Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 3

< May 2	May 4 >

May 3[edit]

Category:Worker rights[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 all. Kbdank71 13:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Workers' rights activists and Category:Workers' rights organizations

Rationale: Although both of these formulations are commonly used, the "apostrophe - s" variant gets three times as many G-hits. It also conforms with what seems to be the preferred formulation for these types of categories. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both per nom. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename to conform with correct English rules Hmains (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename is fine with me (category creator). --Lquilter (talk) 23:11, 4 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:Name - Round 2[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: already taken care of. Kbdank71 13:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This newly created category is utterly and completely redundant with Category:Names and should be Speedy Deleted. There is nothing that needs to be merged. (I had no idea a VW could move so fast!) Cgingold (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy merge request will delete this sooner then the discussion here. So leaving that would be the fastest way to have this category deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, whatever gets it done is fine with me! Cgingold (talk) 23:13, 3 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:English debaters[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 13:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Found doing cleanup. Appears to be covered, but not listed by this discussion. Was an incomplete nominationVegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and precedent. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as specified in the precedent. Definitely should have been included in prior nom. --Gwguffey (talk) 21:22, 5 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:Fictional quarantine zones[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 13:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category has only one article in it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not needed at present, though it would be of interest if there were multiple articles. Cgingold (talk) 23:16, 3 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:The Chronicles of Narnia creatures[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 13:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category has two articles, including a list of all the creatures in Narnia, and one other article of a fictional creature from European myth, so a ceatures of Narnia category is really not necessary anymore, Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the list is already in an additional Narnia category, Monopod (creature) does not belong in the category and I have boldly redirected Pavender‎ to the list article, which contained all of the information already. Category is unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 21:30, 4 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:Name[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: Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This seems to be overly broad and a catch all category. If kept, rename to Category:Names as was suggested in the speedy nominatios where I saw this. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:09, 3 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:Fathers rights activists[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 13:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fathers rights activists to Category:Fathers' rights activists

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename for correct grammar, and consistent with other similar categories that correctly use the apostrophe. — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 17:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Rename per nom and per Category:Fathers' rights (and several articles therein). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Cgingold (talk) 23:15, 3 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:The Fast and the Furious films[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 13:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization and all articles interlinked via a template. Lugnuts (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also as small category with little or no growth potential. Otto4711 (talk) 13:13, 4 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:American Pie films[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. Wizardman 02:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization and all articles interlinked via a template. Lugnuts (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and also as small category with little or no growth potential. Otto4711 (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Six films plus a character article is enough to justify a category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have removed the character article because a character is not a film. Otto4711 (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if treated as a franchise category, it could contain characters. 70.51.9.170 (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'd support a rename to Category:American Pie (franchise).--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and precedent. --Kbdank71 14:00, 9 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:An American Tail[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. Wizardman 02:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization and all articles interlinked via a template. Lugnuts (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and also as small category with little or no growth potential. Otto4711 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Six films is enough to justify a category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CLN states that "These methods [categories, lists, templates] should not be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." Here we have a category grouping together 6 closely related articles, exactly what a category should be doing, to which the template should be added (in the spirit of complementary synergism). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. --Kbdank71 14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does an ample job for navigation and no case is made for this being an exception to precedent. Yes, six films is fine for a category, but that in and of itself is not a reason to have a category, just a reason to not delete as being too small. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:28, 9 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:Welsh Labour[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 match article. Kbdank71 14:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Welsh Labour to Category:Wales Labour Party

Rename Category:Welsh Labour Party politicians to Category:Wales Labour Party politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Organisation is called either "Welsh Labour" or the "Wales Labour Party", but main article is at Wales Labour Party. "Welsh Labour" could be ambiguous, or at least moreso than using the proposed name. "Welsh Labour Party politicians" sounds better to me — using "Welsh" as an adjective rather than "Wales" — but "Welsh Labour Party" is not one of the two names usually used. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to match main article, odd though it is as a title. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I named the category Welsh Labour as that's the parties name. As an organisation its not called the Wales Labour Party, and if you look back through the main articles history, someone moved it to an anglicanised literature version which doesn't relate to its actual organisation name. The party is officially called Llafur Cymru which translates to English as Welsh Labour and their website address is welshlabour.org. Wiki precedent is to name organisations as they name themselves, so hence - Welsh Labour. (Note: for those who make their decisions based on Ghits, its 61,700 for Welsh Labour, and 5,310 for Wales labour Party). Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good arguments for renaming the article, but this is not one of the rare cases where using different names for article and category can be justified, at least in the case of the first nominated; I'm a bit softer on the second. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained, the article was renamed by an anglo-phile to an anglicanised version of the organisations actual registered name. The article should be renamed to match the organisations real name, not the category to match the fact someone can't think that not everything is English or British orientated. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the first cat, but Keep Category:Welsh Labour Party politicians. Primarily, the persons in the cat are people who are Welsh and members of the British Labour Party, rather than being members of the Wales Labour Party/Welsh Labour Party. --Soman (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the category page says, and Peter Hain is no more Welsh than my cat. In fact there is no distinct Wales Labour Party for members to join; it is just the Labour Party in Wales. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me where its called The Labour Party in Wales? I assume using the logic of your cat, we should also rename the article and categories associated with the Scottish Labour Party? (An article and categories named after the registered organisation) I assume you and your cat are getting this "logic" from the main English based Labour Party website, who because the English think everything is either English or British call it the Labour Party in Wales? Its registered and called Welsh Labour, and has a registered address in Cardiff - that's why the category was called Welsh Labour. The article needs renaming to the registered name of the organisation. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it is called "The Labour Party in Wales". I suggest you read what I do say more carefully. This is not the place to sort out issues with the article. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 7 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.

Georgia again[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 all. Kbdank71 14:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Opera houses in Georgia to Category:Opera houses in Georgia (country)

Rename Category:Music venues in Georgia to Category:Music venues in Georgia (country)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Clarity/disambiguation for "Georgia" as place name. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 17:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

rename per nom to match all other Georgia country cats for clarity. Hmains (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Can we make this a speedy criterion, akin to abbreviation expansions? -choster (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be nice, but even abbreviation expansions aren't a speedy criteria right now unless it's an abbreviation for a country. Maybe that's what you meant. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:27, 7 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:Middle-earth food and drink[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 (although feel free to move this to Category:Middle-earth redirects, which is just categorizing a category, and doesn't need CFD to do. Kbdank71 14:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: All the articles except one in this category have been merged into a list article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please see here for my remarks supporting keeping or reorganising. In particular, these sort of categories are useful for editors to keep track of redirects and organise them by topic area, so if deletion is the result, I propose to move the category to be a subcategory of Category:Middle-earth redirects (an administrative category), thus removing it from the view of readers. This takes one edit, as opposed to the bot removing the categories from all the redirects, so could whoever closes the debate please notify me of the result. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An elegant method of categorising articles and in particular sections of articles. (I don't see that the reader is in any way disadvantaged by a variety of browsing possibilities.) The proportion of redirects seems immaterial - some may in future be fleshed out into articles. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or remove the single article and merge to Category:Middle-earth redirects. The list article serves as a repository for any information about the food items and the category serves no navigational purpose. Otto4711 (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to be a subcat of Category:Middle-earth redirects to sections per my comments here. Súrendil (talk) 16:02, 8 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:Fictional professions[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Fictional occupations. Kbdank71 14:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is supposed to be a category about fictional professions, but is instead occupied by two articles about characters, not their professions. This category is therefore empty. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's no info about any profession, fictional or otherwise, in either of these articles. I suspect the creator may have confused superpowers with professions. Cgingold (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there are articles about fictional professions, including Guild Navigator, Face Dancer and Mentat (all relating to the Dune universe, simply because that's the first place I looked). I suspect that the category could be populated; hell, technically speaking Superhero could go in there, and there may be additional candidates from amongst the lead articles of the subcats of Category:Fictional characters by occupation. But I won't weep bitter tears if this goes away either. If kept it should probably be renamed to Category:Fictional occupations which seems to be in wider use than "professions." Otto4711 (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a Category:Fictional occupations as outlined by Otto. Cgingold (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the category description needs to make it clear that the category is not for fictional military occupations, should any such articles exist. Otto4711 (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename to Category:Fictional occupations and populate as suggested by Otto. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:05, 5 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:Back to the Future locations[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 14:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This article has only one article in it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Back to the Future.--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per Lenticel. Otto4711 (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Lenticel. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:06, 5 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:Articles needing coordinates from November 2007[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 as an empty maintenance category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Emptied category in the course of doing cleanup. Sapphic (talk) 02:47, 3 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.