Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 26 October 28 >

October 27[edit]

Category:People from Westfield, Wisconsin[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Town has only one entry ...William 23:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I created the category, I agree that it should be merged-thank you-RFD (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC) please do not delete this category continue the discussions[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:Ambassadors of Czechoslovakia to countries in Asia[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This category only has one subcategory and since Category:Ambassadors of Czechoslovakia is also very small (4 subcategories currently) this is just creating an artificial intermediate level of categorization that makes it a little harder for readers to find what they're looking for. Pichpich (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. Our most heavily-populated category of "Ambassadors of foo" is Category:Ambassadors of the United States, and it works fine without subdivision by region. There is no need to subdivide the much smaller coverage of Czech ambassadors. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge the regional subdivisions are entirely pointless and just beg us to have debates on Turkey, Cyprus and other countries that are hard to place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- Since there are slightly under 200 countries, it is unnecessary to have a continental split. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2012 (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:Black Panther Party members[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) 16:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Discuss. Of the categories housed in Category:People by nationality and political party this appears to be the only one that uses "Foo Party members" rather than "Members of the Foo Party". The format should be standardized and I would like to use this nomination as a platform for choosing the standard. Personally I prefer the "Foo Party members" construction and would say do not rename this one. It's shorter, sounds less pretentious and corresponds more closely with what I perceive to be common English usage. If consensus is for "Foo Party members" then I am happy to help with the process of changing the others but honestly I didn't want to spend a bunch of time tagging all of the categories if the result was going to be just to change this one.

On a somewhat related note, is there some reason why the categories for Britishers use "people" instead of "members"? Buck Winston (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2012 (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:Bishops of the Early Church[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 - Feel free to renominate. - jc37 00:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The description "early" is too vague. It needs to be more precise. The cat scope defines itself as "Bishops of the early church, before the split into denominations such as the East-West Schism of 1054." Other uses such as "ancient" usually refer to the pre-Constantinian period. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The only objection that I'd have to the above is that it would not lend itself to one of the paretn cats of Category:Bishops by period as it might give the impression of being universal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well Category:Bishops by period seems to be more about Category:Bishops by century with a few classifications that cross centuries. So a rename there may be more appropriate and could help clarify any concerns being raised here. Maybe this needs to be a part of renaming Category:Bishops by period to Category:Bishops by century? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I have to admit I would have figured that the term would have ended by around AD 600, or about 400+ years sooner than when this has it end, but this does have the advantage of having a clear cut-off which is what we want. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Content at present is a POV fork from Roman Catholic Bishops. All the bishops in this category are Catholic bishops. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The question of what is early can be dealt with in a short headnote. Benkenobi18 is wrong. Several of the subcategories do not refer to Catholic bishops. Anyway, it must be questionable whether Byzantine bishops had any practical subjection to the Pope of Rome, as opposed to the Patriarchs of Constantinople or Antioch. If we must rename the target should be Category:Christian Bishops before 1054, with the significance of this date being explained in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm still not convinced that the proposed or alternative names are correct options. Likewise, I'm not in favor of retaining the current name. If you follow up on what is behind classification of the early church, you wind up at early Christianity (and history of early Christianity) which places the time frame of the early church at years 30-325. That is well short of 1054 and before the East-West Schism. Given this, I'm leaning more towards Category:Christian bishops as the rename target. I looked at {{Christian History}} and I'm not sure that this offers any alternatives for a name. At best it argues against the current name. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Vote rename to category:Pre-Nicean Christian bishops since the council of Nicea in 325 would fit with this term ending in 325.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support new vote in principle and so withdraw my initial nomination. However, I'd agree with Vegaswikian that Ante-Nicene is more authentic of church terminology. So I'd prefer Category:Bishops of the ante-Nicene period. I think that there should be a separate debate about what to call the period from 325 to 1054. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem with Nicene and Post-Nicene Christian bishops is that it has no stopping point. That's a debate for another day. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not care whether we use pre or ante, but will support the latter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Names like "The Early Church" and "Post-Nicene Fathers" may seem vague to general readers but within academic circles they have fairly precise meanings. The last major landmark of Early Church History is the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The cut-off date depends on how different authors view handle the immediate consequences of the Council but 461 (The death of Pope Leo), or 476 (the Deposition of Romulus Augustulus) are often the symbolic final date.[n 1] With the exception of Gregory the Great (Pope 590-604), the Post-Nicene Fathers fall into the same period. Volume XIV of series ii is entitled "The Seven Ecumenical Councils" and thus ends with Nicea II in 787 but about two thirds of the volume deals with material from the Early Church as defined above and the inclusion of the last three councils is extremely logical but in itself it does not justify extending Post-Nicene further than 590 at the very latest.
In view of all this, the category is wrongly named and dragging in the Nicene Fathers whether Ante- or Post- does not cover the time line defined by the sub-categories. I favour something like "Category: Christian Bishops up till 1054" since the sub-categories are chronological and some readers may not be able to date the Great Schism. By the way, whoever the bishops currently included in the subcategories may be, conceptually the range of the category is wider than (Roman) Catholic Bishops and this is not a fork of that category.
  1. ^ Henry Chadwick, Frend, Wand all wrote a "The Early Church" or a similar title which falls into this pattern. Deansley writing on the medieval church recognises this fact
Jpacobb (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term "The Early Church" is used, but I am not convinced that there is a consistent end date between the various usages. By calling this ante-nicene we will invoke a specific end date.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2012 (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:History books about society[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:History books by topic. Articles can of course be diffused to whichever appropriate subcategories. - jc37 00:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Virtually all the books in both the source and target categories are about human history, and therefore, I would argue, about "society," in some way. This offshoot category does not aid navigation, imo, by making readers search both categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2012 (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:California Redwoods[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: discussion moved to CfD October 24, where the parent category is being discussed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per apparent WP policy on category names for sports teams, the new name is Sacramento Mountain Lions, so it and all its subcats should be changed Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2012 (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:Television series set in Van Nuys, California[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has just one article (It's Your Move, a sitcom that ran for just one season), and I see practically no potential for growth. Van Nuys is a neighborhood in the city of Los Angeles, so the L.A. category is an ideal target for merger. szyslak (t) 07:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I created the category I didn't know that Van Nuys wasn't its own city. OK to merge to LA Fuddle (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. With "set in x city" cats, we should generally assume they can cover the general metro area, especially since at times TV series settings are fuzzy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Seeing as the creator has agreed, this can be speedied. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2012 (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:Atlas Sound 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Atlas Sound/Bradford Cox. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:37, 27 October 2012 (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:Pre-1920 comedy film stubs[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) 17:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Category:1910s comedy film stubs films are already in a seperate subcategory, which can then be a subcategory of Category:Comedy film stubs directly like the other decade subcategories. And the renamed category will also be a subcategory of Category:Pre-1910 film stubs, as the stubs for three decades of films (1880s, 1890s & 1900s) are grouped together. Hugo999 (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category. With only 21 articles, this category is severely undersized for a stub category. Keep templates, but upmerge to Category:Comedy film stubs, Category:Silent comedy film stubs, and Category:pre-1910 film stubs. Dawynn (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While the Pre-1920 comedy film stubs category has about 21 pre-1910 articles at present, there is potential for growth with the number of articles in “comedy film stub” and also in “silent comedy stub” categories, many which could be pre-1910. Once the 2010s comedy film stub category is created, the overall comedy stub category could become a container category with the remaining articles in it put into subcategories. Hugo999 (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2012 (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:Ranma ½ characters[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: upmerge all per Calathan's scheme. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Well, its only member is a list of characters. Wouldn't that already be redundant? No longer needed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I merged the categories together into one entry, as they all apply to the same rationale.--十八 03:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge or create new categories as necessary so that these are in categories for their respective franchises. For Category:Ranma ½ characters, upmerge to to Category:Ranma ½. For category Category:Rave Master characters, create a Category:Rave Master and place the list and the other Rave Master articles listed in the Rave Master template into the new category. For Category:Alice Academy characters, if there are enough articles for it then create a category Category:Gakuen Alice and place the list and any other articles in that category (note that if the category is created, it should be at the same name as the parent article, which is currently at Gakuen Alice). Upmerge Category:Boogiepop characters to Category:Boogiepop. Upmerge Category:Cardcaptor Sakura characters to both Category:Cardcaptor Sakura and Category:Clamp characters. Hopefully I'm using the term "upmerge" correctly, as I don't participant in category discussions much. Calathan (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge/create and upmerge per Calathan, no prob with recreating if lots of chars get individual articles at a later date. --Qetuth (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per non. I've already went ahead and create the base categories for Rave Master and Gakuen Alice since there are enough articles to establish a category for each of those series, or soon will be after the merge and I create the Gakuen Alice episode list. This doesn't appear to be a particularly good reason to have a one-article category. —Farix (t | c) 11:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- These single article categories are a waste of space. It may be that the creator intends to create an article on each character, but precedent indicates that such articles get merged back into an article on the series (oe whatever) so that we again end off with a single article, or perhpas two -- an article on the series and a list of characters. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2012 (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:Schnuffel[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. With only songs and albums as child categories, there is no need for an eponymous cat here. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:23, 27 October 2012 (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:Adele (singer) songs and Category:Adele (singer) 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: No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale These categories appear to have been renamed today without discussion. As we don't have an article concerning another recording artist named Adele, disambiguation of these categories seems unnecessary, and only serves to complicate matters. And besides, a move of this type should really have been discussed before it took place. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it it better to them in line with the parent category and main article.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case you'd better rename Book:Adele, Template:Adele and Adele discography because they're not in line with the main category and article. And why don't we have pages like Someone Like You (Adele (singer) song) while we're about it? Not to mention all those other single-named recording artists and others we have articles about. Time for a litle common sense, methinks. But if people don't want to go back to the previous versions, the redlinks should at least be redirect categories. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a Bot is responsible for this. If we are to have these changess, it needs to be creating category redirects in its wake. I've created them for the above two categories, but may mention my thoughts on the Bot's talk page. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's really no need to disambiguate Adele related articles at all, because interestingly, we don't currently have Category:Adele. I say we don't have it, but we will in about two minutes because I'm going to create it as a redirect. We also don't have any categories relating to anyone else with the name. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a need to disambiguate Category:Adele because why shouldn't Adele language, Adele (musical), Adele (ship) (among others) and anything related to those be categorized there. Now, if someone does place any of those articles in Category:Adele, they will be inappropriately moved to Category:Adele (singer). That is an unhelpful category redirect. Please see Adele (disambiguation). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody chooses to create categories for these subjects then the category can be updated accordingly, and presumably it would become a disambiguation page. At present, however, we don't have any so I don't see your concern. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is normal for categories to be named after the article, which in this case is Adele (singer). In all these proposed requests for move/renaming of categories to remove disambiguators nobody has yet shown me the benefit to Wikipedia, or more importantly, its readers, for the request. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, who forgot to rename the categories in the navbox? Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2012 (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/2012_October_27&oldid=1136462932"