Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 16 November 18 >

November 17[edit]

Category:Companies associated with the Beatles[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Its a wider form of categorisation. I'd like a location of categorisation for the placement of The Beatles (terrorist cell) not in direct association with the popular singing group. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we ought not be categorizing companies based on who their famous connections are. Companies associated with the Space Shuttle, Companies associated with World War II, Companies associated with the Ebola outbreak, Companies associated with labor strife, Companies associated with global warming, etc. all these should never exist, and neither should this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category system is not for grouping topics that have merely been touched by a topic rather than defined by it. The definition of how "associated" you need to be is too subjective. Truly linked companies, such as Apple Corps, can be upmerged to the main Beatles category, while Parlophone (a company founded in a different country nearly twenty years before John Lennon's mother was born) can safely be categorised elsewhere. SFB 22:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Categorization by "association" is problematic at best, and overly subjective when the "association" or "affiliation" is not a formal one. To what extent must a company be associated or affiliated with The Beatles in order to merit categorization here? As SFB notes, truly linked companies can be placed directly in Category:The Beatles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:51, 22 November 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:People executed by Jihadi John[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) 00:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: words like "executed" imply legality while words like "murdered" imply illegality. Killed is factual and NPOV. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – 'killed by ISIL' might be OK. Oculi (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; there is currently no conclusive (or even somewhat of a) proof that these people were actually killed by John himself. John is involved in their execution and making the videos, but whether he's the actual killer is not clear. --Nlu (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete who kills you are probably not defining for these (I will grant that the articles on Jack the Ripper's victims are defined by their victimhood, but rare will be the case that this is so, and this isn't the rare case). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. --Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 19 November 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:Baseball people from Aichi Prefecture[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also propose merging

As per previous CFDs[1] and this one[2] and this one in particular[3] dealing with other Tennis players by prefecture, we don't subcategorize per what type of athlete a person is. ...William 12:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge per nom. The close to the latest one suggests these could be speedies. Oculi (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge but I disagree with the rationale – there is wide usage of categorising by sport and the top level national sub-division (e.g. Category:Chinese footballers by province and note my footballer nominations dated 18 November). The better reason to upmerge is that these small categories do not appear to be currently warranted within the structure. No opposition to recreation should sufficient articles be found to maintain a sizeable prefecture-based category. SFB 22:54, 18 November 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:Mexican female telenovela actress[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; no redirect added as it would be somewhat of an "implausible typo" per R3. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category already covered by Category:Mexican telenovela actresses which is more consitent with other categories in the tree. All four of the pages in the new category are already categorised in Mexican telenovela actresses. Icarusgeek (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – redundant to Category:Mexican telenovela actresses. Oculi (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So because there is this other category?, I ask, because if you can there be a category for men, and not women?. Is that a case of soap opera Mexican actresses don't matter?. Then if the use of this category is forbidden, also should be prohibited the use of categories for men. Because as they say that they are unnecessary.--McVeigh / talk 13:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment My original submission was sloppy in that it didn't mention Category:Mexican telenovela actresses. It is not that I was saying that there was no need for a female actor category, just no need for two of them. Icarusgeek (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I think it is wrong that deleted this category, If so, should also be deleted are: [4], [5]. Since they are redundant, as they already exist: "Category:Spanish telenovela actors" and "Category:Mexican telenovela actors".--McVeigh / talk 14:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to Category:Mexican telenovela actresses. The merits of the various "male actors" categories can be debated, but there is a key distinction: "actor" can be gender-neutral, referring to a "person who acts", whereas "actress" refers specifically to "a female person who acts". Therefore, we could have either Category:Mexican telenovela actresses or Category:Mexican female telenovela actors, but we do not need a category title that contains both "female" and "actress". -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and leave as redirect, as this may be confused again in future. No issue with a move to "female actors"/"male actors" nomenclature if so desired (as opposed to "male actors"/"actresses"). SFB 22:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think a redirect is warranted, in light of the two errors in the current title: the redundancy of "female actress" and the singular form of "actress" rather than the plural "actresses". -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I notice that the category is now empty, and has been for a few days Icarusgeek (talk) 08:44, 23 November 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:The Sugarhill Gang members[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, leaning towards keep. – Fayenatic London 13:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT: If this band has been around for over 40 years, and only has two notable members, then it should be deleted. Jared Preston (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added an entry for the third member, Master Gee, which I encourage folks to expand.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a defining characteristic for its members and an effective aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An effective aid to navigate between members would be {{The Sugarhill Gang}}. This doesn't address my original rationale, but anyway... Jared Preston (talk) 23:34, 24 November 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:Thai Buddhist temples outside of Thailand[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. From the discussion, more cleanup may be needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since the only options being considered at this time are "in Thailand" and "outside Thailand", this is basically a "miscellaneous" category. There is no need to have two subcategories of Category:Thai Buddhist temples, since temples outside Thailand can be placed directly in Category:Thai Buddhist temples and those in Thailand can continue to be subcategorized. (Category creator not notified because: inactive) -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I still think it would be better to retain the category as Category:Overseas Thai Buddhist temples. If redundancy is really an issue, we could also get rid of Category:Thai Buddhist temples, which isn't very accurate parent for Category:Buddhist temples in Thailand; there are plenty of Buddhist temples in Thailand that don't belong to the Thai tradition (being Chinese, Vietnamese, etc.). --Paul_012 (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul 012: If this is a case of categorization by tradition versus categorization by location, then Category:Buddhist temples in Thailand (temples by location) would need to be removed from Category:Thai Buddhist temples (temples by tradition). What is the distinction between a Thai Buddhist temple and a Theravada Buddhist temple—is the former just a subset of the latter, or is there more involved? -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Falcon, I don't think there's a firm definition. To me, the term "Thai Buddhist temple" doesn't seem very useful in describing the traditions of temples located inside Thailand. "Thai" could refer to a traditional architectural style, as well as other things. For overseas temples, it's more their cultural ties that give them their Thai identity. Official registers list Buddhist temples in Thailand as belonging to one of four recognised sub-denominations, Mahanikaya and Dhammayut belonging to Theravada school, and Chinese and Vietnamese belonging to the Mahayana school. It's most likely that all temples described as "Thai" would be Theravada Buddhist temples. (Conversely, not all Theravada temples in Thailand can be described as Thai in tradition or architectural style.)
  • So, if I understand correctly:
  1. the best merge target for Category:Thai Buddhist temples outside of Thailand is Category:Theravada Buddhist temples
  2. Category:Buddhist temples in Thailand shouldn't be parented to Category:Thai Buddhist temples because the former is a country category independent of traditions. So it is correctly parented to Category:Buddhist temples by country.
  3. Category:Thai Buddhist temples thus becomes redundant.
Right? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer keeping/renaming, but if consensus is to merge, I'd prefer it be done per nom, with Category:Thai Buddhist temples being retained as a target. Too much information is lost by merging directly to Category:Theravada Buddhist temples, which gives no implication of their cultural ties. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we rename Category:Thai Buddhist temples outside of Thailand to Category:Overseas Thai Buddhist temples (as a subcategory of Category:Overseas Thai organizations), would we then need to delete Category:Thai Buddhist temples since the two subcats (Category:Overseas Thai Buddhist temples and Category:Buddhist temples in Thailand) are not really comparable? -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's first get clear about the question whether Thai Buddhist temples exist at all - as a tradition. From the previous discussions I understand that this is not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, I think "Thai Buddhist temple" is a poor description of tradition, especially when referring to temples in Thailand. However, overseas Thai Buddhist temples are a culturally distinct group, and could be a category of their own, even without a Thai Buddhist temples parent category.
Thinking further on the issue, though, we do have an article on Wat, which covers Laos and Cambodia in addition to Thailand. Perhaps that would be a better scope for a category under the tradition tree. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: help requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. – Fayenatic London 14:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It is atypical to split a category into a "X in country Y" and "X outside of country Y" binary. An easier solution is as proposed – using the parent category to show the non-Thailand temples, separate from the in Thailand ones. SFB 20:37, 27 December 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:Cities in Taoyuan County, Taiwan[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 and upmerge contents as proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete and upmerge to Category:Populated places in Taoyuan County, Taiwan. Taoyuan County will be converted to a special municipality on December 25. (See Talk:Taoyuan County, Taiwan for details.) At that time, all current cities and townships in Taoyuan County will be converted to districts of the municipality. While the vast majority of article moves/category renaming should not occur until at least December 25, these two can/should be done now because the parent category is already an appropriate category for these articles/subcategories pending the eventual further movement - possibly to Category:Districts of Taoyuan City. Again, there will be a lot of work to be done to move everything appropriately at that time; these are two we can do right now without being inaccurate and premature. --Nlu (talk) 04:32, 17 November 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:Children's films[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 while the only main article is at Children's film. – Fayenatic London 13:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Something has to be done about this category. The lead currently states "devoted to films, both animated and live-action, created exclusively for young audiences". However, I would argue that many films (Lilo & Stitch, just to name one) in this cat are not made exclusively for kids at all. They are made to be appropriate for kids, but they are really made for the whole family to be able to enjoy.
So something has to be done about this. At the very least, the lead needs to be rewritten, but, personally, I don't fell that is enough. Family films is what they are usually referred to as, and it's more accurate. If this is changed, all of the subs should be changed as well. JDDJS (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now, especially since the main article is Children's film, but how about Category:Children's and family films? -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that Category:Family films was deleted some six years ago. Albeit by people who didn't have a clue. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split films designed for a family audience are different from films designed for children, as those designed for a family audience will try to keep adults entertained, while those designed for children won't care about those adults. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose renaming (since main article is currently at Children's film, following discussion here); Oppose split since the distinction is unclear. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator I weakly support split. There can be a distinction between "children's" and "family" films, sometimes it's hard to tell, but that can be also said about a lot of genres such as "thriller" and "horror". But the biggest problem with a split is that there are literally a ton of films in the cat and sub cats and it would take a very long time to sort through them. I would be fine with Category:Children's and family films. About the main article being Children's film, I think that should change as well. The article is self states that family films and children films are different. Apparently, it was going to be titled Children's and family films after the merge, but two editors decided Children's film would be better, and nobody opposed it. Two editors is very week for consensus, so that can easily be changed. JDDJS (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am not particularly invested in either term, but there is a naming convention at play here. As well as the category we also have Children's film and List of children's films and I don't think mixing the terminology would do us any favors. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_45#Rewrite_of_article_and_move_and_merge I proposed having Children's film at that title simply because this was the terminology adopted by "Historical Dictionary of American Cinema", where they have the main entry at "Children's film" and the entry at "Family film" simply refers the reader to "Children's film". The Allmovie catalog, like the Historical Dictionary of American Cinema, acknowledges the different terminology too but also treats the labels synonymously. Even if other sources introduce a distinction I am not sure how it could work in a practical sense since I suspect most films would fall under both categories anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose so that the category continues to match the main article. Not opposed to renaming the main article though. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:55, 24 November 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:Chub[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. – Fayenatic London 13:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category is grouping multiple species of fish, so it should pluralized. Chub is ambiguous, so category should be disambiguated to make clear it is about fish. There is no "main article" as such. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Chubs which is not ambiguous with any similarly named chub article. SFB 23:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you looking at the page you linked to? Chub is not solely about fish—it is a disambiguation page for all WP meanings. Chub (container) and Chub (gay slang) are both pluralized as "chubs", so no, it is ambiguous. (See also HMS Chub, which sets out that there are three ships by that same name.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom clearly overly ambiguous -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom --Lenticel (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Chub covers a number of species of fish. The other uses as incidental. Is chubs really the correct plural? I thought that the same word was singular or plural. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • My dictionary says "chub" is normally used as plural when referring to multiple individual fishes, and "chubs" is normally used when referring to multiple species of this type of fish. This pluralization is of the latter kind. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This reminds me of how Category:Fish of the Mediterranean Sea and the loads of related categories should probably be at Category:Fishes of the Mediterranean Sea, since the member articles are abpout individual species rather than fish populations. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good point. I'm pretty sure that's the most common way that pluralizing fish (and many types of fish) works. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:22, 27 November 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:Water and Mars[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. – Fayenatic London 12:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To clarify that the scope of this category is the topic of "water on Mars", and not just the intersection or relationship between the independent topics of "water" and "Mars". All four articles with titles containing the words "water" and "Mars" connect them with "on" instead of "and". (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't it be Martian water? to encompass, water on, in the atmosphere of, and under the surface of, Mars? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a possibility. "Martian water" sounds a bit odd to my ears, as if suggesting that Martian water is different from other water, but it would be an entirely accurate title. I think, however, that "water on Mars" does encompass all of the above, much like "life on Earth" encompasses life on, above, and below the surface of the Earth. Ultimately, my preference is to mirror the article titles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Matches the common expression for discussion of this topic and the main article at Water on Mars. SFB 23:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel (talk) 04:13, 19 November 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:Cronus-Saturn[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: split to Category:Cronus and Category:Saturn (mythology). Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category's title reflects no accepted naming convention and falsely suggests the existence of a hyphenated entity known as "Cronus-Saturn". The Roman myth of Saturn was heavily influenced by the Greek myth of Cronus, and therefore we could rename the category to Category:Cronus and leave in articles about the Roman myth (akin to Category:Ares, which contains the article Mars (mythology)). The equally acceptable alternative would be to split between Category:Cronus and Category:Saturn (mythology). -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:15, 17 November 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_November_17&oldid=1138399805"