Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 4

< August 3	August 5 >

August 4[edit]

Category:Granite Broadcasting Corporation stations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn. Vegaswikian 18:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Single entry category that does not appear to be part of a series. Vegaswikian 22:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the other 10 Granite Broadcasting Corporation stations have articles, so it could be populated. They are in Chapter 11, i notice. Johnbod 03:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and populate. Chain ownership is notable. Hmains 17:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Defunct airlines of Faroe Islands[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. We do have a cat tree for defunct airlines, do make a shared nom if you want to change that. >Radiant< 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Defunct airlines of Faroe Islands to Category:Defunct airlines of Faroe Islands

Nominator's rationale: Rename. LeSnail 20:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry??

There seems to be some confusion with this nomination. My view is that this category should be merged into Category:Airlines of the Faroe Islands. A defunct airline was still an airline of the Faroe Islands. The total number of airlines is, in any event, far too small for more than one airline. --Bduke 00:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if kept unmerged, it will need to be renamed to add "the" before "Faroe". Grutness...wha? 01:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, all I actually meant was the rename Grutness suggested. The merger into Category:Airlines of the Faroe Islands is inappropriate since for whatever reason, we have a separate category tree for defunct airlines--see Category:Defunct airlines of Europe. Sorry about that. LeSnail 15:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename with "the", if we're still running. Johnbod 16:06, 6 August 2007 (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:Airlines of Faroe Islands[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as empty, nothing to merge and it uses the correctly named category. Vegaswikian 18:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category:Airlines of the Faroe Islands was created in place of this one. – Zntrip 20:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LeSnail 20:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and have only one categories for airlines of the Faroe Islands. This the item for discussion above. --Bduke 00:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. It is usual to include "the" when referring to the Faroe Islands in English. Perebourne 10:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:New images to be reviewed[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. >Radiant< 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is part of a plan to tag recent uploads, the creator was unaware that this already is done in an automated fashion with the Category:Images with unknown copyright status as of 4 August 2007 style system. I tagged the images appropriately, none will be orphaned or fall through the cracks if this cat is deleted. cohesion 20:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment , Intended to serve for revie of policy other than the copyright one. Possible comprmise, change category the relevant template (also being considerd for deletion) places images in? Sfan00 IMG 20:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the possible usefulness, but given what some people find the already confusing array of image copyright categories and templates, this might need renaming for clarity: "Image problems other than copyright" perhaps? DGG (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should give more detail. If new uploads are tagged in this scheme, placing them in this category before orphanbot sees them they will become out of process. Orphanbot will not see them as needing tags, and will not tag them with our already established system. In general we don't tag images as "needing review" anyone can review images, we would rather people review the already existing Category:Images with no copyright tag than tag semi-random images at upload for someone else to review. If someone feels they can't review them, it is probably best to leave them alone. - cohesion 01:13, 5 August 2007 (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:Student television stations in the United Kingdom[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. >Radiant< 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Contains three pages only, one of which is a talk page of an article. Overcategorisation. CR7 17:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A good example of accurate cross-categorisation. If this is removed, the article will need to be moved to the three parent categories, which do not need the clutter. Æthelwold 19:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The talk page should not be there, it is not an article. Category:Universities and colleges in the United Kingdom needs to be removed since this is not about a college or university. If the associated school has a category, then these articles can be included in that category. That brings us down to two articles that have, at most, two parents. Vegaswikian 19:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Category:Universities and colleges in the United Kingdom should cover the field of higher education in the United Kingdom, there is no need to restrict it to articles about the institutions themselves. Æthelwold 19:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've created a U.S. category. Around half of the U.S. student stations were not previously in Category:Television stations in the United States, or any of its subcategories, but they all are now. That shows just how valuable sharp cross categories are as a way of dealing with sloppy and incomplete categorisation. Also, I've put all the national categories in the education categories rather than the university and college category, as some of the stations are partly for high school students. Æthelwold 19:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to the category introduction, 'Articles about universities and colleges in the United Kingdom.' That does not seem to stretch to include activities at the schools. Vegaswikian 22:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles about such stations are tricky, for in general they are considered justifiable only if particularly notable--it is useful having them collected in one place when discussions arise.DGG (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2007 (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:Nasta[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. >Radiant< 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one link to a random page. Category is (in effect) empty. CR7 17:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as requested. RegRCN 20:45, 6 August 2007 (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:Wards of Barrow-in-Furness[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. >Radiant< 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - This category only had one entry, Barrow Island (England), most of the other wards in the Borough of Barrow-in-Furness are not notable enough in size to warrant articles of their own. The category could never be fully populated with articles. Surely a list would be better? Kijog 15:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wards are not notable. They do not necessarily (or even all that often) coincide with the district identities that British people actually use. Alex Middleton 13:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the category is now empty. Wards boundaries are commonly changed every few decades to reflect populations changes. I therefore do not think that wards (as such) are appropriate for encyclopaedia articles, but that should not prevent them having articles as neighbourhoods, townships, villages or on some other basis. Peterkingiron 21:26, 7 August 2007 (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:Iraq War Supporters[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, textbook example of OCAT. >Radiant< 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as people by opinion, or at least Rename to Category:Iraq War supporters. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and non-defining characteristic. Lugnuts 16:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A crude misrepresentation of complex realities. Æthelwold 19:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, people cannot be meaningfully split into categories like this. LeSnail 21:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Johnbod 00:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people by opinion, and with all the attendant difficulties: how do we know? is it current? is it unconstrained? is it someone like Saddam Hussein, who wasn't evidently in favor of unilaterally laying down his weapons but actually fighting a supporter of the war (even in self defense) as opposed to surrender? A right old mess. Carlossuarez46 05:20, 7 August 2007 (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 women artists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was merge and listify per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_4#Category:Indian_women_film_actors below. --Kbdank71 14:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Indian women artists to Category:Indian artists

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge - Don't think that there is a need to break up this category by sex. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: which is what one would expect, since I spent some time yesterday categorizing. :) However, I do have rationale. According to Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, Race and sexuality cross-categories are typically used to split larger categories--Indian artists is certainly a larger category. The category meets the requirements under which General categorization by race or sexuality is permitted: the terminology is neutral; the subcategory for country is culturally contextual & inclusion is justifiable by references. (Pretty much duplicated from the actor discussion below, but it all still seems to qualify.) --Moonriddengirl 15:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This does not break up the main artists category in fact (nor should it). It is one of the 23 subcats of Category:Indian women by occupation. Why pick on this one? Johnbod 15:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Those 23 subcats were just structured yesterday. I'm not picking on this one. I found the one 2 discussions down a few hours ago on my watchlist and just found this one the same way. I'm nominated each as I encountered it. I also left the author a note about my concerns of the others, once I discovered the entire tree. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Actually, they weren't all created yesterday. AIR, there were already nuns and female singers as subcats there. There may have been more, but that's all I specifically recall. --Moonriddengirl 15:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a useful and encyclopedic cateogry, as per that essay that Moonriddengirl mentioned. The Evil Spartan 16:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Indian artists should not be split by gender. The articles should all be in the same place. Splitting out the women places a patronising emphasis on their gender rather than their achievements. Æthelwold 19:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time, this does not split the Indian artists category, nor is it a sub-category of it. It is one of the 23 subcats of Category:Indian women by occupation. Johnbod 19:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously does split the category, and it is illogical for it not to be a subcategory of it. Perebourne 10:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Johnbod is I think correct. The categorization is useful, and will encourage he proper writing & categorization of articles about the many notable ones.DGG (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if there are many notable Indian women artists, the case for having a separate category falls apart, as it is obviously not remarkable for any particular artist to be a woman. Perebourne 10:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why the drive to eliminate gender distinctions? It shouldn't really be so hard to grasp the fact that some non-Indian Wiki readers may be interested in reading about female Indian artists. The gendering of Indian names is not entirely familiar to most non-Indians. Why should each reader be forced to look through all of the articles in a merged category in order to identify those that are women, when that job has already been done by the editors who have tagged the articles in this category?

Just because After Midnight and others don't happen to be interested in the subject doesn't negate the fact that it's both valid and useful. I just don't get the point of reducing the usability of the Wiki category system. It seems to me that noms like this are some sort of reflex, done without reflection or concern for the negative effects in terms of readers being able to access information. Cgingold 02:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - please see my comments 2 threads below this one. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Books related to Flatland[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. >Radiant< 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The scope limits this category to only four items, all of which are linked to via a tidy list in the main article, Flatland, so navigational value is reduced. Furthermore, by definition the main article cannot be included in this category, so it can't even be found in a straightforward manner. Either delete or broaden scope to something like simply "Flatland". Unint 14:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the list in the article is sufficient to link these items together. Otto4711 14:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. Most books are related to soooo many other books. LeSnail 21:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To be fair, these are either unofficial sequels or direct homages. –Unint 22:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That's true, but the name doesn't make that clear. LeSnail 15:44, 6 August 2007 (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 women film actors[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. An important factor here is that our entire category tree of actors does not subdivide by gender, as evidenced (among others) in the precedent cited by ProveIt. It is certainly true, as Cgingold suggests, that "some non-Indian Wiki readers may be interested in reading about female Indian film actors", but to facilitate that we should write an article like Women in Indian film - such an article is far more informative than having a "woman" tag on the bottom of these actor articles. And, to avert an old chestnut, changing a category into a list is not a loss of information. So let's make a list article of these actresses and merge the categories. (note: list here). >Radiant< 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Indian women film actors to Category:Indian film actors

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge - Don't think that there is a need to break up actors vs actresses. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: which is what one would expect, since I spent some time yesterday categorizing. :) However, I do have rationale. According to Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, Race and sexuality cross-categories are typically used to split larger categories--Indian actors is certainly a larger category. The category meets the requirements under which General categorization by race or sexuality is permitted: the terminology is neutral; the subcategory for country is culturally contextual & inclusion is justifiable by references. --Moonriddengirl 14:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above. Seems fine to me. Onnaghar (speak.work) 14:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, and many precedents. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is mistaken that this category 'breaks up' the actors category - it does not. All member articles I have seen are in both. The previous discussions - thanks Prove It - are interesting. In all 5 discussions the only editors !voting against such categories, usually on the grounds that they "break up" actor categories, are Prov It, Vegaswikian, Pavel Vozenilek, Mike Selinker (position not wholly clear), jc37 and Dugwiki. Persistently, other editors have asked the question why women actor categories are targeted when women scienists etc are not, and generally have not been answered, though one comment says the whole Category:Women tree should go. Three of the discussions have only 3 editors commenting. There are precedents, but I would suggest not very strong ones. Johnbod 15:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what I said above about the authors. The Evil Spartan 16:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Who is going to ensure that all the articles are double categorised permanently? No-one, because this is a wiki that relies on volunteer effort. And such checking would require an extraordinary amount of effort - visiting every article every day. No one is going to do that day after day, year after year. This could become a precedent that destroys Wikipedia's gender neutrality. There are strong precedents against it. The fact that such categories have not been created more often for the most heavily trafficked nationalities is itself a precedent. It is also category clutter. As for Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, it is only a guideline, and it should be abolished, as this sort of categorisation should never be allowed. Æthelwold 19:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There are no special obstacles to women becoming prominent as actors, so there is no reason to treat them differently from men for categorisation purposes. Perebourne 10:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And yet, as many people pointed out in the precedents cited above, they are: hence industry awards divided by sex. --Moonriddengirl 12:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and precedent. It seems users are creating too many subcategories in Category:Indian women by occupation. Most occupational categories should not be subcategorized by gender. --musicpvm 04:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why the drive to eliminate gender distinctions? It shouldn't really be so hard to grasp the fact that some non-Indian Wiki readers may be interested in reading about female Indian film actors. The gendering of Indian names is not entirely familiar to most non-Indians. Why should each reader be forced to look through all of the articles in a merged category in order to identify those that are women, when that job has already been done by the editors who have tagged the articles in this category?

Just because After Midnight and others don't happen to be interested in the subject doesn't negate the fact that it's both valid and useful. I just don't get the point of reducing the usability of the Wiki category system. It seems to me that noms like this are some sort of reflex, done without reflection or concern for the negative effects in terms of readers being able to access information. Cgingold 02:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - not that it is particularly relevant, but why do you think that I am not interested in this subject. I came to nominate this because I had these articles on my watchlist. The fact that I interpret our categorization guidelines in a manner different from you in no way minimizes my interest in this topic or these articles. It is precisely my interest, and my desire to have them categorized properly per the guidelines which led me to take this action. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Perhaps that particular inference was mistaken -- which makes it all the more puzzling that you apparently aren't concerned about the issue that I focused on in my first paragraph, namely the problems these merges would create for readers who aren't familiar with the gendering of Indian names. I'd appreciate it if you would address that issue directly. Is it possible that because you (presumably) are familiar with Indian names, that you've discounted the fact that many readers would not be, and would thus be in the dark as to who's male and who's female? Cgingold 14:23, 7 August 2007 (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:English of Nigerian descent[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. >Radiant< 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:English of Nigerian descent to Category:English people of Nigerian descent

Nominator's rationale: Rename, English what of Nigerian descent? The current name is ugly. Alex Middleton 11:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod 13:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom. Onnaghar (speak.work) 14:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename why not Category:Nigerian English people? Hmains 21:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The category should be renamed to Category:Nigerian-English people. There are no English people of Nigerian descent, since the English are an ethnic group. I know many British people of Nigerian descent, none of them would ever refer to themselves as English. This should follow the convention at Category:English people by ethnic or national origin. Crazysuit 04:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The proposed name is clear. "Nigerian-English" is an Americanisation. Perebourne 10:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the difference between A-B and B-A people is not clear enough to most people, as can be seen by many miscategorised articles in categories using this form. I would favour renaming all such categories, except the American ones where the terms are actually in common use. Johnbod 14:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and the two comments above. Alex Middleton 13:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Nigerian-English people as suggested by User:Crazysuit. It helps to take a good look at the parent cats and their contents. In this case, the other sub-cats in Category:English people by ethnic or national origin are the proper point of reference. Category:Nigerian-English people is consistent with the names of those categories. Cgingold 02:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename English, like Scottish, Welsh and Irish, is an ethnicity. The category should be British people of Nigerian descent, sicne British is a nationality that can be acquired by naturalisation. "Nigerian-English" is an ambiguous term, which could equally refer to an Englishman in Nigeria as to a Nigerian in England, at least that confusion can readily arise. I note that there are a considerable number of analogous categories. These should also be renamed. Peterkingiron 21:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All these categories are split between the home nations essentially at the insistence of a few Scottish editors. There are not many people in what "British" categories there are, and the Scots will insist on retaining theirs. Johnbod 21:52, 7 August 2007 (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:Jazz ensembles[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: not to rename. >Radiant< 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jazz ensembles to Category:Jazz music groups

Nominator's rationale: It was rather confusing playing guess-the-category for this one. The current category name doesn't conform to music genre category names, and isn't even the title of the Wikipedia article (that would be jazz band. Crystallina 07:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The suggested name doesn't conform with much either, including the parent category and normal usage in the jazz world. Alex Middleton 11:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - could we come up with a different name proposition? Onnaghar (speak.work) 14:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I'm going by the "genre music groups" form used on Category:Rock music groups, Category:Pop music groups, Category:Classical music groups, among others. Crystallina 19:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Jazz band is not the main article; it is a rather dubious stub that seems to cover a much more specific type of group. Musical ensemble is much better. The current name seems clear enough to me, and better than "groups". Johnbod 15:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Jazz ensemble" is a common term. Æthelwold 19:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: the fact is that subcategories of Category:Musical groups by genre have absolutely no consistent naming scheme. The two most common are "music groups" and "musical groups"—where the latter matches the parent subcategory, but can cause confusion with musicals—but there are numerous exceptions. We also have categories using "ensembles", "bands", "troupes", and even just plain "groups". And changing some (e.g. Category:Brass bands) would cause other forms of confusion. Also, "jazz ensembles" is used for dozens and dozens of subcategories, and I strongly oppose renaming this without including all those subcategories, but I would still need a stronger justification for renaming even the entire jazz tree. Games of "guess-the-category" can usually be avoided by simply going up the category tree to look for siblings, which would have solved nom's initial problem perfectly. Category:Rock music groups (for example) is a member of Category:Musical groups by genre, so if you know about the first, you should be able to find the second pretty easily. Xtifr _tälk 02:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Ensemble" is a better way of capturing the much more transient and non-exclusive nature of jazz groupings. It provides the flexibility to include the likes of JCOA and Brotherhood of Breath as well as regular and irregular groupings. AllyD 18:00, 6 August 2007 (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:Leporids[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: cat redir. >Radiant< 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Leporidae, to match Leporidae, duplicate, but please Keep as redirect. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom. LeSnail 21:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Leporids comon name derived from family name and in a format that matches parent category Category:Lagomorphs. --Aranae 16:38, 6 August 2007 (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:NUMB3RS[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. >Radiant< 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV series. Material is interlinked through text and navtemplate. Category not warranted. Otto4711 01:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. Overcategorisation for sure. Onnaghar (speak.work) 14:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for now, until more things might be added. But do not delete the subcategory, which is useful. The Evil Spartan 16:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 05:21, 7 August 2007 (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:Dipodoid rodents[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. >Radiant< 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Dipodidae, note Dipodoid rodents is just a redirect to Dipodidae. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out Dipodoidea is just a redirect to Jerboa. I still think this is probably the right thing to do, although I admit I'm not totally clear on the relation between Dipodoidea and Dipodidae. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit messy since the taxonomy has changed around and varies by authority. Some place everything in the family Dipodidae. Others restrict Dipodidae to the jerboas proper and elevate the jumping mice to family status (Zapodidae). Regardless, they are all in the superfamily Dipodoidea. It turns out that if you recognize Zapodidae, you would also have to put the birch mice into their own family, Sicistidae, and that's not done often. Anyway, delineating the group by either the family name (Dipodidae) or superfamily name (Dipodoidea) would both be fine. --Aranae 01:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think either merge into a category called "Dipodid rodents" or "Dipodoid rodents" would be appropriate. --Aranae 16:49, 4 August 2007 (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.