Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 15 February 17 >

February 16[edit]

Category:Spanish and English-language journals[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:Multilingual journals. There is a clear consensus not to keep this category at this time, but no consensus to remove its contents from Category:Multilingual journals. So the result is is to upmerge rather than delete .--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. In this category tree, we have categories for different languages (in these cases: Category:English-language journals and Category:Spanish-language journals. For journals that are not written exclusively in one language but in a mix of two or more languages, there is the Category:Multilingual journals. Creating separate categories for different language combinations seems impractical: some journals are in two languages, some in three. Having a Category:Portuguese, Spanish and English-language journals does not really seem workable (not to mention all the problems one can get into when asking which language should be mentioned first). I propose to stick to the conventions in this area: an "English-language journal" is a journal written (entirely) in English, a journal published partly in English and partly in Spanish is a "Multilingual journal" and therefore to delete this category. Randykitty (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't think we want all possible permutations and see no reason to have a limited number.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. It is true that the potential combinations of languages in journals are huge. However, I think that at last the few most common combinations deserve their own categories. I would argue that Spanish-English journals are so many that they are most likely the most common sort of bilingual journals. In addition this category helps to ease the pressure in Category:Multilingual journals, which is currently overpopulated. Dentren | Talk 15:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi, glad that communication has been re-established. To put your comment about easing the pressure on the multilingual journals category into perspective, we're talking here about 6 journals out of 291. Even if a few were missed that could fit into this cat, that barely deserves the word "easing"... (BTW, I find the name of the category counter-intuitive, too. "English- and Spanish-language journals" would have been more logical (alphabetical order) and in the title as it is, I think that, grammatically, there should be a dash after "Spanish"). --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • These six are ones I have had time to categorize. Spanish-English languages are many more. Dentren | Talk 21:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still wont make a real dent in that cat, it opens the door to endless discussions (shouldn't this be English-Spanish?), it starts a category tree that is going to be very difficult to define (English-Portuguese-Spanish journals, English-Esperanto-French journals, Dutch-Hindi journals, whatever). --Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If the multilingual journals category gets too big, it can be logically subdivided at a later date. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:01, 24 February 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:Television series by RDF Media Group[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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The category should be merged as the company itself was merged into Zodiak. Bbb2007 (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These were produced by RDF Media, a well-known production company, under that name. The sub-category relationship is a far better way to represent this. The lack of WP coverage on RDF shouldn't be taken as evidence for RDF's relative significance compared to Zodiak. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 17 February 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.

Drug-related suicides in U.S. states[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) 01:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Nominator's rationale: Over-categorisation. Each of these state categories contains a pitifully small number of entries: CA has 33, NY has 27, the rest have 4 or less entries, mostly only 1. Each death should be listed under Category:Drug-related suicides in the United States only, rather than maintain an excessive sub-set of upto 50 categories. Whether this would count as a merger, I'm unsure. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 21:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. has almost 300 years of recorded history yet can only come up with ~80 notable drug-related suicides. Given another 300 years, maybe the total can come to ~80 more... Sarcasm aside, this leaves only a few thoughts: either the categories are not being utilised to their full extent, i.e. bios not being added to the cats, or they have been created in the "hopes" of being populated, which goes against WP:CRYSTAL, even though suicides are generally inevitable. Even if there are 500 such bios on Wiki, 500/50 states still only leaves an average of 10 names per state, given even distribution. I have no objection to retaining the cats if an effort can be made to actually populate them, instead of one here, one there.. as attention seems only for NY and CA, which represents 4% of U.S. states on the matter. I have heard editors comment that Categories can be misused or manipulated, creating a sense of imbalance and/or OR if they are selectively filled.. this is one such example, by fault of design rather than abuse, as it gives the wrong impression that NY/CA are full of suicidals, smackheads, and pill-poppers, compared to other states; more attention needs to be paid to adding names and moving names from the top U.S. cat to the relevant sub-cat state, should these be kept. Perhaps WP:CATP could be given such a request? Ma®©usBritish{chat} 04:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Small number of entries" when the categories contain over 20 articles? I think the size is quite reasonable. Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. If articles aren't being properly diffused down the tree, that's a maintiance problem, not a deletion one. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all there are enough articles to justify dispersion to the state level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Part of a bigger scheme. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:19, 23 February 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.

Alcohol-related deaths in U.S. states[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) 01:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Nominator's rationale: Over-categorisation. Each of these state categories contains a pitifully small number of entries: CA has 28, NY has 17, the rest have 5 or less entries, mostly only 1. Each death should be listed under Category:Alcohol-related deaths in the United States only, rather than maintain an excessive sub-set of upto 50 categories. Whether this would count as a merger, I'm unsure. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 21:32, 16 February 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:LivingTV television programmes[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 (C2D). The Bushranger One ping only 02:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The channel's name was changed two years ago. Bbb2007 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 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:Global internet community[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. – Fayenatic London 13:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too vague; seems to mostly be used in self-promotional articles that also get tagged with overbroad categories like Category:Community, Category:Social media, and Category:Web 2.0. Trivialist (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no sign of any clear and self-evident inclusion criteria for this category, apart perhaps from "everyone who use the internet" or "everyone who uses social media" ... both of which are uselessly broad. Phrases such as this may be used in PR campaigns for internet businesses, but they are far to vague to have any use as a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The name is a synonym for "internet culture". I don't see how this category could have a separate scope than its parent article. Dimadick (talk) 09:58, 18 February 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:Eidolon[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 per WP:C2D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Eidolon is a disambiguation page; the intended meaning is Eidolon (genus). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:46, 16 February 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:Eidolon albums[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 per WP:C2D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Eidolon is a disambiguation page; the band which this category is named for is Eidolon (band). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:44, 16 February 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.

Alumni of Panadura Royal College[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. – Fayenatic London 13:26, 25 February 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:Radio stations in Colorado Springs & Pueblo[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: split. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 24 February 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:Law firms in India[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 delete under CSD G7 (author request). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This can be speedied. DexDor (talk) 08:14, 16 February 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:Military equipment of the Second Boer War[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. See my earlier close for the rationale. Additionally, at this point, none of the categories contain anything except an article about a horse breed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing a type of weapon by a war in which it's been used is against WP:DEFINING and WP:OC#PERF. Previous discussions about similar categories include Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_24#Category:Military_equipment_of_the_Falklands_War. Note: This nom is a step towards the deletion of most/all of Category:Military equipment by conflict. Note: These 4 categories were accidentally omitted from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_11#Boer_War_weapons_and_Gulf_War_equipment. DexDor (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, this is a conflict in which few, if any, of its weapons are defined by. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all (similarly the other AfDs) The idea of conflating theatrical performances per WP:OC#PERF with military conflicts is ridiculous. The "equipment in minor conflict" categories may indeed not be defining for the equipment's technical development history (as they are for WWII), but they do define a significant group of interest to historians of that conflict. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's not defining for the categorised items, they shouldn't be categorised. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a resource for historians. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What a nonsensically BF comment. You perniciously fail to understand my point, yet again. This whole attempt of yours to delete a large tree of categories by snipping away at the margins until you think you've set a precedent is underhand and deceitful, quite contrary to the open and honest behaviour that is essential for a group project. You should be ashamed of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Andy, I share many of your concerns, but your points are lost in a comment which appears to be unacceptably vitriolic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being used in a specific conflict is not defining for a massed produced weapon. I have no objection to lists, but categories just do not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all for now. I am unpersuaded by the sweeping and absolute generalisations used in the deletion of these categories, as well as by the lack of notifications to WP:MILHIST. It is very odd to pursue such a wide range of changes without the participation of the relevant WikiProject, especially when it is such an active and well-organised project; and there seems to be no coherent plan for how best to group this information.
    I am a political historian rather than a military historian, but some weaponry is very strongly defined by particular conflicts: e.g. the Sopwith Camel by WWI, the Supermarine Spitfire by WWII, the Sea Harrier by the Falklands War, Alvis Saracen by The Troubles, etc. Simply deleting the categories without a Plan B is losing valuable metadata, and doing so in a piecemeal and under-notified fashion is not the way to ensure good decisions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Sea Harrier and the Saracen illustrate some of the problems with these categories; why choose the Falklands rather than Bosnia? Why choose the Troubles rather than Malaya? If WP had existed in 1982 would we have moved the Sea Harrier article from a Cold War category to a Falklands War category? If so, the categorization is non-permanent. If, on the other hand, we categorize by every conflict in which a type of equipment is used then some articles (AK-47, M16, CH-47, C-130 ...) could be in hundreds of such categories (Centurion tank is currently in 5 such categories). There are also cases where it's not clear whether or not a particular type has been involved in a particular conflict - e.g. does delivering supplies to Kandahar count as taking part in the Afghanistan conflict? What if there is disagreement about whether a weapon was used in a conflict? - such issues can be handled in lists, but not in categorization. Categorizing by when the equipment was first introduced (year/decade/period/century) avoids these problems - military aircraft (e.g. Hawker Typhoon) are already mostly categorized by date rather than by conflict. DexDor (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe those two weapons are defined by their use in two conflict rather than one; but they are still very much defined by their use, just as David Owen is defined by his membership of two political parties rather than the usual one. I note too that you didn't respond to either the Camel or the Spitfire.
I quite agree that the AKJ-47 is an example of a wepapon used in so many conflicts that it is defined by none of the. It's probably the most extreme example possible, but there other less extreme examples of the many weapons which are not defined by their role in a particular conflict. However, these nominations have been justified by a sweeping assertion that usage is non-defining. Since it clearly is defining in some cases, the basis for deletion is false.
Some discrimination is required between these different types of case, and we need a better solution than blanket deletion on the basis of the false assertion that none of the weapons are defined in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Usage is not a defining characteristic of a weapon/vehicle type - being wheeled, armoured, designed by Alvis etc are defining characteristics (if a vehicle doesn't have those characteristics then it's not a Saracen), but having been used in Ulster/Malaya is not a characteristic that every Saracen has. To take another example: Some Ford Transits have been used as ambulances, but we don't put the Ford Transit article in Category:Ambulances.
Where an article is about a single item (the David Steel analogy) then it may be reasonable to categorize by the usage of that item. Such articles have not been included in these CFD nominations - e.g. HMS Hermes (R12) is still in a Falklands War category, but Mark 82 bomb is not. The Camel and Spitfire are examples of types whose use was almost exclusively in a single conflict, but many (probably most) weapons etc don't easily fit into one/two by-conflict categories. The AK-47 isn't that unusual (e.g. see the DShK or the CH-47 which has been used in virtually every US/UK conflict since the 60s). DexDor (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - I too disagree with the direction of this sweeping re-categorization. Keep per Andy Dingley. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify the first item, after merging in the others. Delete the rest. We have had a series of noms for military equipment by war. However, they are in the nature of performance by performer categories, which we do not like. We nomrally listfy such categories (unless a list already exisits). Australia would have had little or no national arms industry at that period. All arms probably came from UK, so that an Australian category is particularly pointless. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Military equipment of the Second Boer War and and merge the others into it, and upmerge it all to a single category. There is way too much structure here. Agreed, it is silly to define weapons by the wars that used them, but categories are not simply for defining, they are for navigating. As a navigation tool, the subcategorisation and forked categorisation is counter productive. There are only a handful of pages here. They belong in one category page. This is similar to the above "Listify the first item, after merging in the others. Delete the rest", but lists and categories have different complementary purposes and there is no good reason to not have a single equipment category for a major war. It fits in well in Category:Second Boer War. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The bad-faith personal attacks on the motives behind this nomination are downright depressing. The simple fact is that there is no "snipping around the edges to establish precedent"; there is deleting non-defining categories. WW1, WW2, the Cold War, these are defining for the majority, if not all, of the equipment used in them. While, as mentioned above, the Shar is indeed defined by the Falklands War...what other equipment used in it is? Having a category "Weapons of war X", when only one or two weapons used in it would fit, is bad categorisation, as either you police a two-article WP:SMALLCAT and exclude other weapons used in the war, or you populate it with all the weapons used in the war but which aren't defined it, becoming WP:OC. These should be lists, not categories. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:16, 13 March 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.

American monarchists[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:American monarchists
  • Nominator's rationale in general we avoid categorizing people by just supporting some position. To add to this, it is unclear that the people in this category form a cohesive group. The Loyalists are not neccesarily "Monarchists", breaking from England was not neccssarily a debate over monarchy. Emperor Norton does not really fit the definition of a monarchists. Of the remaining they just don't seem to be a cohesive enough group, and this feels like categorization because they support an idea without any evidence they have done anything about supporting it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, there were several monarchists in the revolutionaries, who wanted to make George Washington into George the First. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is this is part of a pattern of such categories found in Category:Monarchists which the nominator did not mention. This is not a transient position, it is part of a theory of governance. There is nothing provided to support the nominator's assertions that the people in the category did nothing but think. In any case, the history of ideas is as important as the history of action. Hmains (talk) 18:20, 17 February 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.

Algonquin loanwords[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: listify and delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Algonquian loanwords
  • Nominator's rationale First off we have began deleting these categories, because in wikipedia we classify things by what they are, not what they are named. Looting should renain in the same categories if it were to be renamed to Plundering. The articles here belong in various categories, but are not on words. This category itself has articles like Lake Michigan that are problematic for other reasons as well. For one thing, it is unclear that place names should be included in such a category at all. Another problem is that lake is not derived from Algonquian, so it is hard to see how a set of two words, one not even Algonquian, could ever fit in this category. So in general this category at base should not exist because it classifies by common naming trait, and as it is applied it even less should exist because much of the contents can not be said to be words at all, but are names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Missinipi Broadcasting Corporation is an even more extreme case of this category being misapplied. Here we have three words, one of which might be from an Algonquian language. Plus as the name of a very specific thing, I do not think it could ever be considered a "loanword". The same could be said for the cases where the articles are on specific places in Pennsylvania or Virginia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 16 February 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_February_16&oldid=1082510114"