Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< August 31 September 2 >

September 1

Category:Political families of Ireland

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. Dana boomer (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization per
talk) 15:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I have only nominated those categoriess with 2 articles, there are more with only 3 or 4 entries. The fact is nearly all these categories are covered by the article
talk) 16:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I know that list; I created it] :)
It is certainly a useful tool. However, it would be nice to have dome sort of category which could group all the people on that list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of category are you proposing?
talk) 20:50, 5 September 2013 (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:Military units and formation of the Bosnian 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redirected category containing typo error in its name, not useful in any way. Constantine ✍ 14:17, 1 September 2013 (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:Korean Air Lines Flight 007

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 to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A catch all for some topics loosely associated with KAL 007. Its never been the aviation task force's practice to create categories for plane crashes. ...William 13:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote above to "keep" after seeing the pointless edit warring over this category. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep - This is a perfectly valid category, and its existence should be completely uncontroversial. The suggestion that it and most of the articles in it were created merely to promote a fringe/conspiracy theory is laughable on its face. Seriously, people -- you really should look at the articles before you embarass yourselves with such silly comments. I took a good look at every article, not at all sure what I would find -- and it is abundantly clear that each of them meet
    WP:NOTABILITY. Moreover, each of the Soviet officials in the category had a noteworthy role in the incident; none of those articles even hinted at any sort of conspiracy theory. It seems pretty clear that people are opposing this category because of some sort of allergic reaction to the conspiracy theory. Perhaps they weren't around when this incident took place, but I remember it quite well indeed. It was at the very height of the Cold War, and had very serious implications for US-Soviet relations. In fact, I just added 3 new parent cats pertaining to that aspect of the story. Cgingold (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I think it's also worth noting that the famed investigative journalist Seymour Hersh spent months researching this incident and wrote an entire book about it. It wasn't "just another plane crash". Cgingold (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there are a significant enough articles in category. Technical 13 (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2013 (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:Academic publishing companies of the United States

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 and upmerge contents to Category:Academic publishing companies and Category:Publishing companies of the United States. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Up till now, the pages in this cat were categorized as "academic publishing companies" and "publishing companies of the United States". I don't see any need to make a combined category, nor do I see a need to subdivide "academic publishing companies" into subcategories by nationality. Randykitty (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to both parents. The academic target is not overpopulated, and anyway the publishers tend to operate across the English-speaking world. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's enough US ones. But I suppose English-speaking ones wouldn't be bad.--Levineps (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's a subdivision that makes, if possible, even less sense. Almost any academic publisher will at least occasionally publish books or journals in English, with the possible exception of some specialized local publishers in, say, the humanities. As for "American academic publishers", given how the modern academic publishing industry is organized, things can get very complicated. Take
    Reed Elsevier conglomerate, a Dutch-British (or British-Dutch) company. What nationality would you give to that one? Or what about Academic Press? You put it in this category, too, but did you realize that it is owned by Elsevier? So according to the logic that makes you categorize Blackwell as an American company, AP is a Dutch company. Sorry, there is no need for this cat and it just makes things messy by ovesimplifying matters. --Randykitty (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2013 (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 FC players

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) 23:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename as per change in name to parent article Global F.C.. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename with redirect. Technical 13 (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article.
    talk) 19:10, 3 September 2013 (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:Establishments in the Cape Colony by year

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: Make categories consistent by including "the" in all names (which affects the latter three categories in the initial proposal). There is no consensus to add "British"; this can be addressed in a new CfD, if necessary. Dana boomer (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OR

Nominator's rationale: Some of the articles and subcategories of Category:Cape Colony use "the Cape Colony" and some simply "Cape Colony", however it would be preferable if the categories followed a consistent format. Tim! (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a consistent format is to be created, it should be "the Cape Colony", as the name is almost invariably used with the definite article. - htonl (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC) - see below[reply]
    • (ec) Please note the nomination was incomplete when this comment was made. Tim! (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the second option. (That is, adding the "the".) Standard usage is definitely to refer to "the Cape Colony". See, for example, the titles of the
    sources for the British Cape Colony article; those which refer to the colony all refer to it with the definite article. - htonl (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support the following but oppose the above suggestions. To prevent possible ambiguity, I think that it should be as follows:
I think this would make the most sense. Technical 13 (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is just about correcting the grammar. If you want to start changing the actual semantics of the categories, that should be a separate nomination. - htonl (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to add "the", then the correct grammar is "the British Cape Colony"; otherwise, "Cape Colony" is correct grammar. Technical 13 (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct. Look at the
British Cape Colony article: "...Christianity in the Cape Colony...", "...the governor of the Cape Colony...", "The Cape Colony in the eighteen eighties", "...Respectability in the Cape Colony...", "...Their Leaving the Cape Colony...", "...the History of the Cape Colony". - htonl (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2013 (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:Leonardo da Vinci in popular culture

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Following re-organization of contents this is an unnecessary category. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom Overlapping concepts. Dimadick (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom -- Once upon a time almost every article has a popular culture section, which was filled it trivial literary (etc) allusions. They were subject to a massive cull. I see no purpose in categories designed to pick up such trivia. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per above. Technical 13 (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. This should be limited to works actually about da Vinci, not include minor mentions in larger works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2013 (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:Taringa, Queensland

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Do we need a category for every suburb of every city anywhere, which the creation of this category would presume? Crusoe8181 (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI think there's a need when there are a number of articles that relate to that place. Brisbane is an unusually large local government area, so having everything in a Brisbane category will get pretty difficult to manage, so I think using suburb categories is useful for Brisbane. It might be less useful in the context of a smaller town or LGA. We have suburb categories for Brisbane on Commons too. Kerry (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a concrete example, I am working on writing articles about heritage-listed properties (and am negotiating to get heritage registers CC-licensed so these articles can be easily created). There are 10 heritage-listings in Taringa (all potential articles) while Brisbane as a whole has over 1000 of them. Without suburban categories, it will become rather unmanageable. Kerry (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For Queensland, we know precisely what are official suburbs (which have well-defined boundaries) and what are "localities" (usually traditional names for areas, which can be bounded or unbounded). For example, Taringa is definitely a suburb whereas neighbouring Ironside is an unbounded locality. I can't speak for other places but in Brisbane, the suburb boundaries can be seen in Google maps, so it's very easy in practice to be accurate about suburbs. And government heritage registers tend to be accurate in their use of place names in any case. Kerry (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – 1) As has been pointed out above, by size, Brisbane is one of the largest local government areas in the world and its suburbs and localities are well defined; these are prerequisites and justifications for such a categorisation scheme. 2) I can't see which policy or guideline is cited in the proposal to support it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the aim of the nomination is to delete all such categories. To make interested editor aware of this proposal, all categories in Category:Suburbs of Brisbane ought to be flagged like the proposed one. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, in that Brisbane is large enough to justify breaking the categories down by suburb, and because those suburbs are very well defined and the information about suburb boundaries is well known and easy to access. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:25, 8 September 2013 (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:Chemical compounds found in animals subcategories

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) 22:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
overlapping because the vast majority of chemical compounds are not unique to a particular taxonomic category. --Kkmurray (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Category:Mammalian hormones will still be in Category:Hormones by type of organism. Similarly, Allopumiliotoxin 267A will still be in Category:Vertebrate toxins which is below Category:Toxins by type of organism. The question is what are suitable subcategories of Category:Biomolecules by type of organism? The above plus Category:Alkaloids by type of organism and Category:Proteins by type of organism‎ (and Category:Pheromones by type of organism) will contain entries that are unique to a particular taxonomic category, while Category:Chemical compounds found in Eukaryotes‎, Category:Chemical compounds found in Prokaryotes, Category:Phenolic compounds by type of organism‎ (discussion of phenolic compounds is here [2]), etc. typically will not because they are not defining. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge heavily and repurpose. There is the basis for a legitimate category tree here for substances whose main natural source is (or historically was) derived from a particular species. However, as currently defined, these are performance (occurrence) by performer (compound) categories. It may well be simpler to delete and start again. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We certainly do not want to categorize chemical compounds by every organism they happen to be found in. However, I am wondering, after reading Peter's comment, whether it might in fact make sense to categorize them on the basis of which organisms are utilized for commercial extraction of those compounds. I don't pretend to know the answer, but I think it may be worth considering. Cgingold (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is rather what I had in mind, but it might be taken slightly wider: formic acid and ants; oxalic acid and rhubarb leaves; animals that are a source of musk. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being found in a bird is not a defining characteristic of the compounds involved. Too many chemicals compounds are found in both living and non-living things for this category schema to work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reason as the parent category. --Leyo 16:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete imagine the cat clutter at water. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2013 (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/2013_September_1&oldid=1148049270"