Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.51.9.216 (talk) at 09:08, 25 May 2008 (→Category:Monrovia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< May 21 May 23 >

May 22

Category:LGBT UK MPs

Propose renaming Category:LGBT UK MPs to Category:LGBT members of the United Kingdom Parliament
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with parent category, Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. — Lincolnite (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swiss-German Americans

Suggest merging Category:Swiss-German Americans to Category:Americans of Swiss-German descent
Nominator's rationale: Merge. What is the difference between these two categories? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Not these again, we just discussed them two weeks ago Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_4#Swiss-German_diaspora! Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot how I ran into that recursive loop that led me to this pair. While there was no consensus for everything in that discussion, I think that this pair should be able to gain consensus for some action since they appear to be the same thing unless there is some hair splitting between the two membership criteria that I'm missing. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this isn t a random intersection - Swiss Germans form a distinct ethnicity Mayumashu (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was random. There are many "Booian Gooian" ethnicities that one can be descended from, thus making the triple combo; none of these are "random". I just don't think setting up that number of intersections is a good idea category-wise, especially when Swiss Germans are also just as equally "Swiss". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is Swiss-Germans are not an intersection at all; they have nothing to do with Germany beyond sharing a language. It is only by an accident of history and terminology we don't call virtually all Austrians "Austrian-Germans". See the other debate. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realise all of this, but what's preventing us from calling them simply "Swiss"? It certainly does set up another level of intersection once one acknowledges that they may also be so classified. This is reinforced by the fact that not all Swiss people are Swiss German. Thus, it has to be an intersection of something, otherwise the categories would be co-extensive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to parent Category:Americans of Swiss descent. Even the 'Swiss people' categories are not divided into Swiss-German etc (they are categorised by canton, unless I have missed a tree). Johnbod is entirely correct about Swiss(-)German but does a reader from Taiwan (say) appreciate the difference between Swiss-German, Swiss German, German-Swiss and Swiss-German German? (Or indeed Swiss German-Swiss French? Add/remove hyphens to taste.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A cantonal division is (almost entirely) a division by language, since the cantons are essentially single language. People proposing the uber-merge need to explain why, apart from using two words instead of one, the German-Swiss are different from Category:Walloon people (French-speaking Belgians) and Category:Flemish people (Dutch-speaking Belgians). Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem at all with Category:Swiss-Germans (Category:Swiss Germans provides a classic case of the Booian Fooian problem as these turn out to be Germans - the German-speaking Swiss are Swiss-German, Schwyzerdütsch). I would wish to upmerge Category:Walloon Americans and Category:Flemish Americans to Category:Belgian Americans. These divisions are defining locally but not (or not so much) 4000 miles and a generation or 2 away. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's precisely the issue of a triple versus a double intersection. "Swiss German people" is fine, as are "Walloon people". Begin combining the double-intersection ethnicities with other nationalities, and you're into different waters. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment first terms should be defined then usage should be determined--as things are now these discussions just go around in circles with no logical analysis. First, are 'fooian Americans' all those people who moved from 'foo' to the US or only those immigrants from 'foo' to the US who became US citizens? Next, are 'fooian Americans' also those of full or partial descent from the original immigrants? Or is the name 'Americans of fooian descent' the proper term for all the people who are not the actual immigrants? Then, even though the American usage for 'some set of people' is 'fooian American', is this usage going to be totally ignored and replaced with 'Americans of fooian descent' (however defined) just make WP for all countries the same? Finally, and only finally, are Swiss Germans an ethnic group within Switzerland to be identified in separate WP article and categories? If they are, then are those Swiss Germans who migrated to the US of such significance or number or separateness that they should be identified in some fashion as American Swiss Germans? These questions and their answers should deal with concrete fact and not be a result of pushing some theoretical agenda or another onto WP. Hmains (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Free video games

Suggest merging Category:Free video games to Category:Open source video games
Nominator's rationale: Merge and possibly rename (for example) as Category:Free, open source video games, they refer to more or less the same thing. Note that Category:Open source video games is a subcategory of Category:Free video games and Category:Free software, among others. —Kakurady (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - All open source software is free software, but not all free software is open source. Something like Dwarf Fortress wouldn't fit into the proposed renamed and merged category (you'd need a seperate category called, well, uh, Free video games.) Marasmusine (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Thats like "kleenex" is more or less the same as "tissue". Merging free games into open source games dilutes the meaning of open source. --ssd (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The actual criteria for the category is free software, not freeware, which may be confusing the issue -- for example, Dwarf Fortress would not go into this category anyway, because it is not "free software". This should be merged per nom since "free software" and "open source" are functionally identical phrases ("open source" being less ambiguous and less politicized). Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Amorites

Suggest merging Category:Amorites to Category:Amorite people
Nominator's rationale: synonymously named pages. I created Category:Amorite to house all things Amorite (a la Category:Aztec but edits to do so have been reverted, and this contributor has redirected Category:Amorite to Category:Amorites Mayumashu (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree The already existing Category:Amorite people is for notable personages. There's no need to change the already existing umbrella Category:Amorites to an adjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Categorystuff (talk • contribs) 23:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there is no need to keep articles on individuals separate from other articles related to Amorite people - both should link to a single category page Mayumashu (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Amorites is a parent category which collects together misc. things like the language and the main article itself, as well as the subcategories of Category:Amorite people and Category:Amorite cities. You don't want to mix a subcategory in with the parent category. Categorystuff (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And with what I ve proposed, that Category:Amorite be the parent cat instead of Category:Amorites, there isn t mixing. To state matters a bit further, most parent categories of this sort go by the name of the country, civilization, empire or other geopolitical entity and what is unusal in the case of the Amorite is that they (apparently) did not form or were not formed into such an entity. Mayumashu (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hawaii articles needing images

Propose renaming Category:Hawaii articles needing images to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Hawaii
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proposed new name matches all of the other states' categories. More importantly, the syntax of the {{Reqphoto}} template requires the requested photograph categories to be formatted this way. Powers T 22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional life forms

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 17#Category:Fictional species for the previous discussion.
Rename Category:Fictional life forms to Category:Fictional creatures

In the previous discussion there was consensus for the "Fictional species" category to be renamed to "Fictional life forms.

However, commons:Category:Fictional creatures is the category name at commons. And Wiktionary uses the term wikt:Category:Mythological creatures. And even here on Wikipedia, we have Category:Legendary creatures. so the convention would seem to be "creature".

Note also that "Life-form" redirects to organism. - jc37 22:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename - as nominator. - jc37 22:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Something about the implications here bothers me. To me, "fictional creatures" (or "life-forms") implies a category of individuals, while "fictional species" is clear that the categorants are classes of life-forms. "Creature" also seems an unusual descriptor for sentient beings. Powers T 22:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Note: the following paragraph was posted intact following an edit conflict, and without awareness of a critical change in the proposal, as explained below] - Strong oppose - None of this makes any sense. In fact, I'm not even sure what it is you're requesting. To begin with, there most certainly was concensus for renaming Category:Fictional species to Category:Fictional life forms -- that is precisely how that CFD was just closed. Category:Fictional species could be re-created and utilized as I suggested, but it would be absurd to rename either of these categories to Category:Fictional creatures, since there are life forms that can't properly be described as "creatures", and there would be no compelling reason to rename a re-created Category:Fictional species. I suppose it's possible that some use could be made of Category:Fictional creatures, but that doesn't require a CFD decision. So I really think this CFD should be withdrawn and/or speedy closed. Cgingold (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You just made a critical alteration in the wording of this nomination without indicating that you had done so, jc37. That is very poor form, as it makes my subsequent comments look rather idiotic. I would appreciate it if you would go back and restore the orginal wording with strike-thru lettering so that it's clear to other readers what I was responding to. (This is standard practice when modifying one's posted comments.) Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, the change was prior to your posting (which you did out of chronological order - I'm guessing it was an edit conflict? - and I've "fixed" that). Second, the change was to change "species" to "life-form". You might wish to check out User talk:Vegaswikian, to see what had happened. And if I might offer a suggestion, please calm down. I doubt anyone would consider your comments "idiotic" for referring to the previous form of the "just-posted" nom, especially had you simply added an additional note rather than decide to attack me. Anyway, adding "strikeouts" would make this more confusing than it need be. Feel free to clarify your comments, and let's please move on. - jc37 00:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there was an edit conflict when I first tried to save my comment. I know what the changes were -- they completely altered the proposal (you also claimed that there was "no concensus" for renaming to Category:Fictional life forms). And good grief, if you feel like that was an attack, you might want to consider taking your own advice. I'm not accusing you of deliberately sandbagging me, but it was an awfully careless move on your part to make such a critical alteration without using strike-thru letters. Between the original nonsensical proposal and the sudden switcheroo, you can hardly blame me for being a bit perturbed by the whole mess. So -- now that we've aired this out, yes, let us move on. Cgingold (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In looking over the edit (here), I don't see the "no consensus" you note. But perhaps I'm missing something. And calling my actions "poor form" (among other comments) seems like an "attack", though I suppose I wouldn't call it a personal attack, per se. My apologies for not being clearer when I guess, emotions may or may not have been a bit high. - jc37 02:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The very diverse contents of this category are not fully encapsulated by the term 'species', so the broader, all-encompassing term 'life forms' is required."

It is an undeniable fact that many of the life forms that are currently or potentially in this category simply cannot be characterized as "creatures". Just to touch on one of the most obvious illustrations: viruses, bacteria, fungi and plants are certainly not "creatures" under any conceivable definition of that term. There's no getting around that, and I really don't know what else can possibly be said on this point. As far as I can see, "life forms" is the broadest and most inclusive term available -- and there was solid concensus on that in the previous CFD.

Lastly, Commons:Category:Fictional creatures is not remotely comparable, as it has nowhere near the diversity of this category -- and the fact that some editor happened to redirect Life-form to Organism is really quite meaningless.

I rest my case. Cgingold (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of birds appearing on stamps by country

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New discussions

Canadian Soccer Leagues

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Canadian Professional Soccer League (1998 – 2005) teams Mayumashu (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, per above. – PeeJay 20:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Canadian Soccer League (2006 – present) teams Mayumashu (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, per above. – PeeJay 20:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New discussions

Category:Surf breaks in the United States

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Surf breaks in California to Category:Surfing locations in California
Category:Surf breaks in Hawaii to Category:Surfing locations in Hawaii
Above 2 added and all tagged. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trolleybus vehicles

Suggest merging Category:Trolleybus vehicles to Category:Trolleybuses
Nominator's rationale: Merge, the two categories both contain specific trolleybus models Arsenikk (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black Catholics

Category:Black Catholics - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Deadly combination of the colour of the skin and religion. This category is silly like "White Catholics" or "Yellow Protestants" would be if created. Darwinek (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think something like "African American Catholics" could be a notable intersection though. The vast majority of African-Americans are in some form of Protestantism or Islam. In the Jim Crow era Catholics also sometimes suffered so "Black Catholics" at times may have suffered from a double burden/isolation. I created the article on the National Black Catholic Congress, but I certainly didn't invent the organization or its notability.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not necessarily persuaded that this category should be kept, but I certainly do not think there is anything "silly" about it. If I was a Black Catholic, I would take personal offense at that remark. The fact is that African Catholicism is quite distinctive (viz. Category:Roman Catholic Church in Africa), and to a lesser degree so are the Catholic churches that serve predominantly African American congregations. So this should not simply be dismissed out of hand. Cgingold (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If there is a Category for Black Jews, which there is, the i see no good reason why there can't be one for black catholics. Indeed, some would think it source of pride and uniqueness bieng a "Black this or that". Personally, i'm not a fan of the Category "Black Jews"--Briaboru (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Manifestations of Yahweh

Category:Manifestations of Yahweh - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: POV category that states it can only contain two articles. To Jews, Yahweh clearly didn't manifest as Jesus, nor the holy spirit. Category seems pointless, not expandable, and a poorly chosen title (how many "Christians" use the word "Manifestations" to refer to God/the trinity, and how many exclude God the Father, but include the Son and the Holy Ghost? Now that I'm thinking about it, this category is quite bizarre and would like to hear the creator's intentions behind it. Andrew c [talk] 21:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extreme points of the world

Propose renaming Category:Extreme points of the world to Category:Extreme points of Earth
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Perhaps a little silly, but the proposed rename is a bit more accurate. Would suggest moving the lead article to match. Otto4711 (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images by User

Category:Images by User - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded categorisation layer. The category is a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia images by source and its sole occupant is Category:User-created images, which is already a direct subcategory of Category:Wikipedia images by source. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Executive orders of George W. Bush

Suggest merging Category:Executive orders of George W. Bush to Category:United States executive orders

Category:Executive orders of Jimmy Carter to Category:United States executive orders
Category:Executive orders of Bill Clinton to Category:United States executive orders
Category:Executive orders of Gerald Ford to Category:United States executive orders
Category:Executive orders of Lyndon B. Johnson to Category:United States executive orders
Category:Executive orders of John Kennedy to Category:United States executive orders
Category:Executive orders of Richard Nixon to Category:United States executive orders
Category:Executive orders of Ronald Reagan to Category:United States executive orders
Category:Executive orders of Franklin D. Roosevelt to Category:United States executive orders
Category:Executive orders of Harry S. Truman to Category:United States executive orders

Nominator's rationale: Merge all - this is a series of single-article categories subdividing a parent that, with all of these merged, would have about 15 articles in it. No need to break these down. Upmerge to both this parent and the category for the president. Otto4711 (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per sound analysis of roundhouse & Black Falcon -- especially considering that most (if not all) of these articles do not indicate in their title which president issued the particular EO. Cgingold (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergeand create a list with order number, date, president and topic. Each of these categories appears to be rather small and having a list in a combined category would appear to function much better then the current structure of many categories with few, in some cases only 1, articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This might possibly be a workable compromise, but I think it would require the creation of some missing categories for presidential administrations so all of the articles could be upmerged to the relevant categories. (Those cats undoubtedly should be created in any event.) Let's see what other editors have to say. Cgingold (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may still be a useful function to these categories: they permit articles about executive orders to be placed within the category trees for individual US Presidents without requiring categorisation of executive orders directly into the main category, which would be rather awkward in my opinion. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of these seem rather sparsely populated at this time. How many of these will be notable for each president? If that number is reasonable, then I'd be willing to change my opinion. I'll admit that executive orders is not a strong point for me. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they are: four categories categories contain two articles and three categories contain just one article. I also don't know much about the notability of executive orders, so anything I say would be a "best guess". A good number of the redlinked EOs listed at List of United States federal executive orders seem to be noteworthy (e.g. Executive Order 7034, which created the Works Progress Administration), though an argument could be made that they should be covered in the context of the outcome that they produced or the organisation that they established. –Black Falcon (Talk) 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Seems to be a useful start to what would certainly be defining sub-cats if pursued. The noms description as "a series of single-article categories subdividing a parent that, with all of these merged, would have about 15 articles in it" appears outdated now, presumably as additions have been made. There are currently 23 in the sub-cats in total. Plus the article titles are just the numbers, so if you are not sure of that, narrowing down by president is useful for navigation. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I agree with those suggesting merger that we could or probably even should have waited with creating these categories. However, they are here, are meaningful, do contain articles, fit well on top of the cats of the individual presidents and have potential for growth. So why delete them now only to recreate them in the near future? gidonb (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monrovia

Category:MonroviaTemplate:Lc1

  • If we were merely talking about the article we would be in complete agreement here. And I'll even spot you the 3 small towns -- you are nothing if not diligent! :). But, notwithstanding it's relatively small population, Monrovia, California is a problem -- primarily because it's located in Los Angeles County, which means that the name is likely to be familiar to the population of 18-20 million people in Southern California. So, aside from the possible confusion, the category could easily be applied mistakenly to articles pertaining to that Monrovia -- especially when you consider that, thanks to the prevailing geographic illiteracy here in the US, the Monrovia in Liberia is utterly unfamiliar to most people in this country. Cgingold (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly I'm not suggesting that all 18-20 million people are seriously knowledgeable about Monrovia, CA. However, I spent a good part of my life living in Southern CA and I can tell you that dozens of these smaller cities in the LA Metro area pop up on the local tv news frequently enough that most people will have heard of them, and thus would be familiar with the name "Monrovia". Cgingold (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fight US-centrism" -- lovely attitude, Darwinek. What unmitigated crap. I'd be making the identical argument regardless of where the "other" Monrovia happened to be located. Somehow I just don't think you'd be saying "fight Chile-centrism" or "fight Thai-centrism". Cgingold (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are explicitly using an LA-metro-centric argument just 2 paras up; and are all these LA-metropolitans wholly unaware of Monrovia, Liberia? There are 140 million in nearby Nigeria, official language English, almost certainly completely unaware of Monrovia, CA. Is 'internet-literacy' a factor in your reasoning? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said further up, "the Monrovia in Liberia is utterly unfamiliar to most people in this country" (the obvious exception being better-educated African Americans). When you couple that ignorance with the presence of another Monrovia in the LA-Metro area, clearly there are grounds for concern. And the concern is two-fold: it's not just for the readers in Southern CA who may suffer confusion -- it's also for everybody else, who may well find that somebody in Southern CA has added articles pertaining to Monrovia, CA to the category for Monrovia, Liberia. So why not eliminate both of these concerns by taking the simple step I've requested? Cgingold (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Moroni

Category:MoroniTemplate:Lc1

Category:Stories set in future now past

Propose renaming Category:Stories set in future now past to Category:Stories set in a future now past
Nominator's rationale: I previously brought up this idea at the last CFD for this category. I think it makes more sense to have the "a" in the title. Lugnuts (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Managerliness

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 delete as nonsense (CSD G1), a test page (CSD G2), or vandalism (CSD G3). At least one of the three criteria applies. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Managerliness - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Possibly speediable as vandalism or nonsense, unless the creator can fill us in on what this means. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2008 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_22&oldid=214796396"