Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 5 February 7 >

February 6[edit]

Category:Introduced freshwater fish[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) 23:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Which countries a species has been introduced to is not, generally, a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the species. For example, Brown trout is currently in 6 introduced-to-country categories and the article indicates that it would be eligible for several more. I'd have no objection to listifying, although probably not as a separate list article for each of these categories (some of which just contain 1-2 articles). For info: Example of previous similar CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_17#Category:Introduced_saltwater_fish DexDor (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete whether a species has been introduced elsehwere isnot defining of the species and can lead to category clutter. The tomato is technically an introduced vegetable to everywhere but the new world.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ouch.... Ok u got me... Sheesh u must be fun at parties :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The life and soul. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The atlantic salmon was likely introduced to dozens of countries. It's simply not defining for that fish, especially at a country level.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Introduced species is the category that all these other categories fall into. There are categories of introduced birds, reptiles, plants, etc. Will you delete them as well for the same reasoning given here? Might as well add all of them to the pile at once. Dream Focus 20:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the whole tree is in need of purging, most of it should be deleted. I think the conclusions of the 2007 CFD are still correct.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like Splash closed a discussion on "Category:Introduced species and sub-cats" just two days ago. This nomination seems a little...quick. I hadn't realized it was involved with recent stuff.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I think that was a premature closure. Less than five editors had comments on the discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This link shows the number of countries where Silver_carp has been introduced. If we were to fully categorize just this one species, it would have 59 country categories at the bottom of its list. Ultimately this is getting into wikidata/database territory, and sites like fishbase.org are just much better suited to tracking this sort of information than we are - the category system is a crude tool for such categorization.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The carp example shows this is a bad idea. If a category tree can produce putting an article in more than 50 categories, it is not a well thought out category tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is an unspoken assumption here that having these categories is a bad thing. Yes, there are a lot of countries and many fish have been introduced widely, that does not mean that categorising them this way is a bad thing, it's just the way it is. Should we delete all categories that have a complex structure? If so, for what reason and how does that help the encyclopaedia maintain a logical and systematic method of arranging its articles? I'm sorry but this proposal looks to me like just deleting for the sale of deleting. - Nick Thorne talk 02:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The purposes of (enforcing) rules about categorization include maintaining consistency across Wikipedia (which helps both readers and editors) and avoiding overcategorization (which makes the category system harder to use and requires excessive effort to maintain). Any categorization scheme which allows an article to be in many dozens of categories fails WP:DEFINING and is (IMO) overcategorization. The countries a species has been introduced to may be mentioned in an article, but the article may also list the diseases the species is susceptible to, what it eats etc; there are hundreds of characteristics that a species could be categorized by, but we (try to) limit categorization to just defining characteristics. Categories like this can encourage some editors (working from an off-wiki list) to place articles in categories for characteristics that are not mentioned in the article. Categorization should be (using your words) "a logical and systematic method of arranging ... articles", not an attempt to create a database of facts - a role for which categorization is ill suited (e.g. it doesn't associate a fact to its reference, unlike lists and Wikidata). DexDor (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – having these categories is a very bad thing. Categories are intended to capture defining qualities and the introduction of say goldfish to Kathmandu is far from defining. Oculi (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. For the vast majority of species this is not defining, and while there are a very few that it is (such as, say, the European Starling or Zebra mussel) keeping a category for "some but not all" makes no sense. This is something for which lists are the way to, well, list them, not categories, and the lists, as noted, already exist. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being introduced isn't what makes a species notable - otherwise all endemic species articles would be deleted - hence, non-defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2014 (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:Kurmi people[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is a long-standing consensus that we do not categorise people by caste - eg: here. Such categorisation seems to be the sole purpose of this category. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2014 (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:DC Comics science fiction characters[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) 23:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. All DC comics characters are science-fiction characters, as the superhero fiction is itself a subgenre of science fiction. We can make the "DC Comics characters" a subcategory of "Science fiction characters" (as it done with Star Wars), and skip this category. All the articles are already included at either the DC comics characters category or specific subcategories, so there's no need to recategorize any articles. Cambalachero (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • upmerge to parent We should also delete Category:DC Comics fantasy characters, ultimately it's better to simply categorize them as what they are, e.g superheroes, etc rather than trying to group them by "science fiction" or "fantasy" as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not true: not all DC comics characters are science-fiction characters, and not all superhero-fiction are considered science fiction; they've been around long-enough to cross-pollinate all genres. Also, don't forget Category:DC Comics Western characters. --173.51.221.24 (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A character does not need to have sci-fi features himself to be a sci-fi character, being in a sci-fi narrative setting is enough. The DC Universe is a sci-fi narrative setting, hundreds of times more complex and detailed than the one of a single book, but ultimately, that is what it is. And then, any character from a sci-fi narrative setting is by definition a sci-fi character. It is also correct that superhero fiction is not a pure sci-fi genre, as a book by Isaac Asimov; but the big blending of genres that generated the superhero fiction is in itself a subgenre of science fiction. Cambalachero (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me why I generally avoid fictional-world-based categorization. Ugh. yet I get drawn to it, like a moth to a flame - but every time I see the categories that have blossomed, I tremble.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no clear reason to limit it to these. Normally a reporter who regularly interviews an alien visitor from another planet, would be considered a science fiction character, but somehow Lois Lane is not yet in this category. She has even been shown to go to Krypton in the comics, as well as on occasion get Superman's abilities. Wonder Woman appears in the same comic as Superman at various times, so how she avoids being science fiction, I am not sure. On the other hand, Superman has a weakness to magic, which seems more fantasy. There is no good reason to draw the lines. This is over-categorization without clear guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2014 (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.

Bridges and tunnels[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 split as nominated.
I have listed the categories to be split at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Split, because a split can only be performed manually. Would the nominator like to make a start on implementing this decision? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting:

Propose renaming:

Rationalle:I see no advantage to keeping these together. On the other hand, they mess up the category tree (i.e Great Northern Tunnel is in the Category:Railway bridges in the United States category tree, and Bellefontaine Bridge is in the Category:Railway tunnels in the United States category tree. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Bridges and tunnels are sufficiently different to justify the splits / renames. The splits / renames also allow these categories to be better placed in the separate structures for bridges and for tunnels. Alansohn (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Makes sense to me. Mackensen (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for almost all, and for the record Reading did have bridges (i.e.; the West Trenton Railroad Bridge). ---------User:DanTD (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename and split per nom We should have separate categories up and down the complete bridges and tunnels category structure; otherwise, attribute inheritance is just messed up for no purpose. No other country has such combination tunnel/bridge categories. Hmains (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In principle I agree with everybody here. But how many other articles on MCR tunnels are out there, besides Michigan Central Railway Tunnel? If we split up the MCRR Bridges and Tunnels category, that article will be the only one in the Michigan Central Railroad Tunnels category. Also for the record, I'm actually considering creating some new Railroad bridge categories and Railroad tunnel categories, and if and when I do, I will keep the bridge cats separate from the tunnel cats. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2014 (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 giants[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: do not split. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split I believe wikipedia article aim to use gender neutral termonology and as none exists for giants/giantesses I believe the examples should be gender specific. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No need to split - just add "(both male and female)" to the category page if you're that bothered. The subcats would also need to be split. What about giants that aren't clearly male/female ? DexDor (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose giant can be gender neutral as well, no need to separate by gender here, the categories are relatively small and navigation would be impeded by splitting the whole tree here. It's not clear that giantesses behave on the whole differently than giants, they're all just large people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose "Giant" isn't the gender specific word in this case; the argument for gender neutral terminology is tuned on its head here. It calls for less use of terminology like "Giantesses", not more. Less "people-esses" please. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Many giants on the list are aliens or robots, and as such don't have a gender, since they don't have human genitalia. Dream Focus 17:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If we're trying to use gender neutral terminology, why are we needlessly introducing "giantess" into the mix? Alansohn (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the above. Especially Elaqueate's comment. MarnetteD | Talk 22:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I was totally confused by the nomination. At least in contemporary usage "she is a giant" is how people would say it. Giant, like actor and poet, is gender neutral. I am not sure Giantess has anywhere near the use of actress, but neither prevent people from using giant or actor in gender-neutral ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having looked at the various female articles in this category, I have yet to see any use the term "giantess", although, they often do not seem to actually call the character a "giant" either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose First, "giant" does seem to me to be gender-neutral (I didn't know "giantess" existed) and second, are there that many female giants that they would need their own category? Unless there are structural reasons (like categories by year or location) for them to exist, be cautious in creating small categories that contain very few articles. Liz Read! Talk! 18:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If you look up the definition of "giant" you will get "a being with human form but superhuman size, strength, etc." or some variation of. At no point do any of the definition make distinctions between male or female. As such "giant" is a gender neutral term. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2014 (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:Giants in fiction[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: do not split. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split This article also uses a gender biased word which doesn't accurately reflect that when taking anime into account most of the entries on this list are giantesses. One in thirteen episodes is a substantial amouunt, at least 1 episode or one character out of three is acceptable to categorize as this. I think Jungle de Ikou! Boccaccio '70 and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers should all count. I Dream of Jeannie is a bit more questionable but she has three episodes specifically about this and she lives in a tiny bottle which can be her room; so technically every episode has that element. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No need to split - just add "(both male and female)" to the category page if you're that bothered. The subcats would also need to be split. What about giants that aren't clearly male/female ? DexDor (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per dexdor. And please don't call Jeannie a giant - that would likely make us the only ones, which is not how things work here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose "Giant" isn't the gender specific word in this case; the argument for gender neutral terminology is tuned on its head here. It calls for less use of terminology like "Giantesses", not more. Less "people-esses" please. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Most things on the list have giants of both genders: Gulliver's Travels, Brobdingnag, and Jack and the Beanstalk. Attack on Titan are aliens so no gender in them, unless they also have human genitalia. The BFG don't mention any details other than a name for many of the giants, so no way to know what gender they were. The Giant Who Had No Heart in His Body was a male giant. I don't know if the giants in Xenoblade Chronicles were male only, or had a gender at all. The television subcategory has two entries, Land of the Giants, and Gulliver's Travels (miniseries), which have giants of both genders in them. And giants in stories act the same regardless of gender so no need to separate them. Dream Focus 17:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - giant is gender neutral, and this is a small category. I see no grounds for splitting. [Full disclosure, I was canvassed for my opinion on my talk page, but as I gave the opposite view of what CS was hoping, I don't think that's much of a problem.] LadyofShalott 18:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If we're trying to use gender neutral terminology, why are we needlessly introducing "giantess" into the mix? Alansohn (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the above. Especially Elaqueate's comment. MarnetteD | Talk 22:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: In modern English, "giant" is a gender-neutral word. --Carnildo (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The fact that someone made a film entitled Gulliver's Travels Among the Lilliputians and the Giants, when he mainly interacts with females in the later phase, shows that the term is considered to be gender-neutral. True our article on Attack of the 50 Foot Woman calls her a giantess, but I still do not find that to compel we cannot use giant in a gender neutral term. That is how it is used in most contemporary fiction, with giantess really loosing appeal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article on Attack of the 50 Foot Cheerleader tells us "Cassie Stratford (Jena Sims) is an aspiring college cheerleader who grows to giant size after taking an experimental drug intended to only increase her beauty and athletic abilities." Not using giant directly, but also avoiding giantess. The article on Monsters vs. Aliens also avoids using the term giant, but also does not say giantess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For reasons mentioned above. Liz Read! Talk! 18:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If you look up the definition of "giant" you will get "a being with human form but superhuman size, strength, etc." or some variation of. At no point do any of the definition make distinctions between male or female. As such "giant" is a gender neutral term. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It looks like the nominator was taking a similar view as Macrophilia which uses "Giantesses" as the main term throughout.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:43, 10 February 2014 (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:Magnetic[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Random adjective category created by new user. Dicklyon (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've just looked, and there doesn't appear to be a Magnetic materials category; there's a Category:Ferromagnetic materials, but not one for Paramagnetic materials, etc. Magnetic could be renamed to Magnetic materials and used to hold the sub-cat Ferromagnetic materials and all other magnetic materials. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – there is Category:Magnetism already. No objection to Category:Magnetic materials being created but this is not a matter for cfd. (The creator of Category:Magnetic populated it solely with Category:Pumps which does suggest a lack of understanding of categories. I have a bicycle pump which AFAIK is not magnetic.) Oculi (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he populated it also with itself, but I took that out already. Dicklyon (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So he did. A remarkable addition, which I had not anticipated. Oculi (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2014 (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:Articles in the Article Incubator nominated for assessment[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 2014 February 13. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: - The category is empty and the article incubator is now defunct. I do not see any further pages added to this category. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2014 (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:Articles in the Article Incubator nominated for deletion[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 2014 February 13. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: - The category is empty and the article incubator is now defunct. I do not foresee any further pages added to this category. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2014 (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/2014_February_6&oldid=1077607565"