Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 13 December 15 >

December 14[edit]

Category:Earth Impact Database[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) 17:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Whether or not something has an entry in a particular database should not directly be a characteristic that we categorize by. Reasons for this include: (1) the number of databases something (e.g. a mountain) is on could be large, (2) categories like this create incorrect (per WP:SUBCAT) categorization (e.g. placing the article about the Chicxulub crater under Category:Education in Canada via several other categories). That a planetary feature is on the database may be sufficient for the article about that feature to say that it's an impact crater and be categorized accordingly, but that categorization is not directly because the feature is on the database. Another editor has already expressed the same point on the category's talk page (possibly more clearly than I have). Analogy: we know that Barack Obama is the US President because, for example, the NYT (a RS) tells us so - that doesn't mean that Obama's article should be categorized under NYT. No upmerge of crater articles is necessary as it is likely that all the articles in this category are already in other (more appropriate) categories such as Category:Impact craters on Earth by region, but there are a few templates that might need to be upmerged. Listification (to Earth Impact Database) would be possible, but IMO would be inappropriate as it would be better to generate any such list directly from the database (not least because the category appears to be incomplete). DexDor (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now; consider renaming to something indicating this is a maintenance category. There are impact craters that are *not* in the Earth impact database, EID is a subset of our impact craters. I think this is reasonable to keep but probably retain as hidden and use as an administration category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any existing cases where we use a WP maintenance/administration category to track the mapping of WP articles to a real-world DB? DexDor (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:World Heritage Sites, which is both a sort of database and an award. I think it's also fair to say that being a member of the earth impact database is defining for these items; the lede of most articles should contain a notice that this crater is in the EID.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a normal WP category. DexDor (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Category:Impact craters on Earth (and subcats); wouldn't an "Earth impact craters" category just duplicate that? DexDor (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Earth Impact Database is the scientifically-accepted list of confirmed impact craters. So this is not a duplicate but rather a required separate category. It is the distinction between proposed/possible craters and those which have been through the process of scientific research, publication and acceptance. Many people make articles about theoretical craters but this is the list of those proven to be real. Membership in this category comes automatically from the {{Cite Earth Impact DB}} template, which has an EID citation and automatically adds membership in the category. Ikluft (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion expired without enough response for action long before I saw it. It should be closed out. Ikluft (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2014 (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:Boston Legal characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: DELETE, noting also that the cross-referenced TfD was a delete. -Splash - tk 20:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category not needed to house only the character list. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • that would still make for a small category with no likelihood of expansion so OC:SMALL would still apply. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:57, 17 December 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:Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: DELETE. I note the suggestion of a merge, but don't really understand it. In any case, that can be editorial if highly desired. -Splash - tk 20:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. All contents other than the list have been deleted/redirected as non-notable. Category not needed for just the list article. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REname to Category:Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip and populate with Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip and anythiong else related to the series. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The suggested target category was deleted in 2007 per OC:SMALL and with the merger and deletion of all the character articles there's even less material now. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:00, 17 December 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:Protected areas on the Appalachian Trail[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. -Splash - tk 20:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't generally categorize articles about places (e.g. forests) by what passes through them (roads, railways etc - example CFD) or how the place is (currently) used (e.g. "Category:Forests where people go hiking"). Both those categorization schemes would (if complete) cause articles about large forests to be in many categories. One article could be upmerged to the AT parent cat. This could be listified, but it would be better to instead create any such list directly from a RS (in which the entries would be listed in order along the trail rather than alphabetically) than from this category. For info: A related category was discussed in September (with a no consensus result). DexDor (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Recetn consensus is against categorising things by routes, but I wonder in this case whether there may not be a useful category for it to be restrcuted into, perhaps Category:Protected areas in the Appalachian Mountains: I do not know as I live the other side of the Atlantic. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and per repeated consensus about categorising places by routes which pass through them; it is a recipe for massive category clutter.
    This sort of material is better captured in a list, so I would support listifying this category if any editor wants to undertake the work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should not classify parks by what trails pass through them. I am sure some parks have many trails going through them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 23 December 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:Bodies of water around Rockaway, Queens[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 19:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. This is the only "Bodies of water around..." category in Enwiki. The articles currently in the category are in other (more suitable) categories and at least one of the articles doesn't even mention Rockaway. Presumably, the Atlantic would also meet the inclusion criteria and so if there was a complete "Bodies of water around" categorization scheme it would mean that oceans would be in thousands of categories. DexDor (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this is a bad idea for a scheme. "Objects of type X near entity Y" is potentially infinite, so we should nip this in the bud before it spreads.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly merge to Category:Rockaway, Queens though I am not sure we need it at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / Consider Merge to to Category:Rockaway, Queens It's not WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, as there are rather trivially accessible reliable and verifiable sources listing which bodies of water surround any given land mass. The article for Ambrose Channel mentions its proximity to Breezy Point, Queens, which in turn clearly mentions that it is part of the Rockaway peninsula. The one entry that simply doesn't belong here as currently constructed is East Rockaway Inlet, which does include the word "Rockaway" but is located along the Long Beach Barrier Island, several miles east of the Rockaway peninsula. The underlying question is that these bodies of water are not defined by surrounding the peninsula. The most relevant policy statement is WP:OC#OVERLAPPING, and bodies of water frequently surround more than one land mass, the best example of which in this case is the Atlantic Ocean, which is mentioned in the category header but would be littered with more categories than flotsam and / or jetsam if this category scheme were expanded to its limits. Alansohn (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, partly per nominator (I disagree with the assertion that this is subjective). The problem is that this type of categorisation would cause massive category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "around" is too unclear to ever use in a category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 23 December 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:Featured articles needing translation from Slovene Wikipedia[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: reverse merge, but cannot be implemented unless and until the server is reconfigured.
Meanwhile, there is no point in having duplicate categories, so I will implement the merge as nominated. Feel free to rename the resulting category if and when he server is updated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category GZWDer (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposal, but in the opposite direction. The article 'Slovenian language' has been renamed to Slovene language per the community consensus, because the dictionaries give preference to 'Slovene' in regard to the language. --Eleassar my talk 08:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - no article "needs" to be translated from anywhere to anywhere. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, the head article has been stable at "Slovene language" since being moved in 2008. It seems to be stable at that title, but I see that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene) is marked as a historical guideline; it may not reflect a current consenus.
Secondly, there is a technical problem. The category is populated by Template:Expand language, which relies on a language code, in this case "sl". That code is turned into a word by the inbuilt parser function {{#language:{{{langcode|}}}|en}}, in this case {{#language:sl|en}} ... which produces the output Slovenian.
Changing that would require some sort of server-level tweak, which may have much wider consequences, and some of them may be undesirable.
Since the category name change sought here cannot be implemented through the normal category-renaming process, I intend to close this discussion as moot, and leave to the folks at WikiProject Slovenia to decide whether they wish to ask for the necessary technical change to be implemented. I will leave a note for them about this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Slovenia#Country_code_sl.3DSlovenian. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 21 December 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_December_14&oldid=1074810504"