Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 12 October 14 >

October 13[edit]

Category:Military units and formations that have changed designation[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is in the terms of the CfD guidelines a *horribly* 'bad idea'. Most of my work on Wikipedia has been concerned with military units and formations, and very very large numbers of them have changed designations multiple, multiple times (see for example 90th Guards Tank Division). We have two good solid practices to allow for this. Firstly, WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME *specifically* states that in most cases that units/formation articles should be at the most recent designation. Secondly, if the available, referenced text that can be written from WP:Reliable Sources exceeds the WP:SIZERULE of 36/40/50 kB, we create new articles. A good example of this is British infantry regiments, which have been reorganised multiple times in the last twenty years. Essentially this category would have to be added to maybe 50% plus of the military unit articles in existence, and duplicate the two procedures already well-in-place and listed above. It is a very bad idea. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination - it's not unusual for military units to be redesignated, and this is quite common in some militaries and branches of services. As such, this category isn't a useful classification. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 01:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Most military units change designation multiple times during their existence. This is an utterly pointless category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your second sentence was pointless, and of no value whatsoever. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 00:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, you may not be aware that The Founders' Intent created this category, and when I nominated it, following my explanation on his talkpage, he was big enough not just not to criticise or get in the way, but he actually voted for the deletion of the category he created. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:18, 15 October 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:Roman Catholic provinces in the United Kingdom[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The hierarchies of England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland (the whole island) are entirely independent bodies. That two of them, and part of the third, fall within one political jurisdiction is ecclesiastically irrelevant. Kevin McE (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Irish category is a realistic presentation of how the RCC is organised, the UK one is not. What is your thinking in preferring this to having categories for Category:Roman Catholic ecclesiastical provinces in England and Wales and Category:Roman Catholic ecclesiastical provinces in Scotland?
However, a greater problem has since occurred to me. These categories are not populated by articles about the provinces: they are populated by the diocese that are the seat of each province. We have very few (if any) articles about provinces. The article on, for example, the Archdiocese of Southwark has no meaningful information on the other diocese (Arundel and Brighton, Portsmouth and Plymouth) that comprise the province. What you actually have in these categories is Archdiocese, or Metropolitan sees. Provinces frankly do so little as a co-ordinated body, in my experience, that it would be hard to justify an article on them in most cases, but that being the case, we cannot group together in categories articles that do not exist. Kevin McE (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of the UK category does not preclude the creation of the Category:Roman Catholic ecclesiastical provinces in England and Wales and Category:Roman Catholic ecclesiastical provinces in Scotland categories. Both, in fact,would be preferable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can say that it is not preferable just as easily as you can say that it is, and given that preference is a matter of opinion, I would do so with equal validity. Why? Why are you proposing that there is any benefit in applying non-ecclesiastical territorial designations to ecclesiatical boundaries? The diocese of Scotland have no more common organisation with those in England and Wales, or in Northern Ireland, than they do with those in Chile or Slovakia: ecclesiastically, there is no justification for a category that includes Armagh but not Dublin, Cashel or Tuam. Kevin McE (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Armagh is not the only example of an Archdiocese that straddles two political jurisdictions. What about Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Ravenna-Cervia which is in both Italy and San Marino. Is San Marino not entitled to its own listing as a sovereign state? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would think not: ecclesiastically, San Marino has no sovereignty, so why should it have. The category, if it covers two countries, should be Category:Roman Catholic ecclesiastical provinces in Italy and San Marino if that is the relevant geographical grouping to incorporate those provinces. Why would you want to have a category with one entry in it for San Marino? You have still not adressed any positive reason for combining unrelated provinces in one category, nor have you addressed the issue of a category for provinces that contains no articles on provinces. Kevin McE (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have a single category, Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in the United Kingdom This fits in just fine with it. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for drawing my attention to that equally inappropriate category: I probably won't have time to CfD it until this evening though. Kevin McE (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category in question is no more useful than a category for ecclesiastical provinces in the European Union. One for the European Union would have the advantage that all its ecclesiastical provinces are in the European Union, while the United Kingdom category would include one province that is only partly in the United Kingdom, and also partly outside the United Kingdom. Esoglou (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a by country and then putting together the exclesiastical units there. With by country categories we do not care if the religious units there have any connection with each other, we just group them by the political country involved, because otherwise we would have a true mess. The RC Church in general follows political lines, but other Churches, such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often have sub-units that cut across political lines in various ways. So it is best to just group by country and live with the grouping of eccesiastical bodies in odd was that will come up from time to time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't have said it better myself. Just because the cat is about religious bodies does not mean that all cats must follow the unorthodox geo-political constructs of such bodies at all times. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ecclesiastical authorities are independent of national boundaries: they should not be clumsily crowbarred into a shape they do not have. But regardless: the category is populated by articles that are not described by the category. An archdiocese is not a province. Kevin McE (talk) 08:35, 29 October 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:Starship songs[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. The rationale is supported, but why label the proposed action as "rename" when the clear intention is to merger to a pre-existing category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See below, cf. Starship (band) and Jefferson Starship —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:35, 13 October 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:Starship 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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Starship (band) is Jefferson Starship, just renamed. There is no point in making categories for every name change of every band (cf. with the nightmare of A Silver Mt. Zion.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If merged, the parent cats should be revised accordingly, as Paul Kantner and Marty Balin never had anything to do with Starship. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:46, 14 October 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:Jazz-rock fusion albums by Czech artists[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 to all three parents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme of Category:Jazz fusion albums by artist nationality and the main article is jazz fusion, not jazz-rock (which is a redirect to a section.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:28, 13 October 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:Hot Cross[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content--eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:00, 13 October 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:Fjords of British Columbia[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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All articles in cat could be more correctly categorized in Category:Sounds of British Columbia, Category:Inlets of British Columbia, and Category:Channels of British Columbia. "Fjord" is not a term used in British Columbia geography, instead Sound or Inlet (sometimes Arm for inlets of inlets) are used. The Interior (Talk) 15:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as proposed Revised to retain, but revise- When the category was created back in 2006 (3 years before the BC Sound category was created) it was a logical choice based on the geologic processes which formed these features (glacial ice). Although the term fjord is widely used in the geologic literature referring to these features in British Columbia, if routine BC usage is Sound, I defer to the nominator's recommendation. Williamborg (Bill) 15:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, now I'm rethinking this. If this is meant to be a geologic category, perhaps it should be used in addition to the cats I listed above. I was thinking about it purely from a name/cartography point of view. Does fjord have a strict geologic definition? As in degrees of slope or something? How would we choose which inlets, reaches, sounds, and arms to classify as fjords? The Interior (Talk) 20:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fjords are a recognized geologic feature. The Wikipedia fjord article is so "popular" that it is routinely degraded from a solid technical geology article by continuing edits (seems everyone "knows" things about them and feels the need to "improve" the article without references). The classic features of a fjord are those of a glacially-formed, flooded valley: 1) long and narrow, 2) characteristic overdeepening, and a 3) characteristic U-shape.
I'd suggest you proceed with recategorizing. In parallel with your recat, when I can find the time, I'll look for references which discuss the formation and add a section titled geology for those bodies of water that have a solid geologic reference. Recognize that when you do so, you'll need to figure out how you link to the Category:Fjords by country page so that the useful geologic link ([[Category:Fjords by country]]) is not lost. Williamborg (Bill) 02:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, yes, there are freshwater fjords as a geologic feature. They are long narrow freshwater lakes formed in tunnel valleys. There are such in British Columbia as well - for example Okanagan Lake, which is formed in a glacial tunnel valley, is long and narrow (135 km long by 5 km wide), and was eroded to over 300 meters below sea level (although part of that was subsequently filled by glacial till). Shuswap Lake is another example.
Seton lake is a particularly lovely example. It is glacially formed - and, although its surface is well above sea level, the bottom is well below. It is long and narrow - a classic example of a lake formed in a tunnel valley.
Williamborg (Bill) 02:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References for each are listed below…
  • Alberni Inlet - A time-dependent two-layer model of fjord circulation and its application to Alberni Inlet, British Columbia; Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science, Volume 8, Issue 4, April 1979, Pages 361-378; Donald O. Hodgins
  • Alice Arm - Punctuated recovery of sediments and benthic infauna: a 19-year study of tailings deposition in a British Columbia fjord; Marine Environmental Research, Volume 49, Issue 2, March 2000, Pages 145-175; B. Burd, R. Macdonald, J. Boyd & Incidence and effects of parasitism by the rhizocephalan barnacle, Briarosaccus callosus Boschma, in the golden king crab, Lithodes aequispina Benedict, from deep fjords in northern British Columbia, Canada; Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, Volume 84, Issue 2, 1984, Pages 111-131; N.A. Sloan
  • Effingham Inlet - Modern to Late Holocene deposition in an anoxic fjord on the west coast of Canada: Implications for regional oceanography, climate and paleoseismic history; Marine Geology, Volume 219, Issue 1, 15 July 2005, Pages 47-69; Audrey Dallimore, Richard E. Thomson, Miriam A. Bertram & Geochemical and diatom signatures of bottom water renewal events in Effingham Inlet, British Columbia (Canada); Marine Geology, Volume 262, Issues 1–4, 1 July 2009, Pages 50-61; Murray B. Hay, Stephen E. Calvert, Reinhard Pienitz, Audrey Dallimore, Richard E. Thomson, Timothy R. Baumgartner & … Distribution of diatom surface sediment assemblages within Effingham Inlet, a temperate fjord on the west coast of Vancouver Island (Canada); Marine Micropaleontology, Volume 48, Issues 3–4, July 2003, Pages 291-320; Murray B Hay, Reinhard Pienitz, Richard E Thomson
  • Hastings Arm - Incidence and effects of parasitism by the rhizocephalan barnacle, Briarosaccus callosus Boschma, in the golden king crab, Lithodes aequispina Benedict, from deep fjords in northern British Columbia, Canada; Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, Volume 84, Issue 2, 1984, Pages 111-131; N.A. Sloan
  • Howe Sound - Sediment character and prevenance in a complex fjord; Howe Sound, British Columbia : Syvitski, J.P.M. and R.D. Macdonald, 1982. Can. J. Earth Sci., 19(5):1025–1044; Deep-Sea Research Part B. Oceanographic Literature Review, Volume 29, Issue 12, 1982, Page 770 & … The distribution of the galatheid crab Munidaquadrispina (Benedict 1902) in relation to oxygen concentrations in British Columbia fjords; Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, Volume 81, Issue 1, 3 October 1984, Pages 1-20; Brenda J. Burd, Ralph O. Brinkhurst
  • Jervis Inlet - Primary production and deep-water oxygen content of two British Columbian fjords; Marine Chemistry, Volume 73, Issue 1, January 2001, Pages 37-51; David A. Timothy, Maureen Y.S. Soon & The distribution of the galatheid crab Munidaquadrispina (Benedict 1902) in relation to oxygen concentrations in British Columbia fjords; Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, Volume 81, Issue 1, 3 October 1984, Pages 1-20; Brenda J. Burd, Ralph O. Brinkhurst
  • Kitimat Fjord - Geotechnical aspects of a submarine slope failure, Kitimat Fjord, British Columbia : Johns, M W; Prior, B D; Bornhold, B D; Coleman, J M; Bryant W R Marine GeotechV6, N3, 1986, P243–279; International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, Volume 23, Issue 5, October 1986, Page 204
  • Observatory Inlet fjord - Sub-part per trillion levels of lead and isotopic profiles in a fjord, using an ultra-clean pumping system; Marine Chemistry, Volume 68, Issues 1–2, December 1999, Pages 133-143; V Stukas, C.S Wong, W.K Johnson
  • Portland Inlet - Sub-part per trillion levels of lead and isotopic profiles in a fjord, using an ultra-clean pumping system; Marine Chemistry, Volume 68, Issues 1–2, December 1999, Pages 133-143; V Stukas, C.S Wong, W.K Johnson
  • Quesnel Lake - The joint effects of riverine, thermal, and wind forcing on a temperate fjord lake: Quesnel Lake, Canada; Journal of Great Lakes Research, Volume 38, Issue 3, September 2012, Pages 540-549; Bernard E. Laval, Svein Vagle, Daniel Potts, John Morrison, Gabriel Sentlinger, Christina James, Fiona McLaughlin, Eddy C. Carmack
  • Saanich Inlet – Spectrophotometer analysis of Holocene sediments from an anoxic fjord: Saanich Inlet, British Columbia, Canada; Marine Geology, Volume 229, Issues 1–2, 30 May 2006, Pages 15-28; Maxime Debret, Marc Desmet, William Balsam, Yoann Copard, Pierre Francus, Carlo Laj
  • Work Channel - Incidence and effects of parasitism by the rhizocephalan barnacle, Briarosaccus callosus Boschma, in the golden king crab, Lithodes aequispina Benedict, from deep fjords in northern British Columbia, Canada; Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, Volume 84, Issue 2, 1984, Pages 111-131; N.A. Sloan
Thanks for all this, Bill, and my apologies for putting this up for deletion before discussing with you. I now this think this is an appropriate geologic category for BC landforms. It should probably only be used when there is an RS ref in place in the article. That's interesting about the lakes - I can think of many more lakes that would meet the definition. In truth, due to the glacial nature of much of BC's landforms, this could be a very large cat. Should we maybe place a note in the category description asking that that this cat is to be used in conjunction with the recognized geographic cat, not as a substitute? The Interior (Talk) 14:12, 14 October 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:Hindu History[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:POVFORK of Category:Hindu mythology Redtigerxyz Talk 11:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Article fork hidden in category space. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly after articlising, but I suspect that the the contnet is actually a copy of anotehr article, and should thus be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That article is Hindu mythology.--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:42, 14 October 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:Weapons in Hindu History[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 to Category:Weapons in Hindu mythology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:POVFORK of Category:Weapons in Hindu mythology Redtigerxyz Talk 11:47, 13 October 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:Works by Jagadguru Rāmabhadrācārya[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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Keeping consistent with the main article Rambhadracharya ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:31, 13 October 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:Teleplays by Emma Thompson[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant; there's already a Category:Screenplays by Emma Thompson. Trivialist (talk) 04:16, 13 October 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:Wikipedia requested photographs in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming[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. Given that both are empty and there was no objection here, deletion seems safe. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: recreated as Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone is in multiple states, not just Wyoming. Kumioko (talk) 00:52, 13 October 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_October_13&oldid=1138397249"