Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 21

< December 20	December 22 >

December 21

Category:People of the Irish art world

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. I've made sure all articles are somewhere in the "Irish art critics/collectors/etc." tree, except I could not find obvious places for William Dargan and Bryan Guinness, 2nd Baron Moyne, whose role seems to be to set up art exhibits and institutions. Anyone else can feel free to put those articles in appropriate categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete/merge elsewhere as needed. This is a one-of-a-kind category and does not seem like a very useful one; there is no Irish art world or Category:Irish art world. It seems like this was only created because someone thought certain articles were related to Category:Irish art or art in Ireland, and more specific categories such as Category:Irish art critics did not yet exist. It has since failed to be expanded into a system of "art world figures by nationality".

The included articles are already in (or can be added to) more precise categories, such as Category:Irish art critics or Category:Irish art collectors. Of the three included categories, two are kinds of artist and so are already in Category:Irish artists, and Category:Irish curators can either go directly in Category:Irish art...or not in that structure at all, as not all curators are curators of art. A further strike against the category is that the phrase "Irish art world" obviously implies a geographically-based network of cultural institutions and individuals (again, undefined by a parent article or category), while in reality the categories such as Category:Irish painters are purely concerned with the nationality of the subject and not with whether they participated in a coherent "art world." postdlf (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note a previous discussion that resulted in a rename and as the closer, I suggested a separate discussion on the need for the category. The old category was apparently created in 2005. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what about merging to Category:Irish artists? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That, and Category:Irish art for the non-artist categories. postdlf (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Distribute contents to sub-cats as far as possible then merge to Category:Irish art. On checking the contents, I found a couple of art critics (possible new small sub-cat); two gallery founders; a couple of painters; two or three collectors/owners/donors of art; and one person whose inclusion was not supported by the article text. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too vague. Use more specific categories instead (Category:Irish artists; Category:Irish art collectors; create Category:Irish art curators if necessary, etc.) Neutrality^talk 03:55, 26 December 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:United States Army aircraft

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) 21:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A categorise by user category not normally accepted on aircraft articles. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "By user" is rarely defining and leads to Thirty Cat Pileups like the disgusting mess at the bottom of AIM-120 AMRAAM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I do not see a difference from a "military aircraft" category, which I expect we have already. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:05, 23 December 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:United States Coast Guard aircraft

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) 21:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorises aircraft by users is not that helpful and similar categories have been brought to this forum and deleted. Certain aircraft types could have sixty or seventy user categories if these categorise by user cats were allowed. MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same as in the nom above. By-user cats lead to messy categorisation by non-defining criterion. Aircraft, missiles, weapons, etc. should have their users listed, either in the article itself or in a spinoff List of... article, but not categorised by-user. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I doubt these differ significantly from other aircraft. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 23 December 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:Users love Meg Ryan

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) 21:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't believe category space is used in this manner. I could not find any other example of such. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per extensive precedent against keeping such categories, not to mention the improper grammar. VegaDark (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Milla Jovovich, myself. Delete - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe Speedy, and Gina Torres is hotter. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly this CfD can only be settled through a Jello wrestling competition. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete per precedent.--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:44, 26 December 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:Britain's lost houses

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:Former country houses in the United Kingdom. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Britain's lost houses to Category:Lost country houses

Nominator's rationale: This category title is currently ambiguous, and there doesn't seem to have been as much take up of it as might be expected. It would make much more sense to rename this category 'Lost country houses'. It is already a subcategory of Category:Country houses in the United Kingdom. As an example of where this category is needed: Fonthill Abbey, which was one of the most famous of the lost country houses of Britain, is currently in Category:Former buildings and structures of England and Category:Destroyed landmarks, neither of which quite do it justice. CircleOfWillis (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but to Category:Lost country houses in the United Kingdom. For the benefit of non-UK users this is about country mansions of the gentry and peers. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the benefit of us non-UK users, you might need to explain gentry and peers :) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright -- Landed gentlemen and lords. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're not helping :) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Country houses" are rather large houses in the country. They usually belonged to people of a certain social status, but it's a description of the house not the owner. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Former country houses in the United Kingdom, per already extant Category:Country houses in the United Kingdom supercat. Note: "Lost" is far too emotional and unencyclopaedic. "Demolished" or "former" or even "ruined", but "lost" is just too far beyond our NPOV naming requirements. Mais oui! (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I take your point, but as an academic I would be happy to use 'lost country house' because it has become part of the cultural language related to country house studies, and precisely because it is an emotive term that reflects the sense of a vanished heritage that cannot be recovered. 'Lost' country houses aren't just former buildings, they are seen almost as destroyed artworks. This idea gathered momentum with the famous exhibition in London in the 1970s, The Destruction of the Country House. CircleOfWillis (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm surprised to learn that Britain is the only place in the world to have lost country houses. Oppose rename to Category:Former country houses in the United Kingdom instead. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(changed vote) Now Support Rename to Category:Former country houses in the United Kingdom. This accords with precedent on "former buildings and structures". Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Former does not work in this context. Former would change the category to include houses that have survived but been converted into hotels, conference centres, et al. Quite different. Lost is a far more accurate term. Ephebi (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lost means we don't know where it is -- this would be rather unusual. Better would be demolished (for buildings no longer in existence), former or converted (for buildings still in existence but now being used for something else), ruined (for ruins). Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:22, 28 December 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:Computer Assisted Auditing Techniques

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 to Category:Computer-aided audit tools per C2D. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Computer Assisted Auditing Techniques to Category:Computer-assisted auditing techniques

Nominator's rationale: Rename. WP:MOSCAPS indicates lower case should be used. WP:HYPHEN and external style guides say to hyphenate.

Tony (talk)

10:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion isn't listed on the category page. Caps and hyphen are OK per speedy criterion C2A. Support alt rename Category:Computer-aided audit tools per main article. – Pnm (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename C2A and C2D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:42, 23 December 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:Nineties Glasgow-scene groups

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:Musical groups from Glasgow. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. By-decade groups categories, such as Category:1990s music groups, were deleted in a previous CfD six months ago. This category intersects a specific set of groups by location and time, but there is a no article on any type of Glasgow music scene. There is a section in Glasgow#Music scene that states the rise in popularity of bands from Glasgow in the 1990s prompted "Time Magazine to liken Glasgow to Detroit during its 1960s Motown heyday", but then again there are no categories for "Sixties Motown groups" or anything similar. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, contents of this category should be upmerged to Category:Musical groups from Glasgow, if not already in it. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Musical groups from Glasgow, as nom. This (rather than delete) is the appropriate outcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as mentioned above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 23 December 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:Snow by location

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category was emptied and tagged for C1 by another user. I have restored the articles to it, and nominated it for CFD as a procedural nomination for deletion. I am neutral on whether or not it should be kept. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Apart from snow patches in Scotland, this appears to be about snow in places where it is unexpected. The present contents may obviously belong, but at the borderline in/exclusion will be POV, which we cannot allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not about snow by location, I don't see any glacier articles, for instance. Possibly listify List of unusual snow events or List of snow events in unusual locations. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 06:37, 23 December 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:Nonexistent people

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: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category seems too broad and too vague. Pretty much every item in this category is a hoax, a joke, a legend or a pseudonym. The pages in this category should be in more specific categories than this D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be preserved as a overall category but the articles could be moved to more specific categories - Skysmith (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but narrow and purge -- but I do not think any pseudonym (such as nom-de-plume) ought to be in it. I was hearing on the radio about a film producer's name which was actually a dumping ground for films which the real producer did not want to acknowledge: that seems an appropriate case for inclusion. I am also not sure about legendary people, who may (or may not) result from a gfenuine person. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it make sense to make this a category with only categories inside it? Subcategories could be thinks like Category:Legendary people, Category:People created by hoaxes, Category:Pseudonyms, Category:People created as jokes, etc. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The description of the category denotes a significant difference from the category: Fictional people. It is different from pseudonyms, as pseudonyms refer to existing people. However, the category should be policed to ensure that someone notable actually claimed that the person existed. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One exception for the pseudonym, I'd say, would be a single pseudonym for a group of people. In this case, the group is asserting that a single person does exist. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This does seem to be a useful category, even if primarily a supercategory for more narrow categories; as people have pointed out, it differs significantly from Fictional People and Pseudonyms. Gabrielbodard (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: probably mainly as a supercategory, but no reason to suppose that at any given time there would not be articles that live directly at this level. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Also note that the parent category, Category:People whose existence is disputed seems inappropriate. This category should be for people who are indisputably nonexistent, so it's not a subset of people whose existence is disputed. Pburka (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pseudonyms are an interesting case. A simple nom de plume is not an imaginary person, but an entire invented persona such as JT LeRoy would be. There is also the case of group pseudonyms or house names. Cusop Dingle (talk) 10:25, 27 December 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:Hand grenades

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: withdrawn.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Hand grenades to Category:Grenades

Propose deleting Category:Hand grenades by country

Propose merging Category:Hand grenades of the United States to Category:Grenades of the United States

Nominator's rationale: The entire "Hand grenades" tree, consisting of these three categories, has only three articles in total in it. I'm not sure we need to distinguish "grenades" from "hand grenades" at the category level, but I'm open to arguments otherwise. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are plenty of U.S. hand grenades. Grenades projectiles and hand grenades are like apples and oranges. Marcus Qwertyus 01:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then these need to be populated, which they haven't been. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Populating has started and can be continued by anyone, including the nominator. Poulating is much more useful WP work than looking around to delete things. Hmains (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Except when the nominator doesn't believe that hand grenades need to be categorised seperately from regular grenades. But I have no problem with consensus being otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per the apparent consensus that this is a valid category tree, and the fine work at populating these previously-abandoned categories, I'm happy to Withdraw this set of nominations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 21 December 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:Third Reich last ditch weapons

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: Upmerge to Category:World War II German infantry weapons. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Third Reich last ditch weapons to Category:Weapons of the Volkssturm

Nominator's rationale: As it stands, this is a nebulously- and somewhat subjectively-scoped category. The proposed change would tighten the scope, producing a more closely-related grouping on an encyclopedic topic, as opposed to being a grab-bag. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:World War II German infantry weapons. The category is defined as the "second half of WWII", which is not "last ditch". That parent category is not so big as to need splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, and resort/recat per Peterkingiron. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Peterkingiron. "last ditch" is kind of vague.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:07, 25 December 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.