Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 14 October 16 >

October 15[edit]

Category:Colombian men[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Colombian men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary; afaik WP doesn't classify people by only their gender and geographic location. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Media in Northern Territory[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 15:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename, To be consistent with other categories relating to the Northern Territory Mattinbgn\talk 23:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have merged the four separate nominations into a single group nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Lovelace Medal laureates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lovelace Medal laureates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation on the basis of receiving a non-defining award. The Lovelace Medal itself is notable, but being a recipient of one is not a defining characteristic of the laureates. The Medal was established in 1998 and ten people have received it (although only six appear in the category). The biographical articles that mention the award (five of nine bluelinks) do so rather briefly. A complete list of laureates already exists at the main article, so listifying is unnecessary. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. Rationale: Categories can be very useful in Wikipedia (you are able to cross information between categories, for example, selecting people on the basis of them belonging to two or more categories: this is difficult or impossible to do using normal search mechanisms). I don't really understand why Black Falcon and others wishes to destroy information that is already there in Wikipedia. What is the problem, after all? Lack of space? Come on.... Anything that reorganizes and gives new visions on the database of articles has the potential to be useful to someone, sometime. BlackFalcon may have the opinion that this category means overcategorization, but other people think differently. So, let it be. Furthermore: categorizing the stubs actually increases the chance that they will be extended someday. The fact that blue links point to stubs should not be an argument about sparse categories. Please BrownHairedGirl and Carlosssuarez46 reconsider your votes for deletion. --R.Sabbatini 13:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Divine visionaries without church approval[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete, and empty. Kbdank71 15:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Divine visionaries without church approval (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Pages should not be categorized by the absence of a distinguishing factor. Alksub 19:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the issue noted by the nom, the category is vague (without the approval of which church?) and possibly subjective (what is the definition of "divine visionaries"?). – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:Catholic divine visionaries not approved by the Roman Catholic church. The category is the other to "with church approval". I nominated a swathe of these categories for deletion recently, but thought these two ok - the other is much larger, and the distinction important. They should be renamed to make it clear it is the Catholic Church doing the approving, or not. A divine visionary is someone who claims to have seen a vision of God - many terms might apply, but subjective is not one of them, I think. The nomination would only leave the one article categorised as an "Italian writer", which is not really good enough. Johnbod 21:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh ... I was thinking of a significantly broader definition. However, I think the other issue (lack of specificity) still applies: wouldn't virtually any non-Roman Catholic who claims to have seen a vision of God be "not approved by the Roman Catholic church"? – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point - I've added a Catholic at the front of the rename suggestion. I'm sure there are more notable ones out there. Johnbod 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there look to be some other poorly conceived cats there, like Category:Apparitions for example, which contains a long essay on what type of "apparitions" qualify, but a cat shouldn't need such qualifications, its membership should be self evident. Gatoclass 13:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "divine visionary" sounds like a clumsy name for "mystic" and "without church approval" is vague, does that mean a heretic? Gatoclass 15:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the title is probably inaccurate: are their visions without church approval? or is it their talking about it? And are we assuming the Roman Catholic Church here - if so, say so. All in all, a dubious category. Carlossuarez46 22:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Defunct American manufacturers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 15:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Defunct American manufacturers to Category:Defunct manufacturing companies of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicate. Alksub 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Database[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Database (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, duplicates Category:Databases. Alksub 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Superceded by other category with far more members and several subcats. Note that I have moved the only member of this category to Category:Databases, as that category is much larger and contains the other category of that article. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hersfold. Tankred 00:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Documentation subpages[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 15:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Documentation subpages to Category:Template documentation
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge the former into the latter, as they serve precisely the same purpose, and the latter is better named. There really isn't anything in the latter that does not qualify to be in the former, other than a few metapages sorted to the top, such as the template documentation templates themselves. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created Category:Documentation subpages. It was created along with the {{documentation}} and {{documentation subpage}} templates, which merge several older templates and add new functionality; see my sandbox. The newer templates are replacing the myriad older methods described in my sandbox, and they use Documentation subpages to accommodate their compatibility with non-template pages (like userboxes in the user namespace).

I'd say merge Template documentation to Documentation subpages. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:52:40, 09 October 2007 (UTC)

  • (Up)Merge Pretty much the same thing. "Template documentation" is a better name, but "Documentation subpages" is slightly more encompassing. Rocket000 02:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there any way to distinguish non-article categories, such as this from article categories? Perhaps a prefix, like WP template documentation? 132.205.99.122 20:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is only needed for names that could conceivably conflict with article categories, which is not the case here; subpages are not allowed in the main namespace, and individual subpages of template documentations are not notable enough for encyclopedic articles. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:05:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge "per nom", Delete Category:Documentation subpages--Template documentation is the better name. Moreover, there are a fair number of template usage pages which are not implemented as subpages addressing families of related template tools (e.g. [0ne of each of this kind]: {{indent family usage}}, {{catlst/doc}}) There was no reason to create the second category had any one checked with WP:DPP, which includes the method of combining usages in one page. {{template doc page viewed directly}} has been autocatting to Template documentation since... this (February 2nd, 2006) Oh ho! Pathoschild's running out of control here on this sister too. [Isn't fucking up Meta enough for you?] Why pray tell move a template page in place for well over a year included by hundreds of pages because your ARROGANT self thinks it a better name? (nice memory management there too, now there are hundreds of redirects AND you didn't bother to hang a {{R from other template}} tag! How'd you make Admin?) Many people are used to old names you inconsiderate person! You've not only not discussed it anywhere I can find, you've made a unilateral decision about a widely used name without consultation. Template doc page pattern is about minimizing drag on the server, not template documentation per se—which happens to be a happy side effect I was centrally involved in and pushing for which lead to DPP via CBDunkerson and Tim Starling's need to cap pre-exapansion limits on templates to 2 Mbytes!— renaming that template (sans discussion!) looses that important connection. Worse, you've screwed up the talk pages when you moved the wrong name.
       1a... [1] Confounding Template_talk:Documentation_subpage AND Template talk:Template doc page transcluded (A very different, albeit related template, apparently erroneously moved the wrong template... then didn't clean up the goof properly)
       1b... [2] & [3] Template_talk:Documentation_subpage (redirects) ---> Template talk:Template doc page transcluded
       Which kind of makes it hard to check for the discussion about whether the template (Template:Template doc page viewed directly) was moved properly with appropriate discussion... [None I can find]
       Also need to see if the original talk page existed at any point, and that it is restored if so. [with appropriate redirect fixes].
       Template:Documentation_subpage(edit talk links history)
       Template:Template_doc_page_transcluded(edit talk links history)
       Template:Template_doc_page_viewed_directly(edit talk links history)
       Template:Documentation(edit talk links history) // FrankB 00:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Actors who voiced Cartoon characters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actors who voiced Cartoon characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into appropriate Category:Voice actors subcategory, as Performer by performance, or at least Rename to Category:Cartoon voice actors. -- Prove It (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Cartoon voice actors. This does seem like a notable sub-cat of voice-acting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete - this isn't a category for people known primarily as voice actors who performed in cartoons. It's for actors not normally known for their voice work who happened to do a voice part. It is performer by action or appearance overcategorization. Otto4711 15:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Haven't we done this one before, anyway? Voice-roles have certainly come up before; I remember cross-gender voice roles. --lquilter 20:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lquilter Bulldog123 04:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete performer by performance. I betcha a nickel this was created by Creepy Crawler/EJBanks' 60th sockpuppet. Doczilla 00:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Assassinated United States Presidents[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 15:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated United States Presidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as overgetegorization, only current member is already in both parent classes. -- Prove It (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the answer is clearly yes in my view. No arguments have been advanced that it isn't. Some US editors may think these are so well known as to make the category pointless, but that is certainly not the case globally. Johnbod 00:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those who don't knbow the story, there is already quite a good article at List of United States Presidential assassination attempts. Meanwhile, Category:Assassinated heads of state has only 34 entries, which is too small to require national subcats, esp since the biggest subcat has only 4 articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep (but rename to "Assassinated United States presidents") - I'm honestly puzzled by the opposition to this category. Sub-cats by country/nationality (like this one) are routine and uncontroversial -- we have tens of thousands, many of which (to my personal dismay) have only a single article. In this case, the United States is the only nation on earth which has had more than two heads of state assassinated -- a sad distinction which underlines Johnbod's point that readers outside the US may not be aware of our, um, leadership in this area. Cgingold 03:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I find that hard to swallow, since assassination as a means to the throne (head of state) was rife in Ancient Rome, and happened several times in Ancient China (which is still the same nation as today's China). 132.205.44.5 02:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Sweden has had three kings assassinated, but I think Category:Assassinated monarchs is very incomplete (had neither Henri III nor IV). There is also Category:Murdered kings. There are 30 murdered Roman Emperors, including 11 by the Paetorian guard. Johnbod 08:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, points well taken. My comment was less than artfully worded. Obviously, I should have specified that I was referring to the articles found in the category. To be strictly accurate, I guess we could say that the U.S. has taken on the mantle of leadership in this area in the modern era. Cgingold 12:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per BHG. Otto4711 15:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For what it's worth, I would like to point out that I just voted "Delete" in the CFD for Category:Presidents of the United States who died in office -- the difference being that merely dying in office is not particularly noteworthy, so it doesn't merit a category, whereas being an assassinated president is an exceedingly noteworthy fact that readers would reasonably expect to be dealt with in the categories. Also, I just noticed that I neglected to point out that this category does have, um, potential for growth. <ahem> Cgingold 23:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. The purpose of a category is not to highlight an attribute, but to facilitate navigation amongst related articles which share that attribute. Even if highlighting is what you are looking for, the category "assassinated heads of state" makes exactly the same point to the reader, but associates it with other assassinated leaders around the world.
      The case for keeping rather than upmerging seems to me to rest solely on the merits of a 4-article category, which so far seems to amount to the demonstrably incorrect assertion that "the United States is the only nation on earth which has had more than two heads of state assassinated".
      As to potential for growth, well, yes, it's true that a society with so many guns may well assassinate more of its heads of state. But that's crystal-ball-gazing, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; the point here is that the category already covers all the assassinations which have happened so far, and there is no possibility of expansion unless and until there re more assassinated-POTUSes. If and when when another dozen or so US Presidents have been killed, we can reconsider creating the category, but I for one hope that we will have a long wait before more people are killed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, I've already conceded that my statement about U.S. "leadership" in the field was badly worded, BHG. Please, there's no need to administer further punishment! As much as I would like to see the current occupant depart the White House ahead of schedule, I'm really very happy that the category is as small as it is. The primary consideration for me is simply my sense that it serves the readership to separate out these four articles from the parent cats, based on the assumption that there are a great many readers who would want to see how many & which other US presidents were killed in office besides Lincoln & Kennedy (which I presume most would already know about). If it turns out there's a clear concensus that that's not a strong enough rationale, then so be it. Cgingold 12:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not overcategorization, but a useful sub-category. Many people may use it as a simple access to the articles about all the assassinated presidents. Tankred 00:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Religious converts[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 15:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious converts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and unencyclopedic category. Nothing to be gained by keeping it. Loom91 14:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This functions as a container category for Category:Converts to Buddhism etc, and so long as those categories remain, this one serves an important grouping purpose. The nominator may wish to nominate some or all of the sub-categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as way of managing denomination-specific converts categories, without prejudice to future nomination of denomination-specific categories. Snocrates 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That's what I intended, to nominate all of the subcategories. I thought nominating the supercategory would automatically entail nomination of them. How do I nominate the bunch together? Someone with more knowhow please help out. Thanks. Loom91 07:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tag the nominations and add them here to the list at the top. Vegaswikian 23:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Dab-Class U.S. Congress articles[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted (G7) by Jayvdb. BencherliteTalk 07:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dab-Class U.S. Congress articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Mistakenly made. Should have been "Disamb-Class." It's empty. Suggest speedy. —Markles 14:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as the nominator is the creator of this category, it can be Speedied under G7 Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Discussion pages automatically archived by Werdnabot[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename.. Kbdank71 14:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Discussion pages automatically archived by Werdnabot to Category:Discussion pages automatically archived by Shadowbot3
Nominator's rationale: Rename, Werdnabot no longer exists. Shadowbot3 has largely taken over the task of talk page archival Werdnabot became famous for. For accuracy, this category should be renamed as suggested above. -- Longhair\talk 10:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Coaching institutes for IIT-JEE[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was relisted on oct 22. Kbdank71 14:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coaching institutes for IIT-JEE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only one article was in the category (Rubic's Rostrum) which has been moved to Category:Test preparation companies (which should've been a supercategory of this one). The description seems unfounded and slightly advert-y. mitcho/芳貴 08:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Bioinformatics databases[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 14:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bioinformatics databases to Category:Biological database
Nominator's rationale: Rename, The current name is not expressive of subject matter, that is data from and for biologists. These are not databases of bioinformatics material. The main article Biological database already exists and appropriately describes the members of this category. Dongilbert 04:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename - Bioinformatics is a widely recognized name for the field dealing with sequence data, which is what these databases have. "Biological databases" (corrected for the plural which I assume is what you should be suggesting) could include all kinds of things: taxonomy, species sightings, medical information, etc. --lquilter 13:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Sequence data is only a part of what is in the category or covered in the main topic article biological database. Two of these examples, taxonomy and species information, are appropriate to this category, and are generally included with sequence data in these biological databases. Medical information would be categorized under medical databases, though of course there is broad overlap between biology and medical disciplines and their data. Bioinformatics is far from synonymous with molecular biology sequence information. To give related examples, chemical databases are not categorized as cheminformatics databases, nor medical databases categorized as Medical informatics databases. Nor should biological databases be misnamed by a field which describes, in this context, the processes of data management rather than the content of the repository and their intended audience. When someone wants to learn more of biology, they would be more apt to look at biological databases than bioinformatics databases. Bioinformaticians don't study the contents of these databases, they create and maintain them for the biologists. Dongilbert 00:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sequence data is only a part of what is in the category or covered in the main topic article biological database. Which is why a category named biological databases is inappropriate for a set of databases that are largely about sequence data. If you have a better name than "bioinformatics databases", I'd be happy to hear it; I'm not deaf to your complaint. But "Biological databases" is far too broad. Maybe "sequence databases"? or "genomics databases"? and those could be a subset of "biological databases"? (And yes, I'm sure there are some non-sequence DBs that are in bioinformatics DB; I'm just assessing the general nature of the category. --lquilter 21:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • People in this field use "biological database" 4 times more often then "bioinformatics database" (found with a PubMed search of titles), and more the the point, reference articles on the topic by leaders in this field use "biological database" (Altman RB. Building successful biological databases. Brief Bioinform. 2004 Mar;5(1):4-5. PMID 15153301 ; Bourne P. Will a biological database be different from a biological journal? PLoS Comput Biol. 2005 Aug;1(3):179-81. PMID 16158097 ). The Wikipedia articles now in this category cover the gamut of common biological databases, with primary sequence databases in the minority. These are predominantly from the area of molecular biology, that is where the major need and funding has in the past been to build these. But see also plant and literature database entries. Bioinformatics covers the range of biology domains. It also seems that this category is not overly populated, so splitting biological databases into subcategories based on subcategories of biology knowledge may be premature. There are other Wikipedia articles that would fit into a biological database category, such as the Tree_of_Life_Web_Project (phylogenetics). Dongilbert 02:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Ratnapura[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was relisted on oct 22. Kbdank71 14:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ratnapura into Category:Cities and towns in Sri Lanka
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation. This is an eponymous category for a town of less than 50000 people. It contains only the main article and two articles about towns located near Ratnapura. If no consensus to upmerge, rename to Category:Ratnapura District (see Ratnapura District). – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Fictional disasters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was upmerge to Category:Fictional events. Kbdank71 14:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional disasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The material (three articles and one subcategory, all of which are already otherwise categorised) does not warrant a distinct category. (I should disclose that I emptied the category of all obvious miscategorisations, such as articles about real films and books whose plots involved a fictional disaster). Also, the category is quite broad, seemingly covering all real (economic, environmental, man-made, weather-related) and fictional (e.g. alien invasion) disasters. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to category:Fictional events. This is a fine idea for a category, but these articles (except the Dragonlance one) don't fit.--Mike Selinker 17:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm less than sanguine about a merge to Fictional events because with "events" being such a vague term it has the potential to become enormous. If there are more descriptive categories then those should be used, and each of the articles listed is in several more descriptive categories. Otto4711 18:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and repopulate. the sole basis for the nomination seems to be that the nominator removed the content. without a standard of inclusion stated in the article, that seems to be a very problematic decision and sets a precedent that I cannot support. were this repopulated, it would be a keep, so it is a keep. --Buridan 21:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing wrong with removing improperly categorized items from a category. It's routine maintenance and should be encouraged. I have the utmost confidence that Black Falcon acted in good faith in removing clearly inappropriate articles on real things (which should not be ategorized as fiction) from the category. Otto4711 21:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • i am not disputing that he was acting in good faith, he was clearly trying to do what he thinks is right. I have seen you try to depopulate jackie robinson and others too, i think you are wrong for doing it given that you did it after the category deletion went against your nomination, but I think you were doing what you think is the right thing. I fully expect jackie robinson to be nominated by you again after it is sufficiently depleted. it isn't wrong, it is just in my opinion, the wrong way to go about removing content from from wikipedia, especially categories. categories should go up or down on their full strength. --Buridan 21:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Without delving too deeply into a philosophical debate, the notion that a category's "full strength" includes articles that are clearly miscategorized is ludicrous and the notion that editors should be making dcisions about categories on the basis of their having a lot of improperly categorized material in them is bizarre. This encourages category-stacking, larding up the category with every possible article with no regard to how tangential the article is to the subject of the category. It's an extremely low level of analysis. As for the specific Robinson category, I'm not going to be drawn into a discussion on that except to say that I stand by my actions regarding each article that I removed. Otto4711 22:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • miscategorization is clearly an example underdefinition of the category. in this case, i can fairly easily see many of the removed as belonging in this category. clearly they were put there by someone who thought they belonged in this category and were not removed by any other editor of the category as content... they were removed later in order to delete the category. --00:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
            • No, they were removed because they were miscategorised. My decision to initiate the deletion discussion came only after I discovered that the category was nearly empty. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) I'm not sure what the issue is: the articles that I removed were cases of fairly obvious miscategorisation. The presence or absence of those articles should have no bearing on the deletion nomination, since they should have been removed regardless of whether the category is kept or deleted. This category is limited, by its title, to articles about fictional disasters; there is a separate category (Category:Disaster films) for real films whose plot involves a disaster. – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • all disaster films have fictional disasters they belong here as well as there. there is no rule that things can only be in one category nor even in the most descriptive category. if it fits, there is no reason to remove it when we can in theory have infinite categories. there is no 'cannot be in both' rule of exclusion in this case.--Buridan 00:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not all disaster films are about fictional disasters - see, for example, St. Helens (film). -Sean Curtin 00:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • (edit conflict) Articles about the fictional disasters in the films belong in this category; articles about the films themselves do not (that's what Category:Disaster films is for). If we don't draw a distinction, we'd have two categories with essentially the same content. Since the purpose of categories is to aid navigation, not merely to exist, that distinction is necessary. As regards the issue of multiple categorisation, I don't see how it's relevant to this case: the articles I removed were already otherwise categorised. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge or delete. -Sean Curtin 00:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and repopulate for now. From reading this thread, I cannot clearly determine either what the nominator believed the category to be for, or exactly what sort of articles were removed. Are we discussing works of fictions which were commercial disasters? (e.g. "Garfield's love affair with the 1942 Ford V8 engine", in Swahili) Or Fictional accounts of real disasters? ("Garfield in the Twin Towers") Or works of fiction about fictional disasters? ("Garfield and 1998 Berlin earthquake") Or some combination of all three?
    The category should have had a clear statement of purpose when created, but since it didn't, we can only infer its purpose from examining its usage before it was depopulated. At that point, I'm quite open to the possibility that it may need renaming and/or clarification of scope, or deletion; but at this point I can't tell. I'm sure that Black Falcon acted in good faith, but without a clearer explanation of the nom's intentions and actions in depopulating the category, it's not possible to make a decision now. If Black Falcon can explain more, I may change my mind on the "keep". --02:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
    • The articles that I removed from the category were primarily articles about real works of fiction whose plots somehow involve a disaster (e.g. Flight 29 Down). However, the plots were not about a specific disaster; rather, they told a story that took place after a disaster (e.g., A Pail of Air) or the disaster was one of several elements of the plot. My actions were based on the category's location as a subcategory of Category:Fictional events and its title – "fictional disasters" – the combination of which implies that it is a category for disasters that exist solely in a fictional context. It is, in that sense, distinct from a category for works of fiction whose plots involves a disaster. These have their own categories: Category:Disaster films, Category:Post-apocalyptic fiction, and the like. A full list of the articles that I removed is available here. I hope this clarifies the situation. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 03:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What constitutes a disaster is subjective. Note (on the real side) the List of disasters was recently deleted at afd. Carlossuarez46 23:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Flight 29 Down[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flight 29 Down (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation. The current material – the main article, a list of episodes, a 'characters' category, a template, and a joint article for the films that supposedly originated the TV series (possibly a hoax, see Talk:The Controversial Classroom / Finnaly Vacation) – does not warrant a distinct category. The articles are adequately interlinked via the article Flight 29 Down or Template:Flight 29 Down. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Strange Days at Blake Holsey High[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Strange Days at Blake Holsey High (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation. The current material (the main article, two subarticles, and a template) does not warrant a distinct category. All of the articles are adequately interlinked via Strange Days at Blake Holsey High. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - material is extensively interlinked, category is not warranted. Otto4711 12:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — category content is sufficiently interlinked, so this category isn't needed. — Val42 03:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Boomba music[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boomba music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A category is not warranted at this time, and the articles Boomba music and Genge are both stubs and are adequately interlinked. Both articles already appear in Category:Kenyan music, so a merge is not needed. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not likely to be expanded for some time. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Falcon and Hersfold. Tankred 00:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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/2007_October_15&oldid=1146512385"