Trichome

thcscience_admin
< August 20 August 22 >

August 21[edit]

Category:Transformers people[edit]

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) 17:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Transformers people
  • Nominator's rationale This is really a performer by performance category, since many of the people here were just voice actors. Even when they were animator's, this tends to be one of maybe 10 projects they have been involved in. Do we really want to create Category:Teenaged Mutuant Nina Turtles people and so on?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is certainly a performance by performer category. It would be legitiamte for the proprietors of the franchise and others who have devoted mcuh of theri careers to the franchise, but not mere voice actors. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete highly ambiguous, this is not about people who build, design, install, maintain transformers. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2013 (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:Reincarnation in novels[edit]

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 to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 14. Dana boomer (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why should it be renamed? The current category is about "reincarnations in novels", i.e. the novel may contain one or more characters that reincarnate, while the plot may be about something completely different. But your suggested name "Novels about reincarnations" implies that the novel itself is centered around reincarnations. De728631 (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the scope of the two is different, since the current name can cover articles about elements from novel(s) (such as character articles), while the suggested name would only allow novel articles. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For what it is worth, all 4 articles currently in the category are on novels. Whether this is how we went it to be, I do not know, but it is how things are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable genre; suffers the usually failings of "about" categories: how much about the subject must it be and who tells us (reliably sourced) that it's at least that much. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, move all four articles to Category:Reincarnation in fiction then.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the reasons mentioned by De728631. Dimadick (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2013 (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 opponents against Persian wikipedia administrators[edit]

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 delete per WP:CSD#G10. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is purely divisive and based on a personal grudge against Persian Wikipedia. If Sonia Sevilla has a problem with the content and attitude of the Persian Wikipedia she should discuss it over there, preferably addressing the administrators in question, but not create sectarianism within the Wikimedia Community. De728631 (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i thank you bcz ur Guidance.Sonia Sevilla (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2013 (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 from Chadbourn, North Carolina[edit]

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) 17:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with only one entry. ...William 14:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge without prejudice agaisnt recration if we get 5+ notable people from here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2013 (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:Recipients of the Colonel John H. Magruder III Award[edit]

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) 17:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having received an award like this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a museum (see WP:OC#AWARD). Also, this category currently puts articles about museums under Category:American people. Note: There is currently no article about the award, but this category could be listified to National_Museum_of_the_Marine_Corps#Marine_Corps_Heritage_Foundation. DexDor (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this prestigious annual award is the highest honor given to a museum by the Marine Corps and thus often becomes defining for that museum. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether the category meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for categorisation. It is not about the merits of the Marine Corps (about which editors many have widely divergent personal views), so please refrain from trumpeting its motto. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. The comment is made because the Marine Corps is a highly notable organization with a long history, whether you agree with it's mission or not. Viewed in isolation, it’s one of the biggest militaries in the world that has fought some of the largest battles ever fought in defense of freedom. I recommend not making this personal. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The question of whether the Marines fight "in defense of freedom" (as you put it) is a POV issue which has nothing to do with the categorsiation. Please leave your politics at the door. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This ranking of this award in USMC's hierarchy of awards is not the issue, unless the category is being viewed solely through a USMC lens. However, Wikipedia is written for a general readership rather than for the USMC and its fans, and WP does not exist to promote one particular viewpoint.
    Per WP:OC#AWARD, the question is whether the award meets WP:DEFINING, and I see no evidence that it does so outside of the USMC universe. This sort of factoid may be mentioned in an article (without giving it WP:UNDUE prominence), and it may also be listified as the nominator suggests. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - to your comment above, Wikipedia also has Category:Recipients of the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and other awards specific to the Marine Corps, some of which are far more common then the Magruder Award. Also, IMHO, you are expressing your personal viewpoint by your comment above by stating it's only of interest to the USMC universe. The award is of interest to those in the museum or military history communities as well. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read before replying. I did not express a viewpoint. I noted that "I see no evidence that it does so outside of the USMC universe". If you have any such evidence, please present it so that others can assess it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is just one of a plethora of categories for non-defining awards, citations, etc. that Wikipedia is drowning in. And I'm not just talking about military-related awards, though that field is certainly one of the worst offenders in my estimation. (For a prime example of Award-Category Proliferation, check out the article for Konstantin Rokossovsky, which I just came across by chance a little while ago.) Cgingold (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a defining award for those involved. Plus, I have to say there are lots of other awards we have categories for that we should not, so other stuff exists is a very poor argument in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete -- We do not seem to have a list yet. WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a Mugruder is not an Oscar. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2013 (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.

Historical regions in country to Historical regions of country[edit]

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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is standardization move to a more clear name (within Category:Historical regions by country there already are some categories using the better, IMHO, "of" format). For example, for Poland, a number of regions included in the "in" category are no longer within borders of Poland, so of is more correct than in. This is likely true for a number of other countries, and thus should be more correct in general, and less controversial for some nationalistic edit warriors. I started with Poland, than decided to fix this problem with other categories, and so I am listing all "in [country]" here. There are also few others in the parent category of Category:Historical regions by country that use different wording (ex. Fooian historical region) that could use standardization if somebody feels like finishing this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The headline of the nomination proposes deleting one category, but the well-reasoned rationale sets out a case for renaming a total of 24 categories. The nomination should be restructured to reflect that, but the nominator may not know how to do this. May I go ahead and do it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do. Even after being on Wikipedia for 10 years and doing a good amount of wikignome work I find the process of dealing with multiple categories daunting (hint: CFD is very very very not user friendly). So thanks for your help! PS. Does anyone know how to propose a Commons cat for deletion? I want to start a discussion about [1] but can't even figure out how, nobody's bothered to reply to me at [2]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reformatted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've extrapolated the Polish situation to the entire set, but I don't think that's right. I came here through Category:Historical regions in Croatia and that category has no such scope problem and doesn't have to be changed. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if Croatia doesn't have any historical regions outside its current borders, than it's going to be a rare exception. And even so, why do you mind "of"? How is it hurting you? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Realistically these categories are based on the historical region now being within the boundaries of the country involved. It is not clear whether they were ever actually egions "of" that country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, I just explained in the op that many of the "in" categories contain places that are not IN the given countries. Outside Poland, examples include Czech Republic, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Slovakia, Lithuania. Those are just countries from the region I am familiar with that certainly include at least one entry in that category that is totally outside their borders. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator. This minor change is an improvement in grammar, and it is more inclusive in scope. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Since current national boundaries have only been stable since WWII, and articles may relate to regions abolished centuries ago, "in" is much more satisfactory. This particularly applies to Poland, where Silesia and East Prussia were not part of the pre-1939 republic. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My take is if there are places in the Poland category that are not within the current boundaries of Poland, they should be removed from the category. To say a historical region is "of" a certain country is just asking for complex edit wars. While if we use "in" and hold to the current boundaries we have a clear yes or no answer. This is especially true of Eastern Galicia which historically had a Ukrainian majority population, and there was outright fighting over where the boundary should be placed. We should do a simple "is it within the current boundaries of the country" and then place it with that. There might also be some room for the "of" categories (although not with Czech Republic and other clearly modern names), but I definitely do not want to change the current system to an of system. Maybe we can have both, but I see reasons to have the current one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the Poland category, the first thing to jump out at me was Free City of Danzig, which was if of anywhere of Germany, not of Poland, but it was clearly in Poland, as in in the current boundaries. These categories are connecting historical regions to current boundaries. I think the system works, although I am guessing we should remove some things that are not within the present boundaries of the country involved, such as why is Macedonia under Turkey?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per the previous comments. The only way to have a clearly delineated inclusion threshold for such categories is to accept current borders, hence per JPL we are talking about historical regions "in" a specific modern country. Poland has been brought up, Turkey's "historical regions" predate the existence of any form of "Turkey" by millennia, Greece and Bulgaria have had wildly ranging borders, etc. If cases exist where a different criterion has been applied, e.g. "historical regions related to Polish/Russian/etc history", then they should be removed. Constantine ✍ 15:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "in" means what you'd think (that the historical region now lies "in" Fooland). "of" means that the historical region was a part of then-Fooland. There may be overlap, because borders change. Alsace-Lorraine is both a historical region in France and of France, but it's also "of" Germany as well. On the other hand, Ionia, Lycia, and Lydia clearly are historical regions in Turkey, certainly not "of" Turkey; while Bosnia was "of" Turkey but is not "in" it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2013 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_21

Leave a Reply