Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 25 May 27 >

May 26[edit]

Category:British people of Bengali descent[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. Kbdank71 12:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British people of Bengali descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There already is a category of Bangladeshi and Indians, this category is not required, excess category. 90.211.220.85 (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary and useless racial/ethnic category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- apparently another name for an ethnic group that crosses international boundaries, even though they also have a country of their own.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, an expert view! A read of Partition of India might be in order. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - along the lines of Category:British people of Tamil descent. A prominent ethnic group that crosses international boundaries Mayumashu (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - those included in the category are already included either in Bangladeshi and Indian, not needed DinajGao (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Highly notable and prominent ethnic group. Badagnani (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Indian and Bangladeshi available, not required viewing it is a diaspora category Bangali71 (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Bangladesh is not the Bengali homeland— such an entity would encompass West Bengal after all. Considering there are a lot more Bengalis than Scots in the world, this is probably not the branch of Category:People of British descent to begin trimming ethnic categories ;-). -choster (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All British Bangladeshis have been inserted in this category again, the British Indian-Bengalis only make small numbers (about 14), the Category:Bengali people can be added to those Indian Bengalis. HaireDunya (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep in order to oppose the censorship and rampant deletion of these valid and factual categories related to ethnicity/race. --Wassermann (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly defining. The Bangladeshi cat should be a sub-cat of this (as it is), but people should not be in both, once it is kept. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but it may need some sorting. It should contain Bengalis living before partition. People of West Bengali descent might possibly gave a separate category. However it is only certain Indian states from which there has been large scale immigration to Britain. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 31 May 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:Fictional artifacts[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. The articles that are not already in Fictional objects or one of its subcats can be added there as desired. Kbdank71 20:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional artifacts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Hard to distinguish what an artifact is, especially since the Wikipedia article on artifacts was redirected somewhere else. There are magical items and lists of items/objects that are categorized as "Fictional objects", and some others as "Fictional artifacts". Most of the articles in this category are weapons and books from Marvel and DC comics, thus they should be categorized as Fictional weapons/books/objects in comics. --LoЯd ۞pεth 17:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few things...
    • "Artifact" does have a pair of relevant, clear definitions:
      • Artifact (archaeology) - constructs that survive from one civilization to another; and
      • Magic item where Artifact (fantasy) redirects - The narrow focus in that article, Magic item#Artifacts would be an object of great power and/or a mystic construct that fits the mundane term. The implied focus since the term redirects to the full article is any item having magical properties.
    • "Artifact" isn't an exclusive classification but it is more specific than "object". So yes, an object in a work of fiction can be both a weapon and an artifact, or a jewel and an artifact, and so on.
- J Greb (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then all lists of magical objects/items as well as others like Flying carpet currently categorized in Fictional objects must be categorized under Fictional artifacts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Fictional magical items, maybe? Failing that, delete. Robofish (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Upmerge to Category:Fictional objects, or possibly rename to Category:Specific fictional artifacts, as most in the main cat are generic. Given many other sub-cats (balls, jewels etc) are also artifacts, this will not do as a distinguishing term. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most of these are objects from either Marvel or DC comics and thus already categorized under Category:Fictional objects. No need to merge to the parent when the objects are already in a specific sub-category. Otto4711 (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not quite sure I follow that logic. It seems to read as "Since the articles are already in sibling categories, this category is redundant and deletable even though it and the sibs are not covering the same subsections of the parent." Or is it "If found that the discrete grouping is unneeded/improper, then..."? - J Greb (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And there is still vagueness in the category, that's why Artifact in fantasy has been merged into Magic item. Artifacts in archaeology are different, and it seems that most of the objects in the "Fictional artifacts" category have little to do with archaeological artifacts. What is the inclusion criteria then?? Power of the object?? Its uniqueness?? That it is magical?? --LoЯd ۞pεth 03:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This should probably only be a parent category: contensts should be distributed to more appropriate categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was under the impression that the parent category is Fictional objects and the more appropiate categories are the already existing "DC/Marvel Comics objects". --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I find the delete opinions convincing. The upmerge would clearly double list many of these in one category tree. While a delete may cause problems for categorization of some articles, I'm not convinced that the problems rise to the point that we need to do an upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 3 June 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:Power stations in the Philippines[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 12:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Power stations in the Philippines to Category:Power plants in the Philippines
Category:Nuclear power stations in the Philippines to Category:Nuclear power plants in the Philippines
Category:Hydroelectric power stations in the Philippines to Category:Hydroelectric power plants in the Philippines
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was renamed to its present name because of this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 7#Category:Hydroelectric_power_plants_by_country. If there was an exception given for the United States, then the same exception should be given to the Philippines which is an Anglophone country patterned after American English. We use the term "power plants" overwhelmingly here. seav (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As evidence, check out the following Google News searches in the Philippines "power station" location:philippines vs. "power plant" location:philippines. --seav (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the same reason that the US was not changed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - US English would me most likely the Filipino standard, due to the two countries' long association. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support US usage must be appropriate for this former US possession. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:14, 31 May 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:Film awards for best screenplay[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:Screenwriting awards for film. The consensus here is definite that it should be moved, and this seems to be the one that would be acceptable to most of the editors. --Aervanath (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Film awards for best screenplay to Category:Film writing awards
Nominator's rationale: I apologize for CfRing this a second time: but I realize I made a key mistake by not doing away with the superlative "best." It's something we've done in all other renames -- with the exception of the just renamed Award for best film, where you really can't avoid it -- since, as previously noted, not all awards are for "best" screenplay. Some could even be for best screenwriter, rather than screenplay. Anyway, I believe this new proposal also has the benefit of fitting in with the recently renamed Category:Film directing awards and Category:Film editing awards. It could also become the model for Category:Television writing awards, if successful. The reason I'm not proposing simply Screenwriting awards is, of course, the need to distinguish from TV work. And Film screenwriting awards sounded repetitive, at least to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't like the use of parentheticals unless there is no other reasonable option. If "screenwriting" is preferred, then "Awards for film screenwriting" or "Screenwriting awards for film" and the corresponding construction for television would work. Otto4711 (talk) 04:17, 4 June 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:Shows broadcast by Teletoon[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. Someone with the knowledge will need to remove the non-original programs from the new category. Kbdank71 14:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Shows broadcast by Teletoon to Category:Teletoon original programs
Nominator's rationale: Rename and restrict - categorizing TV series on the basis of the stations to which they are syndicated is per a number of precedents overcategorization because the same program can be syndicated to any number of stations, which would lead to enormous category clutter. This should be renamed and restricted to those shows which are original to Teletoon. Otto4711 (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That will make the category bare or less filled. We could follow the list of shows broadcast by Food Network Canada to have all shows broadcast by Teletoon. Mr. C.C.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or listify - this sort of category has been established to be overcategorisation. Robofish (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the category to just original programs, but listify the other articles in the category. Mr. C.C. (talk) 04:58, 2 June 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:Drugboxes missing ATC code[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:Drugboxes with an unspecified ATC code. Kbdank71 13:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Drugboxes missing ATC code to Category:Drugboxes missing ATC codes
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proposed name is gramatically more correct. I propose the plural form ("ATC codes") to reflect that drugs can be assigned more that one ATC code. An alternative would be Category:Drugboxes missing an ATC code because all drug articles with at least one ATC code in their drugbox are automatically removed from this category. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Drugboxes with an unspecified ATC code would be fine with me. I don't have strong feeling about this name, so if someone has another idea, I am certainly open to it. Thanks again ἀνυπόδητος. ---kilbad (talk) 20:03, 26 May 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:Drugs not assigned ATC code[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:Drugs not assigned an ATC code, no consensus on whether or not to expand the abbreviation. (Yes, I know that is SOP standard operating procedure, but Anatomical Theraputiwhatever etc etc, is a very long expansion. One click will tell you what it stands for.) Kbdank71 13:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Drugs not assigned ATC code to Category:Drugs not assigned ATC codes
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proposed name is gramatically more correct. Also, it makes clear that drugs can be assigned more than one ATC code. see below ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:45, 26 May 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:Soviet World War II divisions[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. Kbdank71 13:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Soviet World War II divisions to Category:Infantry divisions of the Soviet Union in World War II
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This change would bring the name into line with the standard WPMILHIST convention, harmonise the category with the partner Russian category, and mean that all the infantry divisions, the vast majority, did not need to be moved to a new category. Buckshot06(prof) 16:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose The current name matches most of its siblings in Category:Divisions of World War II; no reason to make this different. If there are non-infantry Soviet divisions from World War II, they need to be added to this category to make it complete. Hmains (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to maintain the consistent format of Fooian World War II divisions in the parent category. Alansohn (talk) 02:20, 27 May 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.

British Secretaries of State[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 Cat:British Secretaries of State for Foo, no upmerge. Kbdank71 13:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging:
Nominator's rationale: I started this nomination thinking that I would make no firm I make no recommendation, and that the purpose of this nomination is to ask whether categorisation-by-ministry is actually a good idea in these cases ... but the more I look at it the more I think these categories are a Bad ThingTM; . I am not persuaded that they are anywhere as useful for navigation as they might appear, and I worry that a growth in the number of these categories will lead to category clutter in the articles on politicians, who always seem to be at risk of proliferating categories.
For navigation, I think that the categories are un-necessary. There are already lists of these office-holders, as well as (in most cases) succession boxes on the biographical articles.
One perceived benefit may be the possibility of international groupings of particular ministers, such as Category:Environment ministers and Category:Education ministers. However, both of those categories are flawed, because they make sense only if one govt department retains responsibility for that area, which is no longer the case.
All of these posts in the three nominated categories are now defunct, their responsibilities having gone on a merry-go-round through shifting departments. The environmental responsibilities moved from Secretary of State for the Environment to Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and then Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and then part of the environmnetal brief was split off to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. (The local govt part of the old Secretary of State for the Environment's job has taken a similiar path)
In the last two decades, there has been an acceleration of the long-standing process of restructuring ministries. The old department of employment dealt with workplace regulation, labour exchanges/unemployment, and training, but the dept has been abolished and those functions now all belong in to separate cabinet ministers. Similarly education has been split between the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills
Even when a British government departments continues to exist, as various directorates or lower-level units are moved to other departments; broadcasting, for example, was part of the Home Office until the mid-1990s, then went to the Department of National Heritage, which became the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. If we really set about categorising ministers by their responsibilities, we will end up with an almighty kaleidescope of categories, with each department multiply parented. If we don't do that, we end up with dead ends, like Category:Secretaries of State for the Environment (UK) which includes no UK environment ministers since 1997, just the point at which the environmnet began to move up the scale of priorities.
Most cabinet ministers also serve in several post during their careers (look at the succession boxes for Michael Howard, Michael Heseltine, et al) and if we categorise by post we will generate huge category clutter. Much better to just categorise by rank, which wil;l leave one category for politicians who reach Sec-of-state level. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination seems to have stalled, so I'll make a comment if I may... I'd point out that these are also sub-categories of Category:Education ministers, so it's actually categorisation by ministry and nationality, which seems a sensible method. If not, then a double-upmerger would be required, and the rest of the structure would be need looking at. BencherliteTalk 10:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any upmerge -- I see no objection to renaming the present categories by inserting the word "British" and removing "UK". Education has been combined with various other roles in recent times, but I would suggest that this be retained, holders of the Education portfolio having this category, even though it is only part of their role. The employment portfolio also has had a long history. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose upmerge although likewise support rename, for reasons very similar to Peter's. It doesn't actually matter that the position and department are occasionally called additional things - we have the same situation here in Australia. Orderinchaos 03:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any upmerge but support rename to the form "British Sec of St for ..." (as I said before). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:18, 31 May 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:Brothel-keepers[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 13:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Brothel-keepers to Category:Brothel owners
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The introduction has to explain that this is for people that own brothels so why not use a name that reflects the criteria that is used to determine who should be included? The only subcategory of significance is Category:American brothel-keepers. In the US being called an owner is more common, at least in current usage. If this rename looks like it will gain consensus, I'll nominate all of the sub categories for upmerge to the parent, with the possible exception of the American one would would need a rename, maybe to Category:Owners of brothels in the United States. I'm not sure that classification by nationality is right in this case since it appears that these categories are based on where the brothel is located rather then the nationality of the owner. If so, the name of those subcategories is not correct and the American one would need to be upmerged also. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Weak, since my main concern is the poor excuse of WP:IDONTKNOWIT - I've rarely heard the term "brothel owner" used, whereas the term "brothel-keeper" is a very common one. Neither of these terms has its own article (Brothel-keeper is a redirect to pimp; Brothel owner is a redlink). It seems that there are 109 WP articles with the phrase "brothel owner", and 156 with either "brothel keeper" or "brothel-keeper". I suspect that this may be a US/UK English thing, either that or that both terms are used, but in either different places or with slight nuances of meaning. Grutness...wha? 22:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conversely if you check with google, "brothel-keeper" with or without the dash returns 28,000 hits and "brothel owner" returns 121,000 hits. So clearly one is more common. Also the presence of Category:Brothel-keepers is by its very nature going to bias the results in favor of that usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also brothel only uses 'brothel owner'. The only use of keeper there is the phrase prostitutes are bought and sold by their keepers. That makes it sound like the keeper terminology is more associated with an owner of prostitutes than an owner of brothels. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree seems the more correct name. Debresser (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for consistency. Neither is incorrect, but we seem to be following American usage in some important places (e.g. brothel, Category:pimps and madams) so we should probably be consistent. -- Avenue (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support keeper is surely archaic or a term of art? Would proprietor be better though? As we are not interested in whoowns the building, but the business, if one may call it that. Rich Farmbrough, 14:14, 29 May 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:Wikipedia deletion[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: relisted on june 3. Kbdank71 13:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia deletion to Category:Wikipedia deletion discussion (singular)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match its list article Wikipedia:Deletion discussions (plural). Distinguish from its more recent subcategory Category:Wikipedia deletion policies.
Although it's not obvious from the name, this includes merging and renaming, too. Should a more cumbersome name be adopted for the literalistas among us? (That hasn't happened for AfD or TfD.)
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:51, 26 May 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:Redirects for deletion[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:Redirects for discussion. Kbdank71 13:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Redirects for deletion to Category:Redirects for discussion (or Category:Wikipedia redirects for discussion)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The process has been renamed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:30, 26 May 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:Pages for deletion[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:Pages for discussion. Kbdank71 13:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pages for deletion to Category:Pages for discussion (or Category:Wikipedia pages for discussion)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Back in 2006, we kept this category to hold the deletion discussion subcategories. Over time, several of those subcategories have been renamed to "discussion".
Recently, an obstreperous Debresser (talk · contribs) removed all the subcategories, sometimes with an edit summary of "(obvious mistake in tree)". Obviously, we deliberately decided by consensus to keep this as an umbrella category for the others, so it wasn't a mistake! Repopulating.
Hopefully, a minor name change will prevent this overly literal silliness in the future.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:27, 26 May 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:Street Fighter techniques[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: Administrative close: speedily deleted by another user. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Street Fighter techniques (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per discussion here, this category should be speedily deleted as empty with no real possibility of being populated. I just can't figure out how to do a speedy nomination, (sorry). —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 10:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I tried to think of a more unencyclopedic category than Category:Street Fighter techniques. And couldn't. – PasswordUsername (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete — not likely to be populated. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree category will not be populated. Such specific gameplay elements are unlikely to achieve the notability required to have a separate page on Wikipedia. Even if a few do, I don't think the number would justify a separate category. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Speedied. Consensus seems clear, but if anyone wants me to re-create the cat, let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 27 May 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:Number-one singles in Australia[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, defaulting to keep. A new nomination might result in delete if the category was listified prior to nomination.--Aervanath (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Number-one singles in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per reasons stated in CFDs on July 15, 2006, and May 12, 2009, number-one singles categories are much better off as lists, just as albums are. Lists for most of these already exist and in many in excellent detail. This is more of a consistency issue than anything as there is no need for one set of categories to exist and not the other (i.e songs and albums). Lists, in these cases, are much more useful than categories per previous discussions.
  • Deletion is being proposed for all Number-one singles in country categories and their sub-categories, except the useful categorization of "Lists of number-one songs by country".
Wolfer68 (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - Only the Australian one was tagged, so any attempt to make a "general case" from this nomination for all articles in this category is invalid as the instructions at CFD "Procedure - II" have not been followed. Orderinchaos 02:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - Since only the Australian one was tagged, any attempt to make a "specific case" that Australia is unique or should await bulk nomination of all such categories is invalid. The decision should be on its merits, not by gaming the system.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very simple actually. None of the other ones were tagged. Therefore those who deal with the others would have no way of knowing this CfD is taking place or participating in it. In effect, it is a reasonable expectation (although has not always been the practice) to have an informed discussion with relevant stakeholders. To not want to have that discussion is to not want informed decision making or transparent decisions, which goes against the core principles on which Wikipedia is founded. I found about this one because of the tag, although tagging alone is not always sufficient to notify interested participants as not everyone will have it watchlisted or, like me in this case, accidentally happen upon it while looking up something unrelated (I was trying to fix some tags in my music collection, actually.) Orderinchaos 15:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't make specious assertions without references to actual policy and guidelines. The watchlist defines the stakeholders. Tagging is the only method of notification required.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles were not tagged, so I fail to see your point. Orderinchaos 03:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good argument to why none of the others should be deleted, but not why this one in particular cannot run its course. --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never argued this one shouldn't - it was validly set up and tagged. Orderinchaos 10:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, I think that the Billboard ones should at least be kept, as Billboard has a huge number of genre charts, unlike most other countries. Also, I know that there is no corresponding list for the AC number-ones. In addition, categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one case where the lower category is not redundant to the higher category. I'm not sure about the consistency argument raised by Ten Pound Hammer as there seem to be a fair few "Number-one singles in..." categories, but I'm not opposed to the rename as it is technically more correct (there was for quite a long time two music reporters in Australia, the Kent Music Report / AMR and ARIA.) Orderinchaos 03:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, then they should be split like the Canadian ones. Kent Music Report number-one singles and ARIA Singles Chart number-one singles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least it should be easy. All of those after 26 June 1988 are ARIA, all of those before are Kent Music Report (while they coexisted for 15 years thereafter, there was relatively little difference between them - theoretically possible to have a KMR/AMR #1 which wasn't an ARIA #1, but it was rare and probably not notable when it did). I just looked at the contents of the category. How to determine which songs are which years though... I mean I could recognise a bunch on sight but that probably won't help the bot owner :P Orderinchaos 03:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I might generate a list of 1988-2002 (which I have the figures for) and dump it in my userspace. Orderinchaos 04:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC) After extensive source consultation I now have these two lists. Hope this is of use. Orderinchaos 06:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I still think "number-one albums" and "number-one singles" should be treated consistently. Either categorize them both by country in a similar manner or don't categorize any of them. It suggests more importance being given to songs over albums. Please read the reasons for the deletion of the number-one albums CFDs linked above. --Wolfer68 (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day that actually reflects an industry and public view. After all we don't remember when the Bodyguard soundtrack hit number 1 but everyone remembers when I Will Always Love You did so on the singles chart in their part of the world. That being said the two reports as noted covered both singles and albums, so a similar split could be attempted with the albums at the same date (26 June 1988) from the same sources. Orderinchaos 06:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the material is of use, it should already be in the articles for the single. I don't believe that you can make a case that it is defining for a song to be notable for each and every list it tops. Maybe for the list that established it as a hit, but then that is POV. Then you have the issue of the validity of each list. Are rigid criteria used? All in all, much better to included this information in the article. Also, a mention in an article is not sufficient to include it in a category. How many of these categories are populated from a mention in a list in the article? How many more categories will be created for this reason? If this one is deleted, then we will need to bring the others forward for deletion review. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The validity of the list derives from its use of No.1's from the country's official record industry association's chart. It's a published list which comes out every week and there is only one of them (well, two - singles and albums). The list is accepted as an authoritative source through its use both by all Australian media, including a weekly chart show on the radio and, for many years, the Rage show on ABC in the mornings (which I used to follow faithfully once upon a time). Orderinchaos 18:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • While that may apply to this list, what about all of the others? This also does not affect the point about everyone of these being defining. If a single reaches number 1 status in 100 countries, should we then include it in 100 categories? The discussion needs to be more about the overall questions raised and not about this specific list. The problem is not this one classification in general, but an entire group of categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Plus every genre chart it reaches #1 in Billboard (Pop, R&B, Country, AC, Rock, Alt. rock, dance, and so on). My intent was definitely not to single out the Australian category, but to umbrella all number-one albums in country categories as stated above. --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong defining characteristic that should be available as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It genuinely scares me how often I find the two of us on the same side of a debate these days. :) Orderinchaos 04:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete -- Not useful form for navigation. Not truly notable.
    1. To be useful for navigation, a category needs to have more than merely a unifying theme of transitory events. Otherwise, it's just a collection of old junk.
    2. The entries must be truly notable.
      • Mere reaching the top 100 or even the top 1 for a week is a transitory state, and has no meaning without context.
      • There are 52 weeks in a year, and more than 30 rated countries (thus far).
      • Although this nominated country is only adding 50+ per year, collectively this is potentially adding 1,500 apparently random article titles by name every year.
      • Going back to the beginning of the ratings, that's several million transitory events. Can you find the top 1 song in the 30th week in the US in the '70s in a category? (Maybe, but it would take hours of clicking.)
    3. Who is the target for this? Can you imagine a person in 50 years time clicking in this category -- alphabetically, so an unrelated ordering -- to see a huge collection of all items that happened to be popular in all the years since their grandparents were children? By name?
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although there is some commonality between the Australian charts and those in other countries, there are quite a few songs (including many overseas-produced ones) which only ever reach No.1 in this country. If it's notable enough that Billboard Number Ones should be here, I don't see why the ARIA Chart and its predecessors (or those from other countries with recognised official charts representing significant buying populations) should be treated any differently. Also I don't see several of your points given that all of the entries, without fail, meet WP:MUSIC - it's not like we are creating articles to fill a space (which I've railed against in other categories as "cruft"). Orderinchaos 03:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is intended to be an umbrella nomination of all number-one singles by country categories and not a singling out of the Australian number-one singles category (as mentioned above). --Wolfer68 (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that Number-one singles in Australia is the only listed entry, and not one of the other ones has been tagged in any way. If you were hoping to sneak this one through, this is not the way to do it. Orderinchaos 01:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to sneak anything through. The fact is I did exactly as instructed per the CFD procedure:
  1. If [nominating] a group of similar categories or a category and its subcategories, use an umbrella nomination (each category must be tagged, for nominations involving large numbers of categories tagging help can be requested at the talk page).
  2. Since there are at least 45 of these categories, I added my request to the talk page, which can be seen here, but so far no one has been willing to help out. --Wolfer68 (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! You followed instructions correctly. So few bother to read the instructions. Sorry that we didn't all pitch in, although folks are busy, and it probably would have muddied the issue. Let's just concentrate on this one, ignoring the comments that there are still others remaining, and see whether there is support for this category standing on its own.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - on the balance of the arguments for and against - there is the uniqueness of the Australian context as brought out by info provided by Orderinchaos that would suggest a rationale for keep is as strong as that of the delete case SatuSuro 08:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bleeding Love is a mess, it's not helpful, and it's not defining (not for every country, no). I'd be ok with upmerging all of these categories to something like Category:Number one singles in multiple countries, and if our friends from down under want to keep the Australia category as is, I'm ok with upmerging the others and letting this one be the odd man out. Or a list would be good too. --Kbdank71 13:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree re Bleeding Love, and I'd argue that I Will Always Love You, (Everything I Do) I Do It For You (with whatever the correct capitalisation is) etc would also do so. There are probably a dozen of those. However these songs are exceptional cases and the great majority of, for example, Australian or Canadian or New Zealand or various European countries' number ones are actually fairly unique. Hocus Pocus's "Here's Johnny", for instance, a 6-week number one in Australia from a Dutch underground techno producer, didn't even chart in the UK or much of Europe. Some of the NZ and UK ones are genuinely hilarious, it is more a case of WTF that they got to No.1 at all. (Mr Blobby?!) Orderinchaos 15:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great argument to listify as well, though. --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue *might* be copyright if we put it all in one place under a list. There are good reasons why the archived Australian charts cannot be found online at any source (there are ways and there are ways *hint* usenet search *end hint* but ARIA has taken action - including some quite extreme stuff involving cops raiding people's homes and taking computers away - against past masters) and the same applies to the UK. Several European countries as well as NZ don't seem to be covered by this as their charting agencies don't seem to have any problem with reproduction of historic charts. If I was satisfied this wasn't an issue (and it may well not be - I'm not a copyright expert) I'd support a listify option for this. (I'm thinking back here to Nielsen taking legal action against the 'pedia for listing TV stations near particular cities compiled from their reports) Orderinchaos 10:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point. I'm curious, though, if a list is indeed verboten by copyright law, wouldn't a category be as well? I'm not an expert, so I don't know. --Kbdank71 20:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a copy of the published list, so I'm guessing it's not. On the other hand, Top Hot 100 Hits of 2007 may be a copyright violation as it shows the chart positions of an entire chart. I tagged Top Hot 100 Hits of 2008 as a copyvio to find out. --Wolfer68 (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the Foundation's counsel who has replied that the copyright issue in this case is unlikely to apply. (I'd imagine it could be different if we are reproducing the entire list in one place rather than simply the no.1's.) If noone has any serious objections I'll make a list and see how we go. Orderinchaos 09:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually found ones already done. Also fixed the ARIA Charts article which was a mess. Orderinchaos 10:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and in answer to Kbdank, the reason a list would be different to a category in that sense is that the category is a scattering of miscellaneous information whereas a list is presented in a sorted, processed way which ARIA may feel only its subscribers (for A$220 / US$176 per annum :|) should have access to. Orderinchaos 09:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I think I agree, then, since it's just the #1s, we probably won't have a problem. And the lists at List of number-one singles in Australia do a very nice job of presenting the information. Before anyone accuses me of violating WP:CLN, I think this is one of the times when the list is better. List of number-one singles in Australia in 2009, for example, shows, week by week, the song, artist, and album. It's very helpful in showing if a song was number 1 for multiple weeks. And the three articles I checked, Poker Face (Lady Gaga song), Burn (Jessica Mauboy song), and You Found Me, all have extensive sections on charts and peak positions, which in itself gives much more information than the link to Category:Number-one singles in Australia (which as noted, just links you to a "scattering of miscellaneous information") at the bottom of the article. If desired, we can add a "see also" section that links to the #1s list. --Kbdank71 13:59, 5 June 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:Hidden templates using styles[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 per changes by the good melon. Kbdank71 13:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What this is ain't exactly clear, but perhaps it should be renamed to reflect that purpose. Interestingly I didn't see any templates in this category, just a few articles and a whole passel of "fair use" images. — CharlotteWebb 02:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template is a tracking category that is populated by {{hidden}}, when it's called using the deprecated parameters |bg1=, |bg2=, |ta1=, |ta2=, |fw1=, |fw2=, when these should be replaced by appropriate uses of |style= and |headerstyle=. I'll clarify that on the cat itself. Happy‑melon 09:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm… should it then be renamed to something like "Tracking category for Template:Hidden"? That would at least hint that there's nothing for the average editor to worry about. Also you could re-use it if other issues arise. The current title is confusing as it implies that pages belonging to it are templates which are hidden and… "use styles". If you meant for it to only include templates you ought to do a namespace check. — CharlotteWebb 19:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I meant it to include all pages, since many uses of {{hidden}} are hardcoded. Like all tracking categories, it's not supposed to be a permanent feature: once all its members have been corrected, it can and should be deleted. As such, I think renaming it is a bit pointless; better to spend the time working on fixing its members. Happy‑melon 14:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure but hardly anyone seeing the category at the bottom of the article will understand what it means or how to fix it, so good luck getting any help. — CharlotteWebb 09:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why it's hidden: it's not supposed to be seen :D Happy‑melon 09:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The template doc itself doesn't say that that these are deperected parameters, moreover it doesn't document the replacement ones. Rich Farmbrough, 16:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    A good point, I've updated it. Happy‑melon 18:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Happy, makes more sense now.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:29, 29 May 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:Arabs in Pakistan[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:Pakistani people of Arab descent. Kbdank71 13:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Arabs in Pakistan to Category:Arab tribes in Pakistan
Nominator's rationale: listed are surnames of 'tribes' or extended families that (have) migrated to Pakistan. I m not sure about what exactly to rename to, but as it is, the name is not at all clear. Perhaps Category:Arab families in Pakistan would be better Mayumashu (talk) 01:58, 26 May 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_May_26&oldid=1080453685"