Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 11 September 13 >

September 12[edit]

Category:Norwegian adventurers[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 13:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Norwegian adventurers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The adventurers hierarchy was nominated for deleteion in December 2007 (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 11#Adventurers). Obviously, this category was left out. If it remains that gives reason to recreate the entire hierarchy. meco (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to something – these are all very similar people (b since 1960, climbers, extreme sports persons perhaps). The arguments in the previous cfds do not apply to these articles as they all fit definition 1 (and it has never been a subcat of the 'Adventurers' cat). These are all adventurers as in Adventureworks. Occuli (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for all the same reasons I proposed the other adventurers categories for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for previous reasons. Also note that Category:Adventuresses was deleted in a 2008 JUL 29 CfD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:50, 13 September 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.

Media based on television programs[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. Kbdank71 13:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no deletion review for categories, this discussion is being started as I am disputing the resolution of Discussions 2 and 2a. Also, there is no set television naming convention regarding category names.

The parent article for all of the articles and categories is television program.

In the previous discussions, I had shown that the media based on media scheme uses television programs consistently throughout it. For some reason I can not understand, this was met with resistance from a small number of editors, two in the first discussion but only one in the second. When the second discussion was closed, the categories were further removed for the implied naming convention used by the media based on media scheme. Currently, the scheme is media based on media, not media adapted from a media. Also, with 14 television program related categories named with the words television programs, the above are clearly misnamed with the word series.

Discussion 2a was started by the editor who opposed Discussion 2. Discussion 2a, in my opinion, should not have been started until discussion 2 was completed. I was using the first category listed above in Discussion 2 to show a clear naming pattern. To show the implied naming convention used in this scheme, I will list here all of the categories within the media based on media scheme, with the television programs categories in bold so that the naming pattern of the scheme can be clearly illustrated and that the names that these categories were changed to were inappropriate.

It also looks like the musicals category was deleted completely for some unknown reason without anything to take its place.

This may look like a "I like/want it," and it may be the case. I will go for consistency over inconsistency every time. Media based on media is a firmly entrenched scheme with over 75 categories and several lists, which I will list upon request. I urge you to allow these categories to be renamed according to the scheme shown in this very long list. After this discussion is complete, I fully intend to try to open discussions with WikiProject Television to get a naming convention for these types of categories. LA (T) @ 21:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - First of all, you can indeed do a DRV for CfD discussions, if you feel that that's appropriate. Second, there already is a convention at WP:NC-TV concerning these cats, you just apparently don't like it. Use "series" when it's series, and only use "programs" when concerning stand-alone (non-series) programs. I was actually working on a group nom for renaming all those which do not match the convention. And I'll also note that quite a few of the "based on" cats were created in February of this year, several of which have been deleted, due to the person apparently not understanding WP:NC, or WP:OC at the time of creation (See: user talk page). So it's not much of a surprise that several of these are mis-named. And I'll note that the associated list pages follow (at least) 5 different naming conventions. So I think it's a hard sell to suggest that there is a "clear convention". I'd be happy to discuss all of this further, but in the past you have apprently made it fairly clear that you want what you want, and no discussion is possible. That said, I would be happy to be shown otherwise. - jc37 23:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose (And hoping that this may be withdrawn to allow for some separate discussions concerning naming) - As I mentioned above, I was working on a proposal to start a discussion concerning correcting the mis-naming of the television presentations cats. There's also a lack of convention between "based on" and "adapted from" (and several other varieties). So I was going to propose a separate discussion regarding that as well. And I still intend to, as I'd like to find out what the consensus is regarding what people would prefer. - jc37 23:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Why are you orphaning television serials and miniseries and other programming? The categories are not only for weekly episodic television programs. LA (T) @ 20:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those, except stand-alone, one-shot programs, are to be dabbed "series", per the NC. So they're not being "orphaned". - jc37 01:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - take to DRV rather than renominating something discussed very recently. (This is arcane stuff.) Occuli (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bloody strong oppose, not the place for it and not the convention. And I'm still on record with stating that "media based on media" is a really bad name since it does not mean what we are using it to mean. The only way Category:Media based on media makes any sense is for things like the Kerrang radio station, which is based on the music magazine of the same name. Those are media which are based on other media. Jaws is not a medium, not even a mass medium. It is a film. It is a film based on a book. It is an adaptation. It should not be categorised in any part of a tree which includes "media based on...". That whole tree needs felling and merging to Category:Adaptations. I'm sorry, but this is elementary English. We can't make words mean something other than their actual meanings. If not for the love of grammar, for the breach of original research. This is an instance of the tail wagging the dog; they've looked at Category:Books adapted from a television series and come up with the wrong idea of how to categorise it. I'd ask this be withdrawn so the root problem can be solved. Hiding T 12:51, 15 September 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:Cloud users[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 Delete. Non-admin closure; category creator requested G7 samj (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cloud users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category includes organizations that use Cloud computing, such as Google Apps. In almost all cases, there is no mention of this fact in the article text. I don't believe that the style of IT architecture used by a college or other institution is a relevant or important characteristic. We don't have categories for which types of lawn mowers these groups use, or which pension plans they offer, or any of a hundred or thousand other details of how they operate. A small quibble is that the category name is unclear: it's not obvious what a cloud is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As the creator of this category I'm looking forward to seeing what others think about it as I've found little guidance in the policies and guidelines; on one hand we have categories that capture utterly useless information like blue eyed soul singers and fictional vegetarians (notable entities who have verifiably adopted a revolutionary computing paradigm in a significant fashion and are happy to talk about it is far more interesting) but on the other hand this category should eventually become irrelevant in the same way as a Computer users category would have been intensely interesting in the early 80's but useless today, 30 years later (except perhaps to identify early adopters). We don't track linux users but we do track cobol users. The alternative (the use of lists to capture this information) could create a spam trap and short of creating a list like List of notable entities who verifiably use cloud computing in a significant fashion and are happy to talk about it will have to include everyone from individual Gmail users through entire countries.
  • Obviously I would vote for Keep were I to have a vote as the creator, but I don't feel particularly strongly about it. I don't think the lawnmower comparison is relevant though, and the name was shortened from 'cloud computing users' in consideration of real estate on the included articles (indeed it is more interesting for finding articles than for enhancing them, as categories usually are). samj (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (I hit upon this category at Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, an Italian publishing house. It is in no way defining for that company, and few if any readers will have any idea what a ‘cloud user’ is – certainly I didn’t.) On the other hand I would have nothing against a List of users of cloud computing, and would be rather less likely to oppose a hidden Category:Users of cloud computing. —Ian Spackman (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I wasn't aware of this functionality but it sounds like exactly what we need - readers can still find the users from the cloud computing article, the usual notability rules will be enforced (no notability = no article = no inclusion) and it won't appear like an 'advert' for cloud computing on the bottom of each page. And as for the name, yes, 'cloud' sounds like a drug or a mode of transport in this context; the truncated name was to make it as inconspicuous as possible on the member pages. samj (talk) 11:38, 13 September 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:ASEAN members[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 13:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:ASEAN members to Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations member states
Nominator's rationale: Redundant categories. –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:06, 12 September 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 parks of New South Wales[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 13:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:National parks of New South Wales to Category:National parks in New South Wales
Category:National parks of the Northern Territory to Category:National parks in the Northern Territory
Category:National parks of Queensland to Category:National parks in Queensland
Category:National parks of South Australia to Category:National parks in South Australia
Category:National parks of Tasmania to Category:National parks in Tasmania
Category:National parks of Victoria (Australia) to Category:National parks in Victoria (Australia)
Category:National parks of Western Australia to Category:National parks in Western Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian1 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I believe that natural features are of a country but in a state. If there seems to be support, I'll tag the renaming categories in this series. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. New South Wales is not a nation, so there cannot be anything national "of" it. There can be national things "in" it though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By all means, Rename per nom -- and I'd say add the rest of them, while you're at it, as I can't really see anybody raising a serious objection. This is the same convention that's followed for both India and the US, which are the only two other countries where they're broken down by state. Cgingold (talk) 08:55, 12 September 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:Wikipedia featured topics North Carolina hurricanes[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 13:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia featured topics North Carolina hurricanes to Category:Wikipedia featured topics Lists of North Carolina hurricanes
Nominator's rationale:

These cats also need to be moved

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:Victoria metropolitan area[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 12:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Victoria metropolitan area to Category:Victoria, Texas metropolitan area
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As a follow up to 2008-09-05 cfd, this use of "Victoria" refers to the city in Texas but isn't disambiguated. Rename to conform with parent Category:Victoria, Texas. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I don't know if there actually are "metropolitan areas" for the Victorias in Australia or Canada, but I never would have guessed that this one refers to Texas. (Btw, I had to reverse the parent-child relationship between this category and its supposed parent cat, Category:Victoria, Texas.) Cgingold (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per Cgingold, to whom I'd add - "or the ones in Hong Kong and the Seychelles." I'm pretty sure that the much better-known Canadian one has a met. area. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 13 September 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_September_12&oldid=1074801424"