Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 26

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

February 26

Old Paulianainites

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (per
WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, eliminating obscurity and ambiguity. The descriptive format used matches that of the respective parent categories: Category:People educated by school in England and Category:Alumni by secondary school in India
.
These categories are
  1. Ambiguous between each other. Nobody except a specialist in old-school terminology will know which school's alumni are "-inas", which are "-ines" and which are "-ites". Even word analysis doesn't help, because "Pauline" is a girl's given name, and that's the title used for the only boy's school amongst the three.
  2. Easily confused with something completely different. The
    Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 ... and that turns out to be wise because there are 304,00 google hits for "Paulite "Ron Paul"
  3. Obscure. The fundamental problem with this type of collective name is that it is so rarely used. The point was expressed most eloquently by Moonraker (talk · contribs) in another recent discussion: "there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". That's exactly why these "Old Fooian" terms don't work well for category names: they are rarely used, and therefore unknown to the general readership for whom Wikipedia is written.
    A few searches of Google News bears out the wisdom of Moonraker's observation: 0 hits for Old Paulites, 2 hits for Old Paulinas (in one of which the term is explained to the readers, which we can't do in a category name). The 170 hits for Old Paulines are all from the archives, and mostly refer to the Old Pauline Football club; that means that if readers happen to recognise the term, they will assume it refers to footballers.
For an extended rationale, see CfD 2012 February 22, where I set out the general problems with this type of category name and linked to the many precedents for renaming this type of category. If you have concerns about the general principles of this renaming, please read that rationale before commenting here! Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 26 February 2012 (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 Divine Comedy (Dante)

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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:The Divine Comedy (Dante) to Category:Divine Comedy
Nominator's rationale: I get that there is Category:The Divine Comedy (band), but this is so clearly the primary subject with this name that I don't see a need for disambiguation. The article about the epic is named Divine Comedy.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2012 (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:1977 establishments in South Sudan

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. The issues here are somewhat different from the Benin/Dahomey case. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:1977 establishments in South Sudan to Category:1977 establishments in Sudan
Nominator's rationale: Rename South Sudan did not even exist in 1977. Pichpich (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pedant writes: Ireland did exist as a country in 1870, and had done so for hundreds of years. At that time it was in a 122-year phase as a constituent country of the
    nation-state or a colony, but it was a country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It's an interesting question and you're right to point out that the current state of affairs is quite a mess. I believe we should try (and for the most part do try) to stick to political context. For instance
    Alsace-Lorraine between 1871 and 1918 as establishments that occurred in France. Pichpich (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2012 (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:Marvin Gaye vocalists

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Marvin Gaye vocalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization in my opinion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:30, 26 February 2012 (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:Marvin Gaye templates

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Marvin Gaye templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This isn't necessary —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:27, 26 February 2012 (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.

Works about writers and their works

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) 02:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: More well-intentioned but poorly named categories by User:Stefanomione. These categories need only be about the authors, as nearly all works about an author's works are about the author as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2012 (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:Japanese history textbook controversies

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Japanese history textbook controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per
WP:OC. I have put one of the articles up for deletion and some of the bio articles are only related in passing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:06, 26 February 2012 (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:New York Society for the Suppression of Vice

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 to delete; rename to Category:New York Society for the Suppression of Vice people. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:New York Society for the Suppression of Vice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per
WP:OC. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • keep or rename to Category:New York Society for the Suppression of Vice people. The two people in this category are known pretty much exclusively for their role in the organization so categorizing them accordingly isn't overcategorization. Pichpich (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for fixing up my listing error. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would have two articles with very little chance of any additions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would have more than two if properly populated (even the founder is left out currently) but in any case, it would fall under the exception for established categorization schemes. Categorizing by organization is nothing new (see Category:People by organization and subcategories). By the way, if we delete this category, how do you propose to categorize William Henry Parsons and John S. Sumner? Pichpich (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the category is deleted the two bio articles would still be categorised with the other suitable categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Currently, the only other category for William Henry Parsons is Category:1935 deaths. Are you really suggesting that this category alone would be an acceptable categorization for the article? Pichpich (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The lack of categories on a particular article has no bearing on the deletion of a complete category. BTW I have added two other relevant categories to William Henry Parsons. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • The categories you added are the unimportant ones: year of birth, year of death, place of origin. That's all well and good but these categories are essentially maintenance categories because they are much too large for any reader to browse through them. Every biography should be categorized in at least one content category that carries more meaningful biographical information, something about what makes the subject notable. If deleting a category makes this objective unattainable for a few articles, then it is important to take that into consideration. Pichpich (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't know of any guideline that you describe but it does show that the article is of dubious notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's a simple question of common sense and it's certainly in the spirit of the first lines of
                    WP:UNCAT (not a guideline, I know) advises "While even partial categorization is of value, try to avoid placing articles only in very large categories that are not typically used for browsing, such as Category:2001 albums or Category:Living people." As for the notability of Parsons, it is hardly in doubt. He was a prominent figure and then president of a group that made a lot of noise. Parsons death was reported in the New York Times and in the Hartford Courant. Pichpich (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
                    ]
  • Delete but per
    WP:SMALLCAT. My magic number is 5 articles unless there is a compelling cat structure in place and this one has 3. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep and populate -- I see no purpose in making it a "people" category since there may be other topics to be included, such as its victims. I note that it was dissolved in 1950, so that we should not expect a wealth of content. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, rename to Category:New York Society for the Suppression of Vice people. With organizations, I think "Category:FOO people" categories should generally come before "Category:FOO" in the same way that "Category:FOO albums" and "Category:FOO songs" almost always comes before the need for "Category:FOO" develops when we are dealing with musicians. There are many people articles and people are connected to organizations, but I don't see a lot of organization-related articles that need to be grouped with the relevant people in this case. I don't see the other topics to be included that Peterkingiron refers to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2012 (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:Terminology of Carl Jung

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:Jungian psychology. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Terminology of Carl Jung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: In order to populate his push for a
talk) 00:18, 26 February 2012 (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:Psychoanalytic terminology

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) 22:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Psychoanalytic terminology to Category:Psychology terms
Nominator's rationale: Just created by
talk) 00:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep Psychoanalysis is a psychological theory, so Category:Psychoanalytic terminology is a subcategory in Category:Psychology terms. (Likewise: Marxist terminology and Communist terminology). The cat Freudian terminology is coming. Stefanomione (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom as duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. Well, we certainly don't need both, despite what Stefanomione suggests. But Category:Terminology is the parent of this, so ending this category with "terminology" seems correct to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep c:Psychoanalytic terminology is a useful category as a subcat of c:psychology terms. Many concepts in psychoanalysis are seen as radical as opposed to traditional psychology, this is known by anybody who studies psychology, and who is likely to be using this category section. I'm not certain that the subcats of c:psychoanalytic terminology are needed, but we should definitely keep this obviously distinguishable, notable and important category from the perspective of c:psychological terms; especially as they both have the potential to grow. Brad7777 (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the difference between "terms" and "terminology"?--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment Theres not really any apart from the obvious. You would expect to find terms in both a c:terms, and a c:terminology. My main point is the difference between psychology as a science and psychoanalysis as a non-science. the terms used in psychoanalysis are unique to psychoanalysis and due to the scope of terms, they would be worth seperating. Both categories could easily be filled Brad7777 (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I completely misread this. I thought it was only a nomination about "terms" and "terminology," and didn't notice the different "psych" terms. I've crossed out my vote above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2012 (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/2012_February_26&oldid=1074808847"