Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 3

< July 2	July 4 >

July 3[edit]

Category:King of Pop[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Currently a subcategory of Category:Michael Jackson and containing the articles Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley. This category seems to serve no real purpose. Trivialist (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial, useless. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not a proper category. We have list of honorific titles in popular music for a reason. — Σ xplicit 00:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Elvis was neither 'pop' nor does he he fit in an MJ category. Occuli (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I loved Michael as a fan but come on now, even Elvis Presley doesn't have the category King of Rock & Roll in the bottom of his list either. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 06:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly can't even begin to fathom what navigational purpose this was meant to achieve. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If there are only one or two articles, it is a pointless category. Furthermore it is POV category, unless there is an official awarding body; even then, it would be an award category, for which the usual solution would be to listify and delete.
Delete as unencyclopedical. Debresser (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-encyclopaedic. There is no kingdom called Pop, nor does it have a method backed by independent reliable sources for selecting its reigning monarchs. Orderinchaos 15:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrothaTimothy. No point having a category with only one entry either.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 22:19, 6 July 2009 (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:Music videos directed by Al Yankovic[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Music videos directed by Al Yankovic to Category:Music videos directed by "Weird Al" Yankovic

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article. ~~Alternatively delete as he's only ever directed his own videos.~~ Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom – according to his article he has directed quite a few videos other than his own, eg Rockin' the Suburbs (song). Occuli (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Rename per nom. Should have also caught this one when I nominated the one below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:19, 4 July 2009 (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:Dance Crews[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. --Xdamr^talk 21:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: We don't have an article on dance crew. All of these are already categorized in other similar, appropriate categories. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does appear that this category is synonymous with Category:Breakdancing groups. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2009 (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:Images of baseball players[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. --Xdamr^talk 21:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Had Category:Images of Major League Baseball players as a member. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want done with it? "Technical nomination" is all very well, but it's a good idea to say what you're actually expecting to happen to it (rename or delete)... I take it you mean delete, since it's now empty - in which case, surely it would be speediable given a day or two of emptiness. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A decision on deleting as empty or not. It is rather odd that this category is empty unless every related image is on commons. Category:Images of sportspeople is also rather sparse, so maybe the question is, why is this tree so empty? If there is a logical reason, then maybe the entire tree should be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2009 (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:749 earthquakes[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:749 earthquakes is probably too specific: Category:Earthquakes by century doesn't contain any other articles about earthquakes between 526 and 1138, and other than this the earliest year category I can find is Category:1700 earthquakes. I'm also nominating Category:749 natural disasters for deletion, as it would be empty if Category:749 earthquakes was deleted. The article can be recategorised in Category:749 (it's already in Category:8th-century earthquakes). snigbrook (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Category:Natural disasters by year has natural disasters for specific years but not Earthquakes for specific years (before 1600 or so). So upmerge to Category:8th-century earthquakes and Category:749 natural disasters. Occuli (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The natural disaster subcategories are century categories – other than 749 which is nominated for deletion there are no year categories before 1634. snigbrook (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, so support nom. Occuli (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete etc per nom. These by year categories for remote periods make everything harder to find. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2009 (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:Former CBS Corporation subsidiaries[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. --Xdamr^talk 21:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former CBS Corporation subsidiaries to Category:Former CBS subsidiaries

Nominator's rationale: The corporate name of CBS wasn't always CBS Corporation. FMAFan1990 (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But CBS is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rename to match title of the parent article CBS Corporation. Given name changes over the years, any name could be challenged. Using the current name with the word "corporation" only reduces potential ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just using "CBS" makes everything more simple, because the company is usually simply called CBS. FMAFan1990 (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2009 (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:Druze surnames[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. Per discussion and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_6#Category:Surnames_by_country. This deletion is entirely without prejudice to the two categories being re-created as a part of any new scheme of categorisation agreed at Category talk:Surnames or similar. --Xdamr^talk 09:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Found as emptied. Given the questions over surnames, probably needs to be listed here. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried Jumblatt and google cache but am now out of ideas for what might have been in it. Occuli (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I searched a few names from List of Druze, but didn't even get a clue. The same has happened to Category:Bedouin surnames. That one was only created on 2 June by User:Mayumashu, who also edited Category:Druze surnames at the same time. I think it is safe to suppose they were never populated. Debresser (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bedouin surnames had at least one article - this one. Given that clue I find a Druze one used to be here. Occuli (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Based on the above comments, some contents have been restored for the discussion. I'll also nominate Category:Bedouin surnames. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- recent June creation by Mayumashu. Routinely emptied during the deletion of the surnames by country, and subsequent removal of old nocat {{Surname}} parameter (ongoing). The remaining entries (one is a redirect) have no references. There's no need for a parallel "by culture" surnames category tree. Populating "by language" with reliable sources is a large enough task.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WAS, I did not create this page, but did edit it as Debresser says. At any rate, I do agree with you (WAS) though that since we ve established doing this by language, the by culture page should go. Mayumashu (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where was this established? In Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_6#Category:Surnames_by_country nothing was decided as to how to be about reorganising. Debresser (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It s been established that one way we should do this is by language, to be clear. I think, however, that doing it by culture presents largely if not entirely the same problems as doing it by country does/did, so I m in favour of what WAS suggests and only doing it by language. Most cultures have their own language (especially if you include dialects) anyway, for one. Mayumashu (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REstore -- I thought we were restoring surnames that imply a particular ethnic origin. In the Middle East, endogamous religious sects have usually become quasi-ethnicities. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Classification of surnames by culture/ethnicity is relevant, regardless of any other system of classification of surnames that may be adopted after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_6#Category:Surnames_by_country. Debresser (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Currently Tarif is the only actual surname article in either category, and only 2/3 of the people listed there are Druze. I might reconsider if there was evidence of greater numbers of distinct surnames. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Johnbod; false CAT and OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Classification of surnames by culture/ethnicity is relevant and necessary for our encyclopedia. "Delete" voters insisted last week on placing 14 thousand surnames in the same "Surnames" category, an extremist position that has damaged navigation for our users in a manner that undermines the credibiility of our encyclopedia. 24.29.238.60 (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC) — 24.29.238.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Similar edits to Badagnani (talk · contribs).[reply]

Keep Both and Repopulate Surnames used by specific ethnic and cultural groups are strong defining characteristics, for which the disruptive deletion of Category:Surnames by country has no relevance. Neither Druze nor Bedouin are countries. Alansohn (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2009 (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:600 mm gauge railways[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Appears to have been upmerged to the less precise Category:Two foot gauge railways. Actually I'm not sure about how Category:Narrow gauge railways is broken out. Seems like arbitrary subcategory names. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete. The article Narrow gauge railways includes both these gauges so they are legitimate subcategories. The main category does have gauges lumped together but that may not be entirely satisfactory for metric gauges. BTW my popup discloses that these categories are only 5 hours old - I would prefer to give the creator a chance to sort it out. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it seems reasonable to 'lump together' gauges 'around 2 foot' rather than have separate categories for every possible gauge (of which dozens are mentioned in Narrow gauge railways), and this does necessitate some arbitrariness. (Popup does allude to 5 hours but I don't know why as both were created in May 09.) Occuli (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Occuli. Why are these categories empty? Debresser (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can do the digging to see if you can find out. When I nominate these I take a quick look around to see if I can find someone who emptied them and if I do, I mention that. But this last batch was by a user running a bot so that does not help at all. As an aside, not everyone found is nominated. Some appear to be eligible for deletion and I delete those. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing keep to delete. They are legitimate subcategories but can just as easily be covered in the 'lumped' categories. I was prepared to give the creator the benefit of doubt if they were only 5 hours old, but looking at the history they were created 24 December 2008. If no work has been done since then they are redundant. (and where did May 09 come from). Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In railway gauge a 1 cm difference is very acceptable. Therefore I moved these pages to the nearest imperial equivalent. Yak52fan (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC) PS. I didn't use a bot- I just saved on typing by copying what I typed before :)[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:Songs written by Al Yankovic[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Al Yankovic to Category:Songs written by "Weird Al" Yankovic

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match "Weird Al" Yankovic and other similar categories (e.g., Category:"Weird Al" Yankovic albums). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, per Category:"Weird Al" Yankovic songs, per Category:"Weird Al" Yankovic videos but not per Category:Music videos directed by Al Yankovic. If only we had Category:"Weird Al" Yankovic to impose some consistency on the naming of these closely related categories. Occuli (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. "Weird Al" is the most common name. I support renaming the music video category as well. Jafeluv (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename / Create Category:"Weird Al" Yankovic as Parent We should absolutely rename the category to match the title of the parent article as used in other corresponding categories for Yankovic. With rather well-populated categories for songs, videos and music videos directed, a Category:"Weird Al" Yankovic as a parent would be an effective means of organizing all his works of art in a meaningful structure. Alansohn (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom and to match the other categories and lead article, which serves perfectly well as a navigational hub without re-creating the deleted eponymous category. Otto4711 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2009 (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:Australian places named from foreign wars[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. --Xdamr^talk 21:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorization of unrelated subjects by shared naming characteristic, a form of overcategorization. These places in Australia were named after battles or battle sites in foreign wars. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – all too true. Occuli (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (although I created this category)- Firstly, I'm not too happy with the name I gave it- Australian places named from military association- perhaps better.

But, this is not a coincidental or happenstance category like People named Zowalski who own zebras which the policy is against, 2 dissimilar subsets creating a category with no substance. This category (with a potential population of 50+) draws together the places named after battles and military figures from the Peninsular War to World war 2 and beyond (Australia having had no inter-nation wars of any note on its own soil), demonstrating a theme (albeit variable) of place naming over a long period, and creating a category whose articles (with their naming referenced) present a coherent substance not available elsewhere. Australian aboriginal placenames etc. do similar, i.e. extract a subset from like articles to create substantial information (Epistemos (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Delete Not a good basis for categorisation - may make a useful list though. Orderinchaos 15:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent of Category:Eponymous cities and its ilk. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of all the dumb ideas perpetuated at CfD, the blanket ban on categorisation by name is one of the dumbest. As is typical of CfD diktats, it takes a common-sense rule of thumb (Category:People with the surname Jackson and Category:Cities whose names end in a vowel are trivial intersections and should not be encouraged) and turns it into a hard and fast rule. This then allows the participants at CfD to avoid wasting precious brain cells thinking, instead allowing them to merely parrot "categories by name are bad, mmmkay". Just because some (or even most) naming categories are trivial in nature does not mean that all are and each should be considered on their merits; there is little evidence of that above. Toponymy, while much neglected here at WP, is a legitimate and interesting field of study and there are no intrinsic reasons why name categories are bad, only the prejudices of participants here. Category:Towns in Australia with names ending in -up sounds like a trivial intersection until you understand the shared derivation. This category under discussion is an interesting and relevant categorisation subject and links a series of articles that share a similar history and often more besides—as Epistemos mentions above it is the very opposite of trivial. While lists are an alternative method of presenting this information, categories have several inherent advatages over lists and I see no reason why both can't co-exist. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:People with the surname Jackson all have a name that probably comes from a "shared derivation" too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an interesting grouping of which you would not otherwise be aware. Cjc13 (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. At least two places (Birdwood, Holbrook) should not be in this category anyway, as they are named after people not "foreign wars". WWGB (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing this category as any different from many of the examples of similar previously-deleted categories. Drawing together place names derived from battles and especially military figures is no different from drawing together place names derived from United States presidents (many of whom are military figures), European kings and queens (ditto), etc. That it is an interesting grouping is a matter of debate, but interesting isn't the standard for inclusion for any Wikipedia content. A sourced list, which explains the source of the various names along with perhaps a sentence or two on why the name was chosen, would make for a solid list if not fodder for a featured list. Otto4711 (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2009 (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:Pogrom of Armenians[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pogrom of Armenians to Category:Anti-Armenian pogroms

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This pluralises "pogrom" and is re-worded to match Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms and Category:Anti-Catholic pogroms in the United States. I think the proposed wording makes it more clear that the Armenians are the victims of the, er, "pogromming". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nominator. Debresser (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per nominator. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. A much improved name for this category which I just more fully populated Hmains (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to more accurately reflect content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename Less ambiguous. Orderinchaos 15:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename removes ambiguity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2009 (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.