Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 18 March 20 >

March 19[edit]

Category:Songs about the Moon[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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category consisting of songs which mention the moon or some aspect of it in their title. None of them are specifically "about the moon" as such. This is Paul (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I started looking at the members of this category, and here are the first few:-
Title From article My comment
The Rising of the Moon recounting a battle between the United Irishmen and the British Army during the Irish Rebellion of 1798. Not “about the moon”
Bad Moon Rising (song) Fogerty claims the song is about "the apocalypse that was going to be visited upon us. Not about the moon
Bark at the Moon (song) Nothing in article Therefore not defining
Blue Moon (1934 song) The lyric presumably refers to an English idiomatic expression: "once in a blue moon", meaning "very rarely". Not about the moon
Blue Moon of Kentucky Nothing in article Therefore not defining
Brain Damage (song) Roger Waters has stated that the insanity-themed lyrics are based on former Floyd frontman Syd Barrett's mental instability, with the line "I'll see you on the dark side of the moon" indicating that he felt related to him in terms of mental Moon as in “lunatic” Not about the moon.
By the Light of the Silvery Moon (song) Lyrics, “By the light of the silvery moon, I want to spoon to my honey I'll croon love's tune.” Perhaps about pointing a missile at the dark side of the moon…still not about "the moon"

Can anybody see any commonality between these songs, other than the word "moon?" Are we likely to overrun by categories by word contained in title? WP:CAT says, "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." This category fails that requirement. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Thematically these songs are all over the map, as one would guess from something which has such a diversity of symbolisms. I don't see merely mentioning the moon somehow is enough for a category. Mangoe (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, thanks for raising the bar with a graph in the nomination! RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if any songs really are about the moon (not just moonlight) then upmerge those articles to Category:Outer space themed songs. Unfortunately, there are some editors who don't seem able to distinguish between "songs about X" and "songs mentioning X"/"songs with 'X' in their title" (e.g. The Rising of the Moon‎). DexDor (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category creator here, these are all fair points. I find it tricky to determine what songs are "about", as such, and how frequently/prominently a song must feature an image or idea before it can be meaningfully said to be "about" it, especially given that songs are often much more ambiguous than films or literature. I added songs with "moon" in the title to the category, essentially as a shortcut to populating it, but obviously this wasn't the best idea. However, I do feel that there's a certain commonality between songs that revolve around the moon in a cultural or symbolic sense – eg, the moon as an ethereal symbol of nature, love, etc rather than the moon as a big rock. The Killing Moon, The Whole of the Moon, Bad Moon Rising, and Man on the Moon are certainly linked together in my mind, and I think that the choice to foreground a given image in a song title is a significant guide in interpreting its meaning – is this an unusual way of looking at things? Thanks for the comments. —Flax5 12:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly part of this is my doing, mainly because I was focused on something else while I was adding the category to articles, so I didn't check as closely as I might have otherwise done. Perhaps a better title for this would have been "Moon themed songs", or even "Songs with symbolic references to the Moon". The events of "The Rising of the Moon" tells of a battle where the "pikes must be together at the rising of the moon", while "Moonlight in Vermont" is a very descriptive piece about a location. The singer of "Blue Moon of Kentucky" is asking the moon to "shine on the one that's gone and left me blue"–again a symbolic reference. It should also be noted that not all songs that reference the moon actually include it in their title–"Eclipse" being a case in point. Maybe there's an argument for a wider "Symbolic references to the Moon" category, as there are probably hundreds in music, literature, art and other fields, or are we perhaps getting a little too literal here? This is Paul (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO "Moon themed songs" and "Songs about the Moon" are pretty much the same thing. "Songs with symbolic references to X" would be bad as it could place some songs in dozens of categories. DexDor (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, this discussion should be closed in conjunction with the larger discussion about the whole category tree of Songs by theme, to be found here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much/any harm in letting this run. The other discussion is not about "the whole category tree of Songs by theme". DexDor (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since consensus in the other discussion is growing that every song theme category should be nominated separately, this nomination can be closed independently of the other after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to be a category by name, rather than actual theme or content. And "The Rising of the Moon" seems to be about scheduling things on the appearance of the moon in the night sky. From the article: ""pikes must be together at the rising of the moon" to engage in rebellion." Dimadick (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These songs are not about the moon and have no centralized subject matter to connect them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2016 (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:Philippine drama[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) 02:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with the other categories in Category:Drama television series by nationality. The word "drama" can also refer to theatre. Timmyshin (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominate the following:
  • Support all The current name is confusing and could well apply to theatrical works. Dimadick (talk) 08:45, 25 March 2016 (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:Indian businesspeople from Gujarat[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. Note that the category was empty while closing this discussion, so there isn´t really anything to merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: consistency, and imho no need for prefix, Roland zh (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2016 (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:Indian businesspeople from Maharashtra[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: consistency, and imho no need for prefix, Roland zh (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2016 (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:Archetypes (psychology)[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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems that the category was originally created specifically for archetypes related to psychology; however, it has clearly been repurposed as a category for all archetypes, which seems more useful. There is only one archetype in the category, with all others being in subcategories. It's also a bad name for a category to begin with. McLerristarr | Mclay1 18:06, 19 March 2016 (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:Animal versus animal[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 both. MER-C 11:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Miscategorized as representing Category:Scientific comparisons, this would seem to me to be an example of WP:TRIVIALCAT. I became aware of this category via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bear versus bull. The creator seems to be trying to build an animal vs. animal structure, which frankly seems more suited to a Saturday morning cartoon, than an encylopedia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subcategory/Neutral for Now on Parent As problematic as a feel the articles are, there are three so the parent category should stay for now so we're not presupposing the outcome of AfD nomination. The subcat can be deleted now per WP:SMALLCAT though. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. The purpose of a category is to group similar pages into coherent groups in order to ease organization and usage. These categories are both too trivial and too specific to be of any use, so there is nothing to warrant their continued existence. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 00:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both I'd wish these categories were about Saturday morning cartoons. That would be a clearly defined topic and a way to populate the category. As it is, this tiny category seems ill-defined. Quoting from the Bear versus bull article: "Differences between bears and bulls have been studied, and one of them inspires the economical concept of the "Bull market" versus the "bear market"." I would think metaphors are beyond the realm of zoology, but the article goes on and on by matters that seem rather irrelevant to the topic. Dimadick (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2016 (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:Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie[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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The regional council of the region established on 1 January 2016 has now declared Hauts-de-France the region's permanent name, replacing the interim name Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie. While the new name is still to be formally confirmed by the French Conseil d'Etat, it is already widely used in the media and on the region's official website and therefore already WP:COMMONNAME. PanchoS (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PanchoS: In order to get the fuller picture, when did the regional council decide on this, and when it is going to be confirmed by the Conseil d'Etat? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (but keep a cat-redirect). According to the article (now at Hauts-de-France), the conformation is due in October 2016. I presume this is merely a rubber stamp operation unless it is opposed. In theory the change is premature. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, since the region's own website already uses the name Hauts-de-France and the WP article is also at Hauts-de-France, it would be silly to wait until October before renaming the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2016 (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:Version 0.7 articles by quality[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) 02:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Obsolete administrative category
This category was created in 2008 to make sure the articles in the CD version of Wikipedia were rated. The CD was released in 2009 so this category groups talk pages by the article quality from 7+ years ago. The admin purpose of these categories has passed and most of these articles been greatly improved since then. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified GregManninLB as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Wikipedia. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2016 (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/2016_March_19&oldid=1074816942"