Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 29

< January 28	January 30 >

January 29

Category:Animated features released by DreamWorks

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/merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Animated features released by DreamWorks to Category:DreamWorks Animation films

Nominator's rationale: These seem to cover the same set of films, or are at least so close that it is hard to tell what the difference is.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:09, 29 January 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:Slovak Superliga

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/merge. This would seem to be the least worst solution to a tricky problem. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Slovak Superliga to Category:Slovak First League

Propose renaming Category:Slovak Superliga seasons to Category:Slovak First League seasons

Propose merging Category:Slovak Superliga players to Category:Slovak First League players

Nominator's rationale: Rename the first two and merge the third. Slovak Superliga is a redirect to Slovak First League and we should be consistent. Pichpich (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. The articles on the leagues were renamed in 2011 (see here), when the Superliga became First League, the old First League became the new Slovak Second League, and so on. I cannot see simple any way of naming these categories without creating ambiguity, unless we have Category:Slovak First League (formerly Second League), Category:Slovak Second League (formerly Third League) etc. I think it would be a bit less ugly to split the categories to reflect the fact that in the 1997 to 2011 period, the numbering changed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed problematic but I'm not sure there's a better option than just ignoring (to a certain extent) the 1997-2011 interlude. If we split the category into for instance Category:Slovak First League players into Category:Slovak First League players (2012 - ), Category:Slovak Superliga players (1997-2011) and Category:Slovak First League players (prior to 1997) we'll end up with a lot of category clutter and although we might claim that we're technically unambiguous I doubt that we'll clear up much of the confusion for our readers. I think it's a better idea to go through with the renaming proposed above and to clearly explain the 1997-2011 interlude in the paragraph of introduction to the category. At least for now we're also helped by the fact that there are no existing categories for the lower levels of the Slovak football leagues system. Pichpich (talk) 21:54, 31 January 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:Police museums in Alberta

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) 17:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Only one article but it's not even clear why the Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village should be considered a police museum. Pichpich (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Umm, yeah. I am struggling to actually find a single "police museum" in Alberta. Certainly there are active historical sites that were once NWMP forts, and there are memorials. And in the case of the Ukranian village, there might be a replica police building as part of the park, but a specific museum? Can't think of any. Reso lute 17:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. There doesn't appear to be even one article which genuinely belongs here, so this category should be empty. In any case, we don't even have a general Category:Police museums, so I see no need to create one for a specific country, let alone a province. We don't even have a head article Police museum. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It looks as if Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village is not about a village in the ordinary sense, but a museum containing relocated buildings. One these is the Andrew Police post. I presume that this contains a police museum. As a preserved buidling, this is potentially notable, but whehter I am doubtful that we need an article on it, rather than a paragraph in the wider one of the Village. What should be its article is a redirect to an article on the Alberta police. The potential parent, "Police Museums in Canada" is a red-link. The ultimate parent "police museums" also does not exist, though there certainly are others: I visited one in Birmingham some years ago. Until there is a much better developed tree, we do not need this category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 1 February 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:IBM Mainframe computer operating systems

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, noting the main article title. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IBM Mainframe computer operating systems to Category:IBM mainframe operating systems

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Capitalization, redundancy. —Ruud 10:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename IBM did not make any mainframe non-computers, so far as I am aware. "Computer" is thus redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split by OS, eliminate mainframe subcat There's no overall mainframe OS category, and what's in this category is a mishmash of main articles about some (but not all) of IBM's operating systems, but also a bunch of articles about utilities and other not-really-OS articles. It would make more sense to reorganize all these articles according to the specific OS(s) involved, removing the utilities and other non-OS topics entirely (there are lots of those too). Mangoe (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree this category should be subdivided, I've added a {{diffuse}}. I'm not sure this cat needs to be eliminated entirely (i.e. merging it with Category:IBM operating systems), but we can not even do that before it has been spilt into subcategories. —Ruud 05:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Peterkingiron. Agree with Mangoe that it could do with some tidying (and Category:ICL operating systems is little better) but I'm not sure how creating an overall mainframe OS category would help, though that may be a good idea in any case. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the question here is what was the common name for these? Also in looking at the category, it needs a good cleanup since it includes components of various operating systems that probably should be not articles in this category, but maybe in some type of subcategory. So at this point I think I Oppose. If we want to rename, then Category:IBM operating systems (mainframe) seems to be a better choice since we are disambiguating a class of operating systems. I don't recall them being called mainframe operating systems. This would seem like a better naming convention to use for splitting Category:IBM operating systems. One additional split that seems to make sense from the nav template would be Category:IBM operating systems (server). Vegaswikian (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The main article is History of IBM mainframe operating systems and IBM calls them "mainframe operating systems", so I don't think that would be an obstacle here. —Ruud 00:55, 6 February 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:Military memorials and cemeteries

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: Split to Category:Military monuments and memorials or Category:Military cemeteries. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Military memorials and cemeteries to Category:Military monuments, memorials and cemeteries

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Or probably better Split to Category:Military monuments and memorials or Category:Military cemeteries. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much better to split -- some memorials are in cemtetries; some are not. Most English villages and towns have at least one war memorial to the dead of WWI, with the dead of WWII and later wars added. These are usually in a prominent public location, not in a cemetery, and certainly not a military cemetery. British proactice until recently was to bury the war dead on or near the battlefield where they fell, so that there are relatively few military cemeteries in UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split as cemeteries already have their own hierarchy which should be kept separate from the memorials hierarchy. Mangoe (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split using Category:Cemeteries and Category:Monuments and memorials. Oculi (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split. Makes sense and helps hierarchy. We can use both new cats if applicable to article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:48, 4 February 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:Kristol family

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) 13:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, no evidence why this family is importance (other than a son who followed on his father footsteps), unlikely to be filled further Secret ^account 05:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with Secret. Not yet warranted. Pichpich (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They are all listed at Kristol except Ms Himmelfarb, who is a Mrs Kristol and can easily be added to that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. There is no reasonable prospect of the category being expanded, and the articles are adequately interlinked. This a family with some notable members, but there is no evidence that the concept of a "Kristol family" is notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 30 January 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:Frels family

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) 13:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT, both biographical articles are potential merge candidates third article is about the town they co-founded. Secret ^account 00:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – "Frelsburg is an unincorporated community". {{CategoryTOC}} is an optimistic touch for one of the least substantial categories I have seen. Oculi (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Secret points out, the two biographical articles don't even deserve articles... Pichpich (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. It is not the function of CFD to reach a view on whether articles should or should not exist; that sort of discussion belongs at WP:AFD. The question for CFD is how to categorise those articles which do exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - You're right. The category should still be deleted though: it's small, it has no obvious room for expansion and the two articles are already interlinked. Pichpich (talk) 21:41, 31 January 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:Machemehl family

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) 13:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT, two subjects in which one of the articles is about an house, not an biography and the other one is not mentioned in the house article. Secret ^account 00:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – true. Oculi (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete small and unlikely to grow. And it's true that even the relationship between the two current articles isn't clear. Pichpich (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify at Machemehl. We do not even have a list article on people with this surname yet. This is a much more useful navigation aid than a category. I use such lists to find the bio-article on a person, whose article might be at any one of several locations. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 29 January 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.