Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 25

[edit]

Category:Twelve labours of Herakles

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. "Let's at least match the name of the lead article" is the main argument here. BencherliteTalk 01:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Twelve labours of Herakles to Category:Labours of Hercules
Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the lead article Labours of Hercules. "Herakles" is a redirect to Heracles. Otto4711 (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was No consensus to Merge - Though no prejudice against disussing cleanup options (such as to "culture", noted below) and then renominating. - jc37 08:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Chinese thought to Category:Chinese philosophy
Nominator's rationale: Merge or just reorganize? At the moment each category is given as a subcat of the other. The text describing the scope of Category:Chinese thought (which was created first) seems to restrict it to philosophy. On the other hand, there's a case for keeping C. thought & making C. philosophy a subcategory. For comparison's sake, there's a Category:Indian philosophy but no Category:Indian thought) Dsp13 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the nominated merge, as the category contains sub-cats on Chinese science, religion & literature, so "C philosophy" is too narrow. But there is a problem - I understand the intention of the category, but I'm not sure this is actually a helpful sub-grouping under Category:Chinese culture. I don't think we have other "thought" categories, & I'm leaning to a merge to the culture category. Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are clearly articles in here, such as Chinese literature, Chinese martial arts, that fit into this catogory appropriately, but not into philosophy. But perhaps chinese culture would be better. DGG (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete, empty. BencherliteTalk 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elementary schools in Palos Verdes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Elementary schools in California, convention of Category:Elementary schools in California. -- Prove It (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Elementary schools are generaly not notable. Are any of these? If not Delete both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talkcontribs) 19:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was Delete - already split/empty. - jc37 08:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles related to Alice Nine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, divide between Category:Alice Nine albums and Category:Alice Nine songs. -- Prove It (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was No consensus - jc37 08:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths from Parkinson's disease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose renaming Category:Deaths from Parkinson's disease to Category:Deaths with Parkinson's disease
Nominator's rationale: Nobody dies from it; some people die from complications arising from it. In any event, those who "died from" need to be addde to "People with" ... - Kittybrewster 17:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Keep. Nobody "dies from" a lot of things that we claim they do. Really, it all just depends on how far up or down the chain of causation you go. There are very specific biomedical causes of death, then there are the things that caused the actual biomedical cause, then there are the things that caused that, and so on, and so on. The key in creating a reasonable category is not to go too far up or down the chain of causation. Example: people who die from a heart attack brought on by overexertion. We don't have a category for "Deaths from overexertion" (very far up the chain), nor do we have a category for "Deaths from lack of oxygen to heart tissue" (very far down the chain), but we do have Category:Deaths by myocardial infarction, which seems like a reasonable point along the chain. To insist on categories like this exactly reflecting biomedical processes far down the chain of causation may seem a bit pedantic to the average reader and editor. Snocrates 20:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In reply to Snocrates. It also depends on how tight the chain of causation is. If your heart stops and stays stopped, you will die, pronto. If cancer takes over your body, you will die as some crucial organ ceases to function. But with Parkinson's the chain of causation seem rather loose, so I'm leaning towards a "delete". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
That is true that the "tightness" would be a factor to consider also. Snocrates 02:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Using "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In the Early modern period, these things were much simpler: non-violent and non-accidental deaths were usually described as being from either apoplexy (a sudden death) or gout (a slow decline). Crushing by elephant was not particularly widespread at the time, and decapitation could be avoided a by wise choice of husband.
      But in general, I agree that most of these deaths-from-X categories should go. Even in contemporary obituaries, cause of death is usually described in a manner little changed from the early modern period, commonly using phrases such as "died suddenly", "died after a short illness" or "died after a long illness". When the precise cause of death is so often omitted in obituaries of a few hundred words, it's hard to justify it as a defining attribute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this seems a nonsensical and/or contentious category: proof is likely to be hard to find, if available at all. Vizjim (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the nomination. Keep the original Category. deaths "with" just reads all wrong in my opinion. Sting_au Talk 12:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was No consensus for rename - jc37 08:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vocal duets to Category:Vocal duets and collaborations
Nominator's rationale: I am proposing that this category be re-named so that it can be all-inclusive for all songs featuring multiple artists together, and not just duets (e.g. Tracy Lawrence, Tim McGraw, and Kenny Chesney on "Find Out Who Your Friends Are"). Ten Pound Hammer(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 17:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Filipino Catholics to Category:Filipino Roman Catholics. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filipino Catholics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Filipino Roman Catholics, convention of Category:Roman Catholics by nationality. -- Prove It (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eastern Othodox certainly do not identify as Catholic! I expect you are thinking of Eastern Catholics. These people are categorised as Roman Catholics, so barring the usual mistakes, presumably that is what they are. Johnbod (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Catholic lists quite a few groups that identify with the term that are most decidedly not Roman Catholic—including Eastern Orthodox. Maralia (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I merely saw a slew of articles categorized as 'x' proposed for recat as 'x + qualifier' and thought "hm, is that wise without further evaluation?". I don't consider myself an expert on the distinction between Catholic and Roman Catholic, so I visited Catholic and saw many other presumably valid applications of the term. The one I mentioned above was given as an example to demonstrate this. I don't wish to argue technicalities of the appellations used by various churches; I merely point out that the article Catholic outlines much broader use of the term, so it may be fallacious to assume that a Catholic is a Roman Catholic. I have no eggs in this basket, and I'm certainly not trying to 'confuse people'. Maralia (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was merge. BencherliteTalk 01:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Middle schools in Palos Verdes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Middle schools in California, convention of Category:Middle schools in the United States... there's only three of these. -- Prove It (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Tri-City Valleycats alumni

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename (already done).--Mike Selinker 15:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tri-City Valleycats alumni to Category:Tri-City ValleyCats alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename: Mispelled team name. JB82c 15:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Charmed characters

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was Rename Category:Charmed characters to Category:Charmed (TV series) characters. - jc37 08:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Charmed characters to Category:Charmed (TV series) characters
Nominator's rationale: Rename - name is ambiguous. Clarfying that it refers to characters from the TV show and not fictional characters who have themselves been charmed. Otto4711 (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Disney characters by medium

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was No consensus - It looks like this nom has expanded to several subcategories. (Which themselves aren't tagged for discussion.) Please feel free to relist/renominate based on the discussion below. - jc37 08:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: These categories were created some time ago to help keep the parent category, Category:Disney characters free of clutter. Unfortunately this does not seem to have worked, and the categories remain largely unused. I suggest a rename in order to expand the scope of the categories, in order to properly partition the parent cat. In particular, I suggest renaming to keep in line with the more popular Category:Disney comics characters, although a simple omission of the word "originating" in each case would also be acceptable. -- Supermorff (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the entire group... I'm tempted to say upmerge television, film, and comics up and distribute to the various "family", franchise, and project subs. As they stand there is a lot of miss steps:
    • Donald Duck in the base, comics, and Donald Duck universe/family cats. Similar for for other keynote characters.
    • Various characters not getting removed from the parent when they exist in one of the subs.
    • Licensed characters getting tagged in.
Beyond that, the "originating in" does seem to be there for a purpose. The cats seem to be limited to characters that first appeared in either film or television, not every character to appear that way. - J Greb (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Episode articles not asserting notability

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Episode articles not asserting notability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category was created to serve a now failed proposal on how to deal with episode articles. The template that was used to populate this article no longer exists. In addition, the category is not really useful for entire articles on an entire season (how episode articles should be dealt with), because they are only listed by the name of the episode, with no reference to the show from which it is from. I (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Domain-specific languages

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was merge.--Mike Selinker 06:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Domain-specific languages to Category:Domain-specific programming languages
Nominator's rationale: The distinction between the two categories is unclear at best. The defining statement at Category:Domain-specific languages even mentions specifically that it is for "programming". –Henning Makholm 03:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Anti-Islam

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename. However, this is not precedential toward Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, which is about actions taken against those of Muslim faith. As Itaqallah notes below, there's a reasonable difference between criticism and prejudice.--Mike Selinker 06:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anti-Islam to Category:Criticism of Islam
Nominator's rationale: Labeleling something or someone as "anti-Islam" is completely POV; calling living individuals such may in fact be libelous. The proposed new name is in line with the category's parent cat, Criticism of religion, and even fits the subcategories better (such as "Critics of Islam" etc.) VanTucky talk 02:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He must have been on for like a minute because I check it regularly.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Category:Anti-Islam appears to be redundant in the light of Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. as said above, not all Anti-Islam views can be classed as criticism, so any entries within the renamed category would require re-examining. ITAQALLAH 18:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - deletion would be better but failing that a more NPOV name should be used.--Boreas 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.