Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 29 December 31 >

December 30[edit]

Category:Oricon weekly number-one 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. No prejudice against a list being created.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Oricon weekly number-one albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Previous consensus per the AFDs listed has determined that lists are the better way to go with number-one albums by country. There is an incomplete set of lists for these at Category:Lists of number-one albums in Japan, although the source is questionable for those years prior to 2006. Sourcing of many of these is thus an issue as well.
As with the example of Hard Candy (Madonna album), being number one is not a definining characteristic of the album and could result in overcategorization with it reaching number one in over 30 countries. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per WP:CLN, categories and lists should not be seen as competing against each other. I don't see how an album reaching the top of a national charts is less of a defining characteristic than a single doing the same, when we have plenty of categories for these, such as Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles and Number-one singles in France. An album reaching number one on a national chart has been used an indicator of notability and success for decades (despite whether or not that particular week had high sales or not). It seems bizarre that was have such categories for singles and not albums. --Prosperosity (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with competing with each other, but how the information is best presented. I think it is bizarre that songs have these #1 categories and albums don't, but that's a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and not an argument for keeping this category. Being number one on a chart is notable but not a reason to (over)categorize by a ranking. A chart position doesn't define an album because whether it reached #1, #2, or #50, it's still the same album. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "competing" isn't the best word to use, but of course it does. List articles and categories are meant to be used to compliment each other, however past deletions of album chart categories ignored this, and decided that one was better than the other, clearly going against WP:CLN.
While it is the same album in the sense that it is the same collection of sounds worked on by the same people, Wikipedia often isn't concerned with this, instead concerned with the popularity/cultural notoriety of the release. Some of the featured/good articles that quantify a musician's popularity in their leads by specifically referring to an album reaching number one include AC/DC, Alice in Chains, The Beatles, Lady Gaga, Ayumi Hamasaki, Janet Jackson, Beyoncé Knowles and Usher.
I understand the reasoning in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but in this context, the comparison is hard not to be made. Albums reaching the top of a national chart is entirely analogous with a single doing it. --Prosperosity (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lists and categories may complement each other but that doesn't mean both need to exist. The value of each needs to be looked at independently. Previous discussions have concerns with overcategorization and defining qualities. Are albums defined differently for those that reached number one in 1 country or 10 countries or 30 countries or defined differently whether it was number one in Belgium or Canada or Japan? Popularity doesn't need to be categorized. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think the nominator is on the right track with how to deal with these album categories. I've never been a big fan of categories for all of the various music charts—lists are surely the way to go for this information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This seems to clearly be a case where a list is the better navigation tool. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2011 (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.

Al-Nassr[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 Al-Nassr FC equivalents.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Al-Nasr to Category:Al-Nassr
Propose renaming Category:Al Nassr players to Category:Al-Nassr players
Propose renaming Category:Al-Nasr seasons to Category:Al-Nassr seasons
Nominator's rationale: Rename all to be consistent with main article Al-Nassr FC. Tassedethe (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2010 (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 directors[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Australian directors to Category:Corporate directors
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is no Category:Corporate directors by nationality tree, and the number of articles suggests that further categorization by nationality isn't required. If kept it should be renamed to Category:Australian corporate directors to match the parent (and as directors is ambiguous). Tassedethe (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2010 (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:Cowbell 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Cowbell players to Category:Percussionists
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Playing the cowbell is generally not the reason a person is notable (except for Gene Frenkle); upmerging to the more general Category:Percussionists seems sensible. Tassedethe (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge While there is a longstanding need for more cowbell on Wikipedia, even the Gene Frenkle article is a redirect and there doesn't appear to be much room for expansion. Alansohn (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge – although I am happy to add to the swelling clamour for more cowbell within and without Wikipedia. Occuli (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as part of a series. There are several other instrument player categories with very small populations. I don't see why we should treat the cow bell any differently then other instruments. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2011 (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.

Anachronistic Israel categories[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:1935 in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:1930s in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The State of Israel was declared in 1948. Anything before that is anachronistic. Alternate proposal: Rename to Category:1930s in the British Mandate of Palestine and Category:1935 in the British Mandate of Palestine. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's rationale makes sense. I just created the categories because they were in this report. I presume it's a propsal to merge as the new categories already exist? --BelovedFreak 19:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Yes--clearly, those would be merges. Whoops. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:22, 31 December 2010 (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:Bosporus[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) 01:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bosporus to Category:Bosphorus
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Bosphorus. Tassedethe (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2010 (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:BioArt[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. Seems populated enough now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:BioArt to Category:Art genres
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge 2 articles to parent. Little prospect of growth. (Anyone have a view on Category:BioArtists?). Tassedethe (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This looks like a cat that was created but never fully applied, even to the namesake main article. Take another look at the cat as it now exists and see if you want to proceed with the nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2010 (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:BBC Radio Two Controllers[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) 13:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:BBC Radio Two Controllers to Category:BBC Radio 2 controllers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match article BBC Radio 2 and fix capitalization. Tassedethe (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency with article, and for correct capitalisation. --BelovedFreak 12:07, 31 December 2010 (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:Antillian musicians[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) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Antillian musicians to Category:Curaçao musicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Antillian is not used to describe people from Curaçao. Could also be renamed Dutch Antillean musicians, to cover all people from all the islands. Tassedethe (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2010 (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:Graham Bowers[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) 13:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Graham Bowers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains the eponymous article and an albums category. Clear case of overcategorization. With no other entries, the albums category should be able to stand on its own here. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2010 (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:Hussain Al Jassmi[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) 13:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hussain Al Jassmi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains an eponymous article and an unneeded template. Was bulked nominated on 12/18 in a keep all (see WP:CFD/Log/2010 Dec 18), but this one is sorely lacking content. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; while consensus (at that discussion anyway) seems to support these kinds of categories, this one is clearly overcategorisation. Can always be recreated if there are enough articles to go in it.--BelovedFreak 12:10, 31 December 2010 (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 with inappropriate JPEG compression[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn since both categories involved, although very similar in content, have different roles. Hugahoody (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Images with inappropriate JPEG compression to Category:Images which should be in PNG format
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These categories perform very similar roles. With the exception of a few GIF files they also contain images for the same reasons as each other. Having one category that contains JPG images which would be stored more effectively in PNG (as an example) would be more efficient. Hugahoody (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge: I distinguish these two categories, and apply the {{badJPEG}} and {{ShouldBePNG}} tags in different circumstances, because they are saying different things. There are some images, such as File:Rhus typhina range map.jpg, which would be acceptable as either a PNG or an SVG, but for which the JPEG format is certainly inappropriate; I tag such images with {{badJPEG}} rather than {{ShouldBePNG}}, because I don't want to suggest that PNG would be more appropriate than SVG. On the other hand, there are some images, such as File:Recycle mac screenshot.jpg, for which PNG is unquestionably the best file format (this particular example is a screenshot of a computer program—SVG doesn't make sense for something like that); these images should be tagged with {{ShouldBePNG}}. —Bkell (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that most images are marked as {{shouldbepng}} because they are {{badjpeg}}s. There is a separate {{shouldbesvg}} template for files that should be uploaded as SVGs. Hugahoody (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you propose for images such as File:Rhus typhina range map.jpg, which, as I said, would be acceptable as either a PNG or an SVG, but for which the JPEG format is certainly inappropriate? If we tag it with {{ShouldBePNG}}, that seems to imply that it shouldn't be an SVG, when really an SVG would be best if we could get one. But if we tag it with {{ShouldBeSVG}}, we might be asking for something that will never come (because someone would have to take the time to redraw the map from scratch in a vector editor), whereas a PNG image would solve the problems of the JPEG artifacts in the current image and would probably be good enough for all likely uses. —Bkell (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two tags could really be combined as one. Merging the PNG tag with the Badjpeg could create a tag that acknowledges the JPEG (or GIF) format is unsuitable for that file and that a PNG or SVG format would be better. This newly merged tag would then be used in place of both previous tags, so would be used on the file you have highlighted. I'll create a mock-up in my user space. Hugahoody (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say it again. There are two different types of relevant images here:
  1. JPEGs which could be either PNGs or SVGs;
  2. JPEGs which should definitely be PNGs, not SVGs (such as screenshots of computer programs and, in my opinion, non-free logos).
Your proposed template seems to take the place of {{badJPEG}} for the first type of images, but it does not satisfactorily replace {{ShouldBePNG}} for the second type. And I think it is a mistake to ignore the distinction between these two types by making a single all-purpose tag to cover both. —Bkell (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. Since you've repeated yourself, Wikipedia must know best. Hugahoody (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2011 (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:Woolworth[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn to allow an overhaul of this category to fix more problems then identified when nominated. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Woolworth to Category:F. W. Woolworth Company
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Woolworth is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category probably needs a more complex piece of surgery, given (a) that the UK operation was separated from F. W. Woolworth Company for the final 26 years of its life (the period under Kingfisher plc then Woolworths Group) and (b) the Australian company never had any relation with FWW: Woolworths_Limited#History. AllyD (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion "Woolworth group of companies" Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest -- Category:Woolworth companies. In UK, Woolworths was a subsidiary of a US company until bought out by institutions and renamed Kingfisher. Kingfisher then demerged Woolworths, which went bust. I do not know what has happened to the US parent or to the Austrialian company. However they are all linked by the name, and presumably having once been subsidiaries of the American parent. This refers to more than one company; hecne the suggested plural, as commonly used for categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Woolworth companies is a useful suggestion in that it would cope with the difficulties, including the Australian companies never being linked with the US company. I suppose it leaves a question of whether what is being linked has any real category relationship other than name resemblence. Maybe Category:Woolworths Limited is best cut loose of the "parent" category so that it stands on its own? AllyD (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: The Australian company's name is more than a coincidence. It was named after the US company and immitated the grouping of products by price, the key marketing distinction of Woolworths. At one point, there was a consensus between myself and some Australian editors to do it as a sub-cat but that can be revisited of course, as AllyD suggests. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Woolworth's is a bewildering history of divisions, spin-offs, repurchases, joint-ventures, licensing agreements, namesakes and reorganizations. So I struggled with what to name the cat when I created it. Category:Woolworth companies and the original Category:Woolworth both seem workable to me. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm willing to withdraw this if someone has ideas on how to clean this up and wants to just do it. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Doing It: OK, I created three levels here to make the cats less ambiguous:
Category:Woolworth companies: Includes any company named, named after or doing business as Woolworth. Moved the Australian division up this level as well as several chains in UK that took over stores after the bankruptcy.
Category:F. W. Woolworth Company: Includes stores and brands that were owned by the American company at some point. (Vegaswikian, I don't have authority to rename Category:Woolworth; can you do it for me?). I tried to come up with something more precise here but, Category:F. W. Woolworth divisions that were sold to another company, were then spun off into their own company and subsequently went bankrupt or renamed themselves seemed clunky. (If you don't think I could populate that cat, you are mistaken.)
Category:Foot Locker: Since the surviving remnant of the company no longer uses the name, created a subcat for clarity.
I still need to do some work with categorizing the British division whose history is convoluted and may require a new cat. Also, I'll take a look at the template based on this regrouping. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2010 (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:Online companies[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 at 2011 JAN 11 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Online companies to Category:Internet based companies
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I believe that this rename makes the purpose of the category clearer. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would favour anything which distinguishes between companies which sell goods and services on the internet and companies which support the delivery of the internet (although such companies invariably also sell their services on the internet). The present name at least categorizes the former without catching the latter. The problem is more in Category:Internet companies, which is a mix of both. I'm not sure that the proposed change would reduce the confusion here. --Mhockey (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See, I wonder why we need Category:Online companies to wrap around Category:Online retailers since everything in the larger category is retailing a service or product. (Arguably, the only exception is Category:Online dating which could be moved under Category:Social network services.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the online retailers sell goods to consumers. That does not apply to Category:Online brokerages or Category:Online insurance companies - it would be a stretch to call them online retailers. And Online dating (which makes its money from selling its dating services) is different from social network services, which make their money from advertising. --Mhockey (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2010 (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:Battelle Memorial Institute[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 and populate.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Battelle Memorial Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category. While there are some other articles which could be considered here, they are already listed in the main article which does a good job of providing navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populate -- The article induicates that it has three laboratories, though it does not state where. It also indicates that six named research institutions are managed by it. These should all appear. The founder also has an article, which should aslo be in the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2010 (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/2010_December_30&oldid=1074804667"