Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 28 July 30 >

July 29[edit]

Category:New Romantic Music 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 as nominated, delete subcats under G7. Courcelles (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:New Romantic Music albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: redlink label (I made the subcats and would like them included.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:47, 29 July 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.

Former US state highway 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: rename all. Courcelles (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with the other state highway-level subcategories of Category:Former numbered highways in the United States and their current route category counterparts (Category:State highways in Florida, Category:State highways in Minnesota, and Category:State highways in Virginia, respectively). – TMF 23:06, 29 July 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:Saint Croix[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 all. Courcelles (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Saint Croix to Category:Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands
Propose renaming Category:People from Saint Croix to Category:People from Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose renaming to match main article Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Saint Croix as a placename is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. To match main article Hmains (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match parent articles.--Lenticel (talk) 04:58, 31 July 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:Disability case law in the United States[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. Courcelles (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Disability case law in the United States to Category:United States disability case law
Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the parent and the general naming convention of the siblings. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:54, 29 July 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:Former Nominated Rajya Sabha members[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. Whether we should seperate nominated and elected members of the Rajya Sabha is something perhaps worth discussing, but the concept of former categories like this has been extensively discussed before. Courcelles (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Former Nominated Rajya Sabha members to Category:Nominated Rajya Sabha members
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Suggesting upmerge since we don't deal with other members of upper houses of a legislative body by splitting them in "former members" and "(current) members", and in this case the main category can become outdated easily. Hekerui (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Occuli (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - are these categories based on the method by which these people ended up in Rajya Sabha? Or does "nominated" mean something else in this context? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are always a number of members of the Rajya Sabha that were not elected but chosen for their position and are called "nominated". Hekerui (talk) 07:37, 30 July 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:Wheaton College alumni[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. Courcelles (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wheaton College alumni to Category:Wheaton College (Massachusetts) alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Wheaton College is a disambiguation page and the parent article article for this category is Wheaton College (Massachusetts). The other Wheaton College already uses the format, e.g. Category:Wheaton College (Illinois) alumni, and we should be consistently matching the title of the parent article for these alumni and faculty categories. Alansohn (talk) 14:45, 29 July 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:People prosecuted for heresy[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: upmerge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:People prosecuted for heresy to Category:Heresy
Nominator's rationale: Merge - there is no reason for this intermediate category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:48, 29 July 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:SciFoo attendees[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. I've placed a copy of the contents in my userspace at User:Courcelles/SciFoo. Anyone should feel free to do anything desired with this list, including moving it to your own user space for work. A list is a good solution, but consensus is this doesn't work as a category. Courcelles (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:SciFoo attendees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not defining of the attendees. Not even as defining as non-notable awards. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – much less defining than a non-notable award. Occuli (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I was wondering why these were appearing in my watchlist. We don't do any kind of conference speaking as a category, otherwise regular conference speakers would have overwhelming category trees. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 5#Category:TED Conference Attendees and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 14#Category:Bilderberg attendees. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments in the cases cited by Quiddity. Hekerui (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Quiddity--Lenticel (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep scifoo is an exclusive invite-only "award", only about 100 or so people each year. It is a small category of interesting people like List of TED speakers but a category makes more sense (to me) since it is autogenerated --Duncan Hull —Preceding undated comment added 09:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    100 per year is not "small". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DuncanHull —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romney (talk • contribs) 17:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If List of TED speakers is allowed, this should also be allowed. It's a small, invite only event and a useful collection of interesting people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.54.69 (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC) — 169.229.54.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    That, aside from being WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, would only be a justification for List of SciFoo speakers, not for the category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    all attendees are also speakers, its an unconference. Scifoo is not like TED in that respect, ratio of speakers to attendees is 1 to 1. --Duncan Hull —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep : what Duncan Hull said.--Plindenbaum (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; definitely not defining for many of those included. It's not even mentioned in the random articles I've looked at. I don't like the looks of the IP commenting—appears to be an attempt to vote stack. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : All you have to do is look at the list of attendees, and note that it is invitation only, and a place where interesting discoveries are shown even before being published (Paul Sereno's fossils for example). dsingh (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : A list of attendees is useful, but I don't think it constitutes a useful or notable category. Perhaps the list could be maintained elsewhere and the main SciFoo article could link to it. Neilfws (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently defining. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it seems tenuous to have a category for attendees of this conference. There are many many by invite conferences. Attendance of this particular conference in no way defines the individuals and it does not appear to be considered as a major award either. Polargeo (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe Merge then with Science Foo Camp? Is there a way to generate this kind of index within a regular wikipedia page, rather than as a category page? Duncan.Hull (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It could definitely become a list, either within the existing article, or in a new list page. That way it could have additional context, such as which year the person attended, and what they spoke about. Exactly like the List of TED speakers (which needs work). Afaik, there is no way to automagically generate such a page - manual labor is all we've got (and is how the TED list was built). If you start a list, I'll try to help out :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    seems like a bit of a backward step to recreate it manually, when it can be automagically generated as a category page? Duncan.Hull (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify or delete - acceptable as a list, but not as a category, as it does not appear to be a defining characteristic of the people it includes. Robofish (talk) 16:46, 5 August 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.

Belgian politicians by party[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 all. Language problems can be considered at more focused nominations. Courcelles (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are categories for politicians, so I propose changing them to the now-standard "PARTY NAME politicians" format. Because the two main language groups exist in Belgium as well as a significant German-speaking minority, there has been some dispute in WP as to what to call some of the articles about Belgian political parties. A weird sort of stable compromise seems to have developed for them as a whole, with the result that some of the names of the parties are translated into English and some are not. This probably has yet to be resolved further. In all cases, I now propose matching the category name to the current article name. These can be changed in the future should the party names change to be uniformly in one format or another. As it is now, several of the categories abbreviate the name of the party or are otherwise ambiguous, so for these reasons they do need to be changed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As for the name of the party, that should be in either Dutch, French or German (the original name) and not an English translation, due to the naming convention for unilingual political parties in multilingual countries (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties)#Exceptions). Some articles should actually be changed as well. As for the format, is "PARTY NAME politicians" really now the standard? I have taken a look at several other categories and there isn't really a standard. Sometimes it is "Members of PARTY NAME" or "Politicians of PARTY NAME" or "PARTY NAME politicians". I'd prefer "Politicians of PARTY NAME", but if a standard has been decided (somewhere a discussion or policy..), that'd be of course better. SPQRobin (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct that "PARTY NAME politicians" is far from universal at this point, but when I said it was the standard I meant that whenever this has been discussed at CFD, it has been the one settled on. The ones that depart from this standard are most likely ones that have never been considered at CFD. As for the party names, I'm quite happy for the article names to be in whatever language the compromise guidelines have established, but the category names do need to match whatever the article names are currently. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since you work a lot on categories apparently, I'll believe you that "PARTY NAME politicians" is the preferred format. As for the party name, the problem here is that the articles keep being moved, so that the category names will probably not match the article names anymore when someone moves it again. (I could even now move all English titles, so that the categories match the original party name.) Therefore I propose (regardless of what the article names currently are), that the category names follow the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties)#Exceptions (item 4), which are the original party names. SPQRobin (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • They appear on balance to be relatively stable. If one is renamed, the category could be nominated to follow. This nom isn't meant to be the final word on any of these categories, I'm just trying to bring some intra-WP consistency at this point in time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 1 August 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:Billboard Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks number-one singles[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. Courcelles (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Billboard Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks number-one singles to Category:Billboard Adult Contemporary number-one singles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Billboard has renamed many of its charts. While there is some inconsistency with chart names between the print and online versions, this one is the same, "Adult Contemporary", in both media. "Number-one songs" may also be appropriate as the emphasis on the charts is on songs now, and charts based on airplay aren't necessarily ranking songs only released as singles. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Adult Contemporary number-one singles" since it seems the chart is indeed called just AC in both media. All the others use "number-one singles" so let's keep that consistent for now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:40, 30 July 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:Actors from Sydney[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 and upmerge as proposed. Some people think this category is redundant, while others thinks that some subdivision is necessary. A reasonable compromise is to move to the classification by state like in USA. Ruslik_Zero 19:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Actors from Sydney to Category:Actors from New South Wales and Category:People from Sydney
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Contributors have recently indicated the desire not to have people by city by occupation categories. Mayumashu (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to this discussion? Here [1] and here [2]. They are still talks underway where a few more favour deletion to keeping. Mayumashu (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second one looks like it's heading for a keep to me. Lugnuts (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Using the same logic, there is no connection between being an actor and being from Australia either. When a category reaches a certain size, however, there is some logic in breaking it down on a geographic basis, surely? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since there is Category:Actors from Melbourne, this category does not seem unreasonable. There are also corresponding categories for other major cities such as Chicago, Leeds, Liverpool, Los Angeles, Manchester, and New York City. Cjc13 (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge and delete, no need for this intersection category. Ditto for ...from Melbourne. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep splitting this way is appropriate for large cities (only). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge and delete all of these.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge and delete this and similar ones—sorting people by occupation and city creates interesting factoids, not a good aid to navigation that captures a defining characteristic. It doesn't matter that categories are large. Surprise—there are a lot of people "from Sydney". It doesn't mean we have to find multiple ways to slice and dice the large group. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it aids navigation. Being an actor is a defining characteristic, so is the place someone comes from, therefore the sub-division is valid. Lugnuts (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you can take two defining characteristics and intersect them doesn't mean that the intersection aids navigation. It doesn't aid navigation because (1) being from Sydney is defining, (2) being an Austrialian actor is defining, but (3) being an actor from Sydney is not defining. I'd rather see all people from Sydney grouped together and all Australian actors grouped together than having both groups sliced and diced into what I view as trivial divisions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather see... equals WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's now what I am saying. It's not very polite to dismiss someone else's comments with an invocation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT when you disagree with them. I've clearly explained my position in two comments above and if you can't see that it goes beyond subjective likes and dislikes, I can't help you any further. (If you hone in on my use of the word "trivial", though, you might get somewhere.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:32, 9 August 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_July_29&oldid=1138394036"