Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 26

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 11:24, 30 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)
< March 25 March 27 >

March 26

[edit]

Category:Universities and colleges with a Division of Respiratory Care

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Universities and colleges with a Division of Respiratory Care (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't have a scheme for categorizing academic institutions by what kind of divisions they have. We do have the more broad Category:Medical schools and Category:Law schools, for instance, but I think this is creating too specific a subdivision. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very bad idea; next we'll have every major/minor/department to categorize uni's. Cat clutter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:20, 27 March 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.

Category:Fictional extraterrestrial life forms

[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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose splitting Category:Fictional extraterrestrial life forms to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial species and Category:Fictional extraterrestrial characters
Nominator's rationale: This category, while useful in the earlier days of Wikipedia, has outgrown it's usefulness. The name of this category is fairly vague with reference to individual characters or groups of similar organisms. There is nothing in this category that could not fit within one of the other two categories suggested. and in fact states that it's purpose is for alien species. Obviously this category is too vague to be used properly as it's filled with articles on characters. Thanks for your thoughts. Ncboy2010 (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn: I formally withdraw my nomination for splitting the category in light of opposition and previous discussions I hadn't known about, thank you all for your input. Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - species should only be used when an actual (pseudo-)scientific nomenclature is applied to the creature in question. Otherwise, life forms seems to be the recurring consensus at CfD. (Incidentally, why are "race" and "species" lumped together? I notice this not just here but in other category groupings the nom has been working on.) If there are any articles on individual characters they may of course be recatted per editorial discretion (though I don't know about some characters, being the only known example of a life form). - jc37 00:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At this point, aren't all extraterrestrial life forms fictional; do we really need the modifier? Or does this category include everything but, arguably, a Martian asteroid? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, although I ran into a problem before with similar named categories; A lot of wikipedians believe we should keep the term fictional, despite the fact that they are, as of right now, all fictional. Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's no extreme need, but as I've reiterated before, it's my opinion that my (proposed) categories lend themselves to be more readily understood to mean "This one is for characters" and "This other one is for groups/races".
  • Comment - It really is not clear what the nominator is proposing here. However, I suspect that he is asking for Category:Fictional extraterrestrial life forms to be deleted after its contents have been reallocated to the other two categories. If that is the case, then I am strongly opposed. First of all, the category was created pursuant to a CFD discussion in 2008 expressly in order to replace Category:Fictional extraterrestrial species -- a holdover from the earlier days of Wikipedia that had outgrown it's usefulness (so to speak), but which has now been re-created by the nominator. The use of the term "life forms" stems from Category:Fictional life forms -- which I have restored as an obvious parent cat after it was (wrongly) removed by the nominator. In both cases, the reason for using the formulation "life forms" is very simple: because it was recognized that "fictional life forms" is the term that best encapsulates the full range of fictional living entities that need to be dealt with. It is simply not the case that all of those entities can be regarded as either "fictional species" or "fictional characters", so this proposal is hopelessly wrongheaded, imho. Cgingold (talk) 14:04, 27 March 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.

Category:Images with a different image under the same name on Wikimedia Commons

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Images with a different image under the same name on Wikimedia Commons to Category:Wikipedia files with a different file under the same name on Wikimedia Commons
Nominator's rationale: Per similar titles such as Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons‎, but mainly to distinguish the locations of the files: files on Wikipedia which have the same name as a different file on Wikimedia Commons. Another option would be Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons, following the title of Template:ShadowsCommons. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:28, 26 March 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.

Peking opera

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to "Peking opera" (including capitalisation). Timrollpickering (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from WP:CFD/S following a request for a full discussion
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Per Peking opera and Category:Peking opera. Since the terms 'Peking opera' or 'Beijing opera' refer to a particular style of opera rather than merely opera performed in Beijing, it is not necessary to follow the modern spelling of the city's name (consider the example of Peking Duck). We should, however, follow the spelling of the main article. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Theatre has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • support using "Peking Opera"/"Peking opera", since "Peking" is the more common and likely term, and less likely to engender confusion with operas in the city of Beijing, as opposed to the style. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 03:59, 27 March 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.

Western and Eastern constellations

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Western constellations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Eastern constellations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm putting the Category:Western constellations and Category:Eastern constellations categories up for CfD because they are inappropriately used and redundant.
Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:51, 26 March 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.

Category:Tombs and cemeteries in Vietnam

[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 & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tombs and cemeteries in Vietnam to Category:Tombs in Vietnam; to contain articles on tombs only.
Propose deleting Category:Burial monuments and structures in Vietnam (perhaps)
Nominator's rationale: The first category is not part of a category tree of Tombs and cemeteries, and (like Category:Tombs in Greece) the rename would be part of the category Category:Burial monuments and structures. This category does not have “by country” subcategories though. Another possibility would be to absorb/upmerge the existing (few) “Tombs by country” categories into “Burial monuments and structures by country” categories, like the existing Category:Burial monuments and structures in Vietnam. This would have the advantage that the country category could be used for other types of burial structures within each country ie Ossuaries, Catacombs used for burials and even Mausoleums. Hugo999 (talk) 12:48, 26 March 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.

Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories to Category:Wikipedians in blue-linked categories
Nominator's rationale: One of the members is not in any red-linked categories. However, all are in at least one blue-linked category. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not something that should be tracked in this way. If a page is in a red linked category, that is an error which should be resolved by creating the category or editing the page. Unless this category was automatically updated (which it is not), it won't help with that problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Logic error. These pages were in a red linked category. The category was created. That has resolved the superficial problem. Now someone should resolve the problem of the red-linked categories. Incidentally it is facile to suggest that this can be done trivially, ideally it requires someone with template experience and knowledge of the Wikipedian's category tree. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. User categories exist to assist collaboration, and I can't see how this trivial categ is of any use in collaboration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I cannot see what the point of this category is. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or replace with soemthing better I might suggest that those adding the category to user pages, perhaps forlornly, thought that some collaborative effort might be made to resolve the RLCs. (Maybe someone would like to ask them? Of course if CBM would like to use his vaunted skills to produce a report and other contributors would like to work on resolving the issues, then that would be cool. But to simply recommend deleting one solution without putting something better in it's place is the height of folly. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. If I undestand correctly, then the purpose of this category is to try to encourage the creation or emptying of user categories that appear in Special:WantedCategories. It does not actually seem to accomplish that, however, and what it really does is create another report (tracking category, to be precise) to monitor. Furthermore, there are many user categories that should not be created; yet I believe, from past experience, that it is often not worth the effort and drama to try to depopulate them. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If someone wishes to include themselves in some redlinked cat (presumably not in opposition to a previous deletion discussion), then why should we advertise this in a way suggesting that such a cat must be created? Sounds like drama waiting to happen. Let's drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass... (And I have a funny feeling we might be asking: How many legs does a horse have? - jc37 01:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this might be a useful admin cat for actual articles, but not for user pages. However the initial complain could have been fixed by just removing the non-applicalbe page from the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure that this repeatedly created and deleted category is populated by users' choice in facetious ironic humour. Typically, by belonging to this red-linked category alone were they qualified to belong to this category. By collectively populating the category, the members are demonstrating that the existence of the category page is incidental to the function of the category. To me, this category speaks to the primitive nature of the wiki category system. I don't know, but I suspect that this category could serve to assist collaboration by attracting and recording Wikipedians interested in these sort of technicalities of the category system. If so, it would funtion better if left entirely alone.

    Regarding others' comments... It seems some people expect a category to have a clear and explicit purpose or else it should be deleted. This, when we are talking user categories, seems to me to be not based upon any sound logic, and to be unnecessarily repressive. I suggest that there were never any problems with this category that needed solving. I now think that it is better to re-delete the categary (in fact, wasn't it previously SALTed?), and leave such userspace odd thing top their own ends without feeling the need to paper over the technical peculiatiries of the currently primitive category system. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Carl. Pichpich (talk) 21:34, 30 March 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.

Categories:Sport at Scottish and Welsh universities

[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/rename, but allow reopening of discussion. There is no question that we don't need both Scotland categories, but what the final name is may still be open to discussion. Let's see this opened again, perhaps with other categories of similar type.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sport at Welsh universities to Category:Student sport in Wales
Propose upmerging Category:Sport at Scottish universities to Category:Student sport in Scotland
Nominator's rationale: The existing names do not suit the overall category Category:Student sport in the United Kingdom Hugo999 (talk) 11:30, 26 March 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.

Category:Sex discrimination

[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 - jc37 02:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sex discrimination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Covered by Category:Sexism. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To make a caricature of the distinction, thinking that all women are incompetent dimwits is certainly sexist but it's not sex discrimination until you refuse to hire a woman on those grounds. In other words articles such as Kinder, Küche, Kirche or Madonna–whore complex don't really belong in Category:Sex discrimination. (I guess that's my !vote for Keep) Pichpich (talk) 21:45, 30 March 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.

Category:Three-Cornered Conflicts

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Three-Cornered Conflicts (or renaming to Category:Three-cornered conflicts?)
Nominator's rationale: Delete (or rename?). This category is defined as wars that had three parties all fighting each other. I'm not sure if this is a neologism or if it is an appropriate way to categorize wars. If kept, perhaps there would be a better name? If kept under the current name, the capitalization should at least be fixed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Military history has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a military history nerd, and I've never seen this term used. It's also not a very useful classification of these wars. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This seems to be a phenomenon that arises in internal conflicts, where two rival insurgencies are fighting the government and often each other too. In Algeria, OAS and FLN were both fighting each other and the French government. In Colombia, FARC and ELN areboth fighting the government. In Northern Irleand, the republicans were fighting the British military and the police and the protestant paramilitaries. The police were trying to control the ptotestant paramilitaries, but I am not sure they were fighting the authorities. In Yugoslavia, the Muslims, the Croats and the Serbs were all fighting each other, though for the most part it was the Serbs against the rest. All these fit the category description, so I see no objection to the existence of the category. Perhaps some one can suggest a better name. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. I think a categorization is too arbitrary and possibly non-defining. On the one hand, why stop with three factions? On the other, all conflicts are multi-factional, and all allies do not have the same goals in mind, e.g. the monarchists and Falangists in the Spanish Civil War. Scope is another problem; Poland and Finland both fought simultaneous invasions from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, but World War II is not conventionally considered a three-way conflict.- choster (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A category like this oversimplifies conflict dynamics in several ways. It is often not an easy task to identify the number of 'sides' in a conflict. The Colombian conflict, for example, involves not only the government, FARC and ELN, but at various times also multiple paramilitary groups, the EPL, M-19 and various smaller groups with unclear or shifting allegiances. During The Troubles, organizations within both the republican and loyalist sides frequently clashed and competed; the Real IRA, for instance, is an Irish republican organization but not really in the same corner as, say, the PIRA, which is openly hostile to RIRA.
    Even if one somehow determines that there are exactly three sides in a particular conflict (i.e., a triangle), a category cannot reflect the relative closeness or distance of each of the corners. A category also cannot take into account the changing dynamics of a conflict – combatants changing allegiances, combatants joining or leaving the conflict, and so on – or multiple dimensions and mixed allegiances within a conflict. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are often primary parties and ones acting semi-covertly or at least half-heartedly so it can often be hard to count. Similar view to Black Falcon. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oversimplifying. No parent article. Per Nick-D above. It may happen, but is not a type of war, maybe a battle, or a fight. Even then, "three-sided" gets decent usage, not three-cornered, which redirects to Vote splitting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 27 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_26&oldid=1080116358"