Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 20

[edit]

Category:Red politicians

[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. Courcelles (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Red politicians to Category:Red (Norway) politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating to match parent Category:Red (Norway) and Red (Norway). Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2010 (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.
[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. — ξxplicit 22:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Articles with excessive links (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category is empty, and nothing indicates that any template is using it. What links here is empty too, so I think this category should be deleted. Svick (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! So it does - ignore me, too early I guess! Yep, delete away. Lugnuts (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2010 (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:Doris Day soundtrack albums

[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 rename per creator's intent.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Doris Day soundtrack albums to Category:Doris Day soundtracks
Nominator's rationale: My own stupid error; this will match the scheme of the parent category. —Justin (koavf)TCM23:26, 20 June 2010 (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:Enamel

[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. — ξxplicit 22:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Enamel to Category:Dental enamel
Nominator's rationale: The current category is just for dental enamel, whereas as I see it there are three main divisions of enamel: dental, artistic/decorative, industrial, the last two being both vitreous enamel. There are various ways of playing this & I don't have strong views on which is best. Category:Enamellers are all artists, and we have a fair number of articles on artistic techniques & objects, not all in the category yet. I can't see much, well anything except vitreous enamel, on industrial uses, but there must be stuff - oh yes Le Creuset. I think the toothy stuff should go to Category:Dental enamel, under Category:Enamel, and then either everything else goes to Category:Vitreous enamel - my proposal - or that has art and industry sub-cats.
To sum up the proposal is to move as above, & I can set up Category:Enamel again as a head-cat, and Category:Vitreous enamel (now done - see below), and populate. But I'm open to alternativesJohnbod (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Currently its only parent is Category:Teeth, which it would keep. I think (from non-technical knowledge) dental & vitreous are similar enough to share an empty? head cat. Otherwise one has to put notes & maybe redirects everywhere anyway. Johnbod (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Teeth is where I would expect it to be; and sorry I should have looked more carefully. The only feature they share is that they are 'hard and shiny' - I don't think that warrants them being in the same category. Both Category:Dental enamel and Category:Vitreous enamel should have a brief note at the top; and since they share the word 'enamel' there should also be a cross-reference to the other to help those people who might get lost. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see the logic, but in practical terms that still leaves people who search on, or try to add to, "category:Enamel" with nothing. Since neither of the two group categories start with Enamel, they probably won't be picked up. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should keep the present category as a parent-only category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that has the same effect as the proposal, which moves it & then recreates it. Given the vitreous stuff has to be moved, it makes little difference which way it's done. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems to be the way the debate is going; fine by me. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2010 (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:Heinie

[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. — ξxplicit 22:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Heinie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A pure case of overcategorization by shared name. This groups all the bio articles on WP that have the first name (usually a nickname) of "Heinie". The list already exists at Heinie, which is a disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2010 (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:Transformers

[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. — ξxplicit 22:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Transformers to Category:Transformers (franchise)
Nominator's rationale: Rename as nominated or to Category:Transformers (fiction) to match commons. Category:Transformers is ambiguous as this is the correct name for a category supporting the main article Transformer. Also Category:Transformers, even if used for the comics/toys/etc., is still ambiguous, so adding franchise makes the scope of the category clear and more focused. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2010 (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 Islands culture

[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: Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cook Islands culture to Category:Cook Island culture
Nominator's rationale: per recent CfD where the renaming Category:Cook Island people to 'Cook Islands people' was effectively argued against Mayumashu (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2010 (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.

UK Parliamentary constituencies by region

[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) 00:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match regional head articles grandparent categories. E.g. the South-west category to match head article South West England and grandparent category Category:South West England ...and to disambiguate from the many other areas of the globe known as the South West. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 20 June 2010 (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:Brazil – French Guiana border

[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. Courcelles (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brazil – French Guiana border (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Brazil – France border. Legally speaking, French Guiana is not different than other parts of France, and the border is between the two states (Brazil and France), not between French Guiana and Amapá. Soman (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2010 (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 from Frankfurt

[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. — ξxplicit 22:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Frankfurt to Category:People from Frankfurt am Main
Nominator's rationale: Parent article uses the full title and the category should match it. There is an existing Category:People from Frankfurt (Oder) that further justifies the need for disambiguation in the category title. Alansohn (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2010 (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:University of Detroit Jesuit High School alumni

[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: withdrawn. Guess we do categorize by high school. — ξxplicit 17:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:University of Detroit Jesuit High School alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As far as I'm aware, we don't categorize people as alumni by high schools, so I'm thinking this is overcategorization. — ξxplicit 06:21, 20 June 2010 (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:Buildings and structures by owner

[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) 07:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures by owner to Category:Buildings and structures by company
Nominator's rationale: Most companies lease office space rather than own it now. And, increasingly, companies sponsor different stadiums and other buildings. Also,there has been a rapid growth in new article about historic buildings that had a previous relationship with the company. All of this means that most of the articles in the sub-cats are no longer technically "owned" but otherwise associated. This renaming reflects the original intent of grouping building articls by company while being more accurate. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. I have no real interest to keep this category (keep was my first batle cry; it passed). But there are some concerns to be addressed:
  1. Is it manageable, at all, either in present meaning or as proposed by RevelationDirect? Practically every building has owner(s), practically none are categorized.
  2. Should it list current owners (tenants?), or historical too, i.e. if someone creates Category:Palaces of the House of Habsburg, should it be a subset of "by owner"? I see absolutely no problem to see the Chrysler Building categorized under Category:Chrysler although Chrysler doesn't own the building for quite a while.
  3. The Habsburg example shows that "by company" is only a subset of "by owner" (other owners being private people, families, governments and municipalities etc.). East of Borschov (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • response: You're right, renaming the category as I proposed would preclude using it for palaces owned by a royal family since they're not a company. If you look at the current usage though, it's strictly corporate: AT&T, British Telecom, Coca-Cola, GM, IBM, Mayo Clinic, McDonald's, Pepsico and Royal Dutch Shell. There is a Category:Houses in the United States by family that could be expanded to other countries to cover your Hapsburg example.RevelationDirect (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 04:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- All are in fact named after companies or named after them. Occasional cases may be "formerly owned" or only "occupied". Cases like royal palaces can be categorised elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom This will also exclude Government-owned buildings which have a separate category tree and need not be mixed together with these company buildings. Hmains (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2010 (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:Provincial capitals of Papua New Guinea

[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. — ξxplicit 22:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Provincial capitals of Papua New Guinea to Category:Provincial capitals in Papua New Guinea
Nominator's rationale: Merge. "Provincial capitals in X" seems to be the most common form, judging by the contents of Category:Capitals of country subdivisions. htonl (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2010 (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.

Ukrainian Greek Catholics

[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These names are generally confusing as they stand now. If we start piling three and sometimes four adjectives on top of one another ("Canadian Ukrainian Greek Catholic bishops"—what?), many users will be unsure what exactly is being referred to. These proposals are meant to clarify and are patterned after some of those names selected for Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians by nationality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 04:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No change in view -- WE seem to have no opposing view, so that should be been closed as rename. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2010 (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 Formula One World Championship drivers

[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; categories have remained empty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Swedish Formula One World Championship drivers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Spanish Formula One World Championship drivers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Formula One World Championship drivers by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is a complete duplication of Category:Swedish Formula One drivers and associated categories for second and third listed. Falcadore (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2010 (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.