Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 17 March 19 >

March 18[edit]

Category:Italian Logicians[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: administrative close: speedily renamed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: proper title format / unnecessary capitalization Greg Bard (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could list this at WP:CFDS as a C2A — a straightforward situation like this doesn't require debate. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename as above. C2C applies as well, with other members of Category:Logicians by nationality. --BDD (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename as above. I second the renaming, with my apologies for the over-capitalization, thus we now have C2E as well. --Soujak (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've listed this at WP:CFDS. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 20 March 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:Flora of Appalachia (United States)[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) 03:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These would normally fit speedy deletion criteria (C2C with Category:Appalachia, C2D with Appalachia), but it was contested when I proposed it back in June (permalink), due to disagreement over whether it covers the political definition of Appalachia or the Appalachian Mountains. Though it might be nice to get that sorted out, in the meantime, the extra qualifiers don't clarify the matter and can be safely omitted. --BDD (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose this is ambiguous Appalachia (disambiguation). The Appalachian Mountains are also Appalachia, and have a different flora set. This is a political definition and includes areas outside of the mountainous zone. Instead it should be renamed to "(U.S. political division)" -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a political division, at least not in any meaningful sense. If it needs a disambiguator, (region) would probably be best. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"(region)" still doesn't distinguish between the sociopolitical region and the physiographic-biogeographic region. Our article Appalachia deals with a social grouping, which means flora has no reason to be categorized as such. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Appalachia is a well-defined region. My question is whether it is sufficiently homogeneous to have a different flora from the tideway to the east and the Midwest to the west. As defined it stretches from just north of Alabama to the Canadian border, surely with a significnat climatic range, from temperate to subtropical. It (presumably) covers both the heights of the mountains and a lower area to their east. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the article says it is a cultural region. If that's the case, then delete since we have a big problem classifying flora and fauna by any geographic definition. So trying to extend that to a cultural region is clearly foolish. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a cultural region. Also, being present in it will not be defining for widely spread flora. The flora may define Appalachia, which means we can have a list, but Appalachia does not define the flora.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 29 March 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:Mirrors in fiction[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) 23:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose breaking Category:Mirrors in fiction

Reason: Trivial, probably not a plot element. 108.216.28.198 (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. We should not have categories for every individual thing that might happen to be reflected in works of fiction, such as items of furniture. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another dreaded "in fiction" category (I just came across Category:Murder in fiction which is just about...everything?) that I wish would just disappear. I know some are worthwhile for drawing thematic connections between created works on similar themes but these "Things in fiction" (trees, trains, bubble gum--just kidding) would be better in a list, and even the value of that is questionable. Liz Read! Talk! 20:40, 20 March 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:Time limits in fiction[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) 23:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose unwinding Category:Time limits in fiction

  • Nominator's rationale: It is not a plot element. Classification of works by feature is trivial unless it is based on setting or notable plot elements. Note that it can't easily be expanded beyond video games. 108.216.28.198 (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OVERCAT and trivial. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only because "time limits" is a fuzzy descriptor and is ill-defined. All time is limited. How is this distinguishing? Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OVERCAT.--Lenticel (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I think there may be a genre that covers these, but I do not think it is tiughtly enough defined to make a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 21 March 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:Naval history of World War II[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: No consensus DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: By definition any article about World War II is about history so it's unhelpful/unnecessary to include the word "history" in the category name. We already have categories such as Category:Naval battles and operations of World War II (that are much more populated) so this new category is unnecessary. Note: Some of the articles in this category shouldn't be categorized under WWII (e.g. Soviet Navy). DexDor (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose "naval history" includes a great deal more than battles and operations. It is doctrine (Mahan's ideas), budgets, training, logistics, admirals, life & psychology of sailors, roles of women (WAVES), technology (like radar, proximity fuze), and overall strategy (eg Europe First or Pacific First), none of which fit under "battles and operations." Furthermore "naval history" is the terminology used by the reliable sources. as in A Naval History of World War I (1995) by Paul G. Halpern; Naval History and Maritime Strategy (2000) by John B. Hattendorf (Feb 2000); The Safeguard of the Sea: A Naval History of Britain 660-1649 (1999) by N. A. M. Rodger. Rjensen (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does wp have any articles on subjects like Naval budgets during World War II ? DexDor (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Budgets article? Not yet but I am working on it using some Harrison data. Note that many major articles such as Soviet Navy, Imperial Japanese Navy in World War II, Regia Marina (Italy), Free French Naval Forces etc otherwise are not in a WW2 category at all. Rjensen (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese and French articles belong under WWII cat, but the others don't - if we cetegorized navies by every war they had been in then some navies (e.g. USN and RN) would be in a lot of categories. DexDor (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
lots of wars = lots of categories. yes that is how history works. Leaving the US navy out of WW2 seems like a mistake & will not help ANY readers. Rjensen (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how wp categories should work. There are links from articles about the USN to articles about WWII and vice-versa. DexDor (talk) 07:03, 19 March 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:Association of Pacific Rim Universities[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) 23:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being (or having been) a member of this association is not generally a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a university. Many of the articles in the category (example) don't mention this association in the text. For info: There is a list at Association of Pacific Rim Universities. For info: An example of a previous similar CFD is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_16#Category:1994_Group. DexDor (talk) 19:43, 18 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_18&oldid=1074813426"