Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 6 June 8 >

June 7[edit]

Category:Battles involving the Mongolia[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: quasi-speedy merge - deleted as empty and since there's no point in dragging this one out. BencherliteTalk 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Battles involving the Mongolia to Category:Battles involving Mongolia
Nominator's rationale: The category name should really be without the definite article. Actually this should be a case for speedy rename, but obvious grammatical errors seem to be not mentioned in the "speedy" guidelines, and I have also already gone ahead and created that other category without the definite article. Yaan (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge per nom. I think perhaps we could consider obvious grammatical errors a type of "spelling error", perhaps? A bit of a stretch, maybe. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to new cat per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2008 (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 in St Helena[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Cricket in St Helena to Category:Cricket in Saint Helena
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Saint Helena is the accepted form. BlackJack | talk page 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed. --GeorgeWilliams (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2008 (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:St Helena in international cricket[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. There may be additional issues, but with the merge, those issues can be discussed in another nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:St Helena in international cricket to Category:Saint Helena in international cricket
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Saint Helena is the accepted form. BlackJack | talk page 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both for now; only article is Saint Helena national cricket team, which does not as much as mention any players etc. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge both to Category:Sport in Saint Helena. Saint Helena is a small island with a population of under 4500, less than my village. Any sporting teams are likely to be at the level of village cricket and football, both of which are accepted as NN. However, this is a British colony, and so may achieve minor international notability one day. These are both small categories with no room for expnasion and cannot survive as categories. The related articles needd to be merged into a single Cricket in Saint Helena, as there is unlikely to be enough notable material for more than that. This would provide plenty of room for exploring possible international sport. However the island is so inaccessible that I doubt it will happen. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only requirement here is to correct the name of the category by merging the incorrect into the correct, or simply deleting the incorrect. Anything else is interference in the category structure that has been designed and implemented by agreement of WP:CRIC. Deleting categories just because they currently have only a single article misses the points of project development and user navigation completely. Some people should stop and think about the big picture before they go off on their "deletionist" tangents. BlackJack | talk page 06:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both and merge as per nom. Most of Peterkingiron's entry is speculation. As nom says, the cricket project does have an established structure under category:Cricket by country and this nomination is not the place to discuss structural changes that could have repercussions for the entire cricket by country coverage. Peterkingiron and Johnbod are making a WP:POINT that should be discussed at the cricket project talk page. --72.37.171.100 (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge both as proposed and leave the category structure to the cricket project as proposed. --GeorgeWilliams (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2008 (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 in Myanmar[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Cricket in Myanmar to Category:Cricket in Burma
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Compatibility with category:Sport in Burma. BlackJack | talk page 21:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only requirement here is to correct the name of the category by merging the incorrect into the correct, or simply deleting the incorrect. Anything else is interference in the category structure that has been designed and implemented by agreement of WP:CRIC. Deleting categories just because they currently have only a single article misses the points of project development and user navigation completely. Some people should stop and think about the big picture before they go off on their "deletionist" tangents. BlackJack | talk page 06:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge as per nom. Same comments apply as for Saint Helena above re the cricket project's structure. There is understandable confusion about the name of this country but the nomination complies with established precedent on category titles (see football, etc.). To suggest that a category be deleted because it currently contains one article is short-sighted and breaches WP:POINT. Categories are there to provide the reader with a navigation facility and the cricket project does have a very useful structure in place here. --72.37.171.100 (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nomination and I agree that questions about the category structure should be discussed on the cricket project's talk page. You cannot hijack a request to simply correct a title with an ad hoc demand that a project effectively alters its entire structure, especially without understanding the reasons for that structure. As for the name of this country, I am happy with the current situation whereby Myanmar is used in an article title and Burma in the categories. --GeorgeWilliams (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Categories should use the same name as the country's main article (currently at Burma). If the ongoing discussion results in a page move for the country's main article, then the categories should follow suit, but not before. As for the small size of the category - it is part of a defined structure of categories and it has potential to expand, thus it should be kept. — jwillbur 20:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It certainly does have potential to expand. On WT:CRIC, the Myanmar article author User:Andrew nixon recently recommended a new book about cricket's worldwide development called Encyclopedia of World Cricket by Roy Morgan. I have just seen this book today and there is a very large section about Burmese cricket and players, in addition to 120 other countries including Saint Helena. BlackJack | talk page 20:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, to match the (current) name of the main article on the country, and to keep as part of the established structure for Category:Teams in international cricket and Category:Cricket by country. This established structure means that the exception to Wikipedia:OVERCAT#Small with no potential for growth applies. BencherliteTalk 09:19, 13 June 2008 (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.

Medical instruments[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: speedy delete per request below. BencherliteTalk 14:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Medical instruments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Created a category by mistake when one identical exists, please delete. sarindam7 (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you're the creator, this meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Just place {{db-author}} on the category page, and an admin will take care of the rest. Cgingold (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2008 (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:Wives of younger sons of dukes[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. Younger sons of viscounts? Daughters of barons? Somebody's having a laugh surely. Doesn't rise to the level of trivia, even Hello!pedia wouldn't have this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wives of younger sons of dukes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - trivial basis for categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see their having a place in the OoP as having any bearing on the utility of this as a category. We recently deleted a category for the grandchildren of Victoria and Albert, all of whom presumably had a place in the OoP. There do not appear to be other categories for individuals based on their having a place in the OoP. Otto4711 (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are others:
Category:Younger sons of barons, Category:Younger sons of viscounts, Category:Younger sons of earls, Category:Younger sons of marquesses, Category:Younger sons of dukes, Category:Daughters of dukes, Category:Daughters of marquesses, Category:Daughters of earls, Category:Daughters of viscounts, Category:Daughters of barons.
As much as I'd like them to stay, my opinion is that if you want a vote to get rid of one of them, then vote to get rid of them all. Craigy (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'll see what happens here as it's too late to add the additional categories to this nomination. If the nomination results in delete then I'll nominate the rest of them. Otto4711 (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Craigy. "grandchildren of Victoria and Albert" do/did not have a place in the United Kingdom order of precedence in that capacity, so Otto's first argument falls down, and Craigy has answered his second. Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I'm saying is that the fact that the wife of the younger son of the Duke of Fubar-upon-Snafu is on a list that tells people seating her at a banquet that she should be seated to the left of the older son of the Earl of Floppybottom instead of the right is trivia. Being included in the UK order of precedence, per the article, used to be important until WW2 but in modern British life is "much less significant." Indeed, Order of precedence tells us that while the OoP may be used to determine an order of succession, the two are not interchangable and it does not appear that the UK OoP has anything to do with the succession in that country. Being in the OoP is a non-defining characteristic for categorization purposes. Otto4711 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly you seem to assume these are "modern" people - in fact most are long-dead. Secondly, per WP:CAT "Every page in the article namespace should belong to at least one category. The categories to be included, which serve as classifications, should be the significant (useful) topics to which the subject of the article most closely belongs to as a member". For many of these this is that category, especially as we don't seem to have categories for "famous socialites" or "mothers of famous people". Look at Lady William Russell, otherwise characterised just by birth and death dates. Of course she could be characterised as a "politician's wife", but then you wouldn't like that either, judging by your Randladies nom. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, we do have an extensive Category:Socialites structure. And if the only reason that some of these people have articles is because they were married to or the offspring of someone notable, then we should take a look into deleting the articles because notability is not inherited. Of course I strongly disagree that categorizing based on something as trivial as helping society matrons develop seating charts is either significant or useful. Otto4711 (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if I'm reading the article correctly, Vicki and Al's grandchildren, at least the male ones, did have a place in the OoP in their capacity as grandchildren ("The sovereign's sons' sons") so my argument there is perfectly sound. Otto4711 (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it isn't - that was not the category that was deleted, but no doubt another one - "Princes/Princesses of Great Britain" or whatever. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I guess I'm not getting it because the categories were all deleted and the category at least in part was capturing people who were in the OoP. If the OoP is in some way defining, I would have thought you would have brought it up in one or another of the discussions. Otto4711 (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, dear. There is no rank in the OoP for "Grandchildren_of_Victoria_and_Albert" although all such people would have a place in it as British princes, German Emperors and so on, all of which do and should have categories. Just because a category happens to contain people who are all ranked in the Oop, under different headings, is not an argument for keeping it, and equally the deletion of such categories has absolutely no bearing on the validity of categories that do match an actual rank or heading in the Oop. In fact the duplication in the grandchildren categories was one of the main arguments for deletion. Clear enough I hope? Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearer, yes, but still not addressing the point that the OoP is a trivial basis for categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done above, with policy quote, I won't repeat it. Also I think the OoP is defining, especially in the case of historical people. You ask above "If the OoP is in some way defining, I would have thought you would have brought it up in one or another of the discussions", but as explained above in fact there is no connection at all with the other debates, except in your mind. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, the fact that every article is supposed to be in a category doesn't mean that these categories are the ones they should be in. In fact, I have found another category for dear Lady Russell. And again, since notability is not inherited, if any of these people have articles just because they married or birthed someone notable they should not have their own articles. Lady Russell appears from her article to have no independent notability, unless one counts having their dancing mentioned by someone notable as notability (I tend not to). Otto4711 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quite their own subsection of British nobility for some centuries. Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I am not sure how far this should go. Perhaps we should have categories of this kind for dukes and marquesses, whose younger sons are Lord William Foo, so that their wives have the somewhat strange description of Lady William Foo (NOTE the person referred to is properly Lady William Russell - not Lady Russell, which would make her the wife of a peer, baronet or knight). It certainly should not go further than marquesses as the younger sons of earls are merely Hon. and their wives Mrs. However, inclusion depends on the subject being notable in her own right, not her husband's. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if having a place in the OoP is a defining characteristic, what NPOV justification is there for not categorizing everyone in it for the reason they're in it? Or maybe the OoP isn't a defining characteristic after all? Otto4711 (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and similar kinda-sorta-related-to-not-quite-royalty categories per Otto. Genealogical articles for specific families of nobility would be more informative, more maintainable, and less confusing. — CharlotteWebb 19:47, 13 June 2008 (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:Randlord wives[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Randlord wives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary category, in almost no instances do we categorize people on the basis of their being a wife. Otto4711 (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless others are found, as small (1 article) and unlikely to expand. If there were more of them, this would no doubt be defining for all or nearly all, and their prime defining category. Spousal categories are not in fact so rare as to make this an argument for deletion. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2008 (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:Repudiated queens[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: keep. BencherliteTalk 09:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Repudiated queens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unsuitably vague criterion for a category. "Repudiated" by whom? Otto4711 (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - by their husbands, of course. This is the technical term. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by the reason given by Johnbod. Dimadick (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2008 (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:Hall and Oates songs[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 both. BencherliteTalk 09:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hall and Oates songs to Category:Hall & Oates songs
Propose renaming Category:Hall and Oates albums to Category:Hall & Oates albums
Nominator's rationale: The duo's name is spelled with an ampersand, not an "and". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:32, 7 June 2008 (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:Football (soccer) in North, Central America and the Caribbean[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 rename, and please tag categories up for renaming next time. BencherliteTalk 08:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Football (soccer) in North, Central America and the Caribbean to Category:Football (soccer) in North and Central America, and the Caribbean
Nominator's rationale: Fixing a simple grammatical error. Octane (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because if we are going to have categories based on the FIFA federations, then, we should follow their naming as well. Most other sports are not organized by continent, so, the only reason I can see for keeping this (and its five siblings in Category:Football (soccer) by continent) is to align with the FIFA bodies. Neier (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Neier's good point (CONCACAF is the Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football); although Octane's point that this is not grammatical is also sound. The category is not tagged by the way. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Neier. To me this Fifa-enumeration is not really a grammatical error. Whereas the comma in the proposed name seems to be grammatically incorrect to me, but I may be wrong in this...--Rheinländer (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2008 (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:Independent Music[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. BencherliteTalk 09:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Independent Music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Vague, meaningless, single article. At the very least, capitalization is malformed. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:34, 7 June 2008 (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/2008_June_7&oldid=1074800831"