Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 7

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< December 6 December 8 >

December 7

Category:Men of Phi Beta Sigma

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. — ξxplicit 22:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Men of Phi Beta Sigma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category should be deleted for the same reasons that "Phi Beta Kappa members" was deleted a while back (note: I'm not 100% sure if that was the actual category name, I can't remember). It's overcategorization and will never come close to satisfying even a marginal amount of the notable members of that fraternity. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. This is one of the few fraternity membership categories that has not been deleted in the past. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorization. Especially per consistency with the determination to get rid of the Phi Beta Kappa members, unless folks decide to get that one back. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ample precedent for deletion of fraternity/sorority membership categories. Most of them were deleted in February–April 2007, but the reasons for deletion apply just as much now as they did then. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 03:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 10 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:Global warming sceptics

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, G4. Closedmouth (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Global warming sceptics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Previous variations on this category have already been deleted - see here and here. The category is problematic since it is unclear who qualifies as a global warming sceptic and on what criteria. There is a big difference between someone who denies that global warming is happening, someone who believes it is happening but doesn't think it is caused by human activity, someone who has a minor disagreement with mainstream global warning thought, and so on. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 7 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:Neighbourhoods of Gdańsk

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. — ξxplicit 22:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Neighbourhoods of Gdańsk to Category:Districts of Gdańsk
Nominator's rationale: It seems that the top-level divisions of Polish cities are called districts (or boroughs - but "districts" is to be used per discussion at
WT:WPPL#Boroughs or districts?), and the next level divisions (if any) are called neighbourhoods. That's how it's done with Warsaw and Poznań, for example. The Gdańsk ones are top-level (dzielnica in Polish), so it would be consistent for the category to be renamed as districts. Kotniski (talk) 18:55, 7 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.

Polish boroughs

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. — ξxplicit 22:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: For consistency, per the discussion linked to above (
WT:WPPL#Boroughs or districts?).--Kotniski (talk) 08:41, 11 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:The Heads 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, but only because it has been empty for more than 4 days. The category may be re-created if thought appropriate, though users should keep in mind the issues pointed out by
User:Occuli. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Category:The Heads albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There was only ever one album by the Heads. (I put that in the parent category, Category:Jerry Harrison albums.) Pete (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per numerous precedents as part of a larger scheme of albums, and remind nominator about the instruction: "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision." Grutness...wha? 01:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – this is more complicated than usual (the usual position being that 1 album suffices) as
    talk) 17:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose First off, I do not understand why this is in Category:Jerry Harrison albums rather than (e.g.) Category:Talking Heads albums or Category:Tom Tom Club albums. My recollection is that there are categories for every album by artist period (e.g. Category:4 Non Blondes albums, although I cannot find a citation for that information. For what it's worth, my preference would have been to nominate the category and then remove it if consensus was to delete, and that is the standard order of operations as far as I am aware. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like my understanding of how these things are typically handled was a little off. (I don't often work on music articles.) Sorry if I offended -- please, anybody, feel free to
    revert anything I've done that is less than ideal. -Pete (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I wasn't offended either. It was a good-faith nom, and there are so many different guidelines and conventions that no-one could be expected to know them all. Grutness...wha? 22:14, 9 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:2.5D video games

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:2.5D video games to Category:Video games with 2.5D graphics
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per other categories in
 Talk  13:14, 30 November 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 14:31, 7 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:Victoria Island

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. — ξxplicit 22:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Victoria Island to Category:Victoria Island (Canada)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article
Victoria Island (Canada). Victoria Island is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not the fact that it's divided between two territories that I'm taking issue with; it's the fact that it isn't a political entity in its own right at all. And anyway, all of the islands you named are divided between multiple countries; this one is divided between two territories (not even provinces, mind) within a single country — and all of those island categories simply contain the relevant subcategories while being empty or close-to-empty of individual articles, whereas this one is being directly applied to every individual thing on the island. So it's hardly comparable. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tierra del Fuego isn't a political entity in its own right at all either (nor is New Guinea), and its category contains 40 articles. In those senses it is at least kind of comparable, though not identical. I don't disagree with your rationale to delete, but I haven't seen it applied elsewhere in similar cases, that's all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom to match the main article name. Keep. Any island with enough named (and WP articles on) geographic features of the island deserves a category. Hmains (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 10 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:People associated with John McCain

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. — ξxplicit 22:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People associated with John McCain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is another one of these "people associated with PERSON" categories. The principal problem with these categories is their vagueness. What degree of connection with the subject needs to be established before they are added into the category? Not surprisingly, the categories like this are always undefined. Generally we have not chosen to categorize people by people. If a person needs to be connected to John McCain in Wikipedia, McCain can be mentioned in the article about the person, and if the connection is even more substantial, the person can even be mentioned and linked to in John McCain. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The is no clear criteria about what is defined as "associated" with this person, and categories must always be clear-cut cases. Any attempt to define the scope will be subjective, arbitrary and prone to disagreement. To the most extreme extent, anyone who is republican or otherwise admitted of voting republican in the 2008 US presidential election could be placed in this category. That is almost a hundred million people or so. Arsenikk (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Arsenikk. As Good Ol'factory notes, there are better ways of indicating an association (i.e., within articles or more specific categories, such as Category:McCain family, as appropriate). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well-reasoned nomination, and per Arsenik's analysis of how the inclusion criteria for this sort of category must inevitably be vague or arbitrary. The "people associated with foo" is a form of category which pops up sufficiently regularly at CFD that it probably deserves an entry in
    WP:OCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Agree with BrownHairedGirl that this should be added to OCAT. Bearcat (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; and concur with getting this formula addded to OCAT. There are no boundaries to these, and almost anyone who is even tangently connected with the U.S. Senate, the 2000 and 2008 Presidential Races, or even the Hanoi Hilton could be added to this one. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:49, 12 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:Low-emissions locomotives

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:EPA Tier 2-compliant locomotives of the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Low-emissions locomotives to Category:United States emission standards Tier 2 compliant locomotives
Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted today, and then recreated (with the creator stating that a tag was left out by the automated nomination process). The category still has the same fundamental errors as in the
WP:OCAT as fundamentally arbitrary and is a prime example of systemic bias. This time the creator has at least attempted to create a definition, but there is still a fundamental flaw: it generalizes a single countries emission standards to that of the whole world. It is not possible to say that this single definition is the barrier between high and low emission, particularly when most of the world's rail transport is not part of this jurisdiction. Also, in the future the US Government's definition of "low emission" may change again (due to new technological development), creating an even more subjective category scope. Another issue is of course that it could be easily argued that all electric locomotives by nature are low emission. By changing the categories name to those diesel-electric locomotives who meet the standard in question, both the subjectivity and systemic bias disappears. Arsenikk (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comments and suggestions: I believe that electric-only locomotives should not be included in this category, since they do not fall under EPA exhaust emissions regulations and therefore cannot be considered Tier 2-compliant. (Whether they actually meet or exceed Tier 2 becomes more of a philosophical question and depends on where/how their electricity is generated.) I would suggest a name such as Category:EPA Tier 2-compliant diesel locomotives of the United States. I know it's a bit wordy, but it accomplishes several things: 1) It is much more specific than "low-emissions" and spells out the exact standard that these locomotives must meet; 2) It specifies the geographic location; 3) It uses the same syntax as the existing locomotive categories (e.g., Category:Locomotives of the United States and subcategory Category:Diesel locomotives of the United States). Thank you. –BMRR (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the "Foo of the United States" portion, but strongly disagree with restricting this to "diesel only", as, for example, this would remove
Vehicle Projects HH20B from the category. The HH20B is a fuel cell hybrid, and is definitely neither diesel, nor straight electric. There have also been natural gas fueled (non diesel) locomotives, that would not fall under the "Diesel" banner. I would suggest Category:EPA Tier 2-compliant locomotives of the United States may be more appropriate, without unduly restricting category members to the "diesel only" club. WuhWuzDat 18:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Good point about "diesel only" being too limiting; we don't want to exclude locomotives that run on fuels like propane or natural gas, since these locomotives are subject to EPA exhaust emissions regulations. –BMRR (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Low-emissions locomotives to Category:EPA Tier 2-compliant locomotives of the United States.
Nominator's rationale: per the discussion above. –BMRR (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur It would appear that consensus was reached to make this change almost 2 weeks ago. Suggest close at this time. WuhWuzDat 03:15, 21 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:Administrators of ISA

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Administrators of the Iranian Space Agency. Wizardman 03:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Administrators of ISA to Category:Administrators of Iranian Space Agency
Nominator's rationale: To expand acronym and match parent article, Iranian Space Agency, as ISA is ambiguous. — ξxplicit 07:20, 7 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:Justified

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Justified (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Small, eponymous category, no foreseeable expansion until at least March 2010. — ξxplicit 07:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small, eponymous category for a TV show that has yet to demonstrate that it's going to need one. Definitely a delete, though with the caveat that "not expandable until X date" isn't a terribly useful precedent to set as grounds for potential deletion — it's the fact that the show might never actually need one of these that's relevant here, not the fact that it'll be three months before we'll know whether it does. Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 8 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.

Politician party names

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming

In part this is to standardize the format for politicians by party and perform cleanup such as expansion of abbreviations. In larger part it helps avoid ambiguity as to whether "Swedish," "Irish," and so on refer to the ethnicity and/or nationality of the politicians or of the nationality of party— or neither, simply comprising part of the party name. Ambiguity is rampant and it is especially important with political parties to adhere to the real name of the organization: the

American Republican Party is not the Republican Party (United States), and so on. The proposed style adopts the party name as used by the main article, and is already the norm in most of Category:Politicians by party. There are a few branches populated mainly as "Members"; I have not had the opportunity to review their suitability for redesignation "politicians" categories, and as they have other issues, I have left them aside for the moment.- choster 06:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Fair enough, nom updated.- choster 08:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at
    Pirate Party (disambiguation) the standard for "Category:Pirate Party (Sweden) politicians" would seem to be "Category:Pirate Party of Sweden politicians". Hiding T 15:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The name of the party is
    Pirate Party (disambiguation) need to be switched, but in no case would it be Pirate Party of Sweden— that is the exact sort of confusion we are trying to avoid here.- choster 17:47, 7 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:Sex workers rights

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Sex workers' rights. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sex workers rights to Category:Sex worker rights
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is a grammatical mistake. Both "Sex workers' rights" and "Sex worker rights" would be acceptable. An argument for the former is that our article is titled sex workers' rights. I however prefer the latter, seeing that Google prefers that term roughtly 3 to 1. AxelBoldt (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While a search for just "sex worker rights" versus "sex workers' rights" comes up 3 to 1 in favour of the former, as you indicate, that type of comparison does not account for the significant overlap that is undoubtedly present. "sex worker rights -"sex workers' rights" -wikipedia has 105K results and "sex workers' rights" -"sex worker rights" -wikipedia has 57K results, which is roughly 2 to 1; of course, I realize that this too is an imperfect evaluation. I have no real preference regarding the name, but I would prefer that the article and category titles match; whether that means renaming the category or the article is another matter... –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Sex workers' rights to match title of parent article. Google search results are irrelevant when we have an article that already exists as a parent. There appears to be no valid reason to allow a Google search to dictate the name of a category in conflict with the title of the parent article. This might be an argument to rename the parent article, but we should keep the category and article titles consistent to avoid confusion and error. Alansohn (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per Alansohn. Let's not be re-learned by google. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Sex workers' rights as the alternative with the better grammar. Debresser (talk) 18:11, 10 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_7&oldid=1138392109"