Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 7 December 9 >

December 8[edit]

United States congressional[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename all with lower case-c-congressional. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose umbrella renaming: "United States Congressional…" to "United States congressional…".
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Congressional" should be lower case: "congressional." Even when referring to a specific congress (i.e., the United States Congress), the adjective should be lower case.
—Markles 20:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notes:
—Markles 20:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment What supports your assertion this should be lower case? What goes against your assertion? Hmains (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good question — I should have addressed that earlier.
      This supports my assertion:
      (A) Consistency - it ought to be one or the other.
      (B) Capitalization is used for proper nouns not adjectives.
    • This opposes my assertion:
      (C) Sometimes, I admit, one will see "Congressional" capitalized. However, that's usually when it's a title or when the author is capitalizing incorrectly perhaps to inflate the importance of the term. For example, "Nancy Pelosi represents California's 8th Congressional District." That really should be lower case.
      —Markles 04:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Congressional is usually capitalized. However, delegation is not. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? When/where is "Congressional" usually capitalized?—Markles 11:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about every article in the Category:United States Congressional Delegations by state cat? This is an example of a non-Wikipedia article with it capitalized. This is another one. And many many others if you do a google search. This article has Congressional capitalized but delegation not. Not saying that these examples show "usually". But it does show that this isn't as cut and dried as "presidential". --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those articles in the afore-mentioned category should also be changed, per my suggestion above. Your first non-Wiki example also capitalizes "Special Session," "Congressman," "Congresswoman," and "Census." The second example is a title, which is always going to be capitalized, as I stated above. The third example is from the UK and is referring back to the US, and so I presume would have different capitalization rules and it also capitalizes "Bill" and "Government," and misspells "Johns Hopkins."—Markles 11:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, Congress is capitalized, congressional not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm keeping out of this, as UK convention would certainly be for "C" but in the US these things are treated somewhat differently. But whatever the result, this should not be used as a precedent for "Parliamentary" and similar non-US categories. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The noun is capitalized, the adjective is not. Same deal generally with "President" and "presidential" when referring to U.S. President. Snocrates 20:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Windows multimedia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Windows multimedia to Category:Microsoft Windows multimedia technology. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Windows multimedia to Category:Microsoft Windows multimedia technology
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Better matches other category names for Microsoft Windows technology categories. -/- Warren 19:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Buffy (comics) to Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buffy (comics) to Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Misnamed category: it's contents is not a secondary meaning of the word "Buffy" ("comics"), rather comics on the theme of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Rename to match Category:Star Trek comics. This could have been speedied but no convention is listed for the comics categories. kingboyk (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename per nom. More descriptive category name, and appropriate to WP style. -Verdatum (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Schools of Sioux Falls[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Schools of Sioux Falls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be too much over-categorization here. The city isn't that large so the schools can easily just go in a "High schools in South Dakota" category. If consensus here insists on keeping this category, then it should probably be renamed to something like "Schools in Sioux Falls, South Dakota" instead of the "of Sioux Falls." Metros (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No reason for this badly named category right now. No objection to recreation later with a better name and more schools. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Marathi films[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Marathi-language films. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all into the terribly unpopulated Category:Marathi-language films. At the moment there's only 8 of these, splitting them into years just gets in the way. -- Prove It (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per nom Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per nom Magioladitis (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this category is new (less than 2 days old). It may be populated with more entries. After all not all categories start with a dozen articles. -- Mayuresh 16:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all the top-level cat has existed since March and only has 8 articles. When there are several hundred, it might be worth splitting into sub cats. Lugnuts (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is certainly scope for these categories, even though population might be slow. --Soman (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Main category created on December 7 and the subcategories one day after. It seems that is a hast over-categorisation. If more films it sense to subcategorise by year but for now not really. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Yoga types[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Yoga types to Category:Yoga styles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yoga types (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No discussion predates the creation of this category, and it's mass-population. A number of more suitable titles could be used - Yoga schools, Yogas, etc. 'Yoga types' sounds too vague. Sfacets 11:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has been effectuated now into Category:Yoga styles. Davin7 (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to wait for the debate to be closed. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Ambassadors[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename all to Ambassadors of Foo style. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors from Belgium to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors from Burkina Faso to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Cameroon to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors from Canada to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Ethiopia to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of the European Union to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of France to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors from Germany to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors from Greece to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors from Guyana to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors from Hungary to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Indonesia to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Iran to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors from Israel to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors from Italy to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors from Kazakhstan to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors from Kyrgyzstan to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Norway to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Poland to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors from Russia to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors from Serbia to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of South Africa to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors from South Korea to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of the Soviet Union to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors from Spain to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Turkey to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Heads of Missions from the United Kingdom to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of the United States to Category:UNKNOWN
Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors from Venezuela to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Rename A naming convention for Category:Ambassadors by country of origin should be decided. Ambassadors of foo or ambassadors from foo. I think my personal preference is for from as it would be symmetrical with the to used in Category:Ambassadors by mission country. Tim! (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the category scheme is intended to capture "ambassadors by the countries they represent" then "ambassadors of country X" is the correct formula, I believe. Tim!'s symmetry doesn't work because "from" has two meaings: directionality (symmetrical with "to") and origin. Not usually a problem but a problem with ambassadors because they can originate in place "X" but be working for / currently affiliated with place "Y". --Lquilter (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Bhg! This renamed a bunch to "of". Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
High Commissioner is just the term for the ambassador to a Commonwealth country - they should be kept lumped together imho. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That name seems a bit odd. Would it be OK to split with the high commissioners as a child? After all, it sounds like they are called ambassadors. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should then do it to all Commonwealth countries. For example, see Category:Lists of ambassadors from Canada; Canada has High Commissioner (Commonwealth)s in London, Canberra, Pretoria etc. They rank as ambassadors & I think the ramifications for these lists & cats of not so classifying them would be complicated. Johnbod (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to amabassadors representing X to clear up misconceptions. Thus: ambassador from Y need not be confused with an ambassador representing X, but from Y ; ambassador for Y need not be confused with ambassador to X ; ambassador of Y need not be confused with ambassador to X ; 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "of" anon above has a good idea, but as best I can gather that ambassadors from monarchies actually represent the monarch or his/her government and not the state (l'État, c'est moi at work no doubt). Because how WP uses "from" is where one grew up, in ambassadorial relations "of" is proper in all titles: The Ambassador of Foo to XYZ, not the Ambassador from Foo to XYZ - is the ambassador only ambassadorial in transit? Then we have the Albrights/Kissingers, etc. who are emmissaries from Czechoslovakia, Germany, etc. but were emmissaries "of" the United States. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:All articles with unsourced statements[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All articles with unsourced statements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category - there is no need for this - every article on Wikipedia has unsourced statements. Bduke (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This category helps articles to improve. Not all articles have unsourced statements. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Sorry for the bad faith, but my only guess is this is a joke Cfd. WP:POINT please. -Verdatum (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Whilst not all articles have tags to state that they have unsourced statements and hence not all articles are in the 'articles with unsourced statements' category, it is likely, in my view, that the nominator's contention is valid. I just viewed 10 articles using the Random article link: 3 contained the 'articles with unsourced statements' tag; 2 seemed to have valid source references, but not at the level of granularity, i.e. not containing embedded references for each statement, to verify whether the sources given covered all statements in the article); and 5 contained no references and hence could validly contain the 'articles with unsourced statements' tag. But just by reading each article I could easily tell that there were unsourced statements in it without a tag to tell me; so the tag is just clutter as far as I'm concerned, though perhaps informative if you don't actually read what is in wikipedia and just want to classify things according to arbitrary categories. Extrapolate from my sample and you will possibly find that at least half of all wikipedia articles either have no sources or only partial sources given, yet they don't contain the 'articles with unsourced statements' tag, implying that they could validly contain that tag. This also implies that any statistic based on counting how many articles currently contain the tag would be highly misleading. It would be more economic, i.e. better use of resources, to eliminate the 'articles with unsourced statements' tag and replace it with an 'all statements verified' tag which could be put into the probably relatively few articles that contained no unsourced statements. But even that tag should be removed whenever an article containing it gets updated to include an unsourced statement. Matt Stan (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I hope you understand that not all statements in an article have to be sourced. This category helps us to find articles that contain statements that have to be sourced. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment response: The Nominator doesn't seem to take this into account. Where is the guidance that allows one to discriminate between types of material that need to be sourced and those which don't?
  • Keep. I nominated this with a neutral view because I thought it should not be speedy deleted. I have now had time to reflect on this. The nomination rationale is false. Of course almost all articles are missing some sources, but that is not what this category is about. It is useful because it brings together articles that editors have identified as needing sources. I do not think it is about getting statistics on unsourced articles either. Magioladitis above has it absolutely right. I am not going to withdraw the nomination because I believe the discussion should run its course. --Bduke (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Aro heros[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Aro heros to Category:Aro people. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Aro heros to Category:Aro people
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Heros" (besides being misspelled) is unacceptably subjective for categorizing people. Renaming also broadens the scope so that any non-"heroic" people may be appropriaely categorized. Otto4711 (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Aro Wars[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wars involving the Aro Confederacy. There's no consensus to upmerge, but everyone seems to want some change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Aro Wars to Category:Wars involving the states and peoples of Africa
Nominator's rationale: Merge - small category with little or no growth potential. Both articles are already in the Aro parent. Otto4711 (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There does not appear to be such a scheme in place. The subcats of the wars cats are about specific wars or about wars at the national level. Otto4711 (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 O.C.[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The O.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV show. Material is interlinked and appropriately categorized (and one article is about to get deleted at AFD) and does not warrant a category per numerous precedents. Otto4711 (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err, TV shows shouldn't have their own categories? That doesn't seem to be accepted, per the supercategory I linked. The material is clearly thematically related, so why should we not take advantage of categories? --Eliyak T·C 00:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some TV shows have their own categories. That does not mean that every TV show should have its own category. TV shows should have categories when there is an extensive amount of material that can't easily be interlinked through text and templates. See for instance Category:Star Trek. This principle has been well established through what must be over 100 CFDs by now. Otto4711 (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an interesting argument for you to make, considering that there are ~150 articles on Wikipedia about The O.C. plus another 100 images or so. What is the threshold, exactly, and where is this documented? -/- Warren 04:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for responding, but you did not answer the questions I asked. Care to have another go at it? I'm interested in thresholds and documentation, so that I (and other editors) have a guideline to go by. This is really important. -/- Warren 06:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a specific number of articles that aren't otherwise categorized in episodes or charcters subcats below which a category must dip to be deleted? No, of course not, that would be foolish. It's based on the consensus of the community, with precedent being important but not binding. This is "documented" in the 100+ CFDs for categories named after television series over the last several months. Otto4711 (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom/precedent. At the moment, the category contains three subcats for characters, episodes, and images, and the main article. If that's all there is, and any other articles can go into one of the subcategories or do not belong (e.g. articles on actors), then delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Articles on India needing coordinates from May 2007[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. It could've been just speedied under WP:CSD#C1 though. Wizardman 06:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles on India needing coordinates from May 2007 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is now empty and wont be used again. Magioladitis (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Television presenters by network[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was listify Category:Al Jazeera presenters, merge Category:Television presenters by network to Category:Lists of television presenters. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television presenters by network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Al Jazeera presenters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete both - per extensive precedent we don't categorize television performers on the basis of the networks on which they appear. Since the categorization scheme isn't used, the lead category for it should be deleted as well. Otto4711 (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Merge main cat there. It can be split if this is ever needed. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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/2007_December_8&oldid=1138387878"