Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 13 August 15 >

August 14[edit]

Category:LGBT-related horror films[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:NON-DEFINING and at the border of hilarity. By the same token one can create Category:Asexuality-related horror films, Category:Obesity-related horror films, etc. Brandmeistertalk 21:22, 14 August 2014 (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:Computing[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Category:Information technology" is currently a subcategory of "Category:Computing". This is very confusing. If anything, it should be the other way around, since I can't really think of anything that would fit into IT that wouldn't fit into computing. But there is very little if anything that I would call IT that is not computing, so I think it would be best to use one category for both. -- Beland (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is The main article Computing states with citation "..and it defines five sub-disciplines of the computing field: Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Information Systems, Information Technology, and Software Engineering.". This clearly means that Information Technology is a subset of Computing and is so reflected in the current category structure. Hmains (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Hmains; computer science/engineering are not technology -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: OK, though I find many of these distinctions academic and not very useful in the real world, at least they are clearly explained in the articles. I added definitions to the top of the two categories to guide readers as to where articles of interest are categorized. -- Beland (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although at first glance these are very similar, the clear deal breaker is that information technology is an applied discipline. It is not an appropriate location for theoretical topics, such as computational mathematics. SFB 07:44, 16 August 2014 (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:1941 in Lebanon[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 pre-1918 categories as nominated; do not rename the rest. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And categories referring to Ottoman Syria:

Nominator's rationale: This is another case of anachronistic category, which is applying the modern state of Lebanon (1943-present) to the previous French Mandate on Greater Lebanon (1920-1943); propose to rename of all Mandate related categories as previously done for Mandatory Syria [1] and Emirate of Transjordan [2] articles.GreyShark (dibra) 18:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As far as I'm aware, Lebanon was not commonly referred to as "Mandatory Lebanon", but was just "Lebanon". Plus the main article for this category tree is actually at Greater Lebanon, so the categories should match that if people are not happy with simply Lebanon. Number 57 19:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter whether it was mainly referred as just "Lebanon" - see the case of Category:1941 in Mandatory Palestine (commonly referred as just Palestine). We must differentiate independent states and colonies/mandates/protectorates/dependencies.GreyShark (dibra) 19:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC) (category tag fixed DexDor (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
No, we don't have to do that at all. See the case of Category:1944 in Jamaica and many more like it. If the name of the state stays the same, then so should the category. Number 57 19:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename especially for the pre-1918 categories. I think going to the Mandatory name would avoid some confusion as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What confusion does it cause? Number 57 10:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, agree with Number 57, unnecessary and there is no confusion. We don’t need separate titles for colonies, mandates or protectorates. Such as "1844 in the Colony of Australia" or "1878 in the Colony of New Zealand". Particularly as there was no Colony of Australia just the Colony of New South Wales etc. Hugo999 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname for Ottoman Syria categories. Oppose adding "Mandatory": I think that the boundary of the present state and the mandatory "colony" are identical. It is useful to prefix Palestine 1918-47 with Mandatory, as the present polities of the West Bank and Gaza are not the same as the area subject to the British Mandate. I suspect that the present republic is rather larger than Mount Lebanon Mutasarrifate, so that it cannot be the target, and Beirut Vilayet, which might have been a better target appears also not to be co-terminous. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2014 (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:Former United States state capitals[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Name should be consistent with the (less awkward) name of the parent category, Category:State capitals in the United States. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2014 (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:United States colonial and territorial capitals[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are various issues with the existing category name. First, "United States" seems to modify colonial and territorial capitals, yet the colonial capitals in question were not capitals of U.S.-run colonies, but rather capitals of the colonies of European countries in the U.S. Second, the existing name is also ambiguous in that it could also refer to the capitals of U.S. colonies and territories worldwide, when the intent of the category is to capture former colonies on U.S. soil. Third, category naming should be consistent with related categories at Category:State capitals in the United States, Category:Capitals of political divisions in the United States and Category:Former colonial capitals. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – All given rationales are valid and make a clear-cut case. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - No objection to rational, no current colonial or territorial areas exist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2014 (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:Documentaries of John Pilger[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:Documentary films presented by John Pilger. There in no consensus to delete, but consensus that it should not remain under its present name. – Fayenatic London 22:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As explained on the category talk page, Category:Films directed by John Pilger was redirected here because he is not the director for many of these works. However, we do not have a category tree for Documentaries "of" for individuals, and I am loathe to start one (especially as that might be considered to be a violation of WP:PERFCAT if he is presenting and starring in docs directed by others). Templates have much more flexibility in this regard, and I wonder if we should not just delete, as we do already have the perfectly adequate Template:Documentaries of John Pilger? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is quite common to find categories and templates in artefact articles which duplicate each other, see for example Template:Michael Moore and the category Works by Michael Moore. Part of my motivation for changing the category name was that 'Films directed by John Pilger' was likely to be reinstated, and the inaccurate classification repeated for most articles at some point. In the field of television documentaries it is quite common for the author (writer & presenter) to be different from from the director (although admittedly the works of David Attenborough only have a template at present). There will doubtless be many other examples which necessitates that a category tree on the line of 'Documentaries of..." should be created, presumably not all of them will have a template already created. If WP:PERFCAT should be thought to apply here, I would argue that it also applies to categories like Category:Novels by Charles Dickens and those applied to the works of other novelists. Philip Cross (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename to Category:Documentaries written by John Pilger or Category:Documentaries presented by John Pilger. Pilger is a significant journalist (war correspondent). As a journalist, he evidently prefers to prestn his work in front of the camera, rather than undertaking a technical job behind it. However, we only need one category for his documentaries, whatever we call it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Documentary films presented by John Pilger. I agree that this is a defining feature of the films being categorized, but 'documentaries of X' is ambiguous and could refer to films (or other works) directed, written, presented, or produced by X as well as documentaries about X. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2014 (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:Tunceli Province geography stubs[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Evidently, this province was officially renamed in March to Dersim Province. A new category has been built under the new name, and all articles moved already. Dawynn (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2014 (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:Coalition of parties[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 all to Category:Political party alliances and similar. – Fayenatic London 13:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Coalition of parties" is an extremely awkward name, and one I had never seen prior to Wikipedia. There are many terms used to described groups of parties, but I believe "Political alliances" is probably the best catch-all term, as the word "coalition" has connotations with being in government, and "electoral alliances" limits the scope to alliances that contested elections (whereas in reality, many are formed mid-term or shortly after elections, not necessarily with the aim of contesting an election together). "Political party alliances" could be a more specific alternative if anyone is concerned that it could be confused with alliances between individual politicians unrelated to party matters, and "Political blocs" is another potential solution, although this phrase has associations with groups forming in parliament following elections. I am also listing several subcategories, as detailed below. One sub-category already uses "Political alliances" Number 57 11:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Full list of categories
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:Universities and colleges in the People's Republic 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: merge. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This follows the policy adopted some time ago to upmerge most "Peoples’ Republic of China" categories to "China" categories; see eg Category:Higher education in China Hugo999 (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I assume that any Republic of China category (for Taiwanese universities) has long since been moved to Taiwan. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Support The China/Taiwan naming discussion was bizarrely partisan to the point I question whether it was a real consensus. But it did leave us with a clear naming convention. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2014 (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:Habitat[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 there is majority agreement on keeping the split from (types of) habitats. – Fayenatic London 22:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Habitat is largely redundant to the plural category, both in name and apparent scope. Additionally, most of the articles placed in "Habitat" are not about habitats but other ecological concepts (e.g. an endangered species or is not a habitat, save semantic twisting regarding parasites. Environmentalism is not a habitat.) Only articles dealing with places organisms live should be categorized as such, per WP:NON-DEFINING. Having two nearly identical categories, one nested in the other, simply invites more misplaced or overcategorized articles, which hinders both efficient browsing and categorizing. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2014 (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/2014_August_14&oldid=1138398998"