Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 28: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:38, 29 September 2007

< September 27	September 29 >

September 28

Category:City of Miramichi, New Brunswick

Propose merging Category:City of Miramichi, New Brunswick into Category:Miramichi, New Brunswick

Nominator's rationale: The categories are identical in scope, but the latter is a shorter formulation and actually matches the title of the main article: Miramichi, New Brunswick. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. LeSnail 00:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:City of Miramichi, New Brunswick (The other category (Category:Miramichi, New Brunswick) should be deleted, because it is ambiguous. It is unclear whether the category refers to the region, the city, the river, or all three. This has caused some confusion as to what should be included in the category. The Miramichi as a region is quasi-synonymous with Northumberland County, New Brunswick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesfreck (talk • contribs) 04:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This confusion could be fairly easily cleared up by adding a note to the category page: e.g. The main article for this category is Miramichi, New Brunswick. I'm not certain why it would be confused with the river or the valley since the appropriate titles for those would be Category:Miramichi River and Category:Miramichi Valley or Category:Miramichi Valley, New Brunswick (although, in general, we don't create eponymous categories for rivers and valleys). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Miramichi, New Brunswick

Category:Miramichi, New Brunswick - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete Redundant to Category:City of Miramichi, New Brunswick. Alksub 23:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. --Alksub 00:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is actually Category:City of Miramichi, New Brunswick which should be deleted; the nominated category matches the title of the main article: Miramichi, New Brunswick. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category:Miramichi, New Brunswick is ambiguous, because it isn't clear whether it refers to "Miramichi" as the region, the river, the city, or all three. The Miramichi region does not differ markedly from the Category:Northumberland County, New Brunswick. A distinctive category is however needed for the city of Miramichi (i.e., the existing category Category:City of Miramichi, New Brunswick) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesfreck (talk • contribs) 04:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles keeping update

Propose renaming Category:Articles keeping update to Category:Articles verified to be up to date

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Grammar correction, and to avoid affirming the correctness of articles. Alksub 23:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The content does not seem to match the introduction as to usage. Also, do we need this? Vegaswikian 00:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really don't see a need for this category, since a category can't tell us when an article was verified to be up to date. It's probably better if the WikiProject maintains a list of articles and when they were verified. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:WikiProject Update articles, WikiProject convention. Move tags to talk pages only. If a project wants to take on the task of monitoring certain pages and keeping them up to date, I'm all for that. But it keep its tags on talk pages only, just as all the other WikiProjects do. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be fine too, I suppose, although I still think the purpose of this category is better suited to a list. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename.The purpose of the project is to encourage to keep articles updated (many don't once they become "established". A list is not suitable as it would need the permanent attention of members and the project doesn't encourage membership but instead integration of its purpose to the normal editing of any contributor. Seems a good idea to change the name of the category to Category:Articles verified to be up to date for accuracy and grammar ℒibrarian2 14:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with a category is that an article that was "verified" and added to the category six months ago may no longer belong. However, with a category, it's impossible to tell when the article was added (unless you dig through each article's revision history ... very time-consuming for heavily-edited articles). Moreover, the claim that an article has been "verified to be up to date" contradicts Wikipedia:General disclaimer, which states: "Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here". Finally, a number of articles in the category are wholly or mostly unsourced; they should not be tagged as "verified". – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating already exists; why can't the WikiProject just work off of that? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The name proposed is good anough. It could also be Category:Articles verified to be up to date plus month and year as other categories. The category doesn't speak about verified sources so it has no relevance on that subject. A category that says that the article was not left as created becoming outdated is a good thing. If wanting to avoid "verified", then use "reviewed" as Category:Articles reviewed to be up to date. I don't see anyone taking care of that, sources, citations, cleanup, all is done, but few times I see update tags and a Wikiproject encouraging editors to make "update-watch" part of their daily edits is a good thing Heltzen ◩ 18:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly is a good thing, but since "verified" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, it's best to avoid it in this case. Also, since this is essentially a WikiProject category, can we agree that (if kept) it should appear on talk pages only, as suggested by ProveIt? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - So, that is why I proposed "reviewed" in my previous comment. About your other comment, why are we talking about "if kept" if this is a rename proposal? and why do you want I agree to something? I just think the WikiProject Update Watch idea is a good one and I have integrated it in my edits that's all I have to do with it. Personally, I have seen other projects using the main page for less positive things and I don't see nothing negative in a template the size of a "see portal" that let people know that update is important, but that is my private and personal opinion and will not debate on it Heltzen ◩ 18:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian autobiographies

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian autobiographies into Category:Notable Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: The scope of the two categories is identical. Moreover, virtually all of the members of the former are already located in the latter. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge although technically a biography of a Wikipedian may not be an autobiography - it's hard to say why one merits a separate treatment and how much of the content being by the subject makes the biography an autobiography given that anyone can edit anything. Carlossuarez46 23:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Newington College teachers

Rename to Category:Newington College teachers, no need for current / former distinction. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Current / former distinction is not only unnecessary but problematic. LeSnail 00:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and LeSnail. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uncategorized from June 2007

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 delete per CSD G6 (housekeeping) as an empty maintenance category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uncategorized from June 2007 - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: added back after deletion since editor said category repopulated. At this time, the category has no entries and therefore, should be deleted. 172.164.186.174 16:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Skeleton athletes

Category:Skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Cateogory:Skeleton racers
Category:American skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:American skeleton racers
Category:Australian skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Australian skeleton racers
Category:Austrian skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Austrian skeleton racers
Category:British skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:British skeleton racers
Category:Canadian skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Canadian skeleton racers
Category:Croatian skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Croatian skeleton raacers
Category:Dutch skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Dutch skeleton racers
Category:English skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:English skeleton racers
Category:German skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:German skeleton racers
Category:Iraqi skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Iraqi skeleton racers
Category:Italian skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Italian skeleton racers
Category:Japanese skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Japanese skeleton racers
Category:Latvian skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Latvian skeleton racers
Category:New Zealand skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:New Zealand skeleton racers
Category:Russian skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Russian skeleton racers
Category:Scottish skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Scottish skeleton racers

Rename all to match Category:Olympic skeleton racers, and to reduce the Athletes / Sportspeople confusion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Neier 23:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support but prefer "Foo skeleton sled racers" to help the ignorant & puzzled like me. Johnbod 02:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support all per nom.--Mike Selinker 11:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Phoenix Wright

Propose renaming Category:Phoenix Wright to Category:Ace Attorney

Nominator's rationale: Because the fourth instalment in the series (Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney) isn't named after Phoenix Wright, the series are called Ace Attorney on Wikipedia, not Phoenix Wright. This renaming is for consistency with List of Ace Attorney characters, Template:Ace Attorney series, etc, and because having "Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney" in the category "Phoenix Wright" is a little weird. Melsaran (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy move per nom. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:George Peabody College alumni

Rename to Category:Peabody College alumni, to match Peabody College. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. LeSnail 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filipino Athletes

Delete this is just a mess, all the members belong in other categories, do NOT merge into Category:Olympic athletes of the Philippines. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taekwondo Athlete

Rename to Category:Olympic taekwondo practitioners of the Philippines, convention of Category:Olympic taekwondo practitioners by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Can this be speedied? Neier 22:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antagonists

Delete both, We decided against using such terms as antagonist, protagonist, hero and villain as a basis for categorization. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete excessively broad, generally subjective category per so, so many precedents. Wryspy 05:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic gymnast subcats

‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Olympic artistic gymnasts
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Olympic rhythmic gymnasts
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Olympic trampoline gymnasts

Per common practice, and more recently, this CFD, we do not subcategorize single Olympic disciplines such as gymnastics. These three cats represent overcategorization within the Olympics tree. No merge within the Olympics categories is necessary, as I have verified that all of the current category members are in both the by-year cats (eg, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Gymnasts at the 2004 Summer Olympics) and the by-country cats (eg, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Olympic gymnasts of Ukraine). However, it is appropriate to upmerge each of the three to their non-Olympic parent cats (‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Artistic gymnasts, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Rhythmic gymnasts, and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Trampolinists).

Merge to non-Olympic cats, as nominated. Neier 11:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organizations established in 2000

Suggest merging Category:Organizations established in 2000 to Category:2000 establishments

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The moving of ChristianMedia.ca to Category:2000 establishments is approved by me. Thanks for reading the page and caring. DavidSpencer.ca 10:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Merging this category per nom, as well as deleting Category:ChristianMedia.ca, is approved by me. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 12:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actors who have open-mouthed kissed their real-life siblings

Category:Actors who have open-mouthed kissed their real-life siblings - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Over categorisation - and certainly smacks of encouraging original research - Peripitus (Talk) 07:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as much as I would personally anticipate seeing the development of the category. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 09:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as performer by performance. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ah, it's categories like this that make it all worthwhile, isn't it?? Definitely a no-go as a category -- but maybe this could be turned into a list, if there's reliable sourcing for enough such incidents to create a list. Of course, the reel fun would be to see the compilation clip of all those scenes! Cgingold 14:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Cgingold - but you have to admire the rigour of the category definition on the cat page. Johnbod 14:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even I am in favor of deletion. I mean, where are Angelina and her brother? Tvoz |talk 19:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 22:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although WP is not censored so the ewwww factor shouldn't apply - this is not defining. Carlossuarez46 23:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify - a good subject for a list, but a non-defining characteristic and as such not a good subject for a category. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorization. Don't even listify. Wikipedia is not a repository for every bit of trivia in the world. Wryspy 05:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Literature protagonists

Delete, please see previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasoning in ample precedent. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 03:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per precedent. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no strong opinion on deletion, but these should possibly share the resulting fate:
- Category:Literature antagonists
- Category:Film antagonists Súrendil 10:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 3 per all. Johnbod 14:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of these impractical, excessively broad categories per so, so many precedents. Wryspy 05:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 *'''Rename'''  The name proposed is good anough. It could also be [[:Category:Articles verified to be up to date]] plus month and year as other categories. The category doesn't speak about verified sources so it has no relevance on that subject. A category that says that the article was not left as created becoming outdated is a good thing. If wanting to avoid "verified", then use "reviewed" as [[:Category:Articles reviewed to be up to date]]. I don't see anyone taking care of that, sources, citations, cleanup, all is done, but few times I see update tags and a Wikiproject encouraging editors to make "update-watch" part of their daily edits is a good thing <font face="georgia">[[User:heltzen|Heltzen]][[User talk:heltzen|◩]]</font> 18:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 **It certainly ''is'' a good thing, but since "verified" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, it's best to avoid it in this case. Also, since this is essentially a WikiProject category, can we agree that (if kept) it should appear on talk pages only, as suggested by ProveIt? '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 18:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
+***So, that is why I proposed "reviewed" in my previous comment. About your other comment, why are we talking about "if kept" if this is a rename proposal? and why do you want I agree to something? I just think the WikiProject Update Watch idea is a good one and I have integrated it in my edits that's all I have to do with it. Personally, I have seen other projects using the main page for less  positive things and I don't see nothing negative in a template the size of a "see portal" that let people know that update is important, but that is my private and personal opinion and will not debate on it <font face="georgia">[[User:heltzen|Heltzen]][[User talk:heltzen|◩]]</font> 18:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 ==== Category:Wikipedian autobiographies ====