Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 23

< March 22	March 24 >

March 23[edit]

Category:Foreign rugby union players in Japan[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. Kbdank71 13:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Foreign rugby union players in Japan to Category:Expatriate rugby union footballers in Japan

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current category name assumes that all members of the category have retained their foreign nationality, whereas some (if not now, but in the future) may become adoptive Japanese citizens; then they merely become expatriate (i.e. living/working in a country not of their birth). Renaming this category as I have suggested would also standardise this type of category with the expatriate footballers categories. – Pee Jay 23:42, 23 March 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:Museums templates[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. Kbdank71 13:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Museums templates to Category:WikiProject Museums templates

Nominator's rationale: This category is part of WikiProject Museums and so all templates in this category will be related to this. Simply south (talk) 23:39, 23 March 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:Literary award winners[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. Kbdank71 12:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Literary award winners to Category:Writers by award

Nominator's rationale: Merge - the categories are redundant to each other and Literary award winners is being used improperly on biographical articles. Otto4711 (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A far better name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:20, 24 March 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.

Robert Benchley Society[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. Kbdank71 12:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the parent is unlikely to expand beyond the award article and the subcat, and the subcat is overcategorization by minor award. The winners can be listified at Robert Benchley Society Award for Humor (which itself needs a major cleanup). If the winners category is kept it needs to be renamed to the proper lower-case in "Winners." Otto4711 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the parent as not expandable, Neutral on the child other than agreeing to the capitalization fix if kept. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:32, 27 March 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:American Comedy Awards[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. Kbdank71 12:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:American Comedy Awards to Category:Comedy and humor awards

Nominator's rationale: Merge - single-article category. The parent is not so massive as to require splitting by nationality. If kept it should be renamed to Category:American comedy and humor awards to match the parent and correct the capitalization. Otto4711 (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Also worth doing because others may think, as I did, that this category is about these awards: American Comedy Awards.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Definitely merge because if about ACA, it's overcat and unnecessary eponymous category, and if about Aca (generically), it doesn't seem necessary at this point. --Lquilter (talk) 17:47, 25 March 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:Psychology societies[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. I'm not sure relisting will accomplish anything further. This has been open for more than a week, there is no opposition, and the psychology wikiproject was notified and still no opposition. Kbdank71 13:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge of Category:Psychology societies into parent cat, Category:Psychology organizations.

Discussion: I'm not entirely certain what should happen here, but currently editors don't appear to be observing or implementing any distinctions between these two categories. It may be that all that's needed is good, clear inclusion criteria for both categories. Another possible remedy that comes to mind is renaming of Category:Psychology societies. Other suggestions are solicited. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} (also posted notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology) Cgingold (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion - Neither category has any inclusion criteria listed. It looks like Category:Psychology societies is a subcategory of Category:Psychology organizations, the only subcategory. The rational is unclear to me. Both categories seem to be made up of professional organizations, except for some misfits like Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists (a licensing board) and World Federation for Mental Health (an advocacy or consurmer organization?) Mattisse (Talk) 22:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - (See my Discusion above) I suggest merging Category:Psychology societies into Category:Psychology organizations, the rationale being that Psychological organizations seems to me like the more inclusive term. Then subcategories can be made out of the resulting combination. Mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any real gain from merging the categories, unless we are certain that that's how we want to leave things. If we're going to divide them up again anyway, we ought to come up with a solution now, rather than merging. It would really help to have input from other knowledgable editors who are familiar with the field. Clearly this needs to be relisted. Cgingold (talk) 02:25, 31 March 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:Antimafia activists[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. Kbdank71 19:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: People in the category are not necessarily activists. It lists judges and police officials who simply did their job. In Italy people who fight the Mafia are part of what is called the Antimafia, a broader category which suffices here also. Mafia Expert (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not entirely clear what you're proposing here -- could you please spell that out for us? Cgingold (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mafia Expert (talk) 00:46, 24 March 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:Medieval Wales[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, nomination withdrawn. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Medieval Wales to Category:Mediaeval Wales

Nominator's rationale: UK spelling — Alan^✉ 12:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn — Alan^✉ 12:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the entire Category:Middle Ages by country structure uses "Medieval," including Category:Norman and Medieval England. There is no point in changing this one category in isolation. Otto4711 (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think Mediaeval is in regular use among the UK articles anyway (and it should be Wikipaedia, of course). Google favours Medieval Wales over Mediaeval Wales by a distance, so perhaps mediaeval is becoming archaic. Occuli (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Many thanks for the response. Those seem pretty good arguments to me, and so unless anyone speaks up quickly in support of the proposal I am going to withdraw it very soon. Regards, — Alan^✉ 23:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. They don't make old fogies like they used to - "Mediæval" used to be the cry. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 24 March 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:People with a single name[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. Kbdank71 19:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Groups people together based on a superficial or trivial characteristic, i.e., their name. Right now it seems to be an awkward mix of people who truly only had one name (e.g., Suharto) and those who are just known by one name for promotional purposes (e.g., Teller (magician)). Could maybe be converted into a list, but not exactly category material. Not much different than having a category for people with the surname of "Brown". Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While it may be unusual in modern, Western countries for people to be known by a single name, that certainly hasn't been the case historically (I seem to recall a few in the Bible, for instance) -- and it also happens to be very commonplace in some non-Western countries, for example, Indonesia. In addition, I believe there was a CFD a few months back for a very similar category for (some sort of) performers known by single names -- and iirc, that was deleted, too. Cgingold (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a form of overcategorization by name. See the related Cat:People known by first name only which resulted in the deletion of that cat along with Category:People known by single-name pseudonyms. I suggested a rename to something similar to the now-existing category and I have changed my mind about it. Otto4711 (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the cat when Suharto died for the purpose of populating it with people who had a single birth name (as opposed to a stage name like Cher) but I gave up after the only other person I could find was Sukarno so I guess there really isn't a crying need for the cat. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:16, 28 March 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:Pre-1964 state highways in Washington[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. Kbdank71 19:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pre-1964 state highways in Washington to Category:Pre-1970 state highways in Washington

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Although signs were changed in 1964, these designations were used internally until 1970, and a few were added after 1964. NE2 02:04, 23 March 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:GO Transit stations[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. Kbdank71 19:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Supplanted by more clear Category:GO Transit railway stations, which is template-generated. The Tom (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be using templates to generate categories? It seems that this eliminates some functionality, such as sorting: if a station is named "The Square", it should probably be sorted as "Square". I do support the name change if the separate bus terminal category is kept, but it should probably be renamed in the normal way. --NE2 02:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if an appropriate {{DEFAULTSORT:Square, The}} is used somewhere, it will also apply to categories added via a template (unless overridden by a manual sort-key in the template itself). This is not to say that adding categories (other than for "temporary" maintenance issues) to articles via a template is considered a good practice (it generally isn't). Rename per above. — CharlotteWebb 21:41, 24 March 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.