From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 22 July 24 >

July 23

Category:Pages which smack of dismissiveness

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. Kbdank71 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Category:Pages which smack of dismissiveness ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Both this and the below categories are violations of NPOV and have weak or absent criterion for inclusion. All related templates have been nominated for deletion. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 17:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as nonsense (seeking to universalize an individual opinion). -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 18:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Never mind; it's a template category. Isn't this request in the wrong place? -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 19:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • If the templates are deleted then the categories can be deleted as empty. If the templates are kept, we can still choose to delete the categories which means modifying the templates. Waiting for the decision on the templates before we act would make sense, but we can still discuss it here. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:20, 24 July 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.

Category:Pages which smack of conspiracy theories

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. Kbdank71 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Category:Pages which smack of conspiracy theories ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Both this and the above categories are violations of NPOV and have weak or absent criterion for inclusion. All related templates have been nominated for deletion. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 17:57, 23 July 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.

Category:People from Basel (city)

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. Kbdank71 15:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:People from Basel (city) to Category:People from Basel
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The cat name was formerly People from Basel, but was changed in September 2007 as part of a batch change concerning Swiss people by place. So this is a request to restore the category to its original name. In using this cat, editors have not distinguished between people from within Basel city limits and those from nearby Basel-Land communities. It is still populated with people who are from Basel-Land, but not the municipality of Basel or the canton of Basel-City. Adding "(city)" was misleading, as well as an unconventional way of naming a category. It should be changed back. -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 17:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
As I said, there was a batch change. I can see the rationale for adding "(city)" to categories about Swiss cities that lend their names to cantons. Basel's case is different. There hasn't been a Canton of Basel since the 1830s. Editors of "People from Basel" articles were (and still are) using the category for people from both Basel-City and Basel-Country -- which can be compared to Chicago and Chicagoland, respectively. I think the change in the category name was made without awareness of this.
I made this proposal because I think the distinction makes things foggier more often than it helps the reader. For instance, "Basel (city)" implies that there is some other political or administrative entity called "Basel," other than the city. That is not the case.
I won't argue for abolishing People from Basel-Country because it's more appropriate than People from Basel for some articles, like Emil Frey. What I'm proposing is that the editors who have been working on Basel articles have the right idea. Basel is a city with a metropolitan area, and its name is not subject to being confused with something else. "Basel (city)" creates confusion. -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
When we have a canton Basel-Country, another canton Basel-City and the city Basel it is difficult to see how you can claim that 'People from Basel' is not ambiguous. Occuli ( talk) 23:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Please note, I'm not claiming it isn't ambiguous. I'm suggesting that a little ambiguity is preferable to over-specific categorization. I'd also like to see the category name resemble its use, rather than asserting a specificity that is inconvenient for readers and editors, and unlikely to be complied with in practice.
To follow the logic of People from Basel (city) to its conclusion, we should have a separate category for people from Riehen or Bettingen, who are neither from the municipality of Basel nor from Basel-Country, but from the non-Basel portions of the canton of Basel-City. Both available categories would be incorrect in this case. So if cantonal boundaries are the be-all and end-all, then this category should be called People from Basel-City. I've been trying to make a case that People from Basel is sufficient, and maybe a little more elegant. Not an earth-shaking matter, but the existing category name is a problem, and this seemed to be the place to try to address it. -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 19:46, 25 July 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.

Category:Dominican-American actors

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: upmerge per nom. Kbdank71 16:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Suggest upmerging Category:Dominican-American actors to Category:Hispanic American actors and Category:Americans of Dominican Republic descent.
Nominator's rationale: Category:Hispanic American actors has no other subcategories. Occuli ( talk) 17:34, 23 July 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.

Category:Dominican Americans

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. Kbdank71 15:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Dominican Americans to Category:Americans of Dominican Republic descent
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguity of Dominican + precedent re Fooian Booians Occuli ( talk) 17:26, 23 July 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.

Dominican categories

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 all. Kbdank71 15:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Dominican musical groups to Category:Dominica musical groups
Propose renaming Category:Dominican football competitions to Category:Dominica football competitions
Propose renaming Category:English people of Dominican descent to Category:English people of Dominica descent
Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity. These categories were missed in the June 9 rename of all Dominica-related categories from "Dominican" to "Dominica". "Dominican" is ambiguous because it also refers to the much larger Dominican Republic. — jwillbur 16:58, 23 July 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.

Category:People from Barbados in broadcasting

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:People from Barbados in broadcasting to Category:Barbadian broadcasters
Nominator's rationale: Rename for succinctness and to match the other subcats of Category:Broadcasters by nationality. — jwillbur 16:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom -- I think we can fairly say that this is a non-standard name. Cgingold ( talk) 10:49, 26 July 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.

Category:Internet_Explorer_shells

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: Category parent changed by Occuli; no further action required. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Proposed Move The category Category:Internet_Explorer_shells is a child of Category:Windows-only_software. However, the programs listed in child category operate on a range of platforms and not just Windows. MrMarmite ( talk) 13:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  • I've moved it - no permission required. (You are right, it is not a subcat.) Occuli ( talk) 15:26, 23 July 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.

Category:Jupiler League seasons

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 both. ( Category:Jupiler League 2006-07 could be deleted or renamed as well, but it should be nominated.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Jupiler League seasons to Category:Belgian First Division seasons and Category:Jupiler League to Category:Belgian First Division
Nominator's rationale: Other related categories do not include the sponsor's name, eg it is Category:Premier League seasons not Category:Barclays Premier League seasons. Also, as Jupiler did not sponsor the league until 1995, it is inaccurate to classify many of the entries as "Jupiler League seasons". Also, renaming the category now would prevent it having to be renamed in the future every time the sponsor changed -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all per nom. – Pee Jay 14:18, 23 July 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.

Animal navigation boxes

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 on the first 8; rename the last 2 to Category:Mammal families navigational boxes (there's more than one family in the mammal class) and Category:Mammal species navigational boxes. The result is that the categories are at least consistent among themselves, which will facilitate a more focused discussion if a re-nomination is desired. I think I should state that this closing is intended to be without prejudice to a future nomination where a more focused discussion of the grammar issue could take place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Proposed renaming:

Category:Animals navigational boxes -> Category:Animal navigational boxes
Category:Arthropods navigational boxes -> Category:Arthropod navigational boxes
Category:Insects navigational boxes -> Category:Insect navigational boxes
Category:Chordates navigational boxes -> Category:Chordate navigational boxes
Category:Amphibians navigational boxes -> Category:Amphibian navigational boxes
Category:Birds navigational boxes -> Category:Bird navigational boxes
Category:Reptiles navigational boxes -> Category:Reptile navigational boxes
Category:Mammals navigational boxes -> Category:Mammal navigational boxes
Category:Mammals family navigational boxes -> Category:Mammal family navigational boxes
Category:Mammals species navigational boxes -> Category:Mammal species navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: Rename to fit proper English grammar. 194.90.113.98 ( talk) 06:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Support as per nom. MrMarmite ( talk) 13:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Support makes sense to change them to correct grammar. Mark t young ( talk) 14:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose as unnecessary. The proposed change is not more grammatical, and it may reduce clarity. Category names are stripped down for brevity; for instance, Animals navigational boxes means "Navigational boxes for articles about animals" -- not "articles about animal." -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 17:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose renaming (except for last two) - I basically agree that these names are shorthand (for "Navigational boxes about XYZs"), so in all cases they require plural nouns. The first 8 categories are correct as is. However, rename Category:Mammals species navigational boxes per nom to Category:Mammal species navigational boxes; and rename Category:Mammals family navigational boxes (but NOT per nom) to Category:Mammal families navigational boxes. Cgingold ( talk) 21:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Support. A good example to use is the phrase "traps of bears", which would be shortened to "bear traps", not "bears traps". Hence, "boxes about animals" shortens to "animal boxes", not "animals boxes". -- Kbdank71 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • The analogy doesn't hold up. The phrase here is not "boxes of animals" (like your "traps of bears" case) or "boxes for animals." It's "boxes for articles about animals." See how it makes a difference? -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 19:32, 30 July 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.

Category:Climate change by territory

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. Kbdank71 13:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Climate change by territory ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - This category does not appear to have a valid rationale that I can discern. The sole article it holds makes no mention of "territories", and I don't know of any potential candidates for inclusion that deal with territories. Judging by the focus of that one article, I'm guessing that the creator may have had in mind something like Category:Climate change by continent, but even if that's the case, I'm not sure if there are any articles available to populate such a category. I would also note that we do already have Category:Climate change by country. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 02:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The European Union is NOT a "country" nor a "continent". And it has a lot of greenhouse gases and climate change problems, including slow transport electrification. -- Mac ( talk) 05:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Just to be clear, Mac: You do understand that this CFD discussion has nothing at all to do with the article that's in the category, European Climate Change Programme? That article is already in two very good European Union sub-cats, and it can also go in one or more Climate change categories. As a rule it isn't necessary to create a special new category just for one particular article.
    The name of this category indicates that it's intended for articles about "territories" -- which has a specific meaning as a geographic term. But the European Union doesn't qualify as a territory, so that article really doesn't belong in this category as currently named. Do you know of any articles about particular territories & climate change, that could be used to populate this category? If not, do you have a suggestion for renaming it to something that could be populated and that would fill a gap in the existing category structure? Cgingold ( talk) 10:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • So, following this, European Union articles cannot exist out of European Union categories. Because of this, if you are consulting an article or group of articles about the energy policy of the European Union, you cannot include it in energy by country, because it is not a country, nor in energy by continent, because it is not a continent. It is in no place, in nowhere. In any case, energy policy in Spain, France... would be included in category energy in the European Union. The same for climate change category. This includes articles about biofuels (there is a very important policy about biofuels in the European Union), solar power, wind, greenhouse gas emissions, legislation...-- Mac ( talk) 10:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • At this point, I'm not really sure what the problem is here, Mac. I've gone out of my way (here & in the other related CFD) to explain some basic things about categories and what the problems are with this category, but you've pretty much ignored everything I've said and piled on a whole bunch of new issues. (I think it might be very helpful for you to take the time to read and thoroughly digest the explanations at WP:CAT and WP:OCAT). The bottom line is this: categories are not supposed to be created just to house a single article (which does not fit this category in any event), and this category serves no useful purpose since there don't seem to be articles available to put in it. As for the article that you're so concerned about, with the addition of Category:Climate change policies, I assure you that it is quite well categorized, contrary to what you seem to think. If we were to give every article the special treatment that you seem to feel this one deserves, the category system would literally collapse. Cgingold ( talk) 12:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The category name is misleading. A "territory" is generally contained within a single country, but a "region" may include many countries. Europe is better described as a region than as a continent, for instance, and it certainly isn't a territory. If more articles can be found to populate a category like this, a better name for it would be Climate change by region. -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 17:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • This is wrong. Cannot be Wikipedia-centric definitions, but right encyclopedic definitions. Wikipedia(ns) cannot create or delete parts of the reality. This would be go against Wikipedia´s goals. You are directing me to only a partial definition of territory. This is, territory as country subdivision. But territory is a geographic area belonging to or under the jurisdiction of a governmental authority [1]. And this more general and broader definition includes the territory as (U.S.) country subdivision. -- Mac ( talk) 13:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The fact remains, however you want to define it, this really isn't a suitable category. Cgingold ( talk) 11:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Region many countries?. What is Region de Murcia? A lot of countries?. You confuse it with zone. Europe is NOT a region. Region de Murcia is a Region. Europe is a supranational organization and territory. I agree this could be include renamed to : Climate change by zone.-- Mac ( talk) 10:46, 24 July 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.

Category:Former Auditors of the Literary & Historical Society

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. Kbdank71 13:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Former Auditors of the Literary & Historical Society to Category:Auditors of the Literary and Historical Society (University College Dublin)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proposed name (1) removes "Former", since category names don't generally distinguish between former and current position holders; (2) replaces "&" with "and" in accordance with the styling of the main article; and (3) adds the disambiguator "(University College Dublin)" to conform with main article Literary and Historical Society (University College Dublin). There is more than one Literary and Historical Society. I'm not familiar enough with the society to know how defining this is; some editors with more knowledge might want to propose deletion. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Support all noms comments + reservations. Occuli ( talk) 10:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Support All edits seem reasonable to me, and reflect laziness on my part (I created this category). I'm happy to go ahead and make those changes. On the point of deletion, I think the category is a reasonable one. There is only one Auditor per year, and the society has played a fairly definitive role in Irish political and cultural life since the turn of the last century. The fact that so many auditors of the society have extensive Wikipedia pages is, to me, testament to the importance of the role (in an Irish context). Mpidge ( talk) 11:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I'd say that that's a fair comparison. Mpidge ( talk) 18:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Support renaming and keeping, per discussion. -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 19:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. My initial reaction was to wonder whether a Society's auditor needed a category at all, but now see that the term is not used in the ordinary sense of an examining accountant. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:02, 23 July 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.

Category:Antillean baseball players

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Antillean baseball players to Category:Dutch Antillean baseball players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It's being used for people from the Netherlands Antilles, but Antillean is ambiguous. Propose using "Dutch Antillean" for specificity and to match Category:Dutch Antillean sportspeople and its subcats. — jwillbur 01:17, 23 July 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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_23&oldid=1138390569"