Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 5 November 7 >

November 6[edit]

Category:Columbia Graduate School of Journalism alumni[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Columbia Graduate School of Journalism alumni to Category:Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match title of parent article Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and parent Category:Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Alansohn (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article and category. Jafeluv (talk) 01:00, 7 November 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:Lists of Royal Navy ships, by type[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.
Propose renaming Category:Lists of Royal Navy ships, by type to Category:Lists of Royal Navy ships by type
Nominator's rationale: The comma in the name strikes me as unnecessary. Courcelles 21:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur. Support. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, no reason to use the comma here when other similar categories omit it. Could be speedied imo. Jafeluv (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The comma tells me that the lists are sorted by the type of list. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 8 November 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:Soviet rockets[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Soviet rockets to Category:Space launch vehicles of the Soviet Union
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category, a subcategory of Category:Space launch vehicles, was proposed for speedy renaming as part of a large batch of subcats of that category, in order to make them "X of Y" name format compliant. This one, however, raised eyebrows (and objections) because it included not just space launch vehicles, but also rocket engines, sounding rockets, and other non-SLV stuff. I've since cleaned it out, though, so that those articles are now in their proper categories, so the category now includes only SLVs, and a subcategory of same, should be renamed to the "X of Y" format as proposed. :) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 20:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no objection in principle, but were not USSR Intercontinental balistic missiles also Soviet rockets? Peterkingiron (talk) 00:36, 7 November 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:Transport songs[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. Dana boomer (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Transport songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Songs about bridges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Bus-related songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Rail transport songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:

No parent article of transport song. Seems very arbitrary criterion for a theme and very nebulous — for instance, "Love Can Build a Bridge" is only about a metaphorical bridge. Creator has history of making dubious categories. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Mike Selinker. And I'd strongly suggest going with a uniform "Songs about foo" theme. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 18:20, 14 November 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 interested in not smoking[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. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in not smoking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Not" category. Violates WP:USERCAT in that it is meant to categorize users who are against something. "For Wikipedians against smoking." - Does not help collaboration to group users in categories by things they don't like. Potentially speedyable if someone had a broad interpretation of G4 as substantially similar to "Wikipedian non-smokers". VegaDark (talk) 19:35, 6 November 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:Tandy games[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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 18. Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tandy games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There exist more specific categories Category:TRS-80 games and Category:TRS-80 Color Computer games. In addition, the two articles that are currently part of Category:Tandy games seem to be falsely tagged. I couldn't verify the existence of a version of the game for any Tandy hardware (see article and MobyGames). -- I hope I did not miss something obvious. Cheers -- Make (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update This begins to make more sense. The platform in question is Tandy 1000, a not-100%-compatible variant of IBM-PC/AT. Games which support this make, were labeled accordingly, Confer scan of floppy. So this category should at least be renamed Category:Tandy 1000 games. However, I am not convinced that this level of granularity is required when categorizing video games by platform. Current practice is to tag these games as Category:DOS games. -- A similar hardware variant is IBM PCjr -- Make (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:TRS-80 Color Computer games as it appears the games listed were meant for this one. I played the Chuck Yeagar flight sim for that PC so I can attest to at least that game being tagged correctly, if improperly. I am saying redirect rather than delete because Tandy is the popular name.陣内Jinnai 03:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in addition to this, there's also Tandy color games, which are PC games that support Tandy color , that might be considered... 76.66.203.138 (talk) 04:59, 7 November 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:Headlands of County XXX.[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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 18. Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Headlands of County Clare, Category:Headlands of County Cork, Category:Headlands of County Donegal, Category:Headlands of County Galway, Category:Headlands of County Dublin, Category:Headlands of County Mayo, Category:Headlands of County Kerry, Category:Headlands of County Louth, Category:Headlands of County Waterford, Category:Headlands of County Wexford, Category:Headlands of County Wicklow.

Propose merging all these categories into a single category for the state Category:Headlands of the Republic of Ireland.
Proposer's rationale. These categories display a level of categorisation that goes too far. Most of them only contain 1 article. Only one category contains more than 3 articles. Collectively, the articles in all the categories only number 21. This is quite a small number of articles even for a national level category. Each article names the relevant county. A discussion has been on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland "8 Headlands by County - proposed deletion of sub-categories" page since October 14th. There have been no dissenting comments on the discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed compromise. Taking on board the comments of jnestorius, may I suggest that the merger into a single national Headland category go ahead but, in addition, all of the Headlands per County should be added to the county level category of "Landforms of County XXX". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:13, 14 November 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:Dormitory buildings[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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 18. Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dormitory buildings to Category:Dormitories
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think this is the more common name for these. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the term has a different meaning in the UK, which is why the category and List of dormitory buildings use the word "building" to specify that they only include buildings. (The main article is just named dormitory, though.) Jafeluv (talk) 01:12, 7 November 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:Estévez family[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Estévez family to Category:Estevez family
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category includes the brother, wife, and children of Martin Sheen, born Ramón Estévez in Ohio. Some members of the family use "Sheen", while others use "Estevez". In the latter group, none of them use an accent in the name. While "Estevez" may be spelled with an accent in Spanish, in English-language sources, including credits, the accent is never used for the members of this family in this category.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the "parent article"? Martin Sheen no longer calls himself "Estévez", nor does anyone else in the family. No living member uses the accent.   Will Beback  talk  10:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. I'm not sure of the point of that article, or why it has that name.   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 06:43, 6 November 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:Lahontan regions[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. Dana boomer (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Lahontan regions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another one of those USGS subunits better addressed as an article if notability can be established. In the end, this should only contain three subcategories for the three units it covers. Not defining for the included articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (sigh). Can we do nothing to suppress the creation of these? They are all non-defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 15 November 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:Aircraft structural failures[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: merge. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Aircraft structural failures to Category:Engineering failures
Nominator's rationale: Up Merge. Remove one extra level of navigation. Do we have any notable aircraft structural failures that are notable and not in flight? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:07, 6 November 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.

Lincoln, England[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 all. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To conform to main article new title. --Mhockey (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – and agree that Lincoln, Lincolnshire sounds rather silly (except as a mailing address). Occuli (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- the categories for Birmingham are for "Birmingham, England", to prevent mis-population from Birmingham, AL. However, I am not clear why the article is at Lincoln, England, rather than Lincoln which is a disambiguation page and ought to be at Lincoln (disambiguation). Everything else, including the US president takes its name directly or indirectly from the English city, so that the city of Lincoln, here in England ought to be the primary subject, with an "otheruses" hatnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per consensus on the article's talk page. We should really be allowed to include categories in mass move requests. Jafeluv (talk) 01:20, 7 November 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 who are planning to retire[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who are planning to retire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is not substantially different from any of the other (now-deleted) categories of Wikipedians by activity status, such as those for retired editors or editors taking a wikibreak. It is not useful to group users by this characteristic because there is really no reason anyone would need to browse through such a category looking for random users who are planning to retire. The category is userbox-populated (as of 30 October 2010), so most of the users in the category probably do not even know that they are categorized. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Wikipedians by plan" categories do not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't see how this would facilitate collaboration in any way. Jafeluv (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems a very random collection. I could be interested in supporting if this contained essays of Wikipedians planning to retire for specific given reasons. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the category creator at User_talk:Acather96#Category:Wikipedians_who_are_planning_to_retire. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:39, 8 November 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 Army Air Force in films[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: Merge. Dana boomer (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:United States Army Air Force in films to both parents
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge to both parents. I don't see a need to keep this small subset of articles separate from the category that contains most of these WWII films. This category created by a banned user is not likely to grow more in the foreseeable future. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i'm not sure if this is the right place to complane, but I bought target for today for my greatgrandpa's veteran's day since he was a wwii usaaf tailgunner, and when he called to find out how to ge mor of the air core dvds, irecommended looking for a list at wikipeedia-- now it makes me look stupid sinc the list is being deleted even thogh it should have hundreds of usaaf films (gramps says prez reagun was in one) what's up with that/ o well another strikout at wikipeeda ian k in arizona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.240.146 (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:39, 14 November 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:School[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: make into category redirect to Category:Schools.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is a duplication of Category:Schools. There were 3 articles in this category, which I have moved to Category:Schools. vgmddg (look | talk | do) 00:33, 6 November 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:2010 architecture[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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 18. Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:2010 architecture to Category:Buildings and structures completed in 2010
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is really a trial balloon for a mass rename. If you look at the introduction it is for Works of architecture completed in the year 2010. The name is ambiguous in that it should include completed in the name. The actual work is finished when the overall design is completed which can be many years before the physical work is finished. Yes, some changes may happen along the way, but these tend to be more engineering related since they figure out how to implement the work. You also run into weird cases over the definition of a work. Take the case of the Harmon Hotel the design was completed in 2006. The visible exterior was completed in 2009 to a redesign done in 2009. The building may not be completed for several more years. To say that it represents 2010 in architecture is rather misleading. With the proposed rename, the completion of these would be included in a well established tree. If someone wants to begin the series for the years when the buildings were designed, then a better named tree can be created. Another example is the Washington Monument which was finished many years after construction began. There are also cases where cathedrals have been built over hundreds of years like Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, New York which is still not finished but was designed in 1888 and is categorized in Category:1888 architecture. I'll contend that the cathedral should be in a redefined or better defined Category:1888 architecture and Category:1909 architecture and not in any completed category. There may be some items that are not buildings or structures, but these can be cleaned up over time. Another issue with the current system is that there is no way to categorize works of architecture that were designed, are notable and were not built. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. In doing more digging, the architecture series uses a template to define the introduction, navigation and population of the parent categories. So if consensus is to support this proposal in concept, it would probably be better to modify the template to change the introductions to removed completed and say year designed and then to create new categories for the completed buildings and structures. This will mean a lot of manual work, but it is probably the best way to proceed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what about architecture that's (a) not "building and structures", or (b) not completed? Example: (a) I Quattro Libri dell'Architettura. 1570 architecture. (b) Volkshalle. 1940 architecture. East of Borschov 00:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this closes as approval of the change, leave a note on my talk page and I'll start making the changes. I'm not expecting the closer to start the process of making the moves. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:49, 16 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_6&oldid=1089087622"