Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 29 May 1 >

April 30

[edit]

Category:Visitor attractions in Craighead County, Arkansas

[edit]
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. Wizardman 23:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded category. The only articles that were ever in this category were a mall and a university. Not what most would expect in a category on "visitor attractions" RadioFan (talk) 23:38, 30 April 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:Women writers from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

[edit]
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) 02:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: in this cfd Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_13#Category:American_women_writers_by_city, it was decided we didn't need a split by women city writer. This one was overlooked I think. I hope we can speedy this per the previous discussion. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:37, 30 April 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:Fictional sorcerers

[edit]
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; it sounds like there may be some support for merging Category:Fictional sorcerers to Category:Fictional wizards and Category:Fictional sorceresses to Category:Fictional witches, or something similar. This can be pursued in a new nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I closed this nomination as a no consensus, and an editor followed it up by creating a gender-based subcategory. I don't think that makes sense here, as "sorcerer" is not a male-only term (see Sorcerer (Dungeons & Dragons), which can be male or female). But "sorceresses" is definitely female-only, and is a legitimate term for a category. Thus, I'd expand the name without expanding the scope. Failing that, I'd merge Category:Fictional sorceresses into Category:Fictional sorcerers.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, no. I'd rather merge sorcerers, wizard and warlocks (yes, all the separate categories), and for sorceresses merge it with witches (as in "sorceresses and witches"). --Niemti (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, it is clear that in the view of some sorcerers/sorcerecesses are different that withces or wizards, and this is the term used in the fiction. I do not think we need to split this category by gender though, since some others think sorcerer is gender neutral.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's such a fundamental, universal difference bettwen a wizard and sorcerer? Seriously, I don't know. Apparently sorcerers don't wear wizard hats, I guess, but besides? I still say divide the fictional magic users by their gender and that's all. --Niemti (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I rethought it again, it all (including wizards, warlocks, and what not) should be just Fictional magicians (or possibly Fictional mages), with a sub-section Fictional female magicians (mages). --Niemti (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we really need "fictional" on terms like "mages"? --Lquilter (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably yes. "Mage" is a rendering in English of Latin "Magus" and Greek "Magos" for historic practitioners of magic. The terms themselves were actually based on the Iranian term Magi for a certain religious caste. For example, Ostanes the alchemist is seen as a historical mage. Dimadick (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting. Ostanes is in a Category:Alchemists. Are all "alchemists" going to be actually better considered "mages"? I'm personally much more familiar with "alchemists" as a term than "mages". I'm not averse to mages if it's in current use as a term applied to real people. I'm just more used to seeing it only in fiction. If the real-life alchemists & real-life mages are significantly overlapping, then shouldn't we just pick one or the other? Or are you saying that alchemists are a subcategory of mages? I'm confused. --Lquilter (talk) 15:38, 15 May 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:Buffy comics titles

[edit]
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) 02:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I asked the category creator last month about the difference (User_talk:J_Greb) but he did not reply. I think "comics titles" are usually categorised for a publisher, not a character. – Fayenatic London 19:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge redundant category. I don't actually care which way the merge goes, but there's no reason to have these as two different cats. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It looks like the Category:Buffy comics titles is just the titles about Buffy, while the parent category Category:Comics based on Buffy the Vampire Slayer has Angel, Faith, Spike, and other in-universe but non-Buffy focused titles. Is that right? If so, then it might make sense to keep the categories separate, but we should figure out some naming protocol to make that distinction apparent in the category names themselves. Because right now it isn't. --Lquilter (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I do not think we need such a fine distinction. This seems border-line "based on what they are named". I know someone will come back and say "if we are going to merge everything in the same universe, than we need to merge Batman and Superman things." Well, those just seem much more distinct than the stuff we are dealing with here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 16 May 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:James Madison Award Recipients

[edit]
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. Wizardman 15:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify on the award page. This category is overcategorization by award. The award does not "define" the folks who received it; rather, the award recognizes achievements they have made. While the award is well-known within the relevant circles (librarians, freedom of information, etc.), it is not going to be generally well-known enough to "define" anybody who receives it -- and it won't even define the winners to those of us who know and appreciate the award. Listify winners at James_Madison_Award. --Lquilter (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, I would submit that is mostly because people haven't been focused on keeping that category tree pared down. That's a problem generally in categories and in lower-profile trees like awards, organizations, and so forth. Try reading WP:OVERCAT#Award and focus on the "defining" aspect. --Lquilter (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If someone wants to create a list (which takes a lot more effort to create and maintain) that is up to them, but no reason to delete this useful category created by someone else. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The list is already available at James Madison Award. Have you read WP:Overcategorization ? --Lquilter (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and it's pretty much right now just hashing over old conversations, and other folks are representing my views. I can weigh in, too, but haven't felt the need to do so yet. --Lquilter (talk) 14:41, 8 May 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:American women screenwriters

[edit]
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) 02:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge per nom. If we follow the guidance, which is to not create these sorts of cats as the "last rung" on the ladder, then these are clearly such cats, and should be merged up - since no further diffusion can be done below Category:Mexican screenwriters for example (unlike, say Category:American politicians. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, last rung on the ladder *doesn't* apply to everything - it only applies to small categories, not otherwise divided, that would tend to cause ghettoization. This is a classic example of same - American screenwriters is not otherwise divisible, so if people see a head cat and a subcat, their natural tendency will be to ghettoize, whether policy permits it or not. OTOH, Category:Women screenwriters for example *can* exist, because the parent category, Category:Screenwriters is otherwise divided by nationality, so the tendency would be to place them in Women the nationality cat. These cats should just go - if you want women screenwriters, the category will exist - but the by-nationality tends to ghettoize - it's just the nature of how things work and entropy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea is that the parent category can not be split further, not that we cannot subdivide the gender category. If the latter was the case than the only by gender categories we would have would be for singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 18 May 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:GQ Award winners

[edit]
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) 02:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization by award. This is a category of various celebrities recognized at some point by GQ. It is not defining to these celebrities, who include folks like Burt Bacharach, Pierce Brosnan, Duran Duran. I think it is pretty obvious that none of these folks are "defined" as GQ Award winners. Rather, "GQ Awards" serve as some recognition of notability they have achieved otherwise. Delete. I don't object if someone wants to listify them on GQ (magazine). Lquilter (talk) 17:29, 30 April 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:Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust Award recipients

[edit]
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) 02:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a non-defining award that is overcategorization by award. Award-winners are more appropriately listed on the page of the Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust, which makes the award. At this point, the award itself is apparently rather new and does not have its own entry; the only two members added to this category since it was created in 2010 can be listed there. Lquilter (talk) 17:21, 30 April 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:American Chicano novelists

[edit]
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. Wizardman 00:04, 11 May 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:Modern surface-to-air missiles of the United Kingdom

[edit]
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 at 2013 MAY 27 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is being used for Post–Cold War SAMs (there's a sibling category for Cold War SAMs of the UK), but elsewhere "modern" is defined very differently (e.g. Category:Modern weapons is for "Weapons of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries") so in cases like this it's best to avoid the m-word. There's only one article in the category and that's for a SAM that entered service in 1997 so it fits the new cat name. This change would also make this category more consistent with categories like Category:Military vehicles of the post–Cold War period, although there isn't (yet) a "Military equipment of the post–Cold War period" category. Note: There are other categories that use the word "modern" inconsistently, but that's not a good reason not to fix this one. Note: Previous CFDs to reduce the use of "modern" in military equipment categories include this. DexDor (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Surface-to-air missiles of the United Kingdom. I do not believe UK has had a sufficient number of them at any era to warrant a split by period. Certainly, in recent times, the number of brands of a given type of weapon is small. There is an active arms trade, so that they are exported to many countries. If we allow national categories, some weapons will get dozens of categories, but they will essentially be performance (Use by armed forces of foo) by performer (weapon) categories, something we do not encourage. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a blue-link so it would be an upmerge rather than a rename and wouldn't the upmerge need to be to all 3 parent cats ? It should only be in one national category - see the text at Category:Weapons by country. DexDor (talk) 22:01, 1 May 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:Apple Design Award winners

[edit]
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. Wizardman 23:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD - Being an award recipient is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. This category also places articles about things that are not people under Category:Award winners and hence under Category:People by status. For info: there is a list at Apple Design Awards. DexDor (talk) 05:10, 30 April 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:Golden Ticket Award for Best New Ride

[edit]
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. Wizardman 20:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD - Being an award recipient is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. The article at Golden Ticket Award for Best New Ride (which includes a list) and the template should be upmerged. DexDor (talk) 05:03, 30 April 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:Uruguayan people of African-American descent

[edit]
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 to appropriate Category:FOOian people of American descent categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too specific an intersection; only one page in category. That page should be upmerged to Category:Uruguayan people of African descent and Category:Uruguayan people of American descent, since anybody who's of African-American descent is logically also of American and African descent. I am also nominating the following categories on similar grounds. None of these categories has more than two entries, playing in to my "too specific an intersection" argument pbp 04:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pbp 04:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, being African is, like several other things, both a race and an ethnicity. If you think that people of African descent is a poor choice for a category, you should nominate Category:People of African descent for deletion; it'd probably get you another mention in Salon.com or whatever, and it would also be SNOW kept. And yes it is an intersect category, as anybody who is or was African-American has both Africa and America in his ancestry. Also, you have failed to address the issue of overcategorization. Even if there was a logical argument for these categories in the abstract, categories with only 1-2 pages in them are considered too small to be retained, which IMO trumps any race/ethnicity argument. Please read WP:OCAT#SMALL and WP:OCAT#NARROW, which is a more relevant policy than some bogus race vs. ethnicity argument that has been discredited in past CfD discussions pbp 00:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calling 'African' an ethnicity is stretching things a bit, frankly - though I guess it depends on where in the world you are and who is surrounding you - and African, broadly described, is not really a race either (there are people with many different colors of skin in Africa, from white to dark). In any case, these categories "of African descent", if you look at how they are populated today, are mostly populated with sub-cats by nationality (e.g. Category:American people of Djiboutian descent) - so the word "African" is really a continental/national container category, and certainly not a racial or ethnic one. But I'd prefer this not descend into a debate about the social deconstruction of race and Ethnicity. Also PBP, remember WP:CIVIL.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:12, 1 May 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_April_30&oldid=1074810273"