Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 26

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< August 25 August 27 >

August 26

Category:Literary devices playing with sound

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:Literary devices playing with sound to Category:Poetic devices. --Xdamrtalk 13:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Literary devices playing with sound to Category:Poetic devices
Nominator's rationale: Merge this awkwardly named category to
talk) 23:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Agree with merge; devices such as onomatopoeia and assonance can be well-sourced from literary analysis and criticisms, but "playing with sound" is just too vague to be sustainable unless it is a recognised topic in the field. Rodhullandemu 00:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something. That all these devices rely on sound for their effect is hardly OR, & it seem a valid and useful distinction for a category. Only one or two, like alliteration are not exclusively poetic, so maybe Category:Poetic devices using sound. The "meaning" cat seems less well-defined. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that Poetic devices implies some aspect of the sound of words, and so "using sound" -- while better than "playing with" -- is unnecessary.
      talk) 15:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Not really - see Category:Literary devices playing with meaning. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But as I mention above, I think the "playing with meaning" arrangement is poorly thought out, as well. I thought we could avoid the whole awkward "playing with" scheme if we can get away with using "poetic devices" for the techniques that are aural, and "literary" for the rest that have to do with the meanings of words. I'll happily accept whatever's decided."
talk) 20:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
If you are suggesting "poetic" can be used as a synonym for "aural", I'd strongly disagree. With a better name a sound/meaning distinction seems valid to me, and most of the meaning ones can occur in poetry too. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per nom and because while it may not be a perfect solution it is far superior to the existing "playing with" construction which should be banished forthwith. Nothing in the discussion bars future discussion on the target's talk page.
    talk) 21:02, 31 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.

Category:Beaches of Myanmar

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:Beaches of Myanmar to Category:Beaches of Burma. --Xdamrtalk 19:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Beaches of Myanmar to Category:Beaches of Burma
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with
this. In the past, "Myanmar" has been changed in category names to "Burma" here, here, here (endorsed here), and here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 26 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.

Category:People from Culcheth

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 Category:People from Warrington. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Culcheth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: OCAT, only two members; Culcheth is a neighbourhood of Warrington and apparently insufficiently vibrant to sustain its own category. We do not do this for, e.g. suburbs of Liverpool, or even towns of comparable size to Warrington. Rodhullandemu 21:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into
    talk) 23:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'm seeing a few of these as I go along. Whereas I appreciate local enthusiasm, without sufficient notable entries, these categories are already well-defined at a higher level. My impression is that some editors are unaware of the rich possibilities of categories, and are unaware of the purposes thereof. Similarly, we too do not provide user-friendly mechanics to enable users to explore those rich possibilities. Rodhullandemu 23:49, 26 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.

Category:Green politicians in Canada

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 Category:Green Party of Canada politicians. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Green politicians in Canada to Category:Green Party politicians in Canada
Nominator's rationale: Gives a more well defined name. Contents will have to check to see if they should remain. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. That seems like a good idea. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:55, 27 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.

Category:Agostino Carracci erotic drawings

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Agostino Carracci erotic drawings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. OCAT at this time with a single image that might be movable to commons. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, plus it isn't a drawing, & probably has nothing to do with Agostino Carracci. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:59, 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.

Category:PRINCE2

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, also noted that nominator has not indicated course of action he wishes in his nomination. --Xdamrtalk 13:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:PRINCE2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be used on normal project management topics just because they happen to be covered in the PRINCE2 methodology. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being, as some of the articles are specifically about the PRINCE2 usage and significance. Mind you, I think Product description is not worth keeping as a separate article, and perhaps others should also go. I would have no objection to re-nomination of the category if some of the articles get merged or deleted. - Fayenatic (talk) 00:21, 31 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.

Auto dealerships subcategories

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:
--Xdamrtalk 19:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all per
    WP:OCAT. What is the this category. the category named from dealership band name. This category is a subcategory of Category:Auto dealerships. But all listed articles are vehicles. no listed for article about dealership shop, company.--Hoylong22 (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete all – eg the
    talk) 17:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete all per both. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all For anyone who searches the word "Honda Clio" attempting to find a car, the reader will discover that it is instead a dealership that sold Honda kei cars. The various categories are the same intent as the Lexus, Acura, and Infiniti dealership chains. (Regushee (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete all. What particular dealership or chain of dealerships a vehicle is sold out of has no bearing on the vehicle itself. Grouping vehicles by which dealership they are sold from is an "artificial" division of automobiles into categories. I picked this up with the original creator of the Honda categories last year, but didn't bother to follow through. For example, it is misleading and confusing to categorise Honda S2000 under "Honda Verno", it simply is not pertinent to the S2000 at all. What next, a dealership categorisation scheme for every country? "Category:Vehicles imported into South Africa", "Category: Vehicles manufactured in South Africa" etc. times all 150 countries in the world (and this is just on a country level, never mind a dealership level!)? Zunaid 15:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with modified name to give better understanding whats those categories are all about, eg Category:cars sold by Honda Clio dealership or similar. --Typ932 T·C 18:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But why? You haven't provided a keep rationale. Of what possible consequence to the Honda S2000 is it to know that it's sold out of Verno dealerships? And that is only Japanese dealerships. What about the other 150 countries? e.g. In South Africa Honda models up to 2002 were imported and sold through Mercedes Benz dealerships, until Honda came fully into the country in 2003. Should there be categories for South Africa as well? The U.S.? UK? Every other country? Maybe I'm missing something specific to Japan, but why does the Japanese automotive industry "deserve" a category system for the dealerships out of which specific models are sold? How is it relevant to the cars themselves? Zunaid 19:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Japan they chose to sell specific models at dealerships specifically labeled, just like a new Lexus LS can't be bought at a Toyota dealership name in South Africa, or a Nissan pickup can't be purchased new at an Infiniti dealership in the USA. Specificially named dealerships sold specific models. Using Zunaid's reasoning, categories for Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, should be removed because of the parent companies that produce those models.(Regushee (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You've misunderstood my reasoning. I'm not calling for deletion of BRAND categories (Lexus, Infiniti etc.), but only of DEALERSHIP categories (Toyota Store, Honda Verno etc.). Incidentally, Lexus in South Africa only recently underwent a rebranding exercise, with dedicated dealerships. Until then all Lexus's were sold out of Toyota dealerships. So should we create a category for "Lexus vehicles sold out of Toyota dealerships in South Africa", "Lexus vehicles sold out of Lexus dealerships in South Africa"? Zunaid 09:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most. Except for Lexus because the car is actually branded as a Lexus (not Toyota) and Lexus is world recognised. For other Toyota's it is hard to tell which dealer sold which model just from looking at the car unless you have memorised some charts from the yearly prospectus. But I would like to see (write) an article explaining how and why multiple groups of Japanese dealers came into existence (I have this info at hand for Toyotas from multiple reference books). Stepho-wrs (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. It is a matter of only Japan, and there is no need to categorize for only one market.--TTTNIS (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to articles about the respective brands. JDM dealer arrangements are relatively unique, so i think it is notable. Or, create articles for each brand that lists different types of dealerships for each brand and what cars they carry. Bud (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but possibly convert to a list. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:57, 29 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.

Category:People from Okavango Region

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Okavango Region to Category:People from Kavango Region
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article was recently moved to Kavango Region, and the parent category was also moved 2 days ago per this discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 12:48, 26 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.

Category:Films set in the 1900s

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. --Xdamrtalk 13:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Films set in the 1900s to Category:Films set in the 1900s (decade)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the article
1900s (decade) and to avoid confusion with Category:Films set in the 20th century. Tassedethe (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • do not rename; keep as is. This rename would put this category at odds with all its sibling categories found in the Category:1900s category tree. There is no reason to make this change. Hmains (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This arises due to a wider problem, perhaps less a difficulty for 1900s than 1800s. Serious historians will normally use 1800s to refer to 1800-9, but there is a looser pupular usage that uses it for 1800-99, as a synonym for 19th century (which is strictly 1801-1900 -- but that is merely being pedantic). The problem applies only to "00" decades, and the change is necessary, both to this and the whole Category:1900s tree, otherwise things belonging to other parts of 20th century will be miscategorised. Can we treat this as a test nomination for the whole category tree? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because there are many templates, e.g. in Category:Works-by-year templates, e.g. Template:Bookdecade, which are constructed around consistent category names. See Category:1900s works and its subcats for examples in use. Mind you, these probably could be rewritten with a extra code to append "_(decade)" to the category link if the decade parameter = 0. The "Yr" templates would need the same, although the "InCentury" templates would be easier. This is probably not a conclusive reason to oppose change, then; but don't underestimate the work required. There are also more category templates which have not yet been categorised in Category:Time, date and calendar templates; I've just categorised six about racehorses. Goodness, there must be masses more of them used in Category:Years by country and who knows where else. I'd be inclined to leave well alone. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Peterkingiron. Kuralyov (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: I think it would be better to nominate some categories higher in the Years and Decades category trees as test categories. In my view it would be a mistake to start hacking any big branches on the basis of thin consensus over this twig; and a mistake to change the twig without a test nomination on the trunk and some big branches. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article for decade. Agree that this should be addressed at a broader basis, higher up in the category structure. Alansohn (talk) 02:09, 4 September 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.

Category:Fictional playwrights

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fictional playwrights to Category:Fictional dramatists and playwrights
Nominator's rationale: Rename or delete - either rename to match the parent
talk) 04:02, 26 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.

Category:Lists of playwrights

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lists of playwrights to Category:Lists of dramatists and playwrights
Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the parent
talk) 04:00, 26 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.

Category:Jewish playwrights

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Jewish playwrights to Category:Jewish dramatists and playwrights
Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the parent
talk) 03:58, 26 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.

Category:People from Dingle, Liverpool

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. So I'll upmerge the contents to
Tony Jackson (bass player), and Ringo Starr. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Category:People from Dingle, Liverpool (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily small category which in itself provides little information to a reader as there is no obvious cultural connection. Entries should be moved to appropriate subcategories of Category:People from Liverpool, currently being revamped. Rodhullandemu 00:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as I'm going through this jungle, I am interpreting "from Liverpool" quite liberally, so as to include, for instance, Bootle (which geographically is part of Liverpool but is in South Sefton). I haven't yet encountered any "fringe" cases. Rodhullandemu 15:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our categorisation for "People from..." is by ceremonial counties, then local government districts and then (if needed) by localities. You should not break that by merging Sefton with Liverpool. This should not be used as a precedent to merge Sefton categories into Liverpool or the like. MRSC (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not intending to make any changes to the rules, and I think (since it's taken me nearly a week) the emerging structure is a lot more use. As regards Sefton/Liverpool, I have tried to use 1.1.1974 as the demarcation, and might have missed one or two. When I've finished, I intend to review again, since I've been creating subcats as I go, and there are some multiples to be addressed. Rodhullandemu 19:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to subcats.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. This is a clear case. I would however want to retain Category:People from Bootle, becasue Bootle is a town next to Liverpool, but not within that city. It contains 20 bio articles and is thus big enough to be a worthwhile category in its own right. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Panic ye not, I have checked those 20 and whereas they may have been born in Bootle, their notability generally arises from activities in Liverpool, so nothing is lost. Rodhullandemu 20:19, 1 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_26&oldid=1144514451"