Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 19 February 21 >

February 20[edit]

Category:Quranic religion texts[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quranic religion texts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, What is a Quranic religion text that is not an Islamic text? I searched for "Quranic religion" and google only brought up 62 hits; clearly not a term that should be used to categorize articles. Jeff3000 23:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chén (陳) (surname)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per WP:CSD G4 as recreated content deleted by CFD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_22#Family_name_categories. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chén (陳) (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I thought it was consensus that we do not create categories for surnames. Niohe 23:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - This is recreated content: see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 22. The consensus was that categorization by name is inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 21:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - This is a useful article. The editor proposing the deletion seems to be attempting to delete many, many other similar pages, with the result that other editors will have no way to conduct research on this subject. Not good! Badagnani 03:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cessna[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cessna to Category:Cessna aircraft
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "Cessna" is the name of a company. The category is not about the company itself but the various different aircraft models manufactured by Cessna. Renaming it will bring it into line with other aircraft model categories (see list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Categories#Airplane_Specific_by_manufacturer ) such as Category:Piper aircraft, Category:Grumman aircraft, etc. —SaxTeacher (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add sub cat - Has to do with all articles related to cessna. May be able to add a subcategory, Cessna Aircraft. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there's nothing in the category other than pages about Cessna aircraft. Look at the list of pages in the category now. There are no other likely topics about Cessna other than their various models of aircraft. —SaxTeacher (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Coal-fired power stations by country[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep all except Category:Coal power stations in England; rename Category:Coal power stations in England to Category:Coal-fired power stations in England. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coal-fired power stations in Australia to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
Category:Coal-fired power stations in Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
Category:Coal-fired power stations in Bulgaria to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
Category:Coal-fired power stations in Canada to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
Category:Coal-fired power stations in Croatia to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
Category:Coal-fired power stations in the Czech Republic to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
Category:Coal-fired power stations in Germany to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
Category:Coal-fired power stations in Kazakhstan to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
Category:Coal-fired power stations in Poland to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
Category:Coal-fired power stations in Serbia to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
Category:Coal-fired power stations in Slovakia to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
Category:Coal-fired power stations in Slovenia to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
Category:Coal-fired power stations in South Africa to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
Category:Coal-fired power stations in Spain to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
Category:Coal-fired power stations in the United Kingdom to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
Category:Coal power stations in England to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
Category:Coal-fired power stations in the United States to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
Category:Coal-fired power stations in Uzbekistan to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
  • Weak Merge
History
Current state
  • Australia has 26 articles
  • Canada has 3 articles
  • Germany has 24 articles
  • Poland has 5 articles
  • United Kingdom has 5 articles
    • England has 12 articles
  • United States has 30 articles
  • Other eleven each have 1 article
Discussion
I think that some of these categories are useful to navigation, rolled up there are more than 100 articles in a single category. Separated you have eleven single-article categories that are not useful to navigation. It would be nice if there were some arbitrary rule of thumb for when to split off subcategories it would be nice. I still think that Category:Madison Wisconsin based companies made sense, but I now understand better how it becomes a slippery slope.
Opinion
I think this needs to be discussed, I would merge all of the single-article categories into Category:Coal-fired power stations and leave the rest alone, but I can see where that just invites someone else to come along next month and recreate them all. ~ BigrTex 20:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all Can anyone tell me why an article that is the only one for its country should not be categorised in the same way as one that is not? LukeHoC 23:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Coal power stations in England to Category:Coal-fired power stations in England if kept. Vegaswikian 00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Currently various types of power stations roll up by sub categories to various by country categories. So these become parts of a series. While there may only one entry for some of those, using categories to place these in multiple other categories seems reasonable. Vegaswikian 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all This is good categorization, there is no reason to merge at all. Craig.Scott 12:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all per Vegaswikian & Craig.Scott (Coal Power Stations in x will generally be in Power stations in x as well as Coal Power Stations by country, which works as multiple hierarchies for categorisation) -- Ratarsed 18:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all per reason given by Ratarsed. We have same system also for nuclear and hydro power stations. In addition, today I found several articles on coal-fired power stations not categorized as power stations or not categorized at all, so the number of articles given by User:BigrTex has changed in some categories. If anything to be changed, it may be considered to rename all these coal-fired power stations categories to respective thermal power station categories. Although most of thermal power stations are coal-fired power stations, we have also category of oil-fired power stations (having only 2 articles) and some articles on gas-fired power stations and oil shale power stations, which could be added into this category. Beagel 20:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tourist attractions in Michigan[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Tourist attractions in Michigan to Category:Visitor attractions in Michigan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tourist attractions in Michigan to Category:Visitor attractions in Michigan
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. To match form for other by state categories in Category:Visitor attractions in the United States. Vegaswikian 19:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tourist attractions in Colorado[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Tourist attractions in Colorado to Category:Visitor attractions in Colorado. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tourist attractions in Colorado to Category:Visitor attractions in Colorado
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. To match form for other by state categories in Category:Visitor attractions in the United States. Vegaswikian 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Attractions in Florida[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Attractions in Florida to Category:Visitor attractions in Florida. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Attractions in Florida to Category:Visitor attractions in Florida
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Parent is Category:Visitor attractions in the United States. Most other states use the proposed form. Vegaswikian 19:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian by occupation[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Christian by occupation into Category:Christians by occupation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian by occupation to Category:Christians by occupation
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:German phrases[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:German phrases into Category:German words and phrases. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German phrases to Category:German words and phrases
  • Merge - redundant to the preferred naming convention. Otto4711 18:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT#DICT. I'm not sure what the rationale is in having these categories. They strike me as being eminently suited to a dictionary, but thoroughly un-encyclopaedic. On Wikipedia we deal with things, subjects, events, animals, vegetables, minerals, etc, etc—we do not deal with words as words. The articles within this category (and the other words and phrases categories) are far better categorised for their other attributes than the fact that they are a word in a certain language.
Xdamrtalk 18:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we do deal with words as words, hence Category:Words, Category:Words by language, all of the various Fooian words and phrases subcats, the Fooian loanwords subcats, etc. Not that any of that justifies retaining the category structure but considering the extent of it perhaps a single CFM or series of CFM/CFR nominations isn't the best place to address it. Otto4711 19:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right of course, this is not the place to consider the entire category structure. However I do think that we would be best off without it. Even if we do currently deal with words as words, I don't think that we should. I'll take a look around the category tree, but at the moment I incline towards nominating it for deletion.
Xdamrtalk 19:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That may be, but English contains many many loan words/phrases. For example, we say "in medias res" when coming in on the middle of some action. That's the preferred phrase to use in English conversation to describe the concept, even though the phrase itself is not English. It definitely belongs in the English wikipedia, and certainly falls in Category:Latin phrases. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. LukeHoC 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Japanese phrases[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Japanese phrases into Category:Japanese words and phrases. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese phrases to Category:Japanese words and phrases
  • Merge - redundant to the preferred construction. Otto4711 18:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Min Nan terms[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Min Nan terms to Category:Min Nan words and phrases. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Min Nan terms to Category:Min Nan words and phrases
Nominator's Rationale: Rename per consensus on using this naming construction. Otto4711 18:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mandarin terms[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Mandarin terms to Category:Mandarin words and phrases. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mandarin terms to Category:Mandarin words and phrases
Nominator's Rationale: Rename per previous CFRs endorsing the naming construction. Otto4711 18:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cantonese terms[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Cantonese terms to Category:Cantonese words and phrases. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cantonese terms to Category:Cantonese words and phrases
Nominator's Rationale: Rename per all previous CFRs endorsing this naming construction. Otto4711 18:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chinese terms[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Chinese terms to Category:Chinese words and phrases. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chinese terms to Category:Chinese words and phrases
Nominator's Rationale: Per numerous previous CFRs endorsing this construction. Otto4711 18:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Russian autodidacts[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian autodidacts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One entry since Jul 06. Non-notable. Non-encyclopedic. Absurd. Deltopia 18:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. —SaxTeacher (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are similar categories for other countries. Why has this one been singled out? LukeHoC 23:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I singled it out because it was the first one I ran across; if the nomination for deletion was successful, I was going to go back and delete all the other autodidact categories. I would have probably been bolder, except this was the first time I nominated a category for deletion -- and thanks to whomever fixed the formatting :) Deltopia 14:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Autodidacts are people who have taught themselves. Given that many people do this, the categorization is not needed. Also, given that many other categories related to people's education levels are ready for deletion (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 16), it makes little sense to keep this category. (I will nominate the other autodidact categories for deletion today.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in line with the group nomination. Craig.Scott 12:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When this is important it should be mentioned in the article. There's no reason to link together so unrelated people. Dtto for other autodidact CfD scattered over here. Pavel Vozenilek 18:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Australian Aboriginal terms[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Australian Aboriginal terms to Category:Australian Aboriginal words and phrases. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian Aboriginal terms to Category:Australian Aboriginal words and phrases
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - per all previous CFRs endorsing this construction. Otto4711 18:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bengali terms[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Bengali terms to Category:Bengali words and phrases. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bengali terms to Category:Bengali words and phrases
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - per many previous CFRs endorsing the "...words and phrases" construction. Otto4711 18:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hindi terms[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Hindi terms into Category:Hindi words and phrases. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hindi terms to Category:Hindi words and phrases
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - per numerous previous CFRs establishing "...words and phrases" as the preferred construction. Otto4711 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, I inadvertantly created the words and phrases category in the course of this CFR, so this would now be a Merge. Otto4711 17:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hip hop albums by artist[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Hip hop albums by artist into Category:Albums by artist. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Albums by artist, or Keep. This is a strange one. By convention of WikiProject Albums, Category:Albums by artist is supposed to be all-inclusive. To me this signifies that Albums by artist should not be subcategorized. I noticed this problem when I found that Category:Ugly Duckling albums was NOT in Albums by artist, because it was already in Hip hop albums by artist. Normally we do not add articles to grandparent categories. -- Prove It (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You should have brought this up at the talk page before bringing it to CFD. That way we could have weighed the merits of splittin up Category:Albums by artist by genre. To me, it seems pretty obvious that huge categories should be split along reasonable lines. Also, Ugly Duckling albums is not in Albums by artist because I created it only about an hour ago today, so I don't think it's a very good example of how big a problem this is.--Urthogie 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Dividing Albums by artist by genre is not an aid to navigation and can potentially lead to POV judgment calls as to the genre of a particular album, leading it to be placed in multiple categories, resulting in clutter. I doubt anyone looking for the albums of a particular artist are going to look for the genre before looking for the artist him- or herself. Otto4711 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's useful for people who don't want to go through all the other genres while looking for albums by a certain (insert genre name here) artist.--Urthogie 17:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to look at this from the perspective of a casual reader who may not be as intimately familiar with Wiki-navigation...if I were looking for articles on the albums of, say, Snoop Dogg, the first thing I would do would be to type "Snoop Dogg" in the search box. That would take me to his article, in which I find a section titled Snoop_Dog#Discography_and_filmography which includes links to a number of his albums and a link to a complete Snoop Dogg discography and filmography. It would never occur to me to start with a search for Category:Hip hop albums by artist. Otto4711 17:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note also that Category:Albums by artist has a comprehensive table of contents. Should one stumble into that category in search of a particular artist, one can find the artist by clicking on the first two letter-combination of the artist's last name. Otto4711 17:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • People actually do explore categories like Category:Hip hop, though. A significant portion of users that aren't editing use these categories to find things. Lemme put it this way: we lose nothing by having this category. At the very least we gain something for the many people who like to explore Category:Hip hop, and who aren't fans of most pop music, just hip hop.--Urthogie 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even granting that, given the consensus of the WikiProject I am loath to attempt to overturn that consensus on the basis of a CFD discussion. Otto4711 17:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed that this CFD was started without any discussion whatsoever? Perhaps switching your vote to decide on talk page would allow us to sort out arguments more carefully. I could decategorize the category while we discussed it.--Urthogie 18:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what "decategorizing" the category would entail. It is completely appropriate for this discussion on this particular category to continue. If you want to work on changing the consensus about Album by artist, you should work with WikiProject Albums. Otto4711 19:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit too late for that, since it's been nominated it's an issue of last minute arguments before deletion. Now, because the nominator refused to use the talk page first, I have an extremely small chance of getting this category back if its deleted. Telling me to work on WikiProject Albums won't make a difference-- 85 percent is required to review deletions, if I remember correctly. Because of the way this nom was organized, the cards are stacked way against a relatively new entry-- it's being treated like a shitty category worthy of speedy deletion, when plenty of reasonable minds (such as yourself) can see merits and flaws to both sides of the arguments. All I ask is that you vote for this article to be further discussed in the meantime. When I said "decategorize" it what I was referring to was I would opt not to add things to it, temporarily removing the article it contained, and article it was part of, until the debate was settled. But that seems rather hopeless, seeing as to how this rushed CFD (started literally less than a matter of minutes after the category was created) will likely succeed in deleting it and merging it up. If you do support me in my idea of letting this be sorted out under less pressure on the appropriate Category Talk page, I would respectfully support its deletion/merging if consensus was reached against it. But it seems extremely unfair for me to have to go against a wide-ranging consensus at the last minute before it will likely be merged, without any attempts to discuss before hand. Deletion discussions are supposed to at least follow some level of discussion if people are being polite.--Urthogie 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is Categories for Discussion (not Deletion). This is the proper place to discuss categories. Being nominated here means that we reach consensus on keep, rename, merge, delete, listify, etc. ~ BigrTex 23:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge - Albums by artist is specifically set up to be organized by artist name, NOT by artist genre. Therefore all the subcategories of "Hip Hop albums by artist" should be recategorized under Albums by artist. Trying to subdivide Albums by artist by genre completely defeats the point of having all these artists in the same alphabetical-by-name orderdering. Dugwiki 18:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not have them in both? I'm willing to put in the effort to put them in both if noone else is.--Urthogie 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Subdividing this category is a mistake. This will lead to many artists' albums being categorized into multiple categories, and judgment calls (and fights over judgment calls) along the way. Please put it back before more subdividing without concensus occurs.--Mike Selinker 19:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already do have artists sorted by genres, and the album genres only exist to the extent that the genre categories already do. So I don't see how any controversy would be added by keeping album genre categories that doesn't already exist from categorizing artists...--Urthogie 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let us consider Cher. She is not a hip hip artist but if this category is kept it opens the door to other album by genre categories. Cher is currently categorized as an American dance musician, an American disco musician, an American pop singer, a House musician and a Rhythmic contemporary musician. Which means that potentially her albums could be categorized as dance, disco, pop, House or Rhythmic contemporary, which means that people will fight over which ones or others apply and add as many as five categories to each of her albums. Category:Hip_hop_genres contains 61 different sub-genres. I don't claim to know anything about hip hop but I can imagine the mess that could come from people deciding that particular albums are or aren't properly listed in a particular category. Best in my opinion just to skip all the possible mess and not start in with this sort of category. Otto4711 02:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that her albums would all stay in Category:Cher albums, which instead of having Category:Albums by artist as a parent, might have all 5 of those categories as parents. ~ BigrTex 03:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ones that really confuse me are Black metal, Death metal, and Doom metal ... it's not always clear what genre something is supposed to go in. Imagine if we had to figure out whether an album belonged in Black metal albums by artist or Death metal albums by artist. And of course some bands do more than one genre. I'm sorry, I just don't think it's going to work. -- Prove It (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already sort things at Category:Hip hop albums. My point is that we can use the criteria already in place-- that is-- the album categories that already exist. No new troubles would be added. What is wrong with this?--Urthogie 04:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge while I understand why this category was created, I still don't understand how it can be used in crossover cases (like Cher or MetalBand). If MetalBand has a Country album, and a couple of Death metal albums and a couple more Black metal albums, then all of their albums still belong in Category:MetalBand albums, but they are then by proxy all going to end up in Category:Country albums by artist which is a subcat of Category:Country albums? The metal albums don't belong in the Country albums category. ~ BigrTex 04:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a no-win situation. If we don't make Ugly Ducking albums a member of Albums by artist then we're violating the special provisions of Albums by artist. If we do, we're violating the grandfather clause, since Hip hop albums by artist is of course a member of Albums by artist. -- Prove It (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that maybe it's a bit unfair to discuss this category before discussing the overarching policy. I mean you just CFD'd this right away... I know you'll say I can still check out WP:ALBUM after this, and that's true, but you're forgetting that it will be much harder to restore this category now, even if I do gain a modest consensus at WP:ALBUM.--Urthogie 14:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to clarify something, there are currently two related categories for Hip Hop albums: Category:Hip hop albums, which is sorted by album name, and Category:Albums by artist which includes all albums (hip hop or not) sorted by artist name. Presumably the intention of this category is to provide a third category index which sorts only hip hop albums by artist name (not album name). I'm kind of undecided on whether or not such a sorting is necessary, but either way all of these albums should appear in Category:Albums by artist. So even if this category is kept, the article links should be dupilcated in Albums by artist. Dugwiki
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Massachusetts amusement parks[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Massachusetts amusement parks to Category:Amusement parks in Massachusetts
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, because it is the odd one out. Casper Mercer 12:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. LukeHoC 23:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match all the others. Herostratus 04:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Canadian colleges[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. I shall leave a {{category redirect}} to Category:Universities and colleges in Canada. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian colleges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete: Redundant information from Category:Universities and colleges in Canada. See also Category:Canadian universities and its CfD ----Kelvinc 11:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old maps of Hong Kong[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as empty. Vegaswikian 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old maps of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not used. minghong 08:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Orphan image[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as empty. Vegaswikian 00:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orphan image (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Empty category - {{orphan image}} now places images into Category:Orphan images. —Remember the dot (t) 06:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Albums by Catharsis[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Catharsis albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Canadian universities[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. I will leave a {{category redirect}} to Category:Universities and colleges in Canada. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian universities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Repetative category. There are provincial categories that are much better for this. Delete GreenJoe 05:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unnecessary duplicate. --Xdamrtalk 15:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Urdu words[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Urdu words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Category consists of only one actual article on a word - which I have PRODed - and the rest are simply articles whose titles happen to be words in Urdu. Does not seem encyclopedic. -Elmer Clark 05:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT#DICT. --Xdamrtalk 15:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this seems to violate WP:NOT and is quite superfluous. - Anas Talk? 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak rename Changing to rename, without weakness to Category:Urdu words and phrases per a number of other CFDs which resulted in the "...words and phrases" structure. Otto4711 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC) There appear to be enough articles which are about things with Urdu names to justify the category. A cursory look through a few of the other Fooian words and phrases categories indicates that they are used for things with Fooian names and not just for articles on the words themselves. Otto4711 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dead people by occupation[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was - well there wasn't a debate, but all the discussions the nominator linked here resulted in "delete". Thus Category:Dead people by occupation is empty (which is what I assume the nominator, who created the category, intended). --RobertG ♬ talk 17:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block, see also Category:Irish Born Catholic Bishops (Deceased), Deceased Playboy Playmates, Deceased Professional Wrestlers. -- Prove It (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deceased Professional Wrestlers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, We don't categorize dead people by occupation, see also discussions of September 26th and May 1st. -- Prove It (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia guidelines are clear. Don't categorize as dead/living. Doczilla 05:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 05:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave this category alone. There is a staggering number of wrestlers that have died prematurely, many due to steroid and drug use. It's important that people realize this. Who nominated this for deletion, Vince McMahon?

  • Delete - Deceased people should not be sorted by occupation. If it is notable that wrestlers die prematurely, then an article should be written on the subject. The category fails to communicate anything about the phenomenon. Dr. Submillimeter 09:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All wrestlers are going to die some day. Per Dr. Submillimeter, this category fails to justify why it should be exempted from a long line of past decisions and WP policy.
Xdamrtalk 15:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless restructured As above, we don't normally subcategorize dead people by occupation. However, it probably would be acceptable to subcategorize wrestlers who died as a direct result of their job, such as Owen Hart. If you want to have that kind of category, I might suggest renaming this one to something like "Wrestlers who died as a result of wrestling". I'd probably support that category, but not this one. Dugwiki 18:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'll just create a Wikipedia entry titled, "List of Deceased Professional Wrestlers" instead of a category. Perhaps then the category police will butt out?

Actually, that wouldn't work since that list already was deleted at afd. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deceased professional wrestlers. (Again, though, a "list of wrestlers who died while wrestling" would be fine.) Dugwiki 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be fine. Till then, delete.--Mike Selinker 19:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Craig.Scott 12:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just as a side comment, it seems like the intent of this category's author is to highlight the risks of professional wrestling. While that delves into some POV editorial opinion, if an author really wanted to talk about that sort of thing I think you could go about it by writing an article about professional wrestling related injuries. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, with some digging, you could find some pretty good published sources for an article about common dangers and health risks and injuries in professional wrestling, as well as historically significant deaths or injuries in the ring. Such an article, if written objectively and using already published sources, could be an interesting and somber reminder that professional wrestlers do put themselves in some pretty risky situations at times. Just a possible suggestion on how to present related information as an article that might pass muster on afd. Dugwiki 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A lot of professional wrestlers do seem to die prematurely, so if that impression can be sourced it should be in an article somewhere. Metamagician3000 00:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's an awful lot of deceased professional wrestlers and their individual articles mention the fact that they're dead. Suriel1981 13:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Artificial mythology[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artificial mythology to Category:Mythopoeia
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Metropolitan Area Express (Portland, Oregon)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Metropolitan Area Express (Portland, Oregon) to Category:MAX Light Rail. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Metropolitan Area Express (Portland, Oregon) to Category:MAX Light Rail
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "MAX Light Rail" is the common name. The main article has already been renamed to that. Jason McHuff 01:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:MAX[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, no objections raised. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MAX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, The title is vague and the category is essentially a duplicate of Category:Metropolitan Area Express (Portland, Oregon). Jason McHuff 00:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Interlingua speakers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 22:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Interlingua speakers to Category:Interlingua users
Nominator's Rationale: Rename; for many who are categorized here as Interlingua speakers it can only be established whether they have written in the language rather than whether they actually were or are able to speak in it. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. LukeHoC 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't rename. All the people in this category are either known to be Interlingua speakers or engage in activities that would be impossible without speaking Interlingua, such as being actively involved in an Interlingua organization or teaching Interlingua in the schools. People who are not clearly Interlingua speakers may be in Category:Interlingua but are not in Category:Interlingua speakers. Also, the term "Interlingua users" isn't used. Active users of Interlingua are called Interlingua speakers, like French Speakers, Chinese speakers, and so on. Cal 04:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal: Your earlier "campaign" against me notwithstanding, what you are saying is speculation that would require sufficient citable evidence, a problematic given with the contrast between speech and needing to have written about it. For example, where is the proof William Edward Collinson spoke Interlingua? Also, which source, besides you, says that "the term "Interlingua users" isn't used"? As for you analogy with natural languages, Interlingua isn't one and others have the advantage of using vague derivatives like "Esperantists" and "Idists". Anyway, moving Category:Interlingua speakers to Category:Interlingua users should not be controversial, because the latter is a superset of the former, while there still exist people whose articles can be put in Category:Interlingua and not in Category:Interlingua users, e.g. E. Clark Stillman. -- Dissident (Talk) 15:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Virgin Media Inc[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Virgin Media Inc to Category:Virgin Media. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Virgin Media Inc to Category:Virgin Media
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Designations such as "Inc" are not normally included in category names. This is company is going to become one of the best known media companies in the UK (it is the UK's main cable company, which was renamed a few days ago) and people will rarely append "Inc" when they talk about it. The article should also be moved from Virgin Media Inc to Virgin Media. Olborne 00:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. LukeHoC 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename No problem with renaming category to Virgin Media. The reason I created it as Virgin Media Inc is because this is the name of the main article that it relates to. I would have prefered the article to be Virgin Media, however, the consensus seemed to be that it should be Virgin Media Inc Pit-yacker 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duplicate and redundant of Category:Virgin Group. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. GreenJoe 19:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_20&oldid=1146511185"