[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 1 May 3 >

May 2[edit]

Category:Debian-based distributions[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Debian-based distributions to Category:APT-based Linux distributions
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Re-categorization by package manager.

See also:

Michael963 22:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: apt is not at all equivalent to rpm. The former is a package management tool (and one of several available for both Debian-based systems and even for some rpm-based systems). The latter is a package format and the name of a package installation (not management) tool. The package format for Debian-derived systems is "deb", and the package installation tool (equivalent to rpm) is "dpkg". Apt is a front-end to dpkg (on deb-based systems) or to rpm (on rpm-based systems). The best choice might be "deb-based", but I'm not entirely sure. Xtifr tälk 13:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Debian-based" is the appropriate and commonly used expression. Rather than a (flawed) technical comparison of terms, the common usage should be the rule of thumb. That means that "RPM-based" is appropriate, while "APT-based" would be inappropriate. Vassyana 21:45, 3 May 2007 (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:Prince-Bishoprics of Estonia[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Prince-Bishoprics of Estonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Duplicate of Category:Prince-Bishops of Estonia — OwenBlacker 22:11, 2 May 2007 (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:Jiu-Jitsu practitioners by nationality[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Vegaswikian ("speedy requested by creator"). Bencherlite 01:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jiu-Jitsu practitioners by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Created (by me) with incorrect terminology used to classify Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Will create new category scheme for this categorization after discussion at Category talk:Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners. Scott Alter 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Snow Wikis[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Snow Wikis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This "category" appears to be someone's attempt to encourage collaboration with other wikis. It contains no internal links - there are no articles or pages in the category, it is empty. It would be better served as a list in userspace or project space. However, I have not checked to see if any of the wikis listed have articles. If so, it may end up being useful. What do others think? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk Contribs)problem solving 20:55, 2 May 2007 (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:Marvel Comics characters with Spider-powers[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Marvel Comics characters with Spider-powers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete unnecessary overcategorization. (This category also happens to be incorrectly capitalized.) Listify for proper annotation. Doczilla 18:43, 2 May 2007 (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 Chattanooga 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: rename. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:University of Chattanooga alumni to Category:University of Tennessee at Chattanooga alumni
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, reflects proper name of university. fuzzy510 17:20, 2 May 2007 (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.

Fashion[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 and rename, respectively. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Daniel Case 05:12, 30 April 2007 (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:Southwestern Dinosaurs[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Southwestern Dinosaurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The name of this category, "Southwestern Dinosaurs", does not represent a world view. The question "southwest of where?" came to my mind when I saw the title. According to the category page, it's the Southwest of the United States, but this is not apparent in the category name, and people living in other areas may feel it's a POV category.

Attempts to contact the user who created this category have not been responded to, and the user has continued to add pages to the category, but somewhat randomly: some obvious candidates for the page, such as Scelidosaurus, have not been added to the category, so it's a bit of a mess, with some "southwestern dinosaurs" in the category, while others are left out.

Furthermore, the relevant WikiProject, WikiProject Dinosaurs, has not categorized down to the sub-national level, as these boundaries did not exist at the time the animals were alive, and have broken the articles down by continent (such as Category:South American dinosaurs), age (such as Category:Triassic dinosaurs), and group (such as Category:Prosauropods), but not by sub-nationality.

Nearly all of the active Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs editors have weighed in against this category (see here); just the one user continues to add the category to articles. The naming convention, with only proper nouns capitalized, has also been ignored in the creation of this category: Category:Southwestern Dinosaurs instead of Category:Southwestern dinosaurs. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the category is too fine geographically (especially since we haven't even done country-level categories with the exception of the continent and country Australia), poorly defined (since the link to American Southwest shows that there are multiple definitions of what states are included), with an awkward title, and southwestern US dinosaurs are not all that special except for a couple of late Cretaceous faunas. I could see someday a Morrison Formation category, or a Dinosaur Park Formation category, as those are notable faunas and would make logical groupings of well-known dinosaurs, but this category does not have something like that to make it hang together. J. Spencer 16:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dinoguy2 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I thought this was about US politics. Johnbod 17:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArthurWeasley 17:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 18:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. (sub)continent level is sufficientcheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the record. This was a good-faith attempt to create an easily-accessed collection of animals from the same location, but it is poorly defined and appears at odds with the existing dinosaur categories. Probably not highly useful at this time. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --John.Conway 08:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Sleep On It 20:26, 6 May 2007 (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:British Influenced Conflict[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British Influenced Conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Appears to be a non-NPOV category. As suggested on the category talk page, Category:Wars involving the United Kingdom is more appropriate Kurando

You're actually calling your own creation "cleverly made"? Doczilla 05:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I think the reasons for deletion are desperate and expected in this political climate. Reaper7 09:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for deletion are that the words "influenced" and "conflict" are vague, especially "influenced" which is so vague that any definition would violate Wikipedia guidelines against categories with arbitrary inclusion criteria while lack of definition means that any application violates the NPOV policy. On a side note, the way the category name violates Wikipedia capitalization guidelines further indicates a general lack of familiarity with how Wikipedia does things. There is nothing "desperate" or reflective of "political climate" in the fact that this category isn't up to Wikipedia standards. Doczilla 06:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - its almost verging on original research. Never knew the 1999 Yugoslav bombing was British influenced - I thought we just follow the Americans! Complete POV rubbish! There are better names which would create clearer history. Rgds, --Trident13 23:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If a stone cuts your foot, the British put it there." - Iranian proverb. Johnbod 02:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rodin: "The English see with their ears." Reaper7 09:32, 3 May 2007 (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:Waterfalls of Karnataka[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Waterfalls of Karnataka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Waterfalls of India, convention of Category:Waterfalls by country. Since the parent category is so small, I don't see splitting them up into states as helpful. -- Prove It (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fully subcategorize parent by state. The parent category is not that small, and since India is a large country with several mountain ranges and high rainfall in many parts it has a great deal of room for growth. Brandon97 17:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The articles should also be accessible through the geography categories for the states, which require subcategorisation as much as the geography categories of say Australia and Spain, as the population of the average Indian state is somewhere between that of Australia and that of Spain. Honbicot 10:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Honbicot and Brandon97. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 3 May 2007 (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:Films written by Charlie Kaufman, Category:Launder and Gilliat films and Category:Suzan-Lori Parks screenplays[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: hippocratic rename to "Screenplays by (X)," without prejudice to deletion later. Since lots of potential closers have commented on this nomination, I'll close it with Radiant's last suggested solution, since there is a clear desire to do something. If after these are renamed, the pro-deletion people want to reopen it, this shouldn't be used as precedent to deny that course of action.--Mike Selinker 17:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a debate about deletion last week, in which a rename was also suggested. For consistency with similar cats, I would suggest renaming to "Films by <foo>". >Radiant< 13:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Given the fact that screenplays are frequently written by multiple people, either as writing teams or as a result of being re-written at the behest of the producers, I don't believe categorizing films by screenwriter is useful. As noted in the previous CFD, a film like Casablanca could end up with as many as four new categories as a result, leading to category clutter while offering little utility in the way of navigation. I stand by my Delete opinion, but if the categories are kept I oppose the suggested rename as ambiguous. Category:Films with screenplay by X or Category:Screenplays by X are better choices. But I still say delete the lot of them. Otto4711 15:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would a listify into the main article be better in this case? That way the co-writers could also be listed. The table could include if the individual was the lead writer or only involved in rewrites etc. Vegaswikian 18:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to <name> screenplays. Tim! 16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In reply to Otto's comments above, I notice that these are all part of the parent category Category:Films by writer which is itself a subcategory of Category:Works by author. So if you're looking at the broader question of whether or not to categorize "films by author(s)" then you should look at discussing whether Category:Films by writer is needed. The main reason Category:Books by author and Category:Plays by author work ok is that you normally only have one author per book/play. But as mentioned above, films are a different story and many films are collaborative works with multiple authors. The multiplicity is what might make this sort of categorization more problematic. Dugwiki 21:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The films by writer category was nominated as part of the original CFD. I take its absence here to mean that the closing admin decided that consensus was to keep the categorization scheme while doing something with the subcats. If the result of this nom is to delete all then that category should be deleted as well. Otto4711 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was closed as no consensus. There were too many issues being discussed to support any action. I did the close and had nothing to do with this nomination. I will say that from the discussion I fully expected a rename request. Vegaswikian 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given the diverse opinions would a listify be the best choice here? If the list makes everyone happy then there would be no need for the categories. If the lists don't work, then maybe they would at least help resolve the future creation, structure and names for categories. Vegaswikian 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a list within the screenwriters' individual articles is plenty. I honestly don't think anyone looking for screenplays written by Charlie Kaufman or whoever is going to start anywhere but the screenwriter's article. Otto4711 03:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Otto4711's argument here makes perfect sense to me: I can't see what is added by such a category, so long as all film pages have links to the screenwriter, and so long as the screenwriter's page has a link back to the films.
      • Comment Oh, and I'm aware that by the same logic many similar categories should be deleted. But actually, I don't see why not. Compare (for the case of a particularly prolific author) Category:Novels_by_Agatha_Christie with the list found at Agatha_christie#Novels; the list on the author page is both much more complete and much more helpful, in that it includes dates, alternative titles, and full details of all detectives. --Jbmurray 01:28, 9 May 2007 (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:Works by artist[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Covers the exact same purpose as Category:Works by author. Suggest merge; the difference between an "author" and "artist" isn't necessarily clear for works. >Radiant< 13:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - No, it clearly is a super category above "Works by author" it also contains
Albums by artist
Buildings and structures by architect
Compositions by composer
Fabergé eggs
Films by director
Films by writer
Works by heads of state or government
Music videos by director
Operas by composer
Paintings by artist
Sculptures by artist
Songs by artist
Songs by lyricist
Symphonies (not too sure why this one is here though!!)

Also work by author is a holding category for the various "xxxx by author" sub-categories. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:54, 2 May 2007 (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:History of the Democratic Republic of Congo[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:History of the Democratic Republic of Congo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:History of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to match Democratic Republic of the Congo. -- Prove It (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2007 (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:Amazonas[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Amazonas to Category:Amazonas (Brazilian state)
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, There are four different South American countries (Brazil, Colombia, Peru, and Venezuela) that have first order subdivisions names Amazonas. Amazonas itself is a disambiguation page to those four entities. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:17, 2 May 2007 (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:Sports Administrators[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the much better populated Category:Sports executives and administrators already exists. T@nn 02:56, 2 May 2007 (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:Finland Russians[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Finland Russians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Russian-speaking Finns, to match Russian-speaking Finns. -- Prove It (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2007 (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.

Hollywood families - A[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Akhtar-Azmi family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Alda family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Anand family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Aniston family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Arkin family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Arquette family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Astin family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - as with many other categories named for families, these are unnecessary for navigational purposes. The articles for the family members are easily interlinked through the texts and, in the cases where there is more than one surname in the family, the categories do not serve to illustrate the family relationships. For particularly complex families an article is a good option. Otto4711 01:49, 2 May 2007 (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:South_American_historians[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. >Radiant< 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:South American historians to Category:Historians of Latin America
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This is a confusing category: what's meant is historians of South America, rather than South American historians, in that none of the people who are included are in fact South American. Moreover, Chomsky, at least, is primarily a historian of Cuba, which is not generally considered to be "South America." Indeed, looking at Category:Historians by field of study, I see that the usual format is indeed "Historians of..." I suggest this category be re-named to "Historians of Latin America," but I don't know how to do that. Jbmurray 01:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd recommend it be Latin rather than South America, although I'm well aware of the complexities of defining the term, simply because that's how most such historians would see themselves. (I've started to beef up Wikipedia's coverage of Latin American Studies, including adding a category to that effect.) --Jbmurray 05:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a persuasive reason. Do you have a source to confirm that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the major association in the field is the Latin American Studies Association. (Admittedly, rather confusingly, the major journal for Latin Americanist historians is the Hispanic American Historical Review, but nobody calls themselves a historian of Hispanic America these days.)
Actually, nom was always for change to "Latin America." --Jbmurray 17:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Sorry, discussion had me confused. Johnbod 02:46, 3 May 2007 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_2&oldid=1164486095"