Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 10 January 12 >

January 11

[edit]

Category:10th Mountain Division (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: keep. delldot ∇. 05:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category's contents are not defined by their inclusion, which should be the standard for category use. Milhist does not have categories by formation components (think about it, logically we would have every article associated with the U.S. Army directly in one category, which defeats the purpose of the hierarchical categorisation system). As it is, the category is WP:RECENTIST; if done fully with all imaginable notable articles for the divisions since WW II, it would be completely unmanageable. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2013 (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:Christian church councils

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. delldot ∇. 05:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Church" is an exclusively Christian word. Please rename all sub-categories as well. JFHutson (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how "Christian" is helpful for this disambiguation. Local churches are Christian churches. Anyway, I don't care so much, it just sounds redundant and makes for long category names. --JFHutson (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2013 (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:Kurdish women

[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, with the possibility to recreate as a container category at some point if it's agreed it's needed. delldot ∇. 05:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I don't believe we have really discussed whether we are going to category every person by sex, by nationality and sex intersection, and by ethnicity and sex intersection, so virtually every biography will be in 3 categories in addition to all the categories they already have: Category:wo(men), Category:Fooish (nationality) (wo)men, Category:Xooish (ethnicity) (wo)men. Is this either necessary or desirable? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2013 (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 Justified Ancients of Mu Mu albums

[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. delldot ∇. 05:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same band, different name. Main article redirects to The KLF. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:36, 11 January 2013 (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:Kurdish men by occupation

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. delldot ∇. 06:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. No need to break this out by sex. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2013 (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:Kurdish male 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: keep. delldot ∇. 06:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. No need to specify by sex. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2013 (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:Power Plants of India templates by state

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be in line with the categorization of Indian power stations. Beagel (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2013 (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:Share Market Listed Public Sector Undertaking in India

[edit]

relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_21#Category:Share Market Listed Public Sector Undertaking in India delldot ∇. 06:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Amazing World of Gumball Censorship

[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category created for single editors pages, all at afd & probably will be deleted. TheLongTone (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films shot in Congo

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete G6, G7, C1. James086Talk 16:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I created this category but then I realized that there are 2 'Congo' so I created the Category:Films shot in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and now I'm requesting the deletion of the other category to avoid any confusion. Sofffie7 (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2013 (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:Indian women actors

[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: merged. —Darkwind (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category tree uses "actresses," not "women actors."  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:49, 11 January 2013 (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:Brand New

[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 to delete. delldot ∇. 02:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:44, 11 January 2013 (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:Pokémon species by type

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Pokémon species. delldot ∇. 02:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial, WP:INUNIVERSE designation. There aren't that many articles on Pokemon species anyway, so they can all be upmerged to the parent. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Add no value. --Marco (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At first, categories were only for those that had a certain amount(~10 or more). Then somebody decided to come and make the rest of the categories. So yes, Steel and Dark(which only have 1 entry each) should obviously not have categories, but the others were made with a purpose. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unneccesary, overly specific calssification of articles by a fictional characteristic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Pokémon (without keeping any redirects). The noraml solution to characters in a TV series is to merge all the articles into one article, after which a category is unnnecessary. While this may not be a TV series, the distinction is not great. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the traditional types (Fire, Water, Electric, Fighting, Grass, Psychic), and upmerge the rest: pbp 16:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Traditional types? What is that? Why would you keep Electric(with 4 articles), and not Poison(with 10)? Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because Electric was one of the six original basic energies, and Poison wasn't. <Crotchety>Back in my day, there were only six types of Pokemon</Crotchety>. Sorry for going all old-school pbp 19:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, is that referring to the TCG? I never played much of that. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Pokémon species, not Category:Pokémon as Peterkingiron suggests.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:Pokémon test, all the article should be merged into a list, so there is no need for categories -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As much as I don't want to get worked up about your comment and go on a rant, I will do it anyways... First off, "WP:Pokémon test"(The Pokémon Test) was an "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" arguement for AfDs in the form of "Pokémon have articles, so why not this". All of the Pokémon were then merged, other then a few select ~5, so that argument is no longer valid. Ever since around almost 3 years ago, various articles have been recreated using reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Some of the recreated are still quite lacking, and we notice that, but a good deal have been made that do. So I take offense when anybody says that "Every Pokémon should be deleted/merged", because it just shows that they have the highest level of ignorance. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you would like to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Pokédex then? Many fictional characters more notable than most individual Pokemon/species have been merged into lists, I see no reason for Pokemon to be exceptional in this. There are not so many Pokemon that need full articles (as opposed to sections in a list) to need such a hierarchy of categories. There exists "pokemon.wikia.com" and "bulbapedia" for your uses. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • See, there you go with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS again, and attacking the subject as a whole. We have found sources to establish notability for select articles(88 articles out of 649 species, but some articles have multiple Pokémon, so its probably between 100-110 species.) If you want to discuss individual articles, just start a discussion on the talkpage of the ones you feel to be weakest, and I am sure we can come to an agreement. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Forgot to comment on the matter of reviving the "Wikiproject Pokedex" proposal. I am one of the people who opposed that. I am not saying ALL Pokemon need articles. It is not an "all or nothing" situation. Some can be notable while others aren't. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • And my opinion is not an all-or-nothing proposal either. (even my first statement is not an all-or-nothing proposal, since it would likely involve multiple lists, thus not "nothing") I just feel that the threshold for needing an article (as opposed to having an article) is higher than what you apparently do. That higher threshold would mean that no category hierarchy would be needed, as all articles would be comfortably housed in a single category. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 1)

[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 for rename. delldot ∇. 06:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 2) to Category:Wikipedia pending changes (level 2) protected pages.

It makes more sense (to me anyway) that the level of protection would be together rather than split. For example, we don't have Category:Wikipedia protected pages (semi). It should be a relativiely easy rename because {{Pp-pc1}} should be the one of the few (if not only) change required. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:28, 11 January 2013 (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:American Music Award for Favorite Pop/Rock Album

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#AWARD and where the list (see American Music Award for Favorite Pop/Rock Album) in such cases is better than categorization. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we generally discorage award categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep First off, this is slightly askew from WP:OC#AWARD, since that refers to persons and not albums. Over the course of his life, Paul McCartney has won innumerable awards, but McCartney II probably isn't winning a lot today. It's reasonable to conclude that an album will be given an award within a year or so of its release or probably not at all. And since there are only a handful of awards for albums that merit an article, I think it's fair that we could keep this scheme. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Albums can eventually be defined as "the Grammy-winning album" when referred to in reliable sources after it wins such an award. I doubt any of these albums in this category are ever described in the same manner for winning an American Music Award. This could lead to creating a category for every award category for every type of award, which is what WP:OC#Award is trying to prevent, whether for people, films, albums, songs, etc. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:11, 11 January 2013 (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:American people of Irish descent by occupation

[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 on Category:Murdered American mobsters of Irish descent and Category:American mobsters of Irish descent (now placed directly in Category:American people of Irish descent; merge and delete the rest. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose delete
  • Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Triple intersection of citizenship, ancestry, and occupation. Mayumashu (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ancestry, not ethnicity. Then there should one for Americans of English descent (the most common ancestry), of Italian descent, and of German descent, of Scotch-Irish descent, of French descent, etc. ?? Mayumashu (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For one, German is the most common, not English. For two, why the heck not? Your response smacks of being an invalid "other-stuff-doesn't-exist"/"slippery slope" argument pbp 14:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
English is but is not likely documented as being so, I'll grant you. There were categories of Americans by occupation and ancestry but they've been gradually upmerged over the last year or so. I guess some users think it should depend on the occupation, then the debate goes on as to which occupations. I prefer doing all occupations or none at all. Mayumashu (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This all just sounds like a personal preference ('I like it' or 'not') and thus has no place in any nomination or discusson here, which is all about how to best have and name categories so that their navigation use can help users find articles. Hmains (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So? If it's populated enough, it should still be kept pbp 00:17, 13 January 2013 (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/2013_January_11&oldid=1249259896"