Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 3 February 5 >

February 4[edit]

Category:Fictional extraterrestrial life forms[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. — ξxplicit 02:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fictional extraterrestrial life forms to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial species
Nominator's rationale: "Life forms" is too unspecific for this category. The correct term would be "extraterrestrial species" as described on the category page. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Extraterrestrial species in fiction. Until the Men in Black hold a press conference, one must assume that any article about a particular extraterrestrial species is about a character in fiction. I am starting to think that we should rename all of the Fictional characters categories to {X} in fiction... If there is no consensus to using "in fiction" instead of "fictional", then the nom's proposal would be my second choice. –Black Falcon (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    After browsing through the category tree some more, I am no longer sure about my proposed name. It seems that renaming the category to Category:Extraterrestrial species in fiction would allow placement of articles about actual works of fiction in the category, alongside articles about species in fiction. To use the example from my reply to AllyD, the article The Call of the Wild would not belong in Category:Fictional wolves (a list category), but it could be placed into Category:Wolves in fiction (a topic category). –Black Falcon (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Black Falcon. Debresser (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unspecific is surely what we have to be, in terms of current knowledge? I notice too that Solaris (novel), concerning the classic non-species planetary organism, is in this category; it would sit poorly in a species definition, in my opinion. And it is also the case that this category is a subcategory of the consistently named Category:Fictional life forms. AllyD (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed Solaris (novel), since the topic of the article is a novel, not a fictional life form. We do not, as a rule, categorize works of fiction by the traits of their characters (e.g., The Call of the Wild is not and does not belong in Category:Fictional wolves). –Black Falcon (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it would involve original research to categorize things to use this category, or it will categorize very few things, since the material from which the ET originates would require to explicitly state that something is a species. And were it a genus, it would not qualify for inclusion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the term "species", really has a specific biological meaning, related to speciation and the ability to breed. fictional life forms describes any literary creation described by its creator as being alive, according to that authors criteria. if you want to be really precise, a category for fictional species would have to include fictional forms where they are specifically described as having dna passed on through sexual reproduction exclusively within their population. most fictional forms dont go into this detail, esp. one offs like the thing or predator, or the black cloud, or the solaris entity. of course, im anxious to see "category: real actual not made up extraterrestrial life forms" created, even if has at this time no entries, or even "category: honest to god wow holy shit extraterrestrial species" if we ever find speciation out there (probable but not a given). Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- "Species" and "characters" are both too specific. Maurreen (talk) 22:13, 9 February 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:WSD[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. — ξxplicit 02:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:WSD to Category:Word sense disambiguation
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation to match main article Word sense disambiguation. Ironically, WSD is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 4 February 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:Points of interest[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: Speedy deleted as a copyvio. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Points of interest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: nonsense Gabriel Kielland (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Text looks to be a copyvio from [1] and probably others. Same text was added today to the Seyðisfjörður page itself. AllyD (talk) 21:32, 4 February 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:Songs with music by Kenny Dorham[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. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs with music by Kenny Dorham to Category:Compositions by Kenny Dorham
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The sole article included in this category is not a song but an instrumental composition. This category does therefore not belong under songs by composer, but rather under compositions by composer. Jafeluv (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created this category, and I have 2 points to make :-

1. I can't see any difference with having a single song in a songwriter category and what it says at Category:Songs by artist, This category and its subcategories list songs by recording artist. Please note that all song articles should have subcategories here, regardless of how many songs the artist has recorded...." I'd be happy if every category with only one entry was deleted, because none of them are categories, they are sidetracks, or even dead ends because they don't take the reader anywhere. (I did expect more entries when I created the category, but it appears there is only the one to be added at the present time).

2. Regarding the change of name can somebody spell out the difference between "writing music" and "composition" when it comes to popular music? Is there some reason jazz musicians should be sitting with the likes of JS Bach? If jazz musicians should be under the composition moniker, then why not the Beatles? At the moment this category sits very nicely with the likes of Billy Strayhorn, Duke Ellington, George Gerswin and a load of others. I think the simple answer is classical composers are known as and should be categorised as "compositions by" and all others by the more modern idiom of "songs with music by." Otherwise we will finish up debating every entry in both categories, entry by entry, song (or should I say composition?) by song. Categories are a method joining together similar articles, not a definition of fact. Whatever "style" a song is the writer/composer have all used some or all of the same old 12 notes, even if they are usually in a different order.

3. I am at loss to understand the Charlie Mingus renaming. As I am aware, the category: Foo songs is supposed to mean songs recorded by Foo. Why on earth can't poor old Charlie be sitting in that category as well?

All in all I'd rather see this category deleted than renamed. I really don't fancy the arguments whether composer Foo is a composer or a music writer or some other grade of music creator everytime a category is created. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's an instrumental, not a song. Unfortunately we don't have "instrumentals by artist" or "recordings by artist" categories yet. Creating those and making the "songs by artist" categories subcategories of them would resolve the problem on where to put instrumentals by the same artist – currently, instrumentals are either categorized in a completely separate way without a "by artist" category, or incorrectly in the "songs by artist" category.
2. "Writing music", in my view, includes both composition and writing lyrics. That's why we have "songs by songwriter" (where, I assume, the songwriter wrote both the music and the lyrics), "songs with music by", and "songs with lyrics by" categories. One does not have to be Johann Sebastian Bach to be a "composer" or to write "compositions".
3. Since a majority of Mingus's recordings were instrumental, it would have been incorrect to categorize them as songs, wouldn't it? Jafeluv (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(By the way, I'm quite aware that colloquially all tunes are called songs, regardless of whether they have lyrics or not. In my opinion an encyclopedia should make that distinction, though.) Jafeluv (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, an instrumental isn't a song, but, are you now suggesting where a writer has written both "songs" and "instrumentals" there should be 2 categories? Surely that is really the definition of overcategorization? It's the same case as the what User:Occuli brought up, Category:The Shadows songs, 4 of the entries are instrumentals whilst the 5th actually has words. Are you suggesting that categories like this should be split in 2? What happens when a tune has words added later - as has happened on numerous occasions, should it now be listed as a "tune" or a "song" or, perish the thought, 2 separate articles (and this has happened in WP!)
"Writing music" is NOT lyric writing, these are 2 different functions, but often a "songwriter" will undertake both or either function. Now here's the rub, a composition in music means melody, harmony and rhythm (generally and not taking into account regional differences), that doesn't preclude whether the piece has lyrics or not. So, it is not unreasonable, according to your nomination to list, say, Paul McCartney as both lyric writer and composer, rather than "songwriter." Then you have to take into consideration that for most jointly wrote songs we don't know who wrote what! As for Mingus, I would fully endorse the creation of "tunes written by Mingus" what I don't understand is why, if one of the tunes it should have words he should have 2 entries or why this has excluded him from from the "Songs by artist" category, even if the list is exactly the same!
So, all in all we should be moving all "composers" to the compostions category if your nomination is correct - and that will upset the folks over at the classical music project, or better still, we should be considering how this nomination affects all songs/tunes. All I see are loads of arguments about what is what. This is my main concern, rather than this specific category. Categories are to bring similar themed articles together, not the subdivision of articles into postcodes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richhoncho (talk • contribs) 06:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your opposition to the idea of separating instrumentals and songs by the same artist completely – the added accuracy of the title comes with the disanvantage of hindering the navigation for readers, and aiding navigation for the readers is of course what categories are for. However, this proposal is not about that. Currently, we have Category:Jazz compositions, with a subcategory Category:Jazz songs. Composition categories are named "compositions by X", not only for Bach and other classical composers, but also for Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Duke Ellington, George Gershwin (the latter two of which actually have a "songs" subcategory), etc. This proposal is simply to make this jazz composition category correspond with that structure. Clearly we agree that the tune listed in the category is not a "song".
I would welcome discussion on whether only classical composers deserve to be categorized as composers, though. Maybe this is something that could be brought up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers (which does focus solely on classical composers). Jafeluv (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, I actually don't like compositions by style, it's a misnomer, please see my nomination for country songs by songwriter, which was merged, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 10 for a clear and concise reason for my dislike. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – I don't see any problem with the category having 1 member. The creator of the music is surely the defining characteristic of the music. We have generally categorised instrumentals as 'songs', eg Category:The Shadows songs (meaning 'songs recorded by The Shadows'). Occuli (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that's just the "songs by artist" categories. The "by composer" categories have always made the discinction. Song categories are "Songs with music by X" and general composition categories are "Compositions by X". This one is a "by composer" category; Dorham is the composer, and the artist is Joe Henderson. Jafeluv (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand a song includes words, and have already supported your suggestion elsewhere not to use the word (song) for instrumentals, what I don't understand is what the correct definitions and difference between "songs with music by" and "compositions by" and when the person who writes the tune (when applicable) is not a composer. I could happily live with merging ALL "with music by" into compositions, after all, it is still a music composition, with or without words. What I really wouldn't want to see is 2 categories for Kenny Dorham or anybody else because he was also the writer of a "song" (whether alone or with a lyricist) as well as this "tune." --Richhoncho (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually not object merging the several "songs with music by" categories with the "compositions by" categories. Even for people like Ellington or Gershwin who composed a lot of notable tunes, a single category would be more than enough (Gershwin, for example, would have 71 "compositions", instead of the current structure with 61 "songs" and 10 "compositions"). Also, as you pointed out above, in some cases the distinction is indeed pretty arbitrary (eg. if someone writes lyrics for a tune 20 years later, should it suddenly be categorized as a "song"?). Jafeluv (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are suggesting merging ALL "songs with music by" to "compositions by" you'd have my full support, although you do say, "several" above. I still can't get my head round any difference in the two terms. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:32, 9 February 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.

Radio personalities 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: Self-close by nominator. Since I didn't complete this nomination yesterday, it makes more sense to nominate properly on the current day. See CfD 2010 February 5. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Radio personalities by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Group nomination underway, please hang on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 4 February 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.

Triathletes 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 Category:Triathletes by century and Category:Female triathletes by century; merge Category:20th-century triathletes and Category:21st-century triathletes to Category:Triathletes; merge Category:20th-century female triathletes and Category:21st-century female triathletes to Category:Female triathletes. — ξxplicit 02:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Yet another useless set of people-by-century-and-occupation categories. The head article triathlon notes that "The first modern swim/bike/run event to be called a 'triathlon' was held…on September 25, 1974." Dividing up a 36-year-old sport into blocks of 100 years is utterly illogical. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; the century system makes no sense for such a young sport. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Good heavens. This one is particularly bad among the by-century categories for people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sacre bleu. Occuli (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Along with most per century and per decade categories. We should add something about this to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Debresser (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge as nom. We need a mass merge to dispose of ALL the sporting by century categories (except perhaps pre-20th). This is an attempt to get a "current" and a "former" category by the backdoor. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:24, 7 February 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.

Stunt performers 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 Category:Stunt performers by century; merge Category:20th-century stunt performers and Category:21st-century stunt performers to Category:Stunt performers. — ξxplicit 02:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Stunt performers by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Yet another useless set of people-by-century-and-occupation categories. The head article stunt performer is in poor shape, but it does note that stunt performers are likely to be employed in film, theatre and television. That will overwhelmingly mean film and television, since theatre offers limited scope for stunts, so we are looking at a profession which is basically 100 years old. Dividing that by century is daft. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stunt performers cannot be divided by individual year, so it makes little sense to divide them by century for such a young profession. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Along with most per century and per decade categories. We should add something about this to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Debresser (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge as nom. We need a mass merge to dispose of ALL the sporting by century categories (except perhaps pre-20th). This is an attempt to get a "current" and a "former" category by the backdoor. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:25, 7 February 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:Anti-communist propaganda films[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 to Category:Films critical of communism and communists. — ξxplicit 05:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anti-communist propaganda films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: "Propaganda" is a POV term, Unless there are enough sources to prove the films included in this category were used for propaganda, this category is misleading and POV. Category:Films critical of communism and communists is enough for these films which is a NPOV category. Defender of torch (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep POV term should be kept, as long as they are based on reliable sources. Debresser (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the reliable sources? --Defender of torch (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested in nom. Propaganda has become a derogatory term, though it was not one origianlly. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:26, 7 February 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:Museums accredited by AAM[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:Museums accredited by the American Association of Museums. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Museums accredited by AAM to Category:Museums accredited by American Association of Museums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The use of the abbreviation obscures who the accrediting body is. Trivialist (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would Category:Museums accredited by the American Association of Museums read better? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename with "the" inserted to spell out the title of the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but with the "the"; acronyms in categories are generally bad ideas. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the AAM website (link on category page), there are 779 such museums at Jan 2010, of which only 179 are in the category, though I'm sure almost all 779 have articles. They don't even need to be AAM members. It is probably defining for smaller museums, but not for major ones & any that non-locals will have heard of. We don't normally categorize institutions in this way. WP:OCAT. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename toCategory:Museums accredited by the American Association of Museums (or similar). This accreditation presumably measn that the museum is reaching certain curatorial standards, which is defining. If the category become to big it can be split by state, as is commonly done in US. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:29, 7 February 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:Hippies[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: Speedy delete as a redirect to a deleted page. Jafeluv (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hippies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redirect to deleted category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:18, 4 February 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:Apartheid in South Africa[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Apartheid in South Africa to Category:South Africa under apartheid
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't this make for a misfit in one of its parents Category:Apartheid? Hmains (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To be able to include articles about apartheid in present South Africa. Debresser (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on. Aren't Apartheid in ... and South Africa under ... two different scopes? NVO (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to match main article South Africa under apartheid. These are essentially talking about the same thing, and there is no apartheid in present-day South Africa. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The articles are almost exclusively about apartheid in the country of SA. Category:South Africa under apartheid would be appropriate for all kinds of articles that are merely about that time period; can they not sit just as happily under Category:20th century in South Africa ? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (i.e. oppose renaming). This is a situation where a good name for an article would make a very bad name for a category.
    South Africa under apartheid is a rather good article which discusses both apartheid policies themselves and their effects of S. African society ... but a category of that name would logically include every single thing which happened or existed in the period from 1948 until apartheid was dismantled from 1990 to 1994. So this renaming would actually amount to a complete change in the basis of the category, turning it into a time-slice of S. African history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 14 February 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_February_4&oldid=1078927152"