Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 07:27, 2 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< October 8 October 10 >

October 9

[edit]

Category:Choice Hotels

[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) 01:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Choice Hotels to Category:Choice Hotels brands
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is only for the various brands that Choice Hotels operates. By renaming it makes this clear and allows for inclusion into another very appropriate parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2008 (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:Non-fiction books noted for humor

[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) 23:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Non-fiction books noted for humor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There are a hundred thousand books that could be fit into this category; currently there are 3 in this category list. Bad idea. A much more narrow category could be manageable. As-is, it's an embarassment. Tempshill (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2008 (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:Diablo characters

[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 and delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Diablo characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Populated by only one list. Pagrashtak 13:59, 9 October 2008 (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:Gubernatorial titles

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Gubernatorial titles to Category:Positions of subnational authority
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Positions of subnational authority. There is no systematic distinction being maintained between the titles listed in the parent category and those listed in the subcategory. The idea of distinguishing between titles that are issued by a central authority and those that aren't seems like an overfine distinction, and the fact that most of the titles listed are ambiguous and that most of those in the parent category are also in the subcategory tends to confirm me in this belief. Suggest merging these into a common category, open-minded as to which of the titles (or a new one) is kept. Willhsmit (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that Gubernatorial titles is the wrong name (too US Centric), but Positions of subnational authority seems too vague, as it could also apply to Mayors or even councilmen or any other sub-national government official. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we seek 'gubernatorial' on the London Times we get 100 hits, the first few mostly relating to Palin. 'Governor' gets 9900 (100 times more). Corresponding figures for NYT are 70,000 and 700,000 (10 times more). I rest my case that gubernatorial is not widely used in the UK. (All UK schools have governors, so the word governor is used frequently. I suppose we would say 'governor's XXX' rather than the more splendid 'gubernatorial XXX'.) Occuli (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2008 (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:Disambiguition

[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: Deleted' - It actually had one member which the nominator removed. However, it hadn't been created either, and was actually just a typo on a page. The nominator actually created the category page when nominating. Anyway, deleted as C1 or C2, or G6 (or as actually not existing?) take your pick. - jc37 08:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Disambiguition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty category - likely misspelling of 'disambiguation'. CultureDrone (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2008 (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:Space operas

[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. A list might not be a bad idea, but would need to be created with sources from the start, else it suffer the same OR issues. If anyone wants to undertake it, I can provide a list of articles that were in this category. Kbdank71 13:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Space operas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Listify and delete - vague, overarching category with no clear inclusion criteria. Seems to be serving as a catch-all for any space-based saga that editors stumble across, inviting original research. Cries out for a list so that reliable sources for inclusion can be added. Otto4711 (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a cursory look through some of the other subcats, some of them look like they can have objective inclusion criteria but there look to be similar issues with some of them as well. This one happened to come to my attention because I'm working on one of its constituent articles. Otto4711 (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2008 (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 supporting characters

[edit]

Category:Marvel Comics supporting characters

[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 both. Kbdank71 13:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:DC Comics supporting characters to Category:DC Comics characters
Merge Category:Marvel Comics supporting characters to Category:Marvel Comics characters

This is populated fully through WP:OR.

Consider, for example Jimmy Olsen. Should we presume that he's a "supporting character" to Superman? What about in the title Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen? What about Superman's Girl Friend, Lois Lane? Is she a supporting character? What about partnerships? What about team books? What about situations like Snapper Carr where a character which may have been presumed to be "supporting" now has superhuman abilities? (See Blasters.)

(And of course there's the problem of literary present tense.)

I thought about restricting these to comics named after a specific character, presuming that that would be the protagonist, but that's not necessarily the case. Blondie is an excellent example. Who's the protagonist there?

And of course, by using the word "supporting", it violates WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. - jc37 03:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge both - as nominator. - jc37 03:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Blondie Bumstead is in neither of the categories listed above, nor does the individual character have a standalone article, I don't think it much matters, but the Blondie strip actually started out with her as the sole lead character; marriage to Dagwood came later. But I digress... I need more explanation as to why it requires original or novel analysis to classify characters like Jimmy Olsen or Lois Lane as supporting characters. You've strangely picked as "counterexamples" some of the most recognizable supporting characters in any media, for which there should be no lack of references; even their solo titles identified them in terms of their relationship to Superman, and these roles are defining of such characters. Even lacking citations, is it OR to identify a character as "supporting" if their fictional role is as Superman's pal, Batman's butler, or Spider-man's girlfriend? Convince me. Postdlf (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The examples were actually intentional for the very reasons you state : )
    And while that may have been "originally" true of Blondie. Is it still? How about Popeye? A supporting character of Thimble Theater. (Which "originally" was about Olive Oyl, her boyfriends, family, and friends.) And I find it incredibly ironic that the latter redirects to the former : )
    How about Robin (comics)? Is he a "supporting character" to Batman? He's had several comics which he's starred in (including some alternate versions), and headlined with Batman as part of the "dynamic duo" as Batman and Robin. Again, where's the dividing line to decide when a character is "supporting"?
    And would you point out the supporting characters in Funky Winkerbean.
    Here's a fun one: How about in the film Oscar? Please name the suporting characters : )
    Convinced yet?- jc37 07:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, though I again note your strange examples: probably the first and only time the film Oscar has been referenced within the past fifteen years by anyone, let alone in support of a CFD.  ; ) I'm leaning towards listifying to contextualize to whom they are a supporting character, as it seems like it's often relative to what title we're speaking about, even though many characters are primarily supporting characters to one lead: List of Batman supporting characters (though this looks awfully in-universe right now), List of Spider-Man supporting characters, etc. Lists could also group them by role: co-workers, love interests, rivals, allies, etc. Postdlf (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Grin) Hey now, I liked Oscar : ) - jc37 04:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both - per nom. I never thought separating them was appropriate in the first place. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both - per nom. I thought we did this a long time ago. Otto4711 (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both - I agree in all respects with the nominator's justification. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2008 (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:Flora of Comoé National Park

[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. Kbdank71 13:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Flora of Comoé National Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is nothing floristically or phytogeographically distinct about this national park. A list would be fine, but a category is inappropriate. Hesperian 02:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As much as possible, we should do what real-world botanical databases do, which is follow the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. The WGSRPD goes down to country level for the most part, and even to state level for large countries like the U.S. Some parts of our category tree have already adopted the WGSRPD; e.g. Category:Flora of Australasia; but in hasn't been rolled out across the board yet. Hesperian 23:36, 9 October 2008 (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:Indie comic characters

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 17th. Kbdank71 14:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Indie comic characters to Category:Fictional characters in independent comics

Clearer name. Compare to Category:Fictional characters in comics

That said, as an alternative, perhaps this cat should be upmerged Category:Fictional characters in comics, for subsequent diffusion into its subcats. - jc37 02:24, 9 October 2008 (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:Indie comic creators

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 17th. Kbdank71 14:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Indie comic creators to Category:Independent comics creators

Clearer name. Compare to Category:Comics creators.

Else, Merge to Category:Comics creators. - jc37 02:19, 9 October 2008 (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:Indie comics

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 17th. Kbdank71 14:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Indie comics to "something" - jc37 02:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominator. - jc37 02:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename, because that's not what this category is about. Per the description and the contents, this category is intended for the comic books themselves, not the companies, though a few company subcategories have been included because someone thought they were relevant to indie comics. The defining article is alternative comics, but as there is a company by that name, "indie comics" must have been chosen to avoid ambiguity. Rename instead to something like Category:Independent comics publications; note that this category is already a subcategory of Category:Comics publications. Postdlf (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (You're quick - I was actually just coming back to modify the nom : )
    Anyway, while I think I support your idea, in looking over Category:Comics titles by company, I'm not sure that we should subdivide that category.
    Whatever the solution, the category needs cleanup. - jc37 02:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure what the solution is but something needs doing. The inclusion criteria on the category is pretty much "everything that isn't published by The Big Two" which would suggest it doesn't need a category. If we referred to alternative comics we run into the problem of that article being almost entirely original research. Indie comics feels like the kind of thing that "you'd know it when you saw it" but is pretty difficult to pin down with a definition which, when applied to the actual comics, gives a decent set of comics without too many miscategorisations. Obviously this issue needs resolving before you can address the other two. As it stands it seems like something that should probably not be categorised (as the definition is too vague). (Emperor (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    I agree (obviously). I prefer one of two options. Either merge to Category:Comics publications (and cleanup); or (weakly) Rename to Category:Independant comics publications and cleanup/prune heavily. - jc37 04:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking "independent" just meant "not DC or Marvel," but I wasn't sure. Surely if Dark Horse is considered independent, which has been publishing licensed mainstream properties for a couple decades now and had a few film adaptations of its own original properties, then it isn't like we're talking desktop publishing here. There probably isn't any benefit to keeping these further segregated within Category:Comics publications and appropriate subcategories. Postdlf (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is my thinking depending on the definition of indie comic - the problem also possibly being that some publisher started indie and went mainstream and I would genuinely struggle to come up with a way of drawing a line in the sand (without recourse to a lot of sources). Perhaps the best route is to listify linked in from the main article and then police it hard to make sure it is sourced - there must be books on indie comics which must come up with some inclusion criteria themselves. (Emperor (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2008 (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:British comedy puppets

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at 2008 OCT 20. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British comedy puppets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, unnecessary and somewhat arbitrary subcategory. Based on the category description page, this was intended to classify puppets featured in British television, but there are no other subcategories of Category:Puppets that are specific to nationality, genre, or medium, and this seems like a strange way to start doing that. The "comedy" classification also seems a bit off in that these are mostly from children's television programs, which always contain humorous elements, but aren't really properly termed as "comedy" except in the way that most puppets are comedic. Note also that there is Category:Television programs featuring puppetry, which has no nationality subcategories. Upmerge as needed, but most are also in the parent Category:Puppets, which is in no danger of overflowing. Postdlf (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, though some like Emu are best known for one-off appearances, and only got series in their declining years. I have just added Monkey (advertising character) to the cat, but will hold off on the Tracy family, all 5 of whose articles should be added if we rename without "comedy". Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In looking through the various cats, other than the Muppets, I'm not finding any category of puppet characters. (Not by nationality or genre.) Now this in itself isn't necesarily bad, if this is a standard that is worth starting. But I'm honestly not sure that it is. I really think listification is probably the better way to go here. For one thing it would allow for a sortable table, and things such as the television appearance (and frequency thereof) of the puppet could be noted. - jc37 04:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are 13, potentially 18 puppets here. The main cat has 70 puppets, which would be drastically cleared down if US tv & movie categories were established. Who exactly is going to spend the time creating this wondeful list? If such a list existed, I might be readier to see deletion, but it doesn't. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the discussion is closed as "Listify", there is actually a "working" page just for it. (See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.) I help out there somewhat myself. - jc37 21:33, 13 October 2008 (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:ALWEG people movers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at 2008 OCT 20. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:ALWEG people movers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Over categorization. If kept, the name should be something like Category:Monorails based on ALWEG technology. This is functionally equivalent to having a category like Category:Products based on technology of Thomas Edison. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, on the whole I have tried to avoid having the company name in the people-mover/monorail system type for the categories. Unlike railways, people mover technology tends to be highly proprietary and each (type of) system is only compatible with other systems installed/constructed by the same manufacturer—or ones to the same specification, as a result of licensing or later sale of the company. Unfortunately, ALWEG (being effectively a single-product company) didn't seem to differentiate the product from the company, so I have had difficulty in avoiding the the use of their company name for the system type in this case. For example, cars from one of the Disneyland people movers were used on the Las Vagas monorail (manufactured by Bombardier); this is because they used the same specification of track—and not because any of the components necessarily came from the (defunct) ALWEG.
If the category could benefit from renaming, then the full matching set (see Category:People movers) could also do with shuffling. —Sladen (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Disney cars were not used on the LVM. They were used on the MGM shuttle that ran from the MGM Grand to Bally. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Las Vegas Monorail is an extension of the original (shorter) MGM shuttle guideway. —Sladen (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2008 (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:Export management companies

[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:Management consulting firms and delete. Kbdank71 13:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Export management companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: no need for, there was only one article in. GLGermann (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2008 (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/2008_October_9&oldid=1074801398"