Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 1 August 3 >

August 2[edit]

Category:National museums of China[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Chinese museums are not categorized as "national" or "provincial", etc. Zanhe (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and populate further as warranted. National museums in China as in any other country, are those run by state for the purpose of presenting material pertaining to the county/nation as opposed to museums with a more local or even international focus. The contents of this category are just that. Hmains (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's no such category as "national museum" in China, and having such a category on wikipedia is pure WP:OR. China's national government ranks museums by Grade 1, Grade2, and Grade 3, based on quality, historical significance, etc., regardless of scope. See zh:国家一级博物馆 (National Grade 1 museums), zh:国家二级博物馆 (National Grade 2 museums), zh:国家三级博物馆 (National Grade 3 museums). -Zanhe (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2013 (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:Amtrak stations in Siskiyou County, California[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 both parents. After the manual work is done, someone probably needs to look at whatever was not nominated and see if anything else should be discussed for a change. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pages nominated for upmerge all have only one or two pages in the Category pbp 22:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that California is the only state to have county subcats. I am also nominating the following additional pages for merger: pbp 23:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Clara has a lot more stations than Siskiyou. It has enough stations to support a category, Siskiyou doesn't. I find it relatively unlikely that a person would search this topic by county, it's much more likely that it'd be searched for by state pbp 23:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I think the smallcAt exception applies here. However I do question the value of having a whole Amtrak stations tree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the smallcat exception doesn't. There's a perfectly acceptable parent category. None of the other states with Amtrak service break down by county, because there's really no reason a person would look for them that way. This is blatent OCAT pbp 23:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; each county in each state can be no more than a WP:SMALLCAT given the nature of the Amtrak system. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not merge as nominated Instead merge Category:Amtrak stations in Siskiyou County, California to both parents: Category:Railway stations in Siskiyou County, California AND Category:Amtrak stations in California as this is a complete expression of the category structure. And do this for each California category. Railway stations by county is an established category structure in states of the United States Hmains (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Hmains, wherever there are other railway stations in the county. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Hmains. This is clear over-categorization and not done in any other state. To be clear there are two schemes here: railway stations by county, and then railway stations served by a particular operator by county (in this case Amtrak). The first case doesn't presuppose the second and there simply aren't enough Amtrak stations in California, or anywhere else, to justify it. Mackensen (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is no reason to have these by county in California categories for Amtrack stations. All the counties should be upmerged back to the state level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2013 (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:Art 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: Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For the last couple of days I've been trying to convince Wikipedia editors to remove some cartoon flick called "The Thief and the Cobbler" from this category (in fact, I've been trying to do so for almost a year now); however, the fanboys refuse to listen to my arguments (I've explained at length on that article's discussion page why cartoon flicks aren't and by definition can't be art films) or to even attempt to engage with them. To date, no one who has attempted to talk to me has invoked a serious source establishing this cartoon flick's status as an art film. The category, originally meant to list real art film, has now been abused by fanboys listing their favorite cartoons there. Hence, for the sake of Wikipedia's status as a source of serious and reliable information, I suggest deleting this category.
  • Keep - The fact that this IP has not gotten this category removed from a single article yet (discussions still on-going) absolutely does not equate to a valid rationale for deleting the entire category. This is either a misguided attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING or a terrible case of overkill. (A "burning down the whole village to get to a single person" type response.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per sergecross. plus the nom didn't tag the category, please do so. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water, to lay on the clichés.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close. Pointy nom by IP editor. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Irrelevant now that they've finally wised up and removed this travesty. From the original nomiator... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.234.86 (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2013 (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:Sarawak–United Kingdom relations[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created as a poor attempt to try and continue a campaign to separate Sarawak from Malaysia. It doesn't apply to the articles in it, and even if it did it's so small it'd be much better served by an overarching category. CMD (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sarawak existed as a seperate and distinct place. Just because it is now part of Malaysia does not mean we should act as if it never existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It existed, but as I noted none of the articles it is currently in actually apply to this category. 1 is part of the old Sarawak constitution, the other 3 are part of various documents relating to Malaysian federation, rather than any sort of bilateral relations. CMD (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No objection here, they fit there irrelevant to this category. There should be no redirect however, as this category does not equal history. CMD (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2013 (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:Sabah–United Kingdom relations[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created as a poor attempt to try and continue a campaign to separate Sabah from Malaysia. It doesn't apply to the articles in it, and even if it did it's so small it'd be much better served by an overarching category. CMD (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No objection here, they fit there irrelevant to this category. There should be no redirect however, as this category does not equal history. CMD (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2013 (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:Place names by location[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. Once the bot does it's work, editors can create the North and South America categories and move the content as appropriate. Any category emptied doing this cleanup should be nominated for speedy deletion as G6 per this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the sub-cats are by-continent. After renaming this cat should be placed in Category:Categories by continent. DexDor (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2013 (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:Hibernating spacecraft[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 merge opinion does not oppose deletion but the logic in the argument seems to imply that the editor would be OK with that outcome as not defining. If this aspect is of interest, editors can consider creating a template or a list. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category text says "Spacecraft awaiting further instructions" which indicates this categorization is (intended to be) by current status rather than by a permanent characteristic (such as spacecraft that are capable of hibernating). We shouldn't (attempt to) categorize by current status as there's no guarantee that an editor will recategorize when the status changes. Note: The parent category (and merge target) is also dubious, but I intend to leave that to a separate CFD discussion. DexDor (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed from merge to delete per IP comments below. Note: all of the articles in this category are in at least one other spacecraft category. DexDor (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge—per nom rationale of non-permanency of the characteristic, plus because there are no clear reliable sources that make this categorization have any clearly defined limit. Nearly all extraterrestrial probes will have points in their software algorithms where they await further instructions. N2e (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment both the current name and the proposed target are "status" categories. If we shouldn't categorize by current status, then they should both be deleted. And some spacecraft are in semi-permanent "hibernation" (abandoned in an operational state and never checked again, but presumed to be operational, and ready to be retasked ; presumably some of these have died but are not known to be dead because they haven't been checked) And I still don't see why you would merge "hibernating spacecraft" to "extraterrestrial probes", since we have many Earth orbiting satellites that are hibernating, but which are definitely not probes and are not out of Earthspace. So the scope of the two categories are different. (hibernating should not be in the ET-probe tree) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's rationale; Do not merge per preceeding comment regarding the scope of the two categories. Cgingold (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete given the ambiguity of hibernation; I also note that this category intersects with both the "active" and "inactive" spacecraft categories. Seyasirt (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this was started for spacecraft like the International Cometary Explorer, which did not seem to fit into existing categories. Fotaun (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another example: Deep_Space_1#Current_status. Fotaun (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • ICE is in other spacecraft categories (e.g. Category:Artificial satellites orbiting the Sun). "Current status" isn't appropriate as a section title in an encyclopedia. DexDor (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's ludicrous, "current status" categories are ubiquitous. Fotaun (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the contrary, there are very few "current" categories (excluding "electric current", "Swift Current" etc) when compared with the number of "former" categories. When "current" categories are brought to CFD they are normally deleted (example). Several of the current current categories are currently at CFD (example). DexDor (talk)
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:Media in Bihar[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow the naming pattern for sub-categories of Category:Indian media by state. See also: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 1#Category:Rajasthan media.  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  02:17, 2 August 2013 (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:Jharkhand 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow the naming pattern for sub-categories of Category:Indian media by state. See also: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 1#Category:Rajasthan media.  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  02:15, 2 August 2013 (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:1955 NCAA Division I baseball standings templates[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Error in naming, Division I did not exist in 1955. Billcasey905 (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. It's an empty category now anyway. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2013 (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/2013_August_2&oldid=1138397644"