Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 3

< July 2	July 4 >

July 3[edit]

Descendants[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. I'll put them up to be listified on the talk pages first. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We have consistently deleted categories that categorize people for being a descendant of another person. These are more of the same type. These issues can adequately be dealt with in articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Will somebody also nominate Category:Descendants of Jochi, Category:Descendants of Toqa Temur and Category:Descendants of Shiban? Debresser (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We can simply add those to this nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't have detail imformation about Baal Shem Tov descendants. Possibly namings may be not appropriate ("descent from Shiban" ... maybe), other three are very important for the Mongol Empire and its successor states. Especially they are indispensable　to understand the Chingisid principle. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the article you link to, recent studies have found that 0.5% of all the people in the world are descended from Genghis Khan, so I think the problem with the categories for descendants of GK's sons are self-evident. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all If there is a precedent for this (and nom would know.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Similar "precedents" can be found here. I should have linked to these before. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We categorize people as being members of a clear and distinct family such as Category:Obama family, Category:Bush family, Category:Taft family, Category:Clinton family. We do not categorize people as being descendants of a given individual. The Baal Shem Tov lived over 300 years ago, just having traceable descent to him is hardly a dinstinguishing characteristic of someone. In the case of Genghis Khan's sons, the whole matter is even more headache causing with many indivudals having disputed claims of descent from the Mongol rulers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List current members on talk pages of relevant articles (i.e. Baal Shem Tov family tree and Family tree of Genghis Khan for all the others) for other editors to assess later whether there is sufficent evidence to include them in the articles, and delete. Lists would be a lot more informative than categories and give scope to add citations. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:23, 8 July 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:Nanshan District[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: Speedy rename per C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nanshan District to Category:Nanshan District, Shenzhen

Nominator's rationale: 'Nanshan District' is ambiguous. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 23:35, 3 July 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:Sub-districts of Shenzhen (Administrative divisions)[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sub-districts of Shenzhen (Administrative divisions) to Category:Subdistricts of Shenzhen

Nominator's rationale: The proper name of the type of the administrative division is subdistrict, without the hyphen. Also, the parentheses are completely unnecessary. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 23:33, 3 July 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:Articles with broken citations[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Articles with broken citations to Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax

Nominator's rationale: Per the first line of the category page this would be the most precise and correct name. In addition, this will clearly distinguish this category from Category:Articles with broken or outdated citations. This category has an almost identical name, but is for citations that are technically broken, not that the link doesn't exist any more. It is populated automatically by a MediaWiki template, not by user-added maintenance templates. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename per nom. These category names have been confusing me recently, and the proposed name seems much more clear. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:11, 6 July 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:Fictional Vietnam veterans[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional Vietnam veterans to Category:Fictional Vietnam War veterans

Nominator's rationale: Intelligibility, per main article. This isn't about Vietnamese veterans, but veterans of the (1950s through 1970s) Vietnam War. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, goes with head category "Vietnam War fiction". - Fayenatic (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 8 July 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:Comnenid dynasty[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: Speedy rename per C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Comnenid dynasty to Category:Komnenos dynasty

Nominator's rationale: Rename to conform with main article and all articles on the family members. Constantine ✍ 21:14, 3 July 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:Ford family (Gerald)[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ford family (Gerald) to Category:Gerald Ford family

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 24#Category:Ford family. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per previous discussion. Cjc13 (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. There is also a similar precedent with Category:Zachary Taylor family.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - while having not read other precedents, just here, it does not make any sense to have it named as it is currently when a more sensible name is available. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 04:44, 9 July 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:Cosmetic surgery[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Cosmetic surgery to Category:Plastic surgery

Propose renaming Category:Cosmetic surgery in the United Kingdom to Category:Plastic surgery in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Cosmetic surgery is a redirect to plastic surgery, which covers all forms of cosmetic surgery and more.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Cosmetic surgery constitutes only part of all plastic surgery. The redirect should really be to the section Plastic surgery#Cosmetic surgery. Debresser (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the redirect as you suggested.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose cosmetic surgery is a subset of plastic surgery, and a reasonably defined one. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Until the thing is deemed notably sepeate enough to have its own seperate article there is no reason to subcategorize things in this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 8 July 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.

Novels set in US cities[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 and revisit if necessary as neither city/metro area's tree uses the unqualified name. There's a bit of confusion in the categories and redirects - Category:Las Vegas is a redirect to the metro area but Category:Los Angeles is a redirect to what appears to be the city category category but which actually covers the metro area, so I'm not sure what Category:Los Angeles metropolitan area is doing there. There may need to be a wider discussion to thrash out just what each term & tree covers. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Novels set in Los Angeles to Category:Novels set in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Novels set in Las Vegas to Category:Novels set in Las Vegas, Nevada

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per all other categories of Category:Novels set in the United States by city. There has been a discussion on Speedy as to the merits of this change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy nomination

Category:Novels set in Las Vegas to Category:Novels set in Las Vegas, Nevada — C2B perCategory:Las Vegas, Nevada tree Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose this one since, based on the recent move discussion for the dab page, this is likely at the correct name, even if it is a dab page. Las Vegas without the qualifier includes more then the city and is the correct focus for the category members. The other option would be to Category:Novels set in the Las Vegas metropolitan area the old main article for the area or the more up to date Category:Novels set in the Las Vegas Valley which is not used in any categories yet. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have never understood how "Las Vegas" can mean the metro area but "Las Vegas, Nevada" is limited to municipal boundaries. Is there part of the Las Vegas metro area that extends outside of Nevada? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The city is not the primary use. Most uses of Las Vegas or Vegas are for areas outside of the City of Las Vegas. Las Vegas is a brand and not just the name of a city. As to the size of the metro area, how do you define it? The US Census Bureau defines the one for Las Vegas-Paradise to be all of Clark County, Nevada. That's an area larger then several US states and includes almost 70% of the state's population. Vegaswikian(talk) 06:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand the point of one being broader than the municipal boundaries, I just have never understood how tacking on ", Nevada" sufficiently differentiates the name from the more general form. It's really not a good form of "disambiguation", if that is what is intended. As a layman who has never even been to Las Vegas, if I saw "Las Vegas" and "Las Vegas, Nevada"—I would assume that the terms are co-extensive and synonymous. The only instance in which I could envisage them not being so is if the Las Vegas metro area extends beyond the boundaries of Nevada.Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        There's a real-life example of a city extending beyond one state: Kansas City MO/KS. Do we create separate categories for these, or leave them as one? It also seems that certain parts of New Jersey could be included within the NYC metro area. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Parts of NJ are in the New York metropolitan area. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I propose we go ahead and move the cat per the original nomination. Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        What's the next step? Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A full CFD. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels set in Los Angeles to Category:Novels set in Los Angeles, California — C2B per Category:Los Angeles, California tree Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Unless it can be shown that this category is actually about the city and not the same named county or the broader Greater Los Angeles Area. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure how adding "California" into the name will change that. I've been assuming that the category was about Greater LA all along, and I don't think that would change by adding the name of the state.Aristophanes68(talk) 23:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that is reasonable, then a comment like 'This category covers novels set in the Greater Los Angeles Area.' would make the intent of the category clear. If that is really the scope of the category, then I don't have a problem leaving it where it is. It is a better name.Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it's not a better name for a category, because there is no Category:Los Angeles. It should be Category:Novels set in Los Angeles, California or Category:Novels set in the Greater Los Angeles Area since the category trees areCategory:Los Angeles, California and Category:Greater Los Angeles Area. The parent category is Category:Los Angeles, California in fiction, and I don't see any moves for all the other subcategories of that category to be changed to a Greater Los Angeles Area naming format, so a simple speedy rename makes inherent sense here. I don't know why we make this more difficult than it needs to be. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe a move to Category:Novels set in the Greater Los Angeles Area would be the best choice here.Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I propose we go ahead and move the cat per the original nomination. Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        What's the next step? Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A full CFD. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unless it can be shown that these are exclusive to the cities involved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. The rename is to clarify the content. It makes it clear that these novles are not related to Los Angeles, Chile or Las Vegas, New Mexico. Both are real possibilities. The disambiguation does not change the intended scope. Las Vegas, Nevada means anything that would be covered by the generic term Las Vegas, except like Las Vegas, New Mexico when it is an entriely different place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that position is not supported by several rename discussions where consensus is that the city is not the primary use of the name. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vegaswikian, your argument would make more sense to me if these were called things like Category:Las Vegas novels, with an ambiguousness about why they are connected to "Las Vegas". As it is it clearly states these categories are by place set. What exactly would be covered by "set in Las Vegas" and not "set in Las Vegas, Nevada" other than a novel set in say Las Vegas, New Mexico where it would be inapropriate to have it in the same category since categories are supposed to reflect a joint connection to one thing, not multiple things with the same name. Las Vegas, Nevada is a usage that has the same scope as a place identifier as Las Vegas minus those things that are identified with a distinct place called Las Vegas, such as Las Vegas, New Mexico.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my comments in the speedy discussion section. If Category:Novels set in the Greater Los Angeles Area is preferred, then that could be used, but there is no parent category Category:Los Angeles that the current name would be reflecting. There is only Category:Los Angeles, California and Category:Greater Los Angeles Area, so it needs to be one or the other. As nominated, it would match the parent Category:Los Angeles, California in fiction, so I think that's the best choice. Category:Novels set in Las Vegas, Nevada would match its parent Category:Las Vegas, Nevada in fiction. The distinction between "Las Vegas" and "Las Vegas, Nevada" is arcane and likely doesn't mean much of anything to most readers, who probably think the terms are synonymous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:12, 11 July 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:Agriculture organizations[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Agriculture organizations to Category:Agricultural organizations

Nominator's rationale: Better grammar? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Note that all subcategories and the article List of agricultural organizations also use "agricultural". Debresser (talk) 00:17, 4 July 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:Indian horror television series[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: Speedy rename per C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian horror television series to Category:Indian horror fiction television series

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 23#Horror television series. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:12, 3 July 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:Captain Marvel/Marvel Family images[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 05:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Captain Marvel/Marvel Family images to ~~Category:Captain Marvel and Marvel Family images~~ Category:Marvel Family images

Nominator's rationale: WP:SLASH. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It could also be shrunk to Category:Marvel Family images.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Of course. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:35, 3 July 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.