Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 21

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion | Log
< March 20 March 22 >

March 21

edit

Category:VEI-8_supervolcanoes_to_Category:VEI-8_volcanoes

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:VEI-8 supervolcanoes should be renamed, for several reasons:

  1. Consistency with the other categories in Category:Volcanoes_by_Volcanic_Explosivity_Index.
  2. Supervolcano is an unofficial term originated by the media, and is unencyclopedic to use as a name.
  3. Partly related to the above, supervolcanoes don't correspond exactly to VEI-8 eruptions. Some large VEI-7 eruptions, like the Long Valley Caldera, are considered supervolcanoes as well.

— jdorje (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:SOL_theory

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced article. Inappropriate category, wrong place for an article, poorly written fictional entry. —This unsigned comment was added by Front243 (talk • contribs) .


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Exocrine glands

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category with one interlanguage link to an Icelandic category which itself could probably be merged with its mother category. meco 15:52, 21 March 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:National memorials in Washington, DC to Category:Memorials in Washington, D.C.

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention, and proper use of the designation "National Memorial". More info:

  1. The "DC" vs. "D.C." is a simple matter of category naming convetion.
  2. While the federal designation "National Memorial" is admittedly a bit vague, I think there are many public memorials in the District that would never be properly labeled as "National Memorials". For example, the James A. Garfield Monument and the Taft Memorial on the grounds of the Capitol[1] or the Navy-Marine Memorial on Columbia Island. In fact some already listed in this category should not be, I think. Also, by my count (including proposed, etc.), there are only about 40-45 proper "National Memorials" in the entire U.S., so I don't think the Category:National Memorials of the United States needs subdividing. However, I agree that some sort of Memorials category for the District of Columbia is a good thing.

Also, the new category should be moved to a subcat of Category:Memorials in the United States. — Eoghanacht talk 15:02, 21 March 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Transport by city

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 14:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This cat and others by city were created by User:Rhollenton last December. There are already at least three (and often more!) routes for getting to articles on transport in a particular city: by the search box, by the individual City cat/article and by the Transport by Country (or region) cat. The extra Transport by City cat is an un-needed route leading to editors getting confused as to which cat to use for their articles - some using City, some using Country and others using both. In short, the cat is not enabling clarity and ease of use for either editors or readers. Because it is possible to have a cat does not follow that a cat should be created. A line has to be drawn at some point otherwise people could go on creating cats ad infinitum: Railway Transport by City; Underground Railway Transport by City; 19th Century Underground Railway Transport by City. I can see an argument being put forward for the usefulness of each of those cats, but: "Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article." If the usefulness of a cat is outweighed by the muddle and distraction it causes, then it should not exist - especially when there are adequate alternatives already in use. I have not looked closely at the other categorisation by city cats, but I suspect they also should be deleted. SilkTork 09:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I see no danger of the subcategories being overcategorised. Piccadilly 21:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's bad that there are several ways of getting to an article? I've always been under the impression that that is one of Wikipedia's main strengths. There are at least several cities with thousands of articles and many with hundreds of articles, and whatever the precise numbers of cities in each class may be, those numbers are increasing fast, so it follows that subcategories are appropriate. Cities are no different from other subject areas in this respect. Bhoeble 22:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, it is bad when there is muddle and confusion. Effective classifying is simple, clear and easy to use. When there are already sufficient ways of getting to an article there is no genuine benefit in adding more. The result is loss of clarity.

I do see the value of overlapping subcategories, but caution should be exercised in order to keep subcategories on a manageable and useful level. Having too many subs is as bad as having none at all because there ceases to be order. With the current situation I would expect to find articles on Transport in the cities of the UK within the category Transport in the United Kingdom. But there is no sign. So I have to go through a subcat called Transport in the United Kingdom by locality which contains only four subcats, one of which is Transport in England by locality and there I find Transport in London. But I don't find Transport in Cardiff or Transport in Edinburgh. If I go to Transport by City I get cities scattered all over the world so I have to know which cities are in the United Kingdom and pick them out. Now, if you guys are saying that the current scattergun approach to classifying transport is clear and easy then I will concede, but if you try to find something in transport (which is what I was doing when I started to tidy up the transport classification) you will find it is not easy to use. When deciding on which subcats to keep it does help to go through the process of looking for something rather than relying on such abstract theories as "I see no danger of the subcategories being over categorised". SilkTork 08:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a hard fact: George W. Bush is in 30 categories; category:Transport in Paris is in 3. You have picked a very odd place to worry about overcategorisation. There are subcategories grouping U.S., Canadian, Israeli and Indian cities, and such subcategories can be created for other countries if you want them. Bhoeble 09:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean when you say that my choice looks odd when there are other areas that are in more obvious need of cropping. But I have an interest in roads and I wanted to see what information was on Wiki regarding roads in Great Britain. I was really finding it hard to get the information in one place because it is scattered in different subcats. So I started to tidy up and make sense of the subcats when User:EurekaLott suggested that Transport by City was a more useful subcat than I had originally given it credit. I could be looking at this from the viewpoint of someone who was looking for specific information and finding some of the arrangement not helpful to myself, but forgetting that some of the subcats could be helpful to other people. If that is the case then I would be reasurred if someone could give me a more convincing argument for the usefulness of Transport by City than that there are worse areas of Wiki, that having lots of subcats is a brilliant idea (despite Wiki policy to the contrary), or that categorising by city already happens so it's OK to carry on doing it. EurekaLott's argument was that she happened "to think that categorizing transport by city is useful, for a number of reasons. Categorizing by cities is a typical way of organizing many subjects, and lumping them all together at the national level does users a disservice, by making navigation more difficult. It's confusing to have different levels of government grouped together, and it becomes impossible to explore across national boundaries." That the subcats already exist is not a valid argument for keeping them. But the other point is decent enough, so it seems fair to bring it here as she hasn't done so herself. Her point about exploring across national boundaries is good. However, with so many cities in the world it has already become neccessary to group them by country - as with Category:Transportation in the United States by city - so the cities are started to be grouped by country anyway, making the sort of navigation she envisages impossible already. Transport by City clearly is not working already - it can only get worse. It is a subcat which is frought with problems as different countries have different classifications for cities. My own place, Rochester in Kent, used to be a city, but is now classed as a town. Cateforising by city simply gets in the way of navigation, and causes problems for editors as well as readers. SilkTork 20:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. SilkTork people put articles in local categories and are quite right to do so. You can't seriously doubt that the transport systems of major cities are topics of interest in their own right. If I want to look up Grand Central Station I expect to find it in the New York category.Category:Transportation in New York City has 30 articles plus 17 subcategories. Some of the sub-categories have subcategories of their own. All told maybe a thousand articles. If the options are a)leave them where they are; b)move all 1,000 up to category:New York City; or c) clear them out of the NYC category altogether, it's a no-brainer for (a). I just can't see where you are coming from. Sure sometimes it takes a bit of digging around in Wikipedia to find what you want, but that's inevitable, and if things were organized in just one one rigid way rather than in diverse flexible ways, it wouldn't be easier to find things but a lot harder. If you want to create a transportation category for Rochester, go ahead and come back and ask for this to be renamed "by city or town" and I'll vote for it. The national subcategories don't make it impossible to compare across boundaries, they just mean you have to make one extra click, which would be necessary as soon as there were 200 categories in any case. Scranchuse 21:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you want Category:Roads in the United Kingdom. It wasn't so hard to find. Scranchuse 21:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing articles on transport in cities. Not at all. It is how things are categorised that I am disputing. In your example of Grand Central Station, that can be found through Category:Transportation in New York. The city cat almost duplicates what is in the New York cat. And that is my point. The city cats create duplications and confusions and editors may use one or the other or both. And why do we need to create such confusion and possible loss of data or extra work. I have yet to be convinced of the value of a city cat when we already have country or state or area cats. And a large city cat needs to be broken down into a country or state or area cat anyway! SilkTork 17:50, 23 March 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Alleged Microsoft front organizations

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was yikes, delete in place and salt earth. Syrthiss 14:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename to Category:Possible Microsoft front organizations or deletion for due to pov and an attempt to make title slightly less weasel-y. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 05:54, 21 March 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:The Waterboys recordings

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 14:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a problem if there are categories for songs that were created by a specific person or group. But putting songs in a category of recordings will lead to huge numbers of categories for songs covered by many groups. For example, this category contains This land is your land which was covered by scores of recording artists. Imagine how many categories there would be for a song like Blowin' in the Wind which has many hundred covers. Some songs like I Heard It Through the Grapevine document multiple covers, and it seems that if a specific version is discussed in detail, a category listing might be in order. I would think that the song would have to have a notable connection with the recording artist to be listed as one of their songs. I don't know what the previous discussion has been about the categorization of songs, but Category:The Waterboys recordings seems not to be needed. Categories should make sense by looking at what articles they contain. They should also make sense by looking in the articles and having each article's categories be appropriate as well. All of this information is better handled by having lists: lists of covers for each song, and lists of songs performed by each artist. -- Samuel Wantman 05:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Piccadilly 21:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this category because some of this band's best known recordings are not their songs. Also true of a number of other bands. The argument seems to be that if this category existed for every band that there would be too many cats in certain articles. I suspect that there are probably cases in which having a cat for each cover doesn't make sense. But the idea of replacing a cat like this with a List of covers of a specific song in article space to organize this information strikes me as a worse situation than, say, making a Category for a song such as This Land Is Our Land and making that Cat a subcat of Categories such as these. All of that said, this should probably be discussed by participants at WP:SONG, who I will now notify. I would like to gently encourage the nom to, in the future, contact the creator of the Category that they are nominating for deletion and bring it up at relevent WikiProjects. Jkelly 04:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think your solution solves the problem. If an article OR a category gets put into hundreds of other categories it becomes useless. If there are just a few covers of a song, they can be listed in the article about the song. The songs can be listed in the articles by the performers. If the lists get big they can be taken out of the articles and made into separate lists. Categories should be left for information that is notable to the article. And, by the way, I looked around for some previous discussion about this problem and did not find anything. I did post a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines/Songs#Song_Categories. Sometimes the best way to get a discussion going is to post things here. -- Samuel Wantman 10:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It might seem a hugely valuable category to a fan, but it just isn't, and the consequences of starting a set of such categories would not be good. Bhoeble 17:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:The Waterboys songs. It is really irrelevant who wrote it, other there would be nothing under Category:Elvis Presley songs. If the Waterboys created a notable recording of the song, it should be under Category:The Waterboys songs.--Mike Selinker 17:01, 23 March 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Middle schools in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Middle schools in Georgia

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 14:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under what heading did you post this message?  Regards, David Kernow 12:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the village pump, under the heading with the word "troubleshooting". (Note that this is User:Georgia guy not logged-in for reasons relating to the troubleshooting problem. 66.32.237.222 21:31, 22 March 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Zen masters to Category:Zen Buddhist monks and priests

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Zen master" is an irremediably ambiguous expression that has never had a clear definition. At best, it is laudatory and therefore not NPOV. I'm proposing to change it simply to a category for ordained persons, with no comment on whether they are "masters" in some sense. It's necessary to say "monks and priests" because, in the context of Zen, "monk" and "priest" form a continuum which often cannot be clearly distinguished. Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:31, 21 March 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_21&oldid=1132245874"