Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 21

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< November 20 November 22 >

November 21

Category:Lists of collective nouns

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: merged Other members have disappeared. -- 签名 sig at 17:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT. One one member and that's unlikely to change. DexDor (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2013 (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:Serie A top scorers

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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. If I have followed the rather convoluted and broken trail correctly, it appears this category is for recipients of the Serie A Golden Boot, which makes this an awards category of the sort discouraged by
WP:OC#AWARD. A check through the Golden Boot pages turns up no similar categories for them and there is both a list and a template for these players. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a defining characteristic. GiantSnowman 18:09, 24 November 2013 (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:Locations in Táin Bó Cúailnge

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: Withdrawn by nom. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* Propose renaming Category:Locations in Táin Bó Cúailnge to Category:Places in Táin Bó Cúailnge
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other "Places in <place>" categories. DexDor (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw for now, but real places (e.g. Ardee) probably shouldn't be categorized by mythological associations. DexDor (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2013 (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:European Golden Shoe

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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single-item category with no potential for expansion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - no need for a separate category. GiantSnowman 18:07, 24 November 2013 (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:Former named state highways in Oregon

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: relisted at CFD 2014 January 16. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize things like roads by whether they are named or not. The category text "This category contains former names..." suggests some confusion between categories and lists. For info: This is the only "Former named..." category in EnWP. The category's contents are almost all redirects. The two articles currently in this category are in other Category:Roads in Oregon categories. DexDor (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't categorized by whether they're named, as all state highways in Oregon are named. See
Oregon highways and routes. At the very least, if this is deleted, the former names should be added to that list. --NE2 22:12, 21 November 2013 (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:Middlesex scorers

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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I'm a bit skeptical that being a cricket scorer is a defining characteristic but regardless the category is not so large as to require diffusion by club. Middlesex is the only club with its own scorer category and most or all are cross-categorized in the parent anyway. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no need for a separate category. GiantSnowman 14:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge, agree with nom rationale. Harrias talk 14:14, 1 December 2013 (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:Women's clothing companies

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need to gender clothing companies; most of them end up making apparel for both genders. For example, Lululemon, the sole member of this category for now, also makes clothing for men. We also have a complex tree - we have brands, retailers, manufacturers of clothing; dividing all of this whole tree by mens, womens, childrens would make the tree a lot more complex without much additional value added, especially given the gender targeted by various companies changes over time. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the post-1945 reality which is what most of the companies we have articles on have primarily if not exclusively dealt with, companies do not really specialize exclusively in marketing to one gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2013 (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:AFC Ajax honorary club members

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We do not (and should not) have categories for 'hall of fame' members for association football clubs. GiantSnowman 13:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a 'hall of fame' , it is a committee and board of advisors for an association football club comprised of 45 members. SubzSubzzee 14:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-defining characteristic. For example, Johan Cruyff is defined by being a player on AFC Ajax. He's define by being the team's manager. But he's not defined by being an honorary club member. If it were a hall of fame, it would have greater standing (at least in my eyes), but as a mere board of advisors it's entirely non-defining of its members. Alansohn (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are not players, these are famous doctors, lawyers, artists, businessmen, and architects with a select few players and managers who are elected as honorary members of AFC Ajax, and serve a lifelong commitment to the club. In the history of the club only 45 members have been accepted, of which there are only 8 members alive. They are all important aristocrats from in and around the city of Amsterdam. I don't know any other way to categorize them than to call it by what it is, but I think these people hold the highest title within the organization, outside of the current board members, and I don't know how else to categorize them other than by calling them the honorary club members as they are known. I also feel as though they are worthy of a category on to their own. (Subzzee (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Take a look at
WP:DEFINING. The purpose of categories is to describe characteristics that define the person and not to describe every characteristic about the person that they may share with other people. Barack Obama does play basketball -- and there are a number of pictures in Wikipedia to prove it -- but he doesn't belong in Category:American basketball players because he isn't defined by his being a basketball player. The people in this category are defined by their professional careers as doctors, lawyers, artists, businessmen, architects, players and managers; They are not define by their inclusion as AFC Ajax honorary club members. If you have to explain to someone about Johan Cruyff, you might describe him as "the guy who played for AFC Ajax" or "the guy who coached AFC Ajax", not "the guy who is an AFC Ajax honorary club member". It is an honor, but it's not what defines Cruyff or any of the people in this category. They should be categorized as doctors, lawyers, athletes, etc. or what ever else defines them, but not as members of an honorary club. It might be appropriate (maybe) to include a list in the article for the team, but it's not an appropriate subject for a category. Alansohn (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi Alansohn, thank you for the explanation, seems understandable and I will not push the issue any more, it's not very important and there is already a detailed segment regarding the honorary members on the main article including their roles at the club. I just thought it would be an interesting category that would group together several people who have done a lot of work for Ajax. FYI Johan Cruijff is the most vocal member of the members and one of the biggest and most important advisors for the club and arguably the most important person at the club of all time. Thanks for the run down, you can remove it if necessary, thank you (Subzzee (talk))
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:Politics of Georgia

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 as a {{
category ambiguous}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Politics of Georgia is a disambiguation page GZWDer (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with tagging it as ambiguous and keeping otherwise. an alternative would be to delete and salt.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2013 (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:Bonkers (TV series)

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 25. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:OCAT#SMALL. Only three articles, zero chance of expansion. The media files outside the title card should probably be deleted, too. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:01, 21 November 2013 (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:Oceanian people of Oceanian descent

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, but tag as a {{
container}} category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Discuss. This is a new category. I'm kind of neutral on whether we should have this type of category as a container, but I would like to see it discussed at least. It sounds a bit circular, but the category is for people of one Oceanian nationality who are descended from another Oceanian ethnicity or nationality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We do not normally have categories such as NZ people of NZ descent, but this is alright for a continental (or oceanic) container category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On subjects like descent within a country, I, admittedly, like to break it down by continental region so there are no unassigned subcategories that aren't in a parent category. It's not driven by any beliefs or feelings about descent or nationality, I'm just an organizer and filer. I've run into pushback from other editors when categorizing descent but it has had to do with strong feelings about ethnicity, not about category organizational structure.
I'm not going to vote here since I'm the category creator so I obviously thought the category was a good idea. I'd also sincerely like to know what the consensus here is. Should we have Category: Fooian people of X descent container categories for every continent except if the people have origins in another country in the continent of Foo? Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 25 November 2013 (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:Cricket books and magazines

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. Since everything other then Category:Wisden is in a subcategory that is parented to books and magazines along with cricket media, there is nothing to split. Category:Wisden can be reviewed by someone knowledgeable in this area and add any articles that belong to the book or magazine categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split to Category:Cricket books and Category:Cricket magazines. The parent categories are Category:Books about sports and Category:Sports magazines, there should be separate categories for books and magazines. Tassedethe (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2013 (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:Pseudonymous 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: relisted at 2013 December 20. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name makes it sound like the albums are pseudonymous, when it's the artist who released the album under a pseudonym. The new name would be in line with its parent, Category:Works published under a pseudonym. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - are albums "published"? I would think Category:Albums recorded under a pseudonym would be correct. However, we recently deleted categories for musicians and rappers who use pseudonyms. Wouldn't every album recorded by any of the artists formerly so categorized be eligible for inclusion in this category? Does this category therefore aid in navigation by a defining characteristic? I am tending toward thinking no but can be persuaded. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- Of course, albums that are issued for sale are "published". If I have a quibble about this at all, it is that many artistes record (and publish) under a stage name, which is technically (at least) a pseudonym. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - amplifying on my previous comments, given that being a musical performer who performs under a pseudonym has been deemed not a defining characteristic of the performer it seems impossible that the same non-defining attribute can somehow be defining of those artists' product. This constitutes a back door into categorizing musicians by using pseudonyms and that door should remain closed. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2013 (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:Italian Catholic bishops

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 delete per creator's agreement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Accidentally created as a duplicate of Category:Italian Roman Catholic bishops Elizium23 (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the category's creator, I have no objection to deletion. As the contents have been corrected, it can be speedied per C1. I probably created it when I found it populated as a red-linked category in Special:Wantedcategories. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:57, 21 November 2013 (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/2013_November_21&oldid=1138398513"