Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 26 October 28 >

October 27[edit]

Category:Silesian people[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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. Sorry. — CharlotteWebb 20:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Silesian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Should be renamed to match main article Silesians or vice versa. No preference, just trying this first because categories should defer to articles by default. — CharlotteWebb 20:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (and rename article); Fooish people seems to be the prevailing form in Category:People by race or ethnicity.-choster (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and rename article). I agree with Choster -- we're not obligated to slavishly follow the article name, certainly not when there's a more sensible alternative. Cgingold (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per both above, but no need to rename the article. There are many similar disparities in this area - category names often need to be clearer than articles, and Silesians is not actually about the same thing - ie it is not about notable individual Silesians. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are -- no need to rename. Cgingold (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and rename article, but of secondary importance) There are a few pages under Cat:People by race or ethnicity that do not follow the Adj. + people. I ll nominate them now - Please add comments at the October 29 nominations page too Mayumashu (talk) 19:55, 29 October 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:Carl Zeiss Jena 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. Flowerparty☀ 00:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Carl Zeiss Jena players to Category:FC Carl Zeiss Jena players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To resolve confusion. Current category name (Carl Zeiss Jena) is meant to refer to the football club but is actually the name of an optics company, the proper name of the football club is FC Carl Zeiss Jena. Also see category:Carl Zeiss Jena matches.. Chuckiesdad (talk) 20:10, 27 October 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:Carl Zeiss Jena matches[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. Flowerparty☀ 00:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Carl Zeiss Jena matches to Category:FC Carl Zeiss Jena matches
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To resolve confusion. Current category name (Carl Zeiss Jena) is meant to refer to the football club but is actually the name of an optics company, the proper name of the football club is FC Carl Zeiss Jena. Also see category:Carl Zeiss Jena players. Chuckiesdad (talk) 20:05, 27 October 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:Actresses who committed suicide[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. Flowerparty☀ 00:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Actresses who committed suicide to Category:Actors who committed suicide
Suggest merging Category:Actresses who attempted suicide to Category:Actors who attempted suicide
Nominator's rationale: Merge - per general standard against maintaining sex-based categories. Otto4711 (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per nom. (Also Category:Actresses who attempted suicide.) Occuli (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I worked on these a bit, and I got the impression that the division was probably created for size issues. However, the combined "committed" category would presently contain 230 articles, which probably is not too many. Incidentally, Category:Porn stars who committed suicide is a subcategory of the actors category, even though many of the porn stars included are female, so merging makes all the more sense here when the porn stars category is not divided by sex. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sex-based categories make sense when they can contribute to gender studies and have individual notability. I don't thing this is the case here. Dimadick (talk) 15:52, 30 October 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:Years in video games[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. Flowerparty☀ 00:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Years in video games to Category:Years in video gaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name may imply that the category is for articles about fictional years in video games. --Silver Edge (talk) 08:26, 27 October 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:Edo Maajka[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. Flowerparty☀ 00:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Edo Maajka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a musician. The contents of the albums and songs subcats are already linked into the article, as are the discography and the article on the video documentary. Hence the article obviates any need for an eponymous category. Stepheng3 (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm nominating for this deletion, in case it's not clear. - Stepheng3 (talk) 07:07, 27 October 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:Dot-com magazines[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 Category:Dot-com magazines and start over from scratch. Essentially, I'm endorsing Vegaswikian's closing comments as I think they are right on point here. I realise there's not a clear consensus for just a straight "delete"—for this reason, this discussion should NOT be used as the basis for deleting a newly-created category, even if it's created under exactly the same name. (This will have to be an exception to the usual G4 speedy deletion criterion, of course.) Let's try to forget about the original vs. adjusted intent of this category and start fresh with a semi-blank slate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Dot-com magazines to Category:Computer magazines
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Published during the dot com bubble covers a wide group of magazines and the fact they were published in a very short window, that is not clearly definable, is not defining or notable. OCAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge. Wired is still around, so I wouldn't consider this aspect of its history to be a defining characteristic. As for the rest, the subjective inclusion criterion clinches it for me. - Stepheng3 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rename as below, the definition note (added 2 years after the category was created) should be removed or sorted, and things like Internetworld added here. Most computer magazines are pretty specialised & this seems a valid sub-cat. Maybe rename Category:Magazines about the internet. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about a merge to Category:Online magazines for those that were online? As to your suggestion, I think that could be an appropriate category under Category:Computer magazines. However I'm not sure that all of the articles in this category would belong there. So merge fist and then create additional sub categories as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The online ones should be added to Category:Online magazines, but this is a category about subject matter not delivery method. On reflection I think my rename above is the way to go - many more can be added. I'm not sure any of those there now would then need to be removed, though some don't fit the current narrower definition. Johnbod (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can buy that. I'd suggest naming the new category Category:Internet magazines to follow the form in Category:Magazines by interest which should be a parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with that is it sounds the same as Category:Online magazines; I think the clearer form is better. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the category's intent is to collect magazines whose area of focus is the Internet, then I would support renaming to Category:Magazines about the internet. - Stepheng3 (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I read through the articles in this category. They are not all computer magazines, they are not all online magazines, only one of them is a magazine about the internet. The category's intent is to list magazines that were published during a certain period in history (dot-com bubble). If renamed, it should reflect this: Category:Magazines published from 1995-2001 (ZOMG, a hyphen!) But I'm not sure that's needed. There is already a "magazines established in" series, like Category:Magazines established in 1993. These 5 articles can just be added to one of these categories. --Kbdank71 15:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify/Delete - I think Kbdank makes several good points. That said, as noted above, there may be some value to the information. So let's listify as appropriate to Dot-com bubble, and whatever sources that can be found to related the publications to the event or time period can then be added. - jc37 03:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above, this "intent" was added two years after the category was created, distorting completely the original purpose of the category, and should certainly be removed. Yawn. It is disappointing, if not entirely surprising, that regulars are unable to look beyond this even after it has been pointed out. Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Shrugs. "It is disappointing, if not entirely surprising" that you still seem unable to discuss without denigrating good faith commenters. I wonder how long it will be before you are sanctioned for incivility...
    As for the current membership, most seem to match the name of the category, though perhaps not the "original intent", nor the proposed renames. - jc37 04:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now would that be a threat? Good faith is not at issue here. Johnbod (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's merely an observation based upon past experience.
    And yes, your comments appear to be direct presumptions of bad faith. - jc37 04:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way? Competence, especially as an administrator, maybe, but how bad faith? As so often, your comments bandy standard WP terms about whether they have the remotest relevance to the issue or not. Johnbod (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a good faith request to take your comments point-by-point and illustrate the incivilities involved? Or just another facet of "trolling in order to change the subject of the discussion"?
    Based upon comments so far, I think I might be leaning towards thinking its the latter. I'd be happy to be presented with positive evidence to the contrary.
    In either case, we're straying from the topic of the discussion. So per "comment on the content, not on the editor" (which is one of the several problems with your posts in general, which forces others to note this), let's not continue this line of discussion. - jc37 05:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, now I'm trolling too! Civility also involves willingness to read what other editors write, and think about it (even occasionally respond to it), to research nominations, and to give properly reasoned nominations when making them oneself. If you feel able to demonstrate how my comments above have anything to do with "direct presumptions of bad faith", please go ahead, otherwise I think an apology is appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. Very well. Though if anyone would like to move this "discussion" to the talk page (as being off-topic), that's fine with me.
    I'm treating this as a "request for clarification" and am responding as such.
    "As noted above, this "intent" was added two years after the category was created, distorting completely the original purpose of the category, and should certainly be removed. Yawn. It is disappointing, if not entirely surprising, that regulars are unable to look beyond this even after it has been pointed out." - I'm sorry, but I don't see "good faith" there. I see a direct attack upon contributors. It had absolutely nothing to do with the content under question. And it went far beyond a request for clarification, or a suggestion that perhaps the contributors do not understand the points you're trying to make. It is, as I noted, an attempt at denigrating others, based upon your own personal POV and interpretation of the style and/or presentation of the content under discussion. You're welcome to have a POV concerning style and presentation, but to make derisive remarks (unsupproted by obvious evidence) during a discussion can be simply uncivil. There's more, but honestly, I simply dislike having to point out others' incivilities. While at times necessary, it's a discussion of negativity, and I prefer more positive environs when possible. - jc37 05:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not over civil, I agree, but where is the bad faith? It's so irritating dealing with someone who consistently fails to pay any attention to the meaning of words, on the rare occasions when he bothers to enter into any discussion with other editors. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess the discussion shows that there are many problems with this category and a simple rename would not fix all of these. Even the proposed rename to cover Internet magazines is problematic. As a result to achieve consensus I'm going to support a Delete. Since the category is small, a delete will not cause large problems of losing information. If anyone wants to add some information as suggested by jc37 to an article that is fine. If later someone can create a category name to cover the magazines published in the era that should also be allowed. But given the current issues, it is better to delete this category then leave the current confusing category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 7 November 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:Dot-com consulting firms[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge. Kbdank71 15:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dot-com consulting firms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: POV inclusion criteria. Just read the introduction and you will see the problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That intro is easily removed. Seems a potentially valid classification, though some of these seem to be ad agencies and others more techie. Few have relevant other categories, so they should at least be upmerged. Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator was too lazy to verify that there are reliable sources that define the category. Furthermore, the explanatory text appears to have been rewritten by a former dot-com employee ("To many who had been with these studios...") and should not be used to evaluate the worthiness of the category itself. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is a valid category, then the inclusion criteria should be clear. If the criteria are not clear then it should be deleted. While CfD is not suppose to be a place for cleanup, I guess that is what you are suggesting. Johnbod makes some additional valid points about the contents of the category. So if the decision is to upmerge to Category:Dot-com, I can live with that since that category also needs cleanup, adding a few more articles would not be a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:30, 29 October 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_October_27&oldid=1138391458"