Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 23

< May 22	May 24 >

May 23[edit]

Lunar images[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. Kbdank71 14:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categories only contain featured images. Commons makes these categories unnecessary. Mike Peel (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IT is not necessarily certain that images of moons or The Moon can necessarily be transferred to commons. I fail to see why images should not be categorized, when they cannot be placed on commons (ie. licensing conflicts) 70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is less clear to me than the ESA categories I commented on below. However, I can also imagine images of moons taken by ESA that would be ineligible for Commons but Ok on English wikipedia with a fair-use rationale. There may be other situations where an image is fully acceptable on wikipedia but not on Commons, but I cannot think of examples involving moons. However there are paintings and pictures of sculptures in certain countries that are public domain in the USA (where the English wikipedia servers are), but are copyright in a non-USA country and therefore, usually, not accepted on Commons (in fact they will be deleted there). An example might be: photo of the Moon rising behind an Italian architectural building - can be copyright in Italy (there are crazy laws there) but Ok in USA. But let's wait for someone more knowledgeable to comment. 84user (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as well, NASA and ESA aren't the only space agencies exploring the moon from close up. Are NASDA, CNSA, Soviet images eligible for Commons? And then there are also occassional images by amateur astronomers that capture impacts on the moon. JAXA images apparently are not eligible for Commons either... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There currently aren't any of those images in those categories (only featured images residing on commons); I don't see the need to keep the category around just in case. Additionally, I'm not convinced that fair use can be justified with images of moons, on the basis that free alternatives are generally available (be it from NASA, or from amateur astronomers). Mike Peel (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - For impact events caught serendipitously, (which they mostly are, in the case of Moon impacts) there would be no alternatives. There would also be no alternative for images illustrating the imaging provided by lunar probes from various space agencies, since NASA isn't the owner of a JAXA probe or a CNSA probe. And for ESA images of the moon, they should be properly categorized. There are likely to be moons images lying about since not every image was properly categorized in the first place (in fact most images don't seem to be categorized at all, from anecdotal experience). 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2009 (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:Sportsperson from County Kilkenny[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 to Category:People from County Kilkenny and Category:Irish sportspeople. Kbdank71 14:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sportsperson from County Kilkenny to Category:County Kilkenny Sportspeople

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A category for sportspeople from County Kilkenny. Mrchris (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:People from County Kilkenny as Category:Sportspeople is not subcategorised by place (apart from a very few). Occuli (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:People from County Kilkenny and Category:Irish sportspeople. Sortspeople are generally divided by nationality, not by county. Note - if the consensus is to rename, "sportspeople" should have a lower case s. Grutness...wha? 21:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or as it is called here upmerge as too specific cat. Debresser (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (comment: "upmerge" and "delete" aren't quite the same thing. "Delete" generally means delete the category and don't reclassify the articles in a similar way; "upmerge" means delete this category but re-sort the articles into the current category's parents or other suggested categories. It's a term more often used at WP:SFD than here, but the same principle applies) Grutness...wha? 01:07, 25 May 2009 (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.

European Space Agency images[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 for now. It appears that these may be meant to be empty, but there are questions as to usage. I'm not sure if these are the same or not, as the template that is supposed to populate Category:ESA multimedia gallery images doesn't, but instead populates Category:European Space Agency images. This may need to be ironed out at ASTRO. Kbdank71 14:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Both Category:European Space Agency images and Category:ESA multimedia gallery images are empty categories, which are no longer necessary. Raising for discussion in case they're supposed to be empty... Mike Peel (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Category:European Space Agency images", as ESA images are not compatible with Commons, there should be a place to put them. It just needs to be populated. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think these categories are supposed to hold ESA images that have fair-use rationales. In which case the description should make this explicit so that editors realise they can be empty at times. Here is the description from the parent Category:Non-commercial use only images:

Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only" that were uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, and for which no assertion of fair use is provided can be speedily deleted. Such images uploaded before 2005-05-19 may also be speedily deleted if they are not used in any articles.

If an image is licensed under non-commercial use and is used on Wikipedia, it must be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. In addition to a fair use tag and a fair use rationale, tag the image with {{Non-free with NC}}. All images which do not will soon be deleted.

But if I was sure about this I would have added such a message to the categories, so I'll pass the buck to someone who hopefully knows better. 84user (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as nominator): The categories are currently empty, and are not linked to from anywhere. As NASA images are released into the public domain, using ESA images under fair use isn't normally necessary, so I would be surprised if they were used en masse. If there are only likely to be a few, transient images, then why have a just-in-case category for them? Mike Peel (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is additional discussion about ESA images at WT:AST (WikiProject Astronomy). 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a discussion at WT:ASTRO about restoring deleted ESA images from Commons here under fair use. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we infact, do have ESA images in Wikipedia, such as File:Halley Giotto.jpg ... which just wasn't categorized. {{Non-free ESA media}} should probably categorize into something. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment images that have been tagged with the ESA image template now populate this category. 70.29.208.129 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:14, 27 May 2009 (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:Deutsche Eishockey-Liga players[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. Kbdank71 13:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Deutsche Eishockey-Liga players to Category:Deutsche Eishockey Liga players

Nominator's rationale: the hyphen seems unnecessary from looking at info on hyphen use in the German language (though I m not at all sure about this) - see [[1]]; and that the name of the league, as a noun phrase, in German uses no hyphen, of which I m certain - see [[2]] and [[3]] Mayumashu (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per league article: Deutsche Eishockey Liga. lil2mas (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2009 (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:ABC Family syndicated sitcoms[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. Kbdank71 13:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per extensive precedent we do not categorize TV shows based on any network or syndication other than first-run. Otto4711 (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Postdlf (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2009 (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.

More broadcasters[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.

Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Otto4711 (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the leagues whose games one broadcasts is not defining of the broadcaster. Substantially identical to all of the various broadcaster by team and broadcaster by network categories that have been deleted. Note the Bruins category, a leftover that used "sportscasters" instead of "broadcasters" plus a few trying to sneak past as "announcers". Otto4711 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN - nomination has been degenerated beyond the point where any useful discussion can be had. Otto4711 (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – is some upmerge not envisaged? Or is being a 'sports announcer' not defining either? (Some of these are very large. The NHL one has 2 subcats and 275 top level articles.) IMO 'National Hockey League broadcaster' is defining, but 'Boston Bruins' is becoming too specific. Occuli (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every article within the various categories that I checked (and admittedly I did not check every single one) is categorized both by the specific team or league along with being categorized at the sport level (e.g. as an ABA announcer and as a basketball announcer or broadcaster). One of the NHL subcats is the Bruins cat, also up for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Jarrin and Naoko Funayama, to pick 2 at random, would be removed from the entire 'announcer' tree if the above are all deleted. I must say I am more in sympathy with Spanneraol below than with the nom, and must go for Keep all as the nom seems under-researched. Occuli (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or if your actual concern is that some few people might get dropped from the structure you could always say Merge all to the appropriate parent. It is unreasonable to expect a nominator to check several thousand articles prior to making a nomination and base an opinion on ten categories based on your happening to find two articles "at random". Otto4711 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see the problem with this category. The nominators opinion that the "leagues whose game one broadcasts is not defining of a broadcaster" is patently false. Several announcers are known as football announcers or baseball announcers. Vin Scully is certainly known as a Dodgers/baseball announcer... The entire nomination is in error and misguided. Should be kept. Spanneraol (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are known as "baseball announcers" which is why they are and should be in Category:Baseball announcers. Perhaps you should review the many, many previous discussions of this sort of category, since as an apparent newcomer to CFD you may be ignorant of the history here. Otto4711 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with sub categories by team or league? Just cause Otto is on a deletionist kick doesn't mean we should take his word for it. Wrong prior decisions doesn't mean we can't make the correct decision this time. Again, Vin Scully, Jaime Jarrin are defined as Dodgers announcers.. and certain people are defined by broadcasting certain leagues. The nomination makes no sense and if other similar categories were deleted based on wrong headed thinking they should be overturned and restored. Spanneraol (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well again, a review of the history of such decisions would no doubt be illuminating for you, then maybe you would know better than to bust out shit like "deletionist kick", noob. Sportscasters and other performers can broadcast for any number of different leagues and teams and often move from broadcasting one team or league to another team or league, or broadcast multiple teams or leagues at the same time. A separate category for every team or league will result in multiple clutterful categories on biography articles, leading to a reduction in the efficacy of the categories for those articles and the overall system. Categories are not intended to be indices of every professional engagement that every person engages in. There are always going to be a person or two that people can point at and say "oh well, what about this person? What about that person?" That doesn't make the multi-year discussion that's developed the current consensus against these types of categories "wrong headed thinking", and maybe you ought to think a little harder before the next time you insult the work of any number of editors. Otto4711 (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just like we categorize the players by the teams they played for, we should also be categorizing the announcers. What is the difference between categorizing football players by the team they played for and categorizing the announcers by the teams they broadcast? My opinion is just as valid as yours, and you can't ignore my remarks simply because I wasn't involved in your previous cfd discussions... since cfds tend to be held in relative secret with few interested parties even told about the debate... thus you are more likely to find like-minded individuals.. Consensus can change in any event. Spanneraol (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All / Delete Otto4711 This is what these individuals do for a living and this is a strong defining characteristic, if not their single defining characteristic. It is pathetic that all of the self-righteous administrators here, who are so quick to see incivility in anything from someone who shows any sign of disagreement with their interpretations of policy, will refuse to deal with the despicable pattern of abuse and incivility from Otto, a truly disruptive individual with no qualms of attacking individuals by spewing "as an apparent newcomer to CFD you may be ignorant of the history here" and "maybe you would know better than to bust out shit like 'deletionist kick', noob". Otto's "work", for which his sensitivities have been "insulted", has been accomplished by years of attacks and bullying, that has had the effect of pushing away those who disagree with his biased agenda. As big of a problem as Otto is, the far bigger problem are the multiple admins who aid and abet this disruptive abuse, encouraging further such attacks from someone who seems to believe -- apparently, rightfully so -- that he is immune to any administrative action. Alansohn (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One, saying that someone is ignorant of a situation is not an insult, since all it means is they do not have knowledge of the situation. Two, your zeal to claim that my comments are insulting might gain some traction if you were equally zealous about the supposed incivility of others (or, for that matter, your own). Third, what these people do for a living is "sportscaster", not "Boston Bruins announcer" or "ABA broadcaster". Otto4711 (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanneraol has ably pointed out that he has no obligation to meet your demands or follow your supposed precedents, and your efforts at turning this into an issue of the word "sportscaster" only demonstrates that your arguments have no validity even if one could ignore your accompanying personal attacks, bullying and profanity. Your actions here are despicable and are part of a pattern of abuse and incivility that I have never seen from any other editor, and the most recent profanity-laden "maybe you would know better than to bust out shit like 'deletionist kick', noob" crosses lines that more than justify the severest measures to eliminate you and your abuse once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored so I am free to use "profanity" if I choose and the use of one so-called "profanity" hardly makes my comment "profanity-laden" by any non-histrionic understanding of the word "laden". As for the rest of your outburst, it's not the first time you've blown tart comments out of proportion and unfortunately it probably won't be the last. Since you've effectively poisoned this nomination by injecting your personal dyspepsia for me into it, I hereby withdraw the nomination lest it degenerate any further, if that's possible. Otto4711 (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2009 (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:Indianapolis, Indiana[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 There is much precedent for categorizing US with the state along with the city/town. Kbdank71 13:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indianapolis, Indiana to Category:Indianapolis

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article. E.g. Rome and Category:Rome, not Category:Rome, Lazio. I see no reason why the main article and main category should have different names. I will also list subcategories; please be patient with me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories:

For those who object and want to make this a broader discussion of migrating all such categories, I'd be happy to do so, but it will take a lot of tagging and discussion. At the very least, that discussion can start here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per nearly every cfd we have had on this topic in the last year or so (regardless of the name of the article). Eg the exact same one + a 2nd Indianapolis one on the same page, nominated by Koavf in July 2008. Eg this one, another on the same page, this one. Eg this one + 4 others (Schools, Universities and colleges, Omaha, Museums) on 25 Feb 2009. Occuli (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per every other CfD we have on the subject of US city categories. Nominators working on US categories should first become knowledgeable of them and stop wasting their and our time. And no, it does not matter that the US ones may be handled differently than those of some other countries. WP is 'big enough' to handle local variation. Hmains (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The consistent pattern is to match title of the parent article, and we seem to place ourselves here at CfD above policies set at a far more global basis. It is a waste of time to disregard this policy. Alansohn (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the case. The argument that category names should be clearer than article names has been made successfully many times at cfd, and not just in respect of US articles. There is Category:Birmingham, England for instance, whose article is Birmingham. Also, article names may well be decided by a 'large' consensus but it is a local one (the editors interested in the particular article). Consensus at cfd is not generally local. (A US person may well know intuitively which US cities are sufficiently important to 'drop' the state but this is not so well known outside the US.) Occuli (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy set at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#United_States clarifies when we should be adding state and when we shouldn't. Outside of the United States, the standard of using unqualified city names is carried over to categories in almost all cases, and Category:Birmingham, England is the exception that proves the rule, especially because it is unclear that the UK city "has priority on the word over the city in Alabama. The few dozen American cities that are designated by Wikipedia policy to bypass use of state are some of the largest and best-known cities in the United States. I'm not sure how anyone, in our outside of the United States, would ever encounter a situation with a category that would confuse them by the absence of a state in the category. Most readers encounter categories by navigating from a category on an article, and the article itself would give them ample context. If someone reading the article for Sonny Bono, who was born in Detroit (notice the lack of a state in the article title), were to encounter Category:People from Detroit -- and not the inconsistent Category:People from Detroit, Michigan -- I fail to see what their source of confusion would be. If someone from outside of the United States, say from Paris, was editing an article about someone from Chicago, wouldn't they be confused by a requirement to use Category:People from Chicago, Illinois, rather than the far more logical Category:People from Chicago corresponding to Category:People from Paris. The overwhelming standard for such city-related categories is to use the article title as is. If we followed this simple standard, and only made occasional exceptions when there is some added ambiguity by use of the city without the state or country, we would greatly reduce confusion. The current hodgepodge only adds to the confusion it purports to be avoiding. Alansohn (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's you Americans who use the 'city, state' formulation, not the French or the Italians; so examples from Europe are not really relevant. The standard American usage is Category:People from Tallahassee, Florida (this is not because the world is littered with multiple Tallahassees, it's because this is the US-standard). Confusion is caused by 99% of US cities using the Boulder, Colorado formulation and with a very few (some of these not particularly well-known globally such as Boston, which is certainly not unambiguous) exceptions. Occuli (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame me. We've set a standard that most U.S. cities include the state but the largest don't. Outside the U.S., most don't have any other qualifier, unless there is a risk of confusion. The simple solution as a consistent standard is to match the title of the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Not because the name of the cat page should necessary match the name of the article page. I do think that cat pages should be less ambiguously named and therefore should include disambiguation markers more often. But in this case, the case of Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, and a few other (not many however) American cities, there is no ambiguity. As the nominator says, we don t have Rome, Lazio, nor do we have Paris, Ile de France, or London, Greater London. The far lesser known Rome, New York; London, Ontario; and Paris, Texas are marked, of course, for clarity. There is the issue, however, in doing so of what the scale of difference should be for saying the larger or largest need not have a 'disambiguity' marker (100:1?, measured by population). Mayumashu (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Los Angeles is not ambiguous? Clearly you have not been following the discussions. Does it mean the city, or the county or maybe the Greater Los Angeles Area. Then again it could be the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. The city is not at the main name space because of a discussion on the primary use, but it was dragged along, when other possible exceptions to the article naming conventions were renamed. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - ??Well, it, London, Lagos, Dublin, and a number of other big cities are ambiguous a different manner, as you point out, but adding ', California' doesn t disambiguate these, obviously, as all are in the same state, county, or whathaveyou. It should be Category:Los Angeles (city), Category:Greater Los Angeles Area, and Category:Los Angeles Metropolitan Area (should having bother the latter two be necessary).
Support category to match the article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We just dealt with this a month ago. Will we have the same discussion about every city?--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It should have never been switched in the first place; Indianapolis is a major city and does not need the Indiana qualifier which makes the whole category longer.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 19:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per previous consensus on this series of renames. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2009 (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:Category:Geology of Eastern Washington[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 via G7 per author request below. VegaDark (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Incorrect name. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Deletion—as the original creator of this category, I agree with the rationale and have no problem with its deletion. Williamborg (Bill) 05:32, 23 May 2009 (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.