Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 1

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log

February 1

Category:Carol I High School alumni

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) 02:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Carol I High School alumni to Category:Carol I National College alumni
Nominator's rationale: I'm proposing these moves so that the categories match the titles of the parent articles, which have been moved recently. Biruitorul Talk 23:56, 1 February 2011 (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:Novelty food

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) 02:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Novelty food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Imho, "novelty" is used here as in a buzzword manner, creeping in from 20th century marketing language. It does not describe any specific quality that the food items so categorized have in common, and is therefore unsuited for encyclopedical categorization. -- Seelefant (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2011 (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:Berkeley scholars

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:George Berkeley scholars. This close should not prejudge a deletion nomination, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Berkeley scholars to Category:George Berkeley scholars or Category:Berkeleyan scholars or something else
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Unfortunately, I think the current name might be ambiguous—it could be interpreted as meaning scholars at the University of California, Berkeley. I'm not sure what is the best solution here. The first suggested option is probably the clearer of the two. The second is probably the more academically "correct" one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your attention and proposal, Good Ol’factory. To my shame, I’m still learning English, but it seems to me that the word combination “Berkeleyan scholars” may imply “adherents of Berkeleianism” (Margaret Atherton’s spelling) instead of “commentators of Berkeley’s texts.”--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What you say is true. If these are simply commentators of Berkeley's texts, then the first option would probably be better, or Category:Scholars of George Berkeley. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both the names are synonymous, aren’t they? Just as “the particle velocity”=”the velocity of particles,” etc. Well, “of” may look a bit strange as if “of”=”belong to”: “these scholars are the private property of George Berkeley.” But it would be funny of me to argue with you, a native speaker. My English is far from fluent. At best I can say that such terms as “a Descartes scholar,” “a Hobbes scholar,” and so on are often employed in philos. literature and differ from the concepts “a disciple of Descartes,” “Thomas Hobbes’s follower,” etc. E.g., the Vice-President of the International Berkeley Society (Timo Airaksinen) is an atheist and does not, consequently, share Bishop Berkeley’s religious outlook. And yet he’s called a Berkeley scholar, i.e. a specialist in Berkeley scholarship (=a commentator, an interpreter, an expert on Berkeley’ writings=fountainheads and secondary literature devoted to Berkeley). The fact is I don’t know whether this classification, peculiar to historico-philosophical science, meets the standards of the WP.

If the category’s name seems ambiguous, I can add the adduced explanations to the category’s page. Also I don’t mind renaming the category. On the contrary, the greatest impetus for me to come round here is to learn English when other Wikipedists with a good grasp of English correct my contributions’ English and undertake copy edits like this or this.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i think that "George Berkeley scholars" and "Scholars of George Berkeley" are essentially synonymous in meaning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for consulting. Indeed, editing the English WP is an opportunity of learning English. Then I’m taking your and Peterkingiron’s advice to move the category to “George Berkeley scholars.” Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest to delete it alltogether, to me it looks like a severe case of category creep to have for every (although in itself significant) person or topic a category containing scholars that deal with it academically. By that principle of creating categories, we would soon have Hitler Scholars, Soft Ice Scholars, Tadpole Scholars, and so on. -- Seelefant (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you’re right, Seelefant. While creating the category I wasn’t quite sure that it wasn’t a ridiculous proposal even though I had found about twenty WP articles anent this category. As for renaming, the term “Berkeley scholar” has in fact firmly become currency of writings on the history of philosophy, with the consequence that the name “Category:George Berkeley scholars” seems to be the most expedient one to avoid ambiguity provided that the category is not deleted at all.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My rationale (though I wonder if it is rational): each WP article about a great philosopher should contain a list of recommended literature. But it’s unreasonable to list all the publications, so that another way is to name scholars who are the best experts on the philosopher’s texts. At first I inserted wiki-links in the section “Eminent Berkeley scholars” which had been created in the article George Berkeley. Then I found out that there’re very many WP articles corresponding to this section. At the same time they are isolated from one another and from G. Berkeley. The article Colin Murray Turbayne is even an orphan. The new category is a way to overcome their isolation. I can transform the section mentioned into a separate article, say, a “List of George Berkeley scholars.” Such a list could be the main article for the “Category:George Berkeley scholars.” After this being done, all the WP articles about historians of philosophy focusing their research on Bishop Berkeley cease to be isolated from one another.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

&Rename (if we need it at all), preferably Category:George Berkeley scholars. My first reaction was that this was an awards category for a scholarship named after GB. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2011 (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:Non-free-use Images of Heart (band)

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. Dana boomer (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Non-free-use Images of Heart (band) to Category:Images of Heart (band)
Nominator's rationale: Since the only other images in Category:Images of Heart (band) are album covers and, therefore, also non-free, the split introduced by this category is unnecessary. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I'm not clear on why the nominated category was created. They appear to be all non-free, as nominator says. If they were not non-free, they would probably be moved to Commons anyway. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not understand what all these intersecting categories are good for. If I would control categories, these files would be in two categories: the meta-category "non-free-use images", a subcategory of "images"; and "Heart (band)", a subcategory of "Bands". I would not create redundant hierarchies by randomly intersecting different taxonomies, like "music images", "images of bands", "Images of Heart (band)" or even "Non-free-use-images of Heart (Band)". -- Seelefant (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To a certain extent, I agree with you, especially in the case of image categories. Categorization of images on Wikipedia should be targeted toward organizing non-free images (free images generally should be moved to Commons) in a way that makes it simple to track and use them, and multiple overlapping layers of categorization often does not help that goal. Your comment prompted me to examine Category:Images of musical groups, and the result was this nomination. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2011 (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:Charlestown township

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. Further renaming and splitting is possible if we want to separate the very-close-to-Charlestown from the actually-in-Charlestown articles, but at minimum the state must be added.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Charlestown township to Category:Charlestown, Indiana
Nominator's rationale: The focus of the category appears to be
Pennsylvania. (Category creator notified) -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2011 (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:Images of Charlestown

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Images of Charlestown to Category:Images of Charlestown, Indiana
Category:Images of Clarksville to Category:Images of Clarksville, Indiana
Category:Images of Jeffersonville to Category:Images of Jeffersonville, Indiana
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As with Category:Images of Porter County, Indiana, which was discussed on December 27, 2010, the name of the state should be added to each category. ----DanTD (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2011 (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:Avant-garde and experimental films by director

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. The case for splitting the avant-garde and experimental films, or perhaps deleting the avant-garde ones and renaming to "Category:Experimental films," is strong enough to warrant a second nomination. Also, I've moved all the individual films out of Category:Expressionist film and put them into Category:Avant-garde and experimental films. Finally, I've listed Category:Expressionist film for speedy renaming to Category:Expressionist films, since it is almost entirely composed of individual films.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Avant-garde and experimental films by director (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Avant-garde and experimental films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Surrealist films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Expressionist films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As with
The'FortyFive' 04:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment So, "more than enough movies to justify populating each," you say? The question is, what are the criteria for inclusion, because, as I said in my original statement is that no criteria have been set, and the categories are overpopulated with films that are not appropriate. How do you suggest we address that issue, or do you simply believe this is not the case? I would argue further that these are, in fact, small, niche genres, when defined correctly. Expressionist films, for example, as
    The'FortyFive' 04:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
If an article is incorrectly categorized, then it can be removed. Just the same situation if it was on the list article. Lugnuts (talk) 07:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I have said above, there is no clear standard for which films belong in these categories. A list article can clearly state what those criteria are, demand refs, and are more easily maintained when watched by experienced editors. Simply on this basis, lists are preferable. In other cases, where inclusion criteria are more clear, if not self-evident, categories are preferable. ---
    The'FortyFive' 19:43, 7 February 2011 (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:Al-Qaeda Locations

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:Al-Qaeda. Dana boomer (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Al-Qaeda Locations to Category:Al-Qaeda by location
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This name seems to better reflect what the category contains—all are articles about al-Qaeda in a particular geographical area. Incidentally, the one-sentence category definition as it currently stands is far too broad. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as discussed below. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Al-Qaeda – I think that the use of the word "location" in the title is misleading. These articles are not just about al-Qaeda in a particular country or region; rather, they are about distinct organizations which happen to identify with and/or consider themselves to be subordinate (in principle) to the central leadership of al-Qaeda. It is more accurate to think of these articles as being about affiliated groups rather than as part of a series about al-Qaeda by country. From this perspective, I think that they belong in the main category instead of a difficult-to-define subcategory. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Al-Qaeda per Black Falcon. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2011 (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.