Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 10



Argentine Civil War belligerents

 * 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 Federales as proposed; Unitarian to Category:Unitarianists (Argentina), noting the use on Unitarian Party; revisit if necessary. There are concerns about confusion with religious Unitarians, regardless of their strength in Argentina. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Rename The use of the term "politicians" is a bit problematic here. Unlike other wars, this one was a war between two rival factions of warlords. "Civil" authorities who had never been in a battlefield were scarce in either side: the governors of provinces and even the heads of state (such as Rosas, Urquiza or Mitre) were warlords (sometimes they are mentioned as "Caudillos", but for clarity, "warlord" is the word that any English-speaker should understand).
 * Category:Federales (Argentina) politicians to Category:Federales (Argentina)
 * Category:Unitarian Party politicians to Category:Unitarians (Argentina)

Note as well that the Unitarians have no relation with religious unitarianism, they are something else. So, I proposed "Unitarians (Argentina)" instead of "Argentine unitarians". It is the same system already used with Category:Republicans (United States) (members of the Republican party), which is not a subcategory of Category:Republicans (supporters of a Republican system of government, as opposed to a monarchy or other alternatives). Religious unitarianism has never been strong in Argentina, and within the context of Argentine history, "Unitarian" has a unique and unambiguous meaning. Cambalachero (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment yeah, neither the US nor the proposed Argentine names are all that unambiguous... I'd prefer it if they both stated "xyz political party politicians" in the disambiguation parentheses. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename but maybe not quite per nom. A category for Unitarians in Argentine would be Category:Argentine Unitarians.  What were they actually called in Spanish, I am sure Unitarian is at some level an Anglicanization of the term.  Maybe using the Spanish term would be less confusing, but the current porposal works.  If we were equally anglicizing each terms we would be using Category:Federalists (Argentina) not Federales.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment the first word in the article on the second group is Unitarianists, so I suggest Category:Unitarianists (Argentina) for the second category name. This will make it less likely that people will confuse them with the religios group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2012 (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:The Beatles B-side songs

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting the beatles b-side songs


 * Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Neither parent needs diffusion and an earlier category of Nirvana B-sides was deleted. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to both parents (although I am not sure whether Category:B-side songs is valid - I expect covers of many songs have been recorded as B-sides). Oculi (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Response I have actually nominated that parent for deletion before and it was kept. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge agree with above. RafikiSykes (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom. Benkenobi18 (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge the side of a record the song was on seems to have been determined to not be a defining characteristic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2012 (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:Plants with giant seed pods

 * 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 - jc37 11:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting plants with giant seed pods


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unless "giant seed pod" is a scientific description or classification, this seems to be categorization that is somewhat subjective. It's not clear what would make a seed pod "giant" and what the size comparison is that is being used is. As compared to the seed? To the plant as a whole? To seed pods from other plants? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator and per WP:OC, which specifically deprecates "any reference to size: large, small, tall, short, etc". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all rather relative.RafikiSykes (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly plants with small pods are being discriminated against. Benkenobi18 (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as it stands there is no way to know what plants go here. When is a seed pod giant?  Even if we got a definition based on either 1-size, or 2-relative size to the plant or even 3-relative size to the seed, we would have to have it be more than some arbitrary size someone made up for it to be a justified category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not delete: as briefly emphasized in the category description, large seedpods have decorative value (Enthadas, for example, are used extensively for this purpose in East Asia and Pacific regions). From this perspective, botanical significance of the category is utterly unimportant, since the primary significance is cultural. It is also clear what "giant" means in this context: it means sizeable compared to the human body (say, above 30cm, the size of the forearm), since that is what would be used in interior decoration. Please do not delete the category (your arguments are phrased from a botanical perspective that is not of primary importance here). If needed, I can add further clarifications on the category page. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So at what point do the seed pods become big enough to be included in this category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We can set up a strict criterion (in centimeters), if that's required by the rules, but I do not see why it's necessary (there are certainly aesthetic and stylistic categories on wikipedia art pages for which no strict inclusion criteria can be set up). My point is that I am very open to renaming the category in a way that suits guidelines better, but I am strongly opposed to its deletion, because I do not see how it harms wikipedia, and indeed, it can be useful to some people (example: people interested in using plant material for decoration). InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2012 (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:Musical groups that employ three guitarists

 * 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) 10:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting musical groups that employ three guitarists


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems to be a rather arbitrary criterion for categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I'm the creator of the category, and I don't know, I just created it mainly because I thought it would make of an interesting category given that there are many blog discussions out there that ask of bands that have three guitarists. It's been an interesting topic of discussion for the past recent years, but if you don't see it as something that is needed, delete it if you need to. • GunMetal Angel  04:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Interesting" isn't normally the standard by which we determine the usefulness of a Wikipedia category. A lot of possible categories have the potential to be interesting to some people without being properly encyclopedic. Bearcat (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Arbitrary number, and not a defining characteristic. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apart from what was mentioned above, the number of guitarists is something that can easily change over time. For example, Iron Maiden is in the category although they've been a two-guitar group for most of their existence. Jafeluv (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. No less arbitrary than Songs that require three bass guitarists.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to 'bands with more than 2 guitarists, but fewer than 4 guitarists'.Benkenobi18 (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unconvinced we should categorize musical groups by the number of members (which we do at least for some numbers), but to categorize based on the number of guitarists is bizarre. Anyway to qualify, do you need 3 guitarists at once, or does having three guitarists over the course of the group history work?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete; WP:OCAT by a non-encyclopedic characteristic. It's only a surface similarity between bands — as witness the fact that this category currently contains both Iron Maiden and the Jonas Brothers, it's quite possible for the bands to be too wildly dissimilar in every other respect to actually belong in the same category as each other. Bearcat (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2012 (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.