Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 19 August 21 >

August 20[edit]

Category:Anglican bishops of Limerick and Killaloe[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need to disambiguate it. There is no "Bishops of Limerick and Killaloe" in any other denomination in Ireland or elsewhere. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2013 (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:SCO-Linux litigation[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article and WP:DASH —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:14, 20 August 2013 (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:People from Patterson, Georgia[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with just two entries ...William 12:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Too small a category to be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. No prejudice against future recreation if and when we have five or six articles to file in it instead of just two. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2013 (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:Honorary degree recipients from the University of Girona[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 Category:Honorary degree recipients from the University of Girona. The other two categories are untagged, and therefore need a separate nomination. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 08:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "A non-defining "award" of sorts—information should be in a list, not a category. The people who receive these are defined by the reasons they are receiving the honorary degree, not by reception of the honorary degree itself. This is another instance where unchecked proliferation of categories like this for every possible university could potentially lead to category clutter on a massive scale, since those receiving these honors usually get them from multiple schools."
Rationale copied from here. Also nominating Category:Honorary degree recipients from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Category:Former honorary degree recipients from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. SL7968 12:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As noted, we've deleted a similar category in the past for Harvard (and ones for Yale, Chicago, and Cambridge too I think). Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have decided that honorary degrees are one time awards, being an alumni is about having studied for a period of time and being formed by the institution. If someone who got an honorary degree was say a major donor to the university, they can be put in a general x-university category. However just because Barack Obama was given an honorary degree by the University of Notre Dame does not mean he should go in Category:University of Notre Dame people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete -- This is a mechanism by which universities acknowledge notability. It differs little from other WP:OC#AWARD categories, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2013 (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:Foundation degrees[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems that only Foundation degree falls under this category. Merging to Category:Academic degrees of the United Kingdom is also an option. SL7968 05:56, 20 August 2013 (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:U.S. Highway System[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: Close. The only way to have a valid discussion would be to start a wheel war which is not going to happen. So this discussion is closed since the source is empty. I'll leave it to the participants to decide on what, if any, actions are needed. In no way should this close be considered as setting any kind of a precedent for naming in this area. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match United States Numbered Highways. Proposed speedy lacks the word "Numbered", which is part of the system's name. Imzadi 1979 → 05:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This should be renamed to match. Imzadi 1979 → 05:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both per WP:COMMONNAME (and the article needs to be renamed too). - The Bushranger One ping only 05:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Article titles, the full page, specifies a number of criteria for title articles. One of the five criteria is precision, and "United States Highway System" is ambiguous; the title could refer to any highway system in the US, or the totality of them. The network of roads created in 1926 has the word "Numbered" in its title, a title we can use to avoid the ambiguity of the "common name". Either way, the speedy renames need to be halted, reversed as necessary and discussed before any further changes are made. Imzadi 1979 → 06:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • let me rephrase slightly. If we go off a common name, the "United States" part of the name would stay abbreviated. If we are going to spell that it, we should go all the way. Depending on the result, there are 48 state-specific categories to be harmonized, not just the two above. This should not have been out through a single speedy, and a full discussion is needed. Imzadi 1979 → 06:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Category:United States Highway System is empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And so is Category:Bridges on the United States Highway System. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Both categories were renamed to the new names [1], but then Ks0stm reversed this without any reason [2]. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reason was that there was a full CfD under way, and so speedy moving the categories to a completely different name in the middle of the existing CfD made no sense. If the categories needed to be moved to that name rather than the proposed name in the CfD then the appropriate avenue for deciding that was at the existing CfD, not through speedy renaming. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:39, 20 August 2013 (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:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows[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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These user categories do not group users on the basis of any ability, knowledge, interest, or other characteristic that is relevant or useful to encyclopedic coordination and collaboration. Using Microsoft Windows requires no special set of skills that would justify creating a grouping of users. In fact, the category's existence basically is incidental to transclusions of {{tlu|User:Technical 13/Userboxes/OS}. The userbox more than suffices to provide notice of a user's OS preference, and there is no value in a category that serves as nothing more than a bottom-of-the-page notice. This is similar to a recent CFD (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_9#Category:Wikipedians_who_use_Gmail). DexDor (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Not defining. What is next= Wikipedians who take medications daily?...William 12:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not useful for coloaboration.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I think we could create "wikipedians who don't use the internet" though - would be interesting to see if someone could somehow get themselves added to this category through carrier pigeon technology? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2013 (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:Best Animated Feature Film Chicago Film Critics Association Award winners[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having received an award like this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a film (see WP:OC#AWARD). For info: There is a list at Chicago Film Critics Association Award for Best Animated Film. DexDor (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I worry about phrasing it this way. We do not creat cats for all "major awards" because they deserve such. We create cats for a few defining awards because they define the people or things that receive them. It is not an issue of "deserving". That seems more to be a question for if we should create a lsit for the award. Categories are not "diserved". Do people convicted of murder "deserve" a category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2013 (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:Recipients of the Order of Courage (Libya)[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains just one article (Fidel Castro) and that article doesn't mention that he's a recipient of this award (so it's hardly a WP:DEFINING characteristic). See WP:OC#AWARD. DexDor (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a defining award. We really need to cut our categories when Castro is in 44.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2013 (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:World War II British electronics[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency of naming with most other categories below Category:Military equipment of the United Kingdom. DexDor (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Some categories use "British" (e.g. Category:British military aircraft). DexDor (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It would make more sense to rename the parent category. It is more natural to say "British electronics" than "electronics of the UK". The traditional stickers on a product in Britain (before the banning of such things by the EU) used to say "Made in Britain" not "Made in the UK" similarly at the moment MacDonald are running an add saying "British and Irish beef" not "UK and Ireland beef". Originally all articles about the military of a country were under that name and so the categories followed a similar format, but the parent articles have long since diverged from that (eg British Armed Forces). -- PBS (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that "British foo" is more natural than "foo of the UK", but I've just looked at a few things around me and they're marked "Printed in the UK", "MADE IN ENGLAND" etc (i.e. not using the adjectival form). One advantage of using the "Foos of Fooia" style rather than the "Fooian foos" is that it saves looking up the adjective which sometimes isn't used anyway (e.g. "Category:United States military aircraft" rather than "Category:American..."). Another advantage is that it makes category indexing easier (e.g. should "Dutch foos" be indexed as "Netherlands"?). Note also that these categories are about equipment developed by the UK - including equipment not used by the UK's armed forces. DexDor (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you write "the UK's armed forces" and not "British armed forces"? -- PBS (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to insert the word "military" then a new CFD covering Category:World War II electronics and all its subcats would be the way to go. In the meantime, I don't see that as a good reason to oppose this change. DexDor (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2013 (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:World War I American electronics[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency of naming with other categories below Category:Military equipment of the United States. DexDor (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose better to rename the parent category to "American military equipment" -- PBS (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The target is a little clearer. I think in this case the of is a good thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose the new names do not include 'military' which is what the contents of the categories are. Just having 'World War n' in the name is not enough Hmains (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the current name does not include the world 'military' either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2013 (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/2013_August_20&oldid=1091637845"