Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 2 February 4 >

February 3[edit]

Category:Dinosaur video games[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dinosaur video games to Category:Video games featuring dinosaurs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Procedural; User:Funkynusayri placed CfR tag there I couldn't see the discussion here. I would favour Category:Video games about dinosaurs, to match Category:Films about dinosaurs, or Category:Dinosaur-themed video games.Marasmusine (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Is this really a defining characteristic? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - that a video game has dinosaurs in it is not defining. Otto4711 (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Fulani Empire[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 14:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fulani Empire to Category:Sokoto Caliphate
Nominator's rationale: Rename, as the main article (Sokoto Caliphate, formerly Fulani Empire) was renamed. See Talk:Sokoto Caliphate#Name change? / "Sokoto Caliphate". Picaroon (t) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename. The category should follow the article name and that rename was sensible, fitting in with what I learned when I lived there for 5 years. --Bduke (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:ΦΒΚ Members[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ΦΒΚ Members to Category:Phi Beta Kappa Society members
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Spell out name of society per Phi Beta Kappa Society. A fairly good list exists in that article, so I'm not even sure this category needs to exist. Zoporific 21:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining, OCAT by trivial award - must be hundreds of thousands of these people. If this is a notable achievement, I ought to submit many of my friends bio's for being notable for winning this notable award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlos. Snocrates 21:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Carlos. Otto4711 (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Saint Louis Rams[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 14:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Saint Louis Rams to Category:St. Louis Rams
Nominator's rationale: Standardizing the category name by abbriviating Saint to St. as done by Category:St. Louis Cardinals, Category:St. Louis Blues, Category:St. Louis, Missouri, and others. Also the article is called St. Louis Rams. Pinkkeith (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for consistency. Zoporific 22:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. This will now match all subcategories as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Statistical lemmas[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 14:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Statistical lemmas to Category:Statistical theorems
Nominator's rationale: Merge, There is no formal distinction between a theorem and a lemma in mathematics, and the same is true in statistics. I propose moving the three pages in Category:Statistical lemmas to Category:Statistical theorems. Also, I would not oppose renaming that category "Statistical theorems and lemmas". Btyner (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Mom user templates[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: moved to WP:UCFD where it belongs. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mom user templates to Category:Wikipedian moms
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in cat, from a userbox-like link on User:Geaugagrrl. Leo Laursen ( T ¦ C ) 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely to expand to more than 1 or 2 templates. If this is proposed to be renamed to a user category, it should be moved to WP:UCFD. VegaDark (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2008 (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:Music from Newcastle[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 14:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Music from Newcastle to Category:Music from Newcastle upon Tyne
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguation purposes, and matches the city's article's name. The JPStalk to me 14:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Great migrations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was rename to Category:Human migrations. Kbdank71 14:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Great migrations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category with no clear inclusion criteria. Tim! (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, the category itself is poorly defined and its name is too ambiguous to be useful. Still, deleting the category is not an option: at the very least it should be up-merged to Category:Human migration but I find it difficult to envision this without re-thinking the overall organisation of the latter. Pichpich (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Category now has stated inclusion criteria and the articles fit. Hmains (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the articles but the subcategories certainly have little to do with the proposed inclusion criterion. Pichpich (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"large" is not defined, see WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Tim! (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
read a dictionary. Any attempt to place a number here will result in the argument that it is 'arbitrary'. Hmains (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Human migration should be kept for articles 'about' migration, not migrations themselves. If necessary to rename, then rename this to Category:Human migrations (plural) to keep with the standard separation seen in many other categories. Hmains (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Human migrations per Hmains. I was considering this suggestion but was being cautious over the slight difference in names with and without the 's'. However I can support this as suggested. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Categories by year[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 14:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Categories by year to Category:Year lists
Nominator's rationale: These seem to be overlapping? Not sure which direction to merge. Too tired and unsure (of cats in general, and this in particular) to merge myself. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - How is a category an overlap of a list? they do different things:: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also Category:Events by year.
    I think my confusion is because of the overlapping areas and/or the inconsistent naming: Compare Category:1934 in law with Category:1934 in music - there is a specific music article, but not a specific law article. The "Years in [foo]" and "[Foo] by year" categories seem to be a mixture of both types.
    I was hoping someone could explain the differences, and/or fix any inconsistencies (eg. Category:Years in science is in all 3 of these parent categories!) Our categories often give me a severe headache, literally! :( Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, consistency of arrangement and usage I could argue for! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Events by year, not Lists by year. Categories of lists should only contain sub-cats which also have "list" in the title, and list articles (which usually but not always include the word "list" in the title). We do seem to have one category too many with "year" in the title and I think it is the nominated one. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But are all the things in Category:Categories by year "events"? I think of "events" as being some discrete occurrence. I'm not sure about "Category:Controversies by year" - it seems more amorphous than "events". Of course, when I look at it closely, everything seems like an event. Does that mean that Category:Events by year becomes the new top category for, well, almost everything? --Lquilter (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In short: Yes!
There are two categories which seem to me to overlap completely in purpose. Category:Categories by year is within head cats Category:Years and Category:Categories by topic - I had not noticed the latter taxonomy before. Category:Events by year seems to attract the same sort of contents (and is currently more populated), and is a member of head cats Category:Years and Category:Events - the latter is a strange assortment too.
I suggest that the unrelated Category:Events by topic is a model for what we need here - it is a subcat of both Category:Events and Category:Categories by topic.
So, I propose that we down-merge the less populated Category:Categories by year into Category:Events by year, and that the survivor should be a subcat of both Category:Events and Category:Categories by topic, as well as Category:Years (of course).
List categories are only for lists, and Category:Year lists should be a subcat of the survivor.
The "Years in [foo]" and "[Foo] by year" should likewise all be subcats of the survivor. I see these as having similar functions to each other, and it does not matter if some have an article by year and others don't. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont' agree - Not everything that is by year can quite be referred to as "events". the "Works by yyyy" trees are full of things rather than events although an event "creation" is implied they still remain "things". :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Mahabharata epic[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 14:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Mahabharata epic to Category:Mahābhārata
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Similar merge is about to happen following this debate. Should be pretty uncontroversial as these two categories were meant for the same content. Pichpich (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a policy discouraging accents/diacriticals in category names? Otherwise yes. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of that but it would seem like a pretty counter-intuitive policy. We can always keep one of these bot-maintained category redirects. Pichpich (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; I certainly hope that there is no policy against diacriticals in categories. This isn't simple wiki. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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/2008_February_3&oldid=1088825858"