Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 17

< November 16 November 18 >

November 17

Category:Companies associated with the Beatles

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 17:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Its a wider form of categorisation. I'd like a location of categorisation for the placement of The Beatles (terrorist cell) not in direct association with the popular singing group. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we ought not be categorizing companies based on who their famous connections are. Companies associated with the Space Shuttle, Companies associated with World War II, Companies associated with the Ebola outbreak, Companies associated with labor strife, Companies associated with global warming, etc. all these should never exist, and neither should this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category system is not for grouping topics that have merely been touched by a topic rather than defined by it. The definition of how "associated" you need to be is too subjective. Truly linked companies, such as Apple Corps, can be upmerged to the main Beatles category, while Parlophone (a company founded in a different country nearly twenty years before John Lennon's mother was born) can safely be categorised elsewhere. SFB 22:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Categorization by "association" is problematic at best, and overly subjective when the "association" or "affiliation" is not a formal one. To what extent must a company be associated or affiliated with The Beatles in order to merit categorization here? As SFB notes, truly linked companies can be placed directly in Category:The Beatles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:51, 22 November 2014 (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:People executed by Jihadi John

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: words like "executed" imply legality while words like "murdered" imply illegality. Killed is factual and NPOV. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:33, 17 November 2014 (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:Baseball people from Aichi Prefecture

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also propose merging

As per previous CFDs[1] and this one[2] and this one in particular[3] dealing with other Tennis players by prefecture, we don't subcategorize per what type of athlete a person is. ...William 12:37, 17 November 2014 (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:Mexican female telenovela actress

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; no redirect added as it would be somewhat of an "implausible typo" per R3. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category already covered by Category:Mexican telenovela actresses which is more consitent with other categories in the tree. All four of the pages in the new category are already categorised in Mexican telenovela actresses. Icarusgeek (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2014 (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 Sugarhill Gang members

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, leaning towards keep. – Fayenatic London 13:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT: If this band has been around for over 40 years, and only has two notable members, then it should be deleted. Jared Preston (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2014 (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:Thai Buddhist temples outside of Thailand

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. From the discussion, more cleanup may be needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since the only options being considered at this time are "in Thailand" and "outside Thailand", this is basically a "miscellaneous" category. There is no need to have two subcategories of Category:Thai Buddhist temples, since temples outside Thailand can be placed directly in Category:Thai Buddhist temples and those in Thailand can continue to be subcategorized. (Category creator not notified because: inactive) -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I still think it would be better to retain the category as Category:Overseas Thai Buddhist temples. If redundancy is really an issue, we could also get rid of Category:Thai Buddhist temples, which isn't very accurate parent for Category:Buddhist temples in Thailand; there are plenty of Buddhist temples in Thailand that don't belong to the Thai tradition (being Chinese, Vietnamese, etc.). --Paul_012 (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul 012: If this is a case of categorization by tradition versus categorization by location, then Category:Buddhist temples in Thailand (temples by location) would need to be removed from Category:Thai Buddhist temples (temples by tradition). What is the distinction between a Thai Buddhist temple and a Theravada Buddhist temple—is the former just a subset of the latter, or is there more involved? -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Falcon, I don't think there's a firm definition. To me, the term "Thai Buddhist temple" doesn't seem very useful in describing the traditions of temples located inside Thailand. "Thai" could refer to a traditional architectural style, as well as other things. For overseas temples, it's more their cultural ties that give them their Thai identity. Official registers list Buddhist temples in Thailand as belonging to one of four recognised sub-denominations, Mahanikaya and Dhammayut belonging to Theravada school, and Chinese and Vietnamese belonging to the Mahayana school. It's most likely that all temples described as "Thai" would be Theravada Buddhist temples. (Conversely, not all Theravada temples in Thailand can be described as Thai in tradition or architectural style.)
  • So, if I understand correctly:
  1. the best merge target for Category:Thai Buddhist temples outside of Thailand is Category:Theravada Buddhist temples
  2. Category:Buddhist temples in Thailand shouldn't be parented to Category:Thai Buddhist temples because the former is a country category independent of traditions. So it is correctly parented to Category:Buddhist temples by country.
  3. Category:Thai Buddhist temples thus becomes redundant.
Right? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer keeping/renaming, but if consensus is to merge, I'd prefer it be done per nom, with Category:Thai Buddhist temples being retained as a target. Too much information is lost by merging directly to Category:Theravada Buddhist temples, which gives no implication of their cultural ties. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we rename Category:Thai Buddhist temples outside of Thailand to Category:Overseas Thai Buddhist temples (as a subcategory of Category:Overseas Thai organizations), would we then need to delete Category:Thai Buddhist temples since the two subcats (Category:Overseas Thai Buddhist temples and Category:Buddhist temples in Thailand) are not really comparable? -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's first get clear about the question whether Thai Buddhist temples exist at all - as a tradition. From the previous discussions I understand that this is not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, I think "Thai Buddhist temple" is a poor description of tradition, especially when referring to temples in Thailand. However, overseas Thai Buddhist temples are a culturally distinct group, and could be a category of their own, even without a Thai Buddhist temples parent category.
Thinking further on the issue, though, we do have an article on Wat, which covers Laos and Cambodia in addition to Thailand. Perhaps that would be a better scope for a category under the tradition tree. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2014 (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:Cities in Taoyuan County, Taiwan

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 and upmerge contents as proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete and upmerge to Category:Populated places in Taoyuan County, Taiwan. Taoyuan County will be converted to a special municipality on December 25. (See Talk:Taoyuan County, Taiwan for details.) At that time, all current cities and townships in Taoyuan County will be converted to districts of the municipality. While the vast majority of article moves/category renaming should not occur until at least December 25, these two can/should be done now because the parent category is already an appropriate category for these articles/subcategories pending the eventual further movement - possibly to Category:Districts of Taoyuan City. Again, there will be a lot of work to be done to move everything appropriately at that time; these are two we can do right now without being inaccurate and premature. --Nlu (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2014 (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:Children's films

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 while the only main article is at Children's film. – Fayenatic London 13:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Something has to be done about this category. The lead currently states "devoted to films, both animated and live-action, created exclusively for young audiences". However, I would argue that many films (Lilo & Stitch, just to name one) in this cat are not made exclusively for kids at all. They are made to be appropriate for kids, but they are really made for the whole family to be able to enjoy.
So something has to be done about this. At the very least, the lead needs to be rewritten, but, personally, I don't fell that is enough. Family films is what they are usually referred to as, and it's more accurate. If this is changed, all of the subs should be changed as well. JDDJS (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2014 (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:Chub

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. – Fayenatic London 13:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category is grouping multiple species of fish, so it should pluralized. Chub is ambiguous, so category should be disambiguated to make clear it is about fish. There is no "main article" as such. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2014 (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:Water and Mars

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. – Fayenatic London 12:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To clarify that the scope of this category is the topic of "water on Mars", and not just the intersection or relationship between the independent topics of "water" and "Mars". All four articles with titles containing the words "water" and "Mars" connect them with "on" instead of "and". (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2014 (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:Cronus-Saturn

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:Cronus and Category:Saturn (mythology). Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category's title reflects no accepted naming convention and falsely suggests the existence of a hyphenated entity known as "Cronus-Saturn". The Roman myth of Saturn was heavily influenced by the Greek myth of Cronus, and therefore we could rename the category to Category:Cronus and leave in articles about the Roman myth (akin to Category:Ares, which contains the article Mars (mythology)). The equally acceptable alternative would be to split between Category:Cronus and Category:Saturn (mythology). -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2014 (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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_17