Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 14

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

April 14[edit]

Category:Handball in Korea Republic[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. Kbdank71 14:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Handball in Korea Republic to Category:Handball in South Korea
Nominator's rationale: Should use the more common and less ambiguous "South Korea", per other South Korea categories. PC78 (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2008 (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:Herbert Hoover High School (San Diego, California) alumni[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, how this is defining was not explained, nor are WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:ALLORNOTHING particularly strong arguments. Kbdank71 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Herbert Hoover High School (San Diego, California) alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not defining. I doubt that attendance at 99.99% of secondary schools is ever defining. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many high schools with their own Wikipedia categories for alumni. This is a major high school too, with 2,500 enrolled. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • St. Augustine High School (San Diego, California) has an alumni category.Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the well-established Category:People by high school in the United States, to which I have just added it. BencherliteTalk 00:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the comments have yet addressed the central rationale for the nomination. How is this defining for those included? Are you suggesting you want a broader nomination for all the high school alumni categories before this issue of definingness is addressed? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • See a previous related discussion for background, to save me repeating everything from then. I still stand by my opinion there that an assertion (without explanation or reasoning) by someone seeking deletion that this is "non-defining" doesn't take matters much further forward. The relevant guideline, WP:OCAT, says that "if something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely not a defining characteristic" and that doesn't seem to me to include somebody's high school/secondary school, which is a standard piece of biographical information and entirely suitable for categorisation. Various individual school alumni categories have been nominated in the past for deletion, without success: see this "keep", and in particular this self-proclaimed "test case", closed as "keep, no consensus to delete". If there's going to be a discussion on whether to delete all pre-university alumni categories, then bring those parent categories up for discussion rather than pick on one school. I think such categories should be kept, as you'd expect from my comments above, so I don't "want" a broader nomination in that sense. BencherliteTalk 22:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree with the contention that where one attended high school could not easily be left out a biographical article. And even in those instances where it's even noteworthy it rarely if ever warrants categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-defining of those included. High school alumni categories should probably almost all be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-defining. High school alumni cats are bad ideas. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the well-established Category:People by high school in the United States, itself part of the wider Category:People by educational institution. More over-zealous over-cfd-ing. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd quite happily support a blanket consensus against high school alumni categories; I simply don't see how they could possibly be considered anything other than pure WP:OCAT. Delete and blow up that tree with all the dynamite it takes. Bearcat (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To argue that The San Diego Chicken is a notable graduate is an interesting position. BTW, I removed this category from that article since being in the category is not justified from the article's text. Some high school alumni categories may in fact be defining, but by and large most are not. Since that is a given, it is a jump to say that this is a part of a series of defining categories. It is clearly not unless it is shown to be defining. So Ted Williams played baseball here, but was that defining in his carrer? Joe Shell was a key football player, but again defining? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care whether or not we decide to categorize people by high school, but we should either do so for all schools and alumni or for none at all, rather than splitting hairs over whether a particular school is "notable", or whether so-and-so's attendance at a particular school is a "defining characteristic" of him or her. For now, I say keep this category as part of a larger system. If deleting Category:People by high school in the United States (and all sub-categories) is seriously being considered, this discussion will ultimately be moot, but it would be inappropriate to delete some and keep others while awaiting an actual consensus on the category scheme as a whole. — CharlotteWebb 10:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not always inappropriate to pick off subcats from within a larger scheme if the individual subcat is improper or unnecessary. Hell, every category we delete is part of some sort of scheme, usually more than one, by virtue of being parented in another cat. The notion that we can't ever discuss subcats in isolation just because they are parented and siblinged by similar cats would bring CFD to a grinding halt. Otto4711 (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2008 (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:Killer cops[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 as duplicate of Category:Police officers convicted of murder. — CharlotteWebb 10:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Killer cops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Sensational-sounding and slang-y ("cops") name for an area which is already amply catered to by Category:Police officers convicted of murder. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2008 (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:Woodstock Era record Labels[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: empty and delete. — CharlotteWebb 11:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Woodstock Era record labels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's Rationale: "woodstock era" is not a genre, and therefore should not be a category by which to sort record labels. Furthermore, the category only contains one record label, and it is not even a record label of the woodstock era, it is one that was recently established. Woodstock era is an ambiguous and unnecessary category. If it is necessary, then please add more labels to this category and remove the one that is currently there. I feel like a tourist (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with the nominator. The category is for a genre that does not exist and has a sole occupant most likely using it for promotion. Woody (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Woody.--Lenticel (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an easily defined category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not objectively definable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2008 (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:Needed-Class articles[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. the wub "?!" 10:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Needed-Class articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Needed-Class former country articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Needed-Class Dallas-Fort Worth articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category:Articles by quality have long been defined and contain the Category:xxx-Class articles string. The idea behind this "Needed-Class articles" is that the talk page of non-existant articles or redirected articles could be tagged to create a list of articles that need to be created. This runs afowl of Speedy delete CSD G8. For one example of this implementation, see Category:Needed-Class former country articles. Another way the Needed-Class articles is being used is as a list in category space without categories. Category:Needed-Class Dallas-Fort Worth articles is an example of that. Category:Wikipedia requested articles is a sufficient category to address this type of request. Please delete all three. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Needed-Class is a valid class of non-articles. According to WP:ASSESS, non-standard grades that fall outside the assessment include Cat, Dab, Future, Image, List, Needed, and Template (and I can think of others, such as Portal). As I understand things, use of these classes is at the discretion of individual WikiProjects, so if you wish to eliminate Needed-Class (which appears to be your intention) then you should really take it up with the WikiProjects that use it. Also, I'm not sure why you think "Needed" is a vague term; it seems quite clear to me. So far as I can tell, the only WikiProject actually using this class is WikiProject Former countries, but as I said above, their usage of it appears to be perfectly legitimate. PC78 (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Needed class was added only one month ago to the not well monitored subpage WP:ASSESS.[1] Also, if you need an article the only way you will get it is by requesting it or creating it yourself. GregManninLB (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the one responsible for the creation of Category:Needed-Class former country articles. While I was informed about the nominator's concerns regarding Needed-Class (but not directly informed about this CFD), I am a little surprised that WP Former Countries was not informed at all about this CFD (I have since notified the group).
    Long ago, I saw Needed-Class in use in a number of places. And it is indeed part of WP:ASSESS as a valid class. The WPFC usage of this class is perfectly legitimate to me since it specifically lists a group of former countries-related articles that are needed/requested - change it to Requested-Class if you want, that would be also fine. By using WP:Requested articles, you suggest that any such requests be thrown into the very long lists that are already there: personally, I do not see the merit of such an action. By browsing any of the other x-Class former country articles categories, one can instantly see the "Needed" class and interested parties can go there and see what has been requested.
    What's wrong with WP:Requested articles referring to the contents of this category? That way the Requested articles list has its requests while the specificity and easy access from within related categories remains.
    Instead of calling for the deletion of these categories, I suggest that its use be carried over to other projects. Maybe after renaming to "Requested-Class" 52 Pickup (deal) 13:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with renaming them and placing them in the proper category. GregManninLB (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an obvious conflict between these categories and CSD G8. If this is kept (which I think I support), we should probably amend G8 to state that a needed-class template should not be deleted. It might be useful for seeing how far into a finite set of articles (like countries or state highways) a project is. I have linked to this discussion from a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Including missing articles in wikiwork? --NE2 20:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily, as the categories can be (and are being) used for redirect talk pages, which do not violate CSD G8. But I certainly don't think we should be creating talk pages for non-existant articles just so we can slap project templates on them. PC78 (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could probably be handled better with either a list of redlinks, or categorising redirects. If you know the title of the requested article, create it as a redirect to the broader topic, and then label with something like {{R with possibilities}}, which puts it in Category:Redirects with possibilities. See Category:Comics redirects with possibilities and Category:Middle-earth redirects with possibilities for some ideas of how this system works. It might even be possible to integrate this into a project's stats for its pages. When someone is ready to start work on the article, just start editing the redirect and adding incoming and outgoing links. Carcharoth (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects don't really work for something like Washington State Route 213; there are several other forms of the name (like State Route 213 (Washington)) that get redirected to it, and thus those would also be redirected to the list, meaning whoever makes the article also has to fix all the redirects. It's also harder to notice when a redirect changes to an article; I don't think Alexnewartbot will pick up on it, and unless the creator changes the talk page tag from "redirect-class", it won't show up in WP 1.0 bot's logs. --NE2 22:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is true that needed-class is not a "standard" class read by the bot, it is one that has been popular with WikiProjects for two years or so - the Beatles WikiProject used it from the very start, during the test phase with the bot. As for it "only being used in two WikiProjects" there is a very good reason for that: It seems that one person decided to delete the templates from pages, then someone else saw the resultant empty categories and decided to delete those (without informing the project first). What a waste of everyone's time! See this comment as an indicator, and you can see that Category:Needed-Class_comics_articles_by_work_group still exists (and the alphabetical toc suggests that it was once a large category). The Doctor Who project also saw its category deleted recently, after someone had emptied it (without first asking the person who tagged the articles initially - see this), and I think many other projects have seen their work damaged. Categories are tricky things, because unlike articles they don't have a history to see if they were once much fuller.
  • Thank you to the nominator for informing us at WP:1.0 - this is how things should be done. I find it outrageous that categories belonging to a WikiProject have been deleted in the past without the WikiProject even being told - surely it is standard policy to alert people first? As for policy, at this point Wikipedia:CSD#G8 (the sole basis for this nomination!) states that "This excludes any talk page which is useful to the project." Who determines if it is useful to the project? Surely it should be the WikiProject overseeing the talk page - not an outsider who has no knowledge of the topic. Shouldn't any deletion discussion happen at the WikiProject, and the nomination for deletion should come from there? The whole basis of the assessment scheme was to give power to the WikiProjects to track their own area, and the WP:1.0 team has always allowed projects to use whatever non-standard classes they see fit to use to get the job done.
  • We should not hinder the work of dedicated people at the WikiProjects, who no doubt have very good reasons for spending their evenings adding Class=needed into talk page templates. Their work is nothing to do with spam or vandalism, it is only being done for the good of the project. Even if CSD#G8 said otherwise, this would be a clear case of WP:IAR and WP:AGF. Can't we just let WikiProjects get on with their work in peace, and let the speedy deletion people deal with spammers and trolls (many thanks for that!), so the project can move forward? Walkerma (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not listify to project-space? Each project can maintain a list of "needed" article on a subpage, adding details to each entry as necessary, which would make these categories (and the talk pages they contain) unnecessary. It seems to me that this type of centralised approach would be simpler and easier to work with/navigate/modify. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Alternatively use lists of redlinks on WikiProject territory. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE, I don't mind which way this goes, but if consensus is to delete, can the closer let me know so I can tidy up various pages at the comics wikiproject. Thanks. Hiding T 12:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As Needed-Class is a valid assessment category according to Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, it should be kept along with all sub-categories created as part of the assessment process. It is easier to tag an uncreated article's talk page than it is to keep a list. Lists are not automatically alphabetized as categories are and are far more problematic to maintain. Also, the tagged uncreated article can also be given an importance rating at the same time to show the urgency of the article's creation. Keep Needed-Class categories and article talk pages so marked. It is a valuable tool for WikiProjects and should not be tampered with by deleting it. - LA @ 00:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think having these cats make sense. It's a way to see what we have not created that will be created. Not just something that someone writes up on a whim about Joe Sixpack, but articles about something noteworthy that a project hasn't gotten around to do yet. A list, while logical, is monotonous to go through. --Son (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per Black Falcon. --Kbdank71 15:23, 24 April 2008 (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:American draughts players[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 (I thought it was about beer). Kbdank71 14:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American draughts players to Category:American checkers players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Hardly any self-respecting American would even admit to knowing what "draughts" are (I'm sure he members of this category have some familiarity with the term, but nobody else knows what it is); and if some Americans do use the name, they either spell it "drafts" or treat draughts as a foreign word. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom per US usage (confirmed by the article of the first category member). Delighted to hear that there are notable players in the draughts world. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. WP:STYLE also urges us to use each nation's preferred wording/spelling for pages that relate to that nation. Any confusion can be cleared up with a sentence or two at the top of the category page (and probably the one it links upward to). Noroton (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and Noroton.--Lenticel (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, as creator. I can see the nominator's point.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, in the U.S., draughts (draft) brings up the idea of beer more than it does checkers. GregManninLB (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2008 (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:Argentine footballers in Turkey[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Argentine footballers in Turkey to both Category:Argentine expatriate footballers and Category:Expatriate footballers in Turkey
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Argentine expatriate footballers and Category:Expatriate footballers in Turkey (as triple intersection or worse) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are as yet not many examples of Category:Fooish footballers in Bar but it seems to me a bad precedent which will lead to a proliferation of similar categories. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Totally agree - a cat nightmare starting Not only Foos in Bar but Foo pick your sport or occupation in Bar now or once before - intersections are endless, currency, main career or swansong end of career contracts, overseas but not playing at all . . . ? Peet Ern (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with nomination. And could there needs to be a third merger - to Category:Argentine expatriates in Turkey Mayumashu (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining, POV, subjective, "current" category, not maintainable. How long does an Argentine footballer need to be in Turkey to fit this cat? Are they removed if they leave Turkey? And what objective - non-arbitrary rules lead one to the answers of these defining questions. None.... so delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't a current category - it is for Argentinian footballers who are playing or have played for a professional Turkish club. There are no problems with inclusion. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Overcategorisation. - Nabla (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Overcategorisation.  Jhony   13:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The triple intersection is bad, but splitting this apart will be worse. --Kbdank71 17:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin: you may want to change my close here, as this discussion has much more input on the same issue. --Kbdank71 17:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because instead of having one category on each article, we'll have three. Taking a triple intersection out and replacing it with every conceivable combination of intersections just clutters up the category list. --Kbdank71 17:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But a triple intersection (A B C) is always in (and replaces) 3 dble intersection parents: (A B), (A C), (B C) so I am now bemused. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that occurred to me. That's why I went for delete; I don't like triple intersections or cat clutter. Category intersections will solve this whole mess, you know. --Kbdank71 18:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gordon Hill is an example of a much-travelled footballer in the usual categories. You can't simply remove valid categories because you perceive clutter. Neither is it reasonable to delete a triple intersection and pay no attention to the 3 pieces of info contained therein. Category intersections will get nowhere with deleted info. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Postdlf said it very well when he said "Categories are important because they function to classify the subjects of articles—they appear with an even greater claim of factuality and objectivity than the content of articles. They should be limited to what is somehow integral to understanding a subject, rather than something that simply happens to be true about it. Trivial information can be buried at the bottom of an article with no problem, but trivial categories bury the article itself." Gordon Hill is a mess. You can remove more than half of the categories and not lose a thing. I particularly like how he is "in Canada" and "in the United States". Kind of lends itself well to Carlos' argument above about this being a "current" category. --Kbdank71 23:53, 2 May 2008 (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:Brazilian footballers in Turkey[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Brazilian footballers in Turkey to both Category:Expatriate footballers in Turkey and Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Expatriate footballers in Turkey and Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers (as triple or possibly quadruple intersection). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining, POV, subjective, "current" category, not maintainable. How long does a Brazilian footballer need to be in Turkey to fit this cat? Are they removed if they leave Turkey? And what objective - non-arbitrary rules lead one to the answers of these defining questions. None.... so delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't a current category - it is for Brazilian footballers who are playing or have played for a professional Turkish club. There are no problems with inclusion etc. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Overcategorisation. - Nabla (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Overcategorisation.  Jhony   13:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The triple intersection is bad, but splitting this apart will be worse. --Kbdank71 17:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin: you may want to change my close here, as this discussion has much more input on the same issue. --Kbdank71 17:32, 2 May 2008 (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.

Ships by navy[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. Kbdank71 14:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Royal Bahamas Defence Force ships to Category:Ships of the Royal Bahamas Defence Force
Category:Royal Australian Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Royal Australian Navy
Category:Brazilian Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Brazilian Navy
Category:Bulgarian Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Bulgarian Navy
Category:Royal Canadian Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Royal Canadian Navy
Category:Canadian Forces ships to Category:Ships of the Canadian Forces
Category:French Navy ships to Category:Ships of the French Navy
Category:German Imperial Navy ships to Category:Ships of the German Imperial Navy
Category:Indian Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Indian Navy
Category:Irish Naval Service ships to Category:Ships of the Irish Naval Service
Category:Republic of Korea Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Republic of Korea Navy
Category:Korean People's Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Korean People's Navy
Category:Regia Marina ships to Category:Ships of the Regia Marina
Category:Republic of China Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Republic of China Navy
Category:Republic of Singapore Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Republic of Singapore Navy
Category:Republic of Vietnam Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Republic of Vietnam Navy
Category:Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships to Category:Ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary
Category:Royal Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Royal Navy
Category:Soviet Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Soviet Navy
Category:Sri Lanka Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Sri Lanka Navy
Category:United States Army ships to Category:Ships of the United States Army
Category:United States Navy ships to Category:Ships of the United States Navy
Category:Venezuelan Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Venezuelan Navy
Category:People's Liberation Army Navy ships to Category:Ships of the People's Liberation Army Navy
Category:Republic of the Philippines Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Republic of the Philippines Navy
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with naming style of parent category, Category:Ships by navy, and with other types of ship categories, such as Category:Ships by country, Category:Ships by country of construction. Creators of all categories informed. Notice posted at WP:SHIPS, WP:MILHIST — Bellhalla (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename I think this is a sensible idea and should help to make the category system a bit more uniform. Shouldn't it be Sri Lankan Navy though? Woody (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sri Lanka Navy seems to be the term. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Woody (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2008 (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:Attractions in Fairfield County, Connecticut[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 match parent and other "visitor attraction" categories. If a rename of all visitor attraction to tourist attraction categories is wanted, please nominate them. Kbdank71 14:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Attractions in Fairfield County, Connecticut to Category:Visitor attractions in Fairfield County, Connecticut
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Move to common name. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename This is not a category of visitor attractions, it's a category of attractions for visitors to the area and others who already live in the area. In fact, most items in the category would probably be quite boring to visitors from outside the area. Many of these attractions are of more interest to local people and a category is needed for that purpose. There is no practical purpose in Wikipedia naming something a "visitor attraction" only to have readers become disappointed in the listings they're presented with. If the idea is that all attractions are visitor attractions, then we should be dropping "visitor" in all the other category names for a more succinct title. If this name is changed, we should be changing the names for the equivalent categories for each of the other counties in Connecticut, which all follow this pattern. Noroton (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This category was named differently from "Visitor attractions" categories because in fact it is different. There are very few Visitor attraction categories for areas as local as counties, and where they exist, they have very few items, and with very few exceptions those articles that are listed in them are about attractions that are of interest to people visiting the area, not just local residents. In other local examples that I've been able to find either no attractions of purely local interest or extremely few are listed. See Category:Visitor attractions in Long Beach, California and the "Visitor attractions in" categories for Buffalo, Houston, Miami, Tampa Bay, Orange County, Florida and Oakland, California. These categories cover metropolis-size "localities" almost always much bigger than any Connecticut county. There are 91 articles in Category:Attractions in Fairfield County, Connecticut, and if this category is renamed, some editor can come along and start deleting articles from the category with the justification that they are not all "visitor attractions". It might avoid a future conflict if editors who want to would state whether or not "visitor attraction" includes attractions likely to be of local interest, allowing for broad inclusion, or whether they think a categories should not exist at all for attractions of local interest. It would be best if the article names are kept as they are, or we rename the Connecticut categories "Local attractions in ..." to clarify the distinction. There is a good, useful purpose to these categories, but it is a different purpose than the other "Visitor attractions" categories. There are 71 articles in the New Haven County attractions category; 36 articles in the one for Middlesex County; 16 for Litchfield; 43 for New London; 68 for Hartford; only 5 for Tolland; and no category for Windham County. It's not as if I didn't think about all this before creating the categories. Noroton (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'll nominate the others, likely as a part of this nomination, if it appears that the rename here is likely to proceed. While to you the difference is significant, for most everyone else, the difference is confusing especially when they have as a parent Category:Visitor attractions in Connecticut. It also most sounds like you are trying to make the encyclopedia into some kind of a local resource guide. If that's the case, then you can start a dedicated wiki for that purpose. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sounds a bit snippy. One could just as easily say, Visitor attractions? Sounds like you are trying to make the encyclopedia into some kind of a tourist resource guide. And that kind of statement would be just as unfair. Let's stick to the merits, because while it's important enough to think through, it isn't important enough to get annoyed at, and I certainly don't doubt your good faith in nominating this. I'm glad you think it doesn't matter. If enough other editors want the change and say they think it doesn't matter, then at least we have a consensus someone would have to overturn before removing most of the articles from a county "Visitor attractions" category, which is more important. Notice that there are about two dozen categories that feed into Category:Visitor attractions in Connecticut, none of them named "Visitor attractions", so the state visitor-attractions category doesn't necessarily mean the county attractions categories need the extra word. Noroton (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So why is Connecticut different then every other state? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia coverage of every state is different from coverage every other state in some respects. I haven't looked into all 50, but it wouldn't surprise me if Connecticut is the only one with large numbers of articles about attractions of local interest that can easily be categorized by county (by "easily", I mean there are so many that categorization of these kinds of attractions on a county level can be obviously useful -- if there are others, then it would be equally helpful to readers if similar categories were set up for them). This kind of category also helps keep down the size of the basic categories for counties. We have a lot of articles related to various types of local institutions in Fairfield, New Haven, Hartford counties, and the county categories have still been kept to one page in part because a number of county-wide categories have been created, including these. Noroton (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and yes the others should be changed too. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If they are attractions then they are attractions? Why colour them with an adjective of local/visitor/tourist, etc. ?? Change (decolour) the parent category too. HOWEVER what is the notablity of some these things. If they were people bio's . . . ? Taking a world view, what if we have every attraction of every county, parish, shire, city, . . . on the planet ? Yes I too would like to have an entry for everything, but . . . I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I am a little bemused with some of this. Peet Ern (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and for consistency with other states. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are 9 "Attractions in categories and hundreds of Visitor attractions in pages. As for whether a local resident can visit an attraction and be a "visitor", the answer lies is in using Tourist attraction to define such "attraction". The term "visitor attraction" is a redirect to tourist attraction and all the categories entitled "Category:Visitor attractions in" should be renamed "Category:Tourist attraction in" to match the category naming scheme to the article naming scheme. These three categories have it right. Once all the categories are renamed "Tourist attraction in ...", then there would seem room for "Category:Non-tourist attractions in ...", which is what the keep seems to be getting at. You also might want to look at "Category:Visitor centers in ..." GregManninLB (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you check, I think you will find that Category:Visitor attractions was the result of cleaning up several different names into a common consensus choice. A rename of everything to Category:Tourist attractions should be discussed based on the name of the main article. That would need to be a discussion on its own and not buried in this nomination. I suspect that based on past discussions, that proposal would receive consensus here. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where do we check? That consensus choice seems to be buried somewhere. This nomination discussion won't be buried because there will be a link to it on the discussion page for the category, won't it? Noroton (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2008 (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:Flora and fauna in the Canary Islands[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. Kbdank71 15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Flora and fauna in the Canary Islands to Category:Biota of the Canary Islands
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use naming convention of Category:Biota by country. Not all biota is necessarily flora or fauna; subcategories typically use flora and fauna designation separately. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2008 (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:Mallorca[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. Kbdank71 15:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mallorca to Category:Majorca
Category:Geography of Mallorca to Category:Geography of Majorca
Category:Beaches of Mallorca to Category:Beaches of Majorca
Category:Municipalities in Mallorca to Category:Municipalities in Majorca
Category:People from Mallorca to Category:People from Majorca
Category:Sport in Mallorca to Category:Sport in Majorca
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Main article uses English-language spelling of Majorca. ("Mallorca" is the name in Spanish/Catalan.) Conform categories to article spelling to reduce confusion over alternate spellings. (Note: I'm not proposing to change category names that use "Mallorca" if the main article for the subcategory uses "Mallorca", as in the city name Category:Palma de Mallorca.) Notified creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep move to whatever the convention is. As long as you don't remove the categories entirely!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many articles in these categories. Raymond Cruise (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Raymond, my nomination is just suggesting a straight name change. I'm not suggesting any articles be removed from the categories so you can be confident that all the articles will remain. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, to match Majorca. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Since Majorca seems to be a well-stablished historical exonym in English language, there should not be any problem to rename this category. However, as it's pointed out above, caution should be taken that no article got stray... --Toniher (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2008 (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.

Balkan collaborators[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. Kbdank71 15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Croatian collaborators to Category:Croatian Nazi collaborators
Category:Montenegrin collaborators to Category:Montenegrin Nazi collaborators
Category:Serbian collaborators to Category:Serbian Nazi collaborators
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Categories are subs of Category:Nazi collaborators and other similar categories for other nationalities use "Fooian Nazi collaborators". I assume there could be people of these nationalities who collaborated with an entity that is not Nazi Germany, in which case the current name is overly broad. Notified creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, makes sense. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2008 (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:Internet Radio (Westbury H.S)[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. Kbdank71 15:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Internet Radio (Westbury H.S) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Single article, malformed name -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Noroton (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also note that this category was being filed in the even more dubious and previously undetected Category:List of Schools that the Internet Radio is Closed Every Friday. I speedied that one, obviously. No, you wish I was making that one up. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2008 (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:National Lacrosse League templates[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: speedily deleted by James086 per creator's request. BencherliteTalk 20:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National Lacrosse League templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I added this category in error. It has been emptied and all articles moved to more appropriate categories. MrBoo (talk, contribs) 00:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the creator, all you have to do is slap a {{db|reason}} template on the category page to get it Speedy Deleted. It doesn't even need to be here at all. Cgingold (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually, this is needed. It needs to be moved to be on top of the categories its in, which I'll do now. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:14, 14 April 2008 (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/2008_April_14&oldid=1141484753"