. Have a look at the production of the two most famous Donald Duck cartoonists: Carl Barks and Don Rosa. How many Mickey Mouse stories did they write and/or draw? The answer: Barks made a total of one and Rosa made a total of zero. In fact, Rosa enjoyed poking fun at Mickey Mouse to emphasise the fact. I would much rather have proposed splitting the categories back, but I feel this is too soon after the first discussion. At the very least rename the category to a more generic name to avoid making it looking like Donald Duck is a Mickey Mouse character. JIP | Talk 16:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Even the article Mickey Mouse universe says, "'Mickey Mouse universe' is not an official term used by Disney." There's no reason to name this universe after one character. Instead, it should reflect that it contains the ducks, the mice, Goofy, Pluto, and the other such characters that often appear together.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Suggest Category:Disney cartoon characters. I am very disappointed that the merger took place, as I do not recall Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck regularly being in the same films; clearly there were some. I hope that my suggestion will not invite a lot of unrelated inclusions from other films. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I think it will. I think we have to be more specific to exclude most of the characters from Disney's films.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Note I am the one who nominated the Duck universe for merge. For those of you complaining about the merge happening, here is my reasoning for nominating it in the first place. Having a separate category for the Duck and Mouse universe is like having a separate category for the Superman and Batman universes. They are both the same universe, just because they are separate story-lines and characters doesn't change anything. JDDJS (talk) 21:46, 14 January 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:Tasmanian Wilderness issues and 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tasmanian Wilderness issues and politics to Category:Environment of Tasmania
Nominator's rationale: To suit convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - what convention? Tasmanian wilderness issues and politics historically have in the main been located in Western and South Western Tasmania and very specifically regarding specific projects (damming and forestry) - whereas the Environment of Tasmania (ugh) can refer to industrial waste in the Burnie (North West) and the Derwent (South eastern), woodchipping and paper mills (Eastern, North and North Eastern) - a rather ahistorical inane and not helpful category that incorporates issues not in any way related to the wilderness issue (1980 - 1990 very specifially in time as well.

The wilderness issues and politics as a category is something related to a considerable literature that has been created over the last 30 years. To deny specific substantial elements of particularly nasty political debate for at least a decade in the Tasmanian Hansard, and a substantial amount of the Tasmanian newspaper sales for over the same time and subsume under a colourless and unhelpful broader general term seems pointless. If anything, not a renaming but simply making Environment of Tasmania a parent category. If any articles/subjects accidentally put into the wilderness category that dont belong to the issue - they could become children of the enviroment tag. SatuSuro 06:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a convention in the categorisation of articles whereby they relate to the parent and sibling categories. With the category in question there is no such hierarchy. There is a Category:Environment of Australia and Category:Environmental issues in Australia and equivalents for other countries. Category:Tasmanian Wilderness issues and politics has no such equivalents. "Wilderness issues and politics" is essentially an environmental issue and I chose Category:Environment of Tasmania as a suitable name since not all of the articles relate to environmental issues. Also, "environment" is more encompassing than "environmental issues" and there is no real need for a Category:Environmental issues in Tasmania.
Given your comments about the category I think you are trying to make a category do what is best done by an article. Such an article would be Environmental issues in Tasmania and there is a dire need for an article on this topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The editors I can think of - who could have done a better job than I have (and created such an article), no longer are a presence in this place, we have a dearth of Tasmanian overview editors who have the capacity to have a good broad sense of history and knowledge of the issues (and their complexities) - I still think my suggestion to have the Tas wilderness category is a legitimate one despite lack of equivalents elsewhere, as a child category of environmental issues - the wilderness one is a but a pinprick on the posterior of 100+ years of doing things to the poor island that have had lasting effect... SatuSuro 12:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The category that you want is somewhere between the Conservation in Tasmania and Environmental issues in Tasmania (Category:Conservation in Tasmania and Category:Environmental issues in Tasmania) topics . None of these exist at present so it is better to use the existing category structure. My essay User:Alan Liefting/Essays/On filling the gaps discusses the problem. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I'm in full agreement with Alan's comments in response to Suro. I would add that an awkward and non-standard name is counterproductive even if one's objective is to highlight the fact that some of these issues are political: proper categorization is a very efficient way of getting more readers interested and therefore more potential writers. Pichpich (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems there's an agreement on a need for an Environmental issues in Tasmania article - and I agree with Alan Liefting that that's the best way to cover that topic. SatuSuro, I'm sure you have enough knowledge to start it as a decent stub. I agree with the suggestion to rename, at least for now. If the number of pages becomes large at a later stage, it could be split, with a subcategory for the (very important) wilderness articles that SatuSuro is talking about. --Chriswaterguy talk 00:27, 9 January 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:Agriculture books[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 at current title. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Agriculture books to Category:Agricultural books
Nominator's rationale: Better grammar. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:06, 8 January 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:Agriculture 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 to Category:Media about agriculture. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Agriculture media to Category:Agricultural media
Nominator's rationale: Better grammar. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:04, 8 January 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_January_8&oldid=1138396432"