Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 11

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:Wales Labour Party politicians to Category:Welsh Labour politicians. --Xdamr^talk 16:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wales Labour Party politicians to Category:Welsh Labour politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match article for party, Welsh Labour. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:29, 12 October 2010 (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:DOM-TOM Parties to Category:Political parties in the overseas departments and territories of France. --Xdamr^talk 16:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:DOM-TOM Parties to Category:Political parties in the overseas departments and territories of France

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Spell out the meaning of this category. Many readers will not know what "DOM-TOM" refers to. The proposed name conforms with the name format of the article

Overseas departments and territories of France. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2010 (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 16:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT to Category:LGBT topics

Nominator's rationale: Instead of having a floating adjective. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. I don't find the floating adjective problematic in a title, and I like keeping category names short. The addition of the word "topics" seems to me to add no clarification to the reader, so the extra verbiage just creates clutter in the category list of articles. However, if the rename does go ahead, please re-create the existing title as a redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• WT:LGBT has been notified by me. This should really have been done by the nominator :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Neutral -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Opposer as the parent article of this category is LGBT. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Nominator is nominally correct, but I don't see a significant issue with it remaining as is. __
  talk) 10:26, 12 October 2010 (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 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Butlins Redcoats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. These people are not notable for reason of having been

Butlins Redcoats. This is kind of a gateway job into the entertainment business, but I don't think anyone is notable because they were a Butlins Redcoat. It's more of an interesting factoid about a previous job held by a person, somewhat like U.S. Senate pages or former lifeguards. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep you can't refer to it as a gateway job because it may be notable in their future careers - The most obvious example of this is
  Ian Watkins (Steps) specifically identifies him by the term "the former Butlins Redcoat". Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I think that's a good argument for including the details of someone having this job in their bio article on WP, but not one for having a category for it. Many things are verifiable and possibly even notable and influential, but categories are generally used for features that are central and defining for a person. The fact remains that these people are not notable because they were Butlins Redcoats. They are notable for some other reason. The job itself most certainly can be said to be a kind of gateway job, as the article
    Redcoats (Butlins) itself says: "Becoming a Redcoat is seen as a way into show business, although this is less prevalent in more recent years." Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Would you then consider all University Alumni Categories requiring deletion, or does the fact that the individual attends a notable college whose notability is relevant to their own notability make it a reasonable keep? Whilst Former Lifeguard and U.S. Senate Pages do not (except in exceptionally rare cases) have much to do with the individuals future career, most Former Redcoats within WP have gone on to do comparable jobs to a far more notable level. However the fact that there is a wealth of reliable secondary sources for each of these individuals identifying them as Redcoats is proof in itself how notable the job and the people who do it are to the British Public - even if that notability is not understood or accepted internationally. I agree with the idea that being a Redcoat can be a gateway, however I disagree profusely with the idea that it is only a gateway having little notability otherwise. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I would. It's an argument I've long pursued. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Talk:Butlins has been notified of this discussion by myself. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Stuart.Jamieson. Being a former Redcoat indicates the sort of entertainer they are and indicates the influence of Butlins within the British entertainment industry. Cjc13 (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This category provides interesting common trait of the individuals listed in it. Whether or not these individuals are notable because of having been a Redcoat doesn't, to my mind, have any bearing on whether this category should exist. (The argument about alumni categories seems pertinent--in some ways, these individuals are "alumni" of Butlins--although I expect someone will cry
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at me for saying that.) --RFBailey (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • "Whether or not these individuals are notable because of having been a Redcoat doesn't, to my mind, have any bearing on whether this category should exist." It doesn't? So it's OK for categories to exist that categorizes by any factoid about a person, as long as it is true and, as you put it, subjectively "interesting"? This seems highly problematic to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not about categorisation by any factoid, it is about categorisation by notable profession, and these individuals are regularly cited as notably having been in that profession. The level of notability is high enough that a decent Head Article could probably be written from it though reasonably
      Redcoats (Butlins) would cover it with a re-writing of the Notable Redcoats section. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • The standard for categorization is not notability. It is whether or not the trait is defining. In other words, is that trait one of the reasons the person is notable? In this case, I cannot but conclude that it is not. If it's notable, then write an article and include them in the list. But unless it's defining for those included, we don't create a category for it. It sounds like there's a basic misunderstanding of this point. No commenters in this discussion have exhibited an understanding of the distinction. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • One defining trait per WP:CAT is "notable profession", which has been my argument all along. It is defining as I have already demonstrated, these individuals are regularly defined by this notable former profession even when they may have done something more notable in their later life i.e;
          William G Stewart [6], Dave Allen (comedian) [7], Michael Barrymore [8], Darren Day [9]. Will_Gompertz [10] Do I really need to go on providing sources that show how often notable people are defined as former Redcoats, and I mean define here, not sources that make an offhand trivial comment about the person's past or biography and 7 of these are clearly reliable sources that define these individuals by their former profession. For the sake of argument I haven't even included articles which directly relate to Butlins because it would be easy to dismiss them as biased - these are articles about the notable individual's life and they still define the individual by this former profession. I have made this argument since the start, yet you choose to dismiss me as not understanding this distinction, this Job is a notable one in UK culture and because of that we do define those who have carried out the job by it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2010 (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 16:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct airlines of East Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category only contains, and will only ever contain, one member. I think the relevant guidelines are WP:OC#NARROW and WP:OC#SMALL. Jan 1922 (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Part of two series, Category:Defunct airlines by country and Category:Airlines of defunct states. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per vegaswikian--ONaNcle (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Vegaswikian. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as part of several series Hmains (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2010 (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 16:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Mr. Trololo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Nominator's rationale - Delete - "Wikipedians by individual" category, which have a unanimous precedent for deletion (see here). VegaDark (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2010 (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 16:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Catholic Wiki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Nominator's rationale - Delete - No article on Catholic Wiki, so keeping this would allow a "who contribute to" category for every other non-notable Wiki out there. Since there is no article on this, it can't possibly facilitate collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2010 (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 16:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are Bureaucrats on other wiki sites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Nominator's rationale - Delete - Might be useful if this was restricted to other Wikimedia sites (such as commons, Wikibooks, etc.), but the lone user in this category appears to be a bureaucrat on a completely unrelated Wiki. Nothing to stop someone from creating their own wiki, promoting themselves to bureaucrat, and then joining this category. Thus, it isn't particularly useful for any purpose I can think of for improving the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2010 (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 16:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User IRIRAN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Nominator's rationale - Delete - Linked to a userbox stating "This user is proud of the Islamic Republic of Iran". Does not help Wikipedia to categorize users who are proud of particular countries; no encyclopedic value. VegaDark (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2010 (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 to Category:Wikipedians using the service awards template incorrectly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users using the service award template incorrectly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Nominator's rationale - Rename to Category:Wikipedians using the service award template incorrectly per standard naming conventions of using "Wikipedians" and not "Users". VegaDark (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians using the service awards template incorrectly per VegaDark and because templates name is {{service awards}}. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection to that. VegaDark (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2010 (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:User Table Tennis to Category:WikiProject Table Tennis members. --Xdamr^talk 16:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User Table Tennis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Nominator's rationale - Rename to Category:WikiProject Table Tennis members per standard naming conventions of Wikiproject categories (personally I slightly prefer "Wikiproject Table Tennis participants, but the userbox says members, so thought it best to stick with that). VegaDark (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2010 (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: Relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 23. Dana boomer (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Municipal owned companies of Norway → Category:Municipally owned companies of Norway
• Category:Former municipal owned companies of Norway → Category:Formerly municipally owned companies of Norway
• Category:Municipal owned companies of the United Kingdom → Category:Municipally owned companies of the United Kingdom
• Category:Municipal owned companies of England → Category:Municipally owned companies of England
• Category:Municipal owned companies of Scotland → Category:Municipally owned companies of Scotland
• Category:Municipal owned companies of Wales → Category:Municipally owned companies of Wales

Nominator's nationale: Rename With reference to discussion at

• Rename all – to harmonise with
  talk) 08:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment – this is part of a wider problem as there is
  talk) 12:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• "Ex-municipal" sounds bad is my immediate reaction. Other possibilities are
  talk) 12:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• How about considering an approach that might address both problems? Would Category:Companies owned by municipalities of England and Category:Companies formerly owned by municipalities of England be an acceptable approach? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't have a wonderful sound to it, but it is very straightforward. I'm wondering though whether of or in would be the best preposition. __
    talk) 18:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I did consider in v of and was unsure. If the basic approach is accepted, others can decide which is the better choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 02:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christmas number-one singles in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I realize that there is some honor to having the number-one song in UK at Christmas, but that is a non-defining characteristic of the song. They just happen to be #1 at this time of year. I think the list at

List of Christmas number one singles (UK) is the best way to identify these songs and, as they are already number ones in the UK, this seems to be overcategorization as well. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. I believe this is a defining characteristic of these songs since in the minds of the audience this fact will always be closely associated with the tune, and emotions and associations are very significant aspects when it comes to music. I'm more uncertain about the option of listifying though, but for now I'm voting simply to keep. __
  talk) 08:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment – not sure about this - in the UK it used to be whatever happened to be #1 but these days it is Simon Cowell's choice (or anti-SC choice). Either way, it is now a big and highly publicised deal. (Eg is this a defining characteristic of
  talk) 09:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep though I wish we were delivered from having these churned out as musAc in all the shops just before Christmas. The alternative might be to regard this as an award catefgory, which we should listify and delete. One characteristic is that they are Christmas-related and normally drop out of the chart completely immediately after the festival. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't Christmas-related songs, but pop songs that just happen to be number one over the Christmas holiday in the UK. I think the list for this case is great, but defining to each song? I don't see it. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is notable, but not defining. The comments above seem to me to be more appropriate for a discussion of whether such a list would exist, not whether we should categorize based on this feature. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per meco. It is often defining, as news articles talking about a given song often say "it was a Christmas No. 1 in...". In other words, the song is defined by the fact it was a Christmas No. 1. --Philip Stevens (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. As currently defined -- songs that just happen to be #1 on Dec. 25 -- it's trivial and non-defining.
  talk) 05:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Peterkingiron ; it could also be renamed to include
  Christmas number-two singles in the UK--ONaNcle (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You must be joking? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's you the joke ;-))) How someone like you living in Canada keeps worrying about an entry about European matters??? I've been curious to follow end-November and December charts since the Beatles years to know who will get in the top three at Christmas and it remains so important forty years later--ONaNcle (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the lists

Christmas number-two singles in the UK much more helpful for that? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

So because I'm a Canadian national, I can't be interesting in anything in WP that has to do with "European matters"? Slightly provincial, no? But then again, I guess so too is "Christmas number-two singles in the UK", so it makes sense. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per Philip Stevens, this is a defining characteristic of many if not all of these songs. In recent years particularly with the XFactor dominating the number 1 spot the second and third spot have become more notable per ONaNcle (though no1's before this such as "Mad World" were equally contentious.); for this reason consider renaming to Category:Christmas hit singles in the UK and retain. The list remains for the number 1 spot. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is peculiar, but UK Christmas #1 single is notable and defining. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't know about elsewhere, but in the UK the singles market rises hugely at Christmas, & a large number of these were specially created & launched to catch that market. There's no "just happen" about it. Quite a large number are specifically Christmas-related, & many others are "novelty" songs that do well at this time of year. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: for many of the songs listed (those of Slade, Cliff Richard, etc., maybe even Mr Blobby), this is an important defining characteristic. (At least, it was when I was young...) --RFBailey (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But many songs are specially created and launched to catch that market that don't reach number one, and songs that aren't created to catch that market can still reach number one. Thus, there is nothing specifically defining about a Christmas number one. If it is defining to some, it's definitely not defining for all. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2010 (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.