Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 20

[edit]

Category:Michael Franks

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Michael Franks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. An eponymous category with a single child category and its eponymous article. Typically, an eponymous category is created when there are various subcategories and related articles on the subject to warrant it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do so when I find them. I don't go searching for them. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I find most things through serendipitous circumstances myself. Cheers :) --Ruben[nerd] (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point regarding renaming; not calling it that from the outset was my mistake, along with not adding the templates or other categories sooner. For a newbie's (aka: mine!) future reference though, what bearing does anemia have on eponymous categorisation? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, feel free to chime in here too. Doesn't the former regard utilisation, and the latter semantics? Cheers --Ruben[nerd] (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By anemic I just meant "lightly populated" or "not much content". Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2012 (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 by city in Virginia

[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 Category:People by town in Virginia to Category:People by city in Virginia.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People by city in Virginia to Category:People by independent city in Virginia
Propose renaming Category:People by town in Virginia to Category:People by city or town in Virginia
Nominator's rationale: It seems that Virginia is the only state (as far as I know) that seperates 'People from...' by 'Town' and 'City', this, apparently, being due to the fact that Virginia 'Towns' are what most states would consider 'Cities', and Virginia 'Cities' are independent entities standing alone from any county. These renamings would help to clarify things, with 'by independent city' being a subcat of 'by city or town', allowing all city-equivilants in Virginia to be found under a single subcategory of Category:People by city in the United States by state. The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 20 February 2012 (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.

Presidential candidates

[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 rename C2C/C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think this is a more logical way to do this. The important point is that these are candidates for the "FOOian presidency", not that they are presidential candidates of "FOOian nationality". But the articles about the positions are not called "FOOian presidency" (Argentine presidency or Ukrainian presidency) and the categories for winners are not called "Category:FOOian presidents"—they are called "President of FOO" (President of Argentina and President of Ukraine) and "Category:Presidents of FOO" (Category:Presidents of Argentina and Category:Presidents of Ukraine). If renamed, some follow-up work on subcategories of these will be in order. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree also fixes obscure FOOian issues such as that there are two Congos, and other obscure fooian naming conventions.Mddkpp (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2012 (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:Lord Lilford

[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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting renaming Category:Lord Lilford to Category:Barons Lilford
Nominator's rationale: Delete (or rename) Rename.. My first concern is that I'm not sure that we categorize people who have held the same title in the same category named after the title? If kept, my second concern is that the article about the title is Baron Lilford, and Lord Lilford redirects there. My third concern is that if kept, the category needs to be pluralised. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2012 (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:Guinness World Records

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Guinness World Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is OCAT; apparently by its contents it's a category for nearly anything or anyone who was ever in the Guinness Book of World Records. Right now, the category is manageably small, but it it were to be populated along those lines, it would basically be whatever GWB has ever had in it. What's next? Things in the Brittannica? Things in the Book of Lists? People in Who's Who? Best rock songs per Rolling Stone? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nominator, with great haste, and lethal force. Categorising things by their inclusion in books of lists or records would lead to horrendous category clutter. (I'm sure that this category was created in good faith by an editor unaware of the consequences of this type of categorisation, but however attractive it may seem at first glance, it doesn't work. If someone wants to read the Guinness Book of World Records, it is available for purchase or can be read for free in most libraries). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We always delete the kind of category that categorizes people because they appeared in some other work. It leads to overcategorization and sets a bad precedent for future category development. These are not articles about Guinness records, which is what the name suggests. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or better still recategorise I think I know how to make this work without "clutter" - make it similar in fashion to the categories listed on the Guinness World Records website, and leave it at that. It would be great to have a Inaugural, superseded by, current in the relevant pages categorised by this. In short, if you remove the guinness world record category you should then look at removing DJ award categories and other awards as they have less relevance. A guinness world record is an award of World merit. There is nothing bigger in the world to signify such a world achievement. Each article categorised to this should be notable on its own merit. I mean, an article really shouldnt be written for a person who has the only claim to fame as having watched soapies for the longest time, unless it was lindsay lohan or something (no offence to be taken).Alvin M. (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. Steam5 (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2012 (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 educated at Royal Wolverhampton School

[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: rename. An article should be included if that's how the school normally handles it, which this one does. Had the article been included in the original nomination, it likely would have passed without comment.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please could somebody delete this category? It's now empty as I've moved the pages to 'People educated at the Royal Wolverhampton School'. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should not simply move the pages unilaterally. Instead you should come here to seek a WP:CONSENSUS for your proposed change. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that what you did was right, and non-contentious, you can use Template:Db-c1 to have empty categories deleted, see Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Categories. However if someone objects, you'll be in trouble.. Mddkpp (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2012 (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:Whitbread Awards

[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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Whitbread Awards to Category:Costa Book Awards
Propose renaming Category:Whitbread Award winners to Category:Costa Book Award winners
Nominator's rationale: The Whitbread Awards have been renamed the Costa Book Awards starting in 2006. We recently renamed Category:Whitbread Award winners (books) to Category:Costa Book Award winning works.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2012 (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:Jibanananda Das

[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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Jibanananda Das to Category:Works by Jibanananda Das
Nominator's rationale: Rename to conform to the convention of Category:Works by author. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the convention of categorization very well. I did it after watching Category:Rabindranath Tagore. If it can exist, I think Category:Jibanananda Das can exist too. What would happen if I later want to include an article on a person who was a critic or translator of Jibanananda Das, e.g. Abdul Mannan Syed, Chidananda Dasgupta and etc in that category. If it is inappropriate, please, let me know. Anyway Category:Works by Jibanananda Das is also welcome. As you are an experienced editor and admin, please, feel free to do what suit best. Thanks. -- Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2012 (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:Croatian presidential candidates, 1997

[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 to the (now renamed) Category:Candidates for President of Croatia. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Croatian presidential candidates, 1997 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very limited category per WP:SMALLCAT, only two members at the moment. GregorB (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Category:Croatian presidential candidates created a and populated, but not with the contents of subcats. There are some minor issues with the overall categorisation of the parent-parent - ie are presidential candidates subcats of "president of foo" or vice versa? or should an entire category be created to contain both as per Category:Presidency of the United States ? - there's some minor work here needed overall.
Also despite its tiny size (probably should be expanded by 1 to include the winner) - I can't help noting the utility of this category - which is actually far greater than the lump together parent category - ie the proposed mergeto parent Category:Croatian presidential candidates doesn't seem that useful to help find things because it lacks dates. (On the other hand I could just read the relavent articles listed in Category:Presidential_elections_in_Croatia..
one of two options : either keep, and assume further potentially useful cat. work will be done. or delete and delete everything in Category:Croatian presidential candidates, but keep Category:Presidential elections in Croatia - I'm basing this on my expectation of what categories actually end up being useful, rather than any rules-conforming or completeness arguments..Mddkpp (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ Mddkpp: "are presidential candidates subcats of "president of foo" or vice versa?"
Answer is vice-versa. All Presidents were once candidates, but not all candidates became president. For example, see Category:Irish presidential candidates and is subcat Category:Presidents of Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 20 February 2012 (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:Campaniles

[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 & create redirect. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Campaniles to Category:Bell towers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. As far as I can tell these two terms are synonymous. (If not can someone modify the main article Campaniles so that the meaning is clear - currently it says The term applies to bell towers which are either part of a larger building .. or free-standing - that covers everything ?)Mddkpp (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
aside - new subcat? A quick check shows that the Category:Campaniles hasn't been used exclusively for free standing bell towers - however if people think "Free standing bell towers" (or similar) is a valid cat, then agree here, and I will try make that..Mddkpp (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further aside. A while ago while going through building categories I noticed that Category:Bell towers and Category:Clock towers were added based on a tower in a building with a bell and/or clock. In most of these, these features were not defining. So one wonders if some of these entries even belong. For many this could be as useful as Category:Red towers. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Bell towers is something of a mess, in that it has a lot of buildings with clock towers or even structures that look something like bell towers, plus a lot of churches with bells in a tower, but by and large the proper membership of the category consists of freestanding bell towers, i.e., campaniles. I don't see a lot of reason to keep the small number of integral towers separate. Mangoe (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2012 (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:Sanchez family

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sanchez family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, unlikely to be expanded further Secret account 06:37, 20 February 2012 (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:Defense wings of the United States Air Force

[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 & create redirect. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Defense wings of the United States Air Force into Category:Air defense wings of the United States Air Force
Nominator's rationale There are only ten wings that could possibly be included in this Category. Two are currently listed in the category. All USAF Defense Wings in existence in September 1954 were renamed Air Defense Wings, (six of the ten wings). The potential universe of Air Defense Wings is 65 (with 19 currently categorized). There is no substantive difference in the type of unit. If needed Category:Defense wings of the United States Air Force could be retained as a redirect page to Category:Air defense wings of the United States Air Force. --Lineagegeek (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILHIST notified. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:43, 20 February 2012 (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:Objectivism

[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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Objectivism to Category:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Objectivism is ambiguous, so I propose matching this article to its main article Objectivism (Ayn Rand). The category definition says the category is about Rand's philosophy. (This rename falls under the C2D speedy rename criterion, but all my speedy nominations of philosophy categories have been opposed as of late by User:Gregbard, so I'm just bringing it straight here.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2012 (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:Naturalism

[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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Naturalism to Category:Naturalism (philosophy)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Naturalism is ambiguous, so I propose matching this article to its main article Naturalism (philosophy). (This rename falls under the C2D speedy rename criterion, but all my speedy nominations of philosophy categories have been opposed as of late by User:Gregbard, so I'm just bringing it straight here.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2012 (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:S2 Games media

[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Michael Franks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A sub-category, which has been in existence since 2006, with a single file pertaining to it. This video game developer has not the prominence or notability to necessitate having a category for media images, let alone one that only pertains to its company logo. Therefore, it is not sensible that this sub-category is deleted. DarthBotto talkcont 23:43, 20 February 2012 (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.