Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 23

< February 22	February 24 >

February 23

NEW NOMINATIONS

Andrew Sternberg

Category:Pegasus Award winners

Delete - This is a minor award given annually for achievement in Filk music. While, given the winner's list, this is not likely to be one of many awards that the winners receive, it is still overcategorization by award. Otto4711 20:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avifauna by region of Mexico

Category:Avifauna of Eastern Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Birds of Eastern Mexico
Category:Avifauna of Central Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Birds of Central Mexico
Category:Avifauna of Western Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Birds of Western Mexico

Propose rename categories "Avifauna of <Region>" to "Birds of <Region>" per previous discussion here. Alternatively, if these regions are not appropriate for classification of bird species, merge all into Category:Birds of Mexico. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The categories may or may not be more useful if restricted to endemic birds. Perhaps the word "endemic" should be placed in front of the word "birds" in each category name? Dr. Submillimeter 13:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avifauna by region of the US

Category:Avifauna of Northeastern United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Birds of the Northeastern United States
Category:Avifauna of Eastern United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Birds of the Eastern United States
Category:Avifauna of Southwestern United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Birds of the Southwestern United States
Category:Avifauna of Northwestern United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Birds of the Northwestern United States

Propose rename categories "Avifauna of <Region>" to "Birds of <Region>" per previous discussion here. Alternatively, if these regions are not appropriate for classification of bird species, merge all into Category:Birds of the United States. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely that should be "of the Whatever United States". LukeHoC 11:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably; nomination changed accordingly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The categories may or may not be more useful if restricted to endemic birds. Perhaps the word "endemic" should be placed in front of the word "birds" in each category name? Dr. Submillimeter 13:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the move as suggested. --Peta 22:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female war leaders

Delete - This category is for women who were heads of state during wars. It currently only includes Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher. Both of these women already have multiple categories highlighting their achievements; this extra category is not needed. The category only contributes to category clutter. Moreover, the category says nothing about whether this is a particularly special achievement for a woman or whether female national leaders behave differently from male national leaders during times of war. It would be better to highlight such issues in an article instead of a category. For these reasons, I advocate deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 11:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although there are other female heads of state during wartime, categorizing it seems very unncessary. Corpx 11:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LukeHoC 11:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for overcategorization and vague category name. "War leaders"? A category name should be self-explanatory. Doczilla 17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avifauna of Louisiana

Category:Avifauna of Louisiana to Category:Birds of the United States

Merge Category:Avifauna of Louisiana into Category:Birds of the United States. See previous discussion here for rationale. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Birds are not restricted by political boundaries. Consequently, the birds of Louisiana are found in other states as well. Categorization by state is not meaningful. However, categorization by state leads to severe category clutter problems. Therefore, this should be merged into Category:Birds of the United States. (I missed this in my previous nomination.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avifauna of Southeastern United States

Propose renaming Category:Avifauna of Southeastern United States to Category:Birds of Southeastern United States

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to Category:Birds of Southeastern United States or merge into Category:Birds of the United States. See previous discussion here on by-state categories. I'm not at all clear on whether the Southeastern United States is an appropriate area to classify birds species by. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The category may or may not be more useful if restricted to endemic birds. Perhaps the word "endemic" should be placed in front of the word "birds" in the category's name? Dr. Submillimeter 13:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natural history of the Galápagos

Propose renaming Category:Natural history of the Galápagos to Category:Category:Natural history of the Galápagos Islands

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - The parent category is Category:Galápagos Islands. Adding the word "islands" to this category not only matches it to the parent category but also addes formality. Dr. Submillimeter 08:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flora of the Galápagos

Propose renaming Category:Flora of the Galápagos to Category:Endemic flora of the Galápagos Islands

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - This category will be useful for categorization if it includes only flora that are endemic to the Galapagos Islands (as it does now). If it includes widespread or invasive flora, it will become category clutter, as such plants are found in many locations (and thus would accumulate many categories for the specific locations where they are found). I recommend adding "endemic" to the title to indicate that the plants are only found in the Galapagos Islands. I also recommend adding "Islands" for formality and to match the parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 08:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, no other countries/localities use endemic in the category title - although the categories should really only include native and endemic species - thats a categorisation issue, this change would make the GI different to the way all other places have categorised their flora and fauna. I'm OK with adding Islands to the name however.--Peta 22:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fauna of the Galápagos

Propose renaming Category:Fauna of the Galápagos to Category:Endemic fauna of the Galápagos Islands

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - This category will be useful for categorization if it includes only fauna that is endemic to the Galapagos Islands (which is mostly the case now). If it includes migratory and seagoing animals, it will become category clutter, as such animals are found in many locations (and thus would accumulate many categories for the specific locations where they are found). I recommend adding "endemic" to the title to indicate that the animals are only found in the Galapagos Islands. I also recommend adding "Islands" for formality and to match the parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 08:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, no other countries/localities use endemic in the category title - although the categories should really only include native and endemic species - thats a categorisation issue, this change would make the GI different to the way all other places have categorised their flora and fauna.--Peta 22:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galápagan restricted-range endemic bird species

Category:Galápagan restricted-range endemic bird species
Category:Birds of the Galápagos

Merge into Category:Endemic birds of the Galápagos Islands - These categories are very useful, as they indicate which birds are found exclusively within the Galapagos Islands. However, neither category name is very good. Category:Birds of the Galápagos fails to indicate that the birds are endemic (found only within the Galapagos Islands), so people may try putting migratory and seagoing birds within the category inappropriately (which will cause categorization problems later, as such birds are found in many locations). Category:Galápagan restricted-range endemic bird species is very clumsy, and "restricted-range" is redundant with "endemic". I suggest using Category:Endemic birds of the Galápagos Islands to match the article on endemic birds of the Galápagos Islands. Dr. Submillimeter 08:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename I was the originator of the first category, and it was named in line with equivalents for other geographic areas, but the proposed new name serves just as well. Note however that "restricted range endemic" and "endemic" do not mean the same thing, although they do for the Galápagos Islands on account of the islands' small size. SP-KP 16:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women's Colleges that are Coeducational

Propose renaming Category:Women's Colleges that are Coeducational to Category:Former women's universities and colleges in the United States

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The current name is a contradiction in terms, as a women's college cannot be coeducational. The category description says that it is for former women's colleges which now admit men. I chose the new name to coincide with Category:Women's universities and colleges in the United States. I'm not an expert on categories, but perhaps this would be best placed as a subcategory of that one. If the current name is kept, the improper capitalization needs to be addressed. Djrobgordon 07:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, but I propose as an alternative Category:Women's colleges that became coeducational. I made the change to the associated template before coming here. "Former" I think is overbroad in that it implies inclusion of defunct colleges. Wl219 08:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prefer your suggestion as well. It's a better description, and more succinct. --Djrobgordon 16:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that Category:Women's colleges that became coeducational is a fantastic new name. It affirms that the college was once exclusively female, but is not any more and does not suggest that the college was closed (such as Evelyn College for Women) or absorbed into another school (such as Radcliffe College). How does one go about changing it? MUW Fan 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bronze Medallion recipients

Delete - overcategorization by award. Otto4711 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an award given by New York City to people who are so famous that they win many awards anyway. The category says little about the people's achievements while contributing to category clutter. This award's recipients are already listed at Bronze Medallion (New York City award), so no listification is necessary. Dr. Submillimeter 11:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who can resurrect themselves

Delete, This category has little or no potential for growth. Very few characters actually satisfy the conditions, and in most cases those it is used on are simply immortal. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've made a change on the parent/grandparent thing. It should be that Category:Fictional immortals should be kept far and separate from this category because not all immortals can resurrect themselves, per say. Shall I list an example? Power level (Dragon Ball) 06:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point entirely. By removing the cat, which Snapper restored, you're only making my case better. Those who can resurrect themselves are by definition immortal. Also, you've completely misunderstood the relation between parent and sub-cats. Having a parent cat of immortals in no way implies what you think it does. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as recreated content. For good or ill, consensus is that a category for fictional characters who can resurrect themselves is not appropriate. Variations on this category have been created and deleted several times already. Otto4711 07:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt - This category appears to have the ability to resurrect itself. Two variants on this category title were deleted within the past week. Two other variants were deleted in Oct 2006 and Jan 2007. This category needs to be blocked. Dr. Submillimeter 07:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no good reason to delete it. Characters who can resurrect themselves are not "simply" immortal, and deserve a separate category. Furthermore, people who can resurrect themselves are not necessarily immortal. For example, some role-playing games allow characters to cast spells on themselves that will resurrect them if they die while said spells are active; however, this is not immortality, as the characters can still die permanent deaths and presumably age normally. Even if that weren't the case, the category is specific enough to warrant its separation from "fictional immortals". One might, and I emphasize "might", think that there aren't enough fictional characters to fill the category at this time, and that it should be deleted for that reason, but under no circumstances should its recreation be prevented because more fictional characters with this ability might be written in the future. Cosmetor 08:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, consensus can change, but to consistently recreate a cat immediately after a CfD result of "Delete" or "Speed Delete" is flat wrong. It reads as the editor does not believe consensus matters. Additionally, with the situation with the Feb 17 nom, this verges on looking like disruptive editing. — J Greb 20:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an improper recreation. LukeHoC 11:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt this persistent recreation. Someone just keeps bringing it back. The name isn't even accurate. Doczilla 17:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt the previous CfDs are here, here, and here. The Feb 17 CfD was either circumvented or the closing admin did not bother to close the section. Could someone look into the deletion of the category involved in that one and find out what exactly happened? Additionally, I strongly suggest that all three previously deleted cats be salted as well as the suggested rename from the Feb CfD. — J Greb 20:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palindromic places

Suggest this category either listified or renamed, as it's not the places that are palindromic but their names. Category:Places with palindromic names...?

David Kernow (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as arbitrary standard for inclusion. These places have nothing in common other than the coincidence that their names can be spelled the same way backward and forward. There might just barely be enough justification for a list but not for a category. Otto4711 06:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. LukeHoC 11:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#Unrelated subjects with shared names. ~ Bigr Tex 15:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe listify. I'd find a list interesting, and the list would be unobtrusive. It's too trivial for categorization, though. The list would have been helpful a few years ago when I needed to discuss palindromes in a lecture. I say "maybe", though, because there are palindrome sources on the Internet. Doczilla 17:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikify from August 2006

-- this [1] Wikipedia backlog taskpage has been cleared of all the work inside it - no new tasks are expected to be added here. So can it be removed? Guroadrunner 05:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD C1. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 05:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Discontinued Microsoft software

Hey, this category is likely to rampantly grow. So, either delete, or split into more subcats. --PlayStation 69 05:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's manageable for now. Maybe split Windows X into a Category:Discontinued Microsoft Windows versions but the overall category is worth keeping. Wl219 09:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MS mostly keep releasing newer versions of programs without phasing them out entirely Corpx 11:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete endless category. We don't advertise for Microsoft. We're not their help desk. The "discontinued" distinction is like categorizing by whether people are dead or alive, which Wikipedia explicitly says not to do. Doczilla 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lugnuts 20:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poltergeist saga

Deelete as redundant to Category:Poltergeist films. Otto4711 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Law & Order cast members

Listify, Delete just as related nominiation, these are subcats of Category:Law & Order cast members. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All the shows are completely independent of each other than an occasional connection. Should be kept seperate. Corpx 10:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete These are better suited to a list and will help avoid category clutter. ~ Bigr Tex 15:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poltergeist saga people

Delete - this category is serving as an ersatz writer/producer/director by series category. Participants in the Poltergeist film series can be noted in the article for the participant, the relevant film or both. No justification for this category. Otto4711 04:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categorizing people by project is inappropriate, as it leads to category clutter. Dr. Submillimeter 13:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bivalve images

All images on the commons, commons does a better job of image organisation. Delete Peta 04:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sponge images

I have moved all images in this category to the commons, image galleries and categories are better set up there, and this will be empty as soon as the transwikied images are deleted. DeletePeta 04:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Myxozoan images

I have moved all images in this category to the commons, image galleries and categories are better set up there, and this will be empty as soon as the transwikied images are deleted. DeletePeta 04:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - good deal then! Corpx 10:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of films with features in common

Delete - this may be a first for me. A category that should be deleted which contains some 30 articles that should all also be deleted. Every one of the articles constitutes an indiscriminate list or directory seeking to gather every trivial mention of the subject matter with no regard to the importance or lack of same to the work of fiction from which it's drawn or the real world. It's a category for articles that shouldn't exist and the category shouldn't exist either. Otto4711 02:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a wholesale attempt to purge 30 articles with no consideration of their individual merit. The reason given for each article is a canned sentence with only the subject of the article changed in each. There are thousands of list on Wikipedia and many are quite useful. The same criteria given here could be used to purge them all. From WP:LIST: "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." This discussion should be consolidated in one place and I think here would be appropriate.--agr 04:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered the individual merit of the articles contained within this category, and my feeling is that the vast majority of them have none. Those articles have been nominated for deletion. WP:NOT bars loosely associated depositories of information and this category serves no function but to house such depositories. Otto4711 04:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the sticking point is "loosely associated." Most of these articles have a very narrow focus. E.g. List of films involving amputees. They are not much different than many topics in Category:Lists of books, for example. Again there are thousands of such lists on Wikipedia and detailed guidelines for their construction. See WP:LIST and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Some of the lists in this category I agree do not fit within those guidelines. List of films which end in protagonist's death is far too broad, for example. There's another whose name I don't think I have to repeat here. But most are tightly defined and potentially useful to people interested in film or the underlying topic, e.g. mental illness, computers or passwords.--agr 11:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIST and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) are guidelines. If a list falls afoul of an actual policy then its conformity with these guidelines becomes irrelevant. WP:USEFUL is also not a compelling argument. Otto4711 16:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT is far from clear cut. It says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:" and it then enumerates several types of article that are not allowed. The type of list we are talking about are not one of them. Guidelines exist in part to provide interpretation of policies. A guideline is "generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." Under your interpretation of WP:NOT almost none of the lists on Wikipedia would survive and the list guidelines would be pointless. If so those guidelines should be changed and that process would be the right place to debate the role of lists on Wikipedia. --agr 17:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The category doesn't fall afoul of any one particular wiki policy. While of limited usage, that's no reason to delete. The category needs to be cleaned up as do the individual articles, but that is a separate issue. Zotdragon 17:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Zotdragon Lugnuts 20:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:A-level English Literature Set Texts

Delete There are probably several thousand books that have been set as A-level texts by one of the various British exam boards over the last 60 years or so, and many of them will also have been set as texts for various other exams in the UK and other countries. This is not a defining characteristic of the books. Haddiscoe 00:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Peta 04:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as non defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - This category does not represent a view shared by the rest of the world. Dr. Submillimeter 07:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LukeHoC 11:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]