Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 17 February 19 >

February 18[edit]

Category:Linear amides[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 05:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category was recently renamed from EC 3.5.1 to Linear amides, as per this archived discussion. The rationale was that EC 3.5.1 (meaning Enzyme Commission recommendation 3.5.1) is a shorthand reference to a recommendation which will not be familiar to most readers (even with some knowledge of the subject). This is true, but the replacement title Linear amides is quite unsatisfactory, because the molecules listed in the category are not in fact linear amides. They are instead enzymes (as seen by their ending -ase) which act on amides as substrates, so a better title would be amidases. (The previous discussion considered Linear amidases which was rejected because it had very few (41) Google hits, but Amidases without the Linear is much more used and has 352 K hits.)

However not all the substrates of these enzymes are exactly amides, so I think a still better title can be formed by shortening the full description of EC 3.5.1 which is Hydrolases acting on carbon-nitrogen bonds, other than peptide bonds, in Linear Amides. This seems too long for a Wikipedia category, so I propose a shorter version which will be clear to biochemistry students: Hydrolases acting on nonpeptide C-N bonds.

And yes, I also favour eventual similar modifications of other categories of enzymes with names based on the EC system. Dirac66 (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. we do have another Category:Amides which deals with molecules which really are amides, many of which are linear. Dirac66 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note. I closed the previous discussion at CFD 2013 February 9, and noted that there was no consensus on the choice between "linear amides" and "linear amidases". Dirac66 asked me to reconsider the close based on a rationale on the category's talk page. This seemed to be new evidence, so I suggested a fresh CFD without delay. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename as proposed The original move went the wrong direction due to confusion between the type of molecules acted on (amides) and the enzymes which are actually the members of this category. I appreciate the problems in making a reasonably succinct category name, and feel that this one is sufficiently short as well as accurate. Mangoe (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The new name seems involved, but the current name is wrong. Amides are chemicals, or molecule parts. -ases are enzymes. The category categorises enzymes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 8 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:The Simpsons merchandise[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) 08:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge and rename. It is not helpful to separate "merchandise" from other works based on the original TV series. Disclosure: I already moved video games & pinball machines from the nominated category into the target, as games are standard contents for "works based on Foo", before starting this nomination. – Fayenatic London 20:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/rename, but shouldn't the last be instead renamed to Category:Books based on The Simpsons? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that in the end there should be a split to that category ("Books based on") as well, but I thought "Works about" was a closer match to the current contents which include a magazine, and there are other articles in the head category which could be moved into "works about". I would have no objection to closure as "split" rather than "rename"; either way, it won't take long to implement and tidy up afterwards. – Fayenatic London 14:09, 20 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:Roads by year of opening[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty, controversial category –TCN7JM 20:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • TCN7JM, please merge these discussion into one or we'll never be able to figure things out. I'm not exactly married to these categories but I certainly don't understand why they would be considered even remotely controversial. The other thing that puzzles me is that although the categories are currently empty, I'm absolutely certain that the ones I created were not empty when I created them. Now the year in which roads are opened doesn't change over time which means either that the year in the category was changed or that these categories are being depopulated manually in which case they should not be considered as empty. Database reports are not always accurate but Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories seems to indicate that these categories were not empty yesterday. So until that little mystery is resolved, this paragraph should be considered a strong keep. Pichpich (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't want or need the categories. The fact that we have both the Roads opened in Foo categories and the Roads designated in Foo categories makes it very confusing when the road first went into use. There has been a thread at the USRD talk page where a consensus was reached to empty the categories. There was a similar one six months ago where a consensus was reached that this could be considered overcategorization. That is why I think this should be a strong delete, as well as all the other categories similar to this. –TCN7JM 21:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why this needs to be discussed here. You can't have a discussion on a project concerned solely with US roads that decides the fate of categories that have a much wider scope. Again, I'm not dead set against deletion but the USRD discussion is not a sufficient argument. Pichpich (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the contributions of Morriswa (talk · contribs), the guy USRD gave the job of emptying these categories, there were a total of three roads in these categories that were outside of the US, one of which was in Canada (not that that really matters). –TCN7JM 21:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this isn't enough to keep the categories. –TCN7JM 21:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to no opinion. I think this deserved a full CfD but I'll let people interested in road articles decide what they think. Accordingly, I've left a note about this debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways. Pichpich (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we didn't "give him the job," per se. He just said he wanted to do it, so he did it. I don't know if he's aware of the bot. –TCN7JM 21:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I'm going to leave Category:Roads opened in 2001 alone, as the only occupant there is an Australian road. –TCN7JM 21:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete roads can have different segments open in different years, so this is a bit tricky; plus we don't need to categorize under every possible variable in the sun. --Rschen7754 21:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Year of opening or designation is not an inherent characteristic of a road worth categorizing it by. Categories would be likely to contain roads from a wide range of types, places, and authorities responsible for them, with little connection between them other than when they happened to open. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a procedural objection. These categories were apparently emptied out of process. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If the categories had not been emptied, what would your opinion on the categories be? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to re-creation per Fayenatic London. –Fredddie™ 00:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above. Dough4872 00:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Interstate Highways in the US opened with new segments annually for many years from the 1950s through the 1980s or 1990s in some states. Too many categories make a mess of things. Imzadi 1979 → 02:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep all - procedurally. These categories were emptied out of process, and then nominated for deletion as empty. If they were emptied as a case of miscategorisation, that would be one thing - they could have been tagged as C1 after emptying and that would have been that. But it seems these were emptied as "not wanted" and then nominated - that deserves a application of fresh seafood. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree that some seafood needs to be applied, but make sure it goes around. The nominator was told that both CSD and CfD were each correct and the other was totally wrong in the span of 20 minutes. –Fredddie™ 03:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slow delete — Wikipedia is not a courtroom. Yes, you can hold action based on lack of consensus, but you cannot hold action where there is consensus (Disclaimer: I am not claiming there is consensus at this moment.) yet someone messed up the procedure. A trout is not a trump card.  VC  03:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the nature of roads is that they rarely open all at once, especially the type of roads we actually have articles on. This will lead to either putting them in multiple categories which seems less than useful for by year cats, or to putting them in either their first or last possible year category. The thing is that while most buildings are not used until completed, or at least are considered "complete" when first used, roads are oten used when only some sections of the total have been created. So on the whole there is generally not one specific year in which a road was "opened". Bridges are more like buildings and generally are only useful when complete, so they do have an opening date, but roads really don't, at least in most cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per JPL, who makes a well-argued point about the impossibility of categorising roads in this way. I'll illustrate it with a few examples:
  1. The M8 motorway (Ireland) is a new road, replacing an earlier non-motorway route. But it opened in many stages between 1992 and 2010. Categorising it by year would place it in Category:Roads opened in 1992, Category:Roads opened in 2003, Category:Roads opened in 2004, Category:Roads opened in 2006, Category:Roads opened in 2008, Category:Roads opened in 2009 and Category:Roads opened in 2010. That would be category-clutter on a grand scale.
  2. The M1 motorway (England) was also built in stages. AFAICS, it belongs in Category:Roads opened in 1959, Category:Roads opened in 1965, Category:Roads opened in 1966, Category:Roads opened in 1967, Category:Roads opened in 1968, Category:Roads opened in 1972, Category:Roads opened in 1977, and Category:Roads opened in 1999. More category-clutter.
  3. Many "roads" are actually "routes" designated along existing roads, which long-predated any numbering scheme, and may never have been conceived as a single route until they had been in existence for hundreds of years. For example, how could we put a date on the N52 road (Ireland)? Or on the N52 road (Ireland)?
Those who emptied these categories out-of-process deserve a good trouting, because the articles in the categories may have provide some interesting examples. But populated or not, I don't see any way in which this can be treated as a viable form of categorisation for roads. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, absurd categorization system. Even if you were very happy that your road "opened" in a particular year, why would you want to navigate to other roads worldwide opening in the same year? I would want to see reputable sources discussing road building (opening?!) development as a function of time, and I really doubt that such sources exist, and certainly not on a yearly timescale. Slap the depopulator. Such actions must go first through CfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 8 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:Works by Orhan Pamuk[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, without prejudice to re-creating it if any articles are created on non-book works by Pamuk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As below, except that this one also contains a template. – Fayenatic London 19:16, 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.

Sub-categories of 'Fictional characters who use magic'[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 28. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Category:Fictional necromancers, but it's a very specific type of magic (and a gender-neutral category). Same with Fictional Druids, which I understand is about a religion. --Niemti (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Female[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. We had had (have) separate "wizards", "sorcerers" and "warlocks" for a reason, but all magician women are "witches". (Alternate proposal: a new category "Fictional female magicians" at a new category "Fictional magicians" from the existing "Magicians". But this might create some problems.) Niemti (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Male[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Underpopulated and redunant categories. Niemti (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Another redunant category in the same series, but most populated. (Alternate proposal: a new category "Fictional male magicians" at a new category "Fictional magicians" from the existing "Magicians". But this might create some problems.) Niemti (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at present there are at least three females in Category:Fictional sorcerers. The one I know the most about I would not put in a witch category, however she might fit as a sorceress, although she is actually only described in the works as an enchantress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Warlock is not a synonym for wizard in all cases. It has its own connectations and a very different history of meaning and use. Are we sure we want to wipe out the use of that term in categorization?
In this case, why "warlock is just a redirect to simply "Magician (fantasy)"? Also, sign your comments. --Niemti (talk) 22:48, 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.

Works based on Star Trek[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) 19:06, 25 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 18:10, 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:St.Patrick's(Wicklow) Gaelic footballers[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; various other grandchild categories of Category:Gaelic footballers by county in the Republic of Ireland have the place name in the middle of the category name. – Fayenatic London 20:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to correct typography, and match the head article St Patricks (Wicklow) GAA, which I have just renamed to bring into line with one similar articles. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 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.

"Works by" not needed[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 all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete without prejudice to re-creation if needed later. These each only contain a single sub-cat for books/novels/plays/short stories, which is already adequately categorised. A top level for "Works by" is only needed for writers who have also directed films, written poems/music etc. – Fayenatic London 13:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale and WP:SMALLCAT....William 14:59, 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.

Games of skill[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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Games of mental skill
  • Category:Games of physical skill
  • Upmerge to Category:Games: Both categories' articles are redirects to game of skill. Also consider the fact that all games require mentation, and all games require some sort of physical movement to some extent or level.Curb Chain (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: previously discussed at 2006 Nov 19 (renamed) and 2012 Sep 12 ("mind sports" was upmerged). – Fayenatic London 13:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All I agree that arm wrestling and chess both require mentation, two games that share many common characteristics. A tremendous amount of mental skill is need to know when to move your arm and in which direction to push while arm wrestling, while chess players build up massive finger muscles while using a pincer grasp to shift pieces as many as several squares away from their original position. The categories here make a rather clear and defining distinction from each other and per the standard, different parent articles could be written for the two sets of games, even if they are lumped together for now in a single parent article. How navigation is aided by lumping arm wrestling and chess together into a single category is beyond both my mental and physical skills. Alansohn (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being sarcastic? Also, the respective articles actually existed but were redirectredirected to the current article a few years ago.Curb Chain (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my nomination as in my humble opinion I see no definition of a "game of mental skill" or a "game of physical skill".Curb Chain (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both These are rather large categories with a clear distinction from each other, and it seems clear that separate articles could be written, and probably should, even if they haven't yet been. It's also worth noting that the (rather poor) main articles were originally merged into game of skill, but nothing from the original merge now remains in the article, which itself is tagged for proposed merger with game of chance. --Qetuth (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A game of chance is clearly different from a game that does not operate on purely probability. A game of mental skill, well, what definition is there? The articles have been redirected and we don't have any WP:RSs to show a definition.Curb Chain (talk) 01:09, 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:People from Sparta, North Carolina[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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town that has 2 entries. ...William 02:04, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_18&oldid=1140114792"