Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 22 October 24 >

October 23[edit]

Category:Klark Kent 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not about Klark Kent the German graffiti artist but the Police drummer —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as small cat otherwise. SFB 01:00, 25 October 2014 (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:1988 Births[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. – Fayenatic London 21:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Mis-capitalized name. Shows up in HotCat. Bamyers99 (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2014 (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:Woodkid 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. – Fayenatic London 17:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same artist, different name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Woodkid category: It is true that the article is titled Yoann Lemoine (his real name), but virtually all his musical output, meaning singles, EPs and albums are published as Woodkid and the media refer to him as Woodkid. I even attended a concert in Montreal and all media referred to him as Woodkid. See also for example his releases Iron EP or The Golden Age. Same for his singles. See for example "I Love You"... He retains the real name Yoann Lemoine for his designing and directing works though which is a totally different domain. So as far as the article on him was concerned, we preferred to keep his real name and not change it to Woodkid as he has important non-musical career as well. But to my mind, it would be highly unusual to categorize his musical materials like The Golden Age for example as a Yoann Lemoine album or "I Love You" as a Yoann Lemoine single. It would clearly be advantageous to keep the category as Woodkid albums, Woodkid songs unless he suddenly starts releasing his next musical materials as Lemoine... 23:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werldwayd (talk • contribs)
  • Keep existing category per Werldwayd. If Woodkid is the name he uses for his musical output, then it's the name that should be on the category. If he were using multiple different pseudonyms on different albums, then the nomination would be justified — but if the albums are all "Woodkid", then the fact that he uses his real name in other non-musical areas of activity has no bearing on how the category should be titled. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2014 (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:Bat roosts in England[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: listify and delete. – Fayenatic London 18:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Bat roosts in England to article List of bat roosts
Convert Category:Bat roosts of the United Kingdom to article List of bat roosts
Convert Category:Bat roosts of Jamaica to article List of bat roosts
Convert Category:Bat roosts of the United States to article List of bat roosts
Nominator's rationale: These categories contain few articles actually about bat roosts - the articles are mostly about places (e.g. Comfort, Ebbor Gorge, Publow), mines (e.g. Grandview Mine), caves (e.g. Boho Caves), buildings (e.g. Tyntesfield) and bridges (e.g. Wharncliffe Viaduct). We don't normally categorize towns, houses, structures etc by what wildlife they contain as it's generally a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of such places (e.g. we don't have a "Towns with urban foxes" category).
There are afaics currently only 2 articles in these categories actually about bat roosts (Hygieostatic Bat Roost and Sugarloaf Key Bat Tower) - these should be moved (upmerged) to Category:Bat roosts and Category:Bats of the United States. DexDor (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support listify the categorised articles are not about bat roosts specifically (otherwise categories would be okay). Documenting places associated with prominent bat roosts is best done by a list, not a category – think of the large number of animal aspect categories which could cover any location. SFB 01:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify -- No view on whether it should be in one article or one per category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now created the list. DexDor (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2014 (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 British people by ethnicity[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, as there was no consensus to delete, and the "Oppose" votes apart from one were only opposing deletion. – Fayenatic London 03:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with Category:British people by ethnic or national origin parent category, Category:Fictional American people by ethnic or national origin, etc. --76.175.67.121 (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's entirely artificial, you do understand that? If ethnicity is treated a purely artificial construct that calls all the "real" ones into question. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once this goes, the others can be nominated as well. If they all get nominated in the first place, then there's more confusion and discussion over the propriety of a mass deletion vs. a trial balloon than on the real substance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I believe the combining of ethnic and national categories lead to confusion over whether the contained categories are country-based ones or ethnic-based ones. SFB 14:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Delete/Neutral on Rename Fictional people are categorized just like real ones, assuming the original work has enough detail. No opinion on rename but weighing in based on delete proposals. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per RevelationDirect. --173.51.221.112 (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Whether we are dealing with ethnic or national origin is clear in some cases, but too hard to say in others to clearly categorize. Although I do have to point out Othello is not British at all, so a poor example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2014 (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 doctors[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:Fictional physicians, noting that Category:Fictional surgeons already exists. Category:Fictional medical doctors can be a redirect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being more inclusive is better then creating more categories. --76.175.67.121 (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From my NZ English perspective there are two main groups of medical professionals: physicians and surgeons. Renaming this to just physicians would immediately exclude the surgical sub-category. Looking at the other sub-categories in the current category, there are dentists and vetinarians and Doctor Who incarnations, none of these properly belong in a physicians category.

If the primary intention of this category is collect medical practitioners, then it definitely needs renaming as characters such as Bunsen Honeydew are currently in it, which demonstrates confusion of the term "doctor" between the common word for medical practitioners and those who hold a doctoral qualification. A few characters, e.g. Dr. Watson, are both. If we go with the target in the main proposal, then something needs to be done about the members who are not medical doctors, who potentially range across the full gamut of academia. It may be that the best option for them will be to sort them to categories such as Category:Fictional scientists, Category:Fictional linguists, and Category:Fictional theologians. The current category can't stay as a redirect to either of the proposed targets as they will inevitably gather articles that don't belong. It should be salted to prevent well-meaning recreation. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest Category:Fictional medics or Category:Fictional medical practicioners or Category:Fictional medical doctors: Physician is a term more widely used in US than UK, where it would probably be understood as a specialist hospital doctor. "Doctor" is undesirable as it includes those with a Ph.D. outside medicine. In theory in UK surgeons are no longer called "doctors" when qualify as surgeons, becoming "Mr", but in modern times, only doctors can go on to qualify as surgeons, so that the issue should only arise in certain historical cases, which we can probably ignore. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Fictional medical doctors, as fictional doctors in "mad scientists" are very common in fiction (suspense, horror, etc). And other fictional doctors (non-medical) are very common in science-fiction -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2014 (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 comics 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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 09:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category. All images are already included in Category:Images from comics. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks useful to me since not every image from a comic is of a character. Several images in the top level cat could usefully be subcategorised and removed from the top level. GDallimore (Talk) 15:26, 23 October 2014 (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:Greek people from Alexandria[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: double upmerge to Category:People from Alexandria and Category:Egyptian people of Greek descent. I suggest the nominator might write an article about this community and its influence, which would belong within Category:Ethnic groups by city. The article could include a list of notable people and their roles within the community. However, we do not categorise individual biographies in this way (intersection of city and ethnic background), at least not for modern times. – Fayenatic London 09:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can tell, there is no other category structure for people by ethnic group by city, it is simply "Person from X". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, this category is meant to group the Alexandrian Greek community, which is (or rather used to be) a very distinct group, with an important role in modern Greek culture and history from the late 19th century until Nasser's nationalization policies in the fifites and sixties which drove most of them away. They are clearly distinct from Ancient Alexandrian Greeks, as well as from the bulk of the modern city's Egyptian population. It is analogous to Category:Greek people from Istanbul (which is rather underpopulated at the moment). Constantine ✍ 12:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And should also be deleted. Please show the project why this standalone category is important. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read my reply? It is a very specific and distinct group of people who have a unique identity and history, one very much different from that of the local dominant culture, meaning it is misleading to lump them together indiscriminately. "Alexandrian Greeks" is just as valid a category as "Greek people in X country" or "Greek Fooians", but because the name would connote the ancient rather than the modern period, I went with the current name. Constantine ✍ 19:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Where the history of an ethnic group has become intertwined with a city or region, it makes sense to categorise in this manner. The Greek diaspora in formerly Greek cities are a perfect example of this as the experience of being Greek from that city profoundly affects the group's history. The broader Category:Ethnic groups by city covers this idea more in-depth (and in many less-culturally relevant ways than the nominated category). Things like Category:Portuguese people of Goan descent are effectively doing the same thing in a slightly different way. SFB 19:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see what it is; but what is this supposed to be? an ethnic category or a time-based on or a nationality one? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the full descriptive form would be "Modern Alexandrian Greeks", so ethnic and time-based both. For some further context, the Greeks settled in Alexandria as part of the European colonization of Egypt, and were very much part of colonial, not mainstream Egyptian, society, which is why the community declined rapidly after the fifites. I am open as to suggestions for renaming, but the topic is worthy of a category of its own. Constantine ✍ 11:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- If there is (or was) a significant ethnic community in a city we should allow a category for it. If it is a small one, it should be merged to the national level (not deleted). If merged, it should be a double upmerge to an thenic category for Greeks in Egypt. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Upmerge to Category:Greek people from Egypt if not kept. I am not sure if just Alexandria or all Egypt is best, but to wipe out the categorization of these as Greeks in a specific place would be as bad as destroying Category:Egyptian Jews.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2014 (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:User:ThinkLordUK[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. – Fayenatic London 21:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A "user category", which are routinely deleted as an unnecessary expansion of user space into category space. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (speedy if a suitable csd# can be found). DexDor (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy-esque I don't see a speedy clause per se, but WP:SNOWBALL applies. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or speedy delete per WP:IAR per extensive, unanimous precedent. See here. VegaDark (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- speedy if possible as a misuse of category space. This seems to be about a basketball player creating an autobiographical info-box. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2014 (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:Inactive South Korean girl groups[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. We do not generally split categories according to status (such as "active", "inactive", "current" etc.). Rockysmile11 (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2014 (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:Active South Korean girl groups[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. We do not generally split categories according to status (such as "active", "inactive", "current" etc.). Rockysmile11 (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2014 (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 Westchester County, New York by town[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. – Fayenatic London 08:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant categorization. All these town categories are already categorized as 'People from Westchester County, New York' ...William 01:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um ... I don't quite understand. It's only a metacategory, meant to make it easier to look through. It shouldn't contain any articles. Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Part of several different category structures, none of which are being changed. Based on the number of people/town categories in other NY counties, other such categories could well be created as well. All to help readers navigate (get to) articles by different routes. Hmains (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary level of categorization.--TM 17:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deleting this category would leave other categories unparented. DexDor (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep apparently the county is divided into hamlets, villages, towns, etc... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the structure of municipalities and hamlets within towns in New York state, this is an appropriate level of categorization to group categories by a common defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as creator, per others here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is kind of an oddball. The other subcategories of Category:People by town in New York are not categories like this, where the towns are grouped by county. They are just individual "People from TOWN" categories. This is not part of an overall scheme, and actually causes confusion within the established ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2014 (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/2014_October_23&oldid=1138399911"