Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 21

< May 20	May 22 >

May 21

Category:Chronic blistering skin conditions

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 (ah, if we only got this many people contributing on a regular basis at CFD...). Kbdank71 14:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chronic blistering skin conditions to Category:Chronic blistering cutaneous conditions

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I started the WP:DERM taskforce, and have been working to categorize dermatology articles in an organized fashion. The proposed categorization scheme is specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization, which was developed from discussions at the main wikipedia medicine page (see that link for more details). As per that scheme, the "Chronic blistering skin conditions" category should probably be renamed to "Chronic blistering cutaneous conditions" as the scope of the category is not strictly limited to conditions that affect the skin, but also the mucous membranes (i.e. inside the mouth, lining of the eyes, nose, etc.), like cicatricial pemphigoid for example (see List_of_skin-related_conditions#Chronic_blistering for a listing of all the conditions considered part of this category). With that being said, if this rename is enacted, I will (1) add additional information to the category introduction discussing the term "cutaneous" in language directed towards the general reader, and (2) create a redirect from the existing category name. kilbad (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, per the ground-work, and per my confidence in the nominator :-). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. SimonPucher (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Maen. K. A. (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom. and Levine2112 --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support—"Cutaneous" is technically correct, and we need to embrace the mucosal and the skin under one umbrella term. Thanks Kilbad. Tony (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -per nom, and all above. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom. Spate's Catalog (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom, though for some reason i keep wanting to add "..., Batman!" to the end of it. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom. Pretty good idea... Rcej (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom. I like the idea... Giggs (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good idea. —G716 <^T·_C> 21:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom. More technically correct -- thanks for taking on the task, Kilbad!Danierrr (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - more precise. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree cutaneous is more correct than skin and it should be changed. I appreciate kilbad for taking the initiative to fix it. --D.c.camero (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2009 (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:Ferry terminals in the San Francisco Bay Area

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 on may 29 because the categories were not tagged. Kbdank71 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: delete....over-categorised. contents should be placed in parent category emerson7 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep if these are deleted, it disorganizes the county parent category in each case: 'Public transportation in xxx County, California' Hmains (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Ferry terminals in the San Francisco Bay Area and the public transportation by county categories. The categories are overly-small and unlikely to substantially grow. The county public transportation categories are not overcrowded and would not suffer from the merge. - Eureka Lott 04:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge in each case to all parent cats ('Buildings and structures' as well, if present). The categories are not tagged, however. Occuli (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2009 (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:International Lesbian and Gay Association

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. Kbdank71 15:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:International Lesbian and Gay Association to Category:International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association

Nominator's rationale: current naming of organization is "International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association" according to website [1] Wikignome0529 (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - more appropriate, inclusive title. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:11, 24 May 2009 (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 Lithuanian communists

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. Kbdank71 15:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Former Lithuanian communists to Category:Lithuanian communists

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per established consensus to not categorise politicians/political beliefs by current or former status. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Communist party is banned in Lithuania, without attribution "former" category implies that Living persons are still the members of it or represent this ideology. M.K. (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The same could be said for virtually any category when the institution no longer exists. The Hartford Whalers don't exist anymore, but we only have Category:Hartford Whalers players, not Category:Former Hartford Whalers players. But doesn't this imply that living persons are still Hartford Whalers players? Well, no. All that needs to be done is explaining in article text that the person stopped being a Hartford Whaler or a communist in year X. Or just don't include them in the category if that's too much work. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge Disallowing the notion of being a former communist, in a sense, is similar to a mind set every single communist regime in history has instituted. Not a good idea.--Rcej (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not disallowing the notion. Categories do not set the boundaries of "concepts" on WP. That's what article text is for. Surely it can be elaborated on in an article. Making a category for something that should be elucidated is just lazy. I wish you would just come out and call me a communist so I could add it to my list of insults, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. We don't categorise people by former political belief; see e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 18#Category:Former conservatives. Category:Communists and its subcats are meant to include all people who were Communists at some point in their lives, including former ones. Robofish (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. Standard catting practice to have contents 'timeless' Mayumashu (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2009 (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:Renaissance Latin authors

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. Kbdank71 15:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Renaissance Latin authors to Category:Renaissance Latin writers

Nominator's rationale: All other categories under Category:Latin writers by era use the format ___ Latin writers. This category is the odd one out and it would be convenient for its title to be consistent with the others. RandomCritic (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. HeartofaDog (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nominators rationale. ---kilbad (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2009 (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:Paradigm shifts

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. Kbdank71 15:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This newly-created category does not appear to be a useful classification of events as it's hard to see how it can be used for anything other than editors' personal views. The current content covers topics as diverse as the Columbian Exchange, World War II, the Roswell incident and Grunge music. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research to begin with. Also including this in Category:Epistemology seems a strange thing to do given the contents tagged to the category so far. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article Paradigm shift includes quite a list, which can presumably be sourced in the literature (and Category:Epistemology seems a reasonable parent, given the article). I would say this is an example where a category is much less appropriate than a list in an article as some explanation is required (especially for Grunge music). Occuli (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Occuli. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure unsourced opinion. I don't object to properly sourced inclusion of a list in Paradigm shift, but it's not reasonable to expect editors of multiple articles to work to coordinate with that so very tangentially related one. TJRC (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2009 (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:U.S. Bicycle Route System

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. Kbdank71 15:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:U.S. Bicycle Route System to Category:United States Numbered Bicycle Routes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article. I think the capitalization is correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2009 (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:Television stations to Flash-Cut to digital

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. Kbdank71 15:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Listify/Delete? Rename? - Is this a defining characteristic of these stations? If kept it needs to be renamed to correct the capitalization of "flash-cut". Otto4711 (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I understand it, this is for a one time event. While unique, I don't see it as defining. I don't see how it is encyclopedic, but it will be a good trivia list in the future. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Listify - I don't mind which, but it's not a good idea for a category. Robofish (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2009 (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:Edmonton LRT

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. Kbdank71 15:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Edmonton LRT to Category:Edmonton Light Rail Transit

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories): Avoid abbreviations.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- As per nominators rational. ---kilbad (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2009 (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.

Writers by language

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. Kbdank71 15:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Rename. Match Category:Writers by language.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Note I combined these as we don't need three duplicate discussion threads. — CharlotteWebb 03:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You forgot to fix the links in the cfr on the categories themselves.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wasn't necessary actually, the span tags are there to catch incoming section links. — CharlotteWebb 13:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – much better. (There are some more within Category:Indian writers by language.) Occuli (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:34, 21 May 2009 (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:Files by Phil Ellery, Category:Files by Talskiddy

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. Kbdank71 15:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete both - Individual "files uploaded by user" categories, which have an extensive, unanimous history of deletion. We don't categorize files by who uploaded and/or created them. VegaDark (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both – let us continue this tradition of unanimous deletion. Occuli (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Improper categories. — Σ xplicit 23:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per everyone. TJRC (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:NOT#WEBHOST Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominators rationale. ---kilbad (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom & per WP:OWN. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2009 (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.