Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 20

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

July 20[edit]

Category:Bioinformatics databases[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. — ξxplicit 02:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bioinformatics databases to Category:Biological databases
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More common and general name. This is second nomination. Please see arguments here. Biophys (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An argument here that biological sequence data do not belong to biology was very strange. Nothing prevents from creating sub-cats like "genomic databases" of course.Biophys (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing prevents from having Category:Biological databases with several sub-cats like Category:Biological sequence databases. But we should not have Category:Bioinformatics databases. For example GenBank should belong to Category:Biological sequence databases which belongs to Category:Biological databases.Biophys (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. As Paul pointed out, the Category:Bioinformatics databases currently contains structure databases, so a simple rename to Category:Biological sequence databases would not be appropriate. As suggested by Biophys above, perhaps we can consider subcategories like Category:Biological sequence databases, Category:Biological structure databases, etc. For now, I would support the simple name change from Category:Bioinformatics databases to Category:Biological databases. Boghog (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change. All biological databases by their nature could be considered Bioinformatics databases because by their nature they are computational works, but I don't think this is a useful label. Category:Biological databases would be a good title to gather together all databases that are published in say that Nucleic Acids Research database issue. I would expect that to also contain databases of organisms, organs, tissues, cell types, organelles, etc. and I would find that a useful grouping. Alexbateman (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming to Category:Biological databases. The structure databases (eg. PDB), phylogenetic (eg. TreeBase/Treefam) and alignment (eg. COMPARA, Pfam, Rfam) databases aren't really sequence databases yet are Bioinformatic/Biological database. Also, the pubmed-vote argument made previously by User:Dongilbert is convincing.--Paul (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2010 (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:Churches and Synagogues that share a building[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. An interesting intersection is hardly ever a defining characteristic, as those who favored deletion have pointed out. Those who favored to keep and rename the category failed to establish how this intersection is defining. — ξxplicit 02:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Churches and Synagogues that share a building (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or rename. Is this trivial? If kept, rename to Category:Churches and synagogues that share a building (to fix capitalisation), or per other suggestions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be a trivial intersection.--Lenticel (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain as a notable aspect of interfaith co-operation. Rename as suggested. If there are examples of shared use between other faiths, a head category for interfaith places of worship would be appropriate. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think if you do some digging you will find examples in other religions. You will also find cases where three or more religions share a building. If true, this name is clearly in need of a major overhaul. Do not take this as a keep opinion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a trivial intersection. Many buildings are multi-purpose through design or circumstance and categorizing the various combinations is not worthwhile. Otto4711 (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (renamed as nom) -- This is a sufficiently unusual intersection to be interesting. Possibly rename to Category:Interfaith sharing of buildings, but a headnote should make clear that cases of two Christian denominations sharing a building should NOT be included: that is not exceptional. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unusual is not a reason to categorize. Also the headnote suggested by Peterkingiron means that we would also need to be verifying the contents. Categories that require constant maintenance are not good categories. The case has not been made that this is really a notable aspect of cooperation and is uncommon. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2010 (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.

Kurdish 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: rename. While there is certainly a case for a no-consensus ruling here, the overwhelming number of categories with "Kurdish people" in them makes a stronger case for the rename. Neither is wrong, so consistency can prevail.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:History of the Kurds to Category:History of the Kurdish people
Propose renaming Category:Iraqi Kurds to Category:Iraqi Kurdish people
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I nominated these at the speedy rename section and they were opposed (see copied discussions in collapsed boxes). They qualify under the speedy criteria but one user requested a full discussion. My rationale for renaming these is not that they are necessarily "more correct", but rather because everything else on WP uses "Kurdish people":
1. The main article is Kurdish people.
2. The main article for the first category listed is History of the Kurdish people.
3. The parent category is Category:Kurdish people ...
4. ... with subcategories Kurdish people by occupation, Kurdish people of Armenian descent, and Assassinated Kurdish people
5. Finally, it has become the practice more broadly in WP categories to avoid noun forms of national or ethnic groups, preferring rather the form "ADJECTIVE people": see, eg, African-American people, not African Americans.
So for the sake of consistency both within Category:Kurdish people and the category structure more broadly, I see no reason not to change these. If someone wants these to all use "Kurds", then I suggest they put work into first gaining consensus to move the main articles listed in 1 and 2 above, and then putting in work to move all the categories. At this point, that work has not been done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
speedy proposal #1
  • Oppose. I oppose this change for the same reason that I opposed the change below of Category:Iraqi Kurds. Whilst I appreciate that the parent category was changed to Category:Kurdish people, maybe we shauld have a full CFD to discuss whether, as a result of the parent category change, the perfectly acceptable, unambiguous and long-standing noun "Kurds" is replaced throughout the Wikipedia categories by the term "Kurdish people". Unlike similar changes proposed, there is no possibility of confusing the name of an ethnic group with the citizens of a particular state.Davshul (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
speedy proposal #2
  • Oppose. The word "Kurds" is the correct word to describe people who are Kurdish, as it denotes ethnicity. Unlike the other changes proposed, there is no possibility of confusing an ethnic group with the citizens of a particular state. Davshul (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Were you aware that the parent category is Category:Kurdish people, not Category:Kurds? The basis of the nomination is not to correct an error (C2A), it is a C2C. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments above regarding Category:History of the Kurds. Davshul (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make new comments below this line. Thx.
  • Support the rename to 'Kurdish people'. 'Kurds' and 'Kurdish people' are perfectly synonymous, both in what is denoted and connoted and the standard form has become 'Dooian people', not 'Dooians' Mayumashu (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I fully appreciate that the parent category here is “Kurdish people”, but maintain that the name of the parent category does not automatically govern the name of every subcategory within it. I would ask you to take a step back and look at the issues here. I have not been able to trace all the discussions on the various changes that lead to the change here and, to some extent, am speaking from memory (which could be faulty). The current move to renaming categories “Dooian people” in place of “Dooian” was prompted by the fact that for some countries, there was no precise single word that defines the plural for people pertaining to that particular country. The people of France is a prime example, where the word “French” has multiple meanings. Accordingly, a category “French people” was chosen as the term is clear and unambiguous. Subsequent, it would appear that a decision was made to standardize the parent category for all peoples relating to a particular country. This even though there was no ambiguity in such terms as “Pakistanis”, “Americans”, “Spaniards”, etc. This was then followed by the present process of changing all the subcategories of these categories – All because of the French!!. However, in a number of instances, where one is clearly referring to an ethnic group, as opposed to national of a particular country, the “Dooian people” example has not been followed or has been modified. Where there is a clear and unambiguous noun that describes the people of an ethnic group, such as Kurds, Arabs, Jews, Turks, Serbs, Croats, I see no reason to replace this words - words that for hundreds of years have been used to described such peoples in the English language. Discussion regarding the noun “Jews” resulted in the re-instatement of that noun in Wikipedia categories (although admittedly there were also other arguments in this case), and discussion has also concluded that Serb and Croat are preferable for the ethnic groups, and the Serbian and Croatian be limited as pertaining to Serbia and Croatia. Kurdish can only relate to an ethnic group, as there is no sovereign Kurdish nation. Accordingly, I can see now justification for these changes. Davshul (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has little to do with the central rationale for the nomination. As mentioned above, I'm not proposing this because it's "more correct". You focus on reason #5, but it is not the principal reason. The principal reasons are reasons #1 & #2—to match the name of the category to the corresponding main articles, which is standard practice when there are two word usages which are equally plausible. What is the justification for maintaining the difference? I can see none, so they may as well be the same. If you want them changed to "Kurds", then work on getting consensus to move the articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The Kurdish People are called Kurds. The plural of a nationality (adjective) is invariably the plural or collective noun for the people. The difficulty is that French, English (and other nouns in -ish) do not form distinct plurals. If anything the problem lies with "Kurdish People" which should become "Kurds". Peterkingiron (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well until that article name changes, what is a good rationale for keeping these categories inconsistent with the articles and the other categories? Get the article moved, and then the answer becomes obvious. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated. Using Fooian people over Fooians is well established throughout Category:People by ethnicity, it only makes sense to have the subcategories to follow through. — ξxplicit 02:39, 28 July 2010 (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:DIY spaces[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 to Category:Social centres.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:DIY spaces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I started to check articles for a better name and I kept getting only one hit on DIY in each article. I could not detect a common trait other then having DIY in the article text. If someone can figure out what is intended here and provide an unambiguous set of inclusion criteria, then I have no objection to a rename and keeping. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 21:57, 20 July 2010 (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:Television-computer combo systems[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. — ξxplicit 02:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Television-computer combo systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another hair puller! The effective main article is Combo television unit, but not one of the other articles is about this. I'm sure we could find articles to populate this correctly, but do we? Doing so would be more of a buyers guide issue. That leaves us with 2 TVs with built in video consoles. The last two are Macs. One could be switched from computer mode to TV mode. The other has a TV tuner. Just about every computer today can add a tuner card. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 21:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As internet and TV merge, this seems to me to be an increasingly trivial intersection. Should we have categories for Television-VCR combo systems, Record player-receivers, and the like, too? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2010 (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:Weightless Recordings albums[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. Courcelles (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Weightless Recordings albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:52, 20 July 2010 (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:Univision Records albums[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. Courcelles (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Univision Records albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:39, 20 July 2010 (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:S.P. Records albums[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. Courcelles (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:S.P. Records albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:06, 20 July 2010 (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:Rotten Records albums[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. Courcelles (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rotten Records albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:02, 20 July 2010 (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:Rockout Records albums[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. Courcelles (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rockout Records albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:01, 20 July 2010 (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:R Radical Records albums[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. Courcelles (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:R Radical Records albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:36, 20 July 2010 (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:Crystalline silicon[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 to Category:Crystals. Courcelles (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose upmerging Category:Crystalline silicon to parent categories Crystals and Silicon compounds
Nominator's rationale: With the deletion of Category:Amorphous silicon, I nominate its counterpart for deletion. I know it was recently the target cat for a merge of Category:Monocrystalline silicon and I apologize for not nominating both for deletion at that time. In short, Amorphous silicon is described as the non-crystalline form of silicon. Both are examples of banned user Mac/Nopetro's penchant for creating categories for compounds used in the manufacture of solar cells. All similar categories have been deleted. I'd previously removed all the companies from this category that simply use the stuff -- along with lots of other things -- in their manufacturing, as there has been wide consensus again this practice and the category clutter it would entail. Which leaves us with another WP:SMALLCAT situation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2010 (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:Sarrothripinae[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 empty. Courcelles (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: Deletion.
Reason: Under Lepidoptera project guidelines, the Natural History Museum card index is used as the primary resource for determining taxon. All of the articles that were under this category were miscategorized according to this resource. Dawynn (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2010 (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:Boston College Athletics[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. Courcelles (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Boston College Athletics to Category:Boston College Eagles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The standard for categories of college athletics programs is short school name, followed by nickname. I remember an umbrella CFR a while back regarding college athletics categories, but the BC category wasn't renamed. Dale Arnett (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2010 (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 relevant to Cicero[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 all. Courcelles (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People relevant to Cicero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:People relevant to Cicero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:People relevant to Cicero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems to me to be overcategorization by categorizing people by their relationship to another person (guideline linked to). The people in these categories have a variety of connections to Cicero—some are mentioned in his works, some are students of his, some are his teachers, some have no connection to Cicero that is apparent from the article text, but presumably there is something. These could have been constructed by clicking on "what links here" on the Cicero page. It's not a form of categorization that is encouraged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2010 (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:Renewable electricity generation[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, which I just did by hand. Courcelles (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Renewable electricity generation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. After moving one article into the technology category, we are left with a single category after two years. Another clear case where this splinter parent which adds an extra level of navigation is probably not needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2010 (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/2010_July_20&oldid=1078927350"