Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 6 May 8 >

May 7[edit]

Category:Types of buses[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 per nom. delldot ∇. 04:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is an unnecessary double category level about more or less the exact same thing, just with different wording. Other interwikis keep to one level. Bergenga (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge, "Buses by type" is actually more something like "Subtypes of buses by type of bus". Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom (the merge direction doesn't really matter, I'm fine with the proposal, after all) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup "Types of buses" should only contain articles that are about bus types. "Buses by type" should contain articles about buses organized by subcategories, that are bus type categories. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it needs a cleanup from how it is now, but why is it supposed to be two different categories? It only makes things harder to find. That the subcategories contain articles about such types of buses is rather obvious, and I don't see how having two separate categories make it better. I could (maybe) sort of see the point if Types of buses was the top level and Buses by type at the lower level, but now that they are the other way around it seems not logical at all. Bergenga (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The anon editor above has explained how they are supposed to be different. However, we have never come up with separate hierarchies for "X by type" and "Types of X"; both are collected together in Category:Categories by type. – Fayenatic London 21:32, 9 May 2015 (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.

Jubilee categories[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: Speedy rename under C2A. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale
Align names with the titles of the related articles: golden jubilee, silver jubilee.

--iudexvivorum (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2015 (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:Books about preventing homosexuality[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 without prejudice to a follow-up nomination to rename this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category is unnecessary. Name is also a serious concern and non-neutral as it clearly implies homosexuality can be prevented. Most of the books in the category fail guidelines. Author of category has devoted a significant amount of time to article related to sexual orientation change efforts AusLondonder (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Category is a perfectly valid way of categorizing books of this kind. The complaint about its name is frivolous, and even if one felt it were a valid concern, could be dealt with by a rename - it would never be a reason for deletion. "Books about preventing homosexuality" is not equivalent to "books about how homosexuality can successfully be prevented", or the like, which really would violate WP:NPOV. That the books are not notable is an assertion that remains to be tested. The nominator's comment about me personally is an irrelevant, borderline attack. Or is it seriously being suggested that the category should be deleted because I edited some article? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an attack, it's a simple fact. AusLondonder (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant. Categories aren't deleted because the person who created them made x number of edits to an article. Try addressing the substantive issues. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi there User:Mellowed Fillmore, nice to see your well-explained, constructive contribution on another deletion discussion relating to homosexuality. It's not a vote, by the way. AusLondonder (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you just tell me at another discussion to review WP:AGF and WP:NPA? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what does this not being a vote have to do with anything? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Possible Rename per WP:UNCENSORED. Regardless of how I feel about the topic, whether this is possible, or whether or not the creator is a terrible person, this is a clear category that contains four articles that are defined by the category and clearly aids navigation. I would be open to a rename to Category:Books about sexual orientation change efforts to match the parent category, if that would be seen as more neutral. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Books about sexual orientation change efforts" is a much broader category; it is less specific and focused than "books about preventing homosexuality", and hence less useful. If the name of the category is a concern, then let me make a comparison: "Books about astral projection". Such a title wouldn't be understood to imply that astral projection is a real possibility, only that the books are written by people who believe it is a possibility. The same applies to preventing homosexuality. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete - the question regarding this category isn't whether or not preventing homosexuality is possible, only about whether or not these books are about this topic. Even if the books are wrong, if they claim to be nethods for preventing people from becoming/reemaining homosexuals, then this is a categorization of the books. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While a rename might be appropriate to minimize potential POVness, it is the core subject of the books in question and thus isn't something where I can justify or support an outright deletion even if I think it's an inherently ridiculous subject for a book. Rename if somebody can come up with an alternative, but keep in some form. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Regardless of consensus on deletion, I believe the category should be renamedAusLondonder (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To what? RevelationDirect (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Even if (as some seem to believe) the subject is impossible, if there are book about it, with which to populate it, we should have the category. If there is a NPOV potential rename, I am willing to discuss it, but I see no viable rename target yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2015 (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:Thievery Corporation[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. MER-C 11:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OCEPON. Nominated this 5 years ago yet there is still no precedent before or since to keep general categories such as these when the artist's albums and songs categories (which also interlink to one other) provide sufficient navigation. Usually a band members category tips the scale in favor of keeping, but no members from this band have articles. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OCEPON has been rewritten since there and now clearly favors deletion: "Eponymous categories named after people should not be created unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist."RevelationDirect (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Eponymous category without enough content to need one. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2015 (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/2015_May_7&oldid=1138409196"