Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 23

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< September 22 September 24 >

September 23

Category:Images of people replacing placeholders

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary level of bureaucracy. The function of checking image usage is done elsewhere and there is no need to have it done in relation to replacing placeholder images. Note that placeholders, particular for biographical articles, have been deprecated. The only subcategory Category:Reviewed images of people replacing placeholders is of the same ilk. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems odd to delete this category but keep the subcategory, and on that basis, I'd oppose the nomination. However, the nom's rationale makes sense, so I'd support it if the sub-cat was added to this nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want the sub-cat deleted as well. It is of even less use - and of no use if its parent is deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So add it to the nomination, and you'll have my support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Either delete both this categ and its subcat, or keep both. I don't think either of the categories serves any useful purpose, lo I'll happily change my !vote if the subcat is added to this nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought my nomination suggested that the subcat should also go. Now added at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_27#Category:Reviewed_images_of_people_replacing_placeholders. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. Per comments above, they should both be deleted, so I am chnaging my !vote now that both are deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Book publishing companies

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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per convention, i.e. Category:Book publishing companies based in California, etc. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:English literary awards

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Too indiscriminate. British/UK topics are not organized by country of origin (the UK is not a country) and it's difficult to determine if an award should be UK or England, and confusing for readers (detail in comment below). --
talk) 17:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
" issued by people or organisations based in England" - All the Scotland, Wales and Ireland articles are already separate. The only ones left are the ones in England. What you're proposing is that there be no articles in the British category, because every award there is already based in England. There is also the consideration of
talk) 16:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
If all the awards are based in England, then they should be categorised under England, and the British category will become a {{container category}}. There is nothing unusual about this; it apples to many other UK categories.
Per my reply below to Peter, a large number of the awards which you claim have a UK scope for eligibility actually have a wider scope. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right we don't know what the overlap would be. More below (you actually replied to me below).
talk) 17:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
"Nationalist sentiment" as you put it, is also strong in England, but manifests differently. Mostly in the conflation of Britain and England. Many of the Scottish and Welsh awards are available to people elsewhere. The main reason these exist, is because the Scots and the Welsh are fairly marginalised/peripheral within British media contexts.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, I think that the discussion would go better if it avoided being sidetracked from literary matters into opining about nationalism.
Your idea of categorising the wards by their geographical elegibility is an interesting one, but it would require a radical restructuring of all similar categories. It would also remove from both the British and English categories a large number of the awards currently contained there, because many of them do not restrict their eligibility to either people from Great Britain or those from the UK. The list of those which would not fit your definition is huge, and includes:
Samuel Johnson Prize, Rossica Translation Prize, Costa Book Awards, Rose Mary Crawshay Prize, John Whiting Award, Bread and Roses Award, Boardman Tasker Prize for Mountain Literature
.
Are you sure that is what you want to achieve? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: We do categorize some awards on scope, see
talk) 20:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The UK is a country; it just happens to be an unusual country which consists of 4 constituent countries. The British category should remain where it is, categorised alongside other countries as we do with all other by-country categories.
Categorising awards by scope of eligibility would be a complex exercise, because as I note above, many of the awards which you want to label as "British" have a scope which extends beyond the UK. Unless we are going to create categories for every perumutation of eligibility, they should be in Category:International literary awards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell the United Kingdom is not labeled a country, it's a sovereign state composed of four constituent country. These are technical terms though and probably too specific to worry about for Category purposes.
As for scope of eligibility, I think you confused what I was saying. We currently don't delineate the UK awards by scope. The "British literary awards" is an ambiguous catch-all, it "could" mean scope (but not necessarily), but definitely home of award. If OTOH we wanted to have precise scope and home, we would have to move all the awards currently in "British literary awards" to "English literary awards" for home of award, and then some sub-set of those would be in an additional category for British scope, under the Regional literary awards. Since there would be so many articles, it would make sense to have a unique UK region category, like we already have for Scandinavia, Commonwealth, Caribbean etc. I don't know how big the overlap really is. Probably it would need to be called "Literary awards with a United Kingdom eligibility" or something to avoid confusion with where it is based.
talk) 17:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Antisemitism

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: procedural close. Whatever the substantive merits or demerits of this proposal, it is very misleading for the nominator to present signed comments by other editors as if they had been posted in this discussion. All of them were in fact posted elsewhere, and the presentation here misleads other editors about the context in which those comments were made. The use of my own sig in a quote in the first paragraph gives the misleading impression that I was the nominator here, whereas the nomination was posted in these edits by Liftarn (talk · contribs).
Where editors wish to quote other editors, they should do so in such a way as to make sure that it is abundantly clear that they are being quoted. For example, they should not include the personal sigs of those editors, and should preferably include a diff of where the comment was made so that the quotes can be verified.
I am sure that this was a good faith misunderstanding by the nominator, but it is better to close the discussion immediately rather than have it marred by an procedural wrangle. The nominator (or any other editor) should feel free to start a new nomination which is formatted in the conventional way, and which takes care to indicate the source of any quotes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the precedence stated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 4#Category:Anti-Islam we now should merge Category:Antisemitism to Category:Anti-Judaism.

Nominator's rationale: "it seems to me that the most persuasive argument was that to adopt the format of the other sub-categories of Category:Opposition to religion, which is "Anti-Foo"." Please note that since there is no consensus for this particular name, editors should free to immediately nominate Category:Anti-Islam for renaming, whether on its own or as part of a wider group nomination to include Category:Anti-Christianity, Category:Anti-Judaism etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Adaptations of The Magic Flute

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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nearly all subcategories of Category:Works based on literature have subcategories in the format of "Works based on (X)." This is an outlier from that format.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems uncontroversial.
    talk) 18:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Adaptations of Chinese literature

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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese literature adaptations
Nominator's rationale: Nearly all subcategories of Category:Works based on literature have subcategories in the format of "Works based on (X)." These are outliers from that format.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems uncontroversial. The "Works based on" also helps by keeping them together in alphabetical order.
    talk) 18:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_23&oldid=1074810050"