Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< October 1 October 3 >

October 2

Category:New York City performance spaces and groups

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by

BencherliteTalk 07:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Category:New York City performance spaces and groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: unneeded; replaced by Category:New York City performance art. Steve, Sm8900 21:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Most expensive music videos

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Most expensive music videos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete or Listify, Unfortunately this is not a good way to categorize, without a number the inclusion criteria is subjective, if you add one it becomes arbitrary instead. However, it would make a perfectly good list article. -- Prove It (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Districts of Cumbria

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamrtalk 16:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Districts of Cumbria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates the existing category Category:Local government in Cumbria which is consistent with other Local government categories for England JBellis 19:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Sonic the Hedgehog comic characters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters. --Xdamrtalk 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sonic the Hedgehog comic characters to Category:Sonic the Hedgehog comic and television characters
Nominator's rationale: Rename, Characters like
Scratch and Grounder are being added. (trogga) 19:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Marvel Golden Age characters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was Merge Category:Marvel Golden Age characters to Category:Timely Comics characters. --Xdamrtalk 17:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Timely Comics characters to Category:Marvel Golden Age characters
Nominator's rationale: Merge - These cover the same topic. Also see Category talk:Marvel Golden Age characters -- 69.182.73.240 18:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but in the other direction, per the discussion [Category_talk:Timely_Comics_characters#Merge proposal, 2007]. The characters are Timely Comics characters that due to changes have become known (informally) as Marvel Comics' Golden Age characters but the most accurate name for them is Category:Timely Comics characters. Also ,as per the discussion, it does need a note explaining this on the top of the talk page but nothing that can't be quickly addressed. (Emperor 18:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Reverse merge per Emperor. -Sean Curtin 00:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge as noted. "Marvel Comics" as a brand didn't exist until 1961.--Mike Selinker 16:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:FAO experts

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Food and Agriculture Organization officials. Kbdank71 14:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FAO experts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as non-defining or rename to something that expands the abbreviation. Otto4711 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But too ambiguous, as it could mean "experts on the subject of the FAO, including its critics"; I'm pretty sure that's why Otto4711 picked the longer version (though I am hardly psychic. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The parent and other UN categories use officials too, as Category:World Health Organization officials - do we have a convention ? Johnbod 14:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment whether or not their title is "expert", doesn't have to be parrotted here either Johnbod's first comment or something similar is OK. Lots of companies have marketing folks titled "Evangelists" and so we can expect them to show up in Category:Evangelists because their title fits. Ugh! Carlossuarez46 22:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: The problem with that is that the organization has other people in other roles who are also officials. If someone can plausibly make the argument that all of the org.'s officials, including the experts, should go in such a category and that a subcat for experts is overcategorization, I wouldn't have any objection, but that case hasn't been made. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Official" isn't a title but a description. Many of the people in the category held much more senior roles in the FAO after being experts. It isn't totally clear to me that everyone there was an expert - the terms in the article differ. Normally employee categories are not divided by field or rank. Johnbod 23:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Foreign footballers

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was Rename all per nom. --Xdamrtalk 17:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to match the parent category, Category:Expatriates. -- Prove It (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Communist states

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 17:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Communist states to Category:Socialist republics
Nominator's rationale: Rename, cited from
List of socialist countries
: These countries are generally known as "Communist states" in the West, because their ruling parties typically use the name "Communist Party of [country]." However, the countries themselves are referred to as socialist republics, not communist, in their own constitutions. They are defined by a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system and declares allegiance to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. In accordance with Marxism-Leninism, the constitutions of these countries claim that all power belongs to the working class, that a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat has been implemented within their borders, and that they are building socialism, with the goal of achieving communism one day.. It should be noted that even though North Korea claims to no longer follow this ideology, the roots of its own brand called Juche does still have elements of it.
There is also a category named
my talk 14:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose This seems like a semantic terminology issue more than anything. From my understanding, this category is meant to be the companion to the article

Snocrates 01:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Exactly. Shall we put the category Communist states in the as yet unexistant supercategory Socialist republics or just rename it to include the socialist countries that are not governed by a Communist party? --
my talk 09:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

support I believe the article

Communist states and needs to be renamed/re-edited. Hmains 02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Chipmunks

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was Merge Category:Tamias to Category:Chipmunks. --Xdamrtalk 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Chipmunks to Category:Tamias
Nominator's rationale: Merge, These two categories contain kinds of
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) is no help, but I do think they should be merged, so I will leave the decision as to which way up to the closing admin. :-) For what it's worth, the Tamias category has more articles in it currently. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge into Category:Chipmunks. The reason Tamias has more articles is due to categorization by a bot. There's a discussion here where the consensus (albeit with limited discussion) at the relevant wikiproject (mammals) is to merge Tamias into chipmunk specifically and genus names into common names (in general). --Aranae 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both names are valid and should continue to work. One should become a category redirect to the other. No strong preference as to which becomes real. -- Prove It (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Chipmunks , but keep Category:Tamias as a category redirect per ProveIt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Turkish footballers play out Turkey

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Turkish expatriate footballers. --Xdamrtalk 17:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkish footballers play out Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Turkish expatriate footballers, English grammer. -- Prove It (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:British marine biologists

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was upmerge Welsh and Scottish, keep English. Categories are meant to help find like articles, which won't be done when the category has only one article. If upmerging made a supercat of 40 articles, I could see leaving all three. But upmerging these two gives you a grand total of 4 articles, not enough for subcats. If in the future, somebody writes or finds other articles that fit the bill, go ahead and recreate the subcats.. Kbdank71 14:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English marine biologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Scottish marine biologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Welsh marine biologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Upmerge to Category:British marine biologists
  • Nominator's rationale: - Overcategorization. There are a grand total of 5 articles among all of these subcategories. Cgingold 06:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There seem to be enough names to justify breaking down
    BencherliteTalk 08:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment & Question - I haven't got any problem whatsoever with breaking down the category by nationality. My only concern is with the question of where do we draw the line when it comes to creating subcats? Generally speaking, I prefer to avoid creating subcats with only 1 or 2 articles in them. However, I have noticed quite a few cases where a Category:XX by nationality has been created and filled with subcats, many of which contain only 1 or 2 articles. Is there a guideline somewhere for these kinds of subcats by nationality which gives them a sort of blanket exemption in terms of the threshold for category creation? If there is already concensus on this question, I'm happy to defer to it. Cgingold 11:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I was also planning on nominating 3 other subcats (French, Russian and Swedish) for upmerging into Category:Marine biologists, since each of them has only 1 article. But I guess I will hold off on that pending an answer to the question I just posed. Cgingold 11:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS - What, no Cornish marine biologists?!? Cgingold 11:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BencherliteTalk 12:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, thanks, that is basically what I was talking about. However, it avoids specifying numbers, which leaves me feeling very resistant to creating sub-categories that have just a single article in them, with no particular indication that they're likely to grow. On the other hand, it does ease my concerns about creating sub-cats that start off with only two articles.
All the same, even though I support this type of sub-categorization as a general approach, I still think that at the same time, we also need to avoid category clutter that really doesn't accomplish much. Personally, I find it quite annoying and wasteful of time to look through an array of sub-cats like this and find that a bunch of them just have single articles. Which is to say, I would rather leave a "residue" of articles in the parent category that aren't distributed among the sub-cats. Cgingold 13:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have plenty of sympathy with Cgingold's resistance to creating a sub-cat with just one or two members, but I can't believe that the whole of the UK has only produced 5 marine biologists of note! I think the answer is to get some more notable M.B.s in there. Ephebi 15:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC) (comment edited to add ID)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:German malacologists

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 close, nomination withdrawn after discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German malacologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete and upmerge the lone article in Category:German malacologists to both parent categories.
  • Nominator's rationale: A clear case of overcategorization. There is simply no need to subdivide this subdivision of marine biology, by nationality. Cgingold 06:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn - Yikes. I obviously didn't perform due diligence here. Good thing there was no money riding on it, eh? Cgingold 10:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Upmerge to Malacologists per nom.

Snocrates 08:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Who knew?! But now we're left wondering, With their love for
escargot, where are all of the French malacologists??? Were they all kidnapped and hustled off to Germany? Inquiring minds want to know. Cgingold 14:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
How about
BencherliteTalk 15:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Well actually, Rafinesque and Pruvot-Fol were French, too, which makes three. But even if we were to count Dautzenberg and Hwass as "honorary Frenchmen", that still only makes five -- surely, there should be at least as many French malacologists as German, n'est-ce pas? Cgingold 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great news: Inspired by BrownHairedGirl's example, I went hunting for French malacologists, and voilà! It turns out that there were five more hiding among the conchologists, bringing the total to eight. So I created Category:French malacologists to go with Category:German malacologists (which is now up to 10 articles). If anybody cares to pick up the thread here, it looks like there are scads of British malacologists, as well (and probably Americans, too). Cgingold 20:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like it's been a good day for Franco-German malacologists. And this morning I didn't even know what a malacologist was. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 2 October 2007 (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:Hindu-oriented socio-spiritual organizations

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindu-oriented socio-spiritual organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category entails original research, created to put Hindu label on organizations that disassociate themselves from Hinduism. IPSOS (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominator. Sfacets 08:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but deplore emptying of category by the nominator ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsensical categorization ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please restore previous contents for the debate. There is clearly something here, and equally clearly the present name does not catch it. Well spotted BHG!Johnbod 03:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep. This is a good category, it categorizes all of the Hindu-based spiritual movements. Nexxt 1 10:14 OCT 6
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:DCI Division II/III corps

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:DCI Open Class corps. --Xdamrtalk 16:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:DCI Division II/III corps to Category:DCI Open Class corps
Nominator's rationale: Rename, DCI recently combined and renamed divisions II/III to "Open Class". Lazytiger 04:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:DCI Division I corps

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:DCI World Class corps. --Xdamrtalk 16:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:DCI Division I corps to Category:DCI World Class corps
Nominator's rationale: Rename, DCI recently changed the name of the division from "Division I" to "World Class". Lazytiger 04:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Derivative highway designations

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Derivative highway designations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A purely a subjective list that would encompass a sizeable number of roads in the United States. KelleyCook 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually not subjective at all. You can tell if a highway's got a derivative designation if 1) it connects to a highway with the same number as itself, e.g. as a continuation of that highway after crossing a state line (K-99 derives from OK-99 or vice versa, I-440 becomes AR-440), 2) it is numbered as a child of that route (OK-166 is so numbered because it branches off old U.S. 66). Unfortunately, under the latter criteria we could include all three digit Interstates and U.S. routes, as derivatives are a feature of that numbering system. Delete as being of too broad a scope. —Scott5114↗ 03:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Scott. Additionally, theoretically, one could argue that bannered routes could be placed in this category as well, as the number of the bannered route is derived from the number of the mainline route. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as categorisation by name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above master sonT - C 11:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:North American Union

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North American Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Main article North American Union has been repeatedly deleted and had an AfD determining that it was not notable. The category is not a notable classification. JoshuaZ 01:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I notice there is a rather defunct NAU Wikiproject included in the category... Fodder for Misc. for deletion? Postdlf 01:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per AfD discussion and as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A category of a non noteable subject. The afd concluded that the subject is not noteable. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very tricky set of articles where there's a very real problem keeping the conspiracy theories separate from the actual verifiable facts. The Independent Task Force on North America is a real thing which does deserve a neutral article, but still needs regular monitoring to ensure that it isn't slipping into unsourced theories about the ultimate aim of it all. Everything else about this category is pure POV speculation. Delete the category and the wikiproject. Bearcat 22:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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/2007_October_2&oldid=1144514176"