Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 14: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:27, 14 April 2009 editBlack Falcon (talk | contribs)83,746 edits →NEW NOMINATIONS: added deletion nomination of category 'Categories named after research institutes'← Previous edit Revision as of 22:28, 14 April 2009 edit undoAlansohn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers504,814 edits →Category:Mighty Men of David: Support rename, oppose virtually everything elseNext edit →
Line 96: Line 96:
:'''Propose renaming''' ] to ] :'''Propose renaming''' ] to ]
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' '''Rename''' - I'm not thoroughly convinced that this category is necessary so a ''delete'' result would be fine with me too. If kept it should be renamed to match its lead article and to make it sound a little less like a Saturday cartoon show. Also not sure that "Warriors" should be capitalized (it is in the lead article name) so a rename to lower-case is fine by me too. ] (]) 18:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC) :'''Nominator's rationale:''' '''Rename''' - I'm not thoroughly convinced that this category is necessary so a ''delete'' result would be fine with me too. If kept it should be renamed to match its lead article and to make it sound a little less like a Saturday cartoon show. Also not sure that "Warriors" should be capitalized (it is in the lead article name) so a rename to lower-case is fine by me too. ] (]) 18:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The existing name is not inaccurate, but the proposed rename is better and matches the parent article. The passive-aggressive push for deletion ignores the fact that this is about the only thing these individuals have in common other to toss them into the potpourri ]. In almost all of the cases, this is the characteristic that defines them. ] (]) 22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


==== Category:Neoconservative think tanks ==== ==== Category:Neoconservative think tanks ====

Revision as of 22:28, 14 April 2009

< April 13 April 15 >

April 14

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Categories named after research institutes

Category:Categories named after research institutes - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary category layer, since categories can contain both articles and other categories. All of the category's members are in the Research institutes category tree via other routes (including "by location" and "by type"); see . I think that the approach of subcategorization is a more intuitive one than creating a parallel category structure for eponymous categories. Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}. –Black Falcon 22:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Research institutions in the San Francisco Bay Area

Propose renaming Category:Research institutions in the San Francisco Bay Area to Category:Research institutes in the San Francisco Bay Area
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the parent category, Category:Research institutes in the United States. –Black Falcon 22:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Women philosophers

Suggest merging Category:Women philosophers to Category:Female philosophers
Nominator's rationale: We should choose one or the other. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Student societies in Pakistan

Propose renaming Category:Student societies in Pakistan to Category:Pakistani student societies
Nominator's rationale: Per what seems to be the convention of Category:Student societies by country. –Black Falcon 21:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:S-trains in Copenhagen

Propose renaming Category:S-trains in Copenhagen to Category:S-train
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The article is located at S-train. The 'Copenhagen' bit is redundant since there is only one system called 'S-train'. Plurality incorrect since it is not a collection of trains of the type S, but refers to a system called 'S-train' (in singular). Arsenikk 21:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:S-train per nom. The article indicates that S-train is a particular rail network. –Black Falcon 21:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename but to Category:S-trains. The plural is correct. In Danish, the word "train" is the same in singular and plural, so to an outsider it may seem as if "S-tog" can be translated to "S-train" as a name for the entire system. But to native speakers of Danish such as yours truly it sounds completely wrong to name the system by a singular noun without even an article. There is more than one train on the system, so it it is the network of S-trains, plural. Only when compounded into "S-train network" does it become singular. –Henning Makholm (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • In that case, "S-train network" may be a better alternative, since the category contains not just articles about individual services but categories for stations and lines within the network (and, of course, the main article about the network). –Black Falcon 22:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment S-trains would refer to the trains (i.e. the rolling stock in plural). The network is called S-train, per the article and the English-language web site of DSB . I am a native speaker of Norwegian, which uses the word tog grammatically identically as in Danish (i.e. tog is also both singular and plural in Norwegian). While I understand your comments, tog is not referring to the trains, but the network. Consider phrases like "S-trains lines" and "an S-trains station" etc. They just simply do not work, because S-train is a singluar network. It is not called the Copenhagen Metros either. Arsenikk 22:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Universal monsters

Category:Universal monsters - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary redirect, created by the same editor ho created the redirect target. Otto4711 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Athlete-politicians

Category:Athlete-politicians - Template:Lc1
Category:American athlete-politicians - Template:Lc1
Category:Canadian athlete-politicians - Template:Lc1
Category:Japanese athlete-politicians - Template:Lc1
Category:Luxembourgian athlete-politicians - Template:Lc1
Category:Romanian athlete-politicians - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization on the basis of a trivial intersection: while both characteristics are individually defining, their interesection is not, since being a sportsperson and being a politician are unrelated characteristics. Most people have more than one occupation throughout their life, but creating categories for every intersections is not the best way to categorize that. Maybe these could work as a list, where it is possible to argue why the intersection may be significant for some people, but it's not a suitable basis for categorization. –Black Falcon 20:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Southern plantations in the United States

Propose renaming Category:Southern plantations in the United States to Category:Plantations in the United States (1st choice) or Category:Plantations in the United States by state (2nd choice)
Nominator's rationale: There is no need for a breakdown by region in this case since there are relatively few notable plantations in the United States that are not in the South. Also, even if categories were created for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, this would still amount to only 51 categories, which is hardly enough to require subdivision by region. Adding "by state" to the end of the category is one option, intended to make this a subcategory of Category:Categories by state of the United States, but it may be an unnecessary change. –Black Falcon 20:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. I would have preferred not including 'by state', since that should be a subcategory of C:Plantations in the United States, if there were multiple sorting means, for instance there was also a C:Plantations in the United States by size (with subcats, (which is probably not a good idea)). Arsenikk 21:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That's a good point. Considering that and the fact that I was unsure about the "by state" option from the outset, I've struck out the suggestion from my nomination. –Black Falcon 21:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(State) plantations

Propose renaming
Category:Alabama plantations to Category:Plantations in Alabama
Category:District of Columbia plantations to Category:Plantations in Washington, D.C. – to match Category:Washington, D.C.
Category:Florida plantations to Category:Plantations in Florida
Category:Jefferson County, Florida Plantations to Category:Plantations in Jefferson County, Florida
Category:Leon County, Florida Plantations to Category:Plantations in Leon County, Florida
Category:Georgia (U.S. state) plantations to Category:Plantations in Georgia (U.S. state)
Category:Kentucky plantations to Category:Plantations in Kentucky
Category:Louisiana plantations to Category:Plantations in Louisiana
Category:Maryland plantations to Category:Plantations in Maryland
Category:Mississippi plantations to Category:Plantations in Mississippi
Category:North Carolina plantations to Category:Plantations in North Carolina
Category:South Carolina plantations to Category:Plantations in South Carolina
Category:Tennessee plantations to Category:Plantations in Tennessee
Category:Texas plantations to Category:Plantations in Texas
Category:Virginia plantations to Category:Plantations in Virginia
Category:West Virginia plantations to Category:Plantations in West Virginia
Nominator's rationale: (State) plantations is more suggestive of categorization by type (i.e. it implies that "Alabama plantations", "Florida plantations" and so on are distinct types of plantations) whereas Plantations in (State) is clearly categorization by location, and I believe it is the latter that we want. This change would also bring the subcats in line with the parent, which is titled Southern plantations in the United States and not Southern United States plantations. For what it's worth, the categories on Commons follow the proposed format. –Black Falcon 19:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:British and Commonwealth Academy Award Winners for Best Actor

Category:British and Commonwealth Academy Award Winners for Best Actor - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - not every intersection of two defining characteristics itself produces a defining characteristic. Categorizing by the intersection of "British and Commonwealth" and "Best Actor Oscar winner" is not one such intersection. The list article, which is more in line with other similar Oscar winners by country lists (although IMHO too narrow in scope and should be expanded to cover all British winners regardless of category), suffices for those interested. No other nationality has a separate category that I have found. Otto4711 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Discrimination by person

Category:Discrimination by person - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with doubtful growth potential. It seems exceedingly rare that an individual person's discriminatory beliefs or actions are going to rise to the level of necessitating a separate article per WP:SUMMARY. Otto4711 (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Mighty Men of David

Propose renaming Category:Mighty Men of David to Category:King David's Warriors
Nominator's rationale: Rename - I'm not thoroughly convinced that this category is necessary so a delete result would be fine with me too. If kept it should be renamed to match its lead article and to make it sound a little less like a Saturday cartoon show. Also not sure that "Warriors" should be capitalized (it is in the lead article name) so a rename to lower-case is fine by me too. Otto4711 (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support The existing name is not inaccurate, but the proposed rename is better and matches the parent article. The passive-aggressive push for deletion ignores the fact that this is about the only thing these individuals have in common other to toss them into the potpourri Category:Hebrew Bible people. In almost all of the cases, this is the characteristic that defines them. Alansohn (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Neoconservative think tanks

Propose deletion
Category:Neoconservative think tanks - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: per Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 26#Category:Neoconservatives, Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 7#Category:Neoconservatives I propose deletion. Ray 17:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:History of Leon County

Propose renaming Category:History of Leon County to Category:History of Leon County, Florida
Nominator's rationale: Adding state.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Category Stelios Kazantzidis 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: Deleted, per creator's request. Good Ol’factory 14:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Propose deletion:

I accidentally misnamed the category. Then I created the correct one Category:Stelios Kazantzidis songs. Costas Athan (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2009 (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:BAFTA winners (television series)

Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: It's generally bad form to use parentheses in a title when we aren't disambiguating something or using a title. Sceptre 07:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Guyanese musical instruments

Category:Guyanese musical instruments - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: I went on a binge of creating musical instrument categories for specific countries, and this week a bunch of folks followed suit and created country-specific categories. However, I actually populated mine from the get-go (see the brand-new Category:Ugandan musical instruments, but others created a dozen categories with one entry, or a simple "music of" entry that's not instrument specific. Advise this practice be discouraged and unpopulated categories within Category:Musical instruments by nationality be deleted to prevent clutter. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:New Zealander musical instruments

Propose renaming Category:New Zealander musical instruments to Category:New Zealand musical instruments
Nominator's rationale: Rename. A "New Zealander" is a person from New Zealand. It is not an adjective. The correct adjective is "New Zealand". (This category only has one article in it, and I have my doubts whether the Great Highland Bagpipe is correctly categorized as a "New Zealand musical instrument".) Good Ol’factory 04:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom, but I'm not entirely sure we even need a "musical instruments by nationality" category tree in the first place. I don't see what makes an instrument a "New Zealand" musical instrument- Is the criteria that it must be attributed to have been invented there? Widely used there? Something else? I'm not sure what benefit categorizing instruments in this category tree has, but I suppose that argument should be saved for another nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I would have thought it would have meant "invented there", but it seems to be being applied in a "used there" way, which is next to useless. Good Ol’factory 04:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Some of the categories make a lot of sense, in that they categorise instruments unique to a given nation/culture, or fundamental to its music. New Zealand music is (aside from Maori music, already covered in Category:Māori musical instruments) pretty much part of the general Anglo tradition, so it's instrumentation really isn't that much different from US/UK/Canada stuff. I think the overall "by nationality" category has some uses, and many of the subcats are great for showing what instruments are unique to a culture, but some of them are real stretches due to many European instruments having become so widespread as to no longer be defined by any given continent. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. I have added the Maori instuments to this, & remove the mention of NZ in Great Highland Bagpipe - it was recently added to the first sentence as having supposedly distinctive types, but there is no mention of it again. But while I don't mind keeping Maori in the "by nationality" scheme, NZ should be there too. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Jewish murderers

Category:Jewish murderers - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorisation: falls under WP:OCAT#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. I don't think there's any significant link between being Jewish and being a murderer, so this category shouldn't exist; similar categories (e.g. LGBT murderers) have been deleted in the past. Robofish (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:People with the name Stamp

Category:People with the name Stamp - Template:Lc1
Category:People with the Name Fronius - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of unrelated subjects with shared names. Good Ol’factory 04:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Would open the door for creation of a "People with the name x" set of categories, with "x" being any name ever given to a person in the history of the human race. VegaDark (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Josiah Stamp and Dudley Stamp are related subjects; they were brothers. Terence Stamp and Chris Stamp are related subjects; they are brothers. Further, Terence and Chris are collaterally descended from antecedent of Josiah and Dudley. Feel free to delete if still deem it to be a superfluous category. Cheers. --Qvidproqvo (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Qvidproquo
  • Delete as a clear-cut case of overcategorization, as cited by the nom. Categories for families and dynasties are one thing (useful if there is enough material to populate them well), but "people with the name (X)" categories invite inclusion on the basis of name only, rather than on the basis of some real relation. –Black Falcon 18:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Polish American Wikipedian Users

Category:Polish American Wikipedian Users - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete or double upmerge - First of all, this has an improper naming convention of "Wikipedian users" at the end, it should just be "Wikipedians", so this at minimum needs a rename. Second of all, it is a nationality-ethnicity combination category, which have all been either deleted or double upmerged previously (in this case, it would be double upmerged to Category:American Wikipedians and Category:Polish Wikipedians. See here for related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - unnecessary intersection, the existing categories are perfectly sufficient. Robofish (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep until we can determine the preferences of the people in the group. They seem to have a decided preference, and why should we impose our own on them? DGG (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Robofish as an unnecessary intersection of ethnicity and nationality, and allow the affected users to recategorize themselves as they wish (if they care about this at all). I agree with the general principle behind DGG's contention (that users should be free to identify themselves as they wish), but I think it is misapplied here. There is a difference between expressing a self-identification, which is fine, and creating a grouping of users based on that identification. Categories, including user categories, are not just bottom-of-the-page notices. –Black Falcon 18:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians equal rights for all

Category:Wikipedians equal rights for all - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - First of all, this category name doesn't make sense. I assume it is suppsed to mean Category:Wikipedians who support equal rights for all people, so this at minimum needs a rename to make sense. Secondly, however, this is a support/oppose category, which have historically been deleted from Misplaced Pages as not fostering collaboration and for being potentially divisive. See here for related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian Students of Bergen Community College

Category:Wikipedian Students of Bergen Community College - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Bergen Community College - Needs to be renamed to follow the standard naming conventions of "alma mater" categories. VegaDark (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who love Kyiv!

Category:Wikipedians who love Kyiv! - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Unencyclopedic. Doesn't help Misplaced Pages to categorize those who love a particular city. If the user wishes to create Category:Wikipedians in Kiev, they are free to do so, but "who love" is an unencyclopedic naming convention, and categorizing this has no benefit. I'll also note our article is located at Kiev, so at extreme minimum this category would need to be renamed to match the article title. VegaDark (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)