Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 27

< September 26	September 28 >

September 27[edit]

Category:Fictional gay men[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 Category:Fictional gay men to Category:Fictional gay males. --Xdamr^talk 09:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional gay men to Category:Fictional gay characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename - renaming to the suggestion (or Category:Gay fictional characters if preferred) allows for the correct inclusion of non-human fictional characters (like Monsieur Mallah and Queer Duck) and also fictional gay male characters who are not adults (like, apparently, Stewie Griffin) Parallel categories for fictional LBT characters don't have the same issues. Otto4711 (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - if renamed to Fictional gay characters, would it be merged with Category:Fictional lesbians? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the two are gendered categories. If it's an issue it could be renamed Category:Fictional gay males. Otto4711 (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we need gender based seperate categories? Why can't we just name them all fictional gay characters? CTJF83Talk 07:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as "characters" is the more convential description. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the parent is already Category:Fictional LGBT characters, from which "gay" is hardly distinguished, a Rename to Category:Fictional gay males is the only option, other than keeping & moving the animals up to the parent. Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2009 (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.

Civil/Military decorations[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 all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename iot bring these categories into line with convention of using Civil awards and decorations and Military awards and decorations as a general form - cf contents of Category:Civil decorations and Category:Military decorations. --Xdamr^talk 21:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2009 (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:Polish refugees and Category:Polish emigrants[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. --Xdamr^talk 20:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Being made by request of User:WlaKom - who will fill in rationale below. Procedural nom. Skier Dude (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources documenting the refugee status for the articles of the "Polish emigrants" or "Polish refugees" category.IMHO, other categories are more appropriate for these people.

Inappropriate relationship with the category called "emigrant" and "immigrant"--WlaKom (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Category:Polish emigrants is a standard by-nationality container category for the "Polish immigrants to FOO" categories. And surely there are individuals who are defined by being "Polish refugees"? What are the other categories that would be more appropriate? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a strong defining characteristic. Lack of sources is a great reason to prune the category or (even better) to do some research and add the sources. It's not a valid policy / guideline based argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove: Not all immigrants have the status of refugee.

Refugee status is bestowed by the government of a country in the form of a document with the date. To qualify that someone is refugee, this must be clearly documented. Now you can move into this category, hundreds of people from the category "Polish immigrants". I know what I write about because I have such status.

Both categories are unnecessary, because all the Poles outside the Polish who are described in Wikipedia, are already in the category "Polish immigrant" divided by country.(such as Category:Polish immigrants to the United States). Who said that Polish immigrant to USA emigrated from Poland? Therefore, linking Polish immigrants in the country to a higher category called "Polish emigrant" is incorrect. Polish Wikipedia has pl:Kategoria:Polonia w poszczególnych państwach.--WlaKom (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Polish" refers to a nationality, I believe, not a country of emigration. And it is a container category for the subcategories you speak of--they are subdivided by destination country. It's OK for a category to only contain other categories—articles don't need to be added to it. And of course not all immigrants are refugees—that's why the refugee category is a subcategory of the emigrants one and not vice versa. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:24, 4 October 2009 (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:Puerto Rican murderers[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 as part of existing category tree. Though no examples were presented here, unconvicted criminals should emophatically not be categorised in this tree, nor in any other 'criminals-by-nationality'. cf Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_29#Criminal_categories_implying_POV. --Xdamr^talk 09:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary layer of categorization between its parents and its only sub-cat. There are no other sub-divisions by American state or territory and given that there are no articles in the category there is no need to make an exception for PR. Otto4711 (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Puerto Rican criminals. The subcategory is already in the other parent. WP does not do unconvicted criminals as it is potentially libellous. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't "do" unconvicted criminals? Then why are there 121 subcategories of Category:Murderers by nationality and a separate scheme for convicted murderers? There are plenty of people classed as murderers on WP who were never convicted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep, part of overall scheme of Category:Murderers by nationality. Not all Puerto Ricans have been Americans (historically, of course). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 4 October 2009 (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:Famous signs[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 to Category:Individual signs. While there are different opinions on what this category should be called, there is clearly consensus to rename it from the current name. The original proposed name seems to have the strongest support among the different suggestions. Jafeluv (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Famous signs to Category:Individual signs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. We tend to avoid categorizing by famous. Since any sign that has notability would have an article or redirect we should name the category to reflect that. In the past we have tended to use 'individual' for items like Category:Individual aircraft or Category:Individual rooms. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the new cat but have no strong opinion; whatever better fits the taxonomy is fine by me. If you type in "Category:Famous" in the search box a lot of cats do come up but I'll defer to people with more experience naming cats. The name change would slightly change the category as Golden Arches and Burma Shave billboards are famous but not individual, but that's no big deal; they would just move back to the general Category:Signage cat. If the name changes and there's not an automated way to convert the articles, just leave a note on my talk page and I'll go through the articles and update them.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a few hits including categories that have been deleted. From a quick look, Category:Famous animals and the subcats appear to be the major tree using this form. So maybe its time to discuss that tree again. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relatively relaxed about the animals - there is a sense in which being "famous" is the only thing that can make an animal notable, except for race-horses, war-heros & a few other types. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something else. I agree with the principle of the nomination, but I think "signs" is too ambiguous. Category:Pieces of signage or Category:Signage works perhaps - something with signage anyway. I'm not sure that Category:Individual signs actually excludes ones repeated in several places - maybe it does. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the problem is the multiple signs, then they can be a subcategory with an appropriate name. I don't see a burning need to mix keep this separate art form in the same category as the individual signs. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My problem is the use of the ambiguous "signs" at all. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I get the famous thing but I'm surprised "signs" is an issue. I was trying to figure out where you are from Johnbod to see if we used English from different regions. I think "signs" is a standard plural of an individual "sign" but that may not be standard for all English speakers. In any case Category:Pieces of signage is fine with me.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is a meaning of signs here in the UK, but not unambiguously the meaning of signs anywhere (except maybe Las Vegas!). Category names have to be unambiguous & we have a long page at Sign (disambiguation). Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the multiple sign issue as a problem per se. I was just pointing out the proposed cat rename from Famous to Individual may impact the grouping of 2 of the 32 articles. Whatever name has a consensus is fine by me.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that most readers would have no idea what was included in Category:Pieces of signage or Category:Signage works. The first is ambiguous since we don't know if it is an entire sign or a fragment of one. For the second, I suspect that most readers don't consider these works or think of them like that. While there are many uses for sign, this is the primary use and I think that only two of those on the dab page possibly have a potential for confusion with Category:Individual signs. The question is how likely is that and is the cure worst then the proposal? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Consensus seems to have emerged on what to rename this to. Does that mean we leave my imperfect cat name or do we flip a coin?RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Individual signs or keep as is. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 14:31, 11 October 2009 (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:Philosophical traditions[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. --Xdamr^talk 20:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Philosophical traditions to Category:Philosophical schools and traditions

Nominator's rationale: Both categories are very similar. I think the more specific and less popular "Philosophical traditions" should be merged into the more general and more popular "Philosophical schools and traditions". Pollinosisss (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / rename Schools and traditions to Schools To my mind a school is different from a tradition - with a school being limited by time or locus (perhaps centred around a particular person) and a tradition being more extensive, thus the Frankfurt School, the Analytic tradition.Declan Clam (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See the related previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_30#Category:Philosophical_schools_and_traditions. AllyD (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please also see User:Gregbard/Concepts_and_theories. I have been working on this type of thing generally for a while. I would love to tighten things up in this department. First of all the most general category is "theories" because it does not depend on any "believers" or "movements" etcetera. After that I would recommend keeping "philosophical traditions" with a very narrow membership. I don't think we need any other categories than that to deal with these type of articles. I will be proposing to get rid of a bunch this way consistent with User:Gregbard/Concepts_and_theories.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge Category:Philosophical schools and traditions into Category:Philosophical traditions. The shorter formulation is simpler and I don't think it loses anything. (If category T existed but S&T didn't, would there be an impetus to create it? I doubt it.) AllyD (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While my proposal above is consistent with Greg's proposal for this category, I'm more cautious of his idea of keeping a narrow membership. Would that impact on the many broad articles categorised under S&T at the moment? (While leaving the dubious Category:Continental philosophy whose own parent article concedes that its own meaning is unclear?) AllyD (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you take a look at the content of "Philosophical traditions" it is pretty much already perfect and should not be added to or subtracted from without a great deal of discussion at WT:PHILO. If we are just looking for a place to put a lot of articles from a deleted "Philosophical schools and traditions" we should put them under "Philosophical theories" until they can individually justify their inclusion elsewhere. In this way we can avoid big arguments about whether or not any particular "ism" is considered a "movement" or mere "school" etcetera. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is what worries me: the idea of erecting what amounts to a Keep Out sign over a category because of any idea of near-achieved (or even feasible) perfection of content. Reading the above, and taking a random example, what would happen to Cambridge Platonists: currently under Category:Philosophical schools and traditions but would be left circling in a Category:Philosophical theories holding pattern until permitted to land in Category:Philosophical traditions or an alternative landing strip approved by WT:PHILO? If so, best leave current categories alone. AllyD (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On checking the WikiProject Philosophy archive discussion on Greg's proposal for Category:Philosophical traditions, I see two opposing comments (mine included) and none supporting. AllyD (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending more detailed discussion. In the absence of response to my queries about Category:Philosophical traditions, I've scratched my rename suggestion. AllyD (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2009 (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.

Malayalam-language films[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 all. (Potential conflict of interest here as I was responsible for creating these categories per 11 July Cfd. On the other hand, these creations were the result of clearly expressed consensus and I have made no other edits in this area.) Splitting 'films-by-language' categories into 'film-by-decade-by-language' seems, to me at least, to be the logical next step when wp coverage hits a certain critical mass. Perhaps this scheme might with benefit be applied to various other 'films-by-language' categories, but aside from qualms about its isolated application to this language, there seems to be little expressed consensus against it as a general idea. --Xdamr^talk 09:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging

Category:1930s Malayalam-language films to Category:Malayalam-language films

Category:1950s Malayalam-language films to Category:Malayalam-language films

Category:1960s Malayalam-language films to Category:Malayalam-language films

Category:1970s Malayalam-language films to Category:Malayalam-language films

Category:1980s Malayalam-language films to Category:Malayalam-language films

Category:1990s Malayalam-language films to Category:Malayalam-language films

Category:2000s Malayalam-language films to Category:Malayalam-language films

Nominator's rationale: No other films by language categories have this sub-cat by decade scheme - seems WP:OVERCAT to me. Lugnuts (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See Cfd from 11 July which developed this scheme. --Xdamr^talk 16:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I'd seen something about this before! Thanks Xdamar. I still don't see the point of having them by decade (esp as the 1930s and 1950s only have 1 article). If any language category should have this scheme, it's the English language one. Lugnuts (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much reason for them to be split either. All the categories are very small (under 200 in all of them). Making them very easy to navigate. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Breaking down by decade is a defining characteristic that is effectively navigated as broken down. Alansohn (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It was the community decision to create by decade per this CF discussion : Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_11#Malayalam-language_films_by_year. Would have been nice if the nominator checked the previous discussion. Newer Articles are still been created in english wikipedia, for films in the language named Malayalam of which approx 100 mainstream films are made every year. -- Tinu Cherian - 09:00, 7 October 2009 (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:Polish doctors[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Polish doctors to Category:Polish physicians

Nominator's rationale: Merge. (At the suggestion of Debresser listing an incorrectly tagged category). Original tagger used the rationale: "Polish physicians were created in 2004, Polish doctors in 2007. Both have the same interwiki links." Seems a clear case of overlapping categories. Medical doctors are categorised as physicians except for Britain and certain Commonwealth countries (see Category:Physicians by nationality). Original tagger notified. Tassedethe (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with User:Tassedethe--WlaKom (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per convention. Debresser (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per convention--Epeefleche (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge per standard used in parent Category:Physicians by nationality. Alansohn (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2009 (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:Breton political parties in France[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Breton political parties in France to Category:Political parties in Bretagne

Nominator's rationale: Merge. (At the suggestion of Debresser listing an incorrectly tagged category). Original tagger provided no reasoning but seems a clear case of overlapping categories. The merge target follows the form in Category:Regionalist parties in France. Original tagger notified. Tassedethe (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2009 (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:Law Enforcement Insignia[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Law Enforcement Insignia to Category:Law enforcement insignia in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. (Completing nomination). Assume reason is capitalization and addition of country to aid disambiguation. Original nominator informed. Tassedethe (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - my apologies for starting the nomination and leaving it incomplete. Tassedethe has correctly read my intentions. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename because of capitalisation and wp:bias. Debresser (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2009 (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:John Randolph of Roanoke[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: A small category without potential for growth. Contains only two articles: John Randolph of Roanoke and Conversion of John Randolph of Roanoke. It was decided back in April that the latter article was to be merged into the former; thus, the category contains only a single notable article. Categories named after a person are generally only used in notable cases (see here), and this is not one of them. --darolew (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – serves no purpose. Occuli (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the prospect of expansion from a single article for an individual dead 170 years seems unlikely. Alansohn (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the article on his conversion has long been tagged for merging back to the main article (as the result of an AFD). Once the merger is done the category will be pointless, and that makes it pointless now. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2009 (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.