Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 29

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Muzekal Mike (talk | contribs) at 02:40, 2 June 2009 (→‎Category:Users tricked by Muzekal Mike). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< May 28 May 30 >

May 29

Category:Ecology of the United States

Category:Ecology of the United States - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect use if the word "ecology". De-populate and de-lete... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have a read of the ecology article. Ecology is not limited by political boundaries. Do not use the word ecology as a synonym of environment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to environment cats, not exactly per nom The opening of ecology, defining it only as a field of study, is surely crap: "Ecology (from Greek oîkos, "house"; -λογία, -logos, study of) is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the distribution and abundance of organisms and their interactions with their environment". However we already have enough other trees. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is the most common and main definition of ecology. There is a second meaning which is the effects of humans on the environment. The eco- prefix is often used and is making ecology seem like a synonym for environment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the first sense here, from Princeton, is the most common [1]. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to this. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is already in Category:Environment of the United States. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ecology is not limited by political boundaries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well populated maybe, but not with many of the articles this series of noms covers. In this sort of case, I suggest you add other appropriate categories before nominating a deletion. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Productively organizes the subject as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Ecology is the study of the balance of nature. The first element is dierived from a Greek word for equal, not oikos (which does indeed mean house). It would be appropriate to have articles on that for particular regions, whether US states, countries, or geographic regions (such as mountain chains or a particular coast). Unfortunately the word is widely misused, but that would suggest purging the category, not deleting it. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep impossible to evaluate as nominator deleted the contents. Hmains (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ecology by country

Category:Ecology by country - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Ecology has no political boundaries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well populated maybe, but not with many of the articles this series of noms covers. In this sort of case, I suggest you add other appropriate categories before nominating a deletion. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only one article, already categorized elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - see my comments on the US category (above). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep impossible to evaluate as nominator deleted the contents. Hmains (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tropical ecology

Category:Tropical ecology - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Not likely to be populated See ecology for the use of the word. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Ecology and delete. Small category with no current potential for future growth. Robofish (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to both parents. If the nom is to delete, as it appears to be, this would leave the only article completely uncategorized! Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian World War II pilots

Propose renaming Category:Russian World War II pilots to Category:Soviet World War II pilots
Nominator's rationale: Rename–The Soviet Union was comprised of 16 republics between 1940 and 1956 (15 of these republics other than the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic). There was no independent Russia and no "Russian Air Force" during the Second World War, and many of the pilots were not ethnic Russians. Since this is a subcategory of the parent category Category:Soviet military personnel of World War II, we should change the name to cohere with the accepted pattern of category naming for this topic, as well as abide by historical integrity with regard to the subject. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2010s automobiles

Nominator's rationale: delete....this is crystallball category and speaks as they were already in producing phase and we are still in 2009, not needed category until next year. --Typ932 T·C 16:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support–This would indeed be a speculative ("crystal ball") category. PasswordUsername (talk)
  • Keep The few articles I checked in the category support the production of the cars from 2010 onwards. As long as they're sourced, I see no problem. We're only 6/7 months away from 2010, and we have categories for films, for example, that are going to be released post 2009. Lugnuts (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts. The ones I looked at are in an early production phase in 2009. Occuli (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Lugnuts. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2010 model year cars can start coming out very early in 2009. As it's already about Juen, I wouldn't be surprised if some haven't already been released. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is production not model years, if you read the category intro it says they are NOW in production, should delete definetly. --Typ932 T·C 16:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ferry terminals in the San Francisco Bay Area

Category:Ferry terminals in Contra Costa County, California - Template:Lc1
Category:Ferry terminals in Marin County, CaliforniaTemplate:Lc1
Category:Ferry terminals in San Francisco, CaliforniaTemplate:Lc1
Category:Ferry terminals in San Mateo County, CaliforniaTemplate:Lc1
Category:Ferry terminals in Solano County, CaliforniaTemplate:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: delete....over-categorised. contents should be placed in parent category emerson7 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep if these are deleted, it disorganizes the county parent category in each case: 'Public transportation in xxx County, California' Hmains (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Ferry terminals in the San Francisco Bay Area and the public transportation by county categories. The categories are overly-small and unlikely to substantially grow. The county public transportation categories are not overcrowded and would not suffer from the merge. - Eureka Lott 04:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge in each case to all parent cats ('Buildings and structures' as well, if present). The categories are not tagged, however. Occuli (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alabama Catholics

Category:Alabama Catholics - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: This is the only U.S. state category for Catholics. How is it defined? Anyone who lived in Alabama at any point? It seems purposeless unless every biography in the encyclopedia is going to be allocated by intersection between locality and religion. What's next? Catholics by zip code? Drawn Some (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because there are not categories for the other 49 states does not mean that you delete this category. It means the obvious solution is to create the same article for the other 49 states. However, the reason that this is relevant and deserves its category specifically by region is due to the fact that Catholics have often faced discrimination in Alabama, and so it is a good idea to have a category linking prominent Catholic individuals associated with the state, who have not only made an impact in the history in the state, but who can also serve as examples to other Catholics in the overwhelmingly Protestant state. It is clearly notable and so the obvious step is to create categories for the other states. This category is being challenged simply because it is the first --Genovese12345 (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why this flame needs to be smothered before the entire forest is on fire. Drawn Some (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What flame? The United States is a big country. It is unreasonable to treat the U.S. as "just a country" the way you would Swaziland or Belize. The United States stretches across a continent and has various cultures spread across it. The average U.S. state will have as much territory as a third world country and will often have much more of an impact on the world than the same third world country. I wonder why the expansion of knowledge is such a bad thing? I ask this of those who oppose this category? Would you oppose a category that would list all of the people included but as a "list". It is clearly notable, and no one will even think to link these people like this unless they are organized together, but the fact that all of the subjects are Catholic and are from Alabama is central to who they are and what they accomplished.--Genovese12345 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is nothing about being Catholic in Alabama (or any other US state) that warrants breaking out articles at the state level. Otto4711 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:American Catholics and Delete. Unnecessary overcategorisation by religion and state origin. Robofish (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:American Catholics and/or Delete per Robofish - overcategorized. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With over 2,000 entries, this category should be broken down by state, and there is a clear problem of undercategorization, an issue that has absolutely nothing about any need for unique characteristic of Catholicism in Alabama or any other state. I will be happy to create categories for the other 49 states, and unless someone can offer a reason why it would violate Wikipedia policy to do so I'll be more than happy to get started. We have no problem defining any of the several dozen catgeories for people from Alabama, and there seems to be no issue here. Alansohn (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create the other 49 (or so) compeers. A category of 2000 is too big to be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Original Dixieland Jazz Band works

Category:Original Dixieland Jazz Band works - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category is empty and has been replaced by its only subcategory, Category:Original Dixieland Jazz Band songs. Jafeluv (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object; none of the ODJB's original works is a song. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users tricked by Muzekal Mike

Category:Users tricked by Muzekal Mike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Unencyclopedic category, individual user cat, doesn't benefit encyclopedia in any way to categorize these users, IMO we should create a speedy deletion criteria for cats like these. VegaDark (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just a little insignificant 01:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:NOHARM. "Made in good humor" is not a good reason to keep. We wouldn't keep a hoax article space category because it is funny. Also, from WP:User categories, "considering the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a social networking site[3] or personal webhost,[4] the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." - This clearly violates this guideline. VegaDark (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic and has absolutely no value in building an encyclopedia. The user can maintain a list on their userpage if they like. Resolute 13:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Resolute. Improper category. — Σxplicit 21:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Come on, people. Where's your sense of humor? I thought it would be funny if someone could look down at their categories and have a little reminder of the trick on my userpage. Also, this is more of a user subpage than an encyclopedia category. I wanted to call it "User:Category:Users tricked by Muzekal Mike", but I didn't think that it would work. If completely necessary, delete it, but I belive that it will make a fine addition. --Muzekal Mike (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't it work for you to keep the list on your userpage, or in a subcategory of your userpage, per Resolute? Another suggestion: you could create a userbox and offer it to those people you have tricked. "This user has been tricked by Muzekal Mike" or something like that. It's a good joke, it can be recorded for posterity, but the only option unavailable is that of a category. There are tons of other ways for you to express it. just a little insignificant 18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Can I use one of those userboxes that has its own category? I can't remember what they're called. Is that still a category, technically? --Muzekal Mike (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_29&oldid=293861409"