Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 10 May 12 >

May 11[edit]

Category:Original 30 Anglican parishes in the Province of Maryland[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) 12:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Original 30 Anglican parishes in the Province of Maryland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The question here is, is this defining for the churches involved? I don't believe so since they just happened to exist at a specific point in time. Navigation is much better if you use the existing List of the original 30 Anglican parishes in the Province of Maryland. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:25, 11 May 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:Christian Pneumatology[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, noting it matches the main article. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Christian Pneumatology to Category:Pneumatology
Nominator's rationale: This field is only relevant to Christianity, so the adjective is redundant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article certainly doesn't seem to confine itself to Christianity, though that could be the fault of a badly written intro. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:17, 11 May 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:Quakerism[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. Well, not quite. The consensus seems to be to split the article. So lets hold off on the rename here until we see what happens with the article. If the article is split then the category will need to be renamed/split to match. If a discussion on the article is to not split and keep it at the current name, then this needs to be moved as proposed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Quakerism to Category:Religious Society of Friends
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Otherwise, split Religious Society of Friends into an article about the organizations and Quakerism into an article about the beliefs and practices. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split the article 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there is not a Religious Society of Friends, but multiple groups within Quakerism, some of which broke 200 years ago or more, splitting the article makes sense. Exactly how to split it I am not sure, but it needs to be split, not the category renamed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:15, 11 May 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:Voyager Golden Record[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) 12:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Voyager Golden Record to Category:Voyager program
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Voyager program, Category:Interstellar messages and some -- but not all -- of the other parent categories. per WP:SMALLCAT. This single recording does not merit its own category, imo, unless people feel that the musical compositions listed in Contents of the Voyager Golden Record could be categorized in Category:Musical pieces included on the Voyager Golden Record, or some such. What say you all? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already done, already CfD'ed, already deleted. See here and here. And yes, this is a trivial category linking two articles already well linked. Merge to Category:Voyager program.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I missed that. I did check to see if source cat was linked to from a previous CfD, to no avail. Yes, the case for a merge seems clear, based on those previous CfDs. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 11 May 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.

Romani Sportspeople[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) 12:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:54, 11 May 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:Cross-Cultural Theatre[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 Category:Cross-Cultural Theatre, rename Category:Alternative Theatre to Category:Alternative theatre. Jafeluv (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cross-Cultural Theatre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Alternative Theatre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete A similar debate took place a few days ago (here) although it's a stretch to call it a debate given that the creator and I were the only ones who participated. These two categories should be deleted for two reasons. The first is that they were only created to hold one article (this is in fact the stated objective). The second issue is that there is no accepted and well defined notion of "cross-cultural theatre" or of "alternative theatre". So there is no way to populate those categories in an objective way. Pichpich (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Pichpich, First of all, I am taken aback by this. I did not "create" the category "Cross- Cultural Theatre". It had already been created and was brought to my attention by a Wikipedian who infomed me that it had become empty and, for that reason alone, would soon be deleted. I did not immediately respond to the Wikipedian's extremely helpful hint because I was awaiting news about the fate of "Multi-Cultural Theatre" a category I had indeed created, and has since, due to your efforts, been eliminated. Because that happened I was willing to compromise and use "Cross-Cultural Theatre" instead.

As for "Alternative Theatre", I was delighted to discover this in what appeared to be the category pages (was I wrong?-- I am new to all this) after you had eliminated another category that I had created-- "Multi-Disciplinary Theatre"; I thought "Alternative Theatre" already existed as well. And, forgive me, but you are utterly wrong in asserting that "Alternative Theatre" has no accepted and well defined meaning, It is, in fact, a widely, widely known- and widely, widely used, and widely widely accepted term encompassing all forms of experimental theatre, or theatre which is off the beaten track, and has been in wide use since the 1970's (if not before).

I do not pre-suppose ignorance on the part of Wikipedians, nor should you. It is wrong to limit the theater listings in this encyclopedia in a way that prevents well-known terms (and concepts) relating to a discipline from being represented. And although I stated my rationale for the category's continued life being that it described the work we do (which it does) it wasn't because we are the only company presenting "Multi-Cultural" or "Cross-Cultural" or "Alternative" theatre! We are FAR from the only company doing this! Two outstanding examples immediately come to mind: the renowned English director, Peter Brook, who has, to great acclaim, consciously been creating alternative, cross-cultural theater for decades; also the work of the world-celebrated La Mama Experimental Theater Club in New York whose work, since the 1960's, has also been consciously based on alternative, cross-cultural principles and collaborations, and, if you like, I will give you many more such examples, but as I wrote you a while ago, all one need do to find those is to enter "Multi-Cultural" , "Cross- Cultural" or "Alternative" or "Multi-Disciplinary" theatre in the Google search engine in (correction: without) quotation marks, to discover that, for multi-cultural you will be rewarded with over four million listings, for cross-cultural and multi-disciplinary almost two million, and for alternative you will be granted over a million listings. Shouldn't all this be rationale enough? Wikipedia, although a world in and of itself, is part of the larger world, and, from what I understand aims to be fully and gloriously representative of it. But from what I also glean, Pichpich, if a category has already existed and someone wants to re- populate it, that is fair game, so perhaps I needn't have gone into all this. Mx96 14:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Addendum: There are three Wikipedia articles that either refer to or are about “Alternative Theatre”. They are Hunger Artists Theatre Company , Alternative theatre and Fringe Theatre . Mx96 14:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Addendum 2: I have discovered that the category "Alternative theatre" exists with now 5 entries under its banner including a large sub category entitled Fringe Theatre, with many, many listings-- (and now understand why having read Shawn's message below; thank you, Shawn) --BUT theatre is spelled with a low-case t instead of the upper case T that I used as in "T"heatre, so I have changed the t to a lower case on our page making it "Alternative theatre" and trust this will suffice. Mx96 Addendum 3: Please see my note to Shawn-- below. that refers to my having discovered a Wikipedia article entitled Cross-cultural which refers to and gives examples of cross-cultural theater. Mx96 15 May 2011[reply]

    • Mx96, it will make discussion more difficult if you continue to amend your comments after posting, as you did here. Please try to post comments in sequence, individually signed and dated. Or if you really need to replace a comment, use strike-through. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Shawn. Thanks for the admonition; I tend to edit a lot.Mx96

Response: Firstly, thank you, Shawn for the objectivity you’ve shown in this discussion; it’s been very helpful. Secondly, as to an article being written about “cross-cultural theatre”, that would be fine, but “cross - “ means crossing, which is pretty straight forward, so one doesn’t need to have prior knowledge of the term, “cross-cultural theatre” to grasp its meaning. Mx96 19:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Addendum : And I have just discovered that there already IS an article in Wikipedia entitled Cross-cultural that describes Cross-cultural plays, films, music, fiction and poetry. Mx96 15 May 2011[reply]

    • My mistake. A speedy deletion was already declined. I have removed that tag. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 11 May 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: Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom 1751[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) 12:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category: United Kingdom Acts of Parliament 1751
Nominator's rationale: For 1707-1801 the correct category is Category:Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain eg for 1751 Category:Great Britain Acts of Parliament 1751 Hugo999 (talk) 12:23, 11 May 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:Women's sports organisations in the United States[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Women's sports organisations in the United States to Category:Women's sports organizations in the United States
Nominator's rationale: The accepted spelling of organizations in the United States is with a z rather than an s. All other Untied States organization categories use that spelling. Racepacket (talk) 11:38, 11 May 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:Brehm Paintball Equipment[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete under G1. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Brehm Paintball Equipment to article [[]]
Nominator's rationale: This is article/userspace content. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:17, 11 May 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:Current Missions[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete under G1. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Current Missions to article [[]]
Nominator's rationale: This looks like article/userspace content. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:15, 11 May 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:Current Team Members[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete under G2. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Current Team Members to article [[]]
Nominator's rationale: This looks like article content :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a Speedy Delete to me. Occuli (talk) 11:30, 11 May 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:Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel to Category:Vallabhbhai Patel
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:40, 11 May 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:Haitian language writers[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 with the main article location breaking the uncertainty. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Haitian language writers to Category:Haitian Creole-language writers
Nominator's rationale: Rename to one of a few reasonable possibilities. My own preference is Category:Haitian Creole-language writers since it matches both the parent category and the article Haitian Creole language. (Haitian-language, Creole-language would also be possibilities) Pichpich (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the preference to have the category match with Haitian Creole language. However, a Creole language usually implies a language that is closer to the European language from which it originated than Haitian is. I used Haitian rather than Haitian Creole to name the page in order to represent that distinction. I would be okay with a change to "Haitian-language" though. 123whatevs (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I sympathize with User:123whatevs's concerns, but category space is not the place to work this out. The language name used in this category should match the article Haitian Creole language. If you don't like that name, the first step is to build consensus to move the article to a different name. LeSnail (talk) 04:51, 12 May 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:Loonatics Unleashed[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) 12:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Loonatics Unleashed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category, links only into three articles. JJ98 (Talk) 06:28, 11 May 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:Standard gauge[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: Withdraw by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting

Nominator's rationale: This will remove several intermediate categories which are unique to “Standard gauge” (railway) lines, so that the categories of standard gauge railways by country eg Category:Standard gauge railways in the United Kingdom would go directly to Category:Track gauge by country and Category:Standard gauge railways (as do the categories for Narrow gauge railways already, see Category:Narrow gauge railways by country). These intermediate categories are unnecessary.
PS: Is it necessary to have a category for countries where most of the lines are of one gauge; or rather just categorise the exceptions eg Category:Narrow gauge railroads in the United States. The category Category:Standard gauge railways in the United States only has 57 articles, but should include most railroads in the United States (and it is not a subcategory of Rail transport(ation) in the United States). Hugo999 (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, imho, it is necessary to have all these railways categorised, although appropriate sub-categorisation should be used where required) as the gauge is a defining characteristic of a railway. If we say that standard gauge should not be categorised where it is the majority gauge in a country, then we defeat the point of the categorisation and give the impression that it is not a commonly used gauge. It also gives a misleading impression for railways that have changed gauge (many railways lines in the UK for example), and it is not the majority gauge for funicular railways, so should they be categorised or not? Should we also not categorise the majority of railways in South Africa as Cape Gauge and only categorise the ones that are? Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:1520 mm gauge railways into Category:Russian gauge railways

Nominator's rationale: “Russian gauge is defined as 1520 or 1524 mm gauge. And of the 6 articles in the 1520 mm category, 2 are for Russian railways, and 2 are railways in China or Iran that connect with Russian railways. Hugo999 (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While the Russian lines probably ought to move to Category:Russian gauge and the connecting railways might fit there if they were built to connect to Russian railways, but Peak Tram is a funicular railway in Hong Kong that uses this gauge and is completely independent of Russian railways. Note also that the categorisation of articles by gauge is far from complete, I've done about 3 days solid on categorising railways and have only managed to do: Iran, China, Jamaica, standard gauge South Africa and all funicular railways, plus parts of Australia, England, Wales and Scotland; and only those railways where the gauge was obvious from the article, so all categories (except possibly those of 2 metres and greater) are likely to significantly expand. I'm also going to leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As Thryduulf mentioned, it's still a work in progress. May be this question should be revisited in the future. Useddenim (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as there is a major recategorisation going on at present; triggered by vandalism of hundreds of track gauge categories. Agree with Thryduulf, though, that it may need to be revisited once the work is done. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all deletions until the current major recategorization is complete. The trains project is still cleaning up the mess caused by the machinations of a sockpuppet of a banned editor. It would be inappropriate to delete anything until it's settled down. oknazevad (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any deletions for now - As has been explained above, WP:TWP is dealing with the aftermath of vandalism by a sockpuppet of a banned editor. That categories may currently be empty is because we are still sorting out the mess. Suggest that this issue be looked at in three months' time. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw: the deletion proposals at present, as there is a cunning plan in progress for various categories of rail gauge! Hence will look at resubmitting the proposals re the standard gauge categories in three months if they are not part of that plan. However I would expect that where most lines in a country (or state/province) are of a particular gauge, the country category eg Category:Rail transport in Mongolia is included in the category here Category:Russian gauge railways (or Category:1520 mm gauge railways instead?) rather than adding the gauge category to every railway line in the country. This would avoid having to add Category:Standard gauge railroads in Texas to every railroad in Texas, and similarly for all the other states. The category Category:Standard gauge railways in the United States contains only a handful (57) of the standard gauge railroads in the USA! Hugo999 (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, unless all railways (including funiculars and maybe also tramways) in a given area are of a gauge, adding the article about the railways in the region to a gauge category would be wrong. That only 57 US railroads are in the category is only because there are a limited number of people working on this and it takes time - when someone focuses on the USA then the population of the category will leap up. The category:Standard gauge railways in Japan for example contained only 2 entries until a couple of days ago, it's now up to 32 and in no way complete. Adding the gauge category to every single rail line article is the intention of this scheme - it's just nowhere near finished yet. Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 16 May 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_May_11&oldid=1074807913"