Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 20

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

February 20[edit]

Category:Extreme sports[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 per POV and OR concerns. Kbdank71 14:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Extreme sports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Extreme sports commentators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is problematic, sources define extreme sports as very dangerous activities, but there is no study or statistics of deaths on sports to qualify which are more and less dangerous. List of extreme sports was deleted due to problems with POV and original research. This category should be deleted and activities on this category must be recategorized Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 21:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Category:Extreme sports is doing the same thing as List of extreme sports did and I agree that it is better to salt this category. For extreme sports events like X Games they can be easily categorized into Category:Sports events. I am also nominating Category:Extreme sports commentators - a category with only 3 commentators and can be easily merged into Category:American sports announcers. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 10:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The commentators one also has the added problem of ambiguity. Murray Walker is a sports commentator who is very extreme, for instance! Grutness...wha? 10:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - many things involve POV issues, but these are to be resolved by the authors of individual articles, rather than in a CDF discusion. The category appears to be well-populated. The deletion of a list was probably useful as this would encourage the addition of red links for any extreme sporting activity, however crazy. The "commentators" category is probaly not useful however. Murray Walker, the retired racing comentator, was extreme in his expression, but not (I think) a commentator on extreme sports. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly my point. Even in the unlikely case that a commentator category is needed, the current title is ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They should be resolved on CFD, because all sports and other activities on this category are original research, when there is original research in a list, article, category, etc. We delete them due to original research. This category has the same purpose of List of extreme sports, to show which are very dangerous activities and thing related to these very dangerous activities, that is original research and should be resolved by deletion and recategorization. In 1979, Richard B. Chambers supervised six sports (football, soccer, basketball, baseball, swimming, and gymnastics) and concluded that the risk factor in football was twice as high (1.72) as its nearest competitors, basketball (0.88) and gymnastics (0.85). [1] Football was never associated with extreme sports, so is the risk factor of current activities in this category much more high than football? If no one can answered this question then it must be deleted per WP:OR. Also this category contain some nonsensical things such as Bee Cliff (Tennessee). Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 07:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & per Carlosguitar, "extreme" is in the eye of the beholder = POV & OR Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 22 February 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:Alleged anti-semites[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: speedy deleted by User:East718. VegaDark (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alleged anti-semites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: "Alleged x" categories are often POV magnets. Here the criteria states "anyone accused of anti-semitism", without specifying whether the accusation is substantiated. Just bringing it here to see if there is consensus that this should go, or stay. RobertG ♬ talk 16:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this category. Added after user added the redlink category to a dozen or more BLP pages. Avruch T 16:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the user Avruch refers to is Bevildej (talk · contribs), if you are interested in the category's erstwhile contents. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt as a recreation of the category deleted here. If not speediable because of the slight variation in name then delete as impossibly NPOV with no possible objective inclusion criteria. Alleged categories are trouble magnets and this one in particular is a WP:BLP nightmare. Otto4711 (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt per Otto. Now empty. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Any sourced evidence of antisemitic views, statements or actions can be included in the individual articles; this category is unnecessary and will become a magnet for POV claims, BLP violations, edit wars and other unwanted activity. RolandR (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Otto4711. This categoy, as others have pointed out, would only attract trouble. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:17, 20 February 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:Indian Christianity[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 14:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Indian Christianity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Christianity in India, convention of Category:Christianity by country. -- Prove It (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tinucherian 17:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
*Merge - Author of the category - Tinucherian (talk) 11:42, 21 February 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.

"...-related 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: rename all. Kbdank71 14:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For all the below, suggest "-related" is unnecessary:

Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:54, 20 February 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:People from Edgewood, Texas[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. Article is already in Category:People from Van Zandt County, Texas (although personally I would suggest upmerging that 2 article category into Category:People from Texas). Kbdank71 14:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Edgewood, Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article and since the town is so small, it seems unlikely that it will grow. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What's the policy on creating these sub-cats of people from x town in terms of numbers? Do they have to have at least 10 entries, for example? Or should one exist for every town that has a WP article, along the same vein as Category:Albums by artist? Lugnuts (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:People from Texas or an appropriate county-level subcat. Small category with no foreseeable growth potential based on the size of the town. I don't believe that every town with a Wikipedia article requires a People from category. There is no hard and fast rule on the minimum number of articles but if there's only going to be one for an indeterminate time then the one notable person can certainly be mentioned in the town's article and categorized at the state or county level. This isn't the same as Albums by artist because absent Category:Richard Roe albums Roe's albums can't be in the Albums by artist structure, while the state and county levels of categorization do allow for people to be in the People from structure absent a town-level category. Otto4711 (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:People from Van Zandt County, Texas; we don't even have a category Category:Edgewood, Texas. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 22 February 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:Films & Television shot in Tennessee‎[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge per nom only those articles are about films set in tennessee. Kbdank71 14:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Films & Television shot in Tennessee‎ to Category:Films set in Tennessee
Nominator's rationale: Rename to make consistent with Category:Films set in Texas, for instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:40, 20 February 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:Xbox demos[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 14:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Xbox demos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - It is hard to understand what this category is even for. "the game darkwatch: curse of the west is also on the xbox game disc number 44 that also has doom3 pariah and psychonauts and videoshow case black hawk down lego starwars dead to rights 2 and conker where is he now?" In any case, the lone article within the category is a full game, not a demo. Is this supposed to categorize xbox games of which a demo exists of? I don't see how that is something worth categorizing. VegaDark (talk) 05:13, 20 February 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:Orange[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Orange (telecoms). Kbdank71 14:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Orange to Category:Orange SA
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Ambiguous and the proposed name matches the parent article name. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the lead article is at Orange (telecoms). Orange SA is a redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I based this on the intro for the category and later discovered the issue. I think that Hmains is correct that we should rename both. I did some digging and could not find a reliable source for the SA qualifier. I suspect this is common in France so it may be OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment so what is the best name for the aricle? Maybe it needs to be changed also. It seems that Organge SA might be the best. Hmains (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Orange (telecoms) to match main article. I don't like using non-English language company-form abbreviations as a qualifier for international businesses, as they are rarely used in their branding. Orange is a big operator in the UK, but few users would be aware of the SA bit of the French parent's name. We had a similar case not long ago wwhere we adopted this approach - SAP. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That disambiguation is odd. If you don't like the SA which is not a parenthetical disambiguation and is preferred over parenthetical disambiguations, then how about Category:Orange (brand) which is a better descriptor of what we are talking about. The article can be changed to match. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer "telecoms" as clearer, but "brand" would be ok. I'm not sure what's odd about it. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Telcoms is not a word and is not used in normal conversations. So its use for disambiguation is rather odd. The more I look into this brand the more confused I become. It almost appears that France Télécom is only operating as Orange. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to see you say that (it's much more common than "gaming", I'm tempted to suggest). It's pretty standard in financial & business talk on both sides of the Atlantic I would have thought. I think France Télécom still operate their French fixed-line business, which is much the largest provider in France, under the FT name. Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Call it a brain freeze, but they have been telcos for more years then I can remember. Yea, telecoms is another term and maybe that is the problem with using any of those terms, they are all slang or shorthand. But we need to rename away from Category:Orange so anything is a step in a good direction. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 21 February 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_February_20&oldid=1138390139"