Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 1

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.65.128.222 (talk) at 02:24, 2 September 2013 (→‎Category:Korean Air Lines Flight 007). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< August 31 September 2 >

September 1

NEW NOMINATIONS

Template:User Pinhead

Nominator's rationale: User template is not used and has been around for years. Not needed. Submission for deletion required User templates be submitted to Categories for deletion vice Templates for deletion Kumioko (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Ot-af

Nominator's rationale: User template is not used and has been around for years. Not needed. Submission for deletion required User templates be submitted to Categories for deletion vice Templates for deletion Kumioko (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User NATO

Nominator's rationale: User template is not used and has been around for years. Not needed Kumioko (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator but shouldn't this have been posted to Templates for Discussion?...William 01:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this UBX makes no sense. Albania is not in NATO, and the template name shows no indication of that use. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political families of Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization per WP:SMALLCAT, these categories only have 2 articles, and while there is potential for growth, it is measured in decades. Snappy (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am leaning towards deletion, because the nom's rationale is sound. However, many of these people are defined by being part of a political family, so I wonder whether an all-inclusive category could be an alternative to deletion. The new category could be something like "Members of Irish political families", though that name isn't quite right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have only nominated those categoriess with 2 articles, there are more with only 3 or 4 entries. The fact is nearly all these categories are covered by the article Families in the Oireachtas, which details their exact relationships in a list. Snappy (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know that list; I created it] :)
It is certainly a useful tool. However, it would be nice to have dome sort of category which could group all the people on that list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military units and formation of the Bosnian War

Nominator's rationale: Redirected category containing typo error in its name, not useful in any way. Constantine ✍ 14:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Korean Air Lines Flight 007

Nominator's rationale: A catch all for some topics loosely associated with KAL 007. Its never been the aviation task force's practice to create categories for plane crashes. ...William 13:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it was created to catch all the fringe articles related to KAL007 but is not really needed and I suspect most dont need to be related to the accident by categorisation. MilborneOne (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I suspect that a lot of the articles in the category only exist becuase of theri association with the flight. Accordingly, the first step should be to have an AFD on those articles. This will then show that the category is largely devoid of content. This crash was a particularly notorious incident, so that it may be an exception to the general rule. There are other exceptions such as Category:Pan Am Flight 103, another passenger flight downed by hostile action. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All the people articles meet WP:GNG. A Congressman, A Defense Minister, A Soviet General, The head of the KGB. Islands get an article. That only leaves the KAL conspiracies article....William 16:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to navbox I don't think conspiracy theorizing about the flight is defining for the defence minister, congressman, etc, so they should not be so categorized. Instead a navbox for KAL007 conspiracy theorizing can be created for navigating between these articles. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment whether it is standard practice for WPAVIATION to categorize or not, does not mean that a category cannot exist. Category:2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash illustrates the point. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Academic publishing companies of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Up till now, the pages in this cat were categorized as "academic publishing companies" and "publishing companies of the United States". I don't see any need to make a combined category, nor do I see a need to subdivide "academic publishing companies" into subcategories by nationality. Randykitty (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to both parents. The academic target is not overpopulated, and anyway the publishers tend to operate across the English-speaking world. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's enough US ones. But I suppose English-speaking ones wouldn't be bad.--Levineps (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's a subdivision that makes, if possible, even less sense. Almost any academic publisher will at least occasionally publish books or journals in English, with the possible exception of some specialized local publishers in, say, the humanities. As for "American academic publishers", given how the modern academic publishing industry is organized, things can get very complicated. Take Blackwell Publishing, a British company with offices in Oxford (main office), Edinburgh, Massachusetts, and other places. It was taken over by John Wiley & Sons, who operate it as a rather independent entity named Wiley-Blackwell. You just placed it in this "American academic publishers" category, but if Wiley is taken over by Springer next week, is this then suddenly a German company? (Of course, Springer itself has absorbed companies in many different countries and has offices and daughter companies all over the world, so I wouldn't really call it "German" either). Or take the largest academic publisher, Elsevier. They have offices the world over. Originally, the company is Dutch and they still have their largest office in Amsterdam. However, Elsevier is part of the Reed Elsevier conglomerate, a Dutch-British (or British-Dutch) company. What nationality would you give to that one? Or what about Academic Press? You put it in this category, too, but did you realize that it is owned by Elsevier? So according to the logic that makes you categorize Blackwell as an American company, AP is a Dutch company. Sorry, there is no need for this cat and it just makes things messy by ovesimplifying matters. --Randykitty (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Global FC players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename as per change in name to parent article Global F.C.. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Establishments in the Cape Colony by year

OR

Nominator's rationale: Some of the articles and subcategories of Category:Cape Colony use "the Cape Colony" and some simply "Cape Colony", however it would be preferable if the categories followed a consistent format. Tim! (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a consistent format is to be created, it should be "the Cape Colony", as the name is almost invariably used with the definite article. - htonl (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC) - see below[reply]
    • (ec) Please note the nomination was incomplete when this comment was made. Tim! (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the second option. (That is, adding the "the".) Standard usage is definitely to refer to "the Cape Colony". See, for example, the titles of the sources for the British Cape Colony article; those which refer to the colony all refer to it with the definite article. - htonl (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have also added a third category to the second option of the nomination. - htonl (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Leonardo da Vinci in popular culture

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Following re-organization of contents this is an unnecessary category. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom Overlapping concepts. Dimadick (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom -- Once upon a time almost every article has a popular culture section, which was filled it trivial literary (etc) allusions. They were subject to a massive cull. I see no purpose in categories designed to pick up such trivia. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taringa, Queensland

Nominator's rationale: Do we need a category for every suburb of every city anywhere, which the creation of this category would presume? Crusoe8181 (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a need when there are a number of articles that relate to that place. Brisbane is an unusually large local government area, so having everything in a Brisbane category will get pretty difficult to manage, so I think using suburb categories is useful for Brisbane. It might be less useful in the context of a smaller town or LGA. We have suburb categories for Brisbane on Commons too. Kerry (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a concrete example, I am working on writing articles about heritage-listed properties (and am negotiating to get heritage registers CC-licensed so these articles can be easily created). There are 10 heritage-listings in Taringa (all potential articles) while Brisbane as a whole has over 1000 of them. Without suburban categories, it will become rather unmanageable. Kerry (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chemical compounds found in animals subcategories

Nominator's rationale: Category:Chemical compounds found in animals was recently deleted[1] leaving subcategories to be considered for deletion. Containing a chemical compound is not defining in nearly all circumstances. The categories are mostly overlapping because the vast majority of chemical compounds are not unique to a particular taxonomic category. --Kkmurray (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For things like hormones and pheremones it may make sense to categorize by which groups of animals they are found in. Deleting these categories would remove a parent from subcategories (e.g. Category:Mammalian hormones). These categories should have inclusion criteria so that things like water aren't included, but I'm not sure they should be deleted. DexDor (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mammalian hormones will still be in Category:Hormones by type of organism. Similarly, Allopumiliotoxin 267A will still be in Category:Vertebrate toxins which is below Category:Toxins by type of organism. The question is what are suitable subcategories of Category:Biomolecules by type of organism? The above plus Category:Alkaloids by type of organism and Category:Proteins by type of organism‎ (and Category:Pheromones by type of organism) will contain entries that are unique to a particular taxonomic category, while Category:Chemical compounds found in Eukaryotes‎, Category:Chemical compounds found in Prokaryotes, Category:Phenolic compounds by type of organism‎ (discussion of phenolic compounds is here [2]), etc. typically will not because they are not defining. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge heavily and repurpose. There is the basis for a legitimate category tree here for substances whose main natural source is (or historically was) derived from a particular species. However, as currently defined, these are performance (occurrence) by performer (compound) categories. It may well be simpler to delete and start again. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_1&oldid=571164387"