Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 30 August 1 >

July 31

[edit]

Category:Royal Navy courts martial

[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a non-defining category, apparently applied to ships, and also at the moment, one series of accidents which resulted in a court-martial. The loss of a ship routinely resulted in a court-martial to investigate the circumstances of the loss, so this can be for any ship captured, shipwrecked, etc. It could also be for a wide range of many other reasons. It could apply to people who were court-martialled, the incidents which caused it, etc. If we had articles on the specific court-martials themselves this category might be appropriate, but we don't. This discussion recently resulted in the deletion of another category non-defining for the ship articles. Benea (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose to Category:Royal Navy ships that were sunk or something. The 40 sub-cats of Category:Ships of the Royal Navy don't include such a category, which would seem useful & interesting & is certainly defining. Johnbod (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless it is used exclusively for courts-martial themselves. The articles now populating this category are all on ships, a fortified island, and a battle. Perhaps it would have some utility if also applied to individuals subjected to notable courts-martial (e.g., Bligh, Byng), where the proceedings are part of the biographical article, but the category is not now used for such pages, and has no valid use for vessels. Kablammo (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The articles are on ships, not court martials. Plus, not all these ships were sunk, the one article I looked at was on a ship captured by the French.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Keep or Rename -- Category:Royal Navy ships for which a courts martial was held I believe that a court martial followed a ship being captured by the enemy as well as sunk. One case I examined related to a failure to engage the enemy, where the captain was acquitted with honour. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Courts martial is the plural. And they are not held for ships, but members of the crew, commanding officers, admirals, etc. For anything from disciplinary offences to alleged mismanagement of a fleet in battle. Do all the ships that were present at Cape Finisterre get the category because Calder was court-martialled over the battle? Virtually every ship in existence probably had at least one member of her crew that was court-martialled, for drunkenness, sodomy, or any one of a number of offences, crimes that would have changed over the history of Royal Navy. An equivalent category would be Category:Public houses for which a trial was held, because someone might have been assaulted once while in there on a night out. The present category is absolutely non-defining, as you point out in your keep argument, court-martials are held for any number of reasons, relating to the behaviour of members of the crew (i.e. the circumstances that caused a ship to be lost or captured), and not the ships themselves. Benea (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments of Benea, Kablammo ec. DexDor (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The characteristic is not defining for the subjects, mainly ships, being categorized. A category for articles about courts martial would be useful, but I could not locate any such articles. A category for people who were subjected to courts martial would be questionable, in my opinion, since generally it is not defining merely to be charged at a court martial and, depending on the charges (e.g., drunkenness), sometimes not even to be convicted. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:59, 7 August 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:Retro video games

[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Retro game" is not an established video gaming term and is a subjective label that reliable game press (such as WP:VG/RS) does not apply or categorize by consistently, it is usually up to reviewer to label it as "retro" in some form, usually art assets or audio/score. The term (retrogaming) refers to old games, the intent here was probably "games with graphics made to resemble those of old games". The current criteria for the category is original research and technically incorrect (having sprites or a limited palette does not automatically mean "retro"). The majority of pages added don't have references for this and appear to be editor's interpretation. To sum up, I believe such fine distinction of game's style (even if reliably sourced for certain games), is WP:OVERCAT.(brought attention to this after Minecraft was categorized in it.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:18, 31 July 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 child actresses

[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: Keep. If a rename is to happen it must be from the top of the tree on down. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I offer two different proposal scenarios, either one I think would work:

Nominator's rationale: There isn't a similar category for boy actors. There are approximately 1,200 female child actors and 1,200 male child actors. This would be a general category to hold both male and female child actors which would hold approximately 2,400 different biographical articles.
Nominator's rationale This would establish a parity, both a Category:American female child actors and Category:American male child actors as child categories to the parent category Category:American child actors (whose contents would be only these two subcategories and any lists there might be). Newjerseyliz (talk) 15:53, 31 July 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:People from Stewartstown, New Hampshire

[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with just two entries. ...William 13:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Place of birth generally is not defining, yet both individuals in the category are connected to Stewartstown only by birth. They have no strong connection to either Stewartstown or Coos County. So, my first preference is to delete the category; if there is no consensus for that course of action, then I support merging per the nominator's rationale. However, this example also highlights a danger with merging in the manner proposed: Stewartstown was incorporated in 1795, but Coos County was not established until 1803. Yet, under our existing category scheme, we would identify someone who lived in Stewartstown from 1795 to 1802 as a person "from Coos County". Of course, there are many administrative divisions around the world that are far more modern than Coos County, and it is there that the problem is most apparent. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:38, 7 August 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:Archaeological terminology

[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: Keep.
Nominator's rationale: Articles like Amphora are about things (not words). WP is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Is the intention that every article about archaeology whose title is a term would go in this category ? - that wouldn't be a useful category. See the inclusion criteria at Category:Terminology, the discussion at Category talk:Terminology, my essay at User:DexDor/TermCat and a previous terminology CFD. There's a related discussion here. DexDor (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a lot of sympathy with the nom, but am not quite ready to abandon the idea that terminology categories can be useful. I've commented at the other current debate, & suggest people read that and the other helpful links in the nom. I would add to the essay criteria concepts that have a special meaning in a field beyond their normal one - examples here are assemblage (archaeology) and archaeological association. This might rather rarely include things (can't think of an example right now), but not normally terms like amphora or agora for things that are (today) always to do with archaeology (loosely defined). I think what we need to do is to agree a definition of the proper scope of all "terminology" categories (and the essay above is a good starting point), then post a stern note with a link to it on all "terminology" category pages. It should perhaps be explained that this is a new category with the British spelling, created rather prematurely while a discussion to rename the old (US spelling) category is ongoing at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_4#Category:Archeological_terminology (same link as above). Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The points made above by DexDor and Johnbod are not without merit. However the current practice here, which I have to assume is the result of a consensus either explicit or tacit, is to have Category:Foo terminology and to place in it articles whose titles have a specific meaning in the context of Foo. DexDor appears to have a particular aversion to such categories because (as I understand the argument) they are in Category:Terminology and thus in Category:Language and therefore ought to be about linguistics. That is easily fixed by removing Category:Terminology from Category:Language. If there is to be a general discussion of whether or not we should have terminology categories of this sort, it should be a properly formulated RfC, not a random deletion of a single category (which, if successful, can of course be cited as a precedent in a subsequent CfD). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • For most subjects we do not have a terminology category - e.g. there isn't a "Fruit terminology" category (if there was would you put the Apple article in it because the word apple has a specific meaning in the context of fruit ?). That an article like Hydroseeding is categorized under Category:Language is good evidence (assuming the basic principles of WP:SUBCAT etc are correct) that something has been miscategorized; however the main practical problem these categories cause is that articles are placed in them instead of being placed in the appropriate category. The inclusion criteria specified at Category:Terminology indicate that it's appropriate for that category to be under Category:Language - the miscategorization is happening at a lower level. An RfC might help, but it would be unlikely to kill this tree completely because there's articles like Medical terminology that are quite legitimately in a terminology category. "place in it articles whose titles..." shows that your proposed scheme categorizes articles by title rather than by subject (i.e. if an article was renamed to a synonym the article might no longer belong in the category). DexDor (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- We have only just had a discussion on this. A glossary is a useful article. It is useful to have the definitions together. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 4 August 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 military equipment of Japan

[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: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to avoid the ambiguous word "modern" - sometimes it means from 19th Century, but usually it refers to a much more recent period. For info: A previous similar CFD was Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_5#Category:Modern_military_equipment_of_Germany. DexDor (talk) 05:22, 31 July 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:Star Trek Q episodes

[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. Would have potentailly been a listify, but the list is already at Q (Star Trek)#List of all appearances. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial association: We can't categorize a large media franchise by every individual character who appears in a piece of media. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 31 July 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:IRB Junior World Championship team navigational boxes

[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:41, 8 August 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:Bookstores in The Netherlands

[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: Rename to Category:Bookstores in the Netherlands. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT - a category of one doesn't seem to serve much purpose, and it does not appear to have a good possibility of much expansion ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:39, 31 July 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_July_31&oldid=1084319554"