Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 16

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< March 15 March 17 >

March 16

Category:Awesome

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:
awesome, naturally. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Category:Awesome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Awesome Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Epic Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Nonsensical category - creator has had it speedy deleted as a test page once, and so far he's only got himself in it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:52, 16 March 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.

Sendai Earthquake categories

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. There is unanimous support for renaming these categories, and I am closing the discussion early (after 6 days rather than the usual 7) per
WP:IAR because this is a current event, and accurate category naming will assist the editors who are building wikipedia's coverage of this topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Propose renaming Category:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami to Category:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami
Propose renaming Category:Cities and towns destroyed by the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami to Category:Cities and towns destroyed by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami
Nominator's rationale: I created the parent category, with a name matching the main earthquake article. The main article has now been moved, and IMHO the category associated with it should follow. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match parent articles and cat.--Lenticel (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: Main article should match category name where possible, and there is no reason for it not to be the case here. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Easy call here.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. (But what if the name changes again?) - 220.101 talk\Contribs 18:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do it already It's been 48 hours, where's the problem? Is it anything to do with the fact that the list's own page is suggesting it be renamed from its present name to - its present name? Morag Kerr (talk) 11:30, 21 March 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:Nuclear energy in Greece

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: Upmerge to Category:Nuclear technology in Greece. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Nuclear energy in Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Useless category: Greece has opted out of a nuclear energy programme, so this category will not be populated except by the one stub overview article. Constantine ✍ 15:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Greek Atomic Energy Commission is another stub that belongs into the category. Please help EXPANDING nuclear energy content, and not deleting. E.g. add details about "a decision has been made not to implement a nuclear power program to generate electricity." NuclearEnergy (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the articles won't be deleted, certainly. But a category with one or two articles, which is not likely to grow and which has no real relevance to the real world (as there is essentially no "Nuclear energy in Greece" as such) is rather redundant. These could just as easily be categorized at Category:Energy in Greece. Constantine ✍ 18:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The category creator has been building out other subcategories of Category:Nuclear power by country aggressively. Many are thin on content. On the other hand, who can tell any more which branches are determined to be part of a "system," allowing even a single stub to be placed in its own category.- choster (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is still Category:Nuclear technology in Greece (of which "Nuclear energy in Greece" is a subcat. The "Nuclear Technology .. " category has the advantage that it will apply to all countries whether they have a nuclear energy programme or not. Hugo999 (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on the Comment While the only thing currently in the parent category is this sub-category, I do agree that it is conceptually more durable whether or not Greeced pursues nuclear energy.RevelationDirect (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Upmerge: This is a rare example of where I'll support a cat with less than 5 articles since I don't think a European category would work. But I do not support two categories for 2 articles. Up merge this one to Category:Nuclear technology in Greece until such time as the article count can justify 2 categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:50, 19 March 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 New Albany

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Images of New Albany to Category:Images of New Albany, Indiana
Nominator's rationale: Name of state should be attached to category. DanTD (talk) 13:32, 16 March 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 Terre Haute

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Images of Terre Haute to Category:Images of Terre Haute, Indiana
Nominator's rationale: Name of state should be attached to category. DanTD (talk) 13:32, 16 March 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.

Canadian independent record labels

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alien8 Recordings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Anthem Records
Category:Aquarius Records (Canada)
Category:Audiogram
Category:Constellation Records
Category:Dine Alone Records
Category:G7 Welcoming Committee Records
Category:MapleMusic Recordings
Category:Mint Records
Category:Murderecords
Category:Paper Bag Records
Category:Six Shooter Records
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These eponymous categories are unnecessary as they each have only one or two subcategories and the eponymous article itself (and sometimes a discography page). The categories for Foo Records artists and Foo Records albums will already have a link to the main article using {{
cat more}}. Links, if wanted, from either of these categories to the other can be obtained by adding {{category see also}}. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not an established practice when only a small percentage of the overall number of articles within Category:Independent record labels have eponymous categories. At that, either they have additional articles/subcategories to warrant this type of categorization or they have the same issues as the ones nominated here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. I guess you are stating that it not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme? I surprised it has not been discussed before.
I'm asking in good faith: what policy/guideline are we discussing? Argolin (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The policy in question is
WP:OC#Eponymous, in which eponymous categories are generally discouraged. I also believe the placement in Category:Canadian independent record labels is incorrect as by placing subcategories of albums and artists in the record label category implies the albums and artists are also record labels. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I've set up another sub category Category:Alien8 Recordings artists. I believe this record label should have it's own discography article (which will be added to Alien8 Recordings). Argolin (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm having difficulty seeing the point to a lot of these, if not all of them. As the nominator says, if there is more than one subcategory or article, they can easily be linked through non-category means. I don't think this is an established scheme whereby every record label needs to have an eponymous category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Can I ask again: what policy/guideline are we discussing? Argolin (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer We're discussing
      WP:SMALLCAT. Even without knowing the guideline though, you're arguing that these are part of a large sub-categorization scheme which is the recognized exception. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Keep Anthem & Murder, Delete the Rest: Those two seem to have enough articles to justify the cat. The rest are more or less container categories for the record and artist sub-cats.RevelationDirect (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish keep but I strongly oppose keeping those which we consider big and deleting those which we consider small. For one thing, the cutoff will be pretty arbitrary and the size of such categories is typically not a reflection of their inherent maximum size but rather a function of whether or not someone has taken the time to populate them. Furthermore, a coherent category tree structure is important for readers. Pichpich (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm all for salvaging workable cats that just need a little TLC. The two record labels that I checked what links to them (Alien8 & Mint) seemed to be limited to records and albums so I'm not so sure there are articles waiting in the wings. But maybe I lack the expertise to identify them?RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The cats will get a discography article (when I get around to it). There were only two for these record labels that I found. Argolin (talk) 02:53, 24 March 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:American Old West

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 and clean up if individual entries are problematic. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
talk | history | links | watch | logs
)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. On the surface, this seems like a sensible category. However in actual usage, I'm not convinced that it is. For example, why is Thomas Fitch (politician)‎ included? Was his presence in the area between 'c. 1827 - 1911', as stated in the category, defining. Is 'c. 1827 - 1911' subjective? One would think that the Arizona Territorial Legislature was part of the old west but it is not categorized as such. So is this a maintenance issue and we need a cleanup or is the category itself a problem? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category includes articles that are in no way limited to the Old West. For instance, the article on Abilene, Kansas focuses on the city in the present day, and the historical significance of Vasquez Rocks is related to prehistoric times, not the era of the American Old West. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 03:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This has a main article, many subcats, over a hundred articles, and is a appropriate sub-category to the categories in which it exists. Categories are to help readers navigate to articles. This category serves that purpose. If editors want to improve the category contents, then do so. Hmains (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Purge: Some of the criticism of current articles are valid, but I think the cat is useful. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hmains, and purge per RevelationDirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although I agree that there is some cleanup needed to this category tree I think the categories themselves are useful. Perhaps asking WikiProject American Old West to take a look at them would be helpful. Not sure how active that project is though. --
    talk) 15:49, 23 March 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:TI-99/4A

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:Texas Instruments TI-99/4A. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:TI-99/4A to Category:Texas Instruments TI-99/4A
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match the article
Texas Instruments TI-99/4A. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 16 March 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.

Various senators

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I propose changing the nominated categories from the "FOOian senators" format. There are a number of reasons that this should be done:
  1. Consistency among categories for legislators. For categories that categorize members of legislative bodies, the usual format is "Members of LEGISLATIVE-BODY", where "LEGISLATIVE-BODY" is the name of the WP article about the body. The only type of category where this pattern is not overwhelmingly adhered to is if the legislative body contains the word "Senate" in it. I don't think there is any good reason to use one format consistently but then change to a "FOOian senators" format just because the body is called a Senate. In each case above, the proposed category name has incorporated the WP article name of the Senate in question.
  2. Clarity of meaning. Ultimately, these are categories for a particular governmental position: they are not nationality/occupation categories. While it is true that most Members of the Senate of FOO will be of FOOian nationality, that will not invariably be the case, because in some countries a person may be a member of the Senate of that country even without citizenship. France and its former colonies presents a particularly vexing problem if the "FOOian senators" format is used. Prior to their independence, French colonies in Africa sent representatives to the Senate of France. So it may be confusing to classify a person from Senegal who served in the Senate of France as a "French Senator". Couldn't he also be classified as a "Senegalese senator", if one interprets the latter as being a nationality category? If we call the categories "Members of the Senate of France" and "Members of the Senate of Senegal", where to put certain legislators becomes far more obvious.
  3. Consistency among categories for senators. There are already a number of categories for senators that have adopted the proposed approach, including categories for legislators who have been members of the Senates of Colombia, Haiti, Jamaica, Liberia, South Africa, Spain, the Netherlands, Bermuda, and Trinidad and Tobago. (I realise that this isn't determinative of anything, but I include the point here to reassure that this will be promoting some consistency and not the reverse.)
One final point is to note that I have not included Category:United States Senators within this nomination. I think that the U.S. case is somewhat different, because the category is named after a formal title ("United States Senator") rather than a nationality/occupation combination ("American senators"). I think the U.S. case should be left to a separate discussion if anyone wants to suggest changing it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator, for consistency with other categories of legislators, and to ensure that the membership categories are explicitly include the name of the legislature.
    This is yet another example of how adjectives make for poor category names, by creating ambiguity. We should go much further in removing adjectives from category names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 23 March 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:Garissa

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Garissa to Category:Garissa District
Nominator's rationale: There is, at this time, insufficient material to warrant an eponymous category for this city. The category contains only three articles—of which one is the main article and a second is about a sanctuary located near, not in, Garissa. (Category creator notified using
Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:23, 16 March 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:Embu, Kenya

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Embu, Kenya to Category:Embu District
Nominator's rationale: There appears, at this time, to be insufficient material to warrant an eponymous category for this provincial capital of c. 50,000 people. Three of the four articles in the category already are in Category:Embu District, so merging will bring the number of articles in the district category to just six.
(Category creator notified using
Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:10, 16 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_16&oldid=1076515841"