Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 29

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< June 28 June 30 >

June 29

Category:FIFA Club World Championship

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 Category:FIFA Club World Championship to Category:FIFA Club World Cup. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FIFA Club World Championship to Category:FIFA Club World Cup
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The competition is no longer known as the FIFA Club World Championship, and hasn't been since 2005. –
Jay 23:10, 29 June 2008 (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:Our Gang directors

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Our Gang directors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - performer by performance
talk) 21:37, 29 June 2008 (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:United States National Recording Registry

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 Category:United States National Recording Registry to Category:United States National Recording Registry recordings. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States National Recording Registry to Category:United States National Recording Registry recordings
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Similar to
talk) 21:30, 29 June 2008 (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:Rutgers Law - Newark graduates

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. Kbdank71 17:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rutgers Law - Newark graduates to Category:Rutgers Law - Newark alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be consistent Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States. Archfeminist (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find many (I have now found plenty). I concede that
    -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2008 (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:Bilateral relations

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Bilateral relations to Category:???
Nominator's rationale: Merge, I believe that all articles in this category need to be placed in their relevant categories, e.g.
Диалог 15:54, 29 June 2008 (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:Polish-Americans

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
BencherliteTalk 17:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Category:Polish-Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: It appears to be overcategorization and an undefining characteristic for many. More importantly, every time I see an edit regarding this category, it always seems to be a revert, whether putting it back in or taking it back out. It may be better just to not have it, since it seems to cause a lot of problems. Renaming to Category:Americans of Polish descent would fix the problems. Wizardman 14:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is part of a pattern of categories and the many Polish Americans are not to be discriminated against by not allowing them to have a category of their own. The edit history of this category shows no reverts; if nominator is saying articles/subcats are added/subtracted from this category, well, that is how things work at WP when article editors are sorting out the truth of things. This is no reason at all to delete a category. Hmains (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname Category:Americans of Polish descent. WE have had a long series of nominations recently for these dual nationality categories. A few have been retained for specific reasons, but the majority have eben altered to this form. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per User:Peterkingiron's suggested renaming (actually, likely a merge) Mayumashu (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per suggestion by Peterkingiron. Defining characteristic but ambiguous title. Dimadick (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hmains & many precedents. Neutral/rather against on rename - I favour the Foos of X descent formula normally, but not for the best known American combinations, of which this is one, which avoid the usual ambiguity. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not rename - American ethnic groups have distinct histories and relate to the overall society in ways that are not necessarily comparable to the situations that may obtain in other parts of the world. Renaming these to conform to the X-nationality of Y-descent pattern would not be acceptable. Cgingold (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and how do you decide who is 'Polish American' and who is merely 'American of Polish descent'? half ancestry qualifies and less does not? the article page Polish Americans documents distinctiveness but category pages need to be clear, and not incorporate arbitrariness Mayumashu (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename (no opinion on keep/delete). "Descent" as applied correctly is overinclusive and undefining because it includes people with any Polish ancestor. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But so does 'Polish-American', or is the description
Polish American wrong? Mayumashu (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2008 (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:Diplomatic missions by host country

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. Kbdank71 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Diplomatic missions by host country to Category:Lists of diplomatic missions by host country
Nominator's rationale: After much disagreement over what does and doesn't belong in this category, I am bringing this here so tht the larger community can comment. I believe this category should be renamed to
Диалог 14:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Russavia, your example begs to be satirised. Seriously though, why should we make all these recategories to accomodate a rare example like you have cited? And anyway, to answer your question, a user would go
Embassy of Northern Cyprus in Ankara
.
Instead of creating all those stubs and categories, and then expecting Wikipedia to accomodate your taxonomy, why don't you for once create some actual content? Kransky (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The route you explained I believe shows that you don't understand how categorisation works on WP, for one should not have to navigate by way of articles, categories are designed for that specific purpose, and this can be attested to by the above editors who have also seen a need to recategorise. --
Диалог 06:17, 7 July 2008 (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:Diplomatic missions by country

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. Kbdank71 17:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Diplomatic missions by country to Category:Lists of diplomatic missions by country
Nominator's rationale: After much disagreement over what does and doesn't belong in this category, I am bringing this here so tht the larger community can comment. I believe this category should be renamed to
Диалог 14:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Lists by receiving country are certainly needed too, possibly called "by destination". The article version that you referred to could have been useful, but I suspect the information on Russian missions in WP is less well developed than that of some other countries. For the United Kingdom, there are lists of ambassadors from Britain to each particular country, often stretching back into the 18th century or beyond. I think there may be articles in the embassies too, but the lists would be much better if they led to some specific article. That might be done as a dab link to the word "embassy". This is not an area that I am working on, but have occasionally dabbled with British embassies when producing biographies of those who were for a time members of Parliament. I suspect that giving the name of the current ambassador (as in the article version that you cited) would be a maintenance nightmare. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually now leaning towards
Диалог 11:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Russavia - could we deal with one new idea at a time? I am not comfortable with including lists of ambassadors in articles about "diplomatic missions" (in an archaic sense a mission is the people, but under modern usage the term refers to the buildings and the institution of an embassy). As mentioned I strongly suggest ambassadors (or "Heads of Mission") are listed in separate articles. I also do not like cumbersome terms "receiving country" and "sending country". Kransky (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "sending State" and "receiving State" are terms used in the Vienna Conference on Diplomatic Relations. Kransky (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
maybe so, but 'country' is the convention/standard in WP, not 'state'. Hmains (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again, to change these articles seem to complicate things more. Also, I too agree that we shouldn't add ambassadors to the articles because in all honesty it would be impossible to be constantly updating the names of ambassadors on 190 articles. Aquintero (talk) 19:25, 1 July, 2008 (UTC)
    • There is much difficulty in navigating categories and articles in these categories. To support your claim that it is not difficult, can you please explain how to navigate from
      Диалог 17:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • On a sidenote,
      Диалог 17:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Sorry Russavia, but your List of diplomatic missions in Russia article is poorly designed. I would not use a table in the way you have - the photographs are too small in cells, and the repetition of countries with multiple missions in Russia across the same column looks awkward. Some ideas you have are good. This isn't one of them. Kransky (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion Kransky as we are all entitled to it, but my opinion is, is that the table is very well designed, but as
Диалог 17:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
You might think your table is very well designed - just as all mothers love their babies. I just hope you are not going to be wasting your time because it looks like a nomination for AfD on the grounds that it duplicates
Diplomatic missions of Russia. Kransky (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
And as I have said on a couple of previous occasions, go ahead and AfD anything you deem fit for AfD. --
Диалог 06:21, 7 July 2008 (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:Our Gang kids

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete as a list already exists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Our Gang kids (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - performer by performance
talk) 13:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Most editors familiar with Our Gang are probably familiar with them through the television syndication of the films.
    talk) 21:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • List exists at
    talk) 02:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I would say that it's not at all accurate. The Monty Python troupe membership was small and stable (more or less, Cleese did leave for the final series of the TV show). Kids were cycled in and out of the Our Gang films as desired by the producers. We don't characterize actors based on film series.
    talk) 16:48, 30 June 2008 (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:Songs about rainbows

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs about rainbows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Why are there so many songs about rainbows? Well, there really aren't, and in fact none of the songs in this category are about rainbows at all.
talk) 13:00, 29 June 2008 (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:Songs of World War I

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
BencherliteTalk 17:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Propose renaming Category:Songs of World War I to Category:to be determined by consensus
Propose renaming Category:American Civil War songs to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: Discuss. These are examples of the two different naming formats under the parent
talk) 12:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • In looking at the parent, a number of the Songs about foo categories would become ambiguous if renamed to Foo songs. Songs about California would become ambiguous if renamed to California songs for instance.
    talk) 21:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yes, sorry, I should have made it explicit that this is a test case.
    talk) 19:29, 3 July 2008 (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:Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur Province

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 the two empties, rename the other. Kbdank71 17:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur Province to Category:Tierra del Fuego Province (Argentina)
Propose renaming Category:Cities in Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur Province to Category:Cities in Tierra del Fuego Province (Argentina)
Propose renaming Category:People from Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur Province to Category:People from Tierra del Fuego Province (Argentina)
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match name of article (
Tierra del Fuego Province (Argentina)) which was renamed through RM. Failed speedy rename, but two of these were already renamed before the renaming admin noticed the objection, so I intend this discussion to stand for all three. Pfainuk talk 09:21, 29 June 2008 (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:Wind power stations

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.
BencherliteTalk 17:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Proposal: To be in line with general practice, I propose to merge Category:Wind power stations by country to Category:Wind farms by country and Category:Wind power stations in Canada to Category:Wind farms in Canada, and to rename Category:Wind power stations in Hong Kong to be Category:Wind farms in Hong Kong. Beagel (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to match the pattern of most of the countries Hmains (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2008 (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:Songs about bananas

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs about bananas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable trait. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:07, 29 June 2008 (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:Untitled Albums

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Untitled Albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic. At the very least, fix the capitalization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 29 June 2008 (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:Buddhism and current issues

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
BencherliteTalk 17:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Propose renaming Category:Buddhism and current issues to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: This name is hopelessly vague; apparently the West and women are current issues (?). Entries seem to be a mish-mash of political theories (
Buddhist anarchism and Buddhist economics), articles related to women (Ordination of women and Women as theological figures, note also that these are not specifically articles about Buddhism) and 20th/21st century institutions (International Congress on Buddhist Women's Role in the Sangha and World Buddhist Forum.) My gut reaction is to delete this altogether since I cannot figure out any consistent rationale for why an article is included in this, but if someone else can, please propose a more intelligible name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Views? Well, what is "views by religion?" This category seems like another hodge-podge of social issues, political ideologies, identity politics, and almost anything that has to do with a religion and something else. This category is itself hopelessly vague - aren't Christian philosophies "Christian viewpoints?" Don't Bahá'í texts express "Bahá'í teachings?" Other than articles on places or biographies, very little under the main heading of any religious category couldn't fit this one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:03, 29 June 2008 (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/2008_June_29&oldid=1074800805"