Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 12 February 14 >

February 13[edit]

Category:Presidents of the United States by century[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: Relisted, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 27. Dana boomer (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Presidents of the United States by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category exists simply to contain categories of presidents by century, but I feel this is unnecessary as all presidents are contained in Category:Presidents of the United States. Why do we need to categorize them by century? Muboshgu (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not generally in favour of "by century" categories in any case. They're pretty pointless, since many people overlap centuries. But in this case there just aren't enough articles to make it at all worthwhile. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should add the subcategories to this; you can't just tag the parent container if you want to delete the whole structure. postdlf (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Discussed awhile ago. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2011 (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:East Brunswick, New Jersey[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: Relisted, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 27. Dana boomer (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:East Brunswick, New Jersey to Category:East Brunswick Township, New Jersey
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match title of parent article East Brunswick Township, New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think there needs to be as case made for this being the common name. I looked through the list of townships and which some of them commonly have township attached when referring to them some do not including East Brunswick. So unless the case can be made that township is in common usage, the category should not be moved and the article moved instead. It looks like someone tried to move the article but there was an error and the move was reverted. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2011 (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:Butterflies of Ontario[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Butterflies of Ontario to Category:Butterflies of Canada
Nominator's rationale: Merge and/or listify, overly specific and contrary to longstanding general consensus regarding categorization of animal species by subnational entities. There are no other subcategories of Category:Butterflies of Canada, nor is there a Category:Fauna of Ontario, as previously determined by CFD. Category:Endemic fauna of Ontario might be appropriate, if there are any unique to it, but at a glance I can see that many, if not most of the species included here are far ranging (e.g., Monarch (butterfly), Vanessa cardui...). postdlf (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2011 (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:POSIX standards[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:POSIX standards to Category:POSIX
Nominator's rationale: Rename for conciseness and per main article POSIX. POSIX is a family of standards, so POSIX standards = POSIX. Pnm (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support All tautologies should be removed because they are tautologies. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2011 (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:Compositions by Ruggiero Leoncavallo[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 rename per C2A. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Compositions by Ruggiero Leoncavallo to Category:Compositions by Ruggero Leoncavallo
Propose renaming Category:Arias by Ruggiero Leoncavallo to Category:Arias by Ruggero Leoncavallo
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The composer's given name is spelt "Ruggero" in his article and in Category:Operas by Ruggero Leoncavallo, but "Ruggiero" in this category and in Category:Arias by Ruggiero Leoncavallo. These need to be made consistent. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Isn't "Ruggiero" a misspelling, qualifying this for speedy? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:19, 14 February 2011 (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:African lepidopterists[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:African lepidopterists to Category:Lepidopterists
Nominator's rationale: Merge, unnecessary, unprecedented, and inaccurate. This is the only subcategory of Category:Lepidopterists (scientists who study butterflies and moths), and only contains one article. Further, no other occupational subcategories are divided by continent in this manner, to my knowledge. Finally, the name suggests that it is a nationality-type category (for lepidopterists who are African), when in fact it's categorizing on the basis of subject studied (the one article included was British, and studied African lepidoptera). postdlf (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2011 (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:Hubbard Broadcasting Corporation[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hubbard Broadcasting Corporation to Category:Hubbard Broadcasting
Nominator's rationale: Hubbard Broadcasting does not refer to itself as a corporation in its name, which is simply "Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc."; the category should reflect this. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:00, 13 February 2011 (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:Mermaids in fiction[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. This is part of a confusing but established scheme, which has survived many CfD nominations. The category is for fictional works that feature mermaids, not the mermaids themselves.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Mermaids in fiction to Category:Mermaids
Nominator's rationale: Until we also require a category for Non-fictional mermaids, this category is superfluous. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge yes, nicely put. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about the sub-cat of Category:Fictional mermen and mermaids? Lugnuts (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The nom misunderstands the point of this category, by interpreting "fiction" to mean simply "untrue". It isn't that there are real mermaids, but instead that not every instance of mermaids in culture is in fiction, i.e., a kind of cultural work intended by its author and understood by its audience to be untrue. Mermaids originate in mythology or folklore (such stories while untrue, are not properly termed "fiction"), and the category also includes articles on coats of arms that depict mermaids.

    Most of that sorting function is really performed by the subcategory Category:Fictional mermen and mermaids, but that's aimed for articles about characters, while Category:Mermaids in fiction is broader, and should include works about mermaids as well. I've added Category:The Little Mermaid adaptations to it as a start. I'm sure there are others, and it appears there are a number of articles about works, not characters, that should be moved from the fictional mermen category to Category:Mermaids in fiction. postdlf (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, the nominator, do appreciate that fiction is more specific than 'untrue'. However we now have three categories for Mermaids, Mermaids in fiction and Fictional mermen and mermaids. None of these are particularly full and I can see as much use to a single unified cat as I can to a rather arbitrary and unclear split into three. After all, we seem happy enough (rightly so) to combine mermaids and mermen.
There are a few non-fiction mentions of mermaids: Feejee mermaids, heraldry — I wouldn't claim that these don't exist, or that they don't belong outside Mermaids in fiction, but I don't see a need for separate categories to distinguish them. My attention was drawn to this category when Mermaid shows (or 'strippers with flippers', very far from fictional) was moved into it. The broad "Mermaids" is IMHO adequate.
I certainly can't see a clear distinction between Mermaids in fiction and Category:Fictional mermen and mermaids. Two categories might have some justification if there are really that many articles, but three is excessive. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per postdlf. This is a category for fictional works etc. about mermaids, not for mermaids in general. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2011 (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:Romanesque revival architecture[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Romanesque revival architecture to Category:Romanesque Revival architecture
Propose renaming Category:Romanesque revival architecture in England to Category:Romanesque Revival architecture in England
Propose renaming Category:Romanesque revival architecture in Canada to Category:Romanesque Revival architecture in Canada
Propose renaming Category:Romanesque revival architecture in Australia to Category:Romanesque Revival architecture in Australia
Propose renaming Category:Romanesque revival architecture in the United States to Category:Romanesque Revival architecture in the United States
Propose renaming Category:Romanesque revival architecture in Missouri to Category:Romanesque Revival architecture in Missouri
Nominator's rationale: Per the article Romanesque Revival architecture. I didn't put this on Speedy because I wasn't sure if there was uniformity of opinion on the capital-R. All U.S. state subcategories except Missouri have the capital-R.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Varied (as creator of the main cat) I don't have strong views but I think there is an ENGVAR issue here. Looking at a google books search, US sources pretty consistently use R, UK one don't. Canadians are split, leaning to R; Australians 50/50. On that basis I support renaming US, Canada, Missouri, & the head cat, but keeping England & Australia as they are. There is no need for consistency. The style is most common in the US so I won't stand on ENGVAR priority for the overall cat. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom (as creator of the Canadian cat). I did my own Google search for the term, limited to .uk sites, and my results seem to show title case for this proper noun as predominant in the U.K., too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A gbooks search, which is what I did, is better and gives different results. But whatever. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the US category, but just matched the caps of the parent category. So any change to the parent can be made to the US. I have no knowledge of any ENGVAR issues. Hmains (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. I honestly don't think it's an ENGVAR issue. I think it's a personal preference one. As an Englishman who writes architectural guides, I'd usually capitalise (although I'd usually also write Neo-Romanesque instead!), and the categories should match the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename at least Canadian (as per Maitland, Hucker and Ricketts, ‘’A Guide to Canadian Architectural Styles’’, Broadview Press, Peterborough, ONT, 1992) and United States as, "Revival" is used by most American architectural historians. Carptrash (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. In my experience (British English), Revival is usually seen, both for Romanesque Revival and for other architectural styles (Gothic Revival, Egyptian Revival etc). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, for simple uniformity within R.R. style and other Revival styles.—Look2See1 t a l k → 05:26, 18 February 2011 (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:Computer lists[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Computer lists to Category:Computing lists
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with parent category Category:Computing. Pnm (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2011 (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:Deep-Zoom viewers[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Deep-Zoom viewers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization. This is a category for a single article, Scene7, which supports the fairly obscure technology Deep Zoom. Pnm (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2011 (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:Web browsers for PDAs[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 both to Category:Mobile browsers, plural form generally preferred. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Web browsers for PDAs to Category:Mobile phone web browsers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Having two categories is excessive. They're mostly identical. Pnm (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2011 (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:POSIX web browsers[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: Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 1. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:POSIX web browsers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization. I can't even fathom what a POSIX-compliant browser is. Pnm (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an important category, although missing a description para (I don't think an article is warranted). There are few "POSIX web browsers" in an ordinal sense (i.e. a browser that is for POSIX alone), but it's an important attribute of multi-platform web browsers (and other programs) as to whether they can run under a POSIX operating system (e.g. Linux) or not. As to the naming (it was renamed from Linux web browsers and Unix / UNIX gets a look-in there too), then you'd have to ask someone with the right sort of beard and sandals. They have religious wars over this stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have references which support any of that? POSIX is not an operating system, so what is a browser that is for POSIX alone? I oppose repurposing this category as Category:Web browsers for POSIX-compliant operating systems on grounds of overcategorization, as we don't even attempt to categorize operating systems themselves by POSIX compliance. --Pnm (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename/split to UNIX / Linux browser and / or give a correct any explanation. mabdul 02:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This doesn't make sense to me either. Many things are POSIX-compliant.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2011 (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:Software by domain[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Software by domain to Category:Application software
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Unnecessary duplicate layer. Of the two names, Category:Application software is more descriptive, and provides a clearer relationship with Category:System software and Category:Utility software. Pnm (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2011 (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:Recipients of the Territorial Decoration[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Recipients of the Territorial Decoration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Previously deleted after discussion here. Recreated at Category:Territorial Decoration recipients and renamed here to the original name. I think the points made in the original discussion still hold: over-categorization by award, not a gallantry medal just for long service. Tassedethe (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2011 (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:Program testing tools[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:Software testing tools and Category:Free software testing tools. Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Program testing tools to Category:Software testing tools
Nominator's rationale: Rename per common usage and parent category Category:Software testing. Pnm (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2011 (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:GUI automation[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:GUI automation to Category:Graphical user interface testing
Nominator's rationale: Rename to clarify scope. Nearly all the contents are actually tools designed for graphical user interface testing. Pnm (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2011 (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/2011_February_13&oldid=1138394994"