Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 14

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< June 13 June 15 >

June 14

Category:Stevie Ray Vaughan

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. Conscious (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stevie Ray Vaughan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a singer; unnecessary per
WP:OCAT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • As I said, there has been consistent support for categories closely resembling this one in a series of recent CFDs, primarily based on the presence of 3 or more sub-categories. A lot of "similar" categories that had fewer sub-cats & articles were deleted -- and would still be deleted under the currently prevailing concensus. Cgingold (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been stronger support over the last year to year and a half that categories of this size (and even larger) are unnecessary eponymous overcategorization. Prevailing consensus has not changed, as seen in the recent
    talk) 13:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • talk) 14:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • If you want to create
    talk) 14:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It's not simply a question of the number of categories on an article, although it is true that category clutter is best avoided. It also has to do with categorizing based on defining characteristics. "Double Trouble member" is a defining characteristic of these people. "Stevie Ray Vaughan" in and of himself is not. "Stevie Ray Vaughan associate" might be, but that categorization structure is also best avoided.
    talk) 16:29, 15 June 2008 (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:Brent Spiner albums

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 keep, no chance of this being deleted given extensive precedent for keeping such album categories.
BencherliteTalk 15:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Category:Brent Spiner albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: small without potential for growth, can be recreated in future if situation warranted. — MrDolomite • Talk 12:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per precendent of
    Wikipedia:ALBUMS#Categories - Previous discussions have formed the consensus that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future). Lugnuts (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2008 (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:Accounting associations

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:Accounting associations and Category:Institute of Chartered Accountants into new Category:Professional accountancy bodies. Conscious (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Accounting associations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - This category is not required, we already have Category:Accounting organizations. The further sub-category breakdown of 'Associations' is not needed. As you can see at the +cat, editors are including articles in the 'Association' +cat that are not associations, due to confusion between the similarly named +cats 'Association' and 'Organization'. All of the articles in the 'Association' +cat should be transferred to 'Organization'. Green Squares (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you mean "merge". Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I mean delete Green Squares (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"All of the articles in the 'Association' +cat should be transferred to 'Organization'." is a merge. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There should be no merger of Category:Institute of Chartered Accountants with anything else. It is a standalone category. The ICA has many countries and they should be included in this category for ease of finding them. Green Squares (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something of a separate issue, but I think I agree with Fayenatic. The Institutes don't I think share anything beyond a name and a certain historical background - there is no international body for them and not CPAs etc, AFAIK. Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
INCORRECT: The Institute of Chartered Accountants is an international organization and they are all linked. They should remain in a separate category. You people have absolutely no knowledge about this topic, very very scary! Green Squares (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and where is the website of this international organization? Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's nothing scary. We've checked the facts -- have you? The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has members in various countries, and helped to set up some of the other national bodies that have a similar name, but there is no other connection. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Note that there is no article for Institute of Chartered Accountants - just a redirect to the England & Wales institute. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2008 (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:Virgin Mary

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 to Category:Mary (mother of Jesus). Conscious (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Virgin Mary to Category:Mary
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation. In the article namespace, this must be named
Mary (mother of Jesus), but there is no category named "Mary" so there is no need for the category to be named "Virgin Mary." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
So? Do you think there will be another category named Mary? Certainly, "Jesus" is just as generic, as millions of other men have the same name but we shouldn't rename Category:Jesus, should we? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say I'm Hindu, and don't know "Mary, mother of God", why can't I categorize anyone or thing named Mary in it? "Mary" by itself requires Christian bias. Let's not forget things like the Gospel of Mary (Mary Magdalene), and other things related to Apostle Mary. Yes, I think Jesus should be renamed... say category:Jesus of Nazareth. Afterall, anyone or thing named Jesus is likely to be named after Jesus, the Christ/messiah 70.55.85.80 (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The largest Protestant groupings believe (whether the members are aware of it or not) she conceived as a virgin. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question What does NPOV have to do with it? No one is suggesting that the name is a POV violation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is the usual name. DGG (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do you recommend moving the main article as well? Why would the article and the category have two different names? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 17 June 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_14&oldid=1074800733"