Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 2 September 4 >

September 3[edit]

Category:Pixar feature 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: merge to Category:Pixar animated films. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded level of categorisation. No other studio's category in Category:Animated feature films has this split; short films are split off into their own category (as is done here), while feature films are included in the main animated films category (which currently only holds a single article on references). WP:OC. The Bushranger One ping only 22:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Woodley Sports[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) 18:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose renaming the following 2 categories:

This is to reflect the change in name of the parent article, which is now located at Stockport Sports F.C. GiantSnowman 17:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 17:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women justices of the Supreme Court of Canada[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 07:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete (depending if the contents are in the parent cat). With a small body like a specific supreme court, gender is not a defining characteristic of members, and there should be one category that puts all the members together. If people within the body have specific positions, such as Chief Justice, they can be subcategorized by that, but they should not be subcategorized by specific traits like gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to all 3 parent categories, i.e. Category:Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, Supreme Court of Canada, and Canada, but not for the reasons stated by the nominator.
    Being a in a historically male-dominated court is indeed a defining characteristic, and this sort of situation is covered in WP:Cat gender with the example of female heads of state. As the guideline says, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic head article be written for this grouping? ... and the answer here is yes. (Here's some sources, from a v quick bit of Googling: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]).
    However, this category fails the avoid-ghettoisation rule that "an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree", which is why I support upmerger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 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:Constitutional court women judges[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. — ξxplicit 01:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#ASSOCIATED, WP:DEFINING, and downright weird. Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if all goes well, the contents will be merged/deleted to end the unjustified by gender divisions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This gender division is no different than other gender divisions on Wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. JPL has participated in CFD for long enough to be aware of the long-standing guidance at WP:Cat gender, and he should have read it before supporting this nomination, because it covers this sort of situation. See my rationale above in the Canadian judges discussion for evidence of how being a woman on a constitutional court is a valid encyclopedic topic. There is no risk of ghettoisation here, so no valid reason to delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
What is a constitutional court?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Constitutional court, which I suppose means the category would cover multiple countries. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That article is virtually devoid of references. I can only speak for the United States. Almost every court in the U.S. can rule a law unconstitutional, not just the U.S. Supreme Court. That's why I find the term "weird".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not a good idea to nominate something for deletion without figuring out what it actually is first. postdlf (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, a category is supposed to be self-defining. This one's meaning is unclear (to me) and, as a consequence, so is what people would fall into it, which is why I chose OC#ASSOCIATED. Perhaps I should have also used the rationale WP:OC#OVERLAPPING as, by my interpretation, there would be a major overlap with Category:American women judges (only because, as I stated, I can't speak for other country's judges). What does the category mean to you?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a term used in the U.S. (at least not in my experience, contra the statement in constitutional court), but many other countries do have separate high courts of that kind (the list in that article alone should have made that clear). Which is why there are non-American judges in that category. I think a good question, however, is whether this should be renamed to something like "national high court women judges." postdlf (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I had never heard the term used before in the U.S., which is why I said our article was effectively unsourced. As for your suggestion, I have no comment except that the description is at least self-defining, i.e., I understand it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per the definition of the term, probably no US justices should ever be in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as valid as any gender differentiated category on here.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:48, 11 October 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:United States women Supreme Court justices[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, since the four articles are already categorized under the merge targets. — ξxplicit 01:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, providing they are upmergd as needed to Category:American women judges and the main SCOTUS category, if not already in there. postdlf (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlimited future growth potential. bd2412 T 18:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Hypothetically possible, of course, but over many, many years. It's too soon. Additionally, why stop at women? What aboutAfrican Americans? Jews? The list is endless, and all have the "potential" for growth. It's a can of worms.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bigger problem than its immediate size is that it fragments a highly specific category in a way that is not a comprehensive subdivision, nor one inherent to the subject. Obviously we are not going to create a male SCOTUS justice category, so only the women are shunted off to their separate subcategory. And doing that for women leads to doing that for other demographics, such as ethnicities, place of origin, etc., so we have every position held crosscategorized by every significant biographical fact. The best way to represent this in the category structure is instead by having the most specific judge category (on which court(s) they served) be singular and intact, while intersecting the specific demographic characteristic at a more general level, such as all women judges in the U.S., or all women federal judges. The Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States article is the answer for people who want to see what groups have been represented on the Court. postdlf (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Longer ( :-) ) than my comment but very well put.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which just presents other problems because then we have multiple categories for the same position, and then what of their other prior judgeships? Except for Kagan, all of the women on the Court were judges before. So do we then also create for them "women on the Second Circuit", "women on the Arizona Court of Appeals," etc, which would also be nondiffusing? Thus doubling every specific court category for them (more if other such demographic categories are created), and categorizing them as women judges many times over. postdlf (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could have made your point without the word "bogus", which is gratuitously insulting.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you could have stated your real reason, which you set out in the nom above for constitutional court judges. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think, that I intentionally misled the discussion, which, of course, is based purely on your view of what's right to do here. That's crap. BTW, although you don't deserve this explanation, the truth is I have little experience nominating cats for deletion, but I'm learning that unfortunately it can be just as contentious a place as AfD. What is it that brings out the worst in people in deletion discussions? Finally, why is it that that postdlf, who seems to be far more experienced in this area than I and far more civil than you, said delete "per nom"? Is that because they too wanted it deleted for a "bogus" reason? Or was it just a figure of speech, and they were just in favor of deletion/upmerge but based on another rationale? Either way, unless you strike the word "bogus", this is my last comment to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in United States jurisprudence the term "constitutional court" does not make sense. Probably over 95% of all rulings that have declared a law unconstitutional in a federal court have been done by courts other than the Supreme Court. I am not convinced that being on the Supreme Court is as inherently different from being on other federal courts as some seem to be trying to imply. At least I would say the difference between circuit courts of appeals and the Supreme Court is not really that great. Since even US federal district court judges are appointed by the president for life with the confirmation of the senate, I think this attempt to treat Supreme Court Justicies as part of some sort of special trans-national category is unwise at best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since this is a non-diffusing category it should be urmerged to only Category:American women judges. It might be worth while to create Category:American women federal judges. However it should not be upmerged to the constitutional court category, because the United States Supreme Court does not fit the standard definition of a constitutional court. Its ruling on a matter is not appealable, but other than that fact it has no more power to declare something in violation of the constitution than does a circuit court, and its rulings no more nor less have the power of rule of law than do rulings of lower courts. It does not have more inherent power, it just has more real power because lower courts can be reversed, while only its own actions or admendments to the constitution can reverse the Supreme Court.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again seems just as valid as the other cats on here by gender and job.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment however this is not really a job, it is holding a very specific apointment. By gender and job would be Category:American women federal judges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there any reason to keep this category when we have upmerged the roughly equivalent Canadian one?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 17 October 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.

Wikipedians who edit audio files categories[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 06:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who edit audio files. We don't typically have "level" categories for such a thing. Presumably these additional categories are to indicate proficiency level, although there is no explanation as such. Presumably the collaborative use for this category is for someone to have an audio file they need edited for a particular article - If users are not proficient enough to do this then they should remove themselves. Additionally, totally subjective criteria to self-classify in one of these categories. It makes more sense to just have it a single category. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mario Bros. derivative works[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (C2C). The Bushranger One ping only 17:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming; the parent is Category:Mario. This naming pattern may be established enough for a speedy close. – Fayenatic London 14:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chinese literary derivative works[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: relisted at CfD 2012 September 21. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Nominated category has only 2 members, and the explanation on the category page gives it identical scope with the target category. I am open to renaming the target as "novels" or "literature" rather than "classics". – Fayenatic London 14:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Categories for Pipelines (Oil & Natural Gas)[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. The nominator has clearly given a lot of thought to this topic, and the proposal below amounts to a comprehensive set of changes. However, there at least 3 different types change are proposed, and the resulting discussion takes in too many questions to make it possible to fairly weigh the consensus.
There does seem to be support for some changes here, so I suggest it would be better to consider these issues one step at a time. Feel free to renominate without delay. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Propose renaming (parent categories)
Propose (up)merging
Nominator's rationale: Most countries categorise pipelines as either “Natural gas pipelines” or “Oil pipelines” but a number of countries have a combined category called either “Pipelines” or “Oil and gas pipelines”. The majority are natural gas pipelines, so it is proposed to rename the combined categories to “Natural gas pipelines“ with the additional “Oil pipelines” category by country created as required, eg Category:Oil pipelines in Germany. This will standardise the listing of pipelines and fit better into the separate parent categories Category:Oil pipelines & Category:Natural gas pipelines. The categories for each country “Natural gas pipelines in Foo” (and “Oil pipelines in Foo” if needed) will retain the parent category of “Energy in Foo”; or “Energy infrastructure in Foo” for the countries that have that category eg Category:Energy infrastructure in Germany. This would apply also to Russia, India and the United States, along with upmerging of the “orphan” categories Category:Fuels infrastructure in the United States and Category:Oil infrastructure of India plus a renaming of the category Category:Pipeline systems of Russia. NB: the category Category:Energy infrastructure by country contains 21 subcategories by country. Hugo999 (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Dayton, Iowa[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Cateories have 3 or fewer entries ...William 13:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Vandal removal department[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 06:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Misnamed (no indication it is a user category), no reason to seek out users in such a category- it would be faster to just revert it yourself, unless a block is required - but there's already a venue for dealing with that - WP:AIV, which would be infinitely faster than searching through such a category requesting that someone deal with it. No collaborative function to specifically seek out users in such a category. VegaDark (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. WP:AIV is a better way of organising collaboration against vandalism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also it wasn't even clear to me if the category was intended to include vandals or vandal "removers". Pichpich (talk) 03:48, 11 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:Products of Sweden[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (C2C). The Bushranger One ping only 04:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not part of a series. Odd one out. Contents need to be checked to see if they suit the new name. See also Category:Manufactured goods by country -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_3&oldid=1138397415"