Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 16

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< December 15 December 17 >

December 16

Category:Communist parties in the Former Soviet Union

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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. Can be brought back here is discussions on the talk page require some action on this category in the future. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Communist parties in the Former Soviet Union to Category:Communist parties in the Soviet Union
  • Amended, see subsection below. - Altenmann >t 18:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Unnecessary word "former": There is no "present Soviet Union". - Altenmann >t 18:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amended suggestion: The discussion indeed shows that the title is confusing. The texts by "opposers" suggests that the category must be Category:Communist parties in post-Soviet states. The second group (per Black Falcon) would be Category:Communist parties in early Former Soviet Union, but what would be the third one? In addition it is difficult to split the 2nd and 3rd: Some CPs existed all wad from 1920s to 1990s. - Altenmann >t 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It any case I am withdrawing the suggestion and I will start a regular, working discussion about proper splitting this category, in some talk page. - Altenmann >t 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amended suggestion
Per talk above, Propose renaming Category:Communist parties in the Former Soviet Union to Category:Communist parties in post-Soviet states.
I have already started the clean-up of this category, introducing two new categories, Category:Branches of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, for finalized parties and Category:Communist parties in early Soviet Union, for sporadic parties before consolidation. - Altenmann >t 18:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to the "the". English is not my forte. - Altenmann >t 19:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article, with no "the" needed. Alansohn (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could someone elaborate on the "the/no the" theme here, to make an educated decision? - Altenmann >t 18:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; a problem exists in the sense that some parties existed outside CPSU, and were later incorporated into it (such as Baltic parties). Communist Party of Estonia cannot only be categorized as a CPSU branch, it also needs to be categorized as a communist party of its of own. --Soman (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no problem with multiple categorizations in wikipedia. Only I would recommend to possibly add an in-text comment with an explanation (e.g., [[Category:Communist parties in Europe]]<!--CPE was not part of CPSU during 1920-1940-->), so that someone would not delete a category which seems "redundant". - Altenmann >t 17:47, 19 December 2009 (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:Keshet

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: category was speedy deleted as empty by a separate process --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Keshet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: It's a category of only 2 articles that might be merged created by an advertiser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.151.166 (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it possible to prove the reliability of the sources? Daviderudit (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2009 (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:Esperanto native speakers

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 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Esperanto native speakers to Category:Native Esperanto speakers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article (Native Esperanto speakers.) Personally, I don't care which terms is chosen, but I think it's nonsense to have the article named one way and the category the other. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Both per article title and by English grammar. - Altenmann >t 18:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator, and per English grammar. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename for grammatical purposes and to match both parent articles
    List of Esperanto native speakers. Alansohn (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2009 (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:Power supplies

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. postdlf (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Power supplies to Category:Electronics power supplies
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is misleading as in common use power supply means electrical power supply (generation and distribution). Beagel (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:12, 16 December 2009 (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.

Villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War

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. There is not a consensus to merge these to "former settlements" (and which the arguments below establish would cause a loss of relevant information), and the disagreement below about whether "depopulated" is POV appears to have been resolved. As for the other issue of whether the "before," "during," and "after" categories should be combined into [?], there is no consensus for that within this discussion. The merits and specifics of that proposal would be best addressed by a new, separate CFD rather than relisting and continuing this meandering one. postdlf (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging and renaming: Category:Villages depopulated prior to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Category:Villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Category:Villages depopulated after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Category:Jewish villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and Category:Depopulated settlements in the Land of Israel to Category:Former settlements in Israel and Category:Former settlements in the Palestinian territories repectively.
Nominator's rationale: This is to bring the name into line with all other
template and specific lists for these former settlements exist. Chesdovi (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment Many "X in the Palestinian territories" articles have been recently renamed to "X in Palestine." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The depopulation of settlements during that 1948 conflict is both a central part of history of the former Mandate territory of Palestine, and the single most important characteristic of the settlements themselves. There is no reason why the categories cannot all exists as sub-categories of Category:Former settlements. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for nominator. There are a number of Israel- and Palestine-related wikiprojects, whose members will have relevant expertise. Have they been notified of this proposal? Given the sensitivities in this area, and the historical signficance of the events concerned, I do not believe that this discussion could reasonably be closed as anything other than "no consensus" unless the wikiprojects have been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree 1. These villages were not depopulated. Their inhabitants left these villages of their own accord. 2. I have a feeling these categories were created and are being actively populated to make a
    wp:point. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I retract my objetion to the word "depopulated", based on the convincing argument of BrownHairedGirl. English is not my first language. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We need a NPOV title. We are on the horns of a dilemma created by the rival propaganda of the Israelis and Palestinians. I have little doubt that some were depopulated forcibly, and some abandoned out of fear, or even due to ill-advised propaganda from their own side. Keep as far as possible. Merging before after and during categories might be possible. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, then I support merging the "before", "during" and "after" categories, as
pointiness of these categories. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
No it doesn't. These departure of the population of these villages during the war is the crucial event in the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem, and one of the most significant aspects of that war. Historians take divergent views on the reasons for people leaving those villages, and the subsequent fate of the refugees and their descendants remains a major point of historical and political contention ... but the fact that the origins and consequences of something are disputed does not make the category either pointy or partisan, since nobody appears to be disputing the fact that the depopulation took place during the war. The only basis I can see for debresser's continued allegation of pointiness is that he appears to take a particular partisan view on the subject, and doesn't like the existence of categories which could in any way be useful to people he disagrees with ... and that's clearly a
WP:POINTy argument for deletion. It's a similar position to arguing for the deletion of Category:People executed by the United States on the grounds that the existence of the category might be useful to opponents of capital punishment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Your lack of understanding is not a sufficient reason to ascribe a POV to me. :) Debresser (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not ascribing a POV to you. I am noting the POV you clearly stated above, when you wrote "These villages were not depopulated. Their inhabitants left these villages of their own accord". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That just was short for "These villages were not forcibly depopulated. Their inhabitants left these villages of their own accord in most cases".
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.

ODI cricketers

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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

In follow up for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 4#ODI cricketers, I think these pages should also be renamed accordingly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:16, 16 December 2009 (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:Wikipedia images by quality

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 23#Category:Wikipedia images by quality by User:Phantomsteve. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Wikipedia images by quality to Category:Wikipedia images
Nominator's rationale: There are only two quality classes for images, "
cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 05:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok. Then just remove Category:Architecture Selected pictures from here. But the argument remains valid, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I still support merging, but for now I've removed the selected pictures category and added the valued pictures one. Cheers, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then at this point I'd say keep, but remove parent category per
Wikipedia:Cat#Duplicate_categorization_rule. Debresser (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:51, 23 December 2009 (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.

IPFW athletics categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 23#Category:IPFW athletics categories by User:Phantomsteve. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The school brands itself as "IPFW" for athletics purposes; see its official site at gomastodons.com. Also, ESPN (and presumably other sports media) use "IPFW" instead of the full school name. Dale Arnett (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What convention are you talking about? I see only 1-2 abbreviations among the 200 on the first page, and it is they who should be renamed, as I explained in my vote here below. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
??? Almost every single category is abbreviated.- choster 05:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per guideline of not using abbreviations in category names. Note that this guideline is not some obstruse and theoretical mindbog of some editor, but is being used in Cfd discussions every few days. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, that category isn't quite as clean as I thought, but it is absolutely longstanding convention to use Institution short name + Institution team nickname for collegiate sports. I'm quite familiar with the general proscription on abbreviations, but it is not the sole governing guideline.
    WP:COMMONNAME also applies here, and the full name of the institution is essentially never the primary form used either in reliable sources or in everyday speech; pick your college sports authority (ncaa.com, nytimes.com, espn.com, cbscollegesports.com, etc.) and see how often "UCLA Bruins" turns up as opposed to the "University of California, Los Angeles Bruins." This is, in fact, true of all sports, and requiring the maximum level of disambiguation would be an unwelcome innovation— there is really no confusing Category:Florida A&M Rattlers for anything else, just as we can use Category:Boston Red Sox not Category:Boston, Massachusetts Red Sox and Category:Hanshin Tigers not Hanshin Electric Railway Tigers.- choster 22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Are we looking at the same category? Fifteen of the nineteen teams under "A" alone use the team name. Again, we are not willy-nilly assigning abbreviations, but using the team name. It's not the UND Fighting Irish, it's the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. Why suddenly the need to expand this to University of Notre Dame Fighting Irish?
One shouldn't think of major U.S. college sports programs in the same way as a university faculty or research program. The major programs are, for good or ill, institutions in and of themselves, covered widely in mass media, and attracting many millions of fans with no ties whatsoever to the institution— in this respect, they no doubt differ from university sports in most of the world. But it also means that the team name will be by far the most common name found in reliable sources, and the name by which most people who would be interested in the topic would look for them by. Again, the team known as the "Fresno State Bulldogs" would essentially never be cited as the "California State University, Fresno Bulldogs," just as the proper name for the newspaper is The Stanford Daily not The Stanford University Daily (or The Stanford (University) Daily).- choster 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the rename goes ahead, the full name of the college should be givne in a capnote on the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:52, 23 December 2009 (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:Guatemalans of Norwegian descent

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 - no non-keep !votes (non-admin closure) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Guatemalans of Norwegian descent
Nominator's rationale: Absurd category; One-off case category -- unlikely to ever be populated by more than the current occupant, for whom it appears to have been expressly created.[email protected] (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2009 (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:Zambian expatriates in Namibia

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 - no non-keep !votes (non-admin closure) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Zambian expatriates in Namibia
Nominator's rationale: One-off case category, which appears to have been created for one person only. [email protected] (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – I am not particularly keen on
    talk) 10:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
On those grounds, respectfully, any sports player, established in another country, is an expatriate, by which logic Roy Keane qualifies as an Irish expatriate in the UK and Yao Ming a Chinese expatriate in the United States, to list but two examples. [email protected] (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yao Ming is in Category:Chinese expatriate basketball people in the United States. This is quite an elaborate scheme, which does have its faults. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an established way of making a category structure. Also, if there is one, there must be more. Debresser (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a well-organized structure of people by national origin. Alansohn (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2009 (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:San Marinese Wikipedians

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. postdlf (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:San Marinese Wikipedians to Category:Sammarinese Wikipedians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Usual demonym for San Marino is Sammarinese. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Demonym confirms. - Altenmann >t 16:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As an afterthought, the only member and the creator (and defunct now) was not sammarinese himself, since he used wrong word. So the category is useless. - Altenmann >t 16:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mmmm. Maybe. It's possible that he is Sammarinese but - with Italian his first language - didn't know the correct English-language demonym for SM. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 18 December 2009 (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/2009_December_16&oldid=1136463300"