Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 5

< July 4	July 6 >

July 5[edit]

Category:Britons imprisoned abroad[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 19:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Britons imprisoned abroad to Category:British people imprisoned abroad

Nominator's rationale: Merge, "Britons" isn't used consistently in WP to refer to "British people". (Personally I would interpret the word as referring to the pre-1066 residents of Britain.) The ultimate parent is Category:British people, so I propose we should stick with that formatting. (I recently created the target category, forgetting the non-standard naming status of the existing category, which presented an opportune time to propose a renaming.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, Anglo-Saxons? I'm confused :) Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Anglo-Saxons. The people who the Angles and Saxons and Jutes killed/assimilated with when they invaded. See Britons (historic). When I said pre-1066, I should have said pre-pre-1066; more like pre-5th century or so — the guys who lived there in Roman times. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom (although there is a tendency for the British tabloid press to refer to Britons of 2008 – even the BBC, regrettably, eg today). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 23:07, 5 July 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:Knights of the Order of Smile[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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Listify and delete as overcategorization by award. The Order of the Smile is hardly defining for Nelson Mandela, J. K. Rowling, Anne, Princess Royal or Steven Speilberg to name but four recipients. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a trivial award which junks up bios by over-categorizing. Majoreditor (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly without listifying. This appears to be a trivial award, and quite possibly not sought by those awarded it. Do those given the award routinely turn up at awards ceremonies? Furhtermore, I suspect that the only source is the organisation's own website, which means that there are no independent sources, and makes it close to inappropriate self-citation. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)¿[reply]
Delete This is non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 8 July 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 by location[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 Category:Films by location to Category:Films by geographic setting. - jc37 08:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Films by location to Category:Films by setting

Nominator's rationale: Merge Both categories serve the same purpose.Wulf Isebrand (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mild oppose - Films by location is gathering cats at the national or continental level, while Films by setting, despite containing a couple of nation-level subcats, seems more about pulling together films set in a particular place, like "on an airplane" or "in prison." Otto4711 (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but rename to something else. If these are the same category, subcategories like Prison films will be buried among countries and cities. If folks are interested in populating this, it should be a subcategory of Category:Films by setting, maybe subcategorized further to allow categories by continent, country, etc. However, the current name does not indicate clearly whether it should contain subcategories for films set there or shot there (note that Category:Films shot in Jamaica is in there now). -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. We also have a Category:Films by shooting location, so Category:Films by location should be renamed to make clear the difference between those two and become a subcat of Category:Films by setting. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like Films by geographic setting? -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this naming proposal. But maybe we could even keep Category:Films by location as a parent cat of Category:Films by geographical setting and Category:Films by shooting location? --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films by genre? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense for Category:Prison films, though I tend to think of genre as stuff like horror or mystery rather than set on a plane or set in the desert. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I change my initial merging proposal to keep and create Category:Films by geographical setting as a subcat of both Category:Films by location and Category:Films by setting. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 22:58, 12 July 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:Games sold on Steam[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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Has already been discussed and deleted CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- If so, when and were? Please cite the CFD discussion that you refer to. My impression (while knowing nothing of the subject) is that this is a well populated category, which suggests a Keep, but I am not qualified to say more than that the reasons ciurrently given are inadequate for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See that link next to Nominator's rationale:.....Bingo! CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material, otherwise delete as trivial. How well-populated a category may be is irrelevant if the basis of categorization is invalid. Otto4711 (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as Steam has so many games on it nowadays, this category could be comparable to one on "Games sold from Amazon.com" — ie, very large, unorganised and generally rather useless. Release on Steam should be mentioned in the relevant games articles, but I can't see a good reason for a category. -- Sabre (talk) 10:43, 8 July 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:Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon Census Area, Alaska[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 19:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon Census Area, Alaska to Category:Hoonah-Angoon Census Area, Alaska

Nominator's rationale: Skagway became a borough last year and broke away from the former Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon Census Area. The Census Area has been renamed to Hoonah-Angoon. These changes have been confirmed in the GNIS Database. --Polaron | Talk 12:58, 5 July 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:Irish-Italian-Americans[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. Kbdank71 19:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization - triple intersection, too narrow and would set a bad precedent (imagine the category clutter if all possible triple intersections were categorized - look at Vince Vaughn for the possibilities - Canadian, English, German, Irish, Italian and Lebanese descent, it is said, so where would you stop with the triple etc intersections?) Bencherlite ^Talk 11:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Irish Americans and Category:Italian Americans. The nom as usual makes perfect sense. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This triple intersection cannot be retained. Is not the descendant of an Irons American and an Italian American not just "American" according to the melting pot principle? I do not really know: I am English. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as per Roundhouse Mayumashu (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom, and per precedent. Postdlf (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And now I find out why this seemed familiar: I had listed it for deletion close to three years ago. See prior CFD for this category. Postdlf (talk) 04:08, 7 July 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.

Anglican suffragan bishops[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 for consistency, no consensus on upmerge. Kbdank71 13:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in the Province of Canterbury and Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in the Province of York have a mixture of names for sub-categories - "in Foo", "in the Diocese of Foo", "in Foo Diocese", "in Foo diocese". Following this CfD, I propose renaming/merging the following categories to "Anglican suffragan bishops in the Diocese of Foo", for consistency:

~~Will finish tagging later.~~ Tagged, and (per roundhouse0's prompting), WikiProject notified. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging into Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in the Province of Canterbury or Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in the Province of York as appropriate. Each diocese has one diocesan bishop and a very few suffragans, so that the diocesan categories will be very small, in some cases with just one subcategory e.g. Bishop of Dudley is (I think) the only suffragan in Worcester dicoese (which is not yet nominated). As a further navigation aid, a list of suffragan "sees" with their parent dioceses might be useful (if it does not exist). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would expect some actual people could be added (eg John Gibbs (Bishop) was a Bishop of Bradwell, in Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in the Diocese of Chelmsford). I am supposing that a Suffragan Bishop is not notable per se but many will go on to become bishops (who are notable per se). Have the Anglican wikiproject been alerted to this cfd? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bishops of Stepney and hence Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in London is not small. There is {{Anglican hierarchy in the United Kingdom and Ireland}} which gives the info. My feeling is that most of these categories will be populated eventually, unless there is something unusual about Stepney. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that individual biographies should be categorised under the particular appointments held, not under a dicocesan or provincial category. This means that these small categories have noroom for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my view is that a (container) category with well-populated subcats is not small. The question is whether it is useful to collect Category:Bishops of Knaresborough under Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in Ripon and Leeds (as it is) or to upmerge. There is useful info implicit in the present structure, so I incline towards supporting the nom. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to upmerging, I have no strong opinions but would note, for the benefit of the closing admin, that (1) the categories already named "Diocese of Foo" are not listed above and would need to be included; (2) as well as checking whether York or Canterbury was the correct upmerge target, some categories would need further upmerges e.g. the London category is also a sub-cat of Category:Bishops of London. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Diocese of X" sounds a reasonable formulation, like the "Xs of Country/Territory/etc" elsewhere. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still support my upmerge suggestion. The classification of suffragans by diocese is (I am sure) done in an article somewhere. However, if the present categories are retained they should be renamed as nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:23, 5 July 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:Dynamo Moscow footballers[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 18:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dynamo Moscow footballers to Category:FC Dynamo Moscow players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. WP:FOOTY uses clear guideline for categories of football players. If the name of the club is distnict only to a football club, "players" from should be used. Dynamo Moscow is a multi-sport club but FC Dynamo Moscow is its football section. In the same manner we have Category:HC Dynamo Moscow players for ice hockey players. Renaming is therefore a logical step in further standardizing our WP:FOOTY stuff. Darwinek (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Categories should match main article titles. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per general association football naming consensus. --Jimbo^[online] 15:06, 11 July 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:Navbox (navigational) templates[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 (keep), though Jc37's proposal seems reasonable, and there is nothing to stop him or someone else from reorganizing the category as he proproses. After it is reorganized, there would probably be a consensus to rename. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Navbox (navigational) templates to Category:Navigation templates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name of this category is not obvious (unlikely for a reader to type) and different from what all other wikis have. Yecril (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about Navigational (navbox) templates? I reckon the term "navbox" should be included, like "infobox" and other "..box" labels elsewhere. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both Navbox templates and Navigation templates would do. Navigational is a monster word; Navigative or Navigatory sound much nicer to me. Note that Navbox is not included in sister projects. Having both is an overkill; names should be simple, without embedded explanations or comments. --Yecril (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could use "Navigation templates" and "Navbox templates" and a few other plausible variations using {{category redirect}}s. This would help people who create a new template but don't know how it should be categorized, as the first approach would likely be to make an educated guess rather than navigate the entire tree. — CharlotteWebb 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds a good idea. If so, I guess Yecril's suggested "Navigation templates" is the name to which the others redirect. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are quite a few navigation templates which may or may not be considered navboxes (infoboxes, might be a good example). I think we might be better served by a slight ReOrg. Have Category:Wikipedia navigation templates as the parent cat, and then have Category:Wikipedia navbox templates as a "child" cat. And sort the current category into each as appropriate. It's clearer, cleaner, and aids navigation : ) - jc37 07:52, 9 July 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:Escapees from Afghanistani detention[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 19:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Escapees from Afghanistani detention to Category:Escapees from Afghan detention

Nominator's rationale: Rename. At least as far as the adjective for people goes, "Afghan" has been decided to be preferred over "Afghanistani" or "Afghani" in previous CFDs here, here, here, here, here, and here. None of these specifically address the adjective used to refer to something "of the" government or state as opposed to people, but for consistency's sake "Afghan" would be preferrable in this context. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The single article is about an "Escape", not "Escapees". The category is not worth keeping for this. Johnbod (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (nom) : I'm fine with a delete too based on Johnbod's reason. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 5 July 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:South Korean films by decade[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: speedy delete, empty. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: All decade articles were redirected to List of South Korean films per this AfD. Category now serves no purpose. PC78 (talk) 00:43, 5 July 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.