Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 14

< July 13	July 15 >

July 14[edit]

Art history writers[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< 14:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category not needed. Both members are already in Category:American art historians where they belong. Johnbod 22:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The extra writers category is redundant. (Presumably, these categories are for art historians who are American and not for art historians who specialize in American art. Am I correct?) Dr. Submillimeter 23:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Category:American art historians is in various "by nationality" trees. Johnbod 23:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Johnbod, Modernist 00:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; we can give benefit of the doubt that those who write about a subject professionally can be called by the professional name. Carlossuarez46 20:11, 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.

Australian veterans[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< 14:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Australian veterans of World War I to Category:Australian military personnel of World War I

Category:Australian veterans of World War II to Category:Australian military personnel of World War II

Category:Australia Iraq War veterans to Category:Australian military personnel of the Iraq War

Nominator's rationale: Rename for standardization. See also previous similar cfr here. jwillbur 21:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to keep in line with other cats as per nom Kernel Saunters 23:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per above. Nathanian 23:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. Satu Suro 06:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nomination. Lugnuts 09:11, 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:Members of WikiProject disease[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 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 debate was speedy close, move to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Members of WikiProject disease . Andrew c ^[talk] 05:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There is no Disease WikiProject. Only one user is in this category, User:Code Napoleon, who is suspected to be a sock puppet of the category's creator (User:General Eisenhower). This category serves no purpose and should be deleted. Scott Alter 19:05, 14 July 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 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:PR electoral systems[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< 14:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:PR electoral systems to Category:Proportional representation electoral systems

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Wikipedia:naming conventions frowns on initialisms, more consistent with parent article (proportional representation), and non-ambiguous (first two things "PR" brings to my mind are public relations and Puerto Rico). Also subcat Category:Party-list PR to Category:Party-list proportional representation for the same reasons, as well as consistency with suggested name of parent cat. Seattlenow 18:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both per nom. Johnbod 18:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Brandon97 23:29, 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:Young and Restless[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< 14:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as eponymous overcategorization per extensive precedent. Otto4711 18:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Just not needed. Carlossuarez46 20:12, 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.

Eponymous musicians - K[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, per many precedents, earlier this week. That some people consider these useful is not really a strong argument. Note that this is not a wilful deletion of everything starting with 'K', but rather that it has been given thought. >Radiant< 14:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - as with the categories for musicians beginning with A and musicians beginning with W, these categories contain one or more subcategories for albums, members and songs along with the band article and sometimes a discography. Per the standard of the linked discussions along with many other similar categories nominated individually, this is eponymous overcategorization. The exception is Category:Kisschasy which has a DVDs subcat. I don't believe this necessitates the category either. Otto4711 17:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep any with more than one subcategory, as it seems merely willful to separate such closely related categories. The debates linked to above should have been closed as keep, so if anything they invalidate these latest nominations. Nathanian 23:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Willful" would probably more accurately describe someone who !votes keep in the face of what by now must be approaching 200 deletions of eponymous categories for musicians, actors, families and others that reject the notion that the categories are needed simply because there happens to be more than one subcategory. Deleting the eponymous categories does not separate the material, as it is accessible through the main article, which is how the vast majority of people interested in a musician's work are likely to find it. Otto4711 23:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's useful to have these subcategories grouped in one place. And I noticed that Otto4711 removed many items in Category:The Kooks before putting the cat up for deletion. That's not good. --Hera1187 06:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I created and populated Category:The Kooks members per the convention of Category:Musicians by band, which if you had looked at the items you would have seen, instead of posting this vague accusation of wrongdoing. Otto4711 12:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also created and populated Category:Kool & the Gang members, before anyone accuses me of skullduggery there... Otto4711 13:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment almost looks like Otto's nominating these on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This leads me to express my concerns of having all these cats deleted en-mass. Maybe the policy on eponymous band/artist categories should be reviewed first before we go steaming in on the CFD's on these. Infact, if they're not allowed, why go through CFD anyway, as the result is going to be delete? Surely the hundreds of epon. cats for bands should of been CFD'd moments after their creation, if the policy is meant to be applied across the board? Lugnuts 09:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been stated in this nomination and as was stated in the two nominations linked to this one and in various similar nominations, this is based on WP:OC#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Otto4711 12:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why have the discussion in the first place if it's always going to result in delete? Lugnuts 13:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's how this works. While I am trying to nominate only those which are along the lines of what seems to have general agreement for deletion, individual cases even within those may garner additional attention (Duke Ellington in the Es for instance). Otto4711 15:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result will be delete because Otto and Kbdank have established precedent (Delete if only common subcategories, band article, and discography), and are now just acting on that precedent. I may think they're wrong (and in fact, I think these will all be recreated in time), but that doesn't mean it makes sense to try to stop the deletions at every nomination. The problem here is the Eponymous categories guideline, not these nominations. Delete.--Mike Selinker 14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it seems that many Wikipedia readers have found these categories useful for navigation purposes, even if they are just for holding subcats. Whether or not all the articles are linked from within the main article, this is another method of navigation that some users prefer. I agree that eponymous cats have spun out of control in some cases, but I still fail to see the problem with these. The only category they're now placed in is Category:Categories named after musicians, so it's not as if they are cluttering other categories any longer. This recent mass deletion of them is just a waste of time because in reality, they are useful rather than problematic, and they will most probably be re-created. --musicpvm 19:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nav templates are the better way to handle material for a single artist/musician. Carlossuarez46 20:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per numerous similar deletions for other eponymous band categories that only contain songs, albums, band members and discographies. All those things are more properly handled using other schemes and the main article for the band acts as the central hub for navigation. See WP:OCAT and many, many previous deletions. Dugwiki 15:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and totally agree with Lugnuts... Ranma9617 02:05, 18 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:Fictional babies[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< 14:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as recreation of deleted content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Infancy is often only a temporary status for fictional characters. Such categories are not useful. This should be speedy deleted as the recreation of deleted content. Dr. Submillimeter 23:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation of deleted content, not needed, and usually temporary and non-defining. Carlossuarez46 20:14, 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:People Born in New Jersey[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 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 debate was Hey, I was born in New Jersey. Ok, I see how it is around here. (Sniff). and for those who don't appreciate a New Jerseyan's humor (or is it New Jerseyite?), delete --Kbdank71 14:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete recreation. Category also happens to be incorrectly capitalized for Wikipedia style. Wryspy 06:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least Rename to Category:New Jersey natives. Place of birth is rarely significant. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The form "People from" is used across the board. It may not be perfect, but sticking with it is better than having even more categories. Postlebury 17:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Johnbod 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor attempt at recreating the "People from" tree which is far more encompassing and very well populated. Carlossuarez46 20:15, 15 July 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 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:Lists of musicians by record or single chart[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< 14:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of musicians by record or single chart to Category:Lists of artists by record chart achievement

Nominator's rationale: The current name of this category is confusing. Also, single charts are a type of record chart, so it's unnecessary to mention both. I'm not sure if the proposed name is the best choice, but it is clearer and would be consistent with Category:Lists of record chart achievements. musicpvm 00:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I would say "Lists of artists...." since that's what all the contents of this category use. PC78 09:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense. I'll edit the nom. --musicpvm 18:16, 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.