Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 17

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< May 16 May 18 >

May 17

Category:Singers by time period

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. Kbdank71 16:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Singers by time period (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There doesn't seem to be a precedent for this being a proper method of categorization. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are already Musical groups by time period (why this sould be good for bands and not for singers ?) and Category:People by occupation and period. In addition, the categories exist on other WP (e.g. [1]). No rationale provided by the nominator other than a simple feeling. Europe22 (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does seem like the nominator's rationale has been refuted, those are clearly precedents. I think it should be established whether qualification is for singers whose first significant success came in a decade or singers who had significant success in the decade. It could be a contentious issue establishing precisely when a singer's career could be said to have begun, for example, singers who were signed to a deal but went virtually unnoticed until the following decade. On the other hand it could be a contentious issue establishing a threshold for "significant" success. Bear in mind that there will be artists who became successful in, say, 1999 but continued to have an equal measure of success (even from the same album/tour/show) in 2000. Of course these challenges would be present in all other such categories, be they years, decades, centuries or millennia (all is true in the same example) so the mere fact that there are issues to hammer out is not reason to exempt the category. Abrazame (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's the problem I was seeing.
    John Anderson, for instance, had a string of big hits in the early 1980s, fell from grace, and caught a second wind in the 1990s. He's still out there, but he's not had a Top 40 chart hit since 1998. How do we categorize him then? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Reasonable way of handling the very large number of articles. there is no reason why a singer could not be in more than one category. DGG (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we've had problems with stub categories similar to this permcat in the past - the best solution we could come up with at WP:Stub sorting was "Foo born in the Bar decade" (e.g., "Singers born in the 1930s"). It doesn't entirely get rid of the problem, but at least (a) it's far less arbitrary than trying to work out when singers are at their peak, and (b) it reduces double-categorising of people if they have long careers (most people are only born once). Grutness...wha? 02:09, 19 May 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:Biggest Loser Worldwide Hosts

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. Kbdank71 16:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Biggest Loser Worldwide Hosts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of
performer by performance. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 17 May 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:Transporter films

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. Recreation ok if there is some actual growth; until then, Template:Transporter series works fine. Kbdank71 16:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Transporter films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Another useless category for a 3 film "series" - new editor apparently on a category making spree -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With only three films in the series, how is there room for growth? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:38, 22 May 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:Xxx films

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: Administrative close: already nominated on earlier date. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Xxx films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Another useless category for a two film "series" - new editor apparently on a category making spree -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already nominated -
    talk) 23:33, 17 May 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:The Marine

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. Kbdank71 16:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Marine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Completely useless category for a two film series -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnecessary
    talk) 19:53, 18 May 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:Behind Enemy Lines

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. Kbdank71 16:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Behind Enemy Lines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Completely useless category for a 3 film "series" -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnecessary
    talk) 19:53, 18 May 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:Madagascar mass murderers

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. Kbdank71 16:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Madagascar mass murderers to Category:Malagasy mass murderers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use standard adjective for people from Madagascar, per Category:Malagasy people. Or delete, if it's thought the one article in it doesn't really "fit". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever you do is fine with me. Ranavalona I killed so many people and such a high percentage of her own people that she should be categorized as a mass murderer even if the category ends up with her as the sole occupant. As for "Malagasay" vice "Madagascar" you need to be certain that typical lay users of Wikipedia will understand the two as congruent. Even for the more technically informed, the Malagasay people are predominant among the population of Madagascar, but they have never been the only people there. This island nation is now known as the Republic of Madagascar, not the Malagasay Republic. I did a search (to the left) in Wikipedia and found a lot more use of "Madagascar" than Malagasay. Again, Ranavalona I was so horrible that she needs a category, but placing her in a category with South Africa or with any other location in Africa seems a stretch. Rammer (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - labeling people who sentence others to death as "mass murderers" is POV pushing.
    talk) 23:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - this woman is a Nero or Stalin-type "mass murderer", not a Ted Bundy-type. Labelling her as a mass-murderer is definitely a POV issue, as even the article notes that some people believe she was harsh but not unjustified. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've now noticed that Nazis aren't in the German list, Mao isn't in the Chinese list, etc. But POV hardly rings true as the criterion unless we're into denial of such things. What she did was no more "justified" than what Hitler did. Rather, perhaps the encyclopedia needs a category for governmental leaders of genocides as contrasted to self-appointed mass murderers. The difference may be one of form over substance, but it can almost always be specified. Yet the distinction between mass murderers and spree killers may need some tweaking. Rammer (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we get into state-sanctioned "mass murder" we're going to get scads of POV issues where any political figure whose administration caused deaths will be labeled a "mass murderer". Then we'll end up listing Kissinger because he approved of bombing Cambodia or some such thing. Nobody's "denying" that people, perhaps quite a lot of people, were killed under her administration, just saying that such isn't necessarily category-worthy on its own. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you and appreciate your clarifying what you earlier meant. Rammer (talk) 18:37, 19 May 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:African American football players

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. Kbdank71 16:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:African American football players to Category:African American players of American football
Nominator's rationale: already a category like it. RF23 (talk) 21:56, 17 May 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:Key political issues in Kuwait

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. Kbdank71 16:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Key political issues in Kuwait to Category:Politics of Kuwait
Nominator's rationale: Merge. POV title and arbitrary inclusion criteria. Gilliam (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge no similar categories for other countries: no tree to put this in. Hmains (talk) 02:28, 20 May 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:Koch Records 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: rename. Kbdank71 16:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Koch Records albums to Category:E1 Music albums
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:35, 17 May 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:Turkic-Iranians

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. Kbdank71 16:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Turkic-Iranians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is already the Category:Azeri Iranians. This new category would be going to have mostly the same content and is redundant.Raayen (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are you sure they are the same? If they are, the category shoudl be merged, not deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to answer Iranian Azeri is more popular in academic publication when referring to ethnic individuals. However "Turkic-Iranian" is usually used (according to a little search on Google scholars) to refer to linguistic contact of Turkic people with Iranians in Caucasian starting from 1200-300 AD. So, Turkic-Iranian category should not be used to collect Turkic speaking Iranian individuals.--Raayen (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – to judge from its inclusion statement,
    talk) 13:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • hello, i created this category. i do appreciate that most of the people appearing in this category would also be afiliated with iranian azeris category. but the fact of the matter is, the iranian azeris ARE NOT the only turkic ethnic group in iran. there are turkmen, qashqai and few more groups who's people would come under this section. such as afshin ghotbi, he is a turkic-iranian, but is not an Azeri. therefore, i think all turkic iranian indivduals come under this category. user:megastrike14
  • Comment – There are ethnic groups in Iran which are BTW very misty. We have categories such as Azeri Iranians, Kurdish Iranians, Georgian Iranians, Mazandarani Iranians, but cannot have categories like Indo-European Iranians, Afro-Asiatic Iranians, etc. You might wish to create Qashqai Iranians and Turkmen Iranians.--Raayen (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are some Turkic-speaking ethnic groups in Iran. But it's not appropriate to create a category for all who have some ancestry from one of these groups (like Turkmens or Azerbaijanis). It's like having a category of Celtic-British people and include all UK citizens who have some Irish, Scottish, or Welsh ancestry. Alefbe (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delet It is like creating "Indo-European Americans" or "Indo-Aryan Americans". --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alefbe, and note also the creator's contribution history, consisting of numerous attempts to introduce misinformation into ethnic group articles [2][3]. cab (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well , if Turkmen-Iranian or Qashqai-Iranian , then categorize them as the same! Why do we need to invent a super-group that is imaginary and non-existent in reality ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, meh good point. but i think the turkic of iran should all be recognised (and i am not a turkic myslef!) i mean, i know turkmen, azeri, qashqai are different in there own ways. but the fact is, theyre ALL turkic and this should be recognised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.163.99 (talk) 22:37, 24 May 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:Albums produced by Joshua J. Macrae

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. Kbdank71 16:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Albums produced by Joshua J. Macrae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Precedent is that a producer has to have multiple solo production credits to warrant a category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:18, 17 May 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:Infobox Tea/No Picture

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. Kbdank71 16:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Infobox Tea/No Picture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category seems like something that should go on the talk page, not in the articles. Incidentally, most of the articles have pictures in them, and I've already removed the category from some of them. There are many more left to go through, so I realized I should get more opinions first. DVD 03:52, 17 May 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:Heathcliff

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 Let's not keep this open any longer, consensus is clear and I withdraw anyway. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Heathcliff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category, no chance of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 03:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - looking through the page history of the guideline
    talk) 13:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • So how would (say)
    talk) 13:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • keep As I see it, the intent of the change was to make it flexible--in both directions--so that we could keep categories even as small as 2 if it were parallel with other categories or there was some good reason; I think this therefore qualifies. anyway, there is no particular reason why there might not someday be another derivative work. Probably we should look at both the rule, and the two examples again. I too know it when I see it, and I see it the opposite way from TPH. That's one of the inherent problems of flexibility. DGG (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename to Category:Heathcliff (comic strip) to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a rather popular comic strip, I don't see that there's no chance for expansion. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:39, 19 May 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_May_17&oldid=1074802975"