Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 2

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 12:48, 9 February 2023 (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)
< November 1 November 3 >

November 2

[edit]

Category:Promoters of the Rosary

[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: Listify and delete. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Promoters of the Rosary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not defining for the individuals. Also very subjective. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2010 (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:Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary semicha recipients

[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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary semicha recipients to Category:Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary semikhah recipients
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parent article for rabbinic ordination is titled semikhah and does not match the transliteration used in the existing title. Alansohn (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2010 (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:Hyphen Luddites

[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. Dana boomer (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hyphen Luddites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • If I were prone to paranoia, I might say that the CfD regulars are intent on turning red every user-catergory I like, except that the CfD regular groupthink (which wrote the guidelines) finds such wording offensively labelling and divisive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fortunately, I am not particularly prone to paranoia, and would not say the above. No disrespect is intended to the regulars, but CfD regulars are a non random sample of the community. I dare say they seem more concerned with consistency, logic and order than the typical wandering editor.
  • This category happens to contain a proportion of high profile editors. Is it forbidden to invite them to the discussion? Should they not be invited because we assume they don't understand how CfD and categorisation works? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I did, having read the nomination and the follow-up comments. I just didn't agree with it as being my "first preference". Anyone can make a list any time if they want to, so I don't even feel that it's a very important issue to express an opinion on one way or the other, so I essentially ignored it and didn't supplement my initial comment by saying "listify" or "do not listify". The central part of my opinion is that the category should be deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you not concerned that by deleting without first listifying, and moving the header text and talk page, valid multi-authored wikiedian project-related opinion will be lost, even "censored!"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not particularly. The information is never "lost" if anyone wants to retrieve it. If you're worried about it, then I'd suggest going ahead and making a list page right away before it's (possibly) deleted to save you the extra hassle of retrieving the information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support deletion of any user category that I don't see benefits the encyclopedia, usually due to it not fostering collaboration. I would have to go through each of those categories before I made a sweeping statement that everything there should be deleted. But, in general, I would say it isn't very helpful to proclaim one's editing philosophy via a category, unless there is a purpose behind it to group all such users together for some effort to improve the encyclopedia. If this category were more focused on changing the hyphen system rather than complaining about it (some of the talk page discussion seems to be focused on this, which is a good start), I could support keeping this under a different name. Something like (Category:Wikipedians working to improve Wikipeida's hyphen system. The entire opening paragraph would have to be changed as well to reflect this. VegaDark (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the vast majority of support/oppose categories relating to a Wikipedia issue have been deleted, see here. A few have been kept, but I would support deletion of those as well as I feel they violate the guideline on categories. and don't help the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

¶ OK, after a couple of years and several thousand edits here, I've finally found that I don't have the time or patience to learn, remember or keep up with all the arcana of Wikadminstration, but when I thought "if it wouldn't mean instant inaction, ineffectiveness and oblivion, shouldn't this once-robust category of lusty rebels join all the 'Associations of Wikipedians...'", why lo! and behold, I find that they're almost all categories, too. See Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy There's no point (unless, which I very much doubt, there's some malicious motive to suppress free speech and association) to deleting anything if it's just a matter of renaming it. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merely renaming would be disappointing, but keeping as is would be unacceptable. I think I made it clear that deletion was my first choice, as I don't believe this benefits the encyclopedia as a category (I'd be fine if this were a Wikipedia-space page). VegaDark (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arrgh—the ugliness! You're littering this page with unnecessary markups with a marginal esthetic value. As a newcomer, I am discouraged from embarking upon my first edits ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My question is serious. "{{cl|Hyphen-Luddites}}, {{cl|Hyphen–Luddites}} or {{cl|Hyphen—Luddites}}" all look the same (in my edit window). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, -, – & — produce different things when saved, but how is it explained simply, and how many notice such subtlety, let alone care, especially regarding the first two, which look identical on close inspection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They would seem to be ascii characters 45, 150 & 151. My experience of these things is that characters above 128 are unreliable.
" ¬ !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~?€‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒŽ‘’“”•–—˜™š›œžŸ ¡¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª«¬­®¯°±²³´µ¶•¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏÐÑÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚÛÜÝÞßàáâãäåæçèéêëìíîïðñòóôõö÷øùúûüýþÿ" Where is more information on this string? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some browser fonts don't differentiate, especially on PCs. It is possible to change that if you care enough so that they do appear differently—it just depends on the font, mostly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather remain a luddite, using words like from, to, between, and symbols like the old comma and hyphen, for which no training is required. I've got pretty far relying mostly on the standard keyboard, with the occasionally necessary use of a Greek character, which causes problems when it doesn't print or upload properly. Why would I bother with special characters that don't look, or even when they do look, read, differently to me and many readers? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you would—perhaps you could care about those readers that do know the difference and do recognize the difference and read them differently. You'll be fine; just don't apply for any professional editorial jobs, especially at—God forbid—the New Yorker. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to Category:Wikipedian Hyphen Luddites Allows collaboration and contact on this issue among editors. The stand may be futile, but I respect the wish to self identify in this manner. Alansohn (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Self-identification is achieved via Wikipedia:Hyphen luddites and even a userbox (User:UBX/Hyphen Luddite could easily be created), but the category goes a step further to create a grouping or faction of users. I'm curious ... what potential collaboration do you envisage? If some plausible collaborative use could be identified, then I'm sure that would help to firmly shift the consensus toward keeping (and renaming) the category. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While I personally would would prefer Wikipedia to keep simple with hyphens and minimise special characters, I would not seriously consider taking to arms to smash a guideline over the issue. I am pretty sure that that most involved consider this humorous. I don't understand why people feel that user categories must not be used this way, but if they must not, a sign up list on an essay works equally as well. Perhaps the agreed list on the essay would work better, because personalised comments could be added. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedian Hyphen Luddites as this is a category for Wikipedians, and not intended to be added to biographies. PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Typically, this would be deleted as one of any number of soapboxing user categories. Consensus is typically consistent... except when the drama in question is a HUGE drama (as this drama was, for awhile), then such user categories are typically "voted" to be kept. I strongly doubt that the case will be any different here. I honestly think someone could speedy this as "no consensus" : ) - jc37 03:43, 10 November 2010 (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.

Irish regiments of the British Army

[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: Keep. Dana boomer (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only one link MFIreland (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The current regiments relate to Northern Ireland rather than the Republic of Ireland. There are no similar categories for Welsh and Scottish regiments so this category does not seem necessary. Cjc13 (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the regiments represent Ireland as an island - the Irish Guards recruit from all Ireland as does the RIR - at the Queen Mothers funeral in 2002, 8 guardsmen including 2 from the Republic of Ireland carried her coffin see also Ian Malone. Looking at why the category was created it would appear that this category was created as a sub-category of Category:Irish regiments to distinguish those regiments in service with the British Army as opposed to the current Southern Irish Army and other non-British Army regiments. All of Wales and Scotland are part of the UK hence such a distinction is not as important IMHO Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While somewhat redundant, it is possibly important to distinguish this cat from other "Category:Regiments of the British Army". Firstly, while the deletion rationale provided is "only 1 member", the main child cat (Category:Defunct Irish regiments of the British Army) is well populated, and needs a meaningful/distinguishing parent. Secondly, if there was actually "only 1 member", I could see a rationale for addressing this in other ways. But there are actually rightfully 2 members. And, finally, to the argument that "Scotland, Wales, etc don't get their own cat". Given the complex history/provenance questions, and the fact that this is somewhat notable that Irish people still join these British Army regiments, it is probably worthwhile categorising them slightly differently. Guliolopez (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2010 (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:Elections in Taiwan (Republic of China)

[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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Elections in Taiwan (Republic of China) to Category:Elections in the Republic of China
Nominator's rationale: Per main article and other such articles. If this passes, the by year subcats should be renamed as well (speedily?) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Since this category only includes elections since the ROC moved to Taiwan and not during its years on the mainland, something in the name needs to specify this or the name should remain as is. The main article here is also badly and misleadingly misnamed. Hmains (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is one election for the whole of China, before the evacuation to Taiwan, in the category. 76.66.196.13 (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment And that one election for the whole of China (or however much was under Nationalist control at that point) was the only election held during its mainland history. Hmains (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2010 (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:The Powerpuff Girls 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: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Powerpuff Girls characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Contains only one article, which is a list of all characters from PPG. ANDROS1337 16:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 07:07, 2 November 2010 (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 music chart television programs

[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 rename and redirect. Jafeluv (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:British music chart television programs to Category:British music chart television programmes
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The word "program" should be spelled as "programmes", as this is a British category. azumanga (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2010 (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.

Arab World

[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. Jafeluv (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Economy of Arab World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Tourism in Arab World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Airports in Arab World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Aviation in Arab World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Buildings and structures in Arab World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Transport in Arab World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sport in Arab World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Military of Arab World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories appear to have been recently created to parallel categories that exist on the Arabic Wikipedia. However, none of these topics have Arab World-specific articles on the English site, and I don't think there's any reason we would want to group these topics by being in the Arab World as opposed to just grouping them by country. It's an unnecessary layer of categorization, though useful for promotion of pan-Arabism. We get these types of categories created from time to time, probably because they exist on the Arabic WP: eg1, eg2. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2010 (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:American Latter Day Saint educators

[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. Jafeluv (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:American Latter Day Saint educators to Category:American Latter Day Saints and Category:American educators
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This appears to be grouping people who are American Latter Day Saints and who are also American educators. It is not limited to those American people who are educators in Latter Day Saint-related topics. As such, it is a non-notable intersection of religion and occupation. There is a category for Category:Church Educational System instructors for those who are specifically educators within the LDS Church's Church Educational System. I suggest a double-upmerge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2010 (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/2010_November_2&oldid=1138394410"