Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 4

< August 3	August 5 >

August 4[edit]

Category:Buildings and structures destroyed by fire[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 and purge. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures destroyed by fire to Category:Building and structure fires

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with all other subcats of Category:Fires by type. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the parent is Category:Buildings and structures by condition ie buildings which are now destroyed, not just those which have had a fire in them (although presumably a serious fire to justify an article!) Hugo999 (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Also purge articles not actually on fires as well as parent cats that are not specifically about fires.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2011 (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:JMY Records albums[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the thing does not have an article no reason to cat around it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2011 (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:Fanny Lú[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Minimal content to populate category that already can't be found and linked from the eponymous article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I think the nominator meant "can be found". Insufficient content to justify eponymous category. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2011 (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:Terrorist incidents in Norway in 2011[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 and upmerge to Category:Terrorism in Norway. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Terrorism is so rare in Norway that such a page would never be populated. Change it to per decade, then maybe. Lampman (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the bigger scheme of Category:Terrorist incidents in 2011, where it's OK to have a group of one. Compare with Russia, Morocco, India, etc. Lugnuts (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Terrorism in Norway and other parent categories. The India category is justified as it has a set of siblings within Category:Terrorist incidents in India by year. The Morocco category is on its own, but is of slight use as the article within it is named after a city rather than the country. The Norway category is really not needed as the article name includes Norway. (I added one parent category to the nomination.) - Fayenatic (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, otherwise this is speculation that there are more attacks planned. --Shuki (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Fayenatic. Unnecessarily specific category. Reso lute 14:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The rate of terrorism in Norway does not justify reducing this cat down to the year level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not sufficient terrorism in Norway to justify this scheme. Articles can be placed in both a global or European year category and a all-encompassing terrorist incidents in Norway category. I doubt if there have been ten terrorist incidents in Norway through history. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Terrorism in Norway, Category:Terrorist incidents in 2011, and Category:2011 in Norway per discussion above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:25, 11 August 2011 (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:Historic districts in Volusia County[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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic districts in Volusia County to Category:Historic districts in Volusia County, Florida

Nominator's rationale: State name should be included with the county. NOTE; This category was originally created by User:Erik9bot during a 2009 Cfd, but was a redlinked category until today. ----DanTD (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Counties are pretty obscure, so it's best to have the state to with it.Curb Chain (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2011 (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:Categories for discussion by month[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalle: While these categories were once necessary to prevent old CfD discussions from being forgotten, I think that we no longer need it now that Wikipedia:Database reports/Old deletion discussions keeps track of this. Additionally, no other deletion processes have similar categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that familiar with the details of the cfd process, however I'll take your word that they are no longer needed. The fact that other deletion preocess do or do not usse the system, does not treally matter, simply what is best/easiest. Note, if the templates are modified the catgegories will self nom for CSD, once they are a month out of date and empty. The parent cat should be removed from the monthly maintence categories category, etc.. (Short version, give me a shout and I'll help witht making it a clean removal.) Rich Farmbrough, 13:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

A clean removal is actually simple - remove the DMC template at the end of {{Cfd all}}. Note that this template is fully protected, and that care needs to be taken to remove the correct number of close braces at the end. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As one of those who actually uses this category, it makes the cleanup task a lot easier. While some of the problems with the report can be addressed, it is still not ideal for those actually working on these. Among the problems are the fact that it is updated weekly. It mixes all of the discussions, not just categories, into a single report. It is limited to a fixed number of discussions. This is a maintenance category that has shown it's worth so why delete it? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this seems to be a useful administrative cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Echoing Vegaswikian these categories are much more useful than the database report. It's very easy at the end of a month to find categories that were tagged but never listed and ones that got overlooked in closures. That database report does not offer that kind of easy checking. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm aware that Vegaswikian goes through these regularly to effect clean-up, and he does a very good job and if he says that the alternate method mentioned is not as good for his purposes, I think that's a good reason to keep the categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:23, 11 August 2011 (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 from Santa Fe, Argentina[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 rename C2B. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Santa Fe, Argentina to Category:People from Santa Fe, Santa Fe Province

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Inadequate disambiguation, as there are two 'Santa Fes' in Argentina, the city and the province; Category:Santa Fe (city) won't work here however as there is also the city of Santa Fe, New Mexico (Category:People from Santa Fe, New Mexico) Mayumashu (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2011 (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:4-dimensional geometry[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 to Category:Four-dimensional geometry. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:4-dimensional geometry to Category:Fourth-dimensional geometry

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Related articles spell out the word "fourth" in their names. 70.226.163.63 (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Four-dimensional geometry. The related articles use (one- two- three-) not (first- second- third-). Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename since it it is not about the (a) fourth dimension, but about all four dimensions (or some four dimenssions if you prefer). Rich Farmbrough, 13:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Rename to Category:Four-dimensional geometry. Main article is Four-dimensional space; parent is Category:Multi-dimensional geometry, grandparent is Category:Geometry. Occuli (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2011 (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:Sample CDs[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only two entries, both are PRODed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query are there relevant notable sample CDs with articles? If so is this then a useful cagtegory? Rich Farmbrough, 13:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I searched for "sample CD", found another one, added it to the category, and PRODded it too. It is conceivable that sample CDs might be notable for having helped the promotion of notable bands in the past, but if so we could expect that articles would already have been created. In the new age of digital downloads, they are no longer going to be that important. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a case of a thing that is virtually never notable. Just having the cat will give people the false sense that there are some notable sample CDs, something we have yet to see any evidence of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The category isn't for sample CDs as in samples of an artist's work, but rather sample CDs as in CDs of sound to load into a sampler. Much like synthesizers, they provide a palette of sounds for a musician to draw from. Having said that, it looks like no one else has contributed any articles about any sample CDs, so despite some being used by many prominent bands and shaping their sound somewhat, if no one considers them noteworthy, I won't argue with that. Zoeb (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2011 (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:Samplers[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 rename C2B/D. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Samplers to Category:Samplers (musical instrument)

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, to dab from Sampler (album)/Category:Sampler albums —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Would also dab from other meanings of "sampler" --GreyCat (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Support GreyCat's proposal per aboveCurb Chain (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The current cat is using the use that is listed 6 on the disambiguation page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2011 (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:Carlsberg Laboratory staff[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Better served by a list in the Carlsberg Laboratory article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the Carlsberg Laboratory appears to be a research lab of some distinction and working there is accordingly a defining characteristic. Occuli (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This category is no different from categories like Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge associated with many wikipedia accounts on academic institutions. Hhbruun (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Probably even a better example of a similar category (although not as well populated as of yet) is Category:Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory staff. There is clear precedent for having this type of category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2011 (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:Australian mob bosses[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 to Category:Australian organised crime figures; revisit if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The concept of a criminal "mob" is an American idiom. It has no place in Australian culture. WWGB (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-There are mobs or, mafias if you will, in other countries so I wouldn't call it just an American term. Whether Australians use it I know nothing about.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's hard to know what to do when the category has been pre-emptively emptied of contents. It's likely that being a "mob boss" is something that does happen in Australia, we just need to rename this to an appropriate Australian term. But when a user empties the category, it makes it much more difficult to progress the issue. Did you empty it, WWGB? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, mea culpa! I removed the cat from some articles as it was not appropriate to those individuals. I subsequently proposed the cat for deletion as there is no such thing as an "Australian mob boss". I did not realise (then) that cats should not be vacated. The term in Australia would probably be "gang leader" or "organised crime figure". WWGB (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Were the articles that were removed what you would call gang leaders or heads of an organized crime group in Australia, or was the category application just way off in this regard? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The concept of the category is fine, Alphonse Gangitano and Robert Trimbole could certainly be described as "Australian organised crime bosses" or similar (although I'm not convinced Carl Williams fits that description). My concern is the use of the term "mob boss" which is a term not used in Australia. Perhaps the existing category Category:Organised crime in Australia is sufficient? WWGB (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK; I'm not sure what the best solution here would be. There does seem to be a system of Category:Mob bosses which is divided by nationality, so maybe we do need to select a different name that works in Australian English. Personally, I'm not sure the overall categorization of mob bosses is necessary, but it's the apparently developed system which gives me pause. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for spending time on this, I'll leave you to reflect further. The issue is probably one of WP:COMMONALITY. WWGB (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for now to Category:Australian organised crime figures (or similar) and someone with more knowledge can in the future create an appropriately named category for leaders of these "mobsters", if that's necessary. I'm assuming Category:Australian mobsters would be inappropriate as well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:20, 11 August 2011 (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:Museums accredited by the American Association of Museums[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 to delete; rename to Category:Institutions accredited by the American Association of Museums; revisit name if necessary. There's a variety of opinions and unanimity against the status quo. If the cat needs splitting out this can be done if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Museums accredited by the American Association of Museums to Category:Institutions accredited by the American Association of Museums

Nominator's rationale: Rename.

The AAM accredits more than just museums. Also accredits arboreta such as the Adelaide Botanic Gardens and other similar institutions. The category name should be improved. Donama (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nomCurb Chain (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete accreditation categories are disfavored as they merely convey one entity's thoughts on matters (are we going to have Category:Films rated two thumbs up?) and many things have many (potential) accreditors (chefs, universities, lawyers, athletes, automobiles, and most professions) and we'd be cluttered with everything Category:Chefs with one Michelin star, Category:Chefs with two Michelin stars, Category:Products certified by Underwriters Laboratory, Category:Lawyers rated AV by Martindale Hubble, Category:American universities accredited by the United States Department of Education, Category:Automobiles getting five stars crash testing from NHTSA, Category:Athletes sanctioned by the NCAA, Category:Things given the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, Category:Businesses approved by American Express to cash their travellers' checks, ad nauseum. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean like Category:Michelin Guide starred chefs? I tried to get this one deleted once upon a time—was able to eliminate the one-, two-, three-star categories, but this overall parent was kept by consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ought to go, too; but this category's self-promotional intro "AAM Accreditation is the museum field’s primary vehicle for quality assurance, self-regulation, and public accountability, and earns national recognition for a museum for its commitment to excellence in all that it does: governance, collections stewardship, public programs, financial stability, high professional standards and continued institutional improvement." rings hollow when one notices that museums that aren't in the category: the Louvre, the Prado, the British Museum, the V&A, the Hermitage, the Smithsonian, the Guggenheim, the Vatican Museums, the Rijksmuseum, Monticello, Mount Vernon, etc. I guess they've been inadvertently omitted, or they lack national recognition or commitment to execllence, or the self-serving crap demonstrates the irrelevance of the certification for truly great institutions and is mainly for also-rans. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As this is an accreditation body for American museums, the exclusion of the Louvre, Prado, British Museum, etc., shouldn't be surprising. The separate museums of the Smithsonian Institute, and the Guggenheim, are accredited,[1] regardless of whether their articles are currently categorized as such. postdlf (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Category:Museums in the United States accredited by the American Association of Museums (subcat of Category:Museums in the United States). The American Association of Museums would seem to be the prime arbiter of museums in the US but not of botanical gardens in Australia. (Adelaide Botanic Gardens does not mention this international accolade and is not on the linked list: perhaps someone is playing a little joke.) Category:Institutions in the United States accredited by the American Association of Museums could be created as a parent and non-museums moved into it. Occuli (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46. It can be listified, but there is no reason for this to be a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46. I agree that this is essentially self-serving and puffery. It's most likely to get placed on the borderline crap museums that need to burnish their credentials, not all the ones that are accredited. A list would be fine. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have a number of other certification- and accreditation-based categories. Accreditation is a topic of central importance to private U.S. educational institutions (which constitute most of the subcats of Category:School accreditors), but I cannot speak to hospitals, museums, or other such institutions.- choster (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Acredidation is important to all US educational institutions, whether public or private. We do have some categories that do group US educational institutions by regional accrdiation authority they are affiliated with, but this seems to only be because there are so many educational institutions in the US and it was felt that at least for stubs it would be better to subgroup them by region instead of individual state. As far as I know this is actually only doen for the stub categories and not other categories. Whether it is a logical system, and whether placing articles on law schools, business schools and other sub-university units in stub categories that look like their contents are universities and colleges I am not sure, but I do not think any of these provide precdents for creating this category for museums.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so we do also have a main category Category:North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. It does not actually say the contents are things accrediated by this organization, and actually I am have my doubts about whether that category really makes sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2011 (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.