Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 12 July 14 >

July 13[edit]

Category:Historical Economies of Karnataka[edit]

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. >Radiant< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Historical Economies of Karnataka to Category:History of Karnataka and Category:Economy of Karnataka
Nominator's rationale: Rename - This category has a really weird name. It also contains only two articles, so it probably is not needed. Moreover, most other equivalent subdivisions of countries do not have "history of the economy" categories. I suggest merging these two articles into Category:History of Karnataka and Category:Economy of Karnataka. This merge is based on the assumption that the empires described in these articles should be categorized under the modern political subdivision, which may draw objections. If this category is kept, then a better name would be needed; Category:History of the economy of Karnataka might work. Dr. Submillimeter 21:49, 13 July 2007 (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:Concept aircraft[edit]

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. >Radiant< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Concept aircraft to Category:Cancelled aircraft projects
Nominator's rationale: Merge, appears to describe the same thing. GregorB 21:27, 13 July 2007 (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.

Korea-related articles by working group[edit]

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 DPRK one; no consensus for the rest. >Radiant< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Category:WikiProject Korea cuisine working group to Category:Korean cuisine working group articles
Category:WikiProject Korea history working group to Category:Korean history working group articles
Category:WikiProject Korea DPRK Working Group to Category:North Korea working group articles
Category:WikiProject Korea popular culture working group to Category:Korean popular culture working group articles
Category:WikiProject Korea South Korean geography working group to Category:South Korean geography working group articles
Nominator's rationale: Rename categories to more accurately describe their contents. PC78 19:17, 13 July 2007 (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:2006 DC Mayoral Candidates[edit]

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. >Radiant< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:2006 DC Mayoral Candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete The categorisation of politicians by each election in which they have stood is an express lane to extreme category clutter. Each notable election has an article which lists the candidates. Brandon97 18:45, 13 July 2007 (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:Temporary Agencies[edit]

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. >Radiant< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Temporary Agencies to Category:Temporary employment agencies
Nominator's rationale: Rename; correct case, and clearer wording. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod 19:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Nom has, IMO, found a good balance between clarity (missing in the current name) and brevity (missing in Lugnut's unnecessarily long suggestion). The phrase itself is widely enough used that I think confusion will be minimal, even across the pond. (Although I'm willing to listen to counterarguments on that last point.) Xtifr tälk 12:38, 16 July 2007 (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:Xbox 360 and PC exclusive games[edit]

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. >Radiant< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Xbox 360 and PC exclusive games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category isn't necessary. A pairing between two things that share games isn't helpful. If anything, listify then delete (if no list already exists). This also could encourage others to make other "this and that exclusive" categories, which would be a pain to manage and keep track of. RobJ1981 17:27, 13 July 2007 (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:Historical currencies of the United States[edit]

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: not to rename. >Radiant< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Historical currencies of the United States to Category:Category:Modern obsolete currencies of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historical" is ambiguous. It could refer to currencies that have been in use for a long time, but in this case, it refers to obsolete currencies. The category should be renamed using "modern obsolete currencies", which is less ambiguous and which matches the parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Modern obsolete" is more ambiguous than the current name. Nathanian 15:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If "Modern obsolete" is ambiguous, then "obsolete" would be an acceptable alternative. "Historical" is still problematic as well. Dr. Submillimeter 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Modern as opposed to what? Defined how? That is if anything more ambiguous and imprecise than "historical". Most of the articles are not "obsolete currencies" but obsolete coins or notes of the existing currency. Further suggestions are needed. Johnbod 03:46, 14 July 2007 (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:Historical New York City neighborhoods[edit]

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. >Radiant< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Historical New York City neighborhoods to Category:Former New York City neighborhoods
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The word "historical" is ambiguous in meaning. In this case, it could refer to a special government designation, or it could refer to locations that are a set age (50, 100, or 200 years old). In this case, it refers to neighborhoods that no longer exist. It should be renamed using "former", which is much less ambiguous. Dr. Submillimeter 15:06, 13 July 2007 (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:Deceased TV Series Characters[edit]

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. >Radiant< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Deceased TV Series Characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, per many previous discussions. -- Prove It (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For multiple reasons, characters are not categorized as deceased. I can provide reasons if necessary. (This would be particularly problematic for characters from soap operas, who tend to return from the dead frequently.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete + lock recreation of previously CFD'd cat. Lugnuts 16:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and lock Recreation of many CFD's. It's clearly not needed or wanted. RobJ1981 17:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt and suggest pre-emptively salting some of the obvious variations by capitalization. Otto4711 19:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt per above. I'm concerned this may be the same person recreating each time with different accounts. Might a checkuser be in order? -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt. Guidelines are clear: Don't categorize as alive/dead. Wryspy 03:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for reasons above. Irk Come in for a drink! 06:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't categorize by dead or alive - also: those we think are dead have a habit of coming back to life once their portrayer's contract is satisfactorily renegotiated. Carlossuarez46 20:08, 15 July 2007 (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:Jewish American comedians[edit]

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. Yes, "Jewish comedians" is a meaningful intersection. However, sub-dividing that by nationality does not seem necessary. >Radiant< 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish American comedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection of religion + nationality + occupation Corpx 01:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep on the basis of the encyclopedic nature of Jewish humor, otherwise merge to Category:American comedians and Category:Jewish comedians. Otto4711 02:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:American comedians and Category:Jewish comedians I'm ok with both of the two parent categories, but there doesn't appear to be a need to create this intersection of the two. It's not necessary, for example, to divide Jewish comedians by nationality, nor is it necessary to divide American comedians by religion. Therefore delete this category and upmerge the articles to its parents. Dugwiki 15:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Although "being Jewish" is, almost universally, the butt of many jokes for Jewish(-American) comedians (and sometimes consists of the entire act), I don't think we should categorize performer by performance (WP:OCAT), which is what this would be if we used the argument that Jewish humor (most of which consists of community humor and not really mainstream humor) justifies the intersection. Then there would be no difference between this category and Category:Comedians whose act consists of references to Judaism. Similarly, there's a documentary called "Look Whose Laughing" which showcases comedians with disabilities. But Category:Comedians with disabilities, although it would hold more than a handful of people (Josh Blue for example), is another example of categorizing the actor by the act. If it wasn't than it would just be a trivial intersection. Of course, then, we could go farther and off the topic of jokes about being black or disabled in America, and start categorizing by other jokes, such as jokes about stepmothers, which is another popular bit with comedians. Bulldog123 15:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Otherwise, it violates WP:OC. Wryspy 06:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge see Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference Irk Come in for a drink! 06:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Otto and Dugwiki (note that nom didn't suggest the upmerge; Otto did). Too many intersections here, Xtifr tälk 13:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Dugwiki, the cat is being used for any comedian who is Jewish regardless of the genre of their humor. Carlossuarez46 20:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one passes the test for a notable intersection by ethnicity. A Musing 23:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I think Category:Jewish comedians is a valid intersection of ethnicity and occupation. This subcategory of that, though, isn't needed. Dugwiki 15:31, 17 July 2007 (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/2007_July_13&oldid=1078526201"