Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 2 June 4 >

June 3[edit]

Category:Fictional immortals[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: listify. The Bushranger One ping only 21:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This category is just too vague and subjective. Does being immortal mean they don't die due to "natural causes"? does it mean they can't die? Did they die and now exist as a sort of undeath/unlife? Were they never "mortal", such as mythological and legendary characters? Do they have superior regeneration? and so on. This simply is better as a list to explain the variant situations in each case. See also Immortality in fiction. - jc37 19:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listify as nom. - jc37 19:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—tautological name. From these definitions of "immortal" there is no such thing as a "non-fictional immortal". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose listify/delete, perhaps rename Maybe these need to be reorganized or the category given a better name, but the trope of fictional characters who cannot die or who do not ordinarily die is well-established. The most problematic article in all of this is the proposed target for listification, because it willy-nilly mixes historical and legendary personages with figures from modern works of fiction. At that, great swathes of the the category members aren't "people" (that, is, human) in the first place. Mangoe (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem with the idea of splitting the fictional examples from the article to a separate list page. - jc37 03:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did the split. - jc37 16:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And I agree that the list target has issues - once this is closed, I'm intending to work on cleaning it up. - jc37 15:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. Makes sense to me. A list can cover this topic adequately. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose listify/delete and Rename The word can be renamed or used the other subcategories to blend with this category, as a work for different fiction areas, thus the word means "ability to live forever", whether it is being immune from death or life after death. There are many ways to keep a useful article with its variated sources, although, there are some who will always use deletion with a thought of doubt making the importance of this website into oblivion and civil war, otherwise lend it purely to the Library of Congress, anyway I believe it needs to be more organized and a proper title to fact the file. -GoShow (...........) 23:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify - There are sooo many problems with this category. First, not all ghosts, undead, werewolves and vampires are necessarily immortal, as per subcats. Some might be, but Dracula has been killed so many times that it is unreasonable in the extreme to call him "immortal". He dies on a fairly regular basis, and just gets lucky enough (or enough support from the publisher or producer) to be made to come back. Also, in fiction, there are other "virtual" immortals, like Donna Troy, who just "get better". Arguments could be made for their inclusion as well. The use of the term "immortal" in the category, without some sort of statement that in many cases the characters are described as immortal, but not necessarily proven to be such in the works themselves, seems to me almost required for NPOV. Regarding so-called "real" immortals, they are presumably? living people, and BLP would presumably have to be applied, and if they don't themselves say that we can't. Breaking it up into two lists, one for fiction and another for real people, seems to me the only way we could go with this and still abide by policy. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename — There is a better way to rename it to immortals, while listing subcategories between real and fiction.--74.34.86.230 (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Immortality in fiction is more extensive (albeit under-referenced). Wouldn't that article be preferable to List of people claimed to be immortal as the starting point for a new list? Perhaps the former could be reworked and renamed as List of fictional immortals or List of immortals in fiction, or something similar. SuperMarioMan 23:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I picked a page with an existing list of fictional characters and creatures. That said, I'm not opposed to your suggested list target. Regardless, this shouldn't be a category. - jc37 15:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as Category:Immortals (dropping the "fictional") or Category:Fictional supernatural characters. Much of the concern expressed here seems to pertain more to the subcategories, suggesting that it is more the organisation within the parent category that needs to be improved. SuperMarioMan 02:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The first would violate the guideline to keep fictional and non fictional separate. As for the second, any character with superhuman abilities (super strength, and so on) would fit under that name, not just "immortal" ones. - jc37 15:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename Category:Fictional supernatural characters would be one option. It is useful to group these together, but if immortality is the problem, then just use a more generic term (hence, supernatural) --KarlB (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    see above for problems with that name. - jc37 15:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The point is that the characters are fictional. Whether or not immortality is actually possible is not relevant, the point is we warn that the contents of the category are on articles on people/things that are not thought to be real.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your right.--74.34.77.231 (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - But are they immortal, as per the category? Ghosts are generally not considered "immortal," they're considered "dead." Some of the other subcategories have similar problems. A list which would be able to indicate on what basis the entities in question are considered immortal, if they are, would be much more useful and less confusing. John Carter (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Immortality can be immune from death or the "ability to live forever", which means you can live forever after death and never die a second death, possibly for a few vampires, but not as much for zombies.--74.34.77.231 (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitions of which make this category broadly ambiguous. Which is contrary to WP:NCCAT. - jc37 15:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In the comments above none of the opposers seems to be addressing the problem of broad ambiguity in definition and subsequent application of "immortal". I'm not arguing that this concept is not verifiable, just that a category due to technical limitations is not the right way to present this information. - jc37 15:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ambiguous for being prejudice against other viewers, other than WP:NCCAT ghost are reliable and notable in the eternal life process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.64.243 (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2012 (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:Ireland cricket team[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: Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 23. Dana boomer (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category; out of synch with Category:National cricket teams Brian (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – there is Ireland cricket team so a category is plausible. What did it contain before the nom emptied it? Oculi (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Perfectly reasonable category for reason given above. PS How come this category was emptied before discussion. I've been given the impression in the past that this is verging on a mortal sin in the Wikisphere Djln --Djln (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. It was emptied by default during a general categorisation maintenance exercise, not because of any sinister motive to present an empty category here. I understand there is actually no need to list empty categories here, anyway, as a bot disposes of them. The real points are that the article Ireland cricket team is categorised according to a years-old standard created by the WP:CRIC project and there are no other such sub-categories in Category:National cricket teams. This sub-cat was the odd one in and if we are to maintain an accepted categorisation standard, it must be defined superfluous. Perhaps it should have been discussed at WT:CRIC before it was ever created, given that it is unique and breaches the project standard? --Brian (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be interesting to know what it contained but I'm still leaning towards deletion because I just can't see how this could be populated. Pichpich (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Ireland cricket team was the sole entry. I recategorised that to comply with WP:CRIC standard on national cricket teams and afterwards I noticed the unpopulated category, which I reported here. --Brian (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I think the standards adopted and used by the cricket project are a major contribution "on the matter". The category is non-standard and superfluous. If one-off categories like that are allowed they create confusion and add no value whatsoever, especially to users navigating the system. And, for your information, Ireland cricket team is the national cricket team of Ireland that has played in the last two World Cups. --Brian (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Technically speaking it's not a national cricket team, as all-Ireland isn't a sovereign nation, just like the cricket teams of England, Scotland, Bermuda, Jersey, Guernsey ect. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2012 (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:Dendroica[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 as redirect. The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This bird genus is now defunct; all previously included species have been moved to other genera. Pvmoutside (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)added[reply]
  • Note. Category is empty, not listed for nomination and likely emptied out of process. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—this genus has been found to be congeneric with Setophaga and so the 29 species that were previously in this genus have been moved to Setophaga and therefore this category is not required. See Setophaga for taxonomic details. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect to category Setophaga. Snowman (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2012 (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:Parula[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 as redirect. The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This bird genus is now defunct; all previously included species have been moved to other genera. MeegsC | Talk 16:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Category is empty, not listed for nomination and likely emptied out of process. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—this genus has been found to be congeneric with Setophaga and so the two species that were previously in this genus have been moved to Setophaga and therefore this category is not required. See Parula for taxonomic details. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect to category Setophaga. Snowman (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2012 (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:Wilsonia[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 is empty, and as the genus was split into two others, a redirect isn't feasible. The Bushranger One ping only 00:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This bird genus is now defunct; all previously included species have been moved to other genera. MeegsC | Talk 15:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Category is empty, not listed for nomination and likely emptied out of process. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—the three species that were previously thought to be in this genus have been found to belong to other genera and have therefore been moved there. See Wilsonia (bird) for taxonomic details. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while there is a genus page Wilsonia (bird). Might need a redirect possibly to the family category, if more than one genus is affected. Snowman (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2012 (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:Public domain stamp images[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: Upmerge & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a very useful category. I tried to upmerge it myself, but speedy deletion under C1 was declined. It should be upmerge. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's already a sub category of Category:Images published abroad that are in the public domain in the United States to collect images of postage stamps only. Also a subcat of Category:Postage stamp images. This is more than sufficient. Also per WP:OCAT. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A better way to subcategorize for postage stamps, other than a rename it's sufficient.--74.34.86.230 (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2012 (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:Midwestern Undergraduate Private Engineering Colleges[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) 10:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A companion to Midwestern Undergraduate Private Engineering Colleges (which is being prod'ed). There does not appear to be an organization (association or consortium) by this name. And nearly all of these articles included in this category don't fit anyway (University of Detroit Mercy and Ohio Northern University, for example, are not "undergraduate private engineering colleges," but private universities that have undergrad engineering programs. None of these schools' engineering colleges have their own article, which is the only thing that could possibly be included in a category like this. Neutralitytalk 07:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really, unsupportive to the cause of Private College for Engineering and mainly does not need to be a category for private colleges of engineering.--74.34.86.230 (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2012 (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 bus bombings[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) 10:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems like a case of WP:OCAT: small category with very little potential for expansion, all contents or potential contents already adequately categorized by Category:Terrorist incidents on buses or its subcats. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Two of the member articles are not even about bombings but rather attacks with explosives. In any case, Category:Terrorist incidents on buses and its other subcategories are more than sufficient for the current number of articles (less than 80, by rough count). -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Black Falcon. Pichpich (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --John (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2012 (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/2012_June_3&oldid=1138396696"