Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 29

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< June 28 June 30 >

June 29

Category:Latin alphabets

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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 21#Category:Latin alphabets. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. 1) The article Latin alphabet is about the alphabet or alphabets used to write the Latin language. 2) The article Latin script is about the Latin script as defined by Unicode and includes letters from the Latin alphabet(s) and other characters. The Latin alphabet belong is one alphabet that uses the Latin script. 3) The category that is named "Latin alphabets" does contain alphabets using the Latin script as defined in (2) and is not restricted to the alphabet or alphabets as defined by (1) "Latin alphabet". If the category is renamed as proposed the name would be consistent with the definitions (1) and (2).
Some categories and articles that use "Latin-script":
For the hyphen see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems#Inconsistency - Latin script vs Latin-script Indiana State (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This makes very little difference, but "Latin alphabet(s)" is the normal phrasing. (In text, "a Latin alphabet" or "Latin alphabets" is sufficient to indicate that we are not speaking of the Latin alphabet itself.) The proposer just moved some of these articles, so it's maybe a bit early to see if anyone will object. (Probably not.) If we move this, the hyphen is required, or it would read as calligraphic hands used for Latin. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Maybe there is not even THE Latin alphabet. The article Latin alphabet itself lists "Archaic Latin alphabet" and "Classical Latin alphabet", which could be regarded as two alphabets to write the Latin language, or short two "Latin alphabets". And here the name is inconsistent with the 2011 created Category:Latin alphabets. The alphabets in the category are not alphabets that would be listed in the article Latin alphabet like "Archaic Latin alphabet" and "Classical Latin alphabet". Indiana State (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict - I wrote the following before the above response by Kwamikagami) It follows an additional note. I found several red links to Category:Latin-derived alphabets, a page User:Kwamikagami deleted: 16:35, 16 August 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) deleted page Category:Latin-derived alphabets (C1: Empty category). Checking the first alphabet in the list I found that at 10:55 of that day Kwamikagami switched the category from "Latin-derived alphabets" to "Latin alphabets", that means Kwamikagami worked on emptying the established category, which has been used already in 2004 [1]. I don't see any discussion for this emptying nor deletion. This might also constitute a violation of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported License, since in the creation of the new category Kwamikagami didn't provide a reference to creators of the category. Indiana State (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2012 (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:Hamilton Red Wings players

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. Noncontroversial disambiguation per speedy C2B and WP:BURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are teams with both of these names in baseball and hockey. For the baseball teams, see New York–Penn League and Canadian League. This change would distinguish these teams from the similar hockey players categories that will be created because of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_18#Hockey_alumni.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Mike Selinker (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2012 (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:Moncton Alpines players

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. Noncontroversial disambiguation per speedy C2B and WP:BURO. The Bushranger One ping only 17:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are two hockey teams called the Moncton Alpines, one in the American Hockey League and one in the Quebec Minor Junior Hockey League. Due to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_18#Hockey_alumni, the QMJHL one will soon have a category called Category:Moncton Alpines (QMJHL) players, so this should be renamed to disambiguate it from the other. (Also, apparently I created this category in 2006.)-- Mike Selinker (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2012 (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:The Flaming Lips 2011 Releases

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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. An unnecessary diffusion of an artist's releases by year. All are already in Category:The Flaming Lips EPs. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the most prolific of artists don't need albums/EPs by year. Lugnuts (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete Both your points are quite valid, naturally; however, 2011 was an especial year for collaborations and miscellaneous works for the Lips. Moreover, 2011 Releases section of The Flaming Lips page is very disorganized and, subsequently, not likely to be taken credibly. And the Category:The Flaming Lips EPs page, although concise, is rather inconvenient for fans who would have to sift through the master list of EPs looking for individual works by year. Granted, I haven't finished the individuals pages that make up this subcategory yet, but I don't see the harm or confusion in leaving it up, so long as the information is complete and accurate (which, of course, is my intention). TheMikeBlackSpecial (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really the point of categorization. If I were a fan (or just a general reader, even), I would expect and be able to find such info at The Flaming Lips discography. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I see no reason to start a released by year, by artist series of categories. As pointed out this would be clear from the discography section of an artists article. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2012 (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:York Football League

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 to Category:Football clubs in North Yorkshire. The Bushranger One ping only 00:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category effectively empty, only contains the parent article. Del♉sion23 (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:57, 30 June 2012 (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.

Water resource management

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All this categories are about 'management of water resources' (plural form), and not 'resource management of water' (singular form). The top level of the tree is Category:Water resources management Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 10:18, 29 June 2012 (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.

Gliding/Olympic categories wrongly named and of limited use

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 to Category:Olympic glider pilots, and likewise for all subcategories: Category:Olympic glider pilots by country, Category:Olympic glider pilots by year, Category:Olympic glider pilots of Romania and Category:Glider pilots at the 1936 Summer Olympics‎. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 1936 Olympics included a gliding as a demonstration sport, though no actual contest took place. It is very unlikely that gliding will feature in a future Olympic Games. Gliders are aircraft, the participants are 'glider pilots'. There is already a category for Category:Glider pilots. I propose the removal of the cats listed below as they are wrongly named and are overcategorised.

JMcC (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2012 (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.

Indian actor performer-by-performance categories

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. In each case these categories are largely categorizing films that the Indian actor has appeared in. This is overcategorization of performer by performance. Categories of this type for Hollywood actors have been deleted repeatedly. In the case of the eponymous categories, there is the odd article which is not a film the actor appeared in, but I don't think there's enough in these to justify a category purged of the films. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2012 (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:Former members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam

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 and merge. The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename/merge. I suggest merging both of these into a new general category for members since generally we don't categorize politicians by former or current status as members of a body. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2012 (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/2012_June_29&oldid=1136462989"