Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 27

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< June 26 June 28 >

June 27

Category:Pharrell 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: Rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pharrell albums to Category:Pharrell Williams albums
Nominator's rationale: Expand to match parent article, Pharrell Williams. — Σxplicit 21:10, 27 June 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:Films dealing with nuclear war and weapons

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Films dealing with nuclear war and weapons to Category:Films about nuclear war and weapons
Nominator's rationale: Rename per similar categories in
talk) 20:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, and if "about" is seen as too specific, then "films involving..." seems to be the preferred phrasing for when the topic association may be more tangential. This "dealing with" construction seems to be an outlier.
talk) 21:32, 27 June 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.

BBC World News 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: rename per nom
talk) 04:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The British News channel was renamed from BBC World to BBC World News in 2008. last year both categories forgot to rename to BBC World News. I wanted both categories for speedy renaming and one user refuse to speedy rename. I already transfer both categories to the regular CfD and let's see what other users has to say. Steam5 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not refuse, I asked you to point out what speedy criteria these were eligible under. Since this type of rename is not one of the speedy criteria, it needs a full discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 27 June 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 from Hull (district)

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) 03:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Hull (district) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This virtually empty category has only one parent category which is also a parent for the only subcategory here. So this would appear to simply be an extra navigation layer that is not needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – nom is correct.
    talk) 19:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment category generated by {{
England people message}}. Keith D (talk) 19:08, 27 June 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:Hull

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. No redirects should be used, but DAB categories could be where needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the parent article Kingston upon Hull. This would also match the commons category. If approved, then most of the subcategories will also need to be renamed. Note that Hull is the actual name of other settlements. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming - as said in the rationale, matches the partent article and the categories at commons. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per previous CFD discussions. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Steam5 (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename BUT keep all the existing categories as redirects. Lugnuts (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and use disambiguation category template. There are other places named Hull.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:50, 30 June 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:Maliyadeva College-related pages

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) 03:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest renaming Category:Maliyadeva College-related pages -> Category:Maliyadeva College
Nominator's rationale: unnecessary words in title Ian Cairns (talk) 16:54, 27 June 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: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: Merge/revert. I wouldn't say that there is necessarily consensus for the name Category:Mathematical relations, but even if this discussion were to be closed as "no consensus", the just result would be to revert things to how they were before. That is what I will do in this situation. This close is without prejudice to a future proposal to rename Category:Mathematical relations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Relations to Category:Mathematical relations
Nominator's rationale: Merge/return to original category No criteria for the category, other than it appears that all the entries added were originally in Category:Mathematical relations, and were moved to this category by User:Henry Delforn. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. They were also removed from other appropriate categories, so the desired result is: revert all edits by User:Henry Delforn in the past hour or so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm afraid I emptied the category, or nearly so, because of the other category damage done while it was filled. If necessary, I could restore it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Last description, which made no sense whatsoever in the context of mathematics, was:
  • — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prelim remark. There's alot to say but will be brief in this entry. The "Mathematics" hierarchy in Wikipedia is in a world of hurt at best. The current 4-deep state is: Mathematics>Mathematical logic>Set theory>Basic concepts in set theory>Mathematical relations. What's wrong with this? How much time have you got? First, the word "Basic" is a subjective adjective (no place for this in Categorization), removing "Basic" would leave the word "concepts" under cat:Set theory (...?? a no brainer). Secondly, the word "Mathematical" in cat:Mathematical relations is redundant, no different than the word "Mathematical" in cat:Mathematical logic (which, by the way, has an equivalent-level cat:Logic, along with cat:Topology whereby "Point-set topology" is a redirect!!!, this is loco). But i digress, redundancy has no place in Categorization, as such the proposition in question is answered. Thirdly, and lastly for now, cat:Set theory should not be a subcat of cat:Logic or cat:Mathematical logic, it should be an equivalent-level cat. Other helpful resources: Wikipedia:Categorization; Hierarchy; MetaCategorization; Category Tree. Henry Delforn (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proper venue for those discussions is the respective category talk pages for individual questions (should as whether
      WP:CFD) would be the appropriate venue for that discussion; it should not have been done directly without discussion. I'd still argue against it, because of the problem with other relations which might also have a category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Remark. The subject of "discussion before changing" is not in your favor, as that is precisely what was done prior to creating cat:Relations. The question went out to a Mathematics editor, and just like in the past to this same editor, there was no courtesy nor responses to the questions. However, cat:Relations was not created because the question was unanswered or because i did not see cat:Mathematical relations, the category was created because: a) of the references citied; b) there was intention on my part to break-up an existing article into separated articles dealing with Relations in Set Theory; and c) the category structure in question needed work. Wrt "a)", if a book is titled with subject "AAA" has a chapter titled with subject "AA" where "a" is thereby defined and the topic of "a" is used to create a Wikipedia article, then the editor should consider (not solely and with other WP considerations) categorizing the said article as "Category:AAA|Category:AA". Henry Delforn (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to state that the Encyclopedia of Mathematics as an unreliable source, not much better than the Jargon Dictionary, but I'm still open on that point. In any case, you didn't ask in an appropriate venue; you asked a single editor, who may have been busy.
WT:MATH might have been appropriate. You placed no references in the category description, which might have provided a rationale for your choice of articles, although the category name is still clearly wrong. You recategorized articles out of appropriate categories (whether or not Category:Mathematical relations is appropriate, other ones you edited were not justified.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
There's at least two so-called "Encyclopedia of Mathematics", which one do you mean?(link?) Example of unreliability? Henry Delforn (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. 'Mathematical' is certainly not a redundant word in 'Mathematical relations'.
    talk) 23:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Can't help you with that, good luck. Henry Delforn (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Arthur Rubin that reverting all related edits by that user is probably the best option. Debresser (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be a copy/paste of that other user. Henry Delforn (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently haven't been reading
WP:SOCKPUPPET, or meatpuppet, not copy/paste. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
it would be an improvement but it would leave out non-binary relations Henry Delforn (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm finding that there's little one can assume in this discussion. How about going back to square one or two...is there agreement that a subcategory should be related to the category above it? For example, in a 2-level hierachy: Category:Mathematics > Category:Relations (or Categories: Mathematics|Relations), the subcategory "Relations" is about mathematical relations and not about personal relations? Is there general agreement on this? or is this where we get off the bus? Henry Delforn (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is agreement, apart from you, that this is not the case. That is not how category names work at all. Obviously if you see an article is in a particular category, you will be unaware of whatever the various parent categories are. Each name should stand independently - see
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories): "Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories. Example: "Wikipedia policy precedents and examples", not "Precedents and examples" (a subcategory of "Wikipedia policies and guidelines")." Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
then there's no need for pipes (|, in the structured unix dir/subdir sense) ... got it. no relation to parent category, i think it's insane. Henry Delforn (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification of "Suggest merging" - Here are the two paths in question:
    • Path1: Mathematics>...>Set theory>Basic concepts in set theory>Mathematical relations>...
    • Path2: Mathematics>...>Set theory>Relations>...

(Note that in Path1 everything in Mathematical relations is under "Basic concepts in set theory", this includes Graph theory, Order theory, and Relational algebra)

Here is what is being suggested. Let G be a groupoid having group objects {wikicategories: wr (wikirelations), wmr (wikimathematical relations), ...} where wr, wmr ∈ G. Then, the relation R on groupoid G is suggested and called a "translation relation" if wr + R(wmr) ⊂ R(wr + wmr) for all wr, wmr ∈ G. Oh but wait, "Translation relations" (i.e. - a reflexive additive relation on a groupoid) don't exist per Wikipedia...never mind. Henry Delforn (talk) 22:48, 3 July 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 Knife singles

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 (move ratified). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Knife singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Technical nomination. Appears to have been renamed to Category:The Knife songs. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per usual naming.
    talk) 23:02, 27 June 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:Ilona songs

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 (move ratified). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ilona songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Technical nomination. Appears to have been renamed to Category:Ilona Mitrecey songs . Vegaswikian (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - article is
    talk) 23:05, 27 June 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:Ilona 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 (move ratified). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ilona albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Technical nomination. Appears to have been renamed to Category:Ilona Mitrecey albums. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:26, 27 June 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:Neighborhoods in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania

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) 03:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Neighborhoods in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only one article. As a resident of Beaver Falls for four schoolyears, I can testify that there are really no other distinct neighborhoods in the city, so there's no potential for expansion. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even leaving aside the question of whether there are any other neighborhoods to be added to the category, the city itself doesn't even have a dedicated Category:Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania. I leave it to editors more familiar with the topic to decide whether a city-specific category is merited here or not, but IMO a city-specific category must always exist before a "Neighborhoods in..." subcategory can ever be justified. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:17, 28 June 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_June_27&oldid=1138392602"