Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 26 July 28 >

July 27[edit]

Category:People from D'Iberville, Mississippi[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 09:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only one entry. ...William 23:42, 27 July 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:Freemasons by nationality[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 to keep. My problem is that the discussion did not consider the fact that this is an attempt to support previous discussions like this one or this one and there are others. Add to that the issue with not nominating the entire tree and we have a nomination that is not able to gain consensus. So one option forward is to renominate listing all of the affected categories. Another would be to reorganize based on the comments below, but that does not really address the history of previous discussions. So if deletion is attempted, it should mention all of the previous discussions to frame the discussion and see if in fact there is a change in consensus. Reorganization, may just be time saver for parts of the tree since the underlying support for the entire tree is not clearly established. The deletion review that was involved should also be addressed in future discussions. Also I will note that the category was recreated without discussion of why it should be unsalted so that action, given the previous discussions and the deletion review, are also on the table. Good luck. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'd particularly like deletion of parent and all subcats without upmerge in this case. Freemasonry by nationality is trivial in the first place, creates overcat, and encourages more overcat. We've been through this discussion before, and the cat was deleted, only to be recreated, and the same issues are apparent. Only in a very few cases are the people in the cat Freemasons where that was a defining category (meaning they made a major or unique contribution to it), and that's what Category:Freemasons is for in the first place. Thus, upmerge is unnecessary. MSJapan (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although, realistically for this to work, all the specific nationalities will need to be nominated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category would be unwieldy without some form of sub-categorisation. The logically most pure would be by Obedience (Conservative, Liberal, Co-Freemasonry, etc) and then by Grand Lodge/Orient - but that would be a nightmare and probably not that helpful to a person who does not know the terms. So nationality is probably the best way to sub-categorise. JASpencer (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Same reasons as JASpencer. Lekoren (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete freemasonry is not defining and is not monolithic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We cannot fell the whole tree, without all categories being nominated. We would suggest that being a member of the Freemasons is too common to be defining (except rarely), any more than being a Baptist, Methodist or Anglican. Being an officer of the senior echelons of the masons might be, though I am not sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - if you want the whole tree deleted, you need to nominate and delete thhe whole tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Computer mahjong[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 09:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I recommend merging this to Category:Mahjong video games because the latter is more clear and part of a more consistent tree of "[X] video games". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:47, 27 July 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:Fictional interdimensional beings[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 match the stated purpose, but without prejudice to re-creating Category:Fictional interdimensional beings if that would also be useful. – Fayenatic London 21:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category isn't actually for interdimensional beings, but for beings from parallel universes, as demonstrated by the category boilerplate and this revert. Vashti (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I'm not a big science fiction reader but I think there is a difference between "interdimensional" and "parallel universes". Dimensions can include time as well as other dimensions that only exist in sci-fi literature/programming. Parallel universe is more specific and refers to a particular place that exists. An interdimensional being (like, say Doctor Who) can travel through time and space but that is not the same as existing in a parallel universe (which he has done but he is not reducible to this).
  • But I'm not sure whether beings from parallel universe should exist as a subcategory of interdimensional beings or be completely separate. Since the former category describes someone who exists in a place and doesn't necessary travel between dimensions, they seem like two distinct but somewhat overlapping categories. P.S. I'm omitting "fictional" because I think that's obvious in this discussion. Newjerseyliz (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, at present pages are being removed from this category, on the grounds that they refer to various forms of interdimensional beings which are not from parallel universes. The category boilerplate states that the category is for beings from parallel universes. This is the intended use of the category. Vashti (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think either the description of the category should be rewritten or a separate category be created for parallel universes. Because they aren't the same thing so it sounds like the explanation of what the category should contain is at odds with the category name. Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the situation, yes. Vashti (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that's case, I'd support Creation of a new, separate category for beings from parallel worlds. Newjerseyliz (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support parallel universes are a clearer and easier to understand concept. What is and is not interdimensional is too complex.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose, but could consider a different rename The creatures in the second part of Asimov's The Gods Themselves are in a parallel universe but are not interdimensional. These properties are not synonymous; nor for that matter does an interdimensional being have to be from another universe. As a side note, I suspect this was created to categorize a few characters from a TV show and is now being extended; is the point to make a category which fits the members it already has? Seyasirt (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what the original intent for the category was; I can only go by how it's being used. The name it currently has doesn't fit that use, since as you say, interdimensional origin and parallel-universe origin are different things. I track Shinigami (Death Note), and this page was removed from that category on the grounds that it didn't fit. It seems as if the category was badly named to begin with. Vashti (talk) 17:48, 28 July 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:Chefs by location[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, KrakatoaKatie 07:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and upmerge sub-cats for cities into national categories for chefs. – Fayenatic London 18:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The inclusion criteria is Chefs who work in major cities throughout the world. Do we want to start categorizing people by the cities that they work in? Take someone like Emeril Lagasse, how many cities does he work in? Do we keep this updated for their current city or keep a history? If this is deleted, then we need to consider what to do with the subcategories. If they are based on the same category, then deletion is probably the best option. Additionally, the subcategories make the assumption that a chef who works in a place, is from there. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:45, 27 July 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:Sirius Satellite Radio channels[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 to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 24. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a radio station (e.g. NPR or BBC Radio 1) has been broadcast by a particular satellite/company is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that radio station. What next - "Category:Radio channels transmitted from Droitwich" ? These categories also incorrectly place articles in Category:Digital only radio stations. Alternatively, these categories might be salvageable by tightening up inclusion criteria, purging and possibly merging. There may be some list articles in these categories (e.g. this, this, this) that should be upmerged. DexDor (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This provides navigation to related series of articles, the purpose of categories. Deletion/up-merge makes no sense. Hmains (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The various methods of distribution are not really defining for a radio station.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • unfortunately that has nothing to do with the contents of the category Hmains (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is the relationship between NPR (for example) and Sirius/XM if it's not that Sirius/XM has been used to distribute NPR ? DexDor (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • What if the categories were cleaned up so they only contain articles that state they are a Sirius channel in one case and XM Satellite channel in the other--which is what the category names indicate should be the only contents. Most of the articles say this; eliminate the others Hmains (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the other hand, CNN, etc. do seem to have radio channels on Sirius and XM Satellite so why would their channels be any different than the rest of the channels? Hmains (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • If the category was changed to include only channels owned by Sirius/XM (or in some other way that meant it didn't include channels for which Sirius/XM is just a transmitter) then that might be OK; the nomination suggested cleanup as a possible alternative to deletion. DexDor (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hmaines and DexDor. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Members of the Senate of Northern Ireland[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/split. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At present the members of the Senate of Northern Ireland are categories by the Parliament in which they sat. However, none of the Senators were elected to terms which coincided with the dates of Parliaments. Instead 24 out of 26 were elected (by the Northern Ireland House of Commons, using the single transferable vote) to eight year terms in two tranches of 12. These elections did not take place at the same time as the start of the Parliaments, so that some Senators were only briefly members of one Parliament. I am proposing, in effect, to realign the categories so that they align with the actual terms to which these 24 Senators were elected. As it happens this does not require much alteration. Although there was no general election during the Second World War, there was in fact a Senate election on 23 June 1941.

I'm not certain what to do with the Lord Mayor of Belfast and the Mayor of Londonderry, who had Senate seats ex officio and therefore had annual terms, albeit frequently renewable. Their terms normally came to an end of May. It's probably easier to fit them in with the other categories as they are now. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:26, 27 July 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_July_27&oldid=1146637370"