Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 19 October 21 >

October 20[edit]

Category:Iron ore mining locations in Western Australia[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 and purge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clarification - this category is for articles about mines (see the parent categories) rather than for articles about places in which there is a mine. After rename this should be purged of articles such as Newman that are about towns etc rather than specifically about mines (some could be moved to Category:Mining_towns_in_Western_Australia). For info: This is the only "...mining locations..." category in WP:EN. DexDor (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
corrected by adding "in" to proposed new title. DexDor (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - disagree with the proposed change - also the lack of 'in' in the title makes it read as if created by a machine translator - For info: I am sure there is no other category on wp en with a title lacking the recquisite 'in' or 'of' or whatever satusuro 01:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • See also similar Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 16#Category:Grain receival points of Western Australia Mitch Ames (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Purge -- The purged items can usefully go into Category:Mining towns in Western Australia. I do not think it matters if some are too small for "towns"; we could possibly rename that to "seetlements" as has been done in other cases, but I doubt we need bother with that. The headnote will require tidying up to match. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure where these slippages to things not related evolve from - Mining locations in Western Australia do not necessarily in any way relate to towns or settlements - please be a bit more mindful of what you are trying to do here.... Western Australia has mines/mining locations that simply do not relate to settled locations... if it wasnt for the level of playing with things here there could be well a separate set of mining town articles, and mine articless - and there is in many a case not a necessary connection... if it does not make sense to someone in an urban situation somewhere in europe or the states - the distances are such that mines exist with no actual settlements in any sense... the workers 'fly in and fly out'. the original re-name idea I have not problem with. satusuro 13:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose each has a very significant and specific link to Iron ore mining they arent all mines, the towns in that list were all purpose built for the Iron ore mining some servicing more than one site, some have since grown to a be more others have closed and been removed when the mining in the area shut down. Gnangarra 03:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If - as Gnangarra says - "they arent all mines", then Category:Iron ore mining locations in Western Australia ought not be a subcategory of Category:Iron mines in Australia, as it currently is. If any thing the latter should be a subcategory of the former. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and purge. The mines are what is notable. It is common for a town to be built when a new mine is created in a remote location. The towns are notable as being towns and belong in a different category structure, the one for populated places. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - for closing admin, this has now been here a month, and looks like it has gone nowhere. Per Vegas - there are both mines and related towns that sometime trump the other for significance. There is no hard and fast rule as to -(1) now that there are endless flights (FIFO) out of Perth airport, it is clear that there are mines with no towns, and with the ways things go in some areas (2) there are towns with no mines. Each case that dexdor and vegas has so far touched runs completely opposite from what the commonly accepted understanding of the locations in the mining region of western australia - Tom Price, Western Australia has has mining town removed (it is in the text vegas...) and vegas has identified Newman, Western Australia as a town with no related mine. I honestly believe with such blinding clarity of local knowledge and science, this Cfd is closed and somewhere somebody prove to outsiders (sic) what is what. It is clear here is not the place for such discourse. satusuro 01:12, 19 November 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.

Miami FC/FTL Strikers[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/rename/delete as nominated, except in the following cases:
(NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 07:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per Fort Lauderdale Strikers, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:OVERCAT. No clue why these categories were created in the first place. There's also some empty categories that need to go. Plus a few of these clubs have absolutely nothing to do with the Fort Lauderdale Strikers. – Michael (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. When were the season categories being proposed for deletion emptied? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No no no, they were empty the whole time. Especially the season categories. – Michael (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone. I am the person who spent several hours and days organizing the entire category log of the Fort Lauderdale Strikers to a more coherent format. Kindly disregard the entire proposal made by the user above. These categories were painstakingly done as I am inserting all the information for each season of these teams along with help from other participating Wiki collaborators. Furthermore, contrary to what the user above may erroneously believe, all these teams are part of the historical club of the Fort Lauderdale Strikers as a whole. Before, the information was scattered and it was a real mess. Now, a reader can go through and see a well organized catalog, timeline, and lineage. All these suggestions being made above are done so without proper thought or conversation. The user might have noticed by the contributions that I was the one doing all this massive work. At best, the user could have contacted me and simply asked a few questions that we could have discussed amicably and I would have explained everything in detail. Yet, I found this by happenstance. This idea of merging, deleting, and renaming is done without real depth of the historical account of the club. Everything is truly accurate and appropriate. Please, let's leave it the way it is as it is finally corrected after all these years. NYCWikiKid (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not talking about this on your talk page. However, this is not correct. As a matter of fact, a few of these categories violate WP:OVERCAT, so I don't see why we can't move these categories because everything was correct the first time. – Michael (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To begin, this is not a "violation" and it is not overcategorization. To overcategorize is to put every minimal detail in a category. This is no where near that case, so please stop making such associations. Furthermore, each category is made for a specific team and their distinct information (seasons, players, and main article) - as it is synonymous to other team categories from different sports found on Wikipedia. These teams have then been organized into one umbrella group which is the club that they all belong to or have lineage to. Clearly, you may not know all the historical facts about this particular topic. I would prefer that you take these proposals down as it really is deconstructive. I have put countless hours into improving the information. Everything is being done, but it can not be placed over night (people need to sleep and go to work). Fellow collaborators and I are putting in the time to place the information in proper form. I would really appreciate your faith in this endeavor. And instead of pursuing this route, perhaps you can even join us in expanding the information and sharing the workload. You are certainly welcomed to collaborate. With all the time you spent in placing these nominations, you could have invested less in simply contacting me. Let's make some good of this. Cheers NYCWikiKid (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & merge all as defined by the nominator - unneccessary (and incorrect!) disambiguation, NYCWikiKid has already been warned about disruptive (i.e. undsicussed & controversial) moves. GiantSnowman 09:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all (or most), one category per club, not one per club per franchise. Separate ones for players, seasons etc. where appropriate. This should apply even where the club is renamed, though possibly not if it is also relocated to a new city. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not support
  • The only proposal here that is valid is - :* Propose renaming Category:Fort Lauderdale Strikers (1977-83) to Category:Fort Lauderdale Strikers (1977–83). That is it.
  • Other than that, these are not being thought out. To affirm, I am a positive contributor to Wikipedia. Anyone is free to look up my entire history logs since day one. I do things methodically and with respect to the site.
  • The information is now organized, so I ask admins to please go through everything I have done in relation to this topic and really explore Category:Fort Lauderdale Strikers to see how well organized it is. Please look at how it was before - everything was scattered and placed incorrectly, leading to confusion and overlapping.
  • Peter, I think you may not be analyzing the actual category correctly. Each category is specific to one team (as you request). Each team has their own information (players, seasons, etc), which is synonymous to all other teams listed in Wikipedia. What I also did was placed all these teams under one category which is the Fort Lauderdale Strikers club as they form part of the club's history. That is it. I ask, that you take your time in exploring the information and really see how well it is cataloged. NYCWikiKid (talk) 14:39, 21 October 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:Holidays and observances by frequency (undefined)[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. Editors had difficulty understanding the purpose of these hidden maintenance categories, and the creator had difficulty explaining it. Two of the three editors who expressed a preference supported deletion, and since there was clearly no consensus that these categories served a clear purpose, I weigh the outcome as a consensus to delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating the following "undefined" categories:
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not sure I understand the categorization. Are these holidays and observances defined by their undefined frequency/duration scheduling? Even more confusing are the empty parenthetical "()" categories. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Category:Holidays and observances by frequency and Category:Holidays and observances by duration do give us a clue about what the creator of these strangely named categories had in mind. Category:Holidays and observances by duration (1 day) should be renamed to the simpler Category:Holidays lasting 1 day (as it is a subcat of Category:Holidays, itself a subcat of Category:Observances). The creator seems intent upon placing every holiday in a 'duration' category and thus has invented an idiosyncratic notation for various 'none of the above' cases. It is not what I would have done, had the subcategorisation of holidays been amongst my ambitions. Oculi (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge-- Category:Holidays and observances by frequency and Category:Holidays and observances by duration seem to cover the subject without "()" or "(UNDEFINED)". Some of the undefined ones seem to be annual, but according to a different calendar, such as a lunar one. Others may be irregular pilgrimages. The whole thing is a mess and needs a lot of sorting, but we cannot easily do that though a CFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main point of "undefined" is to determine it for these holidays by adding the relevant fields to the infobox. -- 签名 sig at 16:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "undefined" is used by the template as long as the frequency hasn't been determined. It is a pure maintenance category and thus not visible to the general public. Obviously it can be deleted once we defined the frequency/duration for each holiday. -- 签名 sig at 16:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is at best an inaccurate explanation. Take Advent which can start between November 27 and December 3 and ends December 24. So the duration is 'between 21 and 28 days'. However duration is listed as optional in the template which says that this parameter is not needed so categorization into one of the above categories is not an exception. It may well be better to make this parameter required and display a missing parameter error in red to highlight this fact. That may do a better job of getting these filled in. Also the help should be expanded to explain what to do in a case like this. For the record I came here trying to close this and found this by doing some digging and research. If I need to take a position, it would be merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that if the closer wishes to close this as a delete based on the discussion and the difficulty of modifying the template, I would not oppose that as the outcome. In fact I'm no longer sure that a merge makes sense or can actually be implemented without causing confusion. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:32, 11 December 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:Peplum film actors[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Peplum film actors
  • Nominator's rationale We really do not want to categorize actors by which genres they were in. Actors move from genre to genre a lot. They move from medium to medium a lot, but genre hoping is almost universal. John Wayne may be very heavily associated with Westerns, but he was in lots of films that were not Westerns. The one place this might work is with musicals, but even there it would probably not really solve much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - categorizing actors by the genre of work in which they appear is untenable. Actors routinely cross genres and mediums and categorizing them all will lead to category clutter. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William 14:53, 21 October 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:Atlético Junior[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Junior F.C.. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:05, 21 October 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:Nuseibeh family[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Nusaybah clan. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:44, 20 October 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:Stunt actors[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. per a stub article (which I boldly redirected to Stunt performer) a stunt actor is someone who portrays a significant acting role in a production while also performing his or her own stunts without use of a stunt double. I cannot locate independent reliable sources that indicate the term is in use under this meaning. Most sources use it to mean a standard stuntman or stuntwoman. Inclusion criteria are vague to the point of non-existence; a list at that same redirected article includes a disparate collection of entries, none of them sourced. Lynda Carter once dangled off a helicopter for a shot in an episode of Wonder Woman; could she reasonably be included here? If any of these people is described in reliable sources as a stunt performer (as opposed to an actor who performs some of his or her own stunts) they can be individually added to Category:Stunt performers. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The stunt performers is enough. If they are also actors, then put them in acting cats as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Stunt performer (purging) if necessary any for whom this is not truly defining.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any merger should be manual and based on reliably sourced information in the individual articles. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 12:22, 31 October 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:Washington Darts (ASL) players[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:Washington Darts players. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 04:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Keeping distinction of each team's existence. Thanks. NYCWikiKid (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 01:29, 21 October 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_October_20&oldid=1138398679"