Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 25

< July 24July 26 >

July 25

Category:Media events by type

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Media events by type (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as another tenuous and ill-conceived grouping by User:Stefanomione. Sub-cat Category:Media bias controversies is already well-categorized under Category:Media and entertainment controversies and the third sub-cat, Category:Propaganda is not an "event." The articles collected in this category are already adequately categorized -- under Category:Media issues, primarily. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2011 (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:River regulation

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. A clarification and clean-up to make the category clearer would be useful. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:River regulation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A redundant category filled with a mixture of different articles. The criteria for this category is vague and encompasses 1000s of articles. Category:Water management already serves the nom'd category's purpose; irrigation and flood control.NortyNort (Holla) 21:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created this to categorise those managed river systems in which reservoirs are used to store water for later release rather than store water for an immediate and local use (e.h water supply or hydro electricity generation). Specifically it includes those river systems where upland reservoirs release water so that the water may be abstracted in the lower reaches of the river - effectively using the river as an aqueduct. It also relates to rivers where upland or upstream reservoirs store water in time of heavy rainfall to mitigate flooding downstream. Without this category it is impossible to differentiate those system which have reservoirs which have an immediate and local use from those that regulate the flow of the river - hence River regulation. As somebody who has been professionally involved in the water industry and water environment industry and has been closely involved with the management of a number of regulated rivers, I know how difficult it is to find related information in Wikipedia , hence the creation of this category. It is self evident that the category Water Management provides no help whatsoever here. I am at a loss to understand why there would be a wish to delete the category.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand the intended purpose better now but this is too much for one category. Putting all of these articles into this category doesn't help readers understand the specifics. Every dam effects the flow of a river and most large dams have a greater purpose (among others) to regulate the flow. This can be in addition to local benefits. I'd say most of the dam articles on Wikipedia relate to those dams which are part of a regulated basin and serve to provide regimented flows downstream for a few seasons or years. The multi-purpose aspect of dams make this categorization difficult. Flows are even regulated for environmental purposes. Right now, we don't have a Category:Dams by purpose -- just by type, location and hydroelectric categories. I can only think to suggest renaming this to Category:Regulated rivers. From there, a reader can select a river and the article should list infrastructure for them. I also support major rivers have their own category for which dams can be added to, such as Category:Yellow River. Being that water is managed in one way or another here, I see such a category falling under Category:Water management or Category:Water resources management among others.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Taking a local view for the moment, in the UK there are only a few systems where upstream reservoirs are specifically designed and operated to regulate the downstream flow. All reservoirs will make continuous releases of a maintenance flow and many will absorb winter rainfall but not with any engineered intention of preventing floods - these would not be categorised as River regulation. My clear intention was to categorise only those systems where reservoirs store water for release into the river for later abstraction downstream. Neither hydro schemes, nor direct water supply schemes, nor canal feeder schemes nor winter storage for summer release (flow balancing) schemes would be so categorised. Maybe such schemes are very common in the USA, but in Europe they are much less common and categorizing those that do occur would be of benefit.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I know nothing about this topic. We have an article River engineering without a corresponding category. Dsp13 (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we have an article on something does not mean it is a broad or large enough topic to justify a category. Categories are meant to include multiple articles when they are the best way to navigate amoung related topics. Not every thing that can have an article needs a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In this case there are , as noted above, several river systems in the UK which are regulated in this way and both the reservoirs performing the regulation and the rivers systems themselves are part of a river regulation system. So for the case of the UK alone, there would be more than 12 entries which suggests maybe 100 or so across the world.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It actually appears like it has potential to be a useful category, but some of the articles have been misplaced into here. Also under the scope of this category I'm guessing Rio Grande Project fits here? Shannon+º! 05:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This really is rather subjective inclusion criteria and represents numerous intersections which we tend to avoid in categories. If deleted, a recreation with a clearer name about the purpose of the category along with clear inclusion guidelines should be allowed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2011 (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:World Heritage Sites in danger

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:World Heritage Sites in danger to Category:World Heritage in Danger
Nominator's rationale: UNESCO is the designating body of World Heritage Sites and also places threatened sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger. As far as I am aware, UNESCO never uses the phrase "World Heritage Site in Danger" (or similar combinations such as "Sites in Danger", etc) but always refers to it as "World Heritage in Danger" or "List of World Heritage in Danger" (i.e. without "Site(s)" in the name). The category's name should follow the official naming convention (which is without "Site(s)"). bamse (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2011 (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:Beauty Pageant winners by nationality

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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before the vast majority of these people were only winners of their national contests. They are beauty pageant winners by virtue of winning their national contest and then becoming delegates to international contests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would actually support staying with the Ireland name, but until I rememoved it the Miss Northern Ireland category was placed here. That is clearly not how we want things, so I thought maybe we need to be explicit in creating exclusive domains for the UK and Ireland cats. I would have assumed Ireland would be understood to mean the current country, but it was not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The names used for Irish articles are a complicated matter that has fortunately so far not really come up on CFD. In general the "Ireland" categories contain pre-partion and post-partition all-Ireland subjects with sub-categories for "Republic of Ireland" and "Northern Ireland", with the latter also sitting in the relevant UK categories. This arrangement has generally worked quite well. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Laura Herring is an example of someone who is currently only in one of the cats that is part of this system largely because people are applying this category as you have to win a contest of the country in question. If we interpreted this as a straight nationality system she would go into Category:Mexican beauty pageant winners even thought the only beauty pageant she has won was Miss USA.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order to assess whether to rename or not, one needs to know what we're trying to categorize: if a French woman wins a beauty contest in Germany where are we trying to put her? If it's in the French category, no rename. If it's in the German category, the rename is proper. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2011 (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:Born 1992

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Born 1992 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: *Delete. WP does not need a collection of categories that list the birth date of Wikipedians. Lets nip this in the bud. It is a poorly construed page name as well. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:02, 25 July 2011 (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:Highschool of the Dead

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Highschool of the Dead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category contains four articles which are already interlinked with one another. Little possibility of expansion. —Farix (t | c) 14:43, 25 July 2011 (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:Mayors of places in Norway subcats

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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
"Mayors of Foo municipalities" to "Mayors of places in Foo"
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:Born September

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Born September (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete User category that is unlikely to foster collaboration. Pichpich (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2011 (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:South Sudanese cabinet ministers

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 merge as G7. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:South Sudanese cabinet ministers to Category:Government ministers of South Sudan
Nominator's rationale: Merge to respect the convention of Category:Government ministers by country. Pichpich (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2011 (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:Nuclear sector

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Nuclear sector (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Guidelines of this category says: Here you find a list of all large companies which are active in the Nuclear sector, all along the nuclear chain, from uranium mining, -processing and -enrichment, to the actual operating of nuclear power plant and waste processing. However, this category in its current form does not fit into the current categorization tree of different type of nuclear companies and it represents WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION. Beagel (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2011 (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:Paedophile priests

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:Priests convicted of child sexual abuse and prune to see it is strictly limited to those with convictions. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Paedophile priests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think we should rename this Category:Priests convicted of child sexual abuse because it is more technical and would fit under Category:People convicted of child sexual abuse. This also creates a rigid standard for whom to include (whether or not they are convicted of this crime) whereas the current name risks people randomly labelling priest articles with name-calling perhaps based on suspicions. Naming the crime also separates it from the psychiatric diagnosis which may not be present in all cases. Plus we avoid squabbles over how to spell (ped/paed). AweCo (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This category has been problematic in the past. Shortly after it was created, I removed a bunch of articles about priests who had been accused of sexual abuse but in each case there was no criminal conviction and in each case the priest had denied the allegation. There are therefore significant BLP risks with this category that are not merely theoretical. The suggested rename is a good idea, I think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename impossible to verify pedophilia or proveCurb Chain (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with reservations I agree that the suggested conviction-specific name is better than current. However while the priests have been a major controvery in recent years, is it really appropriate to intersect occupation and conviction in this way? No such intersection category has been established for other "people in positions of trust" (teachers, youth group leaders, etc.); and even if an occupation category is felt desirable, this naming is even specific to one religious group (as a subcategory of Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal). AllyD (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as suggested. AllyD, there are other crimes that are specific to the clergy which have categories such as Category:Members of the clergy with criminal convictions (now super-cat of the one in question). Note that what does or does not exist is not relevant in these discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Absolutely no issue with labeling child sex abusers, but it should be verifiable they have been convicted of a crime. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One issue that needs to be kept in mind is that Pedophilia is not a crime. Pedophilia is a desire, crimes are based on actions. Beyond this, the technical definition of pedophilia is about pre-puberscent children, but most accusations, convictions and lawsuits relate to sexual abuse of post-pubescent minors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, checking membership, for the reasons suggested by the nom. Deletion on the grounds that it is arbitrary over-categorization seems to ignore the extent of public interest in the general topic of child sex abuse by priests. On the other hand, we need objectively definable categories - especially for topics which arouse strong emotions like this one.Dsp13 (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is this meant to be limited to Roman Catholic Church priests, or do we put in say Anglican priests as well?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2011 (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:Buildings and structures in the Americas

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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Buildings and structures in the Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Bridges in the Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Palaces in the America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Skyscrapers in the Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't think we need to have container categories for buildings and structures in the Americas, since in every case the sole contents will be subcategories for North America and South America. WP categorization treats North and South America as separate continents, so there is no need for this extra layer. (Note: there is a typo in the name of the third category listed.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2011 (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:Non-UN member states and entities United Nations General Assembly permanent observers

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Non-UN member states and entities United Nations General Assembly permanent observers to Category:United Nations General Assembly observers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is indeed an official "sub-type" of UNGA observer (see here), but given that it only consists of the Holy see and the Palestinian National Authority, is it worthwhile having a subcategory for it? I don't really think so and think that this could just as happily be returned to its parent, which is the general category for all UNGA observers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I've created this sub-category was UN division, what you acctually gave as well. Holy See and Palestine Authority need to be categorised seperatly, becouse their status is not equal to GUAM or Interpol. Putting HS and PA togheter with other organisations is not fair. The status of the European Union is also very unique. Soon other supernatural organisations might get similar to EU status. Although I think that name of the category is not succesful. Maybe othe proposals?--Spacejam2 (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are placed in a different subsection of observers, but for practical purposes there is not much difference. The most significant feature is whether the entity gets a vote or not in committees or in the General Assembly, and members of neither group get to vote. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2011 (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/2011_July_25&oldid=1146511703"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 25, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.