Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 17

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 08:07, 29 May 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)
< July 16 July 18 >

July 17

[edit]
[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete WP:G7. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Invalid category. This can't contain any files for several years. Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
G7 No contest, from creator.08:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfan00 IMG (talk • contribs)
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.
[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete WP:G7. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Invalid category. This category won't contain any files for several years. Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
G7 No contest, from creator.08:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfan00 IMG (talk • contribs)
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:Driver series

[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As suggested at Speedy discussion. This however is not eligible for speedy renaming as I have only just moved the article to Driver (video game series). – Fayenatic London 21:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy discussion
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.
[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete WP:G7. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Invalid category. A copyright is only restored by URAA if the work was copyrighted in the source country on 1 January 1996. A photograph is only PD-Japan-oldphoto if the copyright expired before the law was changed in 1971. If the copyright expired in or before 1971, then the photograph can't have been copyrighted in 1996. Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
G7 No contest, from creator.08:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfan00 IMG (talk • contribs)
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:Types of Christian faiths or beliefs

[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: selective upmerge and delete. – Fayenatic London 16:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Types of Christian faiths or beliefs has Category:Christian theology as its parent and consists of two very different types of childcategories. This is undoubtedly due to the lack of specified inclusion criteria. There aren't any single articles. The two types of childcategories are:
  1. Subfields of the academic theology studies, e.g. Category:Christian soteriology which are already classified as childcategories of Category:Christian theology directly, so the classification into Category:Types of Christian faiths or beliefs is obviously redundant.
  2. Category:Christian denominational families‎ and a few (grand)childcategories of it, while this category is already directly under Category:Christianity. The classification of these into Category:Types of Christian faiths or beliefs seems to be a matter of misclassification, as you would expect to find grandchildren of Christian theology here.
Summary, Category:Types of Christian faiths or beliefs lacks inclusion criteria, and categorization of its childcategories is based either on redundancy or on misclassification. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2014 (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:Women in war in the Middle East

[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. – Fayenatic London 16:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Indiscriminate criteria. Not notable. I'd prefer speedy deletion because of the political implications in this time of armed conflict i the Middle East. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The oddly named Category:Women in warfare in North America has subcategories for the Caribbean and Central America that are also neither continents nor countries. The Middle East is such a war-torn and well-defined region that I can't see why this isn't the start of (at least) a bona fide container category. Therefore, I think we should keep. I also find the "political implications" rationale particularly weak: we're supposed to delete a war related category because there's a war? No. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree on the former (wouldn't keep Caribbean or CA subcats either). Agree on the latter (current war is no reason to delete category). But the main thing is, we should define inclusion criteria such that war is indeed a defining characteristic of women being classified. For example, women in the military, in accordance with the lead article, could well serve this purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This nomination is not specific to the nominated category, but the wider tree. The scope of the "Women in war [by area]" categories are OK, but the usage of them is not very good. These are not good categories to apply directly to a mass of articles on women journalists, soldiers, politicians, activists, victims, military personnel, nobility, wives of prominent leaders, etc (as it currently is). I would prefer subcategories for the roles, with a limited number of people falling outside of those. This structure has got WAY ahead of itself, given that Category:Female war correspondents was only created recently (surely a key category for women in war). SFB 18:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subjective collection. Any woman "in war" (serving? actively? or in an auxiliary or political role? or just living through it - running to bomb shelters, worrying about loved ones, paying taxes whatever?) in the (only Asian portion of) the "Middle East" - is that defining??? Like people who lived during WW2 and such categories we have routinely deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose The opposition seems more to be the wider concept. I do have to express doubts that "Middle East" is a workable term. It is horrible Euro or American centric. To those in India this is the west. I think it is high time we adopt the less biased term "West Asia".John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your reasoning for this nomination, but disagree on avoiding use of Middle East in general, which is a widely used term and the common name for the area. By the same logic, Category:American people should be moved to Category:People of the United States on the grounds that that usage of the term American is Anglo-centric as to the majority of the people of the Americas believe the term refers to the continent as a whole. This is the English Wikipedia and common usage of the language should largely be respected. SFB 19:28, 23 July 2014 (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:Runbook Automation

[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. – Fayenatic London 15:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With just one (eponymous) article and no parent categories this category has no navigational purpose. DexDor (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not support do not delete. top level category is ITIL. just hosted a large event with wikipedia organization where we updated over 800 articles and it is not fun always having to defend articles. doesn't make it a very nice community. why don't you ask questions like, what is the proper parent article, what is the proper child article and how can i contribute as opposed to always trying to delete content.
Children topics can easily be created like Runbook Automation tools, Runbook Automation processes, Runbook Automation methodologies. would anybody like to help contribute to this exciting topic? Miles Avery Dolphin (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that there aren't parent articles and child articles, there are just parent categories with articles and child categories with other articles. Parent categories and child categories are to be found on the category page itself, they shouldn't be asked for.
It is perfectly okay that new articles can easily be created, but that simply implies that that currently there are no other articles to be put in this category yet, right? If that's the case, it is just too early to create this category and you'd better leave the Runbook Automation article in the ITIL category for the time being. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to combine the two contributions from the same editor at the same point of time, also to undo the duplicate voting. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support with no objection recreating category later when there are new articles to populate it. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One article does not warrant an eponymous category. No indication that current literature would require child articles and not simply find in an expanded main article. Runbook Automation processes does not appear to be a notable topic in itself. SFB 18:09, 19 July 2014 (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:FPGA

[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, without prejudice to re-creation if more articles are found. Currently contains only the main article and five redirects to Xilinx. – Fayenatic London 16:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There appears to be insufficient material in this category and in the parent category to justify this type of split. The only non-redirect articles that I was able to find and which are suitable for this category are the main article and FPGA prototype. If the category is retained, then it should be renamed to Category:Field-programmable gate arrays. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2014 (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:Koreanologists

[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 and redirect. – Fayenatic London 16:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This term, whoever wrote it or come up with it, is totally wrong. People in Korean Studies are called Koreanists, not Koreanologists. I'd really like to change the category name to reflect that, but I don't know how. Please help. p.s. I say this as a professor of Korean Studies, not just some random person talking out my rear-end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umyang (talk • contribs) 00:55, 17 July 2014‎ (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/2014_July_17&oldid=1090391820"