[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 20 September 22 >

September 21

[edit]

Category:Sky Sports News presenters

[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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sky Sports News presenters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as People by television network, a special case of performer by performance. -- Prove It (talk) 23:29, 21 September 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Streets in downtown Baltimore

[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 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 debate was rename per Xtifr. Kbdank71 14:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Streets in downtown Baltimore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Streets in Baltimore, convention of Category:Streets by city. -- Prove It (talk) 23:13, 21 September 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Foreign-born African Americans

[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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foreign-born African Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Listify within Foreign-born African Americans, place of birth is simply wherever the mother happened to be when her time came; interesting but non-defining, see also discussion of September 14th. -- Prove It (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename for the simple reason that African- or Carribean-born Americans are culturally distinct from native-born Black Americans, and this is well documented even in popular media. Kevlar67 15:24, 24 September 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Manila radio stations

[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 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 debate was upmerge. Kbdank71 14:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge both into Category:Metro Manila radio stations, or Rename both as indicated. -- Prove It (talk) 21:11, 21 September 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:FA Premier League

[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 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 debate was rename per British Imperialism. Kbdank71 14:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FA Premier League to Category:Premier League
Nominator's rationale: Article and officical name has changed to the Premier League, so this nomination is for consistancy's sake, also the cat for the players in the division is located at Category:Premier League players. For the same reasons in nominate the following sub-categories:

Support: per nom Kingjamie 20:26, 21 September 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Novels by Alan Bennett

[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 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 debate was keep, no consensus to delete apparent at this time. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels by Alan Bennett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Bennett has not written any novels. <KF> 19:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except it was first published in the London Review of Books, a magazine that looks like a tabloid newspaper, so I don't know that helps. As we have novels categories, we should use them. He already has a "Works by ..." category, and as we know, many people think "Books by.." should be for non-fiction (and this is certainly fiction). Johnbod 21:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As we have novels categories, we should use them. Of course, if we rename them to Books by instead of creating artificial distinctions like "Books by has to be for non-fiction books which then requires a Novels by structure" then we wouldn't have them. We can create literally any category, that doesn't mean that we should create them or use them. Otto4711 23:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He appears to be turning into one in his old age. The Uncommon Reader was published in the LRB this March, and the UK book is published just this month. Citing Wikipedia categorisation, unfortunately, is among the weakest of all possible arguments for anything. Johnbod 19:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I need any arguments for this, weak or otherwise. I seem to be the only one who has actually read The Uncommon Reader: it's called "A Story" [1]. But if you are happy with it, categorise him as an Indian mathematician (after all, he may have counted some rupees during a trip to India). I've made my point, and I'm certainly not going to discuss this nonsensical point any further. <KF> 19:33, 23 September 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Est. naming convention for "Articles..." vs. "Wikipedia articles..."

[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 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 debate was I'm very wary of saying we've created a new naming convention based upon what amounts to two responses, but considering nobody opposed the new convention after almost two weeks of discussion, feel free to either put them up for renaming, or per the new convention, make the change (just let Rich know first).. Kbdank71 14:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*NOTE: The "unclear importance" has an open debate, started yesterday by same nomhere, so is an improper nomination. Maybe relist after that closes, or get that nomination withdrawn & added here. Johnbod 13:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

  • Response: Disagree strongly; they are entirely unrelated nomenclature issues. The debate opened here is liable to take a long time to settle out, and has nothing to do with that specific category in particular, which also happens to need another kind of rename, affecting it and only it, that is unlikely to be controversial and (regardless) will not conflict in any way with the proposal here. I think you may have missed that I greyed out the original nomination, copied from CSD/Speedy for background purposes; the proposal here is not to rename the handful of categories listed, but to draft a cat. naming conventions addition. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated or not, it is against procedure, for obvious reasons, to have two open debates on the same category. The nominator does not control the issues or course of any discussion here. Johnbod 03:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::There are not two debates open on the same category. There is one debate open on a category, which also happens to be mentioned above in the greyed-out copy of the rescinded speedy nomination that started this topic off; and there is a proposed change to the category naming conventions. Quit lawyering, please. (Note I do not say "lawyering", which is an accusation of bad faith. I don't believe you are acting in bad faith, just acting like a lawyer here, being very, very persnicketty about minutiae and procedure; given that around 95% of what WP:CFD does is quite trivial to begin with, please consider that this may be a bit too persnicketty.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I'll let others judge who is being the Wikilawyer here! Johnbod 13:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually reading what other people write here or simply skimming for keywords? It appears to be the latter, since I made it doubly-abundantly clear that I was not applying the term "wikilawyer" to you. You might want to consider refraining from further disruption of deletion debates with angry (or angry-seeming; I'm not psychic) reactions to material that you are clearly not actually paying sufficient attention to understand well enough to respond to appropriately and meaningfully. Your participation in both this thread and the related Sept. 14 one has been remarkably non-sequiturial, as well as vitriolic for no apparent reason. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THIS debate, from your nomination::Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance to Category:Articles with topics of unclear importance
THE OTHER debate, from your nomination::Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance ... to Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability.... I don't think I'm missing anything! All the heated language has been yours. Extraordinary! Johnbod 22:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've just been talking past each other, due to a different conception of what constitutes a conflicting debate. I apologize for my part in the discussion being hotter than necessary.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The other debate is settled now, so none of my comments above apply any more, though I can't think of a way to strike-through without making the above look even odder than it already does. Johnbod 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right I'm just striking mine, and removing the greyed-out claptrap which is already archived elsewhere. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Currently relevant responses begins here.
  • Disagree with tagging: This is not a rename nomination; it is a proposal to add a point to the category naming conventions. The separate mass rename nomination would come after the point is added to the conventions, otherwise there is no basis for a rename. :-) Even hunting up all of the affected categories will take some time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is very unclear. What is being proposed? Can some example categories be provided? If these are administrative categories, they should include "Wikipedia" in the category name to differentiate them from the regular article categorization scheme. 70.55.87.147 16:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop and think Firstly there is value in having a way to discriminate content cats from admin cats, secondly we are also looking at way s to do away with these cats in favour of whatlinkshere pages. Thirdly the move today was badly botched, and still needs a load of work doing on it, so if the decision is to move these cats, please please don't just move the cat page and the talk and think it's done. Rich Farmbrough, 21:09 23 September 2007 (GMT).
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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Citizens of Uzbekistan

[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 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 debate was rename to Uzbekistani. According to Demographics of Uzbekistan, The nationality of any person from Uzbekistan is Uzbekistani, while the ethnic Uzbek majority simply call themselves Uzbeks.. These categories are subcats of "People by nationality" and "People by nationality and occupation", and not "by ethnicity", hence the rename. Kbdank71 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ... what is the correct name for citizens of Uzbekistan? We should find out which is correct and then use it consistently from then on ... At least one of these should become a redirect. -- Prove It (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and define - "Category:Uzbek ..." should refer to Uzbek people, and "Category:Uzbekistani ..." should refer to the nation of or people from the nation of Uzbekistan. Most Uzbekistanis are Uzbek, but not all Uzbek, live in Uzbekistan.Bakaman 16:55, 22 September 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Some animals in literature

[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 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 debate was delete/rename per nom. Thanks to Mike for doing the grunt work checking.. Kbdank71 15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Proposing collapse of subcategories of deleted Category:Animals in written fiction per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_12#Category:Animals in written fiction and Category:Fictional mammals. This is a complex nomination, because it requires checking each character article (not book article) to see if it has an equivalent of category:Characters in written fiction or a character subcategory that goes into that. So the fate of some categories may be different than others. I'm moving all the Redwall characters and a few others manually, as they're the only ones that don't usually appear in "Fictional (whatever)s". I also deleted Category:Donkeys in literature and Category:Mongooses in literature, as each had only one article that needed a change. I'll add more as time permits. Or someone else can.--Mike Selinker 15:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I've added all the rest of the categories. Where there are still articles that need "fictional (X)es" categories, there's a renaming suggestion. Where there are none, a deletion is recommended.--Mike Selinker 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. Why are you suggesting outright deletion for many of these rather than merger? Have you alrady gone through Category:Bears in literature to verify that all of its character articles are also direct members of Category:Fictional bears? ×Meegs 11:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly why. I went article by article to make sure we weren't leaving anything out of either "Fictional (x)es" or "Characters in written fiction" (if such a category was appropriate).--Mike Selinker 15:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking through what's listed to date, there seems to be a flat missaplication of the categories in some cases: the Farthing Wood characters are articles about the animated series, not the source book and "Kit Cloudkicker" is solely a creation for an animated television series.
    For most of the categories it seems more appropriate for the characters to be out-merged into the proper "Fictional <critter>" and Lit, as suggested for the Silverwing characters, categories. I do have a worry about this though, especially with the material Disney has taken a hand to. There is a stance with regard to television and comic book characters to not categorize characters by series unless it is absolutely clear that the material is self contained. Because of Disney's use of, for example, Baloo, there maybe resistance to putting the character into a "Jungle Book" category for fear of having to put it into categories for everything else Disney has used it in.
    There is also the cat category... In all honesty, given the prevalent use in lit, I can see this category, as well as "Dogs in lit" and "Horses in lit" as being valuable research tools. - J Greb 17:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I go through the articles, I'm watching for the misapplication you describe, which I've corrected in quite a few cases. I think the argument about comic book characters doesn't hold for animated characters. In those environments, it's a surprise when characters from different stories interact. In comics, it's the central dynamic.--Mike Selinker 23:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, I'm worried about it mainly with the character's Disney has touched given that company's penchant for reusing characters outside of their literary context. Purely based on single literary works or series, it makes more sense to apply the category. - J Greb 00:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Several of the nominated categories were emptied by 125.164.187.41. I've not reverted the IP user's changes (except his/her removal of the CfD notices) since this discussion may end in with a consensus to delete; if there is no such consensus, the emptied categories should be repopulated rather than deleted per CSD C1. – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But how can we discuss categories properly if they have been emptied? Johnbod 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the user's edits, and he/she is making sure the articles go into "Fictional (X)es" rather than deleting the category. So under the theory that this nomination is a foregone conclusion based on the results of the previous nomination, maybe we should just close it and finish out this process. I nominated it, so I'm not going to make that call. (As an unfortunate side note, this user's edits did render my SIlverwing trilogy suggestion moot, so that will have to be done manually.)--Mike Selinker 17:04, 24 September 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Artistic gymnastics at the Olympics

[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 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 debate was merge into category:Gymnastics at the Olympics. Kbdank71 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artistic gymnastics at the Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Artistic gymnastics at the Olympics is just a subset of the main Gymnastics competition. All of the articles in this category are doubly-categorized (and some, mis-categorized here) with Category:Gymnastics at the Olympics or one of its subcats (Category:Gymnastics events at the 2004 Summer Olympics), except for one, and that exception currently has a mergeto tag which would eliminate that article as well. Neier 14:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, adding the following (the above statement is true, except for the mergeto tag on the 2008 articles)
Category:Rhythmic gymnastics at the Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Trampoline gymnastics at the Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:British Package Holiday Resorts

[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 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 debate was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Package Holiday Resorts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as non defining (many are towns, not resorts), or at least Rename to Category:British package holiday resorts. -- Prove It (talk) 14:00, 21 September 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Competitors for France at the 1900 Summer Olympics

[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 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 debate was delete, empty and per precedent. Kbdank71 14:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Competitors for France at the 1900 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Similar to previous CFD, but, was not in the parent cat; so, accidentally passed over. No need for upmerge; articles re-cat'd to intersections (sport/country, and sport/year) Neier 11:40, 21 September 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Competitors for France at the 1908 Summer Olympics

[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 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 debate was delete, empty and per precedent. Kbdank71 14:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Competitors for France at the 1908 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Similar to previous CFD, but, was not in the parent cat; so, accidentally passed over. No need for upmerge; articles re-cat'd to intersections (sport/country, and sport/year) Neier 11:40, 21 September 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Competitors at the 1908 Summer Olympics by country

[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 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 debate was delete, empty and per precedent. Kbdank71 14:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Competitors at the 1908 Summer Olympics by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A now-empty parent cat for many categories deleted/upmerged in a previous CFD - Neier 10:58, 21 September 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Games featuring China

[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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Games featuring China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very broad category that isn't likely to get expanded. RobJ1981 06:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True; a few would have be left out. But the category definition as it stands is too vague and broad I think. Johnbod 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hence its CFD. Using China as a video game location would be for a different category. --Scottie_theNerd 01:56, 27 September 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Prominent conservative research groups in the United States

[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 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 debate was rename to Category:Conservative think tanks based in the United States. Kbdank71 14:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prominent conservative research groups in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The definition given for "prominent"—Limited to institutions whose programs are widely distributed, at least by media such as C-Span—is still too subjective to allow for a controversial term like "prominent" in the category name. All articles are also listed in the parent category. choster 05:20, 21 September 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles which may be biased

[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 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 debate was Delete. Judging by the annotation added when the category was created, it seems to have been done in a fit of pique, or else with a wink. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles which may be biased (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Already covered by Category:NPOV disputes. Delete Alksub 02:47, 21 September 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 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_September_21&oldid=1138389275"