Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 31 September 2 >


September 1[edit]

Video games based on comics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename ("the" for the Fantastic Four; Peanuts per Category:Peanuts media; Tintin per Category:Tintin - change if that's changed). Timrollpickering (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's Rationale: The proposed names are clearer and more descriptive - for instance Wolverine (video game) is about Wolverine, not the X-Men, and therefore is not an "X-Men video game". It is, however, a video game based on X-Men. This also follows the recent consensus to rename the Category:Video games based on novels subcategories, and also follows the parent cat Category:Video games based on Marvel Comics and Category:Video games based on DC Comics (not to mention Category:Video games based on comics, and that we already have Category:Arcade and video games based on Batman films‎ and Category:Video games based on webcomics). - The Bushranger One ping only 22:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how I am trying to "demolish" anything, just because I don't agree with your proposal. I understand where you're coming from, in trying to make all the categories consistent for video games based on comics. But from the standpoint of making all the sub-categories for "foo (comics)" be consistent, I don't think that the video game categories should be different than all the other media categories for comic book characters. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEMOLISH comes from the fact that "the house is being built" - renamed one tree at a time - yet the construction is being opposed before it's completed because it's incomplete. And the "Foo (comics)" categories are planned to be renamed to the "...based on comics" format as well, all of them, not just video games. But again, it's a long process and it has to be done, thusly, one tree at a time... - The Bushranger One ping only 02:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the way this change was presented, did not specify that it was part of a bigger picture. I'm not really opposed to the renaming of categories, if it's for the betterment of Wikipedia. But why even propose a renaming here, if reconstruction of the entire "house" has already been determined? I don't appreciate being made to feel that my opinion doesn't really matter, just because I wasn't aware of that. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't alreadly been determined, and your opinion does matter - I'm sorry if it seemed I was implying that it didn't, and also for my oversight in not clarifying that it's part of a series in the initial nom. It's just a bit frustrating when trying to work on a series of noms and having it opposed on what seemed to be the grounds they're not all done yet (this happened quite a bit awhile back when ship categories were being renamed, so I might be a bit oversensitive to that). I was just trying to point out that if consistency among all categories is the reason for oppoisition, then they'll all be consistent again in the end, is all. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Redirect. Support per nom's sound analysis but I recommend to leave the current names (even with the addition of "(comics)" where necessary) as redirect to the renamed categories as they are plausible search terms (especially if you use HotCat for checking categories). Cavarrone (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and yes, redirecting is also a good idea. Although I was initially unconvinced of any need for renamings like this, I have been doing bits of work on other "works" categories such as films & novels, and I have come round to the view that this pattern will be an improvement which should be rolled out further. In all the optional cases, use the shorter names, except for Tintin where I'm open to persuasion according to September 6#Category:Tintin. – Fayenatic London 17:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. And cat redirects are probably fine for the ones based upon individual characters, but please don't on the ones for groups of characters, universes, or publication/shows. - jc37 20:06, 6 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:Hotels by year of completion[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:Hotels by year of opening. MBisanz talk 22:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I would if possible like to begin a discussion without having to tag the many subcategories. I do not believe there is enough of a meaningful distinction between these two trees. In the majority of cases, the hotel building is completed the same time as the individual hotel is "established." Yes, are some cases where hotels are established in what were previously built residential or office buildings. And yes, hotels can change management and be reestablished as different entities. But I still believe we don't need both trees and if applied to all articles, will lead to unnecessary clutter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is similar to the distinction between banks and bank buildings. For example, Statler Hotels was established in the 1900s, but the company built a number of notable buildings over the course of the century. - Eureka Lott 20:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Indeed, it appears to be the same distinction as schools vs. school buildings, churches vs. church buildings, hospitals vs. hospital buildings, and so on.
  • Oppose. Hotels are sometimes purpose built. In that case, the date completed and the date established would be the same. However many hotels were not established in the years they were built. Also we have the case where major towers are added or major sections demolished and replaced. So those are built and not established. In addition doing this would remove the hotels from the buildings and structures by year categories. While there may be a lot of overlap, these are not identical categories and they are in two different trees. Depending on who first categorizes these articles, they are generally in only the building or the established tree but rarely in both. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would reverse your sometimes/many assertion. Also, I have starting adding the "completed" category to ones already bearing "established" and they seem to me to overwhelming overlapping. I believe that sooner or later someone's going to have to address this, even if we can't find a solution at this Cfd. I would point out to the closing admin that Vegaswikian recently created the "Hotels completed in foo" subcategories, many within the past few days. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As subcategories of buildings by type. Which has nothing to do with establishments which is a different tree from establishments. And within the past few days is somewhat misleading. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what we want to list is the year in which the hotel began operating. Some hotels were other things before they were hotels. It is also possible that a hotel could start taking guests before it is actually completed. If you have a large, multi-building resort hotel this is not at all unexpected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A merge takes the building out of the building and structures tree by year. An upmerge is not really advisable there since there are hundreds of articles in the by year category and subcategories. In addition, a hotel be part of a complex as noted so it only makes sense to have the by year categories for the different types of structures. Leaving it in the main category for the hotel portion is confusing at best when the other uses may be in a subcategory. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Hotels by year of opening. In UK some hotels are purpose built; some are converted from large houses, some of which were built as the mansions of the gentry. The subject category would be fine for purpose built hotels, but it will not work for Foo Hall Hotel, built in 1650 as the manson for Sir Boo Foo, Baronet and converted to a hotel in 1955 or 1985. Here the relevant date would be the date of conversion, not of construction. "Established" works well for businesses, but less well for buildings. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Hotels by year of opening per Peterkingiron. The current structure does not work for hotels which are conversions of existing buildings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the proposed merge fails since it moves these out of the buildings categories! That is a really bad idea. Also the assumption that a mansion would be classified by the year a hotel was built is absurd. Clearly that is in the houses completed tree since mansions are generally houses. I'm not opposed to also considering the use of opened or established, but I fell that both can be problematic. Are we talking about the date the building began a life as a hotel or when a certain brand was used? Actually the oppose arguments are really the reason why this should be kept since it is more about structures that are purpose built and all that is needed is an introduction. Finally multiple buildings for a hotel would have several different years they were built in. The proposed opened category simply ignores that defining piece of information Vegaswikian1 (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see it the other way around. I think we agree that categorising hotels both by the year of opening and by the year of construction is problematic, but disagree on which to keep.
    Absolutely not! I firmly believe that both are required as they mean very different things. Opened and built are not equivalent. Building, and major additions, are constructed in specific years and that is a significant civil engineering event. On the other hand, hotels are established in certain years and are branded (reestablished if someone likes) in additional years. You can not take simply remove buildings from the buildings and structures category, which is the basic premises of this proposal! Likewise built and established are not synonymous for each other. These are two different defining characteristics. Buildings are completed in a year and can assume multiple uses of their lives. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that the branding is a problem. For example, if "Foo Hotel" may opened in 1882, was rebranded in 1927 as the "Bar Hotel", became the "[Hotel chain] Bar Hotel in 1967", and was rebuilt in 1994. So it it opened in 1882; the rest is subsidiary detail. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and per the rationale I gave when proposing a similar merge for casinos (here). Pichpich (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how do we address these being removed from the buildings and structures tree? If we are going to equate opening with completing, then it clearly needs to be in two trees. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:06, 21 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.

Pornographic film actors[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 (i.e. do not rename). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I propose renaming this category to "Hardcore pornographic film actors", as the majority of people within it work in hardcore pornography, and it contains few softcore performers. Softcore performers could have their own category. Asarelah (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not change No such information is found in the bio articles involved so any such division would have to be made by WP editors without any sources. Not allowed at all here. Hmains (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Parent categories are Category:Film actors and Category:Pornographic films, hence the current title is appropriate, and the somewhat value judgement of "hardcore" would become a BLP nightmare to police. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hardcore pornography isn't subjective, it just means actual sex is depicted rather than the simulated sex of softcore pornography. There are mainstream actors who started their careers doing softcore work and I don't think its appropriate to put them into the same category as hardcore performers. Asarelah (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To most people, porn is porn, and even if it's verifiable and citable I can see a lot of people getting peeved at having their articles categorised such. While it's true that's no reason to delete a category, it should be kept in mind when thinking whether or not we need to create an entire new category tree - which this would essentially do. We have enough issues with the porn-actor-related articles, we don't need to be creating more of them. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most people use the term "porn" to refer to hardcore by default, and specifically refer to softcore as "softcore porn" to differentiate. I'm willing to do the work of creating a new category tree. Asarelah (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the term is right as it is - fdewaele, 2 September 2012, 20:28 CET.
  • Oppose per Bushranger. Categories are not an appropriate method for making this distinction, which I have no faith could be objectively mantained. The proposed split into hardcore and softcore categories would also just double these categories on most actors, as it's likely that the most prolific have appeared in films of varying explicitness over the course of their careers. postdlf (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the current name reflects the existing parent name. I would also point out that "softcore" is actually a derived, neologism. Hardcore is a term that is meant to distinguish the most intense cases of a phenomenon, softcore is not a real word. This largely seems to me to be a case of "if it's no0t broke, don't fix it". The current naming system works, the rename seems to be motivated by the POV "being a pornographic film actor is disreputable, we should make sure we limit the categories application". However, wikipedia is about verifiability. If it can be verified from reliable sources that a person acted in pornographic films, that is the issue, not how this will effect their reputation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 4 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.

Hurricanes in New England by state[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 all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Each of these pretty much house the same three articles, compared to the much broader Category:Hurricanes in New England. As the New England states are so small, it is better to have the one general category that having each tagged for each state. Besides, Category:Hurricanes in New England is already the mainly used category, while these haven't been used at all since 2011. "Pepper" @ 13:36, 1 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.

Aceh 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Entire tree (6 categories and 6 templates) houses just two articles - even if the articles were there to fill it, we do not use subnational areas for sportspeople anywhere else Qetuth (talk) 08:27, 1 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:Erie Freeze[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) 14:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. One-article category, little possibility of expansion, only contents already categorised in the parent cat. The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 1 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:Canton Professionals players[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. Editors may wish to consider a centralised discussion somewhere (an WP:RFC?) on whether to Use The Most Recent Name, And Only The Most Recent Name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Canton Professionals, which existed from 1911 to 1914, were renamed Canton Bulldogs starting with the 1915 season, and played from 1915-1919 in the Ohio League. In 1920 they joined the American Professional Football Association, now known as the National Football League, which you may have heard of. Breaking out the Ohio Leage/APFA-NFL players makes sense, and having a seperate category for the Canton Athletic Club also makes sense, as it was more a spiritual predecessor than a direct one. However, as the Professionals and the Bulldogs of the Ohio League were exactly the same team, just renamed, they should be grouped in one category under the latter name. The Bushranger One ping only 08:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not change Yes the Canton professionals are the same team as the Bulldogs, however the team was not called the Bulldogs during this period of time. This would be like calling the pre-2008 Tampa Bay Devil Rays players Tampa Bay Rays players. For example did Wade Boggs play for the TB Rays? No, he played for the Devil Rays. The same can be said with NFL clubs such as the KC Chiefs, who were at one time called the Dallas Texans. Or the Cardinals that played in Chicago, St. Louis, Phoenix and Arizona. Are the Phoenix Cardinals the same as Arizona Cardinals? Yes, but the name was changed in the late 80s and early 90s. While the franchise and/or club is the same, the name changes due to that point in history.--Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, in cases where the name changes and nothing else changes, the category name changes to the most recent name - that's how it's supposed to works. The Chiefs are a red herring as the franchise moved. It is the standard procedure there in cases where it's a name-only change to change the categories to reflect the most current name (which would, in fact, categorise Boggs under Category:Tampa Bay Rays players, as he played for the same franchise in the same city). The fact that there's a lot of categories out there that get it wrong doesn't mean we shouldn't fix them when we find them. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we were talking about an alternate name of team, I would agree with you. However you are referring to the offical name of a sports team at a specific point in time. Players for the NFL's Pittsburgh franchise prior to 1940, were not technically Steelers players, they were Pirates players. In 1943, they were Phil-Pitt players. Then in 1944, they were Card-Pitt players. If you look at an individual player's stats. from any of the major/minor sports leagues, you see the team name from that era mentioned. This is has always been the determination of the Elias Sports Bureau - the world's foremost source for statisticians and sports historians. Stating that a individual played under a different moniker, that what is accepted by sports historians is historically inaccurate and shows a lack of attention to detail.--Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then this needs to be discussed on a talk page somewhere, as it's the WP:CONSENSUS these days to Use The Most Recent Name, And Only The Most Recent Name, in cases where the team was only renamed and not moved... - The Bushranger One ping only 19:46, 7 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:Akron Pros head coaches[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need for overdetailed breakout; format for this sort of cat is simply "coaches". The Bushranger One ping only 07:57, 1 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_1&oldid=1074809983"