Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 18 December 20 >

December 19

[edit]

Category:Old Main university buildings in the United States

[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 to one its parents. Ruslik_Zero 18:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Old Main university buildings in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Basically category based on a shared name or nickname. Being the old main building is not defining for most if not all of these. I considered an upmerge, but that would get messy figuring out what parents should be listed in the nomination. These are already in multiple categories, so just deleting should not be a problem. If there is a concern that something would be lost with a delete, there is a list article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 19 December 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:Fictional yeti

[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. These aren't yeti, they're robots called "Yeti." Keeping this would make as much sense as putting Cyclops (comics) in Category:Greek legendary creatures.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional yeti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single-item category unlikely to experience any growth. 76.201.153.119 (talk) 18:24, 19 December 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.

World Championship Tennis

[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) 18:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:WCT circuit seasons to Category:World Championship Tennis circuit seasons
Nominator's rationale: I propose that these categories with "WCT" in their names be renamed to "World Championship Tennis" in order to avoid abbreviations (the parent category is already named Category:World Championship Tennis). Alternatively, if "WCT" turns out to be the preferred name, then some categories should probably be renamed to the abbreviation, such as Category:World Championship Tennis Finals. Also, either I didn't follow the instructions correctly, or they left out an explanation about what header level(s) to use for "umbrella nominations". Please reformat this if it isn't working. Ardric47 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following additional categories are included in this proposal:
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:Haiku

[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 renamed (C2B). The Bushranger One ping only 01:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Haiku to Category:Haiku (operating system)
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Haiku (operating system). jonkerz♠ 16:57, 19 December 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:Place names of Spanish origin in the United States

[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. There are strong arguments on multiple sides of the issue. Noting JohnPackLambert's objections, some cleanup seems wise. I am going to flip the order of clauses on some of the Native American ones so that they conform to the naming pattern of the rest.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Place names of Spanish origin in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Also including
Category:Place names of Czech origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Dutch origin in the United States
Category:Place names of English origin in the United States
Category:Place names of French origin in the United States
Category:Place names of German origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Irish origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Norwegian origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Scottish origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Swedish origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Welsh origin in the United States
Category:Place names in Nebraska of French origin
Category:Place names of Ulster origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Cuban origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Bedfordshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Berkshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Buckinghamshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Cambridgeshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Cheshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Cornwall origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Cumberland origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Derbyshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Dorset origin in the United States
Category:Place names of County Durham origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Essex origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Gloucestershire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Hampshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Herefordshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Hertfordshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Huntingdonshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Kent origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Lancashire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Leicestershire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Lincolnshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Middlesex origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Norfolk origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Northamptonshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Northumberland origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Nottinghamshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Oxfordshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Rutland origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Shropshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Somerset origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Staffordshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Suffolk origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Surrey origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Sussex origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Warwickshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Westmorland origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Wiltshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Worcestershire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Yorkshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names in Nebraska of Native American origin
Category:Place names in the United States of Native American origin
Category:Place names in Alabama of Native American origin
Category:Place names in New York of Native American origin
Category:Place names in New Jersey of Native American origin
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't see how this is defining for these places. Likewise if kept, I fail to see how having a Spanish name make this part of Category:Hispanic and Latino American history. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Most of the comments were made before the nominated categories were expanded fully, and even some made after it was expanded beyond just the Spanish categories focused on just Spanish. We need a discussion of these categories to address the issues more fully.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
[edit]
  • Keep as an appropriate means of grouping such places by their origin. As always, cleanup and appropriate sourcing will only further aid the cause. Alansohn (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are saying it is notable that two different cities are named after the same place in Essex? This is not a grouping of places "by their origin", it is a grouping of places by "the origin of their name". To make things even worse, the Native American categories make no sense, they group not only the multitude of languages, but also group places with names from Native American groups who actually lived in that area with names from Native American groups that never lived in that area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete - this is very similar to categories like "Places named for George Washington" and the like. These various places have no commonality beyond their names happening to come from a particular language. A list would allow for the referencing that each entry on such a list would require. 76.201.153.119 (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a certain interest in these categories, and I have spent 5 minutes checking which ones have been missed (or more likely removed by more sensitive editors). However, this is pure overcategorization, it's not defining (how many of the relevant articles actually state where the name came from?) - and, as John Pack Lambert has pointed out above it is all rather random whether an entry belongs in the category in the first place. There are some great ideas for articles amongst some of these categories, but creating categories is rather poor way of showing how American place names have been influenced by immigrants/history. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Not being an American, perhpas I ought not to express a strong view on this. However, the name of a place does point to its origin. Ideally, the Native American category ought to be split by first nation. The case of Fremont, Nebraska ought not to be allowed to given the existence of the category. It should perhaps be in a category "places named after American people". Nevertheless, the origin of a name is likely often to relate to the origin of the first white settlers. I recall reading of an area where all the places are named after Egyptian places, so much so thatthe area is (or was) referred to as Egypt. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We could do the same in the UK, but why would anybody want a list of places that have thorpe, or ford, ham etc at the end of their name? How about french names? Thorpe-le-Soken anybody? I think there may be a reason to have scholarly articles for place name types as I think there might be for some of the categories nominated here. Trouble with having them as categories or lists is the amount of fly-tipping that happens by otherwise reputable and reliable editors. As John Pack Lambert has pointed out, you really couldn't rely on these categories. An article, with references, well that's a completely different York Minster. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about places in Canada, NZ, etc.? 61.18.170.26 (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify all and keep native American origin, since they're something commonly grouped in the US. (usually with some folk etymology attached) 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We actually do have lists related to the Native American names. One big problem with those categories is they group together places that are named as a result of Native American languages spoken in the area, in some cases names that reflect the current Native American inhabitants there, or at least were given when a Native American group dominated there, and names that apply to or derive from Native American groups that never were in the area, like many uses of Wyoming. The Spanish group is putting together 1-places names after places in Spain, 2-places named after people whose names derive from places in Spain, 3-places named by Spanish speakers which retain their Spanish names, 4-places named by people who had knowledge of Spanish but were not primarily speakers of it and 5-places named by people who really had no clue about Spanish. Also, do names of mountains and rivers really fall under the rubric of "place" names? Especially reivers? The underlying problem is it is unclear whether "Spanish", "French", "English" and so on mean the nationality or the language. In the Spanish case it is also getting confused with Hispanic which in some cases is used as a synonym of mestizo culture. There exist categories like Category:French American history, Category:Hispanic and Latino American history and Category:Czech American history, that we can put any of these names that actually reflect the ethnic or linguistic backgrounds of the founders in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The English by shire components make sense if we limit them to places where the founders were immigrants who originated in those places. However Birmingham, Michigan and Birmingham, Alabama where named by people who wanted to invoke the image of Birmingham as an industrial city, and I doubt the founders could have named Birmingham's shire, so it seems an overly particular connection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment most of these articles do not have anywhere in the text a discussion of the origin of the name, so realistically the category should be removed. I have held back on many removals because of the discussion, but these categories have been applied without in text backing. They seem to invite what approaches "original research", where editors say "well I know Palo is a Spanish word, so I will put Palo Pinto, Texas in the category of place names derived from Spanish". It is not even research where the person checks primary sources, it is where they use their however limited knowledge of languages to assume origins of names. At times this has involved assumptions contradicted by the text of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting, and yes, place name studies are important around the world. And if a place name is missing its etymology then we would do well to complete the article rather than complaining. Ephebi (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you really think we should group in the same category places that are named for Wales with Latinized names and places with Welsh names, that we should group in the same category places named by pulling a name out of a hat and places named by people who emigrated from a place and renamed the place for it. I am not joking about naming places by pulling names out of a hat, there are multiple cities in the United States that were named in that way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer No who favors keeping these categories has dealt with the fact that different categories use different methods of inclusion. These categories would suggest that they all are about the same kind of phenomenon, but the different categories has different rules of inclusion. It is quite frustrating that no one is discussing what to do about this non-conformity if we are going to go ahead and keep the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 7 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:Establishments by country and millennium

[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) 18:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Establishments by country and millennium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Generally, a category by century should be enough. In many cases, there will only be a single entry, for 1000-1999. Any attempt to make a disticntion between the 2000s and 19xx is essentially a current/past distinction of which we disapprove. This is essentially an test nomination for the whole tree. However, I fear that I do not have the time or energy to carry out the mass tagging that is necessary to implement the demolition of the tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 19 December 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:Batman: The Brave and the Bold characters

[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 to Category:Batman: The Brave and the Bold. Ruslik_Zero 18:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Batman: The Brave and the Bold characters to [[:Category:]]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. No characters from this now-canceled series are likely to become notable enough for articles so this category isn't needed just for the list. Merge to the two super-categories. 76.201.152.215 (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I have never heard of this TV serial, which ran to 3 series (that I would only watch if you paid me to). A look at the article on the serial Batman: The Brave and the Bold has a list of characters - and they have articles on them. These characters also appear in various children's comics. All that is required is to add this category to the articles, and perhaps add to the articles a reference to this serial (if this has not already been done). So the premise on which this deletion request is made is false. Presumably there is value in Wikipedia having articles that are only of interest to children.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close. I suppose Batman, Black Canary, Catwoman etc. aren't notable in the IP OP's opinion. Borderline bad-faith nomination. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a very nice thing to say. None of the characters you mention became notable because they are included in the series and none of the characters created for the show are notable on their own either. DC uses a lot of characters in a lot of shows and having two dozen categories on a character because they made one appearance in each series is a bad use of categories. 76.201.152.215 (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:52, 19 December 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:Punjabi folk

[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 for now and create a new sub-category if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Punjabi folk to Category:Punjabi culture
Nominator's rationale: Merge or rename?. I'm not quite sure what to do with this category. It is defined as including "article about any folk thing/cultural activity of Punjab region like, folk dances, folk music, folk instruments, folk songs, folk singers, festivals related to Punjab region or any tradition or cultural activity etc." I'm not sure that "folk" is commonly used as a broad noun in this sense, except maybe to refer to "folk music". But this includes dances and festivals as well. Is it so broad that it just needs to be upmerged? Or is there a way we could rename this? (Note that folk is about the word meaning "people".) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_Zero 10:29, 19 December 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:Universities and colleges in Taiwan

[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. The question of the use of the names/terms "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" in Wikipedia is a wider matter that cannot be settled on a category by category basis. Further discussions about the use should take place at WP:NC-TW. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Universities and colleges in Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Either this category should be renamed, or else National Quemoy University shouldn't fall within this category. 61.18.170.215 (talk) 09:32, 19 December 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:Ringer episodes

[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 to Category:Ringer (TV series). Timrollpickering (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ringer (TV series) episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Löschen. This is an underpopulated category with only two legitimate articles. The category was previously populated with redirects, all created by the same editor. As most redirects should not be categorized, and there seems no good reason to categorise the redirects that previously populated this cat, I've removed them, leaving just List of Ringer episodes and Pilot (Ringer), which doesn't justify retention of this cat. AussieLegend (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Ringer (TV series) (about to be speedy renamed from Category:Ringer) and delete. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need that category either? --AussieLegend (talk) 08:59, 19 December 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:E numbers

[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. If someone wants to make a list, check Cydebot's edit summary.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:E numbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is not categorizing actual E numbers, but seems to be categorizing food additives that have been assigned an E number by the European Food Safety Authority. This is kind of a Euro-centric means of categorizing a substance, and the fact that it is assigned an E number is not really defining for any of the substances included. This reminds me of the deleted categories that categorized drugs by a legislative scheme: Class A and Class B drugs and DEA list of chemicals I and II. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does seem to be a category of all E numbers, as those that are not approved for use in the EU, are also included. For example, E105 Fast Yellow AB is not an approved food additive, it does have an E number, and it is included in the category. The category is the only place that an inclusive, comprehensive, alphabetical list of E numbers can be found.--Iantresman (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then listify it and delete it. Nominator is right, making categories for substances based on how individual political entities number them is untenable. There are hundreds of political units that could potentially adopt a classification system and having categories for all of them would lead to blocks of dozens or hundreds of useless categories. Tthese substances are not defined by having been assigned an E number. 76.201.153.119 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iantresman—who incidentally is the creator of the category—has stated above that this is a category of E numbers—but it's not. It is not a category of E numbers. It is a category of substances that have been assigned E numbers. There's quite a significant difference, and in my opinion it makes all the difference in whether the category should be kept or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteAs stated above E-numbers only refer to the EU approved additives from the INS-list. It is better also to remove the whole page on E-numbers and to merge it with the INS_list directly, as is shown by the proposed merger on the INS list. You can then classify all substances on that list in a category Food Additives, instead of E-numbers.Knorrepoes (talk) 06:56, 20 December 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_December_19&oldid=1091637948"