Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 14 May 16 >

May 15[edit]

Category:Bits[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:Bits (horse). Timrollpickering (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Bits and bit are ambiguous. The primary meaning is probably the computer bit or the drill bit. The main article is at Bit (horse), so we could match the category name to that, or rename it Category:Horse bits. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as unnecessary disambiguation in absence of the category ever being created by anyone else for anything else. First of all, the computer bit article never created this category, and, I presume a computer bit is a single thing, not a category. While I do agree that there are drill bits and computer bits, and even Bits and Pieces, if we want to get technical, BOTH drills and computers came after the horse bit! (Maybe the hand drill was created before the horse was domesticated, but we can debate that elsewhere.) So I strongly support the horse bit being the primary use and "bit" or "bits" staying as is. However, that said, I DO acknowledge the computer bit was the first WP article and claimed the article name. A rename to "horse bits" I could - reluctantly -accept, but to use the parentheses of Bits (horse) is not the way most categories appear to be named and though it is the article title, that was due to the decrees of the wiki gods and not because we really wanted it that way originally. Montanabw(talk) 23:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to Category:Bits (horse). Everyone knows that bits means drill bits or if you are a computer geek, they are a piece of a byte. That makes the current name ambiguous. So changing is needed. Also aren't there bits used for humans? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Bits can be confused with BITS etc, the name should have a relation to horses, I support Bits (horse) as it relates to the article name.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support highly ambiguous, categories should not be ambiguous. Suggest Category:Horse bits. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little history, I recently created a category for all the individual horse bits that were previously contained in the Category:Horse tack, I named this category Category:Types of bits" which was obviously not the best name. Almost immediately User:Montanabw removed all the articles that I had moved to "Category:Types of bits" [Revision history of Category:Types of bits] into this new equally as badly named category called "Category:Bits" [Revision history of Category:Bits], the reason stated was (Simplify unneeded disambiguation). User:Montanabw did not have the courtesy to discuss this move on any talk pages and no one had a chance to comment on the move as is being done here.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well in that case, this was an out of process category move. Having said that, it looks like the discussion here should result in a better name for the category. At least a name that has been discussed by several editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point being that User:Montanabw should acknowledge that the category should have a more appropriate name and support this renaming and participate on the renaming discussion rather than to continue to oppose what is obviously not a well chosen name.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Samurai made DOZENS of category moves in multiple areas (bits, saddles, horseshoes) in a manner that was done without any consultation with the people at WikiProject Equine (where there are several active members) or any discussion whatsoever with anyone, including the ridiculous move of all the articles on saddles from Category:Saddles to his own category "Saddles by type," which was wholly illogical. While his attempt to better organize the horse tack category was probably well-intentioned, he doesn't know horse tack very well, was putting primary topic articles into subcats and was putting things into odd categories where they didn't fit (horseshoes are not "horse tack") and creating some unnecessary categories (such as one for things where there were only 3 articles). So to the extent there was an "out of process move" the problem was that the initial work was a massive categorization done without consulting ANY of us who know the topic, and thus there was a need for massive cleanup. Montanabw(talk) 18:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FACT, the horse tack category sat untouched without any of the "people at WikiProject Equine" making any effort to add sub categories, there were several dozen articles just sitting in this category, many of which were not even articles about horse tack, any reader with little or no horse equipment related knowledge would have had a very hard time figuring out what any of the articles were about and how they were related to each other. So recently I made a category called Category:Saddles and then I made two sub categories one called Category:Saddles by manufacturer‎ and one called Category:Saddles by type. Almost immediately User:Montanabw removed all but one saddle article from Category:Saddles by type with out any discussion, and still no "people at WikiProject Equine" made any attempt to further categorize the very chaotic horse tack category. Once again I moved the saddle articles to Category:Saddles by type and User:Intothatdarkness moved one saddle article back to the saddle category, I then asked User:Intothatdarkness for an opinion on how to further categorize the horse tack category here User talk:Intothatdarkness. I then moved the saddle articles to a category named Category:Types of saddles and once again User:Montanabw immediately removed the articles with no attempt at discussion. This reverting by User:Montanabw of other editors edits with no discussion on horse related articles has been a constant source of conflict. Now User:Montanabw has taken to categorizing Category:Horse tack without "any consultation with the people at WikiProject Equine", the very same actions that I have been accused of doing but to quote User:Montanabw ("Well, not to put too fine a point on it, I am a horse expert") so I guess that means no one needs to be consulted before User:Montanabw makes an edit.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more FACT, User:Montanabw knows all to well that the article Horseshoe has been in the Category:Horse tack all along until it was just moved by none other than User:Montanabw. User:Montanabw knows that all I did was take some horseshoe related articles and make a sub category called Category:Horseshoes, if horseshoes is not considered to be horse tack then why was it allowed to remain in the supposedly WRONG category by "people at WikiProject Equine" until I made a sub category, just twisting the truth a bit it seems.... ("While his attempt to better organize the horse tack category was probably well-intentioned, he doesn't know horse tack very well, was putting primary topic articles into subcats and was putting things into odd categories where they didn't fit (horseshoes are not "horse tack")").....Since I have never discussed my expertise on horse equipment with User:Montanabw I consider this kind of statement ("he doesn't know horse tack very well") to be a personal attack. This is just an example of the type of behaviour User:Montanabw exhibits when someone tries to edit horse related articles or categories that are being personally controlled by User:Montanabw, this lack of cooperation is not what Wikipedia is about. I think it a form of Ownership

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Rename to Category Bits(Horse). Clear, unambiguous.Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If you must rename, (and really, if people writing about computers and drill bits haven't cared before now, then why disambiguate?) then Category: Horse bits would be a little easier for us to use, the parentheses for article disambiguation are kind of awkward in categories. JMO. Montanabw(talk) 18:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportA shift to something like Montanabw mentions above (Category: Horse bits).Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to something. Only a horse-person would think Category:Bits had equestrian connections. Oculi (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noogies at Oculi for "only"! There are many of us, we are Borg, you will be assimilated!  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 18:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Category:Bits (horse), the article is at Bit (horse), so we should reflect the need to disambiguate in the category name. There may be cases where categories need more disambiguating than articles, but they need at least as much disambiguation as articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious if we have a policy or guideline on this to help us all. I see one problem with the above reasoning: Bit isn't in a category named Bit or Bits. So maybe categories need LESS disambiguation?  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 23:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ok I think I'm going to possibly throw a wrench into the works here : ) - While I support adding some disambiguating word or phrase (bit or bits is clearly too vague), aren't bits used for more mounts than horses? I look at the navbox at the bottom of bit (horse) and the word used even there is "equine" (latin name for a group which includes horses). And that doesn't even include things like camels or llamas. (If one uses a bit for these - something I'm not certain of personally.) So it's possible both the article and the proposed category name may need adjusting. Any info on this would be welcome. - jc37 11:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportCategory:Bits (horse) present is too vague.RafikiSykes (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as "Horse bits" - no need for ugly parentheses. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 21 May 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:Film making[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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Related articles and categories - such as Filmmaking, Category:Filmmakers, and Category:Filmmaking occupations - all treat it as a single word.  Mbinebri  talk ← 17:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as creator of the category (back in 2007 apparently). It is "film making", "film-making", "filmmaking" and "film production" - any can be used, but as we already have an article called Filmmaking then it makes sense to have the category match as well. The other option would be to rename the article, but either way is fine. It's all the same. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to agree with article and related categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match with parent article and related cats.--Lenticel (talk) 02:02, 17 May 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:Playboy videos[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) 07:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Effectively unpopulated; the only item in the category is the equivalent list. Consensus has developed that none of the existing individual videos are sufficiently notable to have discrete articles, and the company has apparently gone out of the consumer video business, so there won't be any more. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. sniff. --KarlB (talk) 01:31, 16 May 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:Lists of goals[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; (note that the only article, as mentioned below, was deleted by consensus at AfD). The Bushranger One ping only 20:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NOTSTATS EchetusXe 11:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will this category be safe from proposed deletion, if the page List of John Terry goals is prevented from deletion, or more pages suitable for this category are done? ZZ47 (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, Rename to something else since goals is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename List of association football goals per goal and goal (association football). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We need a new category, Category:Football(association) statistics.. Then, List of John Terry goals, should be renamed to John Terry career statistics, revised and salvaged. Delete this category, and cat John Terry Career Statistics in the new Category:Football(assocation) statistics. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was bold and did it. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And you also moved that out of process, emptied a category being discussed here, also unacceptable and created a category name which is simply not correct no matter how you look at it. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I'm not sure why it's unacceptable to you, seeing as you voted to get rid of it. Benkenobi18 (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we don't need a new category, we don't need any categories. This is a category that will never be populated. GiantSnowman 12:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as empty. I really doubt we will ever come to needing it, but it is clearly unneeded at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I restored the one entry that was here at the start of the discussion. It is not appropriate to remove contents during a discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not remove the one article. That said, I see no reason to keep a category with one article, and I am unconvinced that we need seperate articles for career stats. Even if we do, I am not seeing how the category as presently named works at all. I assumed based on its name that this category would have things like Making it to California in 1849 or Becoming a Doctor as the articles. That would be articles about goals, so classified. Since that is not what it is, at best it is poorly named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did not mean to sound like you removed the article. You did point out that it was empty. Since it was emptied out of process, that was what I was fixing. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contains only one article, and even that is at AFD here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 17 May 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:Churches in Berlin bombed by the WWII Allied air forces[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 to Category:Ruined churches of World War II, which may be nominated for renaming at editors' discretion. I verified that all members of the category appear in Category:Churches in Berlin or Category:Former church buildings in Berlin, so upmerging does not result in a loss of information. Category:British churches bombed by the Luftwaffe was not tagged and, thus, will not be upmerged, though it may be nominated at any time (when nominating, please take care to verify all potential upmerge targets). -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article/cat. Alternately delete as overcategorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal
Nominator's rationale: this version is shorter, but not less clear Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Mangoe. This name is just too long and specific. There is no reason to differentiate churches destroyed by bombing from air from those destroyed by ground-based artillery bombardment or other means.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Incidentally, this my be a decent example of where "church buildings" instead of "churches" might be appropriate. - jc37 11:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment renaming the parent category to Category:Ruined church buildings of World War II or probably better Category:Church buildings ruined in World War II would be an inprovement. The issue is the buildings were destroyed. If the English examples were independent Baptists churches or such, the Church might be relocated and thriving even if the article in mainly about the building destroyed by German bombing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the category at present might be interpreted as Churches that suffered financial or other collpase due to World War II.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think in this case that's probably a bit of a stretch. - jc37 01:56, 23 May 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 based on the Old Testament[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:Films based on the Old Testament can be a category redirect as a commonly used term. The Bushranger One ping only 20:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:Hebrew Bible has a hierarchy of categories within both Jewish and Christian trees, using this neutral name rather than favouring the Christian term "OT" or Jewish "Tanakh". The "Old Testament" sub-categories are only used for topics that deal with Old Testament Apocrypha or are otherwise distinctively Christian. These films all relate to accounts in the Hebrew Bible (which covers the same books as the Protestant canon of the Old Testament) as opposed to the Apocrypha. – Fayenatic London (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussion on Speedy page
Oppose a change as Old Testament and Hebrew Bible are different wikipedia articles and subjects so C2C does not apply. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
C2D would not apply for that reason, but I believe C2C covers it. The "Old Testament" categories are only used for topics that deal with OT apocrypha or are otherwise distinctively Christian. – Fayenatic London (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Already discussed and rejected. WP:COMMONNAME. Old Testament is the common name for this period in the English-speaking world. It is certainly the common name used when referring to most of these films. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The films are not limited to films presented from a distinctively Christian viewpoint. Therefore, "Old Testament" is inappropriately narrow and arguably POV. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Since this is how the entire tree is organized and it would be more-or-less impossible for a film to be strictly about the Old Testament as a compilation of this literature and not be about the broader concept of the Hebrew scriptures. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
?? the Hebrew Bible is narrower (because smaller) than the Old Testament, so I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Congrats on the million btw, though I hope you can slow down a bit now. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "narrow" in this sense means "narrower in world view", not "narrower in content". "Old Testament" implies a Christian world view. "Hebrew Bible" implies a broader, more inclusive world view. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response Exactly--how could a film be about the Old Testament but not be about the Hebrew Bible? Since that is more-or-less impossible (although I guess it somehow could be done) and since the larger category scheme is named "Hebrew Bible X", then rename. I'm not sure why I need to slow down, but if you see a problem with my edits, please inform me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In religious areas we now use "HB", but in the context of cinema I think this will confuse many, & it's certainly not the WP:COMMONNAME in this context, or used at all commonly. This is primarily a cinema category, and the appropriate terminology for the subject area should be used. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - An easy call; required to be neutral. Neutralitytalk 08:49, 22 May 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:Kalam[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 22:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main article is a redirect--only two articles and a subcategory. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:08, 15 May 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:Education in the Atlanta metropolitan area[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) 00:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A temporarily blocked user has been emptying categories in order to speedy delete. He's been warned about this at his 31-hour block. I have de-speedied but have no objection to a merge to the education category for Atlanta proper. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 15 May 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_May_15&oldid=1142605994"