Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 18 May 20 >

May 19[edit]

Category:20th-century fiction 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: merge. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:20th-century fiction writers to Category:20th-century writers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Currently a single entry category where the proposed target is the only valid parent category. The others are redlinked. I'm not convinced that we currently need this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Given its single entry and redlinks, upmerge. Mayumashu (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Non-fiction writers by century needs to be upmerged too - I will nominate this tree in the upcoming days Mayumashu (talk) 23:28, 19 May 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:20th-century women 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: keep. — ξxplicit 02:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:20th-century women writers to Category:20th-century writers and Category:20th-century women and Category:Women writers (modern period)
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I think this is another of the by century categories that can be deleted with the contents being moved to other categories. I think that we may be better served in the long run if we don't upmerge to Category:20th-century women, but I have included that as a recommended target. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See other discussions 1, 2, 3, 4. While not the same, they are in my opinion similar enough. Being part of a series was not an impediment for deletion or upmerging.Vegaswikian (talk) 22:31, 19 May 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:Latin 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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 29#Category:Latin writers. — ξxplicit 02:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming

(other sub-cats can be done speedily, by precedent, should this nomination go through)


Nominator's rationale: current name lacks clarity somewhat - rename adds clarity and remains brief Mayumashu (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question on why you are not suggesting that all of the new categories use New Latin? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On that any Latin of these centuries was (by default) New Latin, I assume. I didn t create them so I m not certain. Mayumashu (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning to just upmerge all of the Category:xxth-century Latin writers to Category:Writers in New Latin. Given the rest of this structure, I'm not convinced that we need by century in that one area. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn t get the top of the tree - expanding this nomination now to include all top branches Mayumashu (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, I notice now that Category:Writers by language (which wasn t linked to Category:Latin writers - I ve linked it) follow are Category:English-language writers and not Category:Writers in English etc., so the other viable alternative, perhaps more so, would be Category:Latin-language writers, Category:Classical Latin-language writers etc. I would say. I d support either pattern. Mayumashu (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the point of this name change? Is there any evidence that anybody has actually misunderstood the meaning of these categories? What exactly *is* the 'lack of clarity' that is being targeted by this renaming? RandomCritic (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Writers about Latin (history, culture, language); writers who are Latin (Latin American, Latin European, Roman) or writers who write whatever in Latin. That the writers are the third type is my first guess, but it is a guess Mayumashu (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Latin" by itself doesn't have any of those meanings; it refers solely and distinctively to the language. Therefore no guesswork is necessary. RandomCritic (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. I'm confused by the very existence of "cat:Latin writers" for Middle Ages and up to the 19th century. Latin was the recognized language of science, a mandatory part of university programs (or even the language of universities, not to mention the Church), so properly populating these categories will inflate them to an unmanageable size. Is it possible to draw the line between "writing in Latin" = defining feature and "writing in Latin" = following corporate standard? East of Borschov (talk) 06:00, 21 May 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:People from Las Vegas, Nevada[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. — ξxplicit 02:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Las Vegas, Nevada to Category:People from the Las Vegas metropolitan area
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The contents are mostly not from the City of Las Vegas. They are people from the metro area. Once this is moved, I'll recreate the category and move back in the few articles that can be clearly identified as having come from the city or notable for something in the city. Note that having a Las Vegas mailing address does not mean that you live in the city. Further note that news sources and GPSs do not distinguish between the city and the surrounding communities instead dumping everything into Las Vegas. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom. and welcome ones of this nature for the American context - I suspect there are more Mayumashu (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The biggest part of making this happen on a broader basis is that someone may need to know specifics about where the person is actually from. In parts of the country where everything is incorporated and a specific citation is available, then this type of change can happen. That is especially true if you have subcategories that can be included. While a good idea, it may not gain general traction. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, where the sources are vague, by metro area needs to be the first priority, as is the basis of this nom. Up till now we ve tended to cat people in the States by metro area but werent calling it that in the naming of our cat pages. Then where we have the specifics, as we have them, go with them. A big one is where counties are within a metro area and people are listed by those counties, then we can have appropriate sub-catting Mayumashu (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you need a headache, look at Category:People from Los Angeles County, California, Category:People from the Greater Los Angeles Area and Category:People from Los Angeles, California. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:49, 21 May 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.

Sub-cats of 19th-century newspaper publishers (people)[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 29#Sub-cats of 19th-century newspaper publishers (people). — ξxplicit 02:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging the following:

to

and

respectively

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC as it stands - such detailed category trees don t exist presently Mayumashu (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'm not supporting by-century grading at all. Is Napoleon a man of the 18th century or of the 19th? Both? what a mess. East of Borschov (talk) 07:39, 22 May 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:19th-century American businesspeople[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 29#Category:19th-century American businesspeople. — ξxplicit 02:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging the following


to ...

and

respectively


Nominator's rationale: WP:Overcategorization as per nom. below however suggest starting Category:19th-century American businesspeople as there were a lot of prominent, notable businesspeople then as the world of business was opening up, especially in the U.S. - 250 odd railway execs alone and over 140 paper publishers. Mayumashu (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on with publishers. Are you confident that they all qualify primarily as businesspeople, rather than editors, men of letters etc.? Should L. Frank Baum be labelled a businessman? That is, upmerge and thoroughly clean it up. East of Borschov (talk) 07:34, 22 May 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:19th-century German philosophers[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. — ξxplicit 02:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:19th-century German philosophers to Category:19th-century philosophers,Category:German philosophers, and Category:19th-century German people (omitted at first)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC - no precedent for this particular triple intersection of century, nationality, and occupation (no Category:German philosophers by century, Category:19th-century German people by century and Category:19th-century philosophers by nationality) and there probably doesnt need to be, at least at this point Mayumashu (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True enough - support Mayumashu (talk) 14:25, 19 May 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.

Lists of settlements[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lists of settlements to Category:Lists of populated places
Propose renaming Category:Lists of settlements in Greece to Category:Lists of populated places in Greece
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Following lots of "populated places" renames.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:43, 19 May 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:Blues Brothers[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; the new name of Category:Blues Brothers images is Category:Images of The Blues Brothers. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Blues Brothers images to Category:The Blues Brothers images
Propose renaming Category:Blues Brothers to Category:The Blues Brothers
Propose renaming Category:Blues Brothers songs to Category:The Blues Brothers songs
Propose renaming Category:Blues Brothers albums to Category:The Blues Brothers albums
Nominator's rationale: per main article, The Blues Brothers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:43, 19 May 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_May_19&oldid=1078927960"