Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 3

< February 2	February 4 >

February 3

Category:Information technology institutes

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. postdlf (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Information technology institutes to Category:Information technology institutes and schools

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Some are research institutes and some that are named "Institute" are actually schools. Using the word "school" to describe schools is standard for the subcategories of Category:Schools by type. Another option would be to delete this and divide the contents into new separate categories for IT research institutes and IT schools, but I think there's probably sufficient overlap between the two to keep them together. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. What is meant by saying "some that are named "Institute" are actually schools."? The meaning of the generic word school varies across the world, in the British Isles and Europe a school is generally where children are taught up to age 16/18, and the American use of school to refer to a university etc is uncommon. The subcategories of Category:Schools by type referred to are nearly all schools, for example law schools and medical schools are not included. I do not know what Olfactory means by an IT school: if you mean the street corner 'college' where you learn how to do Excel or how to gain ECDL, I don't think these are present in the category right now. Sussexonian (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a cultural conflict issue, and don't understand the tendency to turn many discussions into one. I mean they are "schools"—places where teachers instruct students in the discipline. Surely that's a fairly universal definition—a "place where teachers instruct students." An "institute" suggests research, but many of the ones that call themselves institutes are primarily teaching places, but the teachers also do research—hence, "institutes and schools". They are a type of technical school just as there are categories for Category:Audio engineering schools, Category:Aviation schools, and Category:Technical schools in Category:Schools by type. If you're nervous about putting this directly in that category, then put it in Category:Universities and colleges by type, where there are Category:Law schools, Category:Medical schools, and a host of others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This ought to be referring to academic institutions carrying out IT research and university level teaching establishments specialising in it. Today every high school (indeed primary school, I expect) teaches IT, so that the proposed change would qualify almost every school in the world for inclusion. If there is confusion, the category should be provided with a headnote, defining its scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may have misunderstood; I may not have been clear enough in my explanations. This is to make the name inclusive of institutes and schools; i.e., those that do research and teaching. I've not proposed Category:Information technology schools, which is what you have opposed. Yes, we need to include only ones that do perform some research, but the point is that some are heavy on the teaching and weak on the research. Hence, institutes and schools. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:53, 8 February 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.

Awards in the United States by year

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: MERGE. postdlf (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:2005 awards in the United States to Category:2005 awards and Category:2005 in the United States

Suggest merging Category:2009 awards in the United States to Category:2009 awards and Category:2009 in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The awards by year categories are not so large as to need division by country. Tim! (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Adequately large categories with ample room for expansion, serving as an effective aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominated. This doesn't look like a developed scheme, just some isolated triple-intersection categories created during User:Levineps's hey-day of category creation. I agree with the nominator that absent a larger scheme there's no reason that the merge targets can't adequately handle these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominated. None of the involved categories are populated to the extent that would require these particular triple-interesections of year, award, and country, nor the general establishment of an Awards by year and country category tree. At this time, these categories hinder navigation more than they help. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Useful. Maurreen (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:46, 9 February 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 Lions rugby union players from Australia

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 all. Jafeluv (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British Lions rugby union players from Australia to Category:British and Irish Lions rugby union players from Australia

Nominator's rationale: Parent article is at British and Irish Lions and is parent category Category:British and Irish Lions. Note this was only created today so I wouldn't worry it's empty, most likely a work in progress Gnevin (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Lions rugby union players from Australia

Category:British Lions rugby union players from Belgium

Category:British Lions rugby union players from Canada

Category:British Lions rugby union players from England

Category:British Lions rugby union players from Germany

Category:British Lions rugby union players from Ireland

Category:British Lions rugby union players from Scotland

Category:British Lions rugby union players from Wales

Support - as creator of these cats, I think this name is actually preferable.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all these related renaming proposals should be listed together, rather than separately. Hopefully, BL players shall be moved into these cats, plus one for each tour that they were on.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:20, 4 February 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 Lions rugby union players

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. Jafeluv (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British Lions rugby union players to Category:British and Irish Lions rugby union players

Nominator's rationale: Parent article is at British and Irish Lions and is parent category Category:British and Irish Lions. Gnevin (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Gnevin (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom (which I've adjusted slightly). Occuli (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Although the combined British/Irish RU touring team has been known by various names, the current name for the team is British and Irish Lions and the cat should be renamed accordingly.--Bcp67 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think this name is actually preferable. However, I wish you'd tell the team, which uses an English (or Anglo-Norman) Lion as its logo... --MacRusgail (talk) 16:23, 4 February 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.

Birds by color

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:

Category:Black and white birds
Category:Birds with red bill or beak

--Xdamr^talk 04:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete, rediculous cat.· Lygophile has spoken 18:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: comment above was only regarding Category:Black and white birds. postdlf (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - i'll expand my comment to count for both categories. it's the same issue, the creater of the second cat. even references the first in his edit summary· Lygophile has spoken 23:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is superficial coincidence and not how birds are studied (though maybe someone will prove me wrong). From the entries thus far, it doesn't even correlate with adaptation to a particular environment (which shouldn't be surprising given the importance of sexual selection in birds). It's also extremely simplistic in that most (all?) birds are not all going to be completely and purely black and white (or does it intend "and" in the disjunctive, so that black birds and white birds are included?). Individuals of a species vary, males and females often vary, and juveniles may vary throughout development. postdlf (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is also Category:Birds with red bill or beak which appears similarly dubious. Occuli (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Thanks for pointing that out; now part of this CFD as well. I think the same arguments apply. It's not always clear what color we're even talking about (male cardinals notwithstanding). I've been working on reptile articles recently, dealing with coloration descriptions such as "gray-brown tinged with green-blue" and "dark olive-green tinged with reddish-brown". It's just not workable as a category scheme. postdlf (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of no encyclopedical worth. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listify of interest to beginning bird watchers, and a perfectly good way to search for birds (via an indexing scheme through basic morphological categorization) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per postdlf, and Listify per 70.29.210.242's observation that this the list is of importance to bird-watchers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no objection to listifying... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've created stubs in my userspace for the two lists (here and here). If it's decided that the categories should be listified, feel free to use that as a starting point. Jafeluv (talk) 16:00, 12 February 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:Spectacled lizards

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. Jafeluv (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Spectacled lizards to Category:Gymnophthalmidae

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match parent article and to avoid ambiguity. I'm normally a fan of common names for titling, but not where it seems too variable or unclear. Microteiids seems used equally (if not more) common, and I just discovered that the Encyclopedia of Life uses "spectacled tegus", a name not even mentioned in the Gymnophthalmidae article. So the scientific name for this lizard family seems the best way to go. postdlf (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:21, 3 February 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:People by educational institution in the Sri Lanka

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: merge per Wikipedia:Snowball clause. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People by educational institution in the Sri Lanka to Category:People by educational institution in Sri Lanka

Nominator's rationale: Merge, as obvious duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Surely this should be a speedy nomination? Jafeluv (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. This didn't appear to me to fit strictly into any of the speedy criteria, and I think it's important to respect the principle that the speedy criteria should be interpreted narrowly. However, I don't see any problem if an admin decides to close it early, per WP:SNOW etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 5 February 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:User kilt

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. User categories exist to facilitate collaboration amongst wikpedians. Editors can collaborate on a topic no matter how they are dressed, or even if they are stark naked, so this category is of no use for collaboration. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see your point. The choice of clothing was not the issue, though. My intent was to portray philia for Scottish culture. I suppose I should categorize the userbox I made with 'Wikipedians interested in Scotland/Scottish culture'. SpunkyLepton (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in Scotland exists. Jafeluv (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this category per nominator. But I welcome SpunkyLepton's initiative, and wish him fruitful editing on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looking forward to it. SpunkyLepton (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Why not? It's just some fun.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, especially since the category creator has explicitly indicated that the title of the category does not match the intent of the userbox. I'd like to echo Debresser's sentiment: the "right" category title right is a minor issue in comparison with showing initiative in forming a collaborative grouping of editors interested in a particular topic. Kudos to SpunkyLepton, and welcome. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:49, 9 February 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.

Summer olympics venues

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: Reverse merge to "xxxx Summer Olympic venues". Jafeluv (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

Nominator's rationale: Revert out-of-process category move and blanking of category pages. Note that these categories were previously discussed at CfD 2008 November 24, which closed as no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Merge per nom. 'Venues of' is better English. Occuli (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not sure how you come to that conclusion. It's more formal, but not actually any "better".--MacRusgail (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in opposite direction Its much better english to say XXXX Summer Olympic venues. Can't think of a single instance in common ussage where you would flip things backwards like the proposal. -DJSasso (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in opposite direction, which is perfectly good english and simpler, and matches the parent category name, Category:Summer Olympic venues. Either way, we should have consistency within that parent, and there are many more subcategories in the XXX Summer Olympics venues form than the other. Category:1976 Summer Olympic venues, for example, was created in 2006, so it was obviously not the product of a recent "out-of-process-move". postdlf (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Torn. Venues of seems to read better, but the first form seems to be more commonly used in other categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge. That scheme works great for the subcategories of Category:Winter Olympic venues, so I don't see any reason this should be different.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:56, 8 February 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:United States national men's ice hockey team coaches

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. Jafeluv (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States national men's ice hockey team coaches to Category:United States men's national ice hockey team coaches

Nominator's rationale: Rename to corrisponding naming convention for the actual national team articles such as United States men's national ice hockey team. DJSasso (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator, as I mentioned in the Cfd leading to the rename of Category:Norway national men's ice hockey team coaches. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indifferent - as the category creator (not sure that it carries any weight), I'm entirely OK with switching the naming convention. I admittedly didn't look closely at other category names when I created it, I was just shocked there wasn't one already. matt91486 (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator for consistency -Pparazorback (talk) 03:16, 4 February 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:Wikipedians against kitten abuse

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no reason to assume that other wikipedians favour kitten abuse, so this category is pointless. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the userbox {{User kittenabuse}}. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Userboxes#Caution about user categories ("userboxes should not automatically include categories") and Wikipedia:User categories ("user categories should not be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices"). –Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the userbox to User:Tbsdy lives/User kittenabuse per Wikipedia:Userbox migration. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this is a humorous category on Wikipedia, really there is no harm in it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that these types of categories do cause harm by diminishing the effectiveness of the user category system as a tool for collaboration purposes (i.e., for finding other editors with particular abilities, interests, or skills that are relevant to the encyclopedia project). It's probably true that just one category would not have a significant effect, but if we keep one for users against kitten abuse, what could stop us from having ones for users who like puppies or flowers, have hairy patches on their backs, or prefer dinner plates decorated with images of yellow flowers and blue marbles? –Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I hate kittens! They make me sneeze, and suffer, and unable to breathe by their mere presence! (Eh, actually... I'm not sure what harm this one does. If it makes the editors so categorised happy, so be it.) Bradjamesbrown is travelling (Talk to my master) 15:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose as per Tbsdy. DES ^(talk) 15:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody dares close this nomination as a "keep", I shall create Category:Wikipedians against brownhaired kitten abuse! Debresser (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and set up one for wikipedians who like puppies and flowers too please.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see how this category serves a collaborative purpose in building the encyclopedia, as there is no "Anti-Kitten Abuse WikiProject" or similar. This is not MySpace. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a user category that does not facilitate encyclopedic coordination and collaboration; there are many precedents for deleting similar support/oppose (see here) and joke/nonsense categories (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). Are we to dedicate a user category and two lists to every joke on Wikipedia? When the petition against kitten abuse was created, it was funny. When the admin-only version was created, it was arguably still funny, but the joke was starting to be stretched. Having a category for this is now equivalent to beating the joke to death and then ritualistically cooking it with cattle prods. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories#Inappropriate types of user categories: this category falls into at least three of the nine categories in that section ("all-inclusive", "advocacy", "joke/nonsense"). –Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failing that, create Category:Wikipedians in favour of kitten abuse, to balance things out a bit. WFCforLife (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the userbox. Wikipedia WP:NOT a social club. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a social club, animal welfare org, advocacy org. We are here to build an encyclopedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:51, 8 February 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:Entertainment Notebook PC

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) 15:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Thus single-item category appears to refer to Hewlett-Packard's marketing of some of its laptop computers. There doesn't seem to much indication that may of these products are individually notable, so the category has little scope for expansion. The one article included is already in Category:Hewlett-Packard products, so no need for merger. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idea! There are many Entertainment Notebook PC's. Possibly can be made into a article with links to different HP computers that are Entertainment PC's. As the Categories creator i think it should either be saved, or be saved in til i create a article under that title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HP dv 1000 (talk • contribs)
Comment. There are two computer lines that meet this definition and are now included in the category. No opinion on keeping. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After thinking about this, it is simply too small of a category at this time and may well be OCAT. So delete and allow recreation if at a later date, there is a main article and more PCs of this type. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:45, 10 February 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.