Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 21 March 23 >

March 22[edit]

Barbados cricketers[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 distrinction; one being for the team and the other for the nationality. Remove Category:Barbados cricketers from Category:Cricketers by nationality and Category:Barbadian sportspeople. I've added definitions to each category page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Barbados cricketers to Category:Barbadian cricketers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The form "Noun cricketers" is only used for international teams or where there is difficulty with the adjective (e.g., Dominica). With the exception of the adjectival problems, WI cricketers are sorted by nationality using adjectivs (e.g., Jamaican cricketers, Montserratian cricketers). This should be likewise. Grutness...wha? 21:17, 22 March 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:Watchmakers (Individuals)[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To match Category:Publishers (people) and other similar categories. — CharlotteWebb 13:16, 22 March 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:Son[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:Son (music). Kbdank71 14:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Son to Category:Son Cubano
Nominator's rationale: Rename. If kept, should be named to match Son Cubano for clarity purposes. No opinion on whether keeping a category for this style of music would be appropriate or not—I don't know enough about it to know if the category could be added to substantially or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two points: 1. Not against renaming as such, but if done would much prefer the more open Category:Son (music), and ditto for the equivalent content page (I'm going to propose a name change for the content page also). The son was indeed a Cuban invention, but is now a widespread form in the Caribbean and Americas, and so, like the bolero, the mambo, the guaracha, and so on, should not be titled Cuban/cubano.
2. But against Category:Son Cubano specifically, because it violates normal Spanish orthography, which would call for lower case: Category:Son cubano.
3. On these various grounds, I propose Category:Son (music) which avoids all problems. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:26, 22 March 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:British soap opera villains[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. — TKD::{talk} 04:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British soap opera villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think it's safe to say that there has been a long-standing consensus not to use the formulation of "villains" in category names: see here. The problem is typically that the term is POV and subjective, especially in media where there is not always a clear-cut division of "heroes" and "villains". But even in media where the division often is fairly bright line, like comics, we still usually don't use the term for categories. For a very similar category that was deleted, see Days of Our Lives villains. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I note that Category:Soap opera villains was itself deleted 2 years ago. So unless there is something dramatically (or should I say, melodramatically) different about British soap operas -- perhaps all of the characters designated as "villains" are instantly identifiable as such because they all wear villainous eye-patches or carry villainous riding crops -- I don't see any reason to make an exception for this particular category. Cgingold (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Cgingold. Plenty of soap characters are anti-heroes to some degree, but most are not one-dimensional villains. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Cgingold & precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, inherently difficult to define effectively. --Rodhullandemu 17:11, 28 March 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:Trumpet repertoire[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 (empty at close). Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Trumpet repertoire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete The nominated didn't subst here so I did that for me. My comments are is that it's an empty category that doesn't follow the naming pattern of the rest of categories for music pieces per instrument. Q T C 04:09, 22 March 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:Georgian folk instruments[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 (merge to make sure nothing is lost). Would recommend a rename to fix the "Georgian musical instruments" category; precedent on "Georgian" isn't as clear as it is with "Georgia", and we could do well with a definitive answer. Kbdank71 14:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Georgian folk instruments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Every single article in this category also appears in Category:Georgian musical instruments. Most of these "folk instruments" categories are completely redundant with "nationality" instrument categories, and offer no benefit while increasing category fragmentation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the other way, keeping all parents. Nom misses the point that his proposal would lose the instruments to the folk tree. If it is the case that all a nation's instruments can fairly be called "folk" then that should be the only category, but staying in the Instruments by nationality scheme. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't say I'm "missing the point." The Folk tree is nearly worthless, as the Nationality tree is doing about the same thing but far better. There really hasn't been any problem with non-folk instruments being put into the Nationality tree, so again Folk Instruments and Instruments By Nationality are 95% parallel and just making things complicated. I voted before to just delete the entire Folk tree, but couldn't get a full consensus on it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is more the case that "Instruments By Nationality" is "nearly worthless" - the only country with a number of genuinely individual instuments only found in one country is the USA. For example the only "German" musical instument, apparently, is the Bumbass, whose article begins:"The bumbass was a folk instrument used throughout Europe"! It would make more sense to do these by culture, or at least merge with the folk tree. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - whatever is done, these should be renamed to "Georgian (country)..." per long-standing precedent. Grutness...wha? 22:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that being advisable in circumstances where there could definitely be confusion, Cities and towns in Georgia or whatever, but given that US states don't generally have their own unique instruments I'd say it's redundant here. There are plenty of categories about Georgia (the country) that don't have "(country)" in them. Do we have some huge thread somewhere where folks came to a consensus to label "(country)" rather than just use "(US state)" and let the country be the default use of the term? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all instances of "Georgia" are slowly converting to either "...(U.S. state)" or "...(country)" for ease of disambiguity - even in cases where the need for disambiguation is a little less obvious - in this case, I'm sure fans of R&B piano or jangly guitar might argue that there are musical instruments and forms closely associated with that state...:) Grutness...wha? 23:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's true for all instances of "Georgia", but not for all instances of "Georgian". See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_10#Category:Georgian_people. The approach adopted here was to rephrase the name into "from Georgia (country)" rather than use "Georgian (country)". But as I predicted in the discussion, no effort has been made to change the other uses of "Georgian" throughout the category tree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - presumably all Fooian intruments are Fooian folk instruments - otherwise piano and guitar and drum would probably be in 200+ categories; and someone should nominate to rename the Category:Georgian musical instruments along the lines suggested by Grutness. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Georgian musical instruments. It is not correct to say that all instruments are universal. There are significantly natioanl instruments: Scottish bagpipes; Russian baliliaka (probably misspelt); Australian digorido. It is of course true that the instruments used in the western orchestra are ubiquitous in the western world. For the particular merits of the present category, I am not really qualified to speak. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:19, 27 March 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:Folk percussion instruments[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 (empty at close). Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Folk percussion instruments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Arbitrary definition (as almost all percussion instruments can be considered "folk"), and current category has zero entries, but instead has a list of items. So irregularly formatted category with no entries and unclear criteria. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:25, 22 March 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:Roadology[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Roadology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete "Roadology" appears to be a neologism, the articles should be recategorised in parent categories. —Snigbrook 00:43, 22 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_22&oldid=1074802830"