[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 23 November 25 >

November 24

[edit]

Category:Redirects from a modification of the target name

[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. I will remove the category code from each page and add {{R from modification}}. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Redirects from a modification of the target name to Category:Redirects from modifications
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category should be part of the redirect pages categorization scheme, however, it has no accompanying template which all such categories should have, and it also duplicates, for all intents and purposes that I can think of, its parent category. I'm not so sure one or the other of the category names is the best one. I would not object to it being the other way around. __meco (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Global Elders

[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The result of the discussion was: do not rename as proposed/withdrawn. Since the article was moved to Global Elders, I'll rename the category to Category:Global Elders to match. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:The Global Elders to Category:The Elders
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Film artists

[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. Kbdank71 19:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Film artists to Category:Film crew
Nominator's rationale: We have categories for Film artists and Film crew both under Category:Filmmaking occupations. I understand that there's a distinction being made here -- or at least, I think there is, or there could be -- between a crew member who is generally recognized as an "artist" in some way and others, such as stunt people, who are not. But a look at the category contents shows that there's confusion over where things go (including on my part) and I believe a merge would help navigation. Film crew categories for bona fide "artists" can also be categorized under the relevant artistic category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think I'm going to oppose but am going to reserve my decision for now. Category:Set decorators are a part of the crew. The others not really. This may be a case where it will be clear to some where the dividing line is. This may be a case where the break point is that the crew works on set during filming. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Film positions not on set during production could still be categorized under the main Filmmaking occupations category. There might be a few such categories to move up to the higher level category, yes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think there is a problem with the article Film crew which defines the crew as everyone involved from inception to release but excluding actors and producers. My view (like Vegaswikian above) is that the 'crew' is just those involved during actual filming. There needs to be a clear definition laid down as an introduction to these categories and then they may start to make sense. At the moment they appear to be rather jumbled up. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree. But again, retaining Cat:Film artists does nothing to clear up the 'on the set = crew' issue, that's another issue entirely, one that can be rectified fairly easily by clarifying category descriptions of Crew and Occupations and re-categorizing some of the contents accordingly. It doesn't require an CfD discussion for that to happen. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christmas by medium

[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. Kbdank71 19:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Christmas by medium to Category:Christmas media
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This isn't really an "X by Y" category, but a catchall of media related to Christmas. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Seems to fit perfectly well into Category:Topics by medium to me. Both old master paintings and novels are a medium, but I'm dubious they are part of the Media (communication) as the term is normally used: "In communication, media (singular medium) are the storage and transmission channels or tools used to store and deliver information or data. It is often referred to as synonymous with mass media or news media, but may refer to a single medium used to communicate any data for any purpose.[1][2][3]". I'm not sure that really includes Fra Angelico or J.S. Bach! Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the latter point, there is no "Christmas radio" or "Christmas editorials" category, so I think it is reasonable for them to go there. The first point puzzled me too. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Selected Shorts

[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. Kbdank71 19:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Selected Shorts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This categorizes works that have been read before an audience and broadcast on the NPR/PRI radio program Selected Shorts. It is not defining for the works in question. This is a type of "work by performance" overcategorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Byzantine secular architecture

[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: relisted on Dec 10 because category wasn't tagged.. Kbdank71 15:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Byzantine secular architecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unneccesary category, WP:OC, articles should be merged into Category:Byzantine architecture and this deleted. --K1eyboard (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 21:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose The scheme has Category:Byzantine sacred architecture with 71 churches, monasteries etc, and this. Why nominate one & not the other? Given the minute categorization of more modern and European architecture/buildings, the case needs to be made much better that this is OCAT. I don't see it. The category is well-populated with several sub-cats & articles in the main cat. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:To Kill a Mockingbird

[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: relisted on Dec 10 since the characters category wasn't tagged.. Kbdank71 15:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:To Kill a Mockingbird (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: One of the three articles is Harper Lee and this is a subcat. (the only one--probably the only one ever) of Category:Novels by Harper Lee. The subcat of this has only two articles in it. Simply put, there isn't enough content to warrant a category for this novel, unless possibly the subcat. is merged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:To Kill a Mockingbird characters into Category:To Kill a Mockingbird. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 04:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bushranger Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Inactive Lockheed Martin products

[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 to Category:Lockheed Martin. Kbdank71 15:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Inactive Lockheed Martin products (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OC, oddly/misleadingly named, and vaguely broad. Articles should be upmerged to Category:Lockheed Martin or the appropriate other subcat of same, and this deleted. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 04:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Supoort per Bushranger. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Victims of Communist repressions in Poland 1939-1989

[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. Kbdank71 19:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Victims of Communist repressions in Poland 1939-1989 to Category:Victims of communist repressions in Poland
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Is the date disambiguation really necessary? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Gliders to aircraft

[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/merge all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:PZL gliders to Category:PZL aircraft
Propose merging Category:Rolladen-Schneider gliders to Category:Rolladen-Schneider aircraft
Propose renaming Category:SZD gliders to Category:SZD aircraft
Propose merging Category:Schempp-Hirth gliders to Category:Schempp-Hirth aircraft
Propose renaming Category: Schleicher gliders to Category: Schleicher aircraft
Propose merging Category:Schweizer gliders to Category:Schweizer aircraft
Nominator's rationale: Merge and/or rename. These categories, subcats of Category:Glider aircraft, include gliders by these manufacturers. Which seems logical, until you realise there's a seperate Category:Aircraft by manufacturer category, that uses the 'Foowerks aircraft' naming format, and these cats are either listed there as well, breaking that system, or are subcats of their '(Mfg.) aircraft' category, which smells of WP:OC. Especially since a very large number (majority) of articles on glider types are not categorised this way. Therefore these should all be either merged into their appropriate '(Mfg.) aircraft' categories, or renamed to such. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 03:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Bushranger. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

US architecture by year

[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 those from the 19th century.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:1802 architecture in the United States to Category:1800s architecture in the United States
Propose merging Category:1812 architecture in the United States to Category:1810s architecture in the United States
Propose merging Category:1822 architecture in the United States to Category:1820s architecture in the United States
Propose merging Category:1831 architecture in the United States to Category:1830s architecture in the United States
Propose merging Category:1881 architecture in the United States to Category:1880s architecture in the United States
Propose merging Category:1890 architecture in the United States to Category:1890s architecture in the United States
Propose merging Category:1994 architecture in the United States to Category:1990s architecture in the United States
Propose merging Category:1980 architecture in the United States to Category:1980s architecture in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Merge. A group of single entry categories with two larger ones. This is an extra level of navigation with minimal benefits from breaking out by year by country. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all 1800s merges (and any others through 1940s). "Un-strongly" Oppose (as in gently questioning) merging 1994=>1990s & 1980=>1980s, as recent design styles/projects have changes linked to a smaller time unit than a whole decade. Example, in Category:1980 architecture in the United States there is Frank Gehry's 1980 Santa Monica Place, by the late '80s he was several distinct design vocabulary shifts and scale of projects distant beyond that. Like an ill defined region, a decade seems a sloppy definer (for architecture afficionados). ---Look2See1 t a l k → 04:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Buildings and structures completed in each year of the 1980s and 1990s have categories. Architecture should apply to the design process as you are implying above and that is not the same as the year of completion since the design is generally approved and completed before construction begins. Most content in these categories is by year completed but some are neither the year designed or completed. Some like the Desert Inn are apparently included in certain years since their destruction, or other action, is a notable architecture event. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understand nom. reasoning for all years now, and Support all merges.---Look2See1 t a l k → 23:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If these categories are merged, shouldn't they be merged into both of their parent categories? - Eureka Lott 02:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No since, as an example, Category:1890 architecture is the parent for Category:1890s architecture in the United States in fact if these are kept, some category cleanup would be appropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I understand. Category:1890 architecture isn't a parent of Category:1890s architecture in the United States. - Eureka Lott 17:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all merges Have you observed the immense number of articles present in the year-based categories? Each of the single-entry categories could be populated with dozens more entries; I created these categories in anticipation of the approval of a bot to move all US buildings into year-based categories. For an example, look at Category:1802 architecture — thirty of the thirty-nine entries in this category are in the United States, and could thus fit into Category:1802 architecture in the United States. Nyttend (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if you are doing this for the buildings, then they should be in the buildings tree and under architecture if that is appropriate. Almost every article in the architecture by year scheme is about buildings and not architecture. The fact that 37 out of 39 articles in a category are from one country is not a reason to split the category. We already have buildings by country and by completion status so adding by year completed makes sense. However do we really need categories for the various intersections? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all merges per nom. --Kbdank71 19:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Western Cape Provincial Parks

[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, no objection was noted. Kbdank71 16:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Western Cape Provincial Parks to Category:Provincial nature reserves of the Western Cape
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is for protected areas administered by CapeNature, which is an agency of the Provincial Government of the Western Cape. A full list of potential members of the category is given in the CapeNature article. The current category name is indisputably wrong, since none of them are ever referred to as "Parks"; with the exception of three "Wilderness Areas" they are called "Nature Reserves". "Provincial" in the name is necessary for disambiguation, since there are also municipal and private nature reserves. I considered a name including "CapeNature", but decided against it since the agency has changed names several times in the past; what is significant is that they are nature reserves administered by the provincial government. "Provincial nature reserve" is also the name used in the World Database on Protected Areas (example). htonl (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_24&oldid=1074806031"