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 September 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 4

[edit]
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 keep. Bduke 06:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with links needing disambiguation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete since this is unnecessary and backwards. There is already a bot-maintained category for disambiguation pages with links, which has been in use for a long time. This category doesn't tell you which links need disambiguation, so it's not very useful anyway. Sapphic 22:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Weak keep since this can serve (in association with a template tag attached to links) as a way of identifying "trouble cases" of hard-to-disambiguate links found on one of the more established lists, such as at the Disambiguation pages with links page. --Sapphic 23:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC) It also addresses the problem of links to disambiguation pages from a different, equal valid angle to that of sorting by number of links to a disambiguation page (the way it's done elsewhere) – although I personally find it easier to work on disambiguating all of the links coming into a disambiguation page, rather than jumping from topic to unrelated topic as you would using this category. Nonetheless, the type of disambiguation needed at the Zeenat Aman article (which "St. Xavier's School" did she attend?) is of a completely different variety than those listed at WP:DPL and so this category is not only useful but actually serves a unique set of needs not met by previously existing pages or categories. --Sapphic 00:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How would it be useful? There is no indication as to which links on the page need disambiguation. WP:DPL is useful, but this category is not. --Sapphic 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is not true. The links that need disambiguation are marked by a {{dn}} -- which I believe is the only way that the category should be added to an article. Of course, the category itself should explain this. olderwiser 19:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I did not realize that was how articles were added to the category. That does indeed make it at least somewhat useful, and I hereby withdraw my support for deletion. I'd thought somebody had been populating the category by hand (or by bot) in a misguided attempt to be helpful, but apparently I was the one who was misguided. Thanks for clarifying! --Sapphic 21:13, 5 September 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:Ships sunk by U-boats

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ships sunk by U-boats to Category:Ships sunk by German submarines
Nominator's rationale: Rename, consistent with other subcats of Category:Ships sunk by submarines. `'Míkka 22:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't they stop being U-boats then? One might also pedantically use that as an argument against the rename per nom. Johnbod 13:09, 6 September 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:Menudo

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 and prune. the wub "?!" 13:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Menudo to Category:Menudo members
Nominator's rationale: Rename and prune - the vast majority of articles are for members. We need a members category but absent the member articles we don't really need an eponymous category for the remaining material. Otto4711 21:56, 4 September 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:Melanie C

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. the wub "?!" 22:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Melanie C (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Category not warranted for the material. Otto4711 21:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see two articles in the category. Even with additional articles, unless they are multiple sub-articles about her life that are not easily interlinked or otherwise categorizable, then a category for her doesn't meet the exception laid out at WP:OC. Otto4711 22:48, 4 September 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:Mayhem albums

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. the wub "?!" 22:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mayhem albums to Category:Mayhem (band) albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the lead article Mayhem (band) and reduce possible ambiguity. Otto4711 21:47, 4 September 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:Mayhem musicians

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. the wub "?!" 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mayhem musicians to [[:Category:Mayhem (band) musicians members]]
Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the lead article Mayhem (band) and reduce possible ambiguity. Otto4711 21:46, 4 September 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:Bob Marley

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. the wub "?!" 22:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bob Marley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Does not meet the exception laid out at the guideline, as coverage of Marley's life is not divided into multiple sub-articles that can't otherwise be easily categorized. Most of the contents are family members and are appropriately interlinked. A Marley family article might be in order. Otto4711 21:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when I saw this, I first thought "Bob Marley is one of those musicians who is highly notable, and probably should have his own category". But when I looked at the articles and sub-cats found in this category, most of them don't belong (like family members). Clean out the cat, and this is a textbook example of eponymous overcat, which get deleted daily.-Andrew c [talk] 02:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this overcategorisation per broad precedent, TewfikTalk 23:06, 11 September 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:Canadian expatriate musicians in the United States

[edit]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 15#Category:Canadian expatriate musicians in the United States for more discussion. the wub "?!" 13:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MC Lars

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. the wub "?!" 22:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MC Lars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Material is all extensively interlinked and appropriately categorized and the category is not warranted. Otto4711 21:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are sometimes a good idea, when the volume and complexity of the material about a person is such that a category is needed to organize it effectively. That is clearly not the case here, as the material abour MC Lars does is not particularly vouminous or complex. Otto4711 16:14, 8 September 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:British Formula One series

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 {{db-author}} used instead (again). Non-admin closure. BencherliteTalk 15:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Formula One series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:British Formula One Series. DH85868993 14:50, 4 September 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:Sports clubs established in 1844

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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. Bduke 06:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports clubs established in 1844 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is empty. The existence of Category:Sports clubs established before 1850 suggests this category should not have been created in the first place. DH85868993 14:46, 4 September 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 below. 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. the wub "?!" 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts notable Alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts alumni, convention of Category:People by high school in the United States, or simply Delete. -- Prove It (talk) 14:05, 4 September 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 below. 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 to Category:Television shows set in the United Kingdom and Category:Television shows set in foo. the wub "?!" 22:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency with the rest of the category tree, these should be renamed to [[:Television shows set in <foo>]]. >Radiant< 11:18, 4 September 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:Provinces of Perugia

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 {{db-author}} used instead. BencherliteTalk 11:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Provinces of Perugia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Accidentally created when I meant Category:Province of Perugia. Ian Spackman 11:00, 4 September 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:Christian legend and folklore

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 as nominated. the wub "?!" 13:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Christian legend and folklore to Category:Christian folklore
Nominator's rationale: These two categories were the subject of a recent debate on August 14, and the result was no consensus. However, nobody in the debate supported the status quo, so I think a quick renomination is fully justified. Opinions were split between deleting the newer folklore category (as nominated) and merging the "legend and folklore" category into the "folklore" category (my counterproposal). The bottom line, though, is that everyone agrees that these categories are redundant, so something should be done. My argument is that legends are a subcategory of folklore (and Category:Legends is a subcategory of Category:Folklore), so there should be no problem with having legends in the folklore category--that's where they belong. It's possible that we should have a separate Category:Christian legends as a subcategory of both Category:Christian folklore and Category:Legends, but that would require sorting out which articles are specifically legends, and which are other types of folklore, and I don't think the amount of material here would justify the effort. So I think that a merger to the more simply-named category is the best solution at this time. Xtifr tälk 10:03, 4 September 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 below. 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 to both parents. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sector General species (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Sector General. There are only a few Sector General articles, probably too soon for subcats. -- Prove It (talk) 05:33, 4 September 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 below. 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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paris Hilton films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, please see August 26th discussion. -- Prove It (talk) 04:55, 4 September 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 below. 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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hollywood films about Persians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Keep Persians are heavily stereotyped specially with the current tensions in the Middle East. I think it is very important to have a category about the Hollywood productions on Persians and Iran for the future references. --Kaaveh 09:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - inclusion criteria are vague as with so many "films about" categories. How much of a film needs to be "about" Persians to qualify it for the category? Current political tensions regarding the Middle East are not relevant to the category. Otto4711 14:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The plot has to be about Persians and this is very obvious.--Kaaveh 18:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently it's not very obvious, or else there wouldn't be any controversy now would there? The question then becomes how much of the plot needs to be about Persians? Otto4711 19:49, 4 September 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 below. 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 renamed. The creator seems not to have understood how to make categories, so I followed through on what I believe was his or her intention.--Mike Selinker 20:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as incurably vague, or at least Rename to Category:Bone Thugs-n-Harmony members. -- Prove It (talk) 04:46, 4 September 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:Richmond City Council

[edit]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 15#Category:Richmond City Council for further discussion. the wub "?!" 13:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hairspray (film)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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) 02:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hairspray (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category. The various entries are all extensively interlinked through text and the small amount of material doesn't warrant a category. Otto4711 02:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Delete. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 22:48, 5 September 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.