Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 10 September 12 >

September 11[edit]

Category:Pop rap albums[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. If the concept cannot satisfy WP:OR as an article then the presumption must overwhelmingly be against its separate retention as a category. --Xdamrtalk 14:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pop rap albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no article on "pop rap" as there is, say, on country pop or pop rock (there was, but it was redirected to hip hop music in an AfD here, and there is no mention of it as a subgenre within that article). I'm not sure this level of subcategorization is necessary, since the term is not truly defined or even used in the industry. Wolfer68 (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's rock rap albums so why can't an album be classified as pop rap? Jeremy (talk) 13:22, 12 September 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.

U-boats by conflict[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge:
--Xdamrtalk 13:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: The latter category style is the consensus style for conflct-related ship categories. In the case of World War I, there were U-boats of Austria-Hungary, but all are already categorized in Category:World War I submarines of Austria-Hungary. In World War II, there were no "U-boats" except for German ones. As far as I am aware, there were no German submarines of either conflict that were not called U-boats, so there's no reason for separate categories. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge, but restructure the whole tree, which is a maze of different threads. Keep these two categories. The paretn category should be submarines of Germany. This needs to be 4 subcategories by period (listed at the top of that category) for four differnet periods. U-boat is a well recognised name for German submarines, so that there is no need to change that. I suspect that there are a number of other categories that need merging, upmerging, or plain deleting to give a satisfactorily simple tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 12 September 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:People from Kirkland, Montreal[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:People from Kirkland, Montreal to Category:People from Kirkland, Quebec. --Xdamrtalk 13:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Kirkland, Montreal to Category:People from Kirkland, Quebec
Nominator's rationale: Rename or delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Per the main article Kirkland, Quebec, Kirkland is not part of the city of Montreal -- though it was, briefly. It is a "de-merged" municipality on the Island of Montreal, similar to Category:People from Westmount, Quebec and several other similar categories. So rename if retained. There is a single article in the category at present. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 11 September 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.

Batman film subcategories[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 for further comment - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 20#Batman film subcategories. --Xdamrtalk 11:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The first five are self titled categories dealing with individual films. Each contains a limited number of articles that should already be interlinked, covered by a navigation box, or tangential (example songs not written for but used in the films). The sixth is an unneeded fine grain splitting of of two of its parent categories - Category:Animated Batman films and Category:DC animated universe films. J Greb (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The live action films (#1-4) can colapse back to Category:Batman films, the remainder (#5-6) can colabe back to Category:Animated Batman films. The material in #6 can also colapse back to Category:DC animated universe films. - J Greb (talk) 01:48, 13 September 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:The Wild Wild West[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. --Xdamrtalk 14:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Wild Wild West (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Self titled category for 1 TV show and 1 film. Very limited number of articles involved that should already be interlinked. J Greb (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per SMALL and EPONYMOUS, and per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 02:50, 19 September 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.

Deans of Lincoln[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Deans of Lincoln since 1908 to Category:Deans of Lincoln Cathedral. --Xdamrtalk 13:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Deans of Lincoln since 1908 to Category:Deans of Lincoln.

Nominator's rationale: There is no valid reason for the date cut-off (matches a template, is all), since Deans of Lincoln have existed for many centuries. This should be uncontroversial. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. There are quite a few articles to add to the expanded version, eg Joseph Williams Blakesley. Occuli (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom. I am not sure that Deans are notable per se, but they were often promoted to being bishop and would be netable as such. There is no reason for any cut off. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the notability, see Dean of Lincoln for a sample (they're not all notable as far as I can see); but in a sense the notability has decreased over time, not increased, in that the diocese used to be huge, and medieval Deans would have been major figures. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, really, Lincoln Cathedral isn't, is it? And a Dean is a dean of a cathedral. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is about as ambiguous as it can get in such a short name. Dean itself is ambiguous. A dean is also an academic head. Know of any universities or colleges named "Lincoln"? (Not to mention schools, high schools, and primary schools.) And none of the other places named Lincoln have a cathedral? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No "Lincoln College" is actually called Lincoln. Lincoln Cathedral requires no disambiguation: have a look. No mention of deans of a whole university or college at Dean (education), if you are going that far. Dean of a faculty, in some parts of the world, maybe. If there ever appears an ambiguity - well, we can discuss it. The principle of crossing bridges when you come to them is good, as is avoiding needlessly verbose names for categories. I see nothing to support your idea at the basic category naming outline. If there ever were a need to disambiguate, then Category:Deans of Lincoln Cathedral is more correct, since a Dean is not attached to a city but to a church, and bringing in a local government term is just wrong. Sheesh. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguity seems to be in the eye of the beholder. To me, this name is exceedingly ambiguous. I don't see why my perception is worth any less than yours. And the comment below by Postdlf indicates that I am not alone in this regard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 16 September 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.

Kosovar things[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/Merge per nom. --Xdamrtalk 13:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Kosovo law to Category:Kosovar law
Category:Kosovo academics to Category:Kosovar academics
Category:Kosovo actors to Category:Kosovar actors
Category:Kosovo criminals to Category:Kosovar criminals
Category:Kosovo painters to Category:Kosovar painters
Category:Kosovo poets to Category:Kosovar poets (merge)
Category:Kosovo politicians to Category:Kosovar politicians
Category:Kosovo soldiers to Category:Kosovar soldiers
Category:Kosovo screenwriters to Category:Kosovar screenwriters
Category:Kosovo sportspeople to Category:Kosovar sportspeople
Category:Kosovo footballers to Category:Kosovar footballers
Category:Kosovo kickboxers to Category:Kosovar kickboxers
Category:Kosovo football managers to Category:Kosovar football managers
Nominator's rationale: Rename/merge. As a follow-up to this discussion, where "Kosovar" was confirmed as the chosen "FOOian" form of things and people from Kosovo, I propose these renames to standardise the categories for Kosovo that use the format "Fooian xxx". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator (=previous discussion). Debresser (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator. Occuli (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all as "Kosovan foo" and re-open the previous discussion which appears to have reached a very odd conclusion. The discussion, if you look, points out that "Kosovan" should probably be used for neutrality. A second editor points out that one of the categories contains only articles which need not be in it, so should be deleted irrespective of which name it has. Other commenters suggest that this view is correct, that there should be a deletion/merger off the two categories, but with no real comment as to which name is the correct one. The final commenter suggests that the discussion is likely to continue to see which name is most appropriate (note that this is not the final commenter in terms of position in the discussion, but is in terms of time of comment). The discussion is then closed as a merge to use Kosovar, with little apparent suggestion that the previous comments or the convention mentioned have been considered by the closer. As pointed out in the initial discussion, "Kosovan" is more widely used on wikipedia for articles, and is seen as more neutral. It is also worth noting in passing that as a result of the same naming convention several stub categories rewlating to Kosovo were recently changed to "Kosovan". Grutness...wha? 10:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt whether we can say that "Kosovan" is more widely-used in WP. From my inspection, its widespread usage seems to be attributable to the efforts of precisely one editor, who recently did a lot of changing. I see no consensus anywhere for the view that one should be preferred above the other. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to some adjectival form. If I remember correctly the dispute is whether the state should be Kosovo (Serbian) or Kosova (Albanian). Kosovar is a derivative of the Albanian form (they being the majority of the population). I would thus perefer "Kosovar", but I could live with Kosovan. I do not accept that the previous discussion was closed prematurely. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 11 September 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.

Subcats of Category:Racecar drivers by century[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 per nom. --Xdamrtalk 11:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Category:Formula racecar drivers by century
Category:Sports racecar drivers by century
Category:Stock racecar drivers by century
Propose merging:
Category:20th-century formula racecar drivers into Category:20th-century racecar drivers
Category:20th-century sports racecar drivers into Category:20th-century racecar drivers
Category:20th-century stock racecar drivers into Category:20th-century racecar drivers
Category:21st-century formula racecar drivers into Category:21st-century racecar drivers
Category:21st-century sports racecar drivers into Category:21st-century racecar drivers
Category:21st-century stock racecar drivers into Category:21st-century racecar drivers
Nominator's rationale: Delete/merge I consider this to be unnecessary overcategorisation, especially considering that the notional parent categories Category:Formula racecar drivers, Category:Sports racecar drivers and Category:Stock racecar drivers don't exist. I think it's sufficient for drivers to be categorised into Category:20th-century racecar drivers and/or Category:21st-century racecar drivers. DH85868993 (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So many driver would qualify for almost all of these categories. Will bloat out racing drivers categories for neglible gain. --Falcadore (talk) 04:14, 11 September 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_September_11&oldid=1144514370"