Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 30: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:50, 6 January 2012

< December 29	December 31 >

December 30

Category:Ships damaged by aircraft

Propose deleting Category:Ships damaged by aircraft - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: While being sunk by aircraft (there's a cat for that) seems defining, merely being damaged by aerial attack doesn't seem like something that ships should be categorised by. The subcategory (kamikaze damage) seems worthy of note, but simply being strafed or bombed, not so much... The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; this isn't defining. I'm also less certain than the nom that damage by kamikaze is defining. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason that we categorize people by cause of death but we do not categorize people by every disease they ever suffered. A ship could have been damaged by arcraft, by weapons from other ships, by land based weapons, by whales hitting it, by termites and who knows what else. This is not a defining characteristic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories with redlink or redirect music producers

Category:Albums produced by Baby Paul - Template:Lc1 (links to redirect link, redundant to Category:Albums produced by Da Beatminerz)

Category:Albums produced by E-Swift - Template:Lc1 (links to redirect link)

Category:Albums produced by Dot da Genius - Template:Lc1 (links to redirect link)

Category:Albums produced by The Inkredibles - Template:Lc1 (links to redlink)

Category:Albums produced by Young RJ - Template:Lc1 (links toredlink)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Categories for music producers that either link to redlink deleted articles or redirects. QuasyBoy 20:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NGC objects templates

Category:NGC objects templates - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Category only has one object in it. Cocoaguy ここがいい 18:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there seems to be a few more, depending on what this category is supposed to categorize... Special:PrefixIndex/template:NGC. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if this is a proposal to delete. The nominator should clarify. Membership in Category:Astronomy external link templates should be good enough for now. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gettysburg Battlefield

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: don't merge. This isn't a "Keep" since there are no other "Places of the" categories, so it seems likely to change again. But not into Category:Gettysburg Battlefield.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield to Category:Gettysburg Battlefield

Nominator's information: I came across this category in a round-about way when I was looking for articles on the Gettysburg Battlefield. Category:Gettysburg Battlefield only has a few of the articles and I saw it had lots of links to Commons and was categorized in numerous parent categories (someone removed them). Category:Gettysburg Battlefield now redirects the reader to Category:Battlefields of the Gettysburg Campaign which is almost entirely filled with articles and subcategories about the Gettysburg Battlefield and has no other battlefield articles (and of ~100 subcategories and articles only 4 non-Gettysburg places are listed--all populated places and not battlefield articles). Then I saw there are Category:Events on the Gettysburg Battlefield and Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield subcategories which have a whole bunch of other Gettysburg Battlefield articles (the latter I placed in Category:Battlefields of the Gettysburg Campaign and added the links that had been in the Gettysburg Battlefield category). Shouldn't all the Gettysburg Battlefield articles and subcategories be in one place?
Rationale: Right now the problem is the Gettysburg Battlefield articles are spread over 3 categories and merging Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield to Category:Gettysburg Battlefield (and diffusing Category:Battlefields of the Gettysburg Campaign) will enssure a single populated category for the subject with the same name as the article Gettysburg Battlefield. Lake Woodhouse in Denver 16:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.54.68 (talk)

Oppose – Category:Gettysburg Battlefield was made into a redirect to Category:Battlefields of the Gettysburg Campaign via a cfd and a speedy and should not have any articles or sub- or super-cats. (IMO the previous cfd was wrong, but so is this. Upmerging from specific ('places') to vague is rarely a good idea.) Occuli (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- WE had a long discussion about this quite recently. Gettysburg has a well-developed tree. From the speedy discussion it appears that some one is populating a category redirect with articles, which is not supposed to happen. I thought that there was a bot patrolling to prevent that. Adminstrative action is required against the user who is populating this category redirect. This requires an ewxperienced editor who is an expert on the subject to tidy up the cat-tree and then to guard it agaisnt the actions of overenthuiastic well-meaning but misguided editors. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, perhpas there is a better way of dealing with this: delete and salt -- That will prevent re-creation and also prevent articles being added to a cat-redirect, contrary to policy. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created a User ID (doubtful I'll have time to edit articles) since it looks like I didn't sign the nomination right--the syntax like that deceptive colon at the front category brackets takes some time to figure. It's not clear what the rationale is in the previous 2 "Oppose" posts for why readers should have to look somewhere other than Category:Gettysburg Battlefield for articles and categories about the events, images, etc. regarding the Gettysburg Battlefield. If you could, please write your specific reasons why they should have to look elsewhere (e.g., in 2 other categories, one of which isn't identified by the new redirect code.) Thanks guys. Oh, and where is the discussion mentioned in the one "Oppose"? I previously checked the Category:Gettysburg Battlefield discussion tab and there was only one comment from the guy who claimed the redirect was the result of the Cfd, but the Cfd didn't create a redirect--the redirect was created almost a year later. Could you please provide a link to the discuss you've cited? Thanks. BTW, what is "delete and salt"--will that delete Category:Places of ... and place the articles in Category:Gettysburg Battlefield? Lake Woodhouse in Denver (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger. What the November 2010 CfD did was "merge" everything that was in Category:Gettysburg Battlefield to the new target, and once that was done the category was effectively deleted. Because articles were later being placed into a deleted category (a category with an outcome that was decided in the Nov. 2010 discussion), I created the redirect so 1) I wouldn't have to move all the articles from a non-existant category myself, and 2) if it was to continue to be populated in future, it would automatically be moved to the target as decided in that earlier discussion. Category:Gettysburg Battlefield is an eponymous category and does not describe its contents if all "places" and "events" are to go in it without use of the subcategories. You don't put Uniontown, Pennsylvania into Category:Fayette County, Pennsylvania but into the subcategory Category:Populated places in Fayette County, Pennsylvania. If anything, Category:Gettysburg Battlefield can exist as a parent category for Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield and Category:Events on the Gettysburg Battlefield, but I agree with Peterkingiron that this requires an editor(s) with more experience in the subject to properly define the categories under the tree Category:Gettysburg Campaign (which seems to be the top parent) because it is getting sloppy. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2012 (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.

Why was this closed so early?

Merge: This is a no-brainer, as Category:X of Y shouldn't exist if Category Y isn't populated, and as clearly stated by the nominater (and agreed by 2 opposers): Category:Gettysburg Battlefield needs to be populated. That is, a reader should be able to directly access a populated category named "Gettysburg Battlefield" and not have to know that--unlike all other specific-place categories for battlefields, cities, landforms, etc.--this particular category name has the inappropriate "Places of..." extra words. Its kind of hard to believe anyone is opposing this, and that the Category:Gettysburg Battlefield is a redirect and even moreso, was deleted in 2010 (i.e., opposing this nomination is advocating that all categories for specific places be renamed "Places of...". and have an unpopulated redirect parent!) I haven't edited for a while and use the categories to get to articles for reference, but this nomination's opposition is a good reason to restart! Long Island Lyn (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: This is simply a C2D nomination, which is a speedy rule for which there are numerous reasons for following in this case and which have been clearly stated by the nominator and those agreeing (and 2 that oppose the nomination agree Category:Gettysburg Battlefield should exist). Why won't the opposers explain their rationale for forcing readers who go to Category:Gettysburg Battlefield to see battlefield articles & subcategories to then be advised to go to the Category:Battlefields of the Gettysburg Campaign, then to go to the subcategory Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield --a complete waste of time. I created the nominated category as a newbie for battlefield structures before Category:Gettysburg Battlefield was deleted, but I should used a more specific title (Category:Gettysburg Battlefield buildings and structures has since been created.) Why should there ever be a vaguely-named category with Places of... in the title for a specific place when a category isn't populated for that specific place? Target for Today (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New templates

Category:New templates - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: User:Stevertigo created this category in February 2009. Of the twelve templates in the category, eleven were created by Stevertigo and added to the category in the first half of 2009. (The one exception is this July 2010 userspace draft: User:JimWae/template:No-Nonce.) I see no indication that anyone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates, or elsewhere, is making use of this category. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment isn't this the purpose of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ANewPages&namespace=10 ? 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably. It certainly makes more sense as an automated process than as a manual category that's only ever been used by the guy who created the category. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't make sense to use the category system to manually update a list of the latest templates. Pichpich (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films of Weimar Germany

Propose renaming Category:Films of Weimar Germany to Category:Films of the Weimar Republic

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article and {{Country data Weimar Republic}}. The Evil IP address (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The Weimar Republic existed for a period of German history. However, a reader from (say) South America will not necessarily know what it is. I therefore consider that the retention of Germany in the title is desirable. Categories usually follow article, but not necessarily. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Echo what Bushranger stated below. The category should have the correct name to match the time period, and the cat can have a simple link/intro at the top explaining what The Weimar Republic is. Lugnuts (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I agree with Lugnuts and The Bushranger, I've added a link to Weimar Republic for clarity. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If people don't recognise the Weimar Republic as being Germany, then they need better history teachers. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films of the Third Reich

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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Films of the Third Reich to Category:Films of Nazi Germany

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article and {{Country data Nazi Germany}}. The Evil IP address (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per ze nominator. Lugnuts (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2011 (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 about communists

Propose renaming Category:Films about communists to Category:Films about communism

Nominator's rationale: Broaden scope of category. The Evil IP address (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a film about a communist need not be about communism at all. It could be a film about Che's love life, which wouldn't be about communism. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We shouldn't be categorising "films about communists" - it's nebulously defined. It's entirely possible to have a film about somebody who was a communist, with the film itself having nothing significant about communism in it at all. Films about communism, however is a very defining feature of said films, and the films about communists, in which their communist affiliation is the point of the film, are, indeed, films about communism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children's books about death

Category:Children's books about death - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: See also the similarly deleted "Children's films about death" category by the same user. A book in which someone dies or in which death is mentioned is not a "book about death." It could be a useful list - unfortunately Children's books about death, by the same user, seems to contain a lot of original research and to be more about "death in children's literature," ie. where the book is not generally "about" death in any meaningful way. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The {{copied}} template at Talk:Children's books about death reads "Text from :Category:Children's books about death was copied into Children's books about death with this edit. Category:Children's books about death now serves to provide attribution for that content in Children's books about death and must not be deleted so long as Children's books about death exists. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see this history; for its talk page, see Category talk:Children's books about death." Unfortunately, I don't think this category should be deleted because attribution for that article would be lost. Jenks24 (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- *facepalm* There should be a way to get around that, though - move the category page to a subpage of the article talk page for attribution purposes, and delete the subsequent redirect. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A better description may be "Children's stories where death occurs" or similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this actually a useful way of categorizing anything? Particularly as the user seems to be trying to include fairy tales –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment articles should not be using categories as sources. This procedure does not even make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Death in children's literature would seem to me to be more appropriate. The number of children's books which are "about" death is relatively small. Books in which a character has to come to terms with the death of a key individual as part of his or her personal journey in the story are more common, although the death may not be the main plot driver. Death is a theme that children's literature professionals (teachers, librarians) are asked about from time to time. There may be some issues around the main article in its current state but that doesn't invalidate the category, I believe. --CharlieDelta (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A category that could include any children's book in which someone died would be meaningless. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the category at present is being misused, the proposed alternative would be way to broad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this category is clearly currently using "books" not "stories". These are not synonyms and should not be treated as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Software systems

Propose merging Category:Software systems to Category:Software

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge articles only, and delete Based on an unclear definition at software system which seems to include any type of software. The category's contents seem arbitrary, and most articles would be better placed in subcategories of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Application software or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:System software. General articles could stay in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Software. Pnm (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sounds more like an upmerge to Category:Software or Category:Application software or Category:System software and not a merge to a single target. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The articles can go in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Software. (Some of the articles need further refinement.) I checked each of the subcategories, and they're already linked from the parents where they should be (‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Computer systems, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Software, or other topics), so this category can just be removed. I changed my request to upmerge articles only, then delete. – Pnm (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Programming bugs

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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Programming bugs to Category:Software bugs

Nominator's rationale: Rename per main article. Pnm (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2011 (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:Mac OS X music creation software

Propose renaming Category:Mac OS X music creation software to Category:Mac OS X audio editors

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Nothing music-specific here. Corresponds to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Audio editors and its subcategories. Pnm (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer telephony software

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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Computer telephony software to Category:Telephony software

Nominator's rationale: Rename per Telephony and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Telephony. "Computer" here seems redundant. Pnm (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2011 (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.

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 =====Why was this closed so early?=====
 *'''Merge''':  This is a no-brainer, as '''Category:X of Y''' shouldn't exist if '''Category Y''' isn't populated, and as clearly stated by the nominater (and agreed by 2 opposers): [[:Category:Gettysburg Battlefield]] needs to be populated.  That is, a reader should be able to directly access a populated category named "Gettysburg Battlefield" and not have to know that--unlike all other specific-place categories for battlefields, cities, landforms, etc.--this particular category name has the inappropriate "Places of..." extra words.  Its kind of hard to believe anyone is opposing this, and that the [[:Category:Gettysburg Battlefield]] is a redirect and even moreso, was deleted in 2010 (i.e., opposing this nomination is advocating that all categories for specific places be renamed "Places of...". and have an unpopulated redirect parent!)  I haven't edited for a while and use the categories to get to articles for reference, but this nomination's opposition is a good reason to restart!  [[User:Long Island Lyn|Long Island Lyn]] ([[User talk:Long Island Lyn|talk]]) 17:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
+*'''Agree''':  This is simply a C2D nomination, which is a speedy rule for which there are numerous reasons for following in this case and which have been clearly stated by the nominator and those agreeing (and 2 that oppose the nomination agree Category:Gettysburg Battlefield should exist).  Why won't the opposers explain their rationale for forcing readers who go to [[:Category:Gettysburg Battlefield]] to see battlefield articles & subcategories to then be advised to go to the [[:Category:Battlefields of the Gettysburg Campaign]], then to go to the subcategory [[:Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield]] --a complete waste of time.  I created the nominated category as a newbie for battlefield structures before [[:Category:Gettysburg Battlefield]] was deleted, but I should used a more specific title ([[:Category:Gettysburg Battlefield buildings and structures]] has since been created.)  Why should there ever be a vaguely-named category with '''Places of...''' in the title for a specific place when a category isn't populated for that specific place? [[User:Target for Today|Target for Today]] ([[User talk:Target for Today|talk]]) 21:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 ==== Category:New templates ====