Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 19



Adaptations of works

 * 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 all except the stricken out ones. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of Wuthering Heights to Category:Works based on Wuthering Heights
 * Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of Les Misérables to Category:Works based on Les Misérables
 * Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of Nineteen Eighty-Four to Category:Works based on Nineteen Eighty-Four
 * Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of Water Margin to Category:Works based on Water Margin
 * Propose renaming Category:Ramayana adaptations to Category:Works based on the Ramayana
 * Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of Oliver Twist to Category:Works based on Oliver Twist
 * Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of The Odyssey to Category:Works based on The Odyssey
 * Propose renaming Category:Middle-earth adaptations to Category:Works based on Middle-earth
 * Propose renaming Category:Mahabharata adaptations to Category:Works based on the Mahabharata
 * Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of The Hunchback of Notre-Dame to Category:Works based on The Hunchback of Notre-Dame
 * Propose renaming Category:A Christmas Carol adaptations to Category:Works based on A Christmas Carol
 * Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of Fengshen Bang to Category:Works based on Fengshen Bang
 * Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of Greek and Roman plays to Category:Works based on Greek and Roman plays
 * Propose renaming Category:The Neverending Story adaptations to Category:Works based on The Neverending Story
 * Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of Shakespeare by medium to Category:Works based on Shakespeare plays Category:Works based on Shakespeare plays by medium
 * Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of Shakespeare by play to Category:Works based on Shakespeare playsCategory:Works based on Shakespeare plays by play
 * Nominator's rationale: Per this recent nomination, I'd suggest standardizing to the rapidly-taking-hold "Works based on" structure. The Middle-earth one is a little odd, but I don't know any other term for "Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, et al."--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support phrasing but oppose collapsing "...by medium" and "...by play" into one category. It's just easier if all the "based on Hamlet," "based on Taming of the Shrew," etc. categories are in a container category separate from the container category of "operas based on Shakespeare," "ballets based on Shakespeare," etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, you would support Category:Adaptations of Shakespeare by play becoming Category:Works based on Shakespeare plays, and Category:Adaptations of Shakespeare by medium to Category:Works based on Shakespeare plays by medium? Seems overcategorization to me, but I agree that that's a reasonable conclusion for this global nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the first should be Category:Works based on Shakespeare plays by play, if we're to use this phrasing. It is Category:Adaptations of works by William Shakespeare (not named in the nomination) which would presumably change to Category:Works based on Shakespeare plays. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, okay. I haven't had a chance to analyze the subcategories of Category:Works based on other authors. I'll take a look at those and maybe propose those under a separate nomination. Till then, I've revised that part of the nomination as you suggest, with no prejudice against re-renaming or merging those two categories if it comes to that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: I've stricken the Shakespeare nominations in favor of a broader nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Daylight saving time in the United Kingdom

 * 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 by nom. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * daylight saving time in the united kingdom


 * Nominator's rationale: Please disregard - nomination withdrawn (see below). Alphathon  /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk ) 20:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC) WP:OC and WP:SMALLCAT would seem to apply, especially since all content related to UK daylight saving time is present in British Summer Time (any other articles would likely be too broad for inclusion in such a specific category; Western European Summer Time is debatable). Alphathon  /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk ) 19:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify the reasons for this: I believe the category is far too narrow. I hadn't considered laws etc which might have their own articles (this was brought up on my talk page by the cat's creator), but as far as I can tell all of those which are relevant are simply covered in the BST article. It may well fall under WP:SMALLCAT's "accepted sub-categorization scheme" exemption, but IMHO I would say that it is (currently) of too narrow a scope. There is nothing to stop the BST page from being included in the "by country" cat in the same way as "Daylight saving time in Bangladesh" is; It needn't be a sub-cat. If such articles are created in future, I can see such a cat being useful, but currently I don't see the need (especially when one of the included articles was an overview article about Western European Daylight Saving Time in general). Incidentally, many of the other cats within the "sub-categorization scheme" also seem to be too narrow (Cube, Israel and Mexico), as they only link to a main page, so doing the same with them as with Bangladesh would seem appropriate. Alphathon  /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk ) 20:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking at it again, it would appear I was just a little too hasty. It is now populated with various links to laws (which, while redirects, may well be fleshed out in future) and a link to a famous advocate of BST. I am unsure of the policy concerning redirects within categories (especially when they go to a page also within the category) but that's a separate issue. Consider my nomination withdrawn. <font color="#900">Alphathon  <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">/'æɫfə.θɒn/ (<font color="#900">talk ) 20:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am cleaning up all the DST content. The category helps to collect articles and redirects with possibilities to become articles. The United Kingdom has, AFAICS more DST history than Israel or Bangladesh. Articles and redirects that I found:
 * British Double Summer Time redirect to British Summer Time
 * British Summer Time article
 * Summer Time Act 1916 redirect to Time in the United Kingdom
 * Summer Time Act 1922 redirect to Western European Summer Time
 * Summer Time Order 2002 redirect to British Summer Time
 * William Willett article
 * Additionally Western European Summer Time can be included here, instead of its current inclusion in Category:Time in the United Kingdom. Are there any political groups like the Australian Daylight Saving for South East Queensland? Have a look at Category:Daylight saving time in Australia.
 * If there would be no "by country" categories, the Category:Daylight saving time would be have too many items and articles like Standard Time Act would only reveal after reading to which country they belong. TZ master (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. "Deorbited" has its weaknesses, and there's no proof that a less wordy version is forthcoming. So leaving it the way it is seems the best course.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth to Category:Deorbited Earth satellites
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Less wordy, and it's better to use terms used in the industry. emerson7 18:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Question doesn't "deorbited" imply active removal from orbit, as opposed to natural decay? Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if it does imply that, it doesn't preclude someone else creating a more specific sub-cat or two, if really needed. Support per nom and Deorbit. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is that probably 95% if not more of the entries were not de-orbited, but simply came down on their own. I'm not immediately adverse to creating a subcat for those that were deliberately brought down, but it's not an accurate term otherwise. Mangoe (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * according to tfd, 'deorbit' is simply 'to go, or cause to go out of orbit.' --emerson7 20:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not typically how it's used, though. Googling doesn't show consistent usage but most hits show people talking about deliberately bringing a satellite or spacecraft down. I see that EA and NASA use "decay" while Gunter's site typically says "reentry". I suppose we could use Category:Satellites decayed from Earth orbit. Mangoe (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * the verb 'deorbit'--and the category--is all-inclusive. your suggestion is not. --emerson7 00:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Comment' Category:Earth artificial satellites which have reentered ? 70.24.251.158 (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't really like the word "Deorbited" either, it is kind of confusing. How about something like "Artificial satellites no longer orbiting Earth"? I know it's not any shorter, but it's more clear IMO. I think "Earth artificial satellites which have reentered" is much worse than the existing category name (no offense to the person who suggested that). MsBatfish (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as stated above "deorbited" only applies to a minority of cases. That said, I don't really see what useful purpose this category serves since virtually all spacecraft will at some point or another cease to be in Earth orbit. Admittedly in some cases this may take several millenia, but since it will just continue to accumulate spacecraft over time, I think a better categorisation system is needed. --<font color="#115566">G <font color="#496636">W … 21:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've always wondered about that too; it seems to me to me that the useful distinction is between those that are active and those that are not. Mangoe (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Electronic sports players by nationality
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * electronic sports players by nationality


 * Nominator's rationale: There are very few Electronic sports players who pass the GNG at this point, Having so many categories for so few players is a bit much. Ridernyc (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is how we categorize athletes, by nationality and sport.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This division seems reasonable at this stage. It's not like we only have a handful of one-article by-nationality categories. There's 33 in the American category and 23 in the South Korean category alone. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Makes perfect sense to reuse the "by sport"/"by nationality" structure used elsewhere even with slightly smaller cats. (Actually "small" is inaccurate: I'm blown away by the number of people in these categories.) Pichpich (talk) 05:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Ed, Edd n Eddy
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ed, edd n eddy


 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category per WP:SMALLCAT. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  09:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Eight articles seems justifiable to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks reasonable to me. Pichpich (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 01:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * foster's home for imaginary friends


 * Nominator's rationale: Nominating myself for deletion per WP:SMALLCAT. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  09:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, possibly turn into a navbox. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Dexter's Laboratory
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 01:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * dexter's laboratory


 * Nominator's rationale: Nominating myself for deletion per WP:SMALLCAT. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  08:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Too small. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Indian men journalists
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 01:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * indian men journalists


 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:Cat gender, the distinction isn't relevant Muhandes (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This was created by a fairly new editor who doesn't seem to be well-versed as yet on categorization precedents. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Skyscraper hotels
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Skyscraper hotels to Category:Hotel skyscrapers
 * skyscraper hotels in dubai‎
 * skyscraper hotels in the united states‎
 * skyscraper hotels in chicago, illinois‎
 * skyscraper hotels in detroit, michigan‎
 * skyscraper hotels in the las vegas metropolitan area‎
 * skyscraper hotels in san francisco, california‎
 * Nominator's rationale: FWIW, the closest sibling is Category:Residential skyscrapers, in other words, foo skyscrapers. I think a rename would help to standardize.    Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename - I created the top category and concur with this, sounds good. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   01:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose the term used in the articles on this subjects is Skyscraper hotels and not vice versa, as I understand it. Hotels is the noun and skyscraper is the adjective.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: per TonyTheTiger above. --emerson7 01:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the same rationale as the previous opposers. "Skyscraper hotel" is the term. MsBatfish (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought it was the other way around, that hotel was the adjective. Perhaps my work on Residential skyscraper cats has influenced me unduly. At the very least, they are both nouns, really, and I admit each has an equal claim to going first. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Hotel skyscraper" is weird. "Skyscraper hotel" is more natural. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Courage the Cowardly Dog
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: deleted via G7. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * courage the cowardly dog


 * Nominator's rationale: Links into only 3 articles, plus 2 files in a subcategory. Not enough to populate. Inox   talk  00:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I just created it myself just like Dexter's Laboratory category. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  00:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind, G7 myself. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 


 * 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.