Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 31 June 2 >

June 1

[edit]

Category:Heretic-Hexen

[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 Category:Heretic-Hexen to Category:Heretic and Hexen. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Heretic-Hexen to Category:Serpent Riders trilogy
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category refers to a body of work that is frequently called the "Serpent Riders trilogy" per Google. I will call out the fact that there are actually 4 games in this "trilogy", because one of them (Heretic II) is not directly related to the main plot. However, I see this as being a technicality in much the same way as The Hobbit is a fourth part of the The Lord of the Rings, which by and large is thought of as a "trilogy". Alternatively, if the word trilogy is found too offensive, perhaps just clean up this name to Category:Heretic and Hexen. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I've never heard of it referred to as the "Serpent Rider's trilogy" and a Google search only gives a page and a half of results: hardly evidence of it being "frequently called" that. "Heretic and Hexen" would seem like a much more appropriate name. fraggle (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's "Serpent Riders" (plural) not "Serpent Rider's" (possessive). Google gives 4 pages for that version. However, you're right that this is perhaps still not enough. However I also suggested the rename to "Heretic and Hexen" so why not change your vote to a conditional support? Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Heretic and Hexen would seem the best option. The phrase "Heretic-Hexen" certainly doesn't seem to be used in the articles relating to each game, so some form of rename would be advisable, but "trilogy" is a little misleading in this case – Ikara talk → 16:26, 14 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.

Palestine categories

[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. Supported by other CfD closes that appear to make this the consensus in multiple discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Palestine is not by any means a universally recognized country. Previous discussion (1, 2a, 2b) led to the conclusion that categories dealing with modern topics should be named "Category: ... Palestinian territories," "Category: ... Palestinian National Authority," or "Category:Palestinian..." These categories have all been created after those discussions. I have arranged them chronologically here. (half are from the past month, the rest are spread out) --Eliyak T·C 21:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From Transjordan: "From that point [Sept. 1922] onwards, Britain administered the part west of the Jordan as Palestine, and the part east of the Jordan as Transjordan. Technically they remained one mandate but most official documents referred to them as if they were two separate mandates. Transjordan remained under British control until 1946."
I think common sense should be used in the naming of the categories. People looking for info concerning the modern Palestinian territories should find it in a category with that name in it. People looking for info concerning historical Palestine should find it in a category with that name. Where a topic concerns both periods it should be in 2 categories. Ease of use should guide the naming in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:32, 20 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:Vox Humana 8'

[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Vox Humana 8' (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This appears to be a private category used by one user to organize one userspace draft page. There is also a subcategory, Category:Vox Humana 8'/Churches. KathrynLybarger (talk) 19:19, 1 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:Fictional Femme Fatales

[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: speedy delete, G4. BencherliteTalk 00:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional Femme Fatales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is one of those arbitrary, trivial and potentially endless categories with no real purpose. — TAnthonyTalk 15:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't arbitrary. It certainly isn't endless since some women are femme fatales and some simply aren't. No one is being libeled because the femmes all are fictional. The category is useful for literary research. Wlmg (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every supervillainess is not a femme fatale lol Wlmg (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - While it's undoubtedly true that some women are femme fatales and that some women simply aren't, there's a large spectrum of female characters who may or may not be femme fatales, depending on who's making the call. In other words, this strikes me as a highly subjective term that isn't very well-suited to serving as a category, interesting though it may be. Cgingold (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No concrete definition for what a femme fatale constitutes. Trivial category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a concrete definition for fictional dominatrices? Because they get a category. Wlmg (talk) 19:29, 1 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:Alpha CVn-type variables

[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: merge Category:Alpha CVn-type variables to Category:Alpha2 Canum Venaticorum variables. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alpha CVn-type variables (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: User:CarloscomB claims this is a stub-type category, but the stub template does not populate this category, nor would I expect the contents of this category to necessarily be stubs. 70.55.86.37 (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As this clearly should not be a stub category, I've removed the stub templates. Spacepotato (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into existing category for this variable type, Category:Alpha2 Canum Venaticorum variables. Spacepotato (talk) 00:17, 2 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:Eclipsing binary of Algol type

[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: merge Category:Eclipsing binary of Algol type to Category:Algol variables. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Eclipsing binary of Algol type to Category:Algol variables
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Another User:CarloscomB category requiring cleanup. This time, it replicates an existing category. 70.55.86.37 (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. Spacepotato (talk) 00:22, 2 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:RS CVn variables

[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: merge Category:RS CVn variables to Category:RS Canum Venaticorum variables. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:RS CVn variables to Category:RS Canum Venaticorum variables
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Another User:CarloscomB category requiring cleanup. This time, it replicates an existing category. When created, it claimed to be a stub-type category, and claimed to be populated by a stub template that didn't use it. 70.55.86.37 (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. Spacepotato (talk) 00:23, 2 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:QSO objects

[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: merge Category:QSO objects to Category:Quasars. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:QSO objects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: QSO object makes no sense, "Quasi-Stellar Object objects"? Further, QSO is shorthand for Quasar, and we already have Category:Quasars, so this is redundant. 70.55.86.37 (talk) 14:18, 1 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:Emission-line Star

[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 Category:Emission-line Star to Category:Emission-line stars. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Emission-line Star (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: All stars have emission lines. This category makes no sense. Further, it was created as a "stub-type" category, which it is patently _not_. 70.55.86.37 (talk) 13:57, 1 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:Ancient Trojans

[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: merge Category:Ancient Trojans to Category:Trojans. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ancient Trojans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only four members which are all members of parent Category:Trojans. As it isn't name of current inhabitated place all Trojans are ancient. Other parent category irrelevant as Trojans were not Greeks.Peter cohen (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Later: This is a Merge proposal--Peter cohen (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was my first proposal. Maybe next time I'll get it right. I had intended delete but I can see that merge is safer as someoen might add a new member while we're discussing this--Peter cohen (talk) 13:19, 1 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.

The Price Is Right

[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 both. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator's rationale: These Price Is Right categories are proposing for renaming. The proper title was a capital "I" for "Is", not a small "i". The correct proper rename title is "The Price Is Right". These two categories has to be renamed to match the main articles and correcting the proper title. Steam5 (talk) 05:35, 1 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:Middle-earth calendars

[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: merge Category:Middle-earth calendars to Category:Middle-earth and Category:Fictional calendars. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Middle-earth calendars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category has only one article in it, so it is not needed, as we do not retain empty categories. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I said discussions last month, I was referring to the discussions about similar categories. There are at least two editors, me and User:YLSS, who are willing to do a global approach for the category structure under Category:Middle-earth and Category:J. R. R. Tolkien. No need to throw up the categories piecemeal in an inefficient fashion. Discussion with us and other editors and populators of the categories will get better results. Also, see here for a list of redirects associated with Middle-earth calendar. I am going to note this at Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects as an alternative way to organise and keep track of redirects. Carcharoth (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Otto4711, what was the need in depopulating the category when it was under CfD? If you have any comments on its inconsistency, please discuss it here.) This is indeed a category with little potential, unlike those for Orcs etc that were temporarily put on hold. The only possibility for its expansion is creating redirects for all month-names, various loende etc. They do have individual entries in Encyclopedia of Arda, so it is possible that a user will type these names, but I think it is least necessary. So if you want, move the article to Category:Middle-earth, preserve the redirects where they are and move them to a subcat of Category:Middle-earth redirects. Súrendil (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The items removed from the category during the discussion were miscategorized. Fictional days are not "fictional calendars" so whether this cat is under discussion or not they should not have been in the category. Otto4711 (talk) 01:33, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_1&oldid=1138390667"