Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 25 April 27 >

April 26[edit]

Category:WikiProject PlayStation articles[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: relisted on may 2. Kbdank71 13:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:WikiProject PlayStation articles to Category:WikiProject PlayStation
Nominator's rationale: It is not just articles, and it will be the same as all of the other VG WikiProjects. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the category has not been tagged, nor has the project been notified that this proposal for renaming has been made (as opposed to an earlier suggestion on the project talk page that the category should be renamed). BencherliteTalk 08:07, 2 May 2008 (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:Z Fighters[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. Kbdank71 13:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Z Fighters to Category:Dragon Ball superhuman characters
Nominator's rationale: merge to Category:Dragon Ball superhuman characters, then delete, as well the redirects which link there. There is no WP:SOURCE that qualifies or asertains what a Dragon Ball character needs to be categorized as a "Z-Fighter" (what is "Z-Fighter" anyway?). This probably adapted from fan-made terminology, and there is nothing which implies Akira Toriyama or Toei Animation having anything to do with the idea of "Z-Figher". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above - unnecessary subcategory with no clear inclusion criteria. Terraxos (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2008 (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:Carrie Underwood[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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Carrie Underwood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a singer (one of my favorites too); overcategorization per WP:OCAT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Her article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both; the template is enough. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Johnbod. σмgнgσмg(talk) 02:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redundent to the template --T-rex 21:45, 30 April 2008 (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:British Rail Class 66[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, doesn't look like the articles will be deleted. Kbdank71 13:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:British Rail Class 66 to Category:British Rail diesel locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Following on from discussion of other British Rail loco categories, below. This one contains pages about the sub-types of British Rail Class 66, which are adequately linked together by {{Class 66 subclasses}}. BencherliteTalk 14:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't actually think it's needed. The sub class articles are all stubs, most of which is repeated in the main article, so are they needed? I will wait ~5 minutes for response then AfD BG7 14:35, 26 April 2008 (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:Korean astronauts[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. Kbdank71 13:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Korean astronauts to Category:South Korean astronauts
Nominator's rationale: The two astronauts in this category are South Korean. AFAIK North Korea doesn't even have a space program. PC78 (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2008 (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:Local Government Areas of Darwin[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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Local Government Areas of Darwin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is over categorization. It can only have four entries and even some of these are possibly not considered as being in Darwin. All are already in the wider parent category at Category:Local Government Areas of the Northern Territory and that is all that is needed. This category should just be deleted. Bduke (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too narrow a category (can only ever be inhabited by three or four entries). Its parent category will only ever contain 30-40 entries, and a merge is not necessary as all entries are already in both. Orderinchaos 01:08, 30 April 2008 (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:Argentine ministers[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. Kbdank71 13:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Argentine ministers to Category:Government ministers of Argentina
Nominator's rationale: Follows WP standard for government ministers. Martín (saying/doing) 09:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and to avoid confusion with "clergy" ministers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - per Good Ol'Factory --T-rex 21:46, 30 April 2008 (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:Gambrinus liga[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, main article at Gambrinus liga. Kbdank71 13:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gambrinus liga to Category:Czech Liga
Nominator's rationale: Per the Portuguese Liga case, drop the sponsor name, and more common outside Czech Republic. Matthew_hk tc 08:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if main article moved. I've come to the conclusion that sports league articles should generally use non-sponsored names. In fact, I recently moved an article I'd created from the sponsored name "UPC Telemach League" to the non-sponsored Premier A Slovenian Basketball League. — Dale Arnett (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2008 (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:Diesel Locomotives of Ireland[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 fix capitalization for now, as there seems to be a desire to rename the others to "diesel locomotives of foo". Another nomination of the others is probably in order. Kbdank71 13:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Diesel Locomotives of Ireland to Category:Irish diesel locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match form used by other categories in parent. Fix capitalization error. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment surely we can do better with this and the other sister cats. What are these 'country' categories supposed to contain? Diesel locomotives 'used in country', 'built by country' or 'museumed in country' or what? Hmains (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to Category:Diesel locomotives of Ireland only to correct capitalization. This cat name matches the article name which is about diesel locomotives 'used' in Ireland. 'Irish locomotives' would incorrectly imply they were designed or built in Ireland--which is not the case. Hmains (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of these locos, were in fact, built in Ireland, e.g. CIE 421 Class, CIE 301 Class, CIE 113 Class, CIE 401 Class. This reminds me of the recent media discussion re the critical difference between "Irish smoked salmon" & "Smoked Irish salmon" Suckindiesel (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Renaming to not match the others in the category leaves a lot of confusion. Any ideas on how to rename all of them and maybe clearup their purpose? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2008 (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:British Rail Class 57[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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British Rail Class 57 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Single entry category. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:27, 26 April 2008 (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:British Rail Class 37[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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British Rail Class 37 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: the only page in it is also up for deletion BG7 00:27, 26 April 2008 (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:Marc Chagall[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 for now until a navigational hub like a template is created. Kbdank71 13:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Marc Chagall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Chagall was a great artist, but no single artist deserves an entire category. This one is all muddled anyhow, very poorly organized. --Wassermann (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now Although a little housekeeping would make it unnecessary. Many of the categories in Category:Categories named after artists are certainly necessary, as previous discussions have shown. This is much smaller, but if it were removed there is at the moment no template, not all the articles are linked to from Marc Chagall, and the List of Chagall's artwork, which, unlike the category, really is a mess, has links to the subjects of paintings, the location of paintings, so that it is not a suitable way to find what articles there are. Johnbod (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is no justification of this eponymous category. The article for the artist serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except, as explained above, it doesn't (yet). Johnbod (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So fix the article by inserting the appropriate links instead of advocating the keeping of an unnecessary category. Otto4711 (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have prodded one of the articles, if that makes you any happier. I can't be bothered to work the others in to the article, but arguably the nom should have done so before, if he wanted my support anyway. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I can't be bothered" doesn't strike me as a particularly strong justification for the category. Otto4711 (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument for deletion will not apply until someone fixes it. Nominators of such categories are often too lazy, in my view, in checking whether the article actually does function as the famous "navigational hub" before nominating. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article is a navigational hub, because links to other relevant articles are included within it. Expecting a category to do the job of an article not only would lead to the creation of innumerable unnecessary eponymous categories but promotes laziness amongst Wikipedia editors, who should be including appropriate wikilinks in articles. Otto4711 (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before Otto4711 begins his inevitable process of creating his own definitions and his interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines, let me affirm that by any reasonable standard, of course, an article cannot be a "navigational hub". That's why we have categories. Ward3001 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And templates. But with relative few articles, and a rather short main article, I am happy that the article should be the hub, but it doesn't yet fulfill this fuunction, which the nominator should have checked before nominating. We certainly wouldn't want all the "what links here" stuff in the category - that list is available at a click of the mouse anyway. Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Ward, I certainly am sorry that your bitterness about another CFD has spilled over into this CFD, but I am afraid that your insistence that an article can't serve as a navigational hub is unsupported by Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia guidelines and common sense. Otto4711 (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'm not bitter, but I agree with Roundhouse here. An article is too disorganized to serve as a navigational hub. It's like saying a supermarket is a dinner menu. I can sometimes buy the argument for a template serving the purpose better, but not an article.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually creating a navigation template for the bottom of the Chagall article, the articles on his artworks, and the one on Rosenfeld, might create exactly the sort of "navigational hub" that would be required, and would make more sense than an eponymous category. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 27 April 2008 (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:Actors who have studied Ballet[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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Actors who have studied Ballet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete: Nominator's rationale - No indication as to why this should be something worth categorizing. Why actors? Why ballet? Sets precedent to create any "(profession) who studied (subject)" category. At minimum needs a rename to fix "Ballet" being capitalized. VegaDark (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator notified with {{subst:cfd-notify}}
  • Delete per nom. This is a textbook example of a "trivial intersection": possibly worthy of a list article (though I would need a lot of persuading on that) -- but certainly not a Category. We don't even have an intersection category for people who are full-blown "actor-dancers", and I rather doubt even that would pass muster, given how commonplace that combination is. (People who are both actors and dancers obviously belong in both categories.) Cgingold (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - since acting and ballet dancing are both stage professions, the ttransition from one to the other dies not seem particularly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this is a non-notable intersection without qualification - a single class? read a book? seduce a dancer? what constitutes studying ballet? inquiring minds want to know... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial intersection --T-rex 21:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In fact not trivial at all, but so common as not to be defining, or feasible to categorize, even if one set the bar for how extensive the studies were. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2008 (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:Burials at Fair Haven Union Cemetery[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 to save information until wider discussion can be held. Kbdank71 13:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Burials at Fair Haven Union Cemetery to Category:Burials in Connecticut
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single entry category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think. These burials in country/state cats are normally I think just for sub-cats, not articles, and the "small & unlikely to expand" criterion should be applied here. I support this tree, but I think it should be kept like that, except maybe in the case of mausoleums with their own article, currently in the Category:Mausoleums or Category:Monuments and memorials, or lists. Most of the utility of the categories rests on them containing burials from a single location. If a few more people were added, ok. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but look at (first one) James Cannon Jr "buried at Richmond, Virginia" (sic). This is not to be encouraged. None of the Virgina 3 give a cemetery. Johnbod (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the cemetery or state in which dead people are buried is not a defining characteristic of the buried people. Otto4711 (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom as the precise cemetery is known (there is also Carlos French). I must say I find this just as defining as the very vague "People from" and even vaguer ethnic/race categories - I'm hard pressed to decide where I am 'from'. It is possible to locate many people in US cemeteries using the excellent findagrave.com, which does suggest here that 2 is the max for this particular one, for the moment. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many things that the Victorians valued (the extensive use of calling cards, or imprisoning people for sodomy, for instance) that most of us no longer think are of the utmost importance. Simply because something is mentioned in a standard biography does not mean that it is a defining characteristic of the person. We do not except in fairly extraordinary circumstances (e.g. Category:Wives of Henry VIII) categorize people as spouses of others yet spouses are almost invariably mentioned in biographical articles. Many biographies mention grade school attendance but not even the most hardcore alumni proponent has to the best of my knowledge suggested establishing a grade school alumni category structure. Otto4711 (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spouses are normally caught by the "small and unlikely to expand" rule. Now, if our coverage of the females in the Saudi royal family were better .... Actually looking at Category:Saudi royal family, some "sons of" sub-cats would not be a bad idea. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point still stands that just somethign is biographical it doesn't autimatically make it categorizable. Otto4711 (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. roundhouse0 is correct. A category does not need to completely define a subject in order to be included in Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment and what is to be done with the hundreds(?) of other 'burials at foo cemetery' categories? WP editors seem to accept these cats so there is no special reason to single out this one for deletion. I assume more bodies will arrive there in the naatural course of things. Hmains (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This needs to be discussed in a much wideer context than one cemetery. I am not sure that place of burial is usually significant. The exception is the case of national cemeteries. Otherwise listifying in articles on the cemetries might be sufficient. "People from foo" is a potentially interesting (and useful) category; "burials in foo" is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yea, it may need a wider discussion. It is also more likely that the people buried are part of the notability for the cemetery and may not be be defining for the individual. I would suspect that if this was being discussed in the broader sense, there might be consensus to listify so that the burial date could be included and the information sourced. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete people aren't "burials", the wording ought to be "people buried in Foo". That said, it's not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2008 (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/2008_April_26&oldid=1136463434"