Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 27

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shirahadasha (talk | contribs) at 04:57, 31 May 2007 (→Category:Mythological ships: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< May 26 May 28 >

May 27

Category:Neighbourhoods of Thailand

Propose renaming Category:Neighbourhoods of Thailand to Category:Neighbourhoods in Thailand
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Neighbourhoods by country. Jamie Mercer 22:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Law firms

Propose renaming Category:Australian law firms to Category:Law firms of Australia
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. To follow guideline by using 'companies of country'. Vegaswikian 19:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mythological ships

Category:Mythological ships - Template:Lc1

Delete, Procedural transfer of deletion proposal and discussion originally started on Category talk:Mythological ships to correct forum. Shirahadasha 18:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Original deletion proposal was:I propose that the category Category:Mythological ships be deleted. The reasons are 1. The very low number of entries makes it of limited usefulness. 2. It is controversial (see Talk:Noah's Ark) that Noah's Ark, the most well known 'ship' listed is in this category. WP:CAT states "be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category". rossnixon 02:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the category is serving exactly the function it supposed to, capturing ships from the mythologies of various cultures. If people are upset that Noah's Ark is included then they should resolve it as a content dispute not as a deletion attempt. Otto4711 19:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because the category is currently underpopulated does not mean that there are not many mythological ships that could be put in this category. There are many ships which appear in fables and legends, as well as ships whose dimensions or character indicate that they would be suitable for this category. I would include Noah's Ark, Zeng He's Treasure ships, Jason's Argo and many others, including ships from Norse and Greek mythology, "ghost ships", ships from myths of the Pacific native peoples, and many others.--Filll 20:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With 7 members already, it is not "small and unlikely to expand" - the policy specifies 3 for this. Johnbod 20:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Otto4711, Filll.-gadfium 20:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons above, content disputes should not be made into deletion debates. Carlossuarez46 23:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and there is no reason a mythological ship can't be real. Troy is a mythological city, but it's also real. Charlemagne is a real king that has large mythological elements to his story. Religion is a type of mythology anyways. 70.55.88.63 23:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note to closing admin: This issue raised a lot of contentious discussion on Talk:Noah's Ark and this is a Memorial Day weekend in the United States when doubtless many are away. I'd ask the closing admin to wait the full week, give the other side a chance to come back from vacation and comment, and make sure we have a discussion that includes the most vocal members of all sides so that we can close this matter in a way that can be respected by all as final. I'd suggest that WP:SNOW based on early comments would not be a good idea here. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I did a thorough cleanout of this category and harmonizing with Category:Legendary ships, Category:Ghost ships and Category:Nautical lore while this was getting prodded. The category is clear about what it is for and is not uninhabited.--ZayZayEM 03:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fill, John, Otto and the anon 70.55.99.63. Also, echoing Shira's point that we shouldn't snow this. JoshuaZ 03:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete KeepDelete For the record I think Noah's ark was 100% mythological. However it is not at all clear that it was really a ship. The word ark only means vessel. There is no special reason to think that the ark could be steered, as a ship must or else it would be a barge. On the second thought I will just go ahead and remove the category from that article and that should take care of the "controversy." Sorry to have to change my vote back to delete. It seems like the category is doing more harm than good if it is a source of contention. Please check out the discussion page of the Ark article. Thanks. Steve Dufour 04:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My proposed compromise was quickly reverted. I can see that feelings run high on both sides of the "controversy." However I still think it is the best solution. Steve Dufour 04:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Noah's Ark is an outstanding source of information on the subject and covers all points of view. However, I get the feeling that the main reason for putting it in the category, or maybe even for the existence of the category itself, is to mock people who believe in the Bible literally; not to add to our understanding of the subject. Steve Dufour 12:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps, assuming good faith, it's an attempt to present the topic with a more expansive, less biased worldview. Otto4711 13:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there should be an article on mythological ships for people who are interested in the topic. The articles on individual ships could be linked from there, as well as Noah's Ark - which is kind of like a ship. Why is a category needed as well? Steve Dufour 00:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Come on, everyone knows this category was only created for purposes of one POV to antagonize another POV, and has no genuine value. I'd like to AGF, but Steve is right. Blockinblox 13:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Everyone" knows it? I don't know it. The other people wanting this kept don't know it. Unless you're a mindreader or someone posted a message stating that they created the category for purposes of antagonism, you don't know it. Otto4711 14:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but I am asserting that "deep down" everyone knows this is what it's for, even the people voting to keep and even the onees who created the article. Of course it can't be proven, it's just my assertion, okay? Blockinblox 14:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'll bet that this category is up for deletion is purely as a result of Noah's Ark. Now that I know the category exists, I'm going to add some more mythical ships to it. Orangemarlin 04:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The category is useful and NPOV. --Gene_poole 04:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is too small and indeed POV (concerning the meaning of "mythology"), better place contents in "legendary ships". Str1977 (smile back) 09:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Comment - make a more hard-and-fast distinction between "ships in myth" (eg, for sake of argument, those in the Iliad) and "ships that are so big that we can scarcely believe they were true" (eg tessarakonteres, treasure ship) - the former should be in this category, the latter should not. Suggest the latter are thrown out of the category and the category renamed, as suggested above, to something like Category:Ships in mythology. Neddyseagoon - talk 11:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The controversy over inclusion on Noah's Ark has been addressed multiple times, and the consensus has been to keep the tag, though a small minority have fought it. Mythology is well-defined on Wikipedia, and it does not mean "fictional". Sxeptomaniac 18:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "epic ships", "ships in religion", and/or similar. User:Orangemarlin wrote on Talk:Noah's Ark "This ship is a myth using the following definition from the Oxford English Dictionary, the foremost dictionary in the English Language: A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing. We do not mean myth in the form of something of supernatural origin. This ship is a myth, because it is a widespread story with no supporting documentation, save for a biblical account. There has been no archeological or historical proof of its existence. Hence it is mythological." Other editors have used the phrase "nothing more than mythology" in this discussion. I believe using a term that is nothing more than a synonym for "untrue or erroneous" in a category directly violates a fundamental tenet of WP:NPOV, that Wikipedia does not express an editorial opinion on the truth or falsity of beliefs, claims, or doctrines. ("None of the views should be...asserted as being the truth.") Accordingly, I would propose renaming the category to a more neutral and hence Wikipedia-appropriate term such as "epic ships" or similar (perhaps "ships in religion") that carries the idea of being the subject of culturally significant narratives without having the baggage accompanying a word that User:Orangemarlin and many other editors have claimed is simply a synonym for "bogus". I had intended to be neutral on this issue with the idea that a "myth" could connote a culturally significant or culture-defining narrative, but the repeated use of the term "myth" to connote "falsehood" has convinced me that the term currently seems to carry too much baggage to be supportable. I could support the continued use of the term only if it meant, and was intended to mean, something consistent with WP:NPOV. --Shirahadasha 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Epic ships" works for me. Steve Dufour 04:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University presidents

Propose renaming all subcategories of Category:American university and college presidents to take the form "Presidents of (institution)" rather than "(Institution) presidents," for consistency. This nomination follows up on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 9#University presidents. In the prior CfD, the same rename was proposed and apparently gained (minimal) consensus, but the rename was not completed for the entire category when the CfD was closed.

These proposed new category names should be checked for consistency, particularly in the use of "the." Please feel free to correct or amend this proposal. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Comics conventions

  1. Propose renaming Category:Comic conventions to Category:Comics convention
  2. Propose renaming Category:Comic book conventions to Category:Comics convention
  • Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Merge these two categories as they are redundant. Change the name to the plural form "comics". Comics is more inclusive as it also includes comic strips. Also, I have seen some discussion that "comic book" is an American idiom, so this will be a more universal name. Finally, it helps distinguish this category from a potential category for conventions of comedians. There was some discussion of this at WikiProject Comics a few months ago. GentlemanGhost 17:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that these should be merged as redundant, and your reasoning makes sense. I just can't find enough consistency in what the conventions themselves are called. Look at their names.[1] I only found one with "Comics Convention" in the name, but then again, I only found one with "Comic Convention" in the name. There are a number with either "Comic Con" or "Comic Book Convention". Doczilla 17:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not absolutely married to a particular name. Any one of these three is fine with me; what's most important is that they are merged. In choosing what name to use, I tried to follow what was the consensus in the previous (linked) discussion. However, if a new consensus is reached for a different name, I will happily assent to it. Thanks for being on the ball, Doczilla! --GentlemanGhost 18:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People opposed to apartheid

Category:People opposed to apartheid - Template:Lc1

Delete. "People opposed to apartheid" is just about everybody, save a few. Category:Anti-apartheid activists adequately covers those people whose work or stance against apartheid is notable. Ezeu 17:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Almost all people support the government they happen to live under. That's just human nature, for better or worse. Steve Dufour 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Church of Ireland archbishops

Category:Church of Ireland archbishops - Template:Lc1

Delete. Empty apart from an inappropriately-placed sub-category, and a functional duplicate of Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in Ireland. The creator appears not have been aware that the Church of Ireland is an Anglican church. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - only one of the duplicates is needed, but unless this one is strictly incorrect nomenclature, it is at least less verbose. Blockinblox 13:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply There are only two Anglican archbishoprics in Ireland, each of has its own category: Category:Anglican Archbishops of Dublin, Category:Anglican bishops and archbishops of Armagh. Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in Ireland and Category:Church of Ireland archbishops are both only container categories, and neither needs to be used for articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queen's University

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 moved to WP:UCFD

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queen's University to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queen's University Belfast
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, To differentiate Queen's University Belfast from Queen's University in Canada. Cordless Larry 16:20, 27 May 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.

Prelates

Propose renaming Category:South African prelates to Category:South African bishops
Category:Austrian prelates to Category:Austrian bishops
Category:Peruvian prelates to Category:Peruvian bishops
Category:Puerto Rican prelates to Category:Puerto Rican bishops
Propose deleting Category:Armenian prelates, Category:Bolivian prelates, Category:English prelates, Category:American prelates, Category:Argentine prelates, Category:Belgian prelates, Category:Canadian prelates, Category:Norwegian prelates, Category:Spanish prelates and Category:Swiss prelates.
Nominator's Rationale: The articles and sub-categories of these categories are all bishops, and there is no need to use the less familiar term "prelate". (Prelate does appear to have a broader meaning of "religious leader", but we already have Category:Religious leaders and its subcats for that purpose).
Where an appropriate bishops category already exists (such as Category:English bishops) for Category:English prelates, I have proposed deleting the prelates category, and in the other cases they should be renamed to the more familiar term "bishop", which is how the office-holders concerned are usually known.
Note that I have not nominated some prelates by nationality categories such as Category:German_prelates, which appears to consist mostly of abbots. I don't now whether it is worth keeping those prelates categories, and while I reckon they would probably be better named as "Fooian religious leaders", that is best left to a separate discussion
I note that there is also a post in the Roman Catholic Church called Territorial Prelate, but so far as I can see there are no articles on any holders of that post, which in any case ranks below that of a bishop and is unlikely to be notable of itself. To avoid confusion, if a "prelate" category is needed for such people, they would be better in a Category:Territorial prelates ... although I would question whether it is appropriate to create a category for every obscure rank in the complex hierarchies of large religions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Argentine prelates include both sub-categories Bishops and Cardinals. --Mariano(t/c) 16:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply All the Argentine Cardinals on whom there were articles are (or were) also bishops or archbishops. There is no no useful purpose served by maintaining a separate layer of categorisation by country merely to group together two near-identical categories of senior Roman Catholic clergy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and delete per nom. I am confident that BHG had considered these carefully - I looked at the 3 persons in the first one, and prelate is not mentioned in any of the 3 articles. I also looked at the English ones and they are just the archbishops and bishops. This adds nothing but confusion to the categorisation of clerics. -- roundhouse 19:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Although "prelate" may be a technically correct title for these people, these categories will confuse people looking up information on bishops. The rename seems appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 08:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Adrenocortial cancer deaths

Category:Adrenocortial cancer deaths - Template:Lc1

Delete. The title of the category is misspelled. I have already created a new category with the correct spelling and moved the only article in the category. Axl 14:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved to Category:Adrenocortical cancer deaths. The article in question is Garry Betty. Steevo714 18:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The new spelling appears to be the correct one. Steevo714 18:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Category:Indian comic book publishers

Category:Indian comic book publishers - Template:Lc1

Delete, I moved everything to Comic book publishing companies of India, to match the formatting for everything else. Didn't know how to CFD at the time. Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 14:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who have at some stage claimed they are not gay

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 speedy delete. I know that this exact name hasn't been on CFD before, but I still believe that this is recreated content. After Midnight 0001 14:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who have at some stage claimed they are not gay - Template:Lc1

Obvious really. WP:BLP issues, unencylcopedic etc. No doubt we could have "people who have a some stage claimed they don't beat their wife" too. WjBscribe 14:05, 27 May 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:Fertilizer Producers

Category:Fertilizer Producers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Fertilizer companies, since animals also produce fertilizer. -- Prove It (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Color articles needing infobox sources

Category:WikiProject Color articles needing infobox sources - Template:Lc1

Delete per WP:ASR.--Encu555 13:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : The template that includes this category is similar in purpose to the unsourced and fact templates. The use of the category is to be able to track down unsourced Color infoboxes and fix or remove them. The intent is that as pages are fixed the occurrence of this category would naturally disappear. Bias disclaimer: I was the one that created this category) PaleAqua 18:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places in Brunei

Category:Places in Brunei to Category:Geography of Brunei

Category:Marvel Comics heroes, non-superpowered

Category:Marvel Comics heroes, non-superpowered (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Marvel Comics superheroes as situationally redundant and potentially POV. (Does Captain America's enhanced strength count as a power? Would he be categorized here for that brief period when he did have superhuman strength? Does Iron Man count as a hero with powers, or merely a non-powered human who uses technology? How would a character be categorized if they used to have powers but currently don't?) See related discussion for Category:DC Comics villains, non-superpowered here. -Sean Curtin 02:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DC Comics heroes, non-superpowered

Category:DC Comics heroes, non-superpowered (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:DC Comics superheroes as situationally redundant and potentially POV. See related discussion for Category:DC Comics villains, non-superpowered here. -Sean Curtin 02:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional ninja

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 Withdrawn. Vegaswikian 22:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional ninja - Template:Lc1

This is yet the first one, and hopefully the last category that isn't plural. So move it to Fictonal ninjas. TheBlazikenMaster 00:16, 27 May 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_May_27&oldid=134743076"