Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 14 January 16 >

January 15[edit]

Category:Politics of the Auckland Region[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:Politics of the Auckland Region. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Politics of Auckland to Category:Politics of the Auckland Region
Nominator's rationale: The boundary between what "Auckland" and "Auckland Region" is is now artifical after the creation of the Auckland Council and will result in confusion and duplication. A category for "Auckland City Council" could be created for any historical articles if it is considered worthwhile. Mattlore (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Auckland urban area is still distinct from the encompassing Auckland Region. Since the city is not politically separate from the region, I can see the sense in merging the two politics categories, but I don't see that it needs to go much further than that. --Avenue (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've raised it with WP:NZ. Mattlore (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If anything it may have to go the other way, ie. Auckland to Auckland Region. We needs to have some sort of boundary to allow for categorisation. In general we have been using the regional and district political boundaries, although some of the categorisation has been a bit sloppy by some editors. With the amalgamation of the regional and territorial council in Auckland there is still a need to categorise articles from prior to the amalgamation. Also, there is still a political region called Auckland Region - it is just that it is now a unitary authority. There is no longer a political entity call "Auckland" but it is still a city. Questions about my recent categorisation has also been raised here. It calls into question the practice of placing historical articles into a more modern classification system amongst other things. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is now an "Auckland Council" and no longer an "Auckland Regional Council" or "Auckland City Council" thus there is now a entity called "Auckland" but no longer on called "Auckland City" nor "Auckland Region". Either way, my proposal is to merge the two - I am quite happy to discuss the appropriate name for the resulting category. Mattlore (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DIA Use the term "Auckland Region" on their map. The Auckland Council administers the Auckland Region. Auckland is now a historical term for what was administered by the former Auckland City Council and within the Auckland Region. Category:Politics of Auckland is now of historic interest so maybe it should still be allowed to exist. An explanatory note on the category page is required. We can blame Rodney Hide for this mess! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, shall I switch the merge proposal around then? I don't think Politics of Auckland is clear enough to be left as a historic category - perhaps Politics of the Auckland City Council or something similar could be created for that purpose? Mattlore (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at Auckland as a whole eg including buildings, geography or sport not just politics, there are still current subcategories for parts of Auckland eg Category:Auckland (what was Auckland City), Category:North Shore City, Category:Papakura District, Category:Rodney District, Category:Waitakere City, Category:Franklin District. Some might need renaming from “City” or “District”, but I think the parent category for them all should be Category:Auckland Region. And possibly only one “politics” subcategory, whether it is called Category:Politics of the Auckland Region or not. Hugo999 (talk) 04:11, 22 January 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:History books about Confucianism[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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:History books about Confucianism to Category:Historical literature about Confuciansm
Nominator's rationale: Not very sure this category is needed. However if we keep it, this change would be consistent with the language and organization used by WikiProject Philosophy. Greg Bard (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is not about literature from history, or literature that are historically famous, so the requested name is highly ambiguous. The current title is accurate and unambiguous. If WPPhilosophy uses such ambiguous naming, their entire tree needs renaming. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't think you are properly using the word "ambiguous" correctly here. It's more general, and it is supposed to be that way.Greg Bard (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Historical is not an adjective used to describe history books, unless the history books themselves are old, and therefore part of history. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I would support Category:History literature about Confucianism and Category:History literature about philosophy, although it sounds strange to me.Greg Bard (talk) 05:17, 20 January 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:History books about philosophy[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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:History books about philosophy to Category:Historical literature about philosophy
Nominator's rationale: This change would be consistent with language and organization used by WikiProject Philosophy. Greg Bard (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per the language and organisation used by Category:History books. Oculi (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is not about literature from history, or literature that are historically famous, so the requested name is highly ambiguous. The current title is accurate and unambiguous. If WPPhilosophy uses such ambiguous naming, their entire tree needs renaming. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proper description you are looking for is "more general" not "ambiguous." "Historical literature about philosophy" isn't ambiguous at all. In the philosophy department, all of the subfields have a literature category so as to house essays, journal articles, etcetera. It houses books just fine also. However this category as named would not house the essays, etcetera. Are anonymous comments factored into a determination here? I certainly hope not. Greg Bard (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment about IP users not mattering seems to make your own argument something that should not be counted, since it appears to be an attack on IP editors. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have the right to delete any contribution of any ip account without any other reason. I edit under my own name, my voting record on these matters is public, and for all I know an ip is just a sock-puppet wanting to make trouble. It also makes it possible to "game" the system, if we are trying to achieve a consensus. However all of that is irrelevant to this issue. Greg Bard (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure you don't have the "right to delete any contribution of any ip account without any other reason". IPs are not assumed to be sockpuppets; everything is dealt with case-by-case. IPs are permitted to edit WP just like any other registered user. Unless that changes (and I doubt it will), we give IP comments the same weight as registered users' comments unless there is evidence of sockpuppeting, votestacking, single purpose IP edits, and so forth. 76.65.128.132 specifically looks to me like an IP editor in good standing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree that ip edits should be allowed. AGF does apply to them as well. However, I think deleting them should be easy and noncontroversial --with the understanding that one can always get a free account and make the same edit without worrying about the chances the edit will be deleted. I don't think an ip accounts votes should count. It not good form to do so. Greg Bard (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that some IP editors are not permitted to sign in to a WP account by mandate of the owner of the computer they use, but they are permitted to edit by IP address? But anyway, we do not treat their edits any differently. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sympathetic. Go to the library. Make your contributions, especially votes on issues accountable. There are some jerks on here who game the system good.Greg Bard (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can think what you like, but I'd be careful how you treat users behind IPs. There's no dispensation to be incivil to or to disregard edits by IPs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure our ip contributor is a wonderful editor. However, when it comes to voting on these issues, it is very poor form.Greg Bard (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, says you. The general principle that is accepted on WP is that it makes no difference. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see any problem with that? You are a very well established editor. You don't think ip votes on issues are potentially a big problem? Someone could make a lot of trouble if they wanted to. I happen to know some established editors who log out and then engaging in all of the disrespectful behavior they want, but don't feel like being held accountable for it. Myself, I've NEVER voted or edited mainspace without being under my own real name. I think I logged on once under a throw-away account. But I only edited user space, and not in the context of a discussion. It was only an experiment, and I haven't done anything like that ever since. I guess I've just seen the abuse, and I find it distasteful.Greg Bard (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This category is just one of many under Category:History books, and a change of 'History books' to 'Historical literature' should start at the top. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:28, 31 January 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:Body switching movies[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. Most of the films in the category already are listed at Body swap appearances in media (...odd title), and the rest – except Big, which involves no actual 'swap' as far as I know – I've listed at Talk:Body swap appearances in media#Possible candidates. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Body switching movies to Category:Body switching films
Nominator's rationale: Naming conventions for films by type is films, not movies. Lugnuts (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Tim! (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no showing that this genre is notable; does any (incidental) body switching make a film a body-switching film? Purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not clearly a genre, it is just connecting a bunch of films based on one possible aspect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then Delete. A list would be much more useful in this case, allowing for explanation of the body switching instances in the films. - jc37 19:50, 27 January 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:Images of Gawler railway line[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 - g7.   An optimist on the run! 15:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Images of Gawler railway line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category now empty, I moved the last image to commons today.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. Shall I put a {{db-g7}} on it? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:36, 16 January 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:Gettysburg Battlefield woods[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) 20:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield woods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a case of overcategorization. There is already a Places of the Gettysburg battlefield. Wild Wolf (talk) 14:14, 15 January 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:Gettysburg Campaign military engagements in Pennsylvania[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gettysburg Campaign military engagements in Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a case of overcategorization, especially intersection by location. These articles are already in Battles of the Gettysburg Campaign and Pennsylvania in the ACW categories, so having a special category for Gettysburg Campaign battles in PA seems pointless. Wild Wolf (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all articles. The campaign and state intersection is not useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:31, 16 January 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:Pre-1914 association football players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pre-1914 association football players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No obvious reason to have a category specifically for players who played before WWI, there is no recognised concept of distinctly different "pre-WWI" and "post-WWI" eras of football. There are no other categories grouping players by the decade(s) in which they played. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There appears to be no reason to categorise players in this way, and it is not done for other time periods. In any case the year chosen is arbitrary. See also this discussion at Wp:Footy. Eldumpo (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if there was ever any real justification for this category, it has been lost in the mists of time. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an example of picking an arbitrary date for categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no rationale behind the date chosen, we don't need it. GiantSnowman 11:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. As Daemonic Kangaroo says, if this category ever did have a purpose, that purpose has long since passed. – PeeJay 18:42, 20 January 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:Wikipedians who did not finish High School[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) 20:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who did not finish High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Classic "not" category - We don't categorize users by what they didn't do, because that cannot aid in collaboration. Precedent to delete similar categories here. VegaDark (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:28, 15 January 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:WikiQueerians[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) 20:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - "This category contains the user pages of Wikipedia editors who are also editors of WikiQueer (known as WikiQueerians)." Considering there is no article on this Wiki, it is impossible for this category to aid in collaboration. Extensive precedent to delete "Wikipedians by website" categories if the website doesn't even have an article, see here. VegaDark (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - jc37 08:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even if we did have an article, the overly narrow scope of the category would limit opportunities for collaboration to just one article, and this could just as well be carried out on the article's talk page. If the category was intended to serve as a proxy for interest in LGBT issues, then Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues better fills that role. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:11, 18 January 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.

North American Wikipedian nationality categories[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) 20:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - As evidenced by the fact that these are in the category tree Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality, these are not intended to describe the location of Wikipedians, but rather some sort of odd categorization to try and group nationality and ethnicity categories. We already have Category:Wikipedians in North America for the location. These categories represent unnecessary parent categories for the ethnicity/nationality categories, subdividing into the odd descriptors of "New World" Wikipedians and "Northern American" Wikipedians. I wouldn't particularly mind North American Wikipedians if we actually needed parent categories for the ethnicity/nationality categories, but I don't believe we do, and there are no categories for any of the other continents. Furthermore, "New World", "North American", and "Northern American" I wouldn't consider to be nationalities or ethnicities, so these are miscategorized by being in this same tree as its subcategories (Canadian Wikipedians are a subcategory of Northern American Wikipedians, which in turn is a subcategory of North American Wikipedians, which in turn is a subcategory of New World Wikipedians - except both New World Wikipedians and Canadian Wikipedians are in Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality - it makes no sense). These were created in August of last year so they are relatively recent, let's nip this categorization scheme in the bud before it spreads to other continents. VegaDark (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. No prejudice against retaining Category:North American Wikipedians as a container category if needed. - jc37 08:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. A categorization scheme should be, most importantly, accurate and practical, and this scheme is neither. It involves layers upon layers of sparsely populated intermediate categories defined in ways that are unintuitive – for instance, I've never heard any American or Canadian describe himself or herself as a "Northern American" as opposed to simply a "North American". What is perhaps most relevant for the purpose of this nomination, however, is that "New World", "North American" and "Northern American" are neither national nor ethnic identities. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:50, 18 January 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:EverGreen Party of Alberta[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 for now per C2D. The name format of the article should be discussed at Talk:Evergreen Party of Alberta. If the name of the article ever changes, we can change the name of the corresponding categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Move to a lower case G in Evergreen. The main article was moved without opposition to the officially registered name, and I see no reason to have mismatched categories. To address the inevitable argument, the party isn't a month old yet, so there is no common name. The Calgary Herald reference prints a lower case G, and the only case of the party using it is in the banner of their website. The project states the registered name should be used. 117Avenue (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the renaming of the three EverGreen categories. Named used by the party with that spelling. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a reason for it to be different than the article? 117Avenue (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for now The main article, as currently written, is named Evergreen but then immediately says the intended format is "EverGreen". Looking at their web site, the EverGreen format is used repeatedly outside their banner in the text, with a couple exceptions. That makes me think part of their platform is abusing the English language. (Obviously, as they get more established, the disconnect betweet the cat and main article should be reconciled.) RevelationDirect (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is difficult to tell this early in the party's history, if it is an editing choice, or has legal implications. The website is still under construction, and doesn't have a constitution or minutes. 117Avenue (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to jump the rails and start punctuating organizational cats based on actual English instead of their lame marketing attempts, I'm game. I just created a cat for PricewaterhouseCoopers [sic]. It should be Price, Waterhouse & Coopers of course. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I want to name political party articles after their official name, and place them in matching categories. 117Avenue (talk) 17:52, 16 January 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:Wipeout (game show) games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wipeout (game show) games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete As far as I can tell, only one video game (Wipeout in the Zone) has ever been based on this game show. That article is already properly categorized in Category:Video games based on game shows. Pichpich (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: There are three video games based on the game show, at least according to List of video games based on Wipeout (2008 U.S. game show). This page was created by same editor.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I missed that. Perhaps a category makes sense once these articles are created. Pichpich (talk) 23:45, 16 January 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_January_15&oldid=1074808917"