mic_none

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 8 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_8

< June 7 June 9 >

June 8

[edit]

Category:WikiProject Kansas City articles

[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WikiProject Kansas City articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: category is redundant and unused see Category:Kansas City articles Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question: Although it is currently unused, could the Wikiproject category be used for pages of interest to Kansas City editors, but which wouldn't qualify for the main category? (Hypothetical examples: a politician delivered a famous speech there; a company which used to be headquartered in KC, but moved to another location.) Or for pages that need to have KC-related content added, but because they don't yet, don't qualify for the main category yet either? (I'm not supporting/opposing the deletion of this category, just want to find out what might distinguish a WikiProject category from a main category.) --ΨΦorg (talk) 17:08, 11 June 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.

Multiplication and Division

[edit]
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: keep. BencherliteTalk 23:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Multiplication and Category:Division
Nominator's rationale: Delete/Merge both. Both newly created, and covering disparate concepts with the same name, taken from Category:Arithmetic, Ring theory, and the theory of algebras over a field. Propose reverting the creation and moving those taken from Category:Arithmetic back. I'm willing to do the mess using AWB if this is agreed to, as there are only a few dozen. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have yet to be convinced that these categories are worthless or unsalvageable. They could be given some introductory text, a few articles added and a few articles removed, and make more sense than they do now. See also Category talk:Division. Melchoir (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both are sub-cats of the arithmetic cat, so have not been "taken" from there (if by that you mean removed). The problem with them is not immediately obvious to a non-mathmetician. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that some of the articles were taken from Category:Arithmetic, and possibly should be returned thare, and others have "division" or "multiplication" as part of the name, but were not taken from nor belong in Category:Arithmetic, so should not be returned there. There's no scope given for either category, and, if a scope were found, it's unlikely that the present list of articles would be a better place to start than working back from the parent category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comment & try again. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's okay if one has cat A which is a "subcat" of cat B, and an article X belongs to A, when in the absence of A X would not belong to B. One has, for example, South Atlantic Medal which is a member of Category:Falklands War which is a subcat of Category:Wars involving Argentina, even though the South Atlantic Medal is not a war involving Argentina. Is this a point of disagreement? Melchoir (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The problem I see is that the articles added to these categories fall into three categories:
  1. Articles related to arithmetic multiplication / division.
  2. Articles related to mathematical topics similar to arithmetic multiplication / division.
  3. (Mathematical) articles with a title containing "multiplication" or "division", whether or not the concept is related.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the juxtaposition of 1 and 2 is tolerable, even beneficial. 3 can be corrected by just identifying and removing the problem articles. I suppose you have articles like Cartesian product in mind, and I'd agree that letting categorical products into the mix is a bad idea. And for Division algebra, a brief "see also" in the category text is an alternative to membership. Melchoir (talk) 05:45, 9 June 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:Anarchism and culture

[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Anarchism and culture to Category:Anarchist culture
Nominator's rationale: I created the category in question to tidy away the remaining articles in the now-diffused Category:Anarchism supercategory, but on reflection it is a clumsy and untaxonomic title. The articles which populate the category are more tightly and accurately defined as instantiations of anarchist culture rather than the ambiguous and underspecified anarchism and culture. Thoughts? ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 22:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.
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:Wikipedia articles to be split

[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia articles to be split (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: It seems that I inadvertently created a redlink for this category while doing some template work. Someone saw the redlinks and created the category. I have since fixed the templates and the category is now empty. The correct category is Category:Articles to be split. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:34, 8 June 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:Organisations designated as terrorist by several governments

[edit]
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: that the category has already been speedily deleted under WP:CSD#C1, but if it hadn't been it would have been merged as nominated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Organisations designated as terrorist by several governments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:Delete Orphan category which merely duplicates the existing Category:Organizations designated as terrorist. Valenciano (talk) 20:45, 8 June 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:Sewanee alumni

[edit]
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 adding the work alumni to the new name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sewanee alumni to Category:Sewanee: The University of the South
Nominator's rationale: Should probably be renamed to clarify which Sewanee is being referred to. The college's name is Sewanee: The University of the South. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:02, 8 June 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:British Occupations

[edit]
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. I suspect that this will be revisited in future, since there are some good points on both sides, but not enough to show a consensus at present. BencherliteTalk 23:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British occupations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Subject appears to be deliberately inflammatory and intended to disparage the subject. I first noticed this category when the creator added the Falklands War. That nomination appeared to be deliberately provocative as did other articles added in the category, such as British Forces Germany and British Commonwealth Forces Korea. Category appeared to be an attack category created for POV reasons. I've reverted the addition of the category on those pages, leaving articles that might legitimately fall into such a category. Nominated for speedy deletion but declined with a recommendation to bring it here. Justin talk 10:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE Category not tagged. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Weak-ish Delete The catagory has potential if used correctly, it does however seem to have been created as a POV attack. I am not sure that the Japanese occupation article, the occupation in the wider context was American led, in the same way Kosovo was a UN/NATO force. ATM it has three articles in it, hardly worth it for a catagory, especially when one should likely be removed. Narson (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC) (Edit: Occupation is a fairly recent thing, I can't see this cat becoming bigger than 2 or 3 articles, not worth it) Narson (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As we have the completely different Category:Occupations the name is thoroughly confusing. We do have Category:Soviet occupations; template {{Nazi Germany occupations}}; perhaps there are others amongst the thousands of jobs/professions. (Category:British occupations would include much of the world if previous colonies are allowed.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if kept, this and similar categories should be renamed to Category:Fooian military occupations to differentiate them from the jobs/professions categories. Otto4711 (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not an attack category in any way. We have similar categories Category:Allied occupation of Europe, Category:Soviet occupations, and the large article List of military occupations. DonaldDuck (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it wasn't meant to be an attack category, can you explain the addition of the Falklands War? The category itself, as I said above, might have some vague potential (Though it is currently being filled with units/army formations rather than occupations) but that addition looks especially pointy and makes me question the value of the category as a whole. Narson (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Falkland islands were occupied by British forces during the war.DonaldDuck (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And looking I see you are removing the tag 'Soviet Occupations' from the same types of forces you are adding it to for the British. Narson (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There was an Argentine military occupation in that war, not a British one. You really seem to be misunderstanding the connotation of military occupation. Occupation has a specific set of guidelines, sitting in your own territory? Not an occupation. Usually occupation is used when hostile forces remain in territory that is un-annexed. Narson (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I notice that the category is continuing to be used for clearly POV edits. Today the British Army of the Rhine and the Berlin Brigade were added. This is clearly being used for a POV push and is wasting editors time clearing up afterward. Justin talk 19:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are legitimate reasons to add this articles to this category. BAOR "There have been two formations named British Army of the Rhine (BAOR). Both were originally occupation forces in Germany", Berlin Brigade - "Allied forces occupied West Berlin. This occupation lasted throughout the Cold War."DonaldDuck (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • They were occupation forces, not military occupations themselves. You seem to acknowledge this difference by your removal of Soviet Occupations from various soviet armies that were used for occupations of eastern europe. Narson (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Even without this articles about occupation forces, there will be enough articles to fill the category.DonaldDuck (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Looking at what has just been the response of the creator of this category "Falkland islands were occupied by British forces during the war." that is clearly a POV edit, implying that British forces had not legitimacy being in what is sovereign British territory. Notably as Narson has pointed out, the same editor is removing a similar category from articles related to the Soviet Army. There is clearly a POV agenda here. Justin talk 16:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • On the same ground it may be claimed that Islas Malvinas are Argentinian territory and calling them British is POV-pushing. Why are you removing articles about British occupation zones in Germany {Bizone} from this category? Are West Berlin and Hamburg also sovereign British territory?DonaldDuck (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Yet you'll notice no-one tried to create some 'Argentine Occupations' category for it. The occupation of Japan was a US occupation the British contributed troops towards, so kind of borderline. Narson (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • As this is the English wikipedia and not the Spanish wikipedia, the name of those islands is the Falklands in the English speaking world. This is with the exception of some minor socialist groups or with those seeking to impose a POV agenda i.e. a fringe use of the name. Argentine claims sovereignty but it is in fact recognised as sovereign British territory. It seems clear from your actions that you've chosen to create this category to make a point, as does your recent contribution. Similarly accusing others of POV edits, whilst conducting what is clearly a POV campaign is specious reasoning at best. Similarly, the British Army presence in Germany as part of the NATO alliance defending Germany is not a military occupation force in the recognised sense of the world; the British Army would leave at the request of the democratically elected Government. Now if your beef is with the category Soviet Occupations, the correct wikipedia route is to raise a discussion and consensus on that page. Disrupting other articles and creating work for other editors is the dictionary definition of WP:POINT. Justin talk 15:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • There was no democratic government in 1945 in Germany, when BAOR was formed. Similarly Bizone was occupation zone in recognized sense of the word. Trying to destroy meaningful and relevant category is WP:POINT.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Actually I followed process, deleting material I considered irrelevant. You merely reverted without justifying your actions in TALK, your edit summaries indicating WP:POINT, as does your responses here. You have not in any way, shape or form attempted to engage editors in discussion to achieve a consensus. Notably I at least had the courtesy to inform you on your talk page what I had done. There are good reasons for suggesting this category should be removed, its been created with a POV agenda, some of the article additions are tendentious, there are too few articles that would seriously merit inclusion and your attempts to bulldoze this through without consensus are merely disrupting the project. Justin talk 08:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • To continue from your point, Justin, the article of surrender was signed in the Reichspresident's name by the Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe. Germany surrendered unconditionally, and the allies set that conditions on the total loss of German sovereignty to the 4 powers of the ACC. Not to argue it wasn't an occupation per se, but to show that nothing is as black and white as people might think. Narson (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've given some serious thought to creating a master category for all military occupations, but that covers a lot of territory (no pun intended), and would need very good and broadly-accepted inclusion criteria (as suggested above), so I've never gone ahead with it. Category:British military occupations could quite possibly be a viable sub-cat of such a parent category. That being said, I think it will surely face a huge battle over inclusion of Category:Northern Ireland or parts thereof -- even excluding earlier eras, it is certainly the case that the British Army had a major presence and role during the period of The Troubles. Cgingold (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are legitimate reasons for a category for military occupations by the United Kingdom, if there are a reasonable number of appropriate articles. Thing is, I don't think there are actually very many appropriate articles. Per WP:CAT guidelines 7 & 9 I think appropriate articles to include are the ones about what are universally acknowledged as occupations - not colonial situations nor technical details of occupations nor forces involved in occupations. If kept this category will need constant policing (to enforce these guidelines), drawing editors away from more worthwhile discussion - and I don't think it's worth the effort for a category with only very few articles that belong there anyway. Thus I do not think that this category is of net benefit to the encyclopaedia and suggest we delete. Pfainuk talk 19:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the whole - the parent cats are Category:United Kingdom and Category:Cold War, so most English/British occupations are ruled out. In fact the only members (currently) are Asian for some reason. It could perhaps be broadened to all British occupations, but the current scope as indicated by the Cold War parent is too narrow, and a renaming would be required. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case parent categories should be changed, but not the category itself deleted.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to Category:British military occupations. This could properly apply to British Military Government in Germany after WWII; and in Palestine, Iraq, and the Caucasus at the end of and after WWI; in Iraq recently; and some other examples can probably be trawled up from history. However it would need to be sustained, not merely an invasion. Northern Ireland was never under military government, and so should not appear: the military merely acted in support of the civil powers. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Meaningless, undefined and pointless. Berks911 (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Peterkingiron. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:51, 18 June 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:Photos by SimonEast

[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Photos by SimonEast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Per precedent here, here, here, here, and here, personal image categories are not needed. If allowed would set precedent to keep a similiar type of category for every individual user. Galleries are usually found on user subpages, there is no need for a category to be made for each user's images. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 8 June 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.