Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 16 February 18 >

February 17[edit]

Category:Films distributed by Disney[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 2013 February 25. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current name is a bit vague. Renaming this category would connect it cohesively with its respective article; Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. (Note that I am not suggesting Category:Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures films, because WDSMP is a distribution company, not a studio - it only distributes films) ~ Jedi94 (talk) 23:51, 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.

Category:Libraries of Cumberland, MD-WV-PA[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 Bushranger One ping only 02:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category with limited expansion possibilities right now that has naming issues. If we were to keep this, it probably should be renamed to Category:Libraries in the Cumberland, MD-WV-PA, This is a metropolitan statistical area and while this is the formal name, I suspect its use in categories would be confusing to many and another rename option could be to Category:Libraries in the Cumberland metropolitan statistical area. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at present we have one article, on a library that is actually in Cumberland, Maryland. I see little likelihood it will grow, and I really think libraries by state is a better way to categorize.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do have categories for by county and by city. Some of these are mostly redirects to the city article. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 21 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:Ciconiiformes 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: Upmerge category, and redirect template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The permcat tree doesn't contain enough articles for a stub category, even if they were all stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category, upmerge template per nom --Qetuth (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge category, redirect template per nom -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:34, 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.

Category:People from the Texas South Plains[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 Bushranger One ping only 02:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Notable people are categorized by Town(Lubbock, Texas) and or County (Milam County, Texas) for examples, not by general geographic areas. The people in this category that I checked are already categorized the normal way. If the category is deleted, any of the rest can be moved to the normal categories....William 18:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after manually emptying. Informal areas such as this are not how we categorise topics geographically. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is too illdefined an area to be worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 19 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.

Works based on Torchwood[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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the new standard pattern, and some of the parent categories, following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 24#In other media and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 1#Works based on Dune. – The Bushranger One ping only 17:50, 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.

Category:Doctor Who non-fiction books[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 to Category:Books about Doctor Who. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is consistent with Category:Books about Middle-earth which likewise contains both reference books (which may be in-universe) and true non-fiction. – Fayenatic London 23:37, 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.

Works based on Doctor Who[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 all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the new standard pattern, and some of the parent categories, following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 24#In other media and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 1#Works based on Dune. – Fayenatic London 17:22, 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.

Category:Hurricane season 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 rather than merge, because each of the members is already in the regional sub-cat of Category:Tropical cyclone templates. The vote for merger confirms the lack of interest in maintaining this category for the season templates. – Fayenatic London 13:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is meant as a top end category but is now redundant to Category:Tropical cyclone templates which contains all of the categories listed. Jason Rees (talk) 16:52, 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.

Category:Government of Liaquat Ali Khan[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 2013 February 25. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Already exists as Category:Prime Ministers of Pakistan Darkness Shines (talk) 12:18, 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.

Category:Production battery electric cars[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. There is already a list at List of production battery electric vehicles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded breakout of the parent category/merge target, with arbritrary inclusion criteria. This is not what the categorisation system is for. Also includes a "current" criterion, which is discouraged in categorisation. The Bushranger One ping only 07:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, I removed one part of the description that made reference to the "current" issue, but not the other, before speedily renaming. Anyway, I have no objection to deleting/upmerging, simply because I don't see a "production" vehicle tree (?) We do have several cats for concept cars, one-offs, prototypes, on the other hand. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the current criteria just does not work. I am also not convinced that the amount of production is worth including in the categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 19 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:Tourist accommodations[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Based on a request on my talk page.

I think Category:Tourist accommodations and the subcat should be renamed to have "accommodations" as the singular. "Accommodations" is uncommon usage. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vegaswikian (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As I mentioned on my talk page, to my ear there is nothing wrong with the name as it exists. It is the correct plural form. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Categories are, for the most part, plural; "accomodations" is actually the more common useage in my experience. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The word is never used in the singular in this context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Per all discussion. "Accommodation" is for disabilities; "accommodations" are where people spend the night. Mangoe (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment—this is an ENGVAR issue. In NZ English "accommodation" is a group noun for where people spend the night. "Accommodations" are what political parties negotiate with each other when deciding which bills to support through parliament. The phrase "tourist accommodations" to us sounds like something someone with English as a second language would say. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as Category:Types of tourist accommodation, to deter editors from putting individual buildings in there. – Fayenatic London 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an apparent WP:ENGVAR issue without strong ties, isn't "keeping at its original location" the standard? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, In British English this is ambiguous. Also this is one one the relatively few American usages that British English speakers are mostly unaware of. Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Despite the WP:ENGVAR concerns, the plural form is needed per WP:NCCAT#General_conventions to clarify that this is a topic category (of articles about the concept of tourist accommodation) rather than a set category (of articles about places that offer tourist accommodation).
    There are several sub-categories which are set categories, so after the rename a new set category Category:Tourist accommodations shoukd be created as a parent to them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But since this is an WP:ENGVAR issue, why move it from plural to singular? That is in essence the issue here. For some the current name is the correct plural. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment—The OED definition is: Accommodation 1. [mass noun] Brit.: a room, group of rooms, or building in which someone may live or stay: they were living in temporary accommodation. • (accommodations) chiefly N. Amer.: lodgings, sometimes also including board: the company offers a number of guest house accommodations in Oberammergau. So both words are correct somewhere in the world. My personal preference is to use "accommodation" as a mass noun, but it's not our personal preferences that count, rather it's "where will the majority of our users look for this information?" So, we need to be pragmatic and whichever is settled on, a redirect category needs to be set up from the other one. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep categories are pluralized, and WP:RETAIN/WP:ENGVAR -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as Category:Types of tourist accommodation per Fayenatic london, which will keep it tidier anyway. Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname "Accomodation" is the appropriate collective noun. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep changing the name would violate rules on English variation, plus I do not see it as helping anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Tourist accommodations" reads as implying different types of accommodation and excluding specific examples of accommodation. This appears to be the case. Accommodations is an accepted plural of the generic singular concept of accommodation, just like peoples is the plural of a singular people. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, whether the lone thing is a "tourist accomdation" or "tourist accommodations" the plural of multiple examples of the thing is accomadations, so everyone should be happy with this name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 11 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.

Category:Android software[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 Bushranger One ping only 19:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match main article (Android (operating system)). Trivialist (talk) 05:32, 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.

Category:Saudi Arabian Websites[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 Bushranger One ping only 19:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Fixing capitalization. Trivialist (talk) 05:07, 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.

Category:Freelance Marketplace websites[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 Bushranger One ping only 19:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Fix capitalization of "marketplace." Trivialist (talk) 04:36, 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.

Category:Library museums[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 manually, categorising each page in the appropriate library and museums cactegory. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Ran into this one which I thought was going to be for museums about libraries. Instead it appears to be about buildings that are both a museum and a library. I'm not convinced that is a defining intersection. Another option is to split, but at the article level, these appear to mostly be categorized correctly. So a consensus to split is the safer option. However if split, cleanup will be needed since the articles are usually in subcategories. If this receives consensus, the subcategories will need a follow on nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • eliminate entire tree, merge to museum cats or to library cats Many museums have libraries; many libraries also function to some degree as museums (e.g. they have exhibits on books in their holdings). The pages in this category tree need to be categorized according to their primary function (e.g. Library of Congress is a library, Gutenberg Museum is a museum) and the extra categorizations eliminated. Mangoe (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte the few things that are actually both should be in both trees, but more often these are libraries that have displays, or museums that include a library. However there is no clear reason why these fit the criteria, and hundreds of other places we have articles on that straddle the line in some way do not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Based on the discussion, I'm working on adding the rest of these to the nomination. If anyone wants to help, thank you. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not understand the need to create rigid rules for categorization. The libraries in these categories have clearly defined exhibit areas and promote themselves as museum attractions. Exhibits usually come from their collections. Not all libraries feature such galleries so prominently. Using the category "library museums" delineates such libraries. Most are included in the community or state tourism listings as museums as well. Having the category helps visitors understand that they are viewing changing exhibits that could be about a variety of topics, compared to a specialized museum. I see no need to split the articles. Maybe a category definition should be added to the parent category. Jllm06 (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suggesting that the articles be split. If a facility is both a library and a museum then it should be in both category trees directly. Having this combined category adds an unnecessary level of navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 21 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_17&oldid=1127488372"