Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 29 July 1 >

June 30[edit]

North-West Frontier Province[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. Category redirects will be made afterward. — ξxplicit 19:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have missed some. The name of the province has been officially changed to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the categories should reflect that.Prezbo (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rubber-stamp support Should have been something that ought to have been done way before, but oh well - glad that someone's taken the initiative of not being lazy :) - Mar4d (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - (Ketabtoon (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment -- I hasd not heard of this name change. If the rename goes ahead, please leave the old versions as category redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the article Names of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The name of the province was officially amended from "North-West Frontier Province" to "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa." Mar4d (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, but leave old titles as category redirects per Peterkingiron, because most sources will still use the old name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 5 July 2010 (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.

Note long time after the fact - because the geography stub category was changed here - at the wrong process page, it's required twice the process work. PLEASE, in future follow the instructions! Grutness...wha? 10:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organized crime syndicates[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 to category:Organized crime groups. Something needs to change, and this seems like the best suggestion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Organized crime syndicates to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Rename. or repurpose or reparent - the current way the category is set up does not match its contents. The category description and its place in the heirarchy says it's about American mafia families, but the contents contain other American crime syndicates that are not Italian-American mafia, and the name itself has no indication that it's about the USA, and so some of the contents are not even American. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it looks like the contents actually match the scope of the category's name, it seems to me the problem is instead with the category's unduly limited description and what its parent category is. You don't need CFD to fix those issues. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the edit patrollers tend to give vandalism warnings for any action like that from an IP user. So it's pointless for me to fix a category, and then have to go to WP:AN to get someone to tell some editpatroller that they're wrong and they're doing 3RRs for no good reason. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure such mistakes happen, and IPs do get more scrutiny, but a constructive change is a constructive change regardless of who does it. Anyway, do you have any ideas as to what description and categorization of this category would be appropriate? I'd be happy to implement it if I think it's a good idea, and then we can just close this out here. postdlf (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it'd have to go under Category:Organized crime groups, and the current description needs to get deleted. Since a syndicate is a group of groups, this would be a category for organizations composed of criminal organizations. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2010 (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:Vice Chancellors of Germany[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Vice Chancellors of Germany to Category:Vice-Chancellors of Germany
Nominator's rationale: For consistency purposes, as the article is entitled Vice-Chancellor of Germany, not Vice Chancellor of Germany Claritas § 19:57, 30 June 2010 (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:English metaphysicians[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 to Category:English philosophers and Category:Metaphysicians. — ξxplicit 19:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:English metaphysicians to Category:English philosophers
Nominator's rationale: Double upmerge to Category:English philosophers and Category:Metaphysicians/Category:Metaphysicists. Unlikely to be very large (presently only one entry). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support -- merge into "metaphysicians"Greg Bard 18:41, 30 June 2010 (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:Metaphysicians[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: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Metaphysicians to Category:Metaphysicists
Nominator's rationale: Rename. A practitioner of metaphysics is normally called a metaphysicist, not a metaphysician, although both seem acceptable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is an absurd proposal. No one calls a philosopher of metaphysics a metaphysicist. There had been a discussion about this a long time ago, and it was agreed to move "philosophers of metaphysics" to "metaphysicians". However the proposal to upmerge "English metaphysicians" (to metaphysicians) is fine with me. Greg Bard 18:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point to the discussion? I see a reference in WikiProject Metaphysics that it be done, but no discussion pointers. In any case, as there is dispute as to which names are acceptable, "philosophers of metaphysics" may actually be a better name. (Do you want to propose merging Metaphysics writers into this category, as requested there, or shall I? ) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The former discussion is here.
No don't merge any metaphysics writer into metaphysicians. That category is reserved for baloney like esoterism, spiritualism, theosophy, mysticism, etcetera. The metaphysics category is intended for legitimate academic philosophy.Greg Bard (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metaphysics/to do, and comment on the relevant talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw — defer to WikiProject for the preferred name. Although the name is absurd, it seems to be preferred by the WikiProject; both are considered primary by different online dictionaries, and I can't find anything definitive in a clearly reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record. When Arthur uses the word "absurd" it is completely meaningless. He just calls everything that doesn't please him aesthetically "absurd." In reality, there is nothing "absurd" about calling philosophers who specialize in metaphysics "metaphysicians". Just a little reality check. Greg Bard (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2010 (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:Peel towers[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: withdrawn by nominator. — ξxplicit 23:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Peel towers to Category:Peel towers in the Scottish Borders
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Contains only Pele Towers for this region; and there are Pele Towers in Cumbria, and Northumberland. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are existing articles on peel towers in England, such as Embleton Tower, and they should be included in this category. No objection to splitting this category into English and Scottish subcats, but there's no point in leaving the English towers without a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subcategorize and resort per BHG. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps I should have explained that Category:Peel towers is currently within Category:Scottish Borders which is why I think that one should be renamed. As the towers are restricted to the English-Scottish borders do we we need a global category (with sub-cats for Cumbria, Northumberland, and Scottish Borders) or would it be better served by a list?. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create destination nom's category; move all contents to that; but keep existing category as a parent. We ought to have sister sub-cats for those in the two English border counties. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The Northumberland examples of "pele towers" appear to be categorised as castles, but a peel tower is not exactly a castle; more a refuge than a place of defence. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. There seems to be more approval for a category structure than anything else. I will withdraw this nomination and then set up a structure for England and Scotland, with sub-cats for Cumbria, Northumberland, and Scottish Borders. I will include them within castles, mainly cause I cannot think of anywhere else to put them. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2010 (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:Canoeing competitions[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. Courcelles (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canoeing competitions to Category:Canoeing and kayaking competitions
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category is being/has been used for both canoeing and kayaking competitions. Also, there is confusion due to differing North American and British use of the term canoe/canoeing - a rename would help avoid ambiguities and confusion. Gjs238 (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The parent category Category:Canoeing and kayaking venues was recently renamed from Canoeing venues for the same reason. Gjs238 (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I don't like combined categories, but since we renamed one, we might as well rename this one. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2010 (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.

American hip hop groups, musicians and producers by location[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:
1. Merge Category:West Coast hip hop artists to Category:West Coast hip hop musicians as a duplicate
2. Merge Category:East Coast hip hop producers, Category:Midwest hip hop producers, Category:Southern hip hop producers, and Category:West Coast hip hop producers to Category:American hip hop record producers
3. No consensus yet on what to do with the others. It sounds like they could be cleaned up to become true genre categories. If they can't be, a renomination for deletion may be in order. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Like rappers in earlier discussion, these musicians and groups don't need to be categorized by what coastline they're from, either. Karppinen (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2010 (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:Oregon beauty pageant 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: delete. Courcelles (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Oregon beauty pageant winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Specifically being from Oregon isn't that defining as a beauty pageant contestant. In the five years since this cat was created, no other state-based cats for pageant winners have been created, so such a system doesn't appear to have much value.  Mbinebri  talk ← 04:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks instead like this is intended for winners of Oregon beauty pageants, like Miss Oregon. But it's obviously ambiguous on that point, and either way it's read, it's the only state-specific category of its kind. Category:Oregon beauty pageants already groups that information, by collecting the articles on the pageants themselves, which contain lists of winners. postdlf (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2010 (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:Orchidaceae of Australasia[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. Non-admin closure. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Orchidaceae of Australasia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. It is an arbitrary geographical overlap. Note that I removed Caladenia from the category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We organise species by geographical unit, because that's the way the data is most commonly collected and reported. The Orchidaceae are the largest plant family, with ~10% of all species, so this would appear to be a reasonable category. Guettarda (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment isn't anything further than the Weber line, a non-arbitrary biogeographic grouping? And as some species have migrated over the Weber Line... it would be reasonable that not every instance is confined to the ancient Gondwanaland remnant. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2010 (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:Spectacular! cast[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 19:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Spectacular! cast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Performers by performance.  Mbinebri  talk ← 02:22, 30 June 2010 (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:Prodigy albums[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; re-create Category:Prodigy albums as a disambiguation category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Prodigy albums to Category:Prodigy (rapper) albums
Nominator's rationale: To dab from Category:The Prodigy albums. Turn this into a dab cat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:52, 30 June 2010 (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/2010_June_30&oldid=1080994658"