Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 15 March 17 >

March 16[edit]

Category:Lakeside (band)[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't even remember making that one up, boy the time sure goes by fast. ~ ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete With five albums already appropriately categorized within its "albums by artist" subcat, the parent artist category is unnecessary. Just adds another level of needless categorization. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:03, 26 March 2013 (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:Justice (band)[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content--most articles are redirects and the two subcats are interlinked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom. The redirects are pointlessly categorized in this case and the article maintains simple navigation to all the other articles. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:00, 26 March 2013 (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:Gabriella Cilmi[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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two subcats--which are interlinked--and two articles, including the main. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing here than isn't already easily linkable from Gabriella Cilmi. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 10:03, 18 March 2013 (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:Gil Scott-Heron[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two subcats with article content, both are interlinked and only two articles, including the main. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better to upmerge the subcategories. There is enough content for one category, but not four. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and upmerge from songs and audio samples, per peterk, but keeping albums. notable enough musician for his own category, and the category provides an alternative navigation method to any and all links in articles.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2013 (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 of The Verve[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That's what it is--free images of the band should be moved to Commons. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Move the albums covers to an album covers category, and then tag the other images for a move to Commons. But until all the other images are moved to Commons, it would be wrong to rename this category to a title which misrepresents the scope of its contents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 17 March 2013 (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 Ordinary Boys[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content--the categories are interlinked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better to upmerge the two subcategories. There is enough content for one category, but not three. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response You can't do that without breaking their respective category trees. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 25 March 2013 (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:Screenplays by Jane Espenson and Category:Screenplays by Russell T Davies[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 both (i.e. do not rename). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term "screenplay" is generally associated with films and both these writers have primarily worked in television. Also, nearly if not all the articles listed in the categories are television episodes, not films. If the move I am requesting is made, I will then create an umbrella category, Category:Teleplays by writer, a television counterpart to Category:Screenplays by writer. QuasyBoy (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hm. I'm not 100% on this so far. I can certainly see the reasoning and logic behind it; at the same time, though a television does have a screen, and on a less pedantic point, is it worth splitting the category tree in a way that, if a TV writer writes one film in their career, they wind up in two categories. And where do TV movies fall? - The Bushranger One ping only 20:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say TV films would fall under teleplays as well. I was also thinking about creating a possible category: Category:Television episodes by writer, but seeing how the director counterpart: Category:Television episodes by director, was deleted some time ago, I thought it would be best not to. QuasyBoy (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the opening sentance of our article on screenplay says "A screenplay or script is a written work by screenwriters for a film or television program." Screenplay works for creations for television. The fact of the matter is that some TV shows are developed by people unsure if they will be a TV show or a film. Especially from the vantage point of the person writting out the screenplay there is really no difference.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then if that's the case, the category: Category:Screenplays by Joss Whedon, was created last month. I'm pretty sure that category was not created with the intent to include every TV episode that he wrote that has an article on Wikipedia. As it of right now it only includes film screenplays not TV ones. Knowing Whedon's background in television, might as well include the TV episodes that he wrote in that category, since you say that there is not really a difference. QuasyBoy (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I would do. It would be much better than creating an essentially meaningless split.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2013 (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:1780s fashion (and other #s fashion 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: No Consensus to delete. Further discussion may prove fruitful, as is typical in such cases - but there is not enough of a consensus here to keep or delete. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This and other categories in a similar vein are too narrow. For example, Sack-back gown is categorised as 1750s fashion, which is arbitrary, when "18th century fashion" is an appropriate category for a style of dress that was worn from the late 17th century through to the 1780s. In another case, a Polonaise (clothing) is both eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth century, not Category:1780s fashion. I would suggest that there is a case for retaining the simple "xth century fashion" categories, particularly as exceptionally few garments or fashion terms were/are exclusive to a single decade alone - a century or a historical era, yes, but not a decade. Mabalu (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Similar categories are undeniably super-useful on Wikimedia, and for sorting images/files. But I think the way they are used here to try and squeeze articles with broad date ranges into a single decade or period is simply too narrow and subjective, and it would look a bit strange having eleven categories on Sack Back gown going from 1680s through to 1780s, for example. Mabalu (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The categories are new (the oldest were created in March 12) and did not have time to get further populated. The Sack-back gown is categorized as 1750s fashion because after an hour-long search in google I could not actually found much evidence of wide use before this decade. The article Polonaise (clothing) specifically mentions wide use started in the 1770s and 1780s, while revivals and modifications are currently ill-defined. Dimadick (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out, you cannot just decree that something only belongs to one decade, particularly if it can be proved it was worn before and/or after that decade. I think the "18th century"/"19th century" and similar categories are perfectly sufficient - anything narrower is simply too subjective. Mabalu (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certain fashion accessories and styles are traceable to a specific decade, and using such categories helps place an article's meaning both in time and in location, depending on the style. Some types of hats, collars and jewelry can be traced only to a specific decade in a specific region. I don't think going by decade is too granular. Jane (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In individual cases, this may be appropriate - for example, Dolly Varden (costume) is an obvious candidate for a 1870s fashion category, but I feel that if something is associated with a wider period, say more than two or three decades in a row, then one general category for the century is better than three/four/five separate decades. Mabalu (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Empire silhouette is in six of these decade categoies, including 1780s and the next 3 decades. Overlap rules generally discorage categories where something can be in more than at msot three in a set, and then only when the set has lots more content than that. This is why we split writers by century, not decade, and why we categorize other things by when they were established, even when they are musical groups that could in theory by categorized by every year they existed, but that would lead to excessive clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that all has to do with the number of items in a category. The fashion categories are severely underpopulated, and with a vision towards growth, I don't believe the decades are too granular. In the case of fashion designers I would agree with you, but for fashion items, we may eventually need to go to years, as we do with individual books. There are whole general articles that need to be written first before we can start to make individual articles that may fall into one of these categories. Looking at the size of Clutch (handbag), it may take a few years before we see individual articles for some of the more remarkable clutches made in the last century. When I responded above however, I was thinking in terms of Box collars, a form of Ruff (clothing) and a dead giveaway in dating 17th century paintings. Jane (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep I see the nominator's point, but it's not clear to me how we are going to get a better chronological categorization. If someone can come up with a "eras" sequence of categories, I would go with that; but I think this may not be possible. Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mainly because Jane023 has convinced me we do not know what we are doing with this category. The idea we might go to years is just a cause to fear. If this was Category:Fashion introduced in the 1780s than I could live with it. However, it is any fashion that is somehow associated with the decade. This just opens up to putting some items in 10 or more categories, which leads to category clutter. We should delete and rethink this whole structure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all - I would poprose the opposite, that the articles spanning more decades should be split. Any fashion specialist will be able to tell you that the bustle, while spanning decades, changed significantly over time. These changes are crucial in dating all sorts of things. I am a big believer in "if you build it, they will come"; i.e. let's create the structure so that others can be stimulated to fill these categories. Jane (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with the example of the bustle - does that really need categories for 1860s fashion, 1870s fashion, 1880s fashion, 1890s fashion, 1900s fashion, 1910s fashion, 1920s fashion, 1930s fashion, 1940s fashion, 1950s fashion (but not 1960s/70s), 1980s fashion, 1990s fashion, 2000s fashion, 2010s fashion when "19th century fashion" and "20th century fashion" and "21st century fashion" are perfectly sufficent and won't be category overload? Mabalu (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Just to clarify that I've not pulled those out of my bustle (as it were) I'd comment that I did a case study at College on bustles and back emphasis, so I know of published references for bustles/bustle bows in all those decades - which shows that we really do NOT need all these separate categories by decade. Mabalu (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wel I doubt you did that for all languages or for all countries, and the point of such categories is to properly identify styles and fashions for all countries across time. Jane (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jane, I am not sure what the relevance or implications of my supposedly not having done it for "all languages" or "all countries" are supposed to be. The point is that we have perfectly functional "xth century" categories, and anything more specific can, and should be, clarified in the article text. Mabalu (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the point with the bustle is for example that it hit the US much later than in Europe, so decades do matter in that sense. Also, the use of whalebone or other materials was different. I really don't see the objection of the categories. That articles are in more than one category is not a problem, but they can always go into a parent category if it bothers you - eventually they can be split into decade categories. Jane (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry, I do not see why that's a reason for sorting by decade - if anything, that's a stronger argument for sorting by century, to avoid confusion. Articles should ideally, unless explicitly otherwise, represent a global overview, so the fact that the bustle arrived later in the States (which I do query, surely at most a year or two after its European introduction) shouldn't affect anything. It's still a nineteenth/twentieth/twenty-first century fashion and really there's no need to be picky about years/decades, particularly if an article ends up being put in a dozen (or more) similar categories. (which are then multiplied by ten if the by-year thing goes ahead) - we would end up with pages where the categories dominate the text instead of being an useful footnote. This kind of detail is something that should be explained in the article text, not by relying upon hyper-specific categories. For example, I recently created the Strapless dress article, there is a strong source that credibly claims it is a 1937/38 invention, but I'm pretty sure if I poked around in more depth, I would find other sources suggesting or arguing that they existed before then. This would apply to a lot of other things too... and then the counter arguments would be that the assigned year/decade is too early. That's why sorting by century is safest at this point, particularly for things that were worn across a very wide date range and were revived at different times, like Polonaise (clothing) - which is actually at least three distinct garments/styles, if not more. Mabalu (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that we are just at the very beginning of populating such categories, and the simple fact that something as common in summer speech as "strapless dress" was only "recently" created is a good argument for laying out this structure beforehand. I would expect strapless dress to appear in a 20th century category, and then specific articles about specific strapless dresses to appear in these decade categories. Jane (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are partly on the same page here. For specific garments and things with very clear date ranges/links to a very limited date range, then I can see how such categories are useful. For something like Sack-back gown, a 18th century category is appropriate, but anything narrower is problematic. I think we need to establish a clear consensus on how, when and where these categories should be used, which is part of the reason I brought this to discussion to try and establish the rule. If something was worn across a wide date range (ie, more than two consecutive decades) then it should be categorised by century/centuries rather than all the individual decades. I do quite like the suggestion made earlier for categories for "Fashions introduced in the 1780s/1930s/1840s" (or whenever) Mabalu (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think "introduced in.." doesn't work because of the time lag involved when fashions were introduced on either side of the Atlantic ocean. Today new fashion items twitter their way around the world, but back in earlier times this took longer. Santa Claus wears the traditional NYC knickerbockers in 1812, that had gone out of style decades earlier in the Netherlands, where they originally came from. Jane (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you can take a fictional construction like Santa Claus and claim that because he was originally described as wearing archaic/historical dress (in Irving's 1812 text, "Flemish trunk hose"), his clothes reflect 1812 fashion. I apologise if I have missed your point, but it would be like me claiming that Bette Davis's notorious strapless dress in Jezebel (film) is evidence for strapless dresses being worn in the mid-19th century. If anything, Santa Claus wears fancy dress with historical/picturesque elements - he was never intended to be a fashion plate. This seems a very odd example to cite. Mabalu (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Santa Claus and fashion are indeed a contradiction in terms! Please don't think I am advocating the creation of empty categories or anything like that. I am just advocating a structure similar to the one used for books. Jane (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to all parents. There is not enough content for by decade categories. Several of the articles actually cover multiple decades. This relates to the 18th century examples. I would prefer us 19th century decades to be the subject of a separate discussion. 20th century ones should certainly be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I would be more than happy to discuss the 19th century question separately, if you can suggest an appropriate place to discuss it, and certainly support the idea of keeping 20th century categories as such things are more likely to be well documented as regards introduction dates, etc. While there are a very few 18th (and earlier) articles that are clearly about very short-lived or era-specific fads (say, Virago sleeve for 1620s and 1630s fashion), these are in a minority. Should the general century categories become overfull, then a case can be made to rationalise further, but only then. Mabalu (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we should never have decade categories for things like fashion which can last indefinately. Decade categories will just lead to things being in 6 or more decade categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was my initial reaction too, but after thinking about it, I can see how certain 20th century fashions (ie, Poodle skirt for 1950s fashion, or Utility clothing for 1940s fashion) are very clearly and explicitly associated with a specific decade. In such cases, categorising by decade is appropriate, as a "20th century fashion" category is too broad. But we must never go down the individual year route - that would be a step too far. Mabalu (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the idea is, if something is a generally 20th century mode, or was worn across more than a quarter of the century or longer, it's categorised as 20th century fashion, but if it's one or two decades-specific, it's appropriately categorised under that decade. In some very special cases, like Miniskirt, both 1960s fashion AND 20th century categories are appropriate because the miniskirt is so strongly linked to the Sixties. Mabalu (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2013 (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.

Royal Ceylon Navy[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/rename all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a similar situation to this discussion; in 1950, the Royal Ceylon Navy was established, while in 1972, when Ceylon rejected Dominion status and became the republic of Sri Lanka, the navy was renamed from Royal Ceylon Navy to Sri Lanka Navy. It was, however, the same service, and there was no discontinuity (as with the various German navies) or major shift in status (as with India at independence); the name and prefix were changed, the ships and personnel largely remained the same. So, per the standard procedure in this sort of situation, the categories should be located at the most recent name used. (Note that even now, there are some ships in the SLN categories that are not in the RCN categories even though they were in service at the time of the change.) - The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support; it does seem fair to stop the renaming at the penultimate level, exactly as nominated, because the stack of categories contains only one article HMCyS Vijaya, which sank before that Navy was renamed as SLN. – Fayenatic London 19:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a note, there's one other HMCyS ship in the SLN tree, but not the RCN one, but it overlapped the transition. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- following the principle that the alumni of a renamed or merged institution are treated as alumni of the successor. The merged category will need a headnote explaining that the category includes the Royal Ceylon Navy. The fact that the article is a redirect supports the conclusion that I reached. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Pki. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:11, 22 March 2013 (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:Danna Paola[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and previous precedent that an eponymous category for musicians needs to have more than just the subcategories of their albums and songs. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and several such nominations that I have made. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete this and both subcats-- a main (bio) article, two songs and an album does not seem enough for a worthwhile category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2013 (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/2013_March_16&oldid=1136102720"