Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 16 March 18 >

March 17[edit]

Category:Walter Seymour Allward[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:Works by Walter Seymour Allward. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Walter Seymour Allward (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Articles in it are covered by the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:56, 17 March 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:Crime by medium[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) 12:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Crime by medium to Category:Crime
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Now that Stefanomione has basically depopulated this category in favour of his new Category:Works about crime -- which I have no problem with -- this category no longer serves any function, as I believe the remaining Category:Crime data‎ and Category:Crime-related lists‎ can be better and more logically housed in the higher-level category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:26, 17 March 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:Archaeology artifacts of China[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: consensus to change "Archaeology"→"Archaeological", but no consensus to change "artifacts"→"artefacts".
So the result is: rename to Category:Archaeological artifacts of China. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Archaeology artifacts of China to Category:Archaeological artefacts of China or Category:Archaeological artifacts of China
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Archaeological artefacts. This category was, initially, nominated for speedy renaming, but the nomination was opposed due to the 'artifacts'-to-'artefacts' change. Regardless of which spelling is chosen – I prefer 'artefacts' because it is the spelling used by the parent category – the category still needs to be renamed to change 'Archaeology' to 'Archaeological'. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy renaming nomination
  • Comment: well either spelling (artefact/artifact), though I had noted the spelling of the parent category! Hugo999 (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Archaeological artefacts of China -- Archaeology => Archaeological should be uncontroversial. The problem is over the spelling of artefact/artifact. This is a conflict between US/UK English orthography. I think the consensus is that we should use the form most appropriate to the area covered. China does not use English, but Hong Kong, (now a SAR of China) does. As a former British colony, I expct it follows UK usage, so that the spelling of the parent category should be used. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I understand it, the English spoken in Hong Kong is a mixture of two strands - a proficient form primarily used by the elite and travelled, the latter of whom often use the variant picked up abroad, and a localised dialect spoken by (predominantly) native Cantonese speakers, with a reputation as Chinglish. One result is that both British and American spellings circulate more freely than in countries where English is more widely & longly used - for instance the tallest skyscrapers include the International Commerce Centre and The Center. A Dictionary of Hong Kong English, published last year, claims to be the first such book in the field so I'm not sure just how standardised the spellings are. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Archaeological artefacts of China out of deference to Hong Kong. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename according to its initial spelling. Hong Kong is a dependency and its English spellings have no binding effect on the People's Republic of China. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are more bilingual English speakers in China (the mainland) than there are citizens of the UK, and American spellings predominate. If you're going to act on the area of an entire country don't base it on a single city that highlights its uniqueness from the rest. There is no argument against archaeology/archaeological. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per SchmuckyTheCat. SchmuckyTheCat from past discussions seems to have some knowledge of Asia. So if US English is more correct in China as a whole the US spellings should be accepted as correct. To move this for the entire country based on one autonomous region would be a major error on our part. If SchmuckyTheCat is correct then the entire China tree needs to be inspected and changed as necessary. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:27, 24 March 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:Pornographic cartoons[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:Pornographic animation & purge. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming: Category:Pornographic cartoons to Category:Pornographic cartoons and animation
Nominator's rationale: OK, I'm blushing here. Most of what this category contains is animation, so that only seems right to not limit to cartoons (generally regarded as a subset of animation that utilizes caricature, though the line dividing what is and isn't cartoon is of course a gray area). It might be possible for this category to be completely restricted to animation by renaming to Category:Pornographic animation with all non-animation restricted to Category:Erotic comics, though that might seem a bit harsh if the distinction between non-animated cartoons and comics need be maintained.4.254.86.250 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the more broad category tree, Category:Cartooning is the main category and comics, animation, anime, caricatures, etc. fall somewhere underneath that. That suggests to me that "cartoons" might already encompass annimation. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Pornographic animation and purge/clean up as necessary. Cartoon is simply too broad/vague a term for this. - jc37 05:49, 19 March 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:Documentary films about conspiracy theories[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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming: Category:Documentary films about conspiracy theories to Category:Documentary film and television about conspiracy theories
Nominator's rationale: I suppose along with it Category:Films about conspiracy theories to Category:Film and television about conspiracy theories. Category:Documentary films about conspiracy theories currently contains TV series and specials, while Category:Films about conspiracy theories can include fiction, but also should be expanded to include television as film & television segregation seem unnecessary.4.254.86.250 (talk) 22:29, 17 March 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:Online commenting available through Disqus[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) 12:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Online commenting available through Disqus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining feature of these networks. See also this discussion on a related category from the same user. LeSnail (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; this is a technical feature of some websites and not a defining characteristic. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although this software package is visible to the user, I can't see grouping web sites based on which software packages they are running. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; not defining for subjects being so categorized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial, non-defining of these sites. Resolute 15:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would someone please explain to me what non-defining means? and why is (almost) eveyone parroting this term - I was told this was not a vote, but consensus building? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no set definition, but this section may shed some light on your question. A characteristic of a topic is generally considered to be defining for that topic if it is reflects information that would be essential for a short, one- or two-sentence summary of the topic. For instance, a description of the Yom language would need to mention that it is a member of the Gur languages group and is spoken in Benin.
    To take an example from this category, let's consider The Daily Telegraph: it is a British national newspaper that was established in 1855 and is owned by the Telegraph Media Group. The fact that it permits online commenting through Disqus is a minor detail that does not merit a mention in our hypothetical one-sentence description. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:41, 20 March 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:Companies acquired by BCE[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:Companies acquired by Bell Canada Enterprises. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Companies acquired by BCE to Category:Companies acquired by Bell Canada
Nominator's rationale: Acronym is ambiguous. Parent cat is Category:Bell Canada. LeSnail (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Bell Canada is not the primary meaning of the acronym 'BCE', which happens to be ambiguous even in a business context – e.g., Banco Central del Ecuador. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bell Canada and BCE are not synonymous, BCE is the parent company to Bell Canada (BCE is Bell Canada Enterprises) Bell Canada is a phone company, while BCE has diverse interests (such as CTVglobemedia) . 65.92.181.184 (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. Closer inspection reveals that CHUM Limited and CTV Television Network were acquired by Bell Media, a subsidiary of BCE that appears to be separate from Bell Canada. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname to Category:Companies acquired by Bell Canada Enterprises to deal with ANON's concern. CErtainly the abbreviation must be expanded, as it is not self-evident. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 18 March 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:Froth Pumps[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) 12:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Froth Pumps to article Froth pump
Nominator's rationale: This newly created category seems to be a reasonable stub with reliable references. I am unqualified to judge whether this should be merged into Centrifugal pump. It certainly doesn't belong in category space. LeSnail (talk) 21:00, 17 March 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:Volcanoes by geochronology[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 "by geological period". Timrollpickering (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Volcanoes by geochronology to Category:Volcanoes by age
Nominator's rationale: This category contains sub-categories of volcanoes of each geological time period. Geochronology is an unnecessarily opaque and complex term for a category title for volcanoes grouped by age. "Volcanoes by age" is a much simpler and much more obvious category name, which would improve clarity of content and ease of navigation. GeoWriter (talk) 20:55, 17 March 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:Christian religious leaders[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 & cleanup. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Christian religious leaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is an arbitrary mish-mash of articles and categories including abbot, list of popes (graphical), Category:Starets, Category:Television evangelists, etc. Considering them all together is basically original research and arbitrary (almost random.) A category tree that is specifically for clergy is simple and verifiable, but this is not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The problem with this cateogry is that there are too many people in it who ought to be reclassified into sub-cats. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this is a call for cleanup at best. This is the obvious Christian subcat for Category:Religious leaders by religion, and if it were abolished all these categories would get upmerged there without addressing the question of definition. Otherwise, the entire "religious leaders" category is suspect.- choster (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs tidying. I don't see the WP:OR argument, assuming that "Christian religious leaders" is explicitly a defining characteristic in every case.--Northernhenge (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe make a container category. RevelationDirect (talk)
  • Keep but cleanup, per Choster. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:27, 19 March 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:Work at home[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 & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Work at home (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The articles that would fit here already have a home at Category:Telecommuting Dawnseeker2000 14:56, 17 March 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:Early telecommunications[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) 10:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Early telecommunications (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:History of telecommunications and then delete. Vague title (and therefore inclusion criteria) and the upmerge I am suggesting covers the topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Any question as to what is "early" is a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 18 March 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:Command staff occupations[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 per C2C (parent Category:Military occupations). The Bushranger One ping only 20:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Command staff occupations to Category:Military command staff occupations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The military is not the only organization that utilizes a command staff making the current title ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:15, 17 March 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:Soviet occupations[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 per nom. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I was wondering why soviet jobs were unique, only to find out that was not the topic here. Clearly an ambiguous title that needs addressing. Not sure that the proposed name is the best choice, but if there is a better one out there, please suggest it. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This is not the only like named category, so there will be additional renames needed if there is a consensus for this one. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 17 March 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:Russian comic characters[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) 10:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Russian comic characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very misleading category name. It implies that these charterers are from Russian comics instead of fictional Russians in stories from publishers that are not necessarily Russian themselves. It has been used to replace Category:Fictional Russian people, which follows naming conventions found to be more acceptable for categories collecting these types of articles the last time "Nationality comics character" categories were looked at. J Greb (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poorly named category of fictional characters by nationality. Due to problems in the current membership of the cat, I don't suggest upmerging to Category:Fictional Russian people. - jc37 05:47, 19 March 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:Humor[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 & create redirect. There's a clash between the WP:RETAIN clause of WP:ENGVAR and the convention of following the main article; the prevalent feeling is that the article should take precedence. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Humor to Category:Humour
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Humour. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 02:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and keep a category redirect. There's no compelling reason to prefer one spelling over the other except that the category should follow the article. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this category been nominated twice before: see WP:CFD/2008 Oct 7 and WP:CFD/2011 Jun 10. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This is another case of US/UK orthography. We should follow the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, keep redirect. No good reason really to not match the category to the article name. ENGVAR issues should be applied to country-specific subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Categories should follow the main article unless they are clearly misguided. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, per WP:ENGVAR. This is one of those moments where the article name is less care-worthy, imo. It's far easier to move a page boldly than to change a category name (which can have more of a potential to adversely affect navigation). Redirects are cheap in article space, and pipe tricks are possible. Not so in categories. Anyway, just please make sure that whichever way this goes, the other has a category redirect. - jc37 05:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, per WP:ENGVAR and per jc37. Either usage is fine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:ENGVAR which does not mandate that we have to use one variation of English over any other. While categories and articles tend to mirror each other, there is no policy that says they must. So the reason proposed in this case is not sufficient to justify a rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 23 March 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_March_17&oldid=1138396754"