Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 3 June 5 >

June 4[edit]

Category:ISSF shooting competitions by country[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) 02:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The children of this category are scoped to include all shooting competitions, not just ones sanctioned by the International Shooting Sports Federation (ISSF). I make no judgement on the re-emergence of this ISSF-based structure if it should prove appropriate in future. SFB 19:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I wanted to propose the same. NickSt (talk) 21:13, 4 June 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:Magicians[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. Tagging sub-categories as well might get more participation on a further attempt. – Fayenatic London 22:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose The nationality sub-categories should be tagged to get plenty of notice of this proposal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 2 July 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:Military dictatorship[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 plural, and purge of biographies following decision on Category:Dictators at CfD 2006 May 22. There are only 4 pages on the general topic which are all sorted to the top, so I don't see why a separate head category (i.e. a split) is needed; and if re-created, people might again place biographies in it, which was considered against WP:NPOV. Nevertheless, there was no discussion on that point here, so this close is not a bar against re-creating it. – Fayenatic London 23:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of the category's members are individual military governments and should be split to Category:Military juntas, leaving Category:Military dictatorship to cover the form of government in general. Paul_012 (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt It is not at all clear to me what articles would go where. For example, where would Miklós Horthy go? Or Ditadura Nacional. It looks like the split would be very arbitrary. Hmains (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Looking closer it does seem that their is some need for clean-up here. My original thinking was that only the core concept articles be left in Category:Military dictatorship, with most of the rest being moved to Category:Military juntas or other subcats. Biographical articles about individuals should probably be removed, since Category:Dictators was deleted by CfD back in 2006. At the very least, we should distinguish between Category:Military dictatorship (uncountable), referring to the concept, and Category:Military dictatorships (plural), referring to real-world dictatorships. The latter may suit the scope of existing articles better than the term juntas, but the difference is small and might confuse users. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is precedent for that kind of structure (e.g. Opera/Operas). I would find the use of junta for the specific cases more confusing, as it raises the question why the parent isn't "Military junta" and how those descriptions differ. I would support the pluralised "dictatorships" format, with a hatnote for clarity. SFB 16:49, 7 July 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:Oil and gas[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 Category:Oil and gas industry, then clean up as appropriate. A further discussion is recommended on whether this should be merged with Category:Petroleum industry, as the latter clearly covers gas in some countries e.g. History of the petroleum industry in Canada (natural gas). – Fayenatic London 09:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization and confusing, duplicates category:Petroleum and category:Natural gas. Its is a subcategory: of category:Fossil fuels as category:Petroleum and category:Natural gas. At the same time, it is also categorized as a subcategory of category:Petroleum engineering, which is through category:Petroleum production and category:Petroleum industry belongs to the category:Petroleum. It is categorized also as a subcategory of category:Chemical process engineering. It is not clear why this category is used. It is also unclear what is the current criteria for inclusion into this category. It is theoritecally possible to keep this category after cleanup and recategoryzation as as a parallel category for category:Petroleum and category:Natural gas or as umbrella category for these categories, but in the both cases it is overcategorization. Therefore, the best solution seems to be deleting it. Beagel (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, per Hmains. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • upmerge to Category:Fossil fuels, and disperse some contents to Category:Petroleum or Category:Natural gas While Hmains is right that a general container is needed, that container already exists, and is called Fossil fuels. oil and gas is simply a subset of fossil fuels, and is recently created - I don't see any need for it. I cleaned up some of the categorization issues (there was a loop through the containment in Petroleum production that I fixed, and there were several categories that were already included in child categories). I think if we merged up first, and then did a diffusion down to relevant subcategories the Fossil fuels category would not be overly burdened and could focus on articles that are common across one or more fossil fuels.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not so much to upmerge as all of these articles already have more specific categories. The only reason I did not clean up that category was due to the rule which discourages emptying categories under discussion. Beagel (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, you should not empty categories, but diffusing them is reasonable, or removing things which clearly don't belong is also fine. What is discouraged is removing items which are clearly relevant.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know but in practice it leaves this category only with two subcategories (category:Petroleum and category:Natural gas) as all other articles and subcategories are already listed in the more specific categories of these two categories. And it will look like as de facto emptying. If you say this is not a problem, I will do it. Beagel (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But what is the practical benefit having this parent category? I just can't see the reason, so maybe you could provide some example why it is necessary? Beagel (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yet somehow we survived without it for 10 years... Oil and gas is just a specific subset, and serves no value that fossil fuels doesn't.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cmt User:Beagel has removed all the contents of Category:Oil and gas other than category:Petroleum or/and category:Natural gas. This bad faith effort should be completely reversed. There is no evidence that Beagel's arguments to delete this category were going to succeed but regardless, this user could not wait for the conclusion of this discussion. Hmains (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AGF, please. If you read the above-discussion, you could see that the this issue was discussed (post by Obi-Wan Kenobi) and there is a distinction between emptying category and cleaning-up category. What I did was cleaning-up the category, as all articles and subcategories already had more specific categories included through category:Petroleum or/and category:Natural gas. Actually, this action should be done anyway, if the category will be kept. WP:CAT says "...each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." So, apology is not required but appreciated. In the meantime, I ask third time, what is the practical benefit having this parent category? Beagel (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Beagel, sorry I should have been more clear. I meant that selective diffusion of a category under discussion is reasonable. However, if such diffusion will result in a category which is completely empty, then you should reconsider... I'd try to add some of the "key" articles back to this category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted all my edits regarding this category. As the definition of selective diffusion of a category is arbitrary, I would request that also other editors who have made any edits to that category would revert themselves and restore the original stage of that category until the Cfd is finished. I am just sorry wasting my time to keep energy-related categories systematic and according to guidelines just to be accused in bad faith actions. Beagel (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmtCategory:Oil and gas law is a perfect example of something that belongs to [:Category:Oil and gas]] and not in category:Petroleum or category:Natural gas. This is how the WP category system is supposed to work. We do not spend out efforts trying to shoehorn things together for abstract reasons. We create and maintain appropriate category structures that will help readers who are wondering around WP find articles they may want to read. It not hard thinking. Hmains (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oil and gas law would also fit well under Fossil fuels, nonetheless.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Oil and gas law fits perfectly in both category:Petroleum and category:Natural gas. Per guidelines "...each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs." There is nothing wrong if it is categorized in two more specific subcategories instead of one common parent category. Beagel (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This argument I can accept, not the previous ones. Just have to make sure that this is what is done with the articles and subcats here (and previously here) and not what was previously done, force fitting these articles/subcats into categories where they should not be. Hmains (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is again quite harsh accusation. Without a concrete example of "force fitting these articles/subcats into categories where they should not be" I would ask you to remove it. Beagel (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom! Everything here is basically part of Category:Petroleum or Category:Natural gas, or in some cases maybe both. Therefore, this category serves no purpose other then adding an unnecessary level to the category navigation tree. Note that gas is useless in a category name since it is ambiguous and the primary use is not the intended use here nor is the second most common, gasoline. Clearly this is being incorrectly added such as to Category:Petroleum geology since the parent of that is Category:Petroleum which is already included! Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ABSOLUTELY KEEP - Oil&gas is an important sector. In the real world, the engineers and economists are using the term "oil&gas" sector" more than "petroleum sector" or "natural gas" sector; this is due because these two resources are produced simultaneously and their markets are indissolubly linked together. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we are talking about the industry and agree that it should cover only the industry, the category should be re-designed and renamed accordingly category:Oil and gas industry. Also Category:Petroleum industry should be merged in this case with it. However, this is not what was proposed above as the proponents argument was creating a common parent category for existing category:Petroleum and category:Natural gas. If re-designed as category:Oil and gas industry, it can't be the parent, but daughter category for category:Petroleum and category:Natural gas. Beagel (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to renaming this category in category:Oil and gas industry. This categorization it is important because for example there are a lot of companies and concepts related to the "Oil&gas", not just oil or just natural gas, so it is a convenient classification; we just need to cleanup it. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 15:56, 1 July 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 magicians[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 Category:Fictional magicians (fantasy). No rename of Category:Fictional stage magicians. – Fayenatic London 22:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
  1. Category:Fictional magicians to:
Category:Fictional fantasy magicians
Category:Fictional fantasy (genre) magicians
Category:Fictional magicians (fantasy)
Category:Fictional magicians in fantasy
Optional Category:Fictional stage magicians to Category:Fictional stage magicians and illusionists
Nominator's rationale:
  1. More consistent with Magician (fantasy); to help avoid disambiguation and confusion.
optional Further distinguishes the two categories; Illusionist as a term is used more frequently.
--172.251.77.75 (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. --Niemti (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I thought about it too. "Fictional magicians (fantasy)" sounds probably the best of these. Covering illusionists in general would be fine too. --Niemti (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The problem with "Fictional magicians (fantasy)" is that in fantasy, "magician" is just as likely (or more likely) to mean magic user as it is to mean illusionist. So even though it's parallel to the real people category, it's confusing. I'd vote for "Fictional illusionists (fantasy)" or "Fictional illusionists and magicians (fantasy)" or "Fictional stage magicians" or "Fictional stage magicians and illusionists" to try to create a little bit of scoping in the category name itself. --Lquilter (talk) 12:39, 12 June 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:Twins 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: keep, purge and state criteria more strongly. – Fayenatic London 11:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The fact that twins are in the plot is not at all DEFINING of the films in question. Presence-of-twins is not a genre of films. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and purge - I haven't checked any of the current contents of the category; however, in some cases (such as The Parent Trap (1961 film), Lost and Found (novel)), twins are a major part of the plot. I do think that the scoper of the category should be limited to plots where the presence of twins is a major part of it (unlike, for example, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, where the twins are not such a criticval part of the story), and articles ehich are primarily about fictional twins (not the fiction they're in). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:48, 5 June 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:New Zealand recipients of the King George V Silver Jubilee Medal[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) 02:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Completely non-defining. Just a commemorative medal. We have in the past deleted categories for commemorative medals. 1,500 of these medals were awarded to New Zealanders; over 85,000 were awarded in total. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If New Zealand origin of particular medal winners is notable, then it should be in the article about the award; not a category. --Lquilter (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:39, 5 June 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:Softball championships[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) 02:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other categories. It includes Category:Softball competitions by country. Parents category are Category:Sports competitions by sport. Not only "championships" articles are present in it now, but also "cups", "series" etc. NickSt (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sometimes it's hard to define what a "championships" is. That's why we typically only use this term with world/national modifiers. Competitions is a much broader and useful term to use. SFB 06:33, 5 June 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:Germany external link citation templates[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; contents upmerged to Category:External link templates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: First, it should be German and not Germany but more specifically, this is the only category in Category:External link templates that is organized by country. I question whether external links should be categorized by country and I don't see the rationale to organize templates for external links by country even if the categorization is based on the country of the external link. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 4 June 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:Specific-source templates by country[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; move contents to Category:Specific-source templates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While I question how every single template in Category:Specific-source templates doesn't fall under WP:T3, I wouldn't category individual citations by country and I cannot see any reason why we should category templates for individual citations by country. At the moment, I'd support moving all these templates to Category:Specific-source templates and moving through and subst and listing them for deletion down the line. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've removed Category:Germany external link citation templates because it's an entirely different part (external link sections) and will separately list it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are citations, not external links. In theory, if you have a number of links to the same big website (say, IMDb) you could have a single template in case there's a website change. I don't know why a bot could't do it instead and I really don't know why the vast, vast majority of them exist as templates when they are largely static citations. Either way, it doesn't seem like something that categorizes by country for whatever reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Country is not relevant to the given topic scope and this method of division is not helpful (by purpose is more useful). @Ricky81682: I think the static citations are to reduce overheads when using a certain citation multiple times. The possibility of moving this kind of function to the WikiData project has had preliminary discussions, but they seem like a valid usage in the meantime. SFB 18:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have mentioned that. The ones that use cite journal or cite books I understand but some are pure text. Either way, there's no policy either way so I'll use my discretion and see what consensus forms towards. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:32, 7 June 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:Allied occupation of Austria[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed speedy. The main article is Allied-occupied Austria. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Are the category's contents meant to be more about Austria during a particular period or about the Allied occupation of a particular place? If the former, then "Allied-occupied Austria"; if the latter, then "Allied occupation of Austria". Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and if it's half and half? Keep like the rest of the categories; change the article. Hmains (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's half and half, we should go with the broader of the two, which I think is Category:Allied-occupied Austria. In other words, everything that has to do with to the Allied occupation of Austria relates to Allied-occupied Austria, but not everything that has to do with Allied-occupied Austria relates to the Allied occupation of Austria. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm partially convinced by Good Ol’factory's points, but the language does seem rather awkward. Even if the focus is on Austria during the period, I think "Austria under Allied occupation" would be a better title. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although if the category is "half-and-half" as above, "Austria under Allied occupation" feels a more cumbersome / less succinct way to say "Allied-occupied Austria"...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename article instead. The category name is wide enough for the topic. The above arguments would apply to the others in Category:Allied occupation of Europe but I see no need to rename any of them along these lines. – Fayenatic London 10:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a subcat of Category:Military occupation. DexDor (talk) 04:30, 4 July 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_June_4&oldid=1074813357"