Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 9

< April 8	April 10 >

April 9

Category:Reno basin

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Reno basin to Category:Reno (river) basin

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is ambiguous as there is a Reno Basin in Nevada. This would also match the category name to the main article's name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support highly ambiguous.65.93.12.101 (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2011 (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:Roads and squares in Munich

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: split.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

split Category:Roads and squares in Munich into Category:Streets in Munich and Category:Squares in Munich. Category:Roads in Germany has categories by state only, and it is category:Streets in Germany which has mainly categories by city (Obviously, that is because cities have more notable streets than roads). Put squares into a seperate category as per category:squares and plazas by city. --ZH2010 (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2011 (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:American businesspeople of Pakistani descent

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Nevermind the fact that "Pakistani" doesn't seem to be the right term here, this is a pretty good example of why we have WP:OCAT#EGRS. Two entries in this category. Neither seem to apply well (One famous for being a media commentator on terrorism in Pakistan, the other being famous for reasons completely irrelevant to Pakistan). Bulldog123 17:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a fairly egregious overcategorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Populate There are probably more that haven't been added Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 15:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... but what encyclopedic purpose does this category serve? How is it not WP:OCAT? Bulldog123 18:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Category:American businesspeople is too big and needs to be split into subcategories. You guys are always talking about OCAT; you forget the flip-side, huge unweildly cats Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being "too large" or "unwieldy" is itself a completely subjective designation. Personally, I prefer to work with large categories as it gets us closer to what could be called some sort of "comprehensive" organization of articles that meet the category definition. As long as categories are alphabetized (which they are), I question whether any category could ever truly be said to be "too large". "Too large" for what? To have all contents fit on one page? To read through in an afternoon? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, how is it "completely subjective" to say a category is too large, but perfectly acceptable to say a character trait is irrelevant or not? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the latter claim can be compared to what sort of descriptions exist in reliable sources and based on that a judgment can be made as to whether the intersection in question is "defining" or not. Nothing like that can be done to assess the former. Reliable sources don't discuss the size of WP categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ethnicity+nationality+occupation is not a productive use of Wikipedia categorization. WP:OCAT to a T. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2011 (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:Wikipedians by alma mater: Wellesley

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 CSC per convention of using current institution name. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Wellesley to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Wellesley College

Nominator's rationale: This should be renamed as the school is named "Wellesley College." Tavix | Talk 15:58, 9 April 2011 (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:Documentary films about the Republic of China

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 by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Documentary films about the Republic of China to Category:Documentary films about the People's Republic of China

Nominator's rationale: Miscategorized, poorly named and populated mainly with images from documentary films rather than articles about them, this category should be merged in to the preexisting Documentary films about the People's Republic of China. I don't know if all the jpgs should be removed, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously cannot be merged as nominated, so WITHDRAW. I've fixed the category tree issues. If anyone else wants to nominate for deletion per SMALLCAT they can but I'm not interested in pursuing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China and People's Republic of China are two different entities, these are two different countries. I shall be searching for relevant films and proceed to add to the category. Arilang ^talk 13:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, if it's a category for doc films about Taiwan, then the sole article currently in the category, China: The Roots of Madness, does touch on Taiwan's history, I guess. But if you can't find other doc films that are uniquely about the Republic of China, then it might at the very least be too soon for this category, per WP:SMALLCAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the meantime, I'll fix the parent categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment Shawn in Montreal. Arilang ^talk 05:55, 11 April 2011 (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:Data centers in Utah

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one article, Fibernet Corp., populates the category. No other state data center categories. Category:Data centers contains 17 articles, so no overwhelming need to create sub categories. Bgwhite (talk) 07:18, 9 April 2011 (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:Blogs about the environment and environmentalism

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:Environmental blogs.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Blogs about the environment and environmentalism to Category:Blogs about the environment

Nominator's rationale: Environmentalism is by definition about the environment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the subcategories of Category:Blogs have the adjective first. Would Category:Environmental blogs align better with the others? (Also, why is this category in Category:Political weblogs? Environmentalism isn't a subset of politics.) - Eureka Lott 03:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The environment isn't a subset of politics, but environmentalism certain is.- choster (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Environmentalism has political implications, but I think it's inaccurate to call it a political philosophy. In addition, either of the proposed new names makes it clear that the scope goes beyond environmentalism. - Eureka Lott 13:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is akin to saying that abortion is a medical issue, so a blog about abortion is about health and not politics. You will find some reasonable people who agree and other reasonable people who disagree, and therein you will find politics.- choster (talk)

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:Sandbox Members

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no article for the Global Sandbox Network, and it doesn't seem to be defining characteristic of the people categorized. Tassedethe (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2011 (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:Wikipedians by alma mater: Washington and Jefferson College

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 merge CSC per convention of using current institution name. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Washington and Jefferson College to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Washington & Jefferson College

Nominator's rationale: These should be merged as they serve the exact same purpose. Tavix | Talk 00:42, 9 April 2011 (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.