Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 18

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. --Xdamr^talk 15:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Americans executed for spying for the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Category for just one article, unlikely to ever have any more, particularly as the Soviet Union no longer exists. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnecessary category for just one article that will never have any more in the category. -shirulashem^(talk) 00:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to the various parent categories. (This is a quadruple intersection.)
  talk) 00:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Upmerge per nominator's arguments. Debresser (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom., per
  WP:OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2009 (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.

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 Category:Casting to Category:Casting (manufacturing). --Xdamr^talk 17:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Casting to Category:Casting (manufacturing)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Casting is rather ambiguous and theatrical casting could be well enough known to say that there is no primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nominator, even though the article is still Casting without a classifier. Debresser (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Wizard191 (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Casting (metalworking). The only parent is Category:Metal forming, though there are of course other materials cast in manufacturing; but all these articles seem to concern metal. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not completely opposed to this, but then a few articles, like
    casting (metalworking) article. I'm cool with however it works out. Wizard191 (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Good points - perhaps we need both, as parent & sub. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would work well with how the articles are currently laid out. Right now there's a huge gap in articles about plastic, resin, concrete, and other non-metal casting processes, but I think (hope) that in the future a "casting (manufacturing)" category would fill in. Wizard191 (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the reasons I went with the material neutral Category:Casting (manufacturing). I thinks that those participating in this discussion agree that changes are needed. However this winds up, I'm sure that the proposed rename would only be the start of a cleanup process. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Rename The parent article is Casting, and the category will appear in contexts related to manufacturing or metalworking. Alansohn (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2009 (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.

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 all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 17:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Retailers of Belgium to Category:Retail companies of Belgium

Category:Retailers of Denmark to Category:Retail companies of Denmark

Category:Retailers of Indonesia to Category:Retail companies of Indonesia

Category:Retailers in Israel to Category:Retail companies of Israel

Category:Retailers of Japan to Category:Retail companies of Japan

Category:Retailers of Malaysia to Category:Retail companies of Malaysia

Category:Retailers of Mexico to Category:Retail companies of Mexico

Category:Retailers of Moldova to Category:Retail companies of Moldova

Category:Retailers of the Netherlands to Category:Retail companies of the Netherlands

Category:Retailers of New Zealand to Category:Retail companies of New Zealand

Category:Retailers of Singapore to Category:Retail companies of Singapore

Category:Retailers of Taiwan to Category:Retail companies of Taiwan

Category:Retailers of the United Kingdom to Category:Retail companies of the United Kingdom

Category:Retail companies in Lithuania to Category:Retail companies of Lithuania

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These companies don't really sell Belgium. The change would also match the most common form of subcategories in Category:Retailers by country. If this rename gets a favorable reception. I'll continue to add the remaining subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (funny formulated) nomination per nominator. Debresser (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Good catch.
  talk) 16:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, and suggest expanding the nomination (or starting a separate nom) to include Category:Retailers by country itself - which should surely now be at Category:Retail companies by country. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Not every retailer is a company. Some shops are run by sole traders or partnerships. This accordingly merely adding an unnecessary noun to the category name, which should always be kept as short as possible. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is true that these are not always companies and given that virtually all of the entries in these categories are companies they should be renamed for clarity. I don't believe that there is any objection to having a category for people who are notable for their retailing activities. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Peterkingiron. Propose Rename to "X-ian retailers" for better flow. Rename to "X-ian retail companies". More natural than "of X". --Cybercobra (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:X-ian retailers could be a better name for individuals, but I'm not convinced that it works for companies and that is what most of these are. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Common use in my experience is that it's used for companies. I've never heard it used for a person. But whatever. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• PLEASE DO NOT RENAME Category:Retailers of the United Kingdom. IT IS HARD ENOUGH ALRADY TO FIND SOMETHING WITHOUT ADDING WORDS THAT DO NOT MEAN ANYTHING IT IS FRUSTRATING TO FING SOMETHING AND IT IS THRER OR ITS IN RED LETTERS OR ITS IN RED LETTERS THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST SO PLEASE, DO NOT CHANGE THE NAME. KEEP IT AS IT IS josh477 (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2009 (EST)
• Support Renames I agree with some of the issues raised in opposition, but the overall parent Category:Retailers by country follows the "Retail companies of Foo" standard for most other nations, and is a standard that is reasonable to follow. The same standard is also used overwhelmingly in other industry by nation category structures. Alansohn (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2009 (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.

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:Plot devices to Category:Literary devices. --Xdamr^talk 15:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Plot devices to Category:Literary devices

Nominator's rationale: Merge The contents of the source category are also largely listed in

talk) 18:12, 18 August 2009 (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.

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:Foundry sand testing to Category:Casting. --Xdamr^talk 15:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Foundry sand testing to Category:Casting

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge due to lack of articles. Right now there aren't enough article to present a need for this category. Wizard191 (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The articles in that category are properly in that category which appears to be a sub-cat dealing with the properties of casting sand. Category:casting deals with casting in general. I would be happy to keep the category but we really need input from a specialist in that subject. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One or both of the included articles could easily be folded into the main article. That article is about sand used in foundry castings so a rename there is probably a good move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Other related discussion point to the need to restructure the parent. I think that the upmerge makes sense to allow a clearer view of the contents which may help create a better structure of subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2009 (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.

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: Keep. --Xdamr^talk 15:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Treviso to Category:Treviso (city)
• Category:Sport in Treviso to Category:Sport in Treviso (city)
• Category:People from Treviso to Category:People from Treviso (city)

Nominator's rationale: to make disambiguation from Province of Treviso absolutely clear Mayumashu (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_16#Category:Verona for a similar nomination by the same editor. Debresser (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree as with a similar nomination a few days ago. It is perfectly clear already: the city is Treviso, and the province is Province of Treviso. Furthermore, why change the name of the category from the name of the main article? Debresser (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article pages have the benefit of the article for description whereas category pages do not and therefore should be named more explicitly, with greater disambiguation. Again, it is not perfectly clear to those not familiar with Treviso, and it is for their benefit that less ambiguous naming should be used. Mayumashu (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose Category pages most certainly have the benefit of description. You can easily describe what the purpose of a category is on the category page. Regardless, the main article is at Treviso, and its categories should follow. Resolute 15:13, 23 August 2009 (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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 17:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Regional beetle lists to Category:Lists of beetles

Nominator's rationale:

Wouldn't it be better to name such categories unanimously. While majority of categories use the following form: [[List of {{taxon}}}s]], I suggest us to move this category to the Category:Lists of beetles and make "Category:Regional beetle lists" a redirect to it. Moreover, the subcategories of the category we are discussing use such a form. Please express your opinions about that. -- Wisconsus ^TALK|^things 14:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there is also the parent
  talk) 16:21, 18 August 2009 (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.

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:Free game modification tools to Category:Video game modification tools. --Xdamr^talk 17:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Free game modification tools to Category:Free video game modification tools

Nominator's rationale: I think this one was missed when all the 'game' -> 'video game' happened. It's obvious this category means 'video games'. (This category might also be deleted altogether, but I'm not sure that's needed here.) DanielPharos (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support renaming this category, but I strongly doubt whether we should keep such a category at all. So far, it has got only 1 article belonging to it, so it should be proposed for deletion according to the rules of the categorization, unless more articles (or subcategories) will be put into this category. -- Wisconsus ^TALK|^things 14:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge - to
  talk) 04:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Whether a tool is free could also be expressed by adding it to the free software category, I guess. Also, the category will remain extremely small: there aren't that many tools which have an open license. So that means the category should be upmerged? --DanielPharos (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2009 (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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 15:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gundam factions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation, small category with no potential of substantial expansion. The articles should be evaluated individually to determine the appropriate upmerge target: (Category:Gundam or Category:Universal Century—as appropriate), and (Category:Fictional governments, Category:Fictional military organizations and/or Category:Fictional companies—if necessary). G.A.S^talk 05:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge (each will have to be individually reviewed to determine appropriate targets, as nom points out) and then delete. Actually, it may have been better to ask specifically about this at
  ? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Delete - Farix hath spoken! 「
    ? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 16:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Upmerge yea that how it should handled. Crazy over categorization --KrebMarkt 19:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These articles do not belong in Category:Gundam and they are already categorized into their appropriate series specific categories. What to do with the articles from there should be left to the cleanup teams. --Farix (Talk) 22:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Farix since there are no appropriate upmerge targets. G.A.S^talk 17:47, 20 August 2009 (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.

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 Category:AfC submissions by reviewer and all subcategories.

WP:AFC

is an important process and those involved deserve thanks. However, with very limited exceptions, categories are strictly for encyclopaedic and maintenance purposes. The advent of hidden categories does not give carte blanche to disregard past precedents and consensus.

--Xdamr^talk 22:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AfC submissions by reviewer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - This is a newly created category tree that I feel is a bad idea and sets a dangerous precedent if allowed to stay, so I thought I would nip this in the bud before it got any larger. Basically, this category tree allows for an individualized category for every user who has ever created an article via a request at

WP:OWN, in addition to creating a bunch of unencyclopedic categories that are solely there for "recognition". The categories are hidden, true, but that only makes it so the average user doesn't see them when going to the talk page. The advent of the "hidden" feature does not give us a free pass to start creating otherwise unencyclopedic categories, IMO, and the fact that they are marked as hidden doesn't really address any of my issues with the tree. Once again, I think we can all appreciate the work that is being done, but I see no reason why this information couldn't be on each individual's user page, or even on a Wikipedia space subpage of the Wikiproject that maintains a list. There is absoultely no encyclopedic reason to specifically seek out, via use of a category, all categories created via AfC by a particular user, and thus this tree should be deleted. VegaDark (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support nom, all of whose points are compelling.
  talk) 08:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. This is an interesting nomination and the concerns are understandable, but I don't believe these categories are harmful in any way. A few points:
  • Categories do not have to be "encyclopedic" (depending on what that means). For example we have thousands of maintenance categories which help to keep track of pages and are not designed for readers of the encyclopedia. From this perspective, I see little difference in the categories Category:AfC submissions by date, Category:AFC submissions by status and Category:AfC submissions by reviewer actually. To me, categorising articles by date and status is equally valuable to tracking by reviewer.
  • Many users maintain lists of articles that they have created or worked on. This is little different to that, except that it is in category space rather than user space. The reason that categories are used here is that they are the cleanest and neatest method of doing so, being maintained automatically using templates and parser functions. If it was possible to use user or project space then we would, but there is only one category namespace!
  • Hidden categories
    are perfectly suited to this purpose, in my opinion. They are all invisible by default and editors who dislike the clutter can choose to deselect that option in their preferences. Note also that the categories contain talk pages and not the articles themselves (they are not "article categories" as claimed).

  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would distinguish maitenance categories from the categories at hand. True, maitenance categories are not encyclopedic per se, but they do directly benefit the encyclopedia by existing, signifying something that needs to be done (actually, looking at the other examples you cite, the "by date" category doesn't seem to have much benefit to the encyclopedia either), while the "by status" category has the benefit of showing what still needs to be dealt with. I can't see such a benefit for for the "by reviewer" tree. VegaDark (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you have ever worked in the WikiProject, so it might seem somewhat presumptuous to tell us what is and is not useful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: can I safely post a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation to inform members of this discussion, without being accused of canvassing? Just thought I'd better check first. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We give credit for featured articles, good articles, Did You Know? and all sorts of other areas where many people may have been involved with an article, but one person gets credit for taking the bull by the horns and creating or improving the article. AfC is an important process that allows for creation of articles based on material provided by other editors, providing a safety valve to allow quality, properly-structured articles to be developed rather than having people create poor-quality junk that ends up getting deleted and pissing off new editors who can't understand why their article can't remain. The tags are on the talk pages and would not interfere in any way with navigation. While some here believe that the category world is what drives Wikipedia, it is actually articles that make it an encyclopedia, and we should be giving far more credit to those who actually create content. Alansohn (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We give credit for featured articles, good articles, Did You Know? and all sorts of other areas where many people may have been involved with an article - True, the difference is that none of these other areas have categories for this recognition. Keeping this tree would allow for a category for each of those areas and any other area someone could think of, and the rationale for keeping those would be no different. Most of your comment revolves around the benefits of the AfC process, which shouldn't IMO be the focal point at all for this nom. As I already said they are doing good work, and do deserve recognition, I just don't think this recognition should be through categories. I would oppose the creation of a similar tree for any other area on Wikipedia, whether it be users who create/nominate featured articles/lists/portals/files, or potentially infinite other areas. Taking it to an extreme, you could potentially have a category tree for users who have simply edited an article, leaving the possibility for thousands of hidden "Articles edited by User:xyz" categories on the talk page. Where do you draw the line? What rationale for keeping this would bar creation of such an "articles edited" tree (which I assume nobody wants to see pop up) without creating a double standard? VegaDark (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, counterarguments notwithstanding. Debresser (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there must be other ways of doing this too. I would be happy with a user subpage that was populated with the list. This list gives me an opportunity to go back and further improve the articles I have created. I don't count it as recognition. Currently Category:AfC submissions by reviewer/Graeme Bartlett has 741 articles in it. So I may be one of the bigger targets for this. EarwigBot I is the machine populating the cats. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I cannot see the point of this. I usually add articles that I have created or on which I have worked to my watchlist. I can see what i have done on My contributions. Why more? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if possible in some form, but preferably not as a talk (let alone article) page cat. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It seems like both Graeme Bartlett and Johnbod's keep rationales actually support my nomination. there must be other ways of doing this too. I would be happy with a user subpage that was populated with the list. and Keep if possible in some form, but preferably not as a talk (let alone article) page cat - I agree with both of these statements. We can keep these on a user subpage or a wikiproject subpage. It sounds like users are responding more as if this were a proposal to do away with giving recognition to these users or removing the lists entirely, which I don't want at all. I'm simply concerned with the category system employed. I agree, keep giving recognition (via another method), and keep this info either in userspace or projectspace- but delete the categories. VegaDark (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify to project-space and delete. In the context of this nomination, it is important to distinguish between categories that group users by specific types of contributions (e.g. Category:Wikipedia Featured Article contributors, Category:Wikipedia Did you know contributors) and categories that group articles by contributor (note that Category:Featured Articles nominated by Hurricanehink and Category:Did you know nominations by Alansohn, for instance, do not exist). The former type of category groups editors by experience with a particular process (such as the Featured Article process) and could, therefore, potentially aid collaborative effots; the latter type of category serves as recognition for an individual editor.
  While editors who review AfC submissions undoubtedly do deserve recognition, placing article talk pages into categories named for them is not the way to do it. We should recognize AfC reviewers in the same way that we recognize FA and DYK nominators: a list similar to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations or Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs (if desired, subpages could be created for individual reviewers to list all of the articles that they have reviewed).
  So, listify to Wikipedia:AfC submissions by reviewer and create subpages as necessary (such as Wikipedia:AfC submissions by reviewer/Graeme Bartlett). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have now started the process of depopulating these categories prior to their deletion. Creating User:MSGJ/AfC reviews took my >20 mins and cannot be updated without the use of a bot. Ah, well. I think what we need is a "super-hidden" category which will never be displayed on the page itself. Then all concerns would seem to be satisifed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:00, 25 August 2009 (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.

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 all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 15:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Jeju to Category:Jeju-do
• Category:Sport in Jeju to Category:Sport in Jeju-do
• Category:Universities and colleges in Jeju to Category:Universities and colleges in Jeju-do

Nominator's rationale: for disambiguation from

Jeju-si Mayumashu (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2009 (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.

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 Category:Mute Math Singles to Category:Mute Math songs. --Xdamr^talk 15:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mute Math Singles to Category:Mute Math songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per naming convention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Per naming conventions and consistency with subcategories under Category:Songs by artist. — Σxplicit 05:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above.
  talk) 09:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I changed it already before seeing this. It was a simple change and didn't think this was needed. Sorry. --Wolfer68 (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2009 (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.

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: Nominator has not stated a desired outcome for this debate. Having consulted some chicken entrails, my divining rod, and the template on the category page, I think delete is what he would have wanted... --17:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Albums produced by Kara DioGuardi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Precedent is that, with subcategories of Category:Albums by producer, the producer must have several solo production credits to warrant a category. Kara DioGuardi does not. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:09, 18 August 2009 (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.

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 Category:Fictional people with albinism to Category:Fictional characters with albinism. --Xdamr^talk 12:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional people with albinism to Category:Fictional characters with albinism

or

Propose listifying Category:Fictional people with albinism to Albinism in popular culture

Nominator's rationale:

For renaming: For consistency with the

Crawlers from The Descent series are identified as humanoids, but it seems inaccurate to describe them as "people"; the same could be said of the Morlocks. Fictional albinos can also be aliens (e.g. Mojo from Marvel Comics), animals (e.g. Pure Ferret

), and anything else that writers can imagine.

For listifying: In many cases this category seems to be added to any article about a fictional character with abnormally white or pale skin, hair, or eyes (e.g. until recently, the

original research

. For this reason, because we are attempting to connect—through personal visual observation—a real-world condition with the physical appearance of a fictional character, a list could do a much better job of presenting this information. Unlike a category, a list could provide (sourced) commentary to explain and justify the affiliation of a particular character with albinism. And while it is true that list and categories can complement each other, they should not always do so, particularly when one (in this case, the category) is inherently problematic.

–BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 00:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify per persuasive arguments. Good nom, BF. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to
  WP:OR problem. If particular entries have been improperly categorized, dealing with the issue at the article level by removing the article from the category would be far less disruptive than deleting the entire category. If there is a genuine fear of miscategorization based on light-skinned characters being termed as albinos based on original research, we have a problem that pollutes all of the parent Category:Fictional characters by physical feature and the entire category system. We can use the category system to group articles by defining characteristics (such as this one) and allow similar articles to be accessed by navigating through categories or we can use arguments that apply to all categories and pick categories off randomly one at a time. If this argument will be pursued, why not chop down the entire Category:Fictional characters structure and solve the imagined "problem" rather than leave some categories to survive that have the exact same set of purported issues? Alansohn (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comments - however a parent category is
  talk) 09:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • We could create Category:Fictional albino animals (it would, however, contain few articles) as a subcategory of Category:Albino animals (since albinism in animals is a real phenomenon), but we cannot do the same for fictional humanoids, fictional aliens, and other fictional creatures that do not have real-world albino counterparts.
    On the issue of original research (and partly in response to Alansohn): I do not think that the OR problems associated with a category for fictional albino characters are insurmountable—rigorous source-checking and enforcement of Wikipedia:No original research at the article level, which is much more difficult to do in practice than in theory, would solve the problem—but I do think that they are significantly more pronounced than those associated with a category for albino people. In the case of real people and animals, albinism can be confirmed by a medical professional or with genetic testing. In the case of fictional characters, albinism can be confirmed only if the character's creator explicitly identifies the character as an albino (otherwise, it amounts to personal or secondary speculation). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 16:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a rational name for the category. Anything with "popular culture" in it smacks of a variety of trivia that was deleted wholesale a couple of years ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you clarify, please, to what the "it" in "anything with 'popular culture' in it" refers? My guess is that you are writing about page titles, but I'm not sure whether you mean article titles or category titles... Thanks, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is referring to attempts (in which I participated) a couple of years ago to try to muck out the
      talk) 18:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Oppose listifying - "Foo in popular culture" articles almost invariably become crap magnets, as editors dash to their computers every time they spot a Foo to add it, regardless of whether the fictional Foo has the slightest significance to the fiction or to the real world. No terribly strong opinion on the name of the category although being albino is not something I particularly think about when considering fictional characters. YMMV.
  talk) 18:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]