[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 26

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log
< May 25 May 27 >

May 26

edit

Category:Architecture firms in 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: rename. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Architecture firms in the United States to Category:Architecture firms of the United States
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, as a follow up to the next item down as per the convention of Category:Companies of the United States, and of categories of companies in general. Baridiah 23:54, 26 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:Australian architecture firms

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Australian architecture firms to Category:Architecture firms of Australia
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, as per convention of category:Companies of Australia. Baridiah 23:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - current wording is easier to type and shorter; is what people would think of first; and all architecture firms in Australia are Australian architecture firms anyway - there's no need for a useless change of words. Let's stop these nonsense "convention" changes and leave the categories the way they are. JRG 08:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename Let's stop Wikipedia looking like a sloppy amateurish looking mess. Postlebury 11:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amateur-looking mess? How is changing a category to something more convoluted and harder to find going to help that? JRG 13:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By following a style sheet, like things have names that follow a pattern so that if you know one, you can generally predict what any other would be like. If you use random names, then you can not predict another name and that is unprofessional and sloppy. Vegaswikian 19:51, 27 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:Ex-gay people

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 no consensus. --Kbdank71 01:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ex-gay people to Category:People identified as ex-gay
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, According to the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association just to name two institutions that state sexual orientation is immutable. Therefore, the name "ex-gay" is scientifically inappropriate and may violate NPOV. Individuals may identity as "ex-gay"; therefore, changing the name to reflect this seems to be the appropriate course of action. Psy guy Talk 23:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that the category leads to all sorts of Original Research is valid, as everyone will start tossing people into the category, but then the desire to claim every gay person by the LGBT community is equally POV. ie: why should someone's choice of lover ("what we do in the bedroom is our own business") require they adopt the LGBT agenda with it's pretty rainbow sidebar?--Knulclunk 14:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The term "gay" is much more easily recognized than "ex-gay". People are generally aware of what the phrase "she is gay" means, whereas the meaning of the phrase "he is ex-gay" is not as immediately discernible. The "People who identify as..." modifier might make it more clear that Ted Haggard, for example, should probably not be placed in the category. Joie de Vivre 15:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Couldn't the above concerns be addressed by an introductory paragraph that defines the category in a nuanced, NPOV way instead of try to cram it into a convoluted title? --Knulclunk 15:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This comment presupposes an understanding of "ex-gay" as a question of mental identity, which (as I've pointed out above) is not a ubiquitous definition. If being ex-gay actually involves a change in sexual orientation, there is a factual question beyond mere self-identification. That's why I, and others, are advocating for a more neutral Category:People who self-identify as ex-gay or Category:People who identify as ex-gay, which doesn't differentiate between interpretations of "ex-gay" and doesn't assume an answer to the change in sexual orientation quesiton. Fireplace 17:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point was actually that the claim of having experienced something oneself should be at least equally valid to the opinion of the American Psychiatric Association. --Eliyak T·C 15:34, 4 June 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: Georgia (U.S. state) in the American Civil War

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: not rename. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename category: Georgia (U.S. state) in the American Civil War to category: Georgia in the American Civil War — Would anyone seriously think it would be any other Georgia? radiojon 05:49, 26 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:DC Comics villains, non-superpowered

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:DC Comics villains, non-superpowered to Category:DC Comics supervillains
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:Webcasters in 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 speedy deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Webcasters in united states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Completes a set with the three categories below. Similar reasoning applies. Haddiscoe 18:30, 26 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Webcasters in California

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 speedy deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Webcasters in California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Contains one radio station. So many radio stations do webcasts that creating a duplicate set of categories on this basis is pointless. Haddiscoe 18:29, 26 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Webcasters in united states by state

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Webcasters in united states by state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Listcruft. Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of webcasters in California. Corvus cornix 17:53, 26 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Webcasters in north america by country

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Webcasters in north america by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Listcruft. Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of webcasters in California Corvus cornix 17:52, 26 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:Daugavpils airport

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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Daugavpils airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category for airports near the Latvian city of Daugavpils. There are not enough airports in Latvia to justify adding superfluous subcats. Note that the cat is currently empty but this is simply due to the fact that I first upmerged the cat's content (consisting of a single article). Note that Daugavpils has a population around 100K people so I doubt that there are more than a couple of airports in that region. Pascal.Tesson 16:51, 26 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hell's Kitchen (TV series)

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. Note for this and all further noms: Musicpvm's statement (found at the bottom of the page) is an empty argument (paraphrased, "I object to this mass nom ... find the cats useful ... and don't understand why they're being deleted"). In essence he is objecting to several dozen nominations on procedural grounds, not bothering to give an argument to the actual content. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hell's Kitchen (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category is not needed for the material in it. Otto4711 15:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Following cleanup there are two articles and one sub-cat. Your statement that this is sufficient content contradicts your statement here. I am curious as to whether that previous statement is an accurate reflection of your position and if so why this category should be retained in light of it. Otto4711 19:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You usually do the cleanup before nominating and when I left this comment there was sufficient content. Anyway these are currently running series so have potential for growth. Tim! 11:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see you created the Category:Hell's Kitchen (TV series) episodes on 30 May, after this nomination. Tim! 11:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I assumed that the average Wikipedian could figure out that the bulk of the content belonged in an episodes subcat. I note that your "potential for growth" argument was rejected here. Otto4711 00:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was endorsed here Tim! 08:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a "no consensus" closure isn't an endorsement. Otto4711 12:51, 3 June 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:Heartbeat (TV series)

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. "There is material" is not grounds for keeping a cat. "There is no material" is grounds for speedy deletion, so nearly all cats on CFD have "material". >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Heartbeat (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the material does not require an eponymous category. Otto4711 15:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are four articles which are all linked to each other through the text, including sectional links through the main article and "see also" sections. What specifically does this category accomplish in navigational terms that isn't already accomplished by the interlinkages? Otto4711 19:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It allows a simple navigation between articles on a similar topic, whereas the categories in which for example Heartbeat (characters and cast) is in, would lead to characters in other television series which readers are less likely to be interested in. As the number of articles about Heartbeat grows, the interlinking through see also sections will not scale, and will not benefit from the dynamic properties of categories. Tim! 11:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're assuming that more articles will be written about the series, something that is far from assured, and that those articles won't be as easily navigable from the article and other articles, which is also far from assured. In your specific example, should someone find themselves at Heartbeat (characters and cast) and wish to read more about Heartbeat, they will have no problem finding the information as the very first sentence of the article contains a link to Heartbeat (TV series). Otto4711 19:39, 2 June 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:The Honeymooners

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Honeymooners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - absent the improperly categorized articles for people associated with the show, the remaining material does not require a category for navigational purposes. Otto4711 15:06, 26 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:Home and Away

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Home and Away (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category is not needed for the material. Otto4711 15:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are two articles, each of which is linked to the other and both of which are appropriately otherwise categorized, and a subcat whose contents are in the main article for the show and that's part of the characters by series tree. What specifically does this category provide for navigational purposes that isn't accomplished by the extensive interlinking amongst its constituents? Otto4711 19:24, 26 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:HolbyBlue

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:HolbyBlue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - empty except for a characters sub-cat. Otto4711 14:57, 26 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:Hee Haw

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hee Haw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - everything except the show article is for performers which is improper overcategorization. Category not needed. Otto4711 14:56, 26 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.

By-year subcats of Category:Transportation disasters by year

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. --Kbdank71 02:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming all the by-year sub-categories of the sub-categories Category:Transportation disasters by year from the format "xxx disasters in YMCD" to "YMCD xxx disasters" per convention of Category:Categories by year (including the parent category Category:Disasters by year, and to facilitate use of the {{Year by category}} and {{BDDecadesInCentury}} navigation templates, which both rely on the "YMCD (in) foo" format.

Category:Transportation disasters by year
Propose renaming Category:Transportation disasters in 1120 to Category:1120 Transportation disasters
Category:Transportation disasters in 1527 to Category:1527 Transportation disasters
etc
Category:Maritime incidents by year
Propose renaming Category:Maritime incidents in 1120 to Category:1120 maritime incidents
Category:Maritime incidents in 1527 to Category:1527 maritime incidents
etc
Category:Railway accidents by year
Propose renaming Category:Railway accidents in 1815 to Category:1815 Railway accidents
Category:Railway accidents in 1847 to Category:1847 Railway accidents
etc
Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by year
Propose renaming Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1913 to Category:1913 Aviation accidents and incidents
Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1921 to Category:1921 Aviation accidents and incidents
etc
Category:Road accidents by year
Propose renaming Category:Road accidents in 2002 to Category:2002 road accidents
Category:Road accidents in 2003 to Category:2003 road accidents
etc

Nominators rationale: These sub-categories of Category:Disasters by year (and Category:Natural disasters by year, see CfD May 23) are rare exceptions to the convention of Category:Categories by year, which is MCDY whatever or MCDY in whatever. Category trees such as these are much easier to use if they follow a consistent format, and a significant part of CfD's workload is standardising category names. These disaster categs should not be an exception to the convention which works for hundreds of stuff by year categories in all sorts of fields, including Category:Earthquakes in the 21st century, Category:Years in architecture, Category:Disestablishments by year, Category:Establishments by year, Category:Crimes by year, Category:Conferences by year, Category:Elections by year, Category:Films by year, Category:Law by year, Category:Singles by year, Category:Television awards by year and Category:20th century television program debuts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will now start tagging the individual sub-categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging now complete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all The existing format is better English, and given the number of categories involved I don't see how these can be described as "rare". Haddiscoe 22:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Rarity is a relative thing. There are four or five of these "xxx by year" categories which use "xxx in YMCD", but hundreds which use "YMCD xxx". In this case, there are indeed several hundred sub-categories involved, but those are very rare when compared with the tens of thousands of sub-categories named according to the "YMCD xxx" convention.
      Category names are frequently a balancing act between English grammar and other constraints such as consistency, and CfD's convention is to prioritise consistency over grammar, which is why (for example) so many sub-categories of Category:New Zealand use "New Zealand" as an adjective. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Tim! 09:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wikipedia's tendency to use bad grammar is a result of a couple of factors which should be resisted: its geeky origins, and a tendency to assume that the greatest possible brevity is required that seems to be a carry-over from paper reference books. Postlebury 11:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Using years as adjectives is more confusing and needless. It is fine the way it is. – Zntrip 00:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've never seen this as a problem, and in fact have often wondered if we should instead be moving things the other way round - making this the rule, not the exception. Makes for much easier reading, and Postlebury's right - we don't need to balance between brevity and grammer, we can prioritise grammer, because we're not paper. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Like Blood Read Sandman, I am in favour of making the status quo for these categories the rule, rather than the exception. Bluap 03:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you counted how many thousands of categories would have to be changed to achieve that, and how many category navigation templates would need to duplicated along the way, all for a marginal improvement in grammar and little gain in clarity? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Manually, one. There must be a bot somewhere that can do it once we show it how. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unless there is such a bot, and it is available for this enormous job, and such a change is also agreed at CfD, then all that your vote achieves in inconsistency in category names. --15:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, at some point I'll start asking around and see if anyone has a bot they'd be willing to volounteer for it - bots often do a lot of work cleaning up after CfDs. As for reaching a consensus, isn't that what we're discusing now? If there hasn't been enough discusion at the end to decide whether or not to implement this new idea (as I suspect there won't) then we can allways relist the whole lot and start all over again. It's not quite so daunting as it may seem. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I suggest that you look more closely at the by-year categories, and the category navigation templates use both on those categories and on their parent by-decade and by-century categories. I don't think that a bot can do it without a huge amount of human effort and template changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I get the impression (<- should that only be one "s"? Bearing in mind I use Brittish English) that there are a number of bots availible regularly for CfD cleanup. If each of them was assigned a chunk to do, between them they should get it done overnight sometime. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The "XXXX YYYY" form is ugly and ambiguous. As there is no reason to use it other than consistency with bad precedents, it would be better to start making an effort to move the convention the other way. Hawkestone 23:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't buy the nom's rationale...keeping these in current form provides no increased workload to anyone at WP. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:12, 5 June 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:Pirates of the Caribbean locations

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category tended to pop up in articles about real locations, which seems to have had the effect of the article on the real location being the subject of unbalanced editing. For instance the Tortuga article had a huge Pirates of the Caribbean infobox and a comparatively large section about events in the film. To fix this, I've merged all fictional articles (which were all stubs) and all Pirates of the Caribbean-related sections from non-fictional articles into a single Geography of Pirates of the Caribbean article, making this navigational category redundant. --Tony Sidaway 11:57, 26 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:CIS

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:CIS to Category:Commonwealth of Independent States
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Spell out the abbreviation to avoid ambiguity. Tim! 08:51, 26 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:Georgian 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 rename to WikiProject Georgia (country) articles. --Kbdank71 01:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgian articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete to prevent confusion with category:Georgian (country). Brandon97 02:56, 26 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Congolese musicians

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Congolese musicians to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo musicians
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. The only content is the subcategory listed below, which relates to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire), as opposed to the separate independent country of the Republic of the Congo. Annandale 02:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Musicians of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (which I've just found). -- roundhouse 01:25, 27 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:Congolese singers

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Congolese singers to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo singers
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. All 3 singers are from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire), as opposed to the separate independent country of the Republic of the Congo. Annandale 02:27, 26 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:Congolese writers

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Congolese writers to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo writers
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The only content is the subcategory listed below, which relates to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire), as opposed to the separate independent country of the Republic of the Congo.. Annandale 02:25, 26 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:Congolese short story writers

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Congolese short story writers to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo short story writers
Nominator's Rationale: Rename The only article is about a writer from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire), as opposed to the separate independent country of the Republic of the Congo. Annandale 02:23, 26 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:Prisoners convicted of white-collar crimes

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 "white collar criminals" >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into Category:Fraudsters, unless I am missing some other type of crime that is covered. Haddiscoe 18:34, 26 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:Noh Matta Wat!

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Noh Matta Wat! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category is not required for this material. Otto4711 00:43, 26 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:The Nick Cannon Show

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Nick Cannon Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - other than the show article everything is for people associated with the show. This is overcategorization and the show doesn't need an eponymous category. Otto4711 00:42, 26 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:Nashville Star

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Nashville Star (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - absent the improperly categorized performer articles, there is no need for this category to navigate the remaining material. Otto4711 00:39, 26 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:Northern Exposure

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Northern Exposure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the items in the category do not require categorization for navigational purposes. Otto4711 00:37, 26 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:Night Court

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Night Court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - one article, one sub-category, no need for this for navigating the material. Otto4711 00:36, 26 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:The Nanny (TV series)

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Nanny (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the category is not required for navigating the material in it. Otto4711 00:35, 26 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:NYPD Blue

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< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:NYPD Blue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - material in the category does not warrant it for navigational purposes. Otto4711 00:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, I don't agree with this recent mass deletion of television series categories. They are extremely useful for navigation. Even if all the links are included in the main article, that does not make the category useless. I don't understand this need to make Wikipedia harder to navigate for users. Nothing is being accomplished by these deletions. --musicpvm 23:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Excessive categorization makes it hard for the category box to be useful. It gets cluttered. Doczilla 06:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply In addition to clutter Doc mentioned, there is also the aspect that duplicating navigation with little benefit to the reader significantly increases the amount of total maintainence to handle category changes. If something changes in a show, for example, no matter what else happens you will end up updating the show's main article. But when the show also has its own eponymous category, you have to update not only the main article but also potentially other articles within the same category and maybe even the category itself. This would be alright if there was a noticable navigational benefit to the reader, but in most cases there isn't because in most cases the reader can easily find all the associated article links within the show's main article. Thus the purpose of these deletions is to reduce unneeded editorial maintainence without negatively impacting a reader's ability to find appropriate articles related to the shows involved. Dugwiki 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Everything should be in nav boxes or links at the main article; I also agree with Doczilla's point. Carlossuarez46 23:00, 27 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:Marylebone

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 westminster & delete. >Radiant< 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Marylebone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Nominated under a similar rationale as Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 3#Category:Norwood Places have undefined boundaries, whereas Boroughs have defined areas. Over categorisation could add to confusion. Regan123 00:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it actually matter if the boundaries are not clearly defined (which I don't think they are not as I have a map which marks them)- surely what matters is that some places ARE most definitely in and associated with Marylebone. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't well defined pre 1965 either, at least not on a permanent basis. Historically the main division of London was into parishes, very few of which matched the modern neighbourhoods at any time, and of course they were frequently subdivided and otherwise amended. Haddiscoe 22:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you denying that these places are associated with Marylebone? The Borough categories are absolutely useless if I want to look at things near each other- something in one end of a Borough may be a great distance from something the other side- whereas I can arrive at one of these places and then look in the Marylebone category, then click on another place then click on the category and go to another place without clicking back to the Marylebone page every time. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too many categories for London neighbourhoods would present definition problems. All the articles about each neighbourhood should be linked from its article. In any case Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Haddiscoe 22:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an "other crap might exist" argument rather than a problem with this category. I would be happy to see the removal of neighbourhood categories if they do not have reasonably clearly defined boundaries, and probably if they intersect borough boundaries; but the extent of Category:Marylebone can be simply and clearly defined as "the boundaries of the former Metropolitan Borough of St Marylebone". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The west half of Fitzrovia up to Cleveland Street used to be considered to be in Marylebone (possibly still is?) but as far as I can see that is the only one that really overlaps. The Metropolitan borough also included Lisson Grove, St John's Wood and Regent's Park (which used to be called Marylebone Park). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are passionate about this particular category, and you don't know what boundaries to use yourself! What about the hundreds of other problems that would exist with hundreds of other such categories? Postlebury 11:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now The Westminster category is much too big, with well over 200 articles in the main category (which already should exclude streets). It should be divided either by type or by neighbourhood. I don't think here is the place to discuss which. Either would work in my view, & local editors should decide. It should be a simple matter to ensure that whichever neighbourhood boundaries are used are defined and explained in the main articles. Johnbod 03:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Gustav von Humpelschmumpel doesn't know what boundaries to use himself for this one! If lots of people took the boundary setting issue seriously there would be endless disputes. But it's more likely that most of the boundary definition problems would not be addressed systematically, and we would have hundreds of overlapping and potentially misleading categories. Creating such a scheme would just not be worth the hassle.Postlebury 11:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My, you do worry! I can't see it myself. Most Westminster districts have most edges pretty clearly defined. But I repeat this should be a matter for the Wikiprojects & not here. Johnbod 21:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every single category is a matter for this page. There are no circumstances in which this page is not the proper place to make decisions about the fate of categories. Haddiscoe 22:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are some regulars here who appear to revel in their ability to make snap judgements about complicated matters they have often considered in only the most superficial way; I am emphatically not one of them. Whilst this is the decision-making location for category changes, large matters should achieve concensus at the local page, and within the relevant project(s) before coming here. Johnbod 12:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That basically means that you are advocating debates being fixed, and the people on this page being disenfranchised. AshbyJnr 09:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment OK- admittedly after finding out about the Fitzrovia problem I can see how this could get confusing if we start making new categories based on boundaries that have changed over time. It seemed like a good idea at the time (obviously!). I won't mind as long as most of the places can be linked on the Marylebone article if they aren't already. Perhaps we can work out a way to allow people to search for places that are near to each other using the co-ordinate tags in articles? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Westminister category is not too big. There is no ideal category size. One set of local subcategories for London is quite enough. Postlebury 11:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any mixed category with over 100 members is probably too big in my book. Johnbod 21:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but I can see a few problems as pointed out above- i.e. do we put places in Fitzrovia in a Category:Fitzrovia, and Category:Marylebone because they have been considered to be in both at different times? What about streets where one side or one end is in one district and one side or end is in another (although I imagine there is sometimes overlaps for Boroughs on this too)? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear you go with the current usage. I'd be ready to have streets only in the Westminster sub-category for them, so just institutions etc by district 22:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That the North side of the Western end of Oxford St marks the start of Marylebone, and the South side of Mayfair, is surely one of the clearest of all Central London district boundaries. But other bits are the edges of Soho & Fitzrovia; that is why I think streets should all be in Westminster - you are then only left with streets demarcating borough boundaries. Personally I don't find Category:Buildings and structures in Westminster the most obvious place to look for the Groucho Club or Conservative Campaign Headquarters. Johnbod 12:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete There are several precedents for deleting such categories, which were based on the sort of the reasons discussed above. Osomec
    • It won't actually need merging as I didn't remove the Westminster category. It would be nice as I stated above to be able to search for places, streets etc. that are close to the one you are looking at- perhaps this facility can be developed in the future? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per discussion above. LukeHoC 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep originally I felt that to introduce such a category would damage the general taxonomy for London as a whole. In conversation with Gustav and others, I realise that Marylebone has sufficiently differential characteristics to the rest of Westminster that there may be some value to having a separate category, providing it doesn't provide any kind of precedent for the rest of London. The other question is what damage does it do? It hasn't removed these places/buildings from their relationship with other categories in Westminster, merely signified a new relationship. Compared to other boroughs, it is sufficiently dense in objects/history to bear it. Kbthompson 13:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete One can make a case for any district having "sufficiently differential characteristics", indeed one can make a stronger such case for most other central London districts. Marylebone is one of central London's least distinctive districts. Hawkestone 23:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a bad precedent. AshbyJnr 09:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:Wimbledon, London! Kbthompson 16:11, 3 June 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_26&oldid=1138388754"