Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 31 February 2 >

February 1[edit]

Category:Carol I High School alumni[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) 02:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Carol I High School alumni to Category:Carol I National College alumni
Nominator's rationale: I'm proposing these moves so that the categories match the titles of the parent articles, which have been moved recently. Biruitorul Talk 23:56, 1 February 2011 (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:Novelty food[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Novelty food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Imho, "novelty" is used here as in a buzzword manner, creeping in from 20th century marketing language. It does not describe any specific quality that the food items so categorized have in common, and is therefore unsuited for encyclopedical categorization. -- Seelefant (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2011 (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:Berkeley scholars[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:George Berkeley scholars. This close should not prejudge a deletion nomination, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Berkeley scholars to Category:George Berkeley scholars or Category:Berkeleyan scholars or something else
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Unfortunately, I think the current name might be ambiguous—it could be interpreted as meaning scholars at the University of California, Berkeley. I'm not sure what is the best solution here. The first suggested option is probably the clearer of the two. The second is probably the more academically "correct" one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your attention and proposal, Good Ol’factory. To my shame, I’m still learning English, but it seems to me that the word combination “Berkeleyan scholars” may imply “adherents of Berkeleianism” (Margaret Atherton’s spelling) instead of “commentators of Berkeley’s texts.”--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What you say is true. If these are simply commentators of Berkeley's texts, then the first option would probably be better, or Category:Scholars of George Berkeley. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both the names are synonymous, aren’t they? Just as “the particle velocity”=”the velocity of particles,” etc. Well, “of” may look a bit strange as if “of”=”belong to”: “these scholars are the private property of George Berkeley.” But it would be funny of me to argue with you, a native speaker. My English is far from fluent. At best I can say that such terms as “a Descartes scholar,” “a Hobbes scholar,” and so on are often employed in philos. literature and differ from the concepts “a disciple of Descartes,” “Thomas Hobbes’s follower,” etc. E.g., the Vice-President of the International Berkeley Society (Timo Airaksinen) is an atheist and does not, consequently, share Bishop Berkeley’s religious outlook. And yet he’s called a Berkeley scholar, i.e. a specialist in Berkeley scholarship (=a commentator, an interpreter, an expert on Berkeley’ writings=fountainheads and secondary literature devoted to Berkeley). The fact is I don’t know whether this classification, peculiar to historico-philosophical science, meets the standards of the WP.

If the category’s name seems ambiguous, I can add the adduced explanations to the category’s page. Also I don’t mind renaming the category. On the contrary, the greatest impetus for me to come round here is to learn English when other Wikipedists with a good grasp of English correct my contributions’ English and undertake copy edits like this or this.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i think that "George Berkeley scholars" and "Scholars of George Berkeley" are essentially synonymous in meaning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for consulting. Indeed, editing the English WP is an opportunity of learning English. Then I’m taking your and Peterkingiron’s advice to move the category to “George Berkeley scholars.” Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest to delete it alltogether, to me it looks like a severe case of category creep to have for every (although in itself significant) person or topic a category containing scholars that deal with it academically. By that principle of creating categories, we would soon have Hitler Scholars, Soft Ice Scholars, Tadpole Scholars, and so on. -- Seelefant (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you’re right, Seelefant. While creating the category I wasn’t quite sure that it wasn’t a ridiculous proposal even though I had found about twenty WP articles anent this category. As for renaming, the term “Berkeley scholar” has in fact firmly become currency of writings on the history of philosophy, with the consequence that the name “Category:George Berkeley scholars” seems to be the most expedient one to avoid ambiguity provided that the category is not deleted at all.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My rationale (though I wonder if it is rational): each WP article about a great philosopher should contain a list of recommended literature. But it’s unreasonable to list all the publications, so that another way is to name scholars who are the best experts on the philosopher’s texts. At first I inserted wiki-links in the section “Eminent Berkeley scholars” which had been created in the article George Berkeley. Then I found out that there’re very many WP articles corresponding to this section. At the same time they are isolated from one another and from G. Berkeley. The article Colin Murray Turbayne is even an orphan. The new category is a way to overcome their isolation. I can transform the section mentioned into a separate article, say, a “List of George Berkeley scholars.” Such a list could be the main article for the “Category:George Berkeley scholars.” After this being done, all the WP articles about historians of philosophy focusing their research on Bishop Berkeley cease to be isolated from one another.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

&Rename (if we need it at all), preferably Category:George Berkeley scholars. My first reaction was that this was an awards category for a scholarship named after GB. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2011 (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:Non-free-use Images of Heart (band)[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. Dana boomer (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Non-free-use Images of Heart (band) to Category:Images of Heart (band)
Nominator's rationale: Since the only other images in Category:Images of Heart (band) are album covers and, therefore, also non-free, the split introduced by this category is unnecessary. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I'm not clear on why the nominated category was created. They appear to be all non-free, as nominator says. If they were not non-free, they would probably be moved to Commons anyway. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not understand what all these intersecting categories are good for. If I would control categories, these files would be in two categories: the meta-category "non-free-use images", a subcategory of "images"; and "Heart (band)", a subcategory of "Bands". I would not create redundant hierarchies by randomly intersecting different taxonomies, like "music images", "images of bands", "Images of Heart (band)" or even "Non-free-use-images of Heart (Band)". -- Seelefant (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To a certain extent, I agree with you, especially in the case of image categories. Categorization of images on Wikipedia should be targeted toward organizing non-free images (free images generally should be moved to Commons) in a way that makes it simple to track and use them, and multiple overlapping layers of categorization often does not help that goal. Your comment prompted me to examine Category:Images of musical groups, and the result was this nomination. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2011 (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:Charlestown township[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. Further renaming and splitting is possible if we want to separate the very-close-to-Charlestown from the actually-in-Charlestown articles, but at minimum the state must be added.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Charlestown township to Category:Charlestown, Indiana
Nominator's rationale: The focus of the category appears to be Charlestown, Indiana (the city) rather than Charlestown Township, Clark County, Indiana (the inclusion of Springville, Indiana is an exception, and that article should be removed if the category is renamed), and categorization by township does not seem to be used for Indiana articles. Also, "Charlestown township" is ambiguous as there are at least four townships in the U.S. which have the name "Charlestown Township": in Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio and Pennsylvania. (Category creator notified) -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I originally created "Jeffersonville township" to combine Jeffersonville, Indiana and Clarksville, Indiana due to their common history making them separate problematic for some articles, and since Charlestown (10 miles northeast) was the next I did, I used township there as well. Since Springville was the predecessor community before Charlestown in pretty much the same area, it is part of Charlestown history and needs to stay with the Charlestown category.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 07:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for clarifying. I will strike the portion of my comment pertaining to Springville. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2011 (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:Images of Charlestown[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Images of Charlestown to Category:Images of Charlestown, Indiana
Category:Images of Clarksville to Category:Images of Clarksville, Indiana
Category:Images of Jeffersonville to Category:Images of Jeffersonville, Indiana
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As with Category:Images of Porter County, Indiana, which was discussed on December 27, 2010, the name of the state should be added to each category. ----DanTD (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, although ideally the images would be moved to Commons (they all seem to have an appropriate license), leaving these categories empty. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: almost all those pics are mine, and a bot was supposed to put a "No Commons" tag on them. That allows me to keep better track of them.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 07:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commons allows categorization of images by author (see commons:Category:Pictures by author), so perhaps such a category would help you to track them even if they were moved. In any case, however, a closer inspection revealed several images which could not be transferred to Commons under their existing licenses, so the idea of deleting the categories is, for the moment, moot. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regardless of whether they should all be in the commons or not, the state is missing from the names. In fact after I nominated these categories, I found some others I forgot about. Maybe I'll add them another day. ----DanTD (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I agree. The renaming should proceed as per your nomination. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2011 (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:Avant-garde and experimental films by director[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. The case for splitting the avant-garde and experimental films, or perhaps deleting the avant-garde ones and renaming to "Category:Experimental films," is strong enough to warrant a second nomination. Also, I've moved all the individual films out of Category:Expressionist film and put them into Category:Avant-garde and experimental films. Finally, I've listed Category:Expressionist film for speedy renaming to Category:Expressionist films, since it is almost entirely composed of individual films.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Avant-garde and experimental films by director (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Avant-garde and experimental films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Surrealist films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Expressionist films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As with Category:Existentialist films, which is currently being considered for deletion, these categories are overly vague, and therefore subject to being populated with inappropriate films. I nominated Category:Surrealist films for renaming several months back, with the idea that the category might be split, but that idea did not gain acceptance. A better solution, in regards to all of these categories, are list articles which can be more easily maintained, and in which references can be demanded if and when a film is added. Such lists already exist for Avant-garde films and Surrealist films. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all If a film can be included in a list, then it can be included in a category that mirrors that list. Lists and categories go hand-in-hand, per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But as wth the previous discussion on "surrealist" films, the criteria for inclusion are loose. Take for example Raging Bull: expressionist? existentialist? (it is collecting the set but without citation). Or The Call of Cthulhu (film) (which I haven't seen): does filming as-if-a-1920s-film imply "expressionist"? List-with-referenced-discussion can work; subjective allocation to "affective" non-defining categories doesn't. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In keeping with what AllyD has said, the benefit of a list, which a category certainly does not have, is the presence of references and a clear statement of the criteria for inclusion. Another benefit is that a list article can be more easily maintained by watching its history, which cannot be said for a category. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Surreal and expressionist film but use them exclusively for films from their actual corresponding movements (ie early 20th century, not later pastiches and post-modern homages). Avant-garde is a completely subjective term and does not belong here, but experimental films are something very real. So I suggest a split of that category into Category:Experimental films, and that we use the very most basic definition of an experimental film, which is that the film was an experiment without a clear goal for what it would look like (a good but not universal rule of thumb is that in an experimental film, the plot and production sections are one and the same). Smetanahue (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't believe this category is any more difficult to parse than any other descriptive category, and it gathers together films that would otherwise be somewhat lost among the mounds of mainstream films. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - I don't feel that these articles are any more vague than categories about, for instance, science fiction movies, drama movies, or black and white films. Nor are these tiny niche genres but well established and important ones that have more than enough movies to justify populating each. Kuralyov (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, "more than enough movies to justify populating each," you say? The question is, what are the criteria for inclusion, because, as I said in my original statement is that no criteria have been set, and the categories are overpopulated with films that are not appropriate. How do you suggest we address that issue, or do you simply believe this is not the case? I would argue further that these are, in fact, small, niche genres, when defined correctly. Expressionist films, for example, as AllyD suggests above, is a very small category of films, relating specifically to films made in the 1920s by a small group of mostly German directors. It is not an expansive list. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is incorrectly categorized, then it can be removed. Just the same situation if it was on the list article. Lugnuts (talk) 07:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I have said above, there is no clear standard for which films belong in these categories. A list article can clearly state what those criteria are, demand refs, and are more easily maintained when watched by experienced editors. Simply on this basis, lists are preferable. In other cases, where inclusion criteria are more clear, if not self-evident, categories are preferable. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that these are highly subjective and ambiguous. To say that these are no more vague than "black-and-white films" is, frankly, ridiculous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2011 (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:Al-Qaeda Locations[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:Al-Qaeda. Dana boomer (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Al-Qaeda Locations to Category:Al-Qaeda by location
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This name seems to better reflect what the category contains—all are articles about al-Qaeda in a particular geographical area. Incidentally, the one-sentence category definition as it currently stands is far too broad. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as discussed below. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Al-Qaeda – I think that the use of the word "location" in the title is misleading. These articles are not just about al-Qaeda in a particular country or region; rather, they are about distinct organizations which happen to identify with and/or consider themselves to be subordinate (in principle) to the central leadership of al-Qaeda. It is more accurate to think of these articles as being about affiliated groups rather than as part of a series about al-Qaeda by country. From this perspective, I think that they belong in the main category instead of a difficult-to-define subcategory. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Al-Qaeda per Black Falcon. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2011 (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/2011_February_1&oldid=1138394970"