Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 27 July 29 >

July 28[edit]

Category:People from Fairmont, 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 only "objection" is, to be honest, inexplicable. The Bushranger One ping only 09:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with just two entries. ...William 23:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an anti-nomination. There's a whole heap of problems arising because some people want to recategorise English slave traders as British, when they weren't. English people got involved in the slave trade long before John Dee started dreaming up the British Empire, let alone when James VI came down to rule England.Leutha (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to this nomination is absolutely absurd. It has nothing to do with slave trade, but consolidating small towns that have a 'People from' category which shouldn't. I've been making these nominations for sixth months. Get a clue before writing something like you did above....William 15:22, 29 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.

MLB All-Stars[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The categories are for players who have appeared in the Major League Baseball All-Star Game. There is little distinction between the American League and National League these days. They have merged into MLB. It doesn't particularly matter which league a player represented, even going back to Mickey Mantle or Ernie Banks, back when the All-Star Game meant more than what it means now. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- If this is one team, playing successively in different leagues, then there should only be one category, depending on their present league. The precedent for this is alumni categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not "one team, plaung successively in different leagues". A player represents their league, and only their league, in an All-Star Game. The argument that these should be merged because there is less distinction "these days" is WP:RECENTISM. This isn't like the Pro Bowl, the leagues teams being different in the All-Star Game is actually a significant deal. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:22, 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:Cendant brands[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 (in the article Cendant), as relevant members are already in Category:Wyndham brands. – Fayenatic London 22:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Cendant no longer exists. Most, if not all of these, are already categorized in Cendant's successor, Wyndham Brands. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Categories are do not represent the "current" situation—they are timeless. Any brands that were once brands of Cendant should be in this category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We do have categories that reflect the current situation; both alumni and sports teams use the "most recent name" and are renamed when the institution or team changes its name. In this case, if Cendant had been bought out by another company, there might be a case, but it was split up; Wyndham (which all but one of the category's contents now belong to, I believe) is a successor - basically, renamed - and as they are already categorised in Category:Wyndham brands, this category has become redundant; in this case, the list at Cendant (which, admittedly, needs to be expanded for completeness) is sufficient. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:26, 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:Mammals parasites[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 "Parasites of X" format. The Bushranger One ping only 09:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Replace plural noun form with a proper adjectival form. The names proposed above appear to me to be consistent with other names used in the hierarchy Category:Parasites by host. Orlady (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Parasites of Mammals", etc. otherwise it's ambiguous as I would have thought that the black rat would be a rodent parasite. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Parasites of X" per CS46. The current names makes it look like "parasites that are X" -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:52, 1 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:Multinational musical groups[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 09:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial categorization. Musical groups from a specific locality could form a scene or sub-genre of music but these groups are only related by virtue of having members from other places. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having members from multiple nations is not defining. Also, exactly how does a group become multi-national. Are we ready to put a choir here if it is based in one country and has at least one member that is a citizen of another country? If not, than this must mean we have some defined percentage of members who are from a different nation, what is that percentage, how did we define it, and how is it anything other than arbitrary?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 2 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:Iowa Chops[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/merge all. Long-time consensus is that when a team changes names, the categories do too, with the old name becoming a {{category redirect}}. The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the categories is Iowa Stars, but if that is deemed ambiguous than I'm not opposed to renaming Category:Iowa Chops to Category:Iowa Stars (AHL) and merging Category:Iowa Chops players to Category:Iowa Stars (AHL) players either. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's rationale: Go ahead and move it...but to Category:Iowa Stars, not Category:Iowa Stars (AHL) (most people have forgotten the CHL team). Tom Danson (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the renaming of Category:Iowa Chops players because its standard to put players in the category for the team as it was called at the time they played for it. Players who played for the Iowa Chops did not play for the Iowa Stars. It would be a mistake to list them as such. While it is the same franchise in the sports world there is a notable difference in team names. Oppose Category:Iowa Stars (AHL) players because category wise it needs disambiguation from the CHL team. The main category I have no problem with renaming. -DJSasso (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Iowa Chops redirects to Iowa Stars, which says that Wikipedia has decided they are the same. We categorize by team, not by team name. If the team gets renamed we move all people to the new team name. Otherwise people who played 5 years for a team, that renamed twice while they were there, would be in 3 categorizes for it. That is not a good way to do things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- The categories should be at the present name. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 4 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:Noetics[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 to Category:New Thought movement. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Alternate proposal: Upmerge and delete as too small. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge and delete as too small. Name problem fixed by moving the main article to Noetics, as that's what it is called in the article. "Noetic theory" has not been in the article since at least November 2012. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am largely indifferent to the fate of this category. Noetics is nonsense, and it is best handled by people who take it seriously. It exists solely to house articles away from the philosophy category, which actually is very a useful purpose. I would think that Arthur would appreciate that sort of thing. Greg Bard (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still a pretty small category. Also, as this may have more eyes than the appropriate talk page, Noetics, Noetic theory, and some of the other redirects, had completely different Wikidata language entries. I don't know how to merge the Wikidata entries titled "Noetics" and "Noetic theory". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 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:Professional soccer teams in Pennsylvania[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:Pennsylvania soccer teams. The Bushranger One ping only 09:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Pennsylvania soccer teams. Nearly all other U.S. states don't have a separate category for professional vs. all pbp 02:59, 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:Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University Award recipients[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 09:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having won this award is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person/organization (see WP:OC#AWARD). This category also incorrectly places many articles about TV stations etc under Category:People by status. For info: There is a list at Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University Award#Award winners. DexDor (talk) 02:00, 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:Spanish–American War weapons[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 09:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mass-produced items shouldn't be categorized by their usage as it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic (in effect, an example of WP:OC#PERF). An example of a previous CFD for similar categories is this. DexDor (talk) 01:52, 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:Military equipment of the British Empire[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 09:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category categorizes weapons (e.g. FN FAL) etc by one of their users. We don't normally categorize mass-produced items by users as it's not WP:DEFINING of the subject; instead we categorize such articles by country-of-origin (e.g. in Category:Weapons of the United Kingdom and its subcats). Note also that this category currently only contains a fraction of the articles that would satisfy its inclusion criteria (e.g. WP has articles about hundreds of military vehicle types used by the Empire countries) - the unusual use of "especially" in the text sort of acknowledges this. An example of a previous "weapons-by-user" CFD is this. DexDor (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify this should be a list, and in the list it should specify why the weapon is listed -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Almost all weapons will be "weapons of United Kingdom". Some of the old Commonwealth countries may possibly have made their own weapons during WWI & WWII. If so, they should be categorized by those countries. However in practice, almost all weapons will have been made in UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:01, 4 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_28&oldid=1090391133"