Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 9 August 11 >

August 10[edit]

Category:Dueling films[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, although it's been moot since the 12th when it was G7'd... The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As the category's creator, I was torn between deleting and renaming as "Films featuring dueling" (as "dueling films" appears to have another, more common meaning, i.e. similar films that open opposite each other). I feel that, with few exceptions, dueling is just not a central enough element to merit a category. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Takes of glove and slaps Clarityfiend across the face Sir! I said, Sir! I challenge you to a duel! Delete This is non-defining for most, if not all those films. Barry Lyndon has a key scene featuring a duel, but it isn't a dueling film. Lugnuts (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is generally not a defining characteristic of the film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per John Pack Lambert. Unless you want to focus on documentaries about dueling and movies that are primarily focused on dueling competitions? (in which case Category:Films about dueling would be more appropriate) as opposed to, say, Star Wars, Captain Blood, The Scarlet Pimpernel, The Princess Bride, The Three Musketeers, and every other swashbuckling and science fiction and historical and pirate and fantasy drama? --Lquilter (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2012 (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:Avengers titles[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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be more in line with other subcategories regarding the comic book characters, such as Category:Avengers (comics) images, Category:Avengers (comics) lists and Category:Avengers (comics) storylines. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2012 (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.

Studio productions[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: split. The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We normally split these categories into subcategories of Category:Films by studio and Category:Television series by studio.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2012 (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:A Band Apart productions[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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per all other categories of Category:Films by studio. The soundtracks may need to split into their own category.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2012 (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:Wikipedian World Rally Championship fans[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, without prejudice to the creation of a more neutral and inclusive category such as Category:Wikipedians interested in World Rally Championship. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate cat per WP:USERCAT (category that groups users on the basis of irrelevant likes), underpopulated only member is the category creator AussieLegend (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:USERCAT, an unneeded user category. TBrandley 15:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It seems to me this could be a useful category for collaboration, to find other editors to help improve WRC articles...if it could be populated, of course. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of potential categories that could be applied to, but this one is specifically for fans, not for editors interested in improving the articles, and it would be pointless renaming it until it is populated. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that would create a situation where "it was deleted because it was unpopulated, thus there's no point in trying to populate a new one". Let's not demolish the house because it's unoccupied. If the category is "specifically for fans, not for editors..." then it won't be populated, yet in order to populate it with editors it would have to be renamed first. Catch 22 anyone? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:28, 12 August 2012 (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.

Years in Burkina Faso[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 C2C/C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Following the approach used at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_29#Years_in_Benin, the name French Upper Volta should be used for 1947-1958, and Republic of Upper Volta for the years 1958–1984. Tim! (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2012 (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:Rajput 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: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per our longstanding consensus that biographies aren't categorized by caste. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 23#Category:Nair people, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 12#Category:Kamma people, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 1#Category:Goud people, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 17#Category:Maratha people for a few examples. The few categories that are currently included under this will need to be upmerged to Category:Rajputs while the bios will all just have to be removed. —SpacemanSpiff 06:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep this category. This category should remain and all those names whose verification reference is available in their respective articles, should be categorized in this list. Siddharthkumarwikipedia (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep this one. Agree with Siddharthkumarwikipedia. If there is proper verification, then its not the violation of wiki policy for biographies and hence there should be no problem with this category. Cplleague (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- this is an issue that has been debated time and again. To the best of my knowledge, it has always had the same result and that is for reasons which are amply explained in the earlier discussions such as those highlighted by SpacemanSpiff.

    As an aside, is it common to find very new users commenting at CfD? This is not a forum that I visit frequently but at venues such as WP:ANI it would often be thought to be unusual. Those of us who frequent Indian caste articles are, of course, well aware that issues involving the Rajputs and also the Brahmin castes do often produce a significant disparity in the heat/light ratio, with the heat tending to come from SPAs etc. Do we really need to revisit this consensus quite so often? Category:Marwari people is another example in similar vein - do I need to nominate it separately or can it be combined here? Is there some meta-process available? - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Marwari people is a ethno-linguistic group, therefore it isn't covered by our past precedent to delete. However, all caste-bio categories (as evinced from the 100% delete rate at CfD and the consensus at WT:INB -- linked in earlier CfDs) should be covered by this. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : If Marwari people is an ethnic group then Rajput is also an ethnic group which Indians call caste or biradari. It should be noted that caste is defined by birth. If I am born in a Rajput family, I will remain a Rajput. Caste can't be changed. So, Rajput is also an ethnic group/ethnic race just like African-American. Categorisation should not be allowed when there is no verification, but if verification is present, then there should be no problem at all. Siddharthkumarwikipedia (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may find User:Sitush/Common#Castelists to be informative. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, caste is in fact not necessarily defined by birth. You may disagree with that, of course, but it is how it is and has been discussed both frequently and extensively. - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't understand what you are saying. My point is that if there is proper verification, then whats the problem in categorizing them as per caste? Like we can take the case of Category:African-Americans. Siddharthkumarwikipedia (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For one, most of the entries are unreferenced, but that's unrelated to the deletion request. The policy based issue is that, we've had consensus a few years back on WT:INDIA to not create these social-group categories based on caste as they are doing more harm than good. And, more importantly, that consensus has been accepted here on CfD to eliminate these categories that serve no encyclopaedic purpose and are classic examples of WP:OVERCAT as it is nothing more than trivial (unlike ethno-linguistic groups etc). —SpacemanSpiff 05:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can start with Category:Social groups of India. That's the parent i suppose. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything under that are legitimate categories, there are at the moment no "Foo people" categories left over from the clean up that happened four and two years ago based on the discussions at WT:INB, anything else is a more recent creation (except this one which happened to have slipped by). However, that doesn't mean that we don't have bios showing up under the main Foo category, if that's the case, the respective bios have to be removed. —SpacemanSpiff 15:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm! I see. They look clean. I couldn't find any people as such under them with my random clicks.
I suppose even if this is not the right place to discuss, it isn't exactly a bad place either. Deleting categories of "XYZ people" is okay only until we don't delete articles of "List of XYZ people". Either of the two should stay and for ease of maintenance i think list articles would be good.
I know for sure that Sitush wants to have list articles also deleted. If that is the case, these categories should stay. Shouldn't they? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem we have is the misuse of the categories and lists, lists are a bit easier to police, unlike categories. Well, now I just found Category:Rathore is being used to categorize bios and not topics related to Rathore. —SpacemanSpiff 11:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Rajputs are a caste. We do not categorize by caste. Thus we should delete this category. The fact that some other categories may be massively over used with no in-article support does not mean we should allow this category to do the same thing when the basic idea of the category goes against precedent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2012 (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:HIP objects[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:Hipparcos objects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Acronyms and such should be spelled out whenever possible; "HIP objects" is potentially ambiguous. As this category is for objects in the Hipparcos Catalogue, the proposed name is clear and avoids any ambiguity. The Bushranger One ping only 05:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Oculi (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is for HIP objects, not HIC objects, both are Hipparcos Catalogue objects -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category defines itself as simply "stars in the Hipparcos Catalogue". - The Bushranger One ping only 05:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Each Hipparcos Catalogue number and matching Hipparcos Input Catalogue number supposedly represents the same object. Shrug. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indifferent – I mean really, how many people will be using this category to find anything? It includes 118,218 stars, so it's not exactly exclusive. A more useful category would be "Stars not in the Hipparcos catalogue". Regards, RJH (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wondering about that myself. How many stars are we going to have here that aren't in the catalogue? Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2012 (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:Juno Jupiter Mission[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:Juno (spacecraft).--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no "Juno Jupiter Mission" to make this a proper noun. The spacecraft is simply "Juno", and is referred to as the "Juno mission". The Bushranger One ping only 04:59, 10 August 2012 (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:Apollo program television series[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 both per nominator. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Matching parents Category:Television series about space programs and Category:Television series about the Moon for the first, and the "Films about..." series for the second, in addition to being clearer ("Apollo program films" could, for instance, very easily mean films developed during the program, not about it.) The Bushranger One ping only 04:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename but shouldn't these be "... referencing the Apollo program" or something like that? Most if not all of these are not documentaries or "based on a true story", but simply use the program as a setting; therefore they are mostly not "about" it. Mangoe (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except "referencing the..." would open the floodgates to any film that used the moon landings as a setting device - for instance, the most recent series of Doctor Who. "About the..." is appropriate here since, even if they are fictional, they are "about" the program. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm OK with that, but it means some significant pruning of the membership. Mangoe (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2012 (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.

Proposed structures in the US[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. The articles have been checked and appropriately otherwise categorised per Pichpich's suggestion as well. The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These two subcategories only have a combined 7 articles and the parent category only has 96. I see no need to create by state categories at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2012 (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:Buildings and structures by condition in Brazil[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:Buildings and structures in Brazil. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Since the US has the only heavily populated like category, the question is, should this be considered a series category and expanded for all countries? At this time I'm not inclined to support that direction. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2012 (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/2012_August_10&oldid=1142606027"