Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 29 July 31 >

July 30

[edit]

Category:White Whale 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: Speedy rename C2B. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:White Whale albums to Category:White Whale (band) albums
Nominator's rationale: To dab Category:White Whale Records albums and per White Whale/White Whale (band) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 30 July 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:Media by setting

[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 start again from scratch if necessary. There's a general feeling that this category is too much of a mess for even merging to work. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Media by setting to Category:Locations in fiction
Nominator's rationale: Okay, I'm going to take a different approach to this tree by User:Stefanomione than I had planned. He's been been calling books, even novels, "media" in a way that is confusing. If something is "set" in a place, it is a fictional work that belongs in the category tree for Category:Creative works: something distinct from Media and its category tree Category:Mass media, which we reserve more for the instruments of modern communications. The detailed description at Category:Mass media does explain that " Other forms and uses of media generally fall under the heading of entertainment media." But "entertainment media" is just a piped link to Entertainment. User:Stefanomione has, I believe, misunderstood our category trees for Mass media and Creative works, spawning a myriad of poorly named, confusing and inconsistent groupings.

Now, particular to this nomination, if something is "set" (as opposed to "shot" or "produced") somewhere, it is by definition a work of fiction. We are classifying articles by their fictional setting. So what is the difference between the nominated category tree and the pre-existing Category:Locations in fiction? None that I can see. For example, compare any two such categories: Category:Media set in Morocco and the Category:Morocco in fiction.

If this top-level nom is successful, I'll nominate the myriad of sub-cats for merging to the applicable Foo in fiction category, or renaming if no such in-fiction category exists, but it'll take time.

And should we try to block this guy from creating more categories? I've been nominating his stuff for years and he does more damage than good, it seems to me.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 30 July 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:Self-styled orders of knighthood

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Self-styled orders of knighthood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcat, subjective, and as used, not appropriate to its claim. the main article should be self-styled orders (of chivalry), but that article itself is a stub, and many of the self-styled orders are so small that they will never qualify for article status, because they're not recognized in the first place, so there is no expandability. The cat was populated incorrectly as well; not with groups as it should have been, but mainly with individuals like Henry Lincoln, who never claimed to be a knight (but wrote a book about the Priory of Sion, and Karl Gotthelf von Hund, founder of a short-lived German Masonic system, which was also not a chivalric system, nor did it claim to be. Also listed was a pretender to the Jacobite throne, who also did not claim to be aq knight, and was listed in the appropriate pretender cat already. Obviously, individuals are not "orders of knighthood" and the creator of the cat did not really know what to do with it. Another addition was the Larmenius Charter, which was a forged document purporting to be Knights Templar related. After taking out the obviously incorrect entries, there are only two left. MSJapan (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The website that showed Henry Lincoln knighted by the Militi Templi Scotia order at Newbattle Abbey in Scotland has been deleted but here's a pic

[1] Lung salad (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this [2] Lung salad (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ::Keep. Self-styled orders tarnish the existence of bonafide genuine orders of knighthood holding pedigrees dating back centuries by their existence. How can it be "point of view" if an order of knighthood is not officially recognised by any legal authority, and is an obvious fabrication? And there are secondary sources - website articles by authorities like Guy Stair Sainty and books like Rebels, Pretenders & Impostors by Cheesman & Williams.Lung salad (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check out this article on French Wikipedia - there's more than enough material:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_ordres_de_fantaisie

Lung salad (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here's an online article on the subject matter by Guy Stair Sainty:

http://www.chivalricorders.org/orders/self-styled/slfstlod.htm

Lung salad (talk) 10:02, 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:False Order of St John

[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) 23:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:False Order of St John (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Subjective categorization and bad choice of title. This is not a title of a chivalric order called "The False Order of St. John", rather it is "False (as in fake/unrecognized/illegitimate) Orders of St. John" as in "Groups called the Order of St. John which are not the recognized Hospitallers but use the name" of which there is only one listing in the cat. Bad titling aside, I see no real expandability in terms of articles of substance.MSJapan (talk) 15:34, 30 July 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.

Alumni of schools in Wales

[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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Cardiff High School to Category:People educated at Cardiff High School
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Dynevor School, Swansea to Category:People educated at Dynevor School, Swansea
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Llanelli Boys' Grammar School to Category:People educated at Llanelli Boys' Grammar School
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Monmouth School to Category:People educated at Monmouth School
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of St. Michael's College, Llandaff to Category:People educated at St. Michael's College, Llandaff
Propose renaming Category:Brecon Grammar School alumni to Category: People educated at Brecon Grammar School
Nominator's rationale: In Category:Former pupils by school in Wales (and generally in UK secondary school categories), there has been little support for 'alumni' in cfds. In contrast there has been substantial support for the 'People educated at' formulation. This change would reduce names in Category:Former pupils by school in Wales from the present 4 formats to 2: 'People educated at' and the 'Old BoodleFoodleians' option. Occuli (talk) 14:01, 30 July 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.

National Party of Australia politicians

[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. It is clear there should be some change, but it's impossible to figure out from this discussion exactly what form each one should take. I suggest settling it on the talk page of National Party of Australia and then renominating.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:New South Wales National politicians to Category:National Party of Australia politicians from New South Wales
Propose renaming Category:Queensland National politicians to Category:National Party of Australia politicians from Queensland
Propose renaming Category:South Australian National politicians to Category:National Party of Australia politicians from South Australia
Propose renaming Category:Victoria (Australia) National politicians to Category:National Party of Australia politicians from Victoria (Australia)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Formatting these in the "STATE National politicians" format can give the impression that there is a political party called "STATE National", since the standard format for politicians is "POLITICALPARTY politicians". I suggest renaming these to use the proper name of the party, which is "National Party of Australia", and then matching the format to Category:National Party of Australia politicians by simply adding the state of origin on the end of the name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any reason for excluding the Western Australia category? Two of the state parties have articles, one at National Party of Western Australia, the other at The Nationals South Australia. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I left out the WA one because I knew about the state party article and thought that perhaps it needed to be treated differently in a future nomination, depending on how these turn out. I wasn't aware of the SA party article, which suggests maybe this one could be treated differently as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a bit of a problem with the SA and WA articles - basically the two state parties use the same format for their branding and formal names but the articles have gone different ways. As I understand it the NSW and Victoria (and Queensland before it merged) state parties have the same name forms. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They're all state politicians (see the dicussion at Category talk:Western Australian Liberal politicians) so add 'state' somewhere in the title, e.g. Category:National Party of Australia state politicians from Queensland. Corresponding federal categories can be added when someone gets around to it. Miracle Pen (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's probably a good idea if they are all meant to be state politicians. With the current names, there's no reason federal politicians from the state in question could not be added to the categories. In fact, I assumed it was for both federal and state politicians, which is kind of why I suggested the names I did. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many of these people were never members of the National Party of Australia - the WA and SA ones are explicitly members of separate organisations (the WA one was started in opposition to the NPA's affiliated organisation, ran independently for 7 years then absorbed the affiliated organisation and for 19 years retained affiliation before effectively splitting again). SA's history has always been that of an independent party founded by locals in the 1960s and limited to a couple of electorates - the official Country party merged into the LCL in the 1930s. The WA federal National member in the House of Representatives is not part of the Nationals caucus and sits with the independents (see bullet 4). WA and SA delegates are able to attend national conferences, but this right is occasionally restricted. I could anticipate the Foundation receiving complaints from the WA party if they were to be so classified, as I know some of them monitor Wikipedia. Queensland had its own "national" headquarters for its state party for the Bjelke-Petersen years. Also the NPA only existed from about 1984 onwards - previous incarnations were the National Country Party, the Country Party etc, all of which are included in these categories. Orderinchaos 21:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Similar to my comments on the Liberals below, these categories should be based on the state parties and use the current/final name - we have the Country and NCP incarnations covered by the National articles already. It's probably best to use the state specific name in each case:
  • Timrollpickering (talk) 13:53, 8 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.

Liberal Party of Australia politicians

[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. It is clear there should be some change, but it's impossible to figure out from this discussion exactly what form each one should take. I suggest settling it on the talk page of Liberal Party of Australia and then renominating. (Also, "Liberal" in Australia simply means "conservative".? No wonder this is confusing.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Australian Capital Territory Liberal politicians to Category:Liberal Party of Australia politicians from the Australian Capital Territory
Propose renaming Category:New South Wales Liberal politicians to Category:Liberal Party of Australia politicians from New South Wales
Propose renaming Category:Queensland Liberal politicians to Category:Liberal Party of Australia politicians from Queensland
Propose renaming Category:South Australian Liberal politicians to Category:Liberal Party of Australia politicians from South Australia
Propose renaming Category:Tasmania Liberal politicians to Category:Liberal Party of Australia politicians from Tasmania
Propose renaming Category:Western Australian Liberal politicians to Category:Liberal Party of Australia politicians from Western Australia
Propose renaming Category:Victoria (Australia) Liberal politicians to Category:Liberal Party of Australia politicians from Victoria (Australia)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Formatting these in the "STATE Liberal politicians" format can give the impression that there is a political party called "STATE Liberal", since the standard format for politicians is "POLITICALPARTY politicians". I suggest renaming these to use the proper name of the party, which is "Liberal Party of Australia", and then matching the format to Category:Liberal Party of Australia politicians by simply adding the state of origin on the end of the name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / lean oppose It's a difficult one, but it's what happens when one tries to enclose complicated and sometimes quite fluid reality within the straitjacket of naming conventions.
  1. Not all historical Liberal Parties had anything to do with the Liberal Party of Australia. The Commonwealth Liberal Party, Western Australian Liberal Party (1911–1917), and the Liberal Country League of SA (1930s onwards) are but three examples, and there were Liberal movements in SA and VIC which weren't part of the party during the party's existence but were still Liberal politicians.
  2. Only federal politicians are officially members of the federal branch. State members are members of their state organisation, which could have any number of official names.
  3. With all the permutations possible, one arbitrarily divides people into a raft of categories which are not necessarily useful for searching. "Liberal" in Australia simply means "conservative". Orderinchaos 21:45, 30 July 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:SuperKombat

[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) 04:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:SuperKombat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Article on subject has been deleted. Mtking (edits) 05:01, 30 July 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:SuperKombat events

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:SuperKombat events to Category:Kickboxing events
Nominator's rationale: Only one article, which has questionable notability, SuperKombat itself had was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat Mtking (edits) 04:31, 30 July 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:Fictional New York City Police Department officers

[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: withdrawn.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional New York City Police Department officers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: As much as I think this is a perfectly fine idea for a category, this doesn't have any articles in it, except for one redirect. If it is populated, my opinion would change.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently so, my apologies. Even so if we have one for detectives why not one for cops? HominidMachinae (talk) 07:58, 31 July 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:Prisoners who died in Western Australian detetion

[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 speedily as a sole editor request. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Prisoners who died in Western Australian detetion to Category:Prisoners who died in Western Australian detention
Nominator's rationale: Typo - ie spelling issue detetion -- should be detention SatuSuro 01:07, 30 July 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:Texas Tech basketball

[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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Texas Tech basketball to Category:Texas Tech Red Raiders and Lady Raiders basketball
Nominator's rationale: In all other subcategories of Category:College basketball teams in the United States, the names of both genders of the teams are used, such as in Category:Tennessee Volunteers and Lady Vols basketball.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 01:06, 30 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_30&oldid=1090453532"