Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 24 February 26 >

February 25[edit]

Kosovo[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 culture per discussion and convention, keep media (for now), as discussion regarding convention still taking place. Kbdank71 15:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Culture of Kosovo to Category:Kosovar culture
Propose renaming Category:Media in Kosovo to Category:Kosovar media
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I wasn't sure if these were eligible for speedy so I did a full proposal. To comply with naming conventions where "Fooian Foo" are used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 25 February 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:Family songs[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. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Family songs to Category:Family (band) songs
Propose renaming Category:Family albums to Category:Family (band) albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To remove the ambiguity that these are for songs about families or family photograph albums, also to match the lead article. Otto4711 (talk) 23:04, 25 February 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:Family (band)[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. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Family (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I created it, but I now realise that it's an eponymous category without possible additions. The subcategories work fine here alone. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:50, 25 February 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:Pharmaceutical forms[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 15:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pharmaceutical forms to Category:Dosage forms
Nominator's rationale: These are more commonly called dosage forms Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 21:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed that the article Pharmaceutical form redirects to Dosage form. The redirect was created by the nominator after merging content from one to the other. I can't see in the history where a merge was discussed? Shouldn't a merge proposal have been placed on both pages before doing this? Sting au Buzz Me... 12:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not strictly necessary to discuss merges before doing them; I decided to boldly merge the content because it seemed non-controversial. No one has objected, so I don't see any problem. The discussion here is necessary because renaming categories is not as trivial as doing a merge or move on an article. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 February 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:Visitors to Oz (TV series)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge all. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Visitors to Oz (TV series) to Category:Oz (TV series) characters
Suggest merging Category:Prisoners of Oz (TV series) to Category:Oz (TV series) characters
Suggest merging Category:Staff members of Oz (TV series) to Category:Oz (TV series) characters
Nominator's rationale: Merge all - not a good idea to break down TV series characters this finely in a categorization scheme. The comprehensive navtemplate sorts them by prisoner/staffer/visitor/etc (although many of those articles should probably be merged to a list...is that ArbCom injunction still in effect?). Otto4711 (talk) 20:40, 25 February 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:Films without speaking parts for women[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. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films without speaking parts for women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Non-defining characteristic for films. What's next, "Films without speaking parts for African Americans"? "Films without speaking parts for Frenchmen"? No indication why films happening to not have a speaking role for women is worth categorizing. Would all silent films fall in to this category, as technically the women in those didn't "speak"? VegaDark (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burn with fire - ridiculous category. Otto4711 (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Now, now -- let's not be too cruel here. Though I have to admit, I'm tempted to ask, "What's next, Category:Animal fims without barking parts for dogs?" Cgingold (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per obvious overcategorisation.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. --Greggerr (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - although I do note that the films listed (well some of them anyway) consider the characteristic important enough to include in the article text. Plus it is kinda interesting - I guess I should have paid more attention to Reservoir Dogs ... who knew? 118.90.66.52 (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not necessary. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An attempt to make a category serve the function a list-type article should. An interesting idea although, as others have pointed out, far too vague and broad to be effectively implemented even in list form. The vagueness would lead to arbitrary inclusions just intended to make a point. --Lquilter (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary trivia with unnecessary sex category overtones... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as trivial. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lquilter. However, this category might be well suited to be a list or proper article (Films with single-sex casts?). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:24, 29 February 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:Characters Killed in Oz[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:Oz (TV series) characters. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Characters Killed in Oz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Upmerge - Would set precedent for a category for who was killed in every TV show if kept. Overcategorization, unneeded. VegaDark (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good call, I didn't realize that the pages had been taken out of that category, so this is an obvious upmerge candidate. VegaDark (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Per Otto4711. Clay4president2 (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Otto4711. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; also vague -- where are the wicked witches of the east/west, anyway? --Lquilter (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointlessly structured - why are only 3 characters out of the DOZENS that where killed in Oz here? If you want to do anything remotly like this, just bring back the God damn DEATH LIST (which I hasten to add should never have been deleted anyway! MJN SEIFER (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this sets a bad precedent - characters are killed off and resurrected all the time - think soap operas folks.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:43, 26 February 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:Chauvinists[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 all. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chauvinists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not a good way to categorise people, mostly used as a user category. Two sub cats Category:Chauvinism and Category:Chauvinism (crime) not yet a crime as far as I am aware although probably should be. meltBanana 19:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Chauvinists is POV and probable attack category. Similar to deleted categories for racists and homophobes, implicates WP:BLP. Chauvinism is empty (I removed a user page from it) and even if it were populated would be redundant to Category:Sexism. Chauvinism (crime) is being used to hold articles about men who allegedly committed crimes against women. Not necessary. Otto4711 (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Otto4711. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague, anyway; chauvinism doesn't necessarily mean "male chauvinism". --Lquilter (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:44, 26 February 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:Board games by theme[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 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Board games by theme to Category:Board games by genre
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match Category:Role-playing games by genre and all non-architecture subcategories of Category:Genres by medium.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My only concern is that genre is a fairly broad term. Right now board games have been broken out into two main categories, by mechanics and by theme. Genre could encapsulate both of these. Perhaps that's what is intended, but I do think that the distinction is a significant one between how the game plays and what the game is about, thematically. Could we, perhaps, keep both the theme and mechanics categories as subcategories of the Board games by genre category? -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how mechanics could be defined as a genre. Boardgamegeek, for example, categorizes game by two things: subject matter and mechanics. So Monopoly is under the Category "Negotiation" and the Mechanics "Roll-and-Move". Roll-and-Move is pretty clearly not a genre for games the way "color" is not a genre for film.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really understand what you're saying because it certainly is a genre. Genre is not just what a product is about. It includes things like technique and other aspects of design. I could talk about the auction genre or the roll-and-move genre, certainly. Here's Merriam-Webster's def: "a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content." I think it's broader than you seem to think it is. I agree that subject matter and mechanic should be separated. I simply disagree that genre is an appropriate term for that, due to it's over-arching nature. As I said, if we need to make a by genre category for the purposes of making everything look the same, that's fine, but I still think we should keep theme (or subject matter if you prefer) and mechanics as subcategories of that. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess I'd say that mechanics are the equivalent of literary technique and theme is the equivalent of literary genre.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll agree to that, but I don't think that there's an accepted use of the word "genre" in reference to board games when it comes to theme/mechanic. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Board games by type, which is something different than genre but these are types of games - some of which are overlapping, e.g. based on tv show, licensed, played at parties, and kids games could all encompass the same game - the Dora version of CandyLand comes to mind. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 18:15, 25 February 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:Civil liberties[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 both to Category:Civil rights and liberties. There is consensus to merge the two, but no consensus to what. I went with this name because of Cgingold's comment about searches and quote . Kbdank71 15:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Civil liberties to Category:Civil rights
Nominator's rationale: Merge, because the two concepts of civil liberties and civil rights are so closely-related that maintaining separate category trees for the two requires either duplication of categories or arbitrary divisions. I am aware that there are are distinctions between the two concepts, such as the "freedom from" vs. "freedom to" split, and a distinction between what concepts of "natural rights" and "legal rights" … but while those distinctions are important to lawyers and legal theorists, I think they are probably too subtle to make for a useful split in categorisation.
I am not 100% certain about the merits of this merger, and I certainly don't want to be dogmatic about it, so I will remain neutral for now and ask for comments from WikiProject Human rights and WikiProject Law. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator notified creator Cgingold with {{cfd-notify}} and placed {{cfdnotice}} at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law
  • Comment - I like putting these two together. If people feel strongly about one or the other term and there is no consensus, a combined title could work, too: "Civil liberties and civil rights" or "Civil rights and civil liberties" --Lquilter (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge According to Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition, Civil liberty is the second definition of Civil Right. Specifically, a civil liberty is a right against government interference. A Civil Right includes not only a right against interference, but in some cases, an affirmative right to do or say something. The 1st Amendment has both as demonstrated by the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. Civil Rights include Civil Liberties. The distinction lies in "important liberty interest" which is different from a "fundamental right." Free public education is an important liberty interest, but not a right under the Constitution. see San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 1 (1973). It would be beneficial to have a category that would include articles involving important liberty interests that do not enjoy strict scrutiny review, such as Category:Liberty interest. The distinction may be subtle, but it is not significant. Other important liberty interests include "personal reputation." There is some controversy over whether some issues are either a civil right or a liberty interest. Legis Nuntius (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you think we should go with "Civil liberties" as the somewhat broader of the two? --Lquilter (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to "civil rights," matching other such categories as "Human rights," etc. Sub-categories will also need to be renamed; these are (as far as I can tell):
--Eliyak T·C 21:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment so far. If 'civil rights' is used only/mainly in the US, and 'civil liberties' is more widespread/understood, then 'civil liberties' should be used. If they are different, both should be used. We have two distinct arcticles civil rights and civil liberties. Can these two articles be merged and still be correct? Hmains (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated I can't say how widespread the phrase "civil liberties" is outside the US (I haven't really encountered it outside of college classes), but the phrase "civil rights" is such a fundament in the US that I'd be loath to see it go. (It's 5:1 in favor of "rights" on Googlefight.) I would merge all civil liberties categories to their equivalent civil rights categories, and the article as well. But I suggest that from a US perspective. Can someone point to sources that use "liberties" in a modern British or other non-American English context?--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - First, I want to thank BrownHairedGirl for opening up a thoughtful discussion on this important question (and also for taking time to notify me and the two WikiProjects about the CFD). Given that Category:Civil rights could potentially end up being merged and/or renamed (as suggested by Lquilter), I've posted notice of this CFD on that page as well. I do think the distinctions between these concepts are significant, but I'm going to take some more time to research and reflect on this question before I post a substantive comment as to what should be done. However, I'm a little concerned that people seem to be jumping on the "merge" bandwagon before differing views have been fleshed out. Cgingold (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did some looking around on the internet to find distinctions between civil rights and civil liberties. What I found is that the civil rights movement accepts pretty much all the things the civil liberties advocates care about, plus sometimes reaches for more. Interestingly, all the liberties that civil liberties people mention are listed as rights: the right to speech, the right to marry, the right to be free from unwarranted seizure, etc. But the civil rights movement does frequently look for concepts like affirmative action or disability access. These are clearly not liberties spelled out in the Constitution and other documents, but they're reasonably folded into rights if they are enacted. So I'd say the desire to avoid temporary status in categorization suggests that all civil liberties that are currently defined are civil rights, and those that are sought will become rights if they're adopted. So I'd say civil rights covers it. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename as suggested by Lquilter. While there are important distinctions, on balance I believe users are better served by merging these two categories. However, I think it is useful & important to retain both terms in the name of this parent category, since both concepts will be covered. It also affords us a little more flexibility in terms of how we deal with all of the sub-categories. My proposed name for the new merged category is Category:Civil rights and liberties -- I don't think we need to repeat the word "rights" "civil" [oops]. One other thing -- there should be redirects to the new category from both of the existing categories. Cgingold (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request - Please relist this for further discussion, and to give participants an opportunity to consider my alternate proposal. Cgingold (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like this proposal -- defter than mine -- and relist would be helpful. --Lquilter (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too like this proposal, but I also agree that at this point a relisting would be appropriate, since this discussion has been open for an unusually long 8 days. I'd also like to add that while there haven't been very many contributions, it has been great to see how this has been an unusually reflective and analytical CfD, free of the partisanship into which these discussions often descend. Congrats to all involved :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge both to Category:Civil rights and civil liberties I have just been reading various Google-found articles on civil rights and civil liberties and re-reading the WP civil rights and WP civil liberties articles. As a result, I come here to propose the categories be merged to a new category named 'Civil rights and civil liberties' to be all inclusive and also to make sure that both the term 'civil rights' and the term 'civil liberties' appear in the name so that searches will pick up on either name. Hmains (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not convinced that we need a merge. While there are some similarities, are they that pronounced to merit a merge? If the argument is that they are, then why do we need two articles? I think the existence of two articles says that we need two categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Per the discussion above, I think that the differences are subtle enough to merit separate articles to consider all the different nuances ... but too subtle to make for a clear and useful classification scheme. May I suggest turning the question on its head, and asking how, if the two category trees are kept, we can make a clear distinction in the category description to allow readers and editors to determine which is appropriate for which purpose? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So we are proposing a merge because it is too difficult to use the lead articles to determine if an article belongs in one or the other of these categories or maybe even both. Something about this logic seems wrong. Subtle differences could be viewed as a good reason to keep the two categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, maybe they could be viewed that way, but in practice separate categories are workable if there is a simply explained way of distinguishing the two. If that simple distinction exists in this case, I have yet to see it. --01:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
          • Moreover, there are a number of things which arguably or reasonably fall into both categories and they would end up getting both, umm, categories. It seems to me that categories are necessarily a bit cruder than articles and lists, and BHG's rationale about combining in this instance often works well. In that instance, we can easily just catmore to both relevant articles, but we avoid a lot of fuss and muss and unnecessary redundancy and back-and-forth by simply having one category. --Lquilter (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Civil liberties and Category:Civil rights to Category:Civil rights and civil liberties per Hmains rational. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Google searches - I don't believe it's necessary to repeat the word "civil" for two reasons: 1) Searches will pick up other occurrences of the term "Civil liberties" among the sub-cats and articles, and 2) a lot of people don't bother putting quotation marks around compound search terms, so their results will be the same regardless. Cgingold (talk) 12:13, 2 March 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:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mr. Pelican Shit[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. Kbdank71 15:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mr. Pelican Shit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This sockpuppet category was created in July 2007 and currently holds only a single account. The underlying vandal or vandals have been absent from Wikipedia for quite some time; in fact, the long-term abuse page on this vandal was deleted some time ago because of inactivity. I don't see what purpose is served by keeping this category in its present state. *** Crotalus *** 12:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and per WP:DENY. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. This category is useless. Clay4president2 (talk) 22:46, 25 February 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:American operatic baritones (and 18 similar)[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, at least for now. One way to implement removal of parent categories is by using an automatically-generated list of articles that are in a set of categories. This list could then be checked (by a bot or a human editor using AWB) and any parent categories could be removed. Black Falcon (Talk) 02:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:American operatic baritones to Category:Operatic baritones
Nominator's rationale: There are 122 opera singers categories (last count) but these 19 are the only ones with triple attributes (nationality/genre/vocal range). Most of these categories have very few items, for example Zoltán Kelemen is the only listed Hungarian operatic baritone. He is also in the Hungarian baritone category, the Hungarian opera singer category. and Operatic baritone category. (The other cats listed above are similar.) This is over-categorization, hence I propose a merger of all these categories with Category:Operatic baritones. Kleinzach (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If deleted, the contents of the categories should also be upmerged to the appropriate "XXXian opera singers" and "XXXian baritones" categories. --Eliyak T·C 11:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification The contents of these categories should already be in "XXXian opera singers" and "XXXian baritones", and in most cases they are. If there are omissions, then yes, they should be put in those categories as well, but in practical terms we are talking about upmerging to Category:Operatic baritones. -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not for the first time, you agree my point but are reluctant to concede it! Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod we are not here to score points. These category problems are genuine and large-scale. I'd appreciate your help in solving them. -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might speed matters up if you did not give the impression of disagreement where there is none. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This rush (with the recent Prima donna nom) to de-categorize opera singers is odd. One problem is rightly pointed out by Eliyak above; if removed, the category must be unpmerged in three directions. That the nominator omitted this basic point does not suggest enough thought has gone in here. Most of the "Fooian baritones" categories I looked at had a large number of unsorted individuals, most of whom no doubt belong in the opera categories. These categories are the most efficient way of maintaining the structures of "XXXian opera singers" and "XXXian baritones". It does not take much time to sort a large number of articles in the parents to the correct sub-cats. It is also the easiest way of ensuring everybody is in the right cats. Since he does not apparently intend to remove any of the parent categories, these precise sub-cats are actually the most efficient way of organising them, saving articles being in multiple categories. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See my reply about the triple upmerge above. Much discussion and thought has gone into reforming the singer cats over several years, however the enormity of the problems has deterred people from doing much about it. We now have 122 categories. If you insist that triple-attributed categories should be used - throughout the vocal ranges - we will have a huge proliferation of hundreds of underpopulated categories that are of no practical use and take time to maintain (though in reality no-one will attempt it). I would ask you to re-consider the implications of keeping these anomalous cats. -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The average size of these cats is 3 items if we exclude Category:American operatic baritones as a special case. (Including the American cat the average is 4.5 items.) It would be better to use the parent cats because they are of more practical use than a vast array of over-specific, under-populated, triple-attributed cats, however I agree that removing the parent categories would be one solution to the problem. But how could it be implemented? We have over a thousand opera singer articles, not to mention the non-opera singers who also appear in the cats. -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per well-articulated arguments of Johnbod & Bencherlite. Cgingold (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I can see good arguments both for merge and keep. The triple classification does seem a bit over-categorized and is a real anomaly with the other voice range cats for opera singers. (There is Category:Operatic tenors containing all of 3 people and no sub-cats by country). But on the other hand, the triple classification is congruent with other musician cats as someone above pointed out. Unfortunately, there is an awful lot of inconsistency in the opera singer cats. We have no sub-cats for specifically 'operatic' sopranos, mezzo-sopranos, contraltos, bass-baritones, or basses, which I think would be quite useful, especially for the baritone and soprano ranges. Furthermore not all of the voice range cats even have nationality sub-cats and some, e.g. Category:Contraltos and Category:Basses have only one (Brazilian and English, respectively). Plus there are other weirdnesses e.g. a category for Korean sopranos and one for South Korean sopranos, each of which contains 1 member, both of whom are... er... South Korean. Meanwhile Category:Welsh sopranos is a sub cat of Category:British sopranos, but Category:English sopranos is a co-cat with British sopranos. Rationalizing the whole thing would an enormous job with well over a thousand opera singer articles involved and it's just not going to happen in the foreseeable future. But I'm not sure that the various country/genre/baritone cats are currently doing any harm and potentially they might be the model for way all the opera singers should be categorized in an ideal world. Voceditenore (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until Wikipedia has a keyword facility like iPhoto, also per above. --Bob (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until category intersections are worked out. --Kbdank71 16:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By 'category intersections' do you mean some kind of overall plan or schemat? -- Kleinzach (talk) 08:11, 4 March 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:Royal New Zealand Navy World War II minesweepers[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:World War II minesweepers of New Zealand. BencherliteTalk 00:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Royal New Zealand Navy World War II minesweepers to Category:Minesweepers of New Zealand
Nominator's rationale: Firstly, this over-categorizes. The Royal New Zealand Navy wasn't created until half way through WW2. So there would have to be another category for the first half of the war. Then at least two more categories - one for before WW2 and one for after. New Zealand is a tiny country. Secondly, it does not follow naming conventions where the country comes last --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, yes, this is okay. Let's move on. --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:39, 3 March 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:Marilyn Manson stage name influences[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. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Marilyn Manson stage name influences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic. –Pomte 02:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The very definition of trivial non-defining characteristic that is overcategorization. --Lquilter (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this category is arbitrarily determined by the use of stage names but by definition must be included on the article page of the names used and is a trivial characteristic not befitting the tone or content of the articles included. Make a list. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Overcategorization. Sting au Buzz Me... 03:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Trivial and bad precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The sources of the band members' pseudonyms can be mentioned in Marilyn Manson (band) instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:26, 29 February 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:2008 American Football League season by team[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. Kbdank71 15:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:2008 American Football League season by team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is no AFL in 2008, all team pages are categorized at Category:2008 National Football League season by team. HoosierStateTalk 02:07, 25 February 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:American bassoonists by genre and similar categories[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 15:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:American bassoonists by genre to Category:American bassoonists etc...
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge - Per consensus at a related recent discussion (see here) this level of intermediate categorisation is (generally) unnecessary and hinders navigation of the category structure. A list of c.220 similar categories follows (probably incomplete). I would also like opinions on whether any left-over categories of the "(nationality) (instrument) by genre" type can be upmerged on sight without a further CFD nomination (assuming, that is, that this merger nomination is successful). BencherliteTalk 01:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untagged at present; will leave a request for a bot to tag. BencherliteTalk 01:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update: message left at WP:BOTREQ, notification left at WPP:MUSIC and WP:MUSCAT. BencherliteTalk 01:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
update: DyceBot is tagging away, as my flooded watchlist reminds me that I created most of these pesky categories in the first place (though not the guidance that required them!) BencherliteTalk 20:47, 27 February 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:Cuban children[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, despite Kbdank's mild-mannered rant. If only all rants were so politely worded... BencherliteTalk 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cuban children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little growth potential. The only article in it is not about a person, but about a controversy related to the person. Also, "children" is somewhat subjective and, assuming the children survive to adulthood, non-permanent. Otto4711 (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Changed to Keep, as part of a wider scheme, per Cgingold below. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Changed to Keep per discussions below.Sting au Buzz Me... 03:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would urge my fellow editors to take another look at this category, which is one of 34 sub-cats of Category:Children by nationality -- many of which have only one or two articles. I have reworded the explanatory info in accord with the parent Category:Children, which contains hundreds of articles about individuals who became notable as children. As for the particular article in question: regardless of the title, the article is, in fact, substantially about the life of Elián González, thus it is properly placed in this category. Cgingold (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parent Category:Children suffers from built-in subjectivity as well by setting the cutoff date at 18. That is not the legal age of majority in many countries and probably reflects a US-centric bias. And again, unless the child dies as a child, they are not permanently children. Are you suggesting that adults should be categorized under a children by nationality scheme? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He answers the second point above "individuals who became notable as children." As to the first, most countries in fact have an age of majority of 18 nowadays, and for those who don't it is higher. I'm not sure in any case that people aged 20 1/2 in Ivory Coast should be described as children, even if they are under the local age of majority. Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So then yes, you are suggesting that we categorize people who have reached adulthood, whatever age that may be, as children? Jessica McClure is going to be 22 next month. Should she still be categorized as a child? She's not a child by any reasonable definition of the word. Otto4711 (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try looking at these childhood cats as representing a phase in their lives, rather like the different phases a person might pass through in terms of occupation. To pick one of the most obvious illustrations, we have many thousands of categories for people who have been political office-holders during some period of their lives -- and they're categorized as such even when they haven't held office for many years. It takes a little getting used to, but that's how we do it. We could, of course, create an entire category tree for "Former political office-holders". And if you insist, I suppose we could set up a whole new category structure along the lines of Category:Former children by nationality, etc. Then again, maybe not. :) Cgingold (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not intending for this nomination to serve as a referendum on the entire children categorization scheme, so we may be wandering a bit far afield here. To bring this back to the specific category under discussion, the point still remains that the only article populating the category is not about a Cuban child, but about a controversy that involved a Cuban child. Non-biographical articles should not be categorized in biographical category trees and in the absence of any articles that are actually biographies of Cuban children a Cuban children category is unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good argument, but as the article contains (among other stuff) a biog of the kid which is as full as could be asked, I for one will IAR this time & not change my !vote back. He is notable, but a separate biog article is unneeded. I like the "Former children..." idea :) Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there any possible need for a former children categorization scheme when there is an extensive People by nationality tree in place? Otto4711 (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was joking - hence the :) 01:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • To add to my response here, categorizing people by such biological facts as they used to be children is not equivalent to categorizing people on the basis of former occupation. Everyone, absent parthenogenesis, cloning or divine intervention, was at some point in their lives a child. If they advance past childhood then they should not be categorized as children. Otto4711 (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are categorized, not for having been children, but as having become notable whilst still children, but I don't think the name is ambiguous. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a child is not notable. Being a child absent some qualifier (like "murdered..." or "...actor") is not defining. Otto4711 (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being notable as a child very clearly is defining. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability for purposes of having an article is not in any way the same as defining for purposes of categorization; indeed, if they were the same then every article on Wikipedia would be eligible for its own category. And of course the point still stands that this is not an article about a child, but an article about a controversy that happened to involve a child. Otto4711 (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per categorization Category:Children by nationality. --Greggerr (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep per Greggerr - I think we ought to discuss eliminating all the "children" categories as temporary, non-defining, and POV, as we have deleted transitory categories like "current" this or that... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Category:Children by nationality, there are 34 nationalities listed. I can't believe in all of Wikipedia there are only enough articles to fill 34 nationality categories regarding children. So this obviously isn't a wider scheme. If necessary, move to "people by nationality" categories. At some point, this whole "wider scheme" will need to be looked at. I'd give examples of "wider schemes" that are ridiculous (but can't be deleted because it's part of a "wider scheme"!), but I'd get raked over the coals for giving an extreme example. Hell, I could give you a "wider scheme" for every category listed here at CFD. Doesn't mean we should keep them. One-article categories should be deleted, or at least upmerged. Let's start using categories as they were meant to be used. ok rant off, sorry. someone can come round and close this as keep now. --Kbdank71 16:08, 3 March 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_February_25&oldid=1166566741"