Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 19

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< November 18 November 20 >

November 19

edit

Category:The Raccoons

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) 04:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Raccoons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overly narrow category. Contains only the main article, episode list and a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:26, 19 November 2008 (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:Baptist churches in the Republic of Ireland

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 per my highly irregular comments below, which I'll try not to repeat (has remained empty). Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Baptist churches in the Republic of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete All of the articles in this category are redirects Skier Dude (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed. Redking7 (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just discovered List of Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland churches, created by the same editor, which appears to be a very lengthy listing of churches, all of which look as though they have articles, but actually redirect to Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland. I think the editor has a fundamental misunderstanding of how things are supposed to work. Cgingold (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I admit that this is somewhat out of process, but I've gone through and done a major clean-up on many of the redirect pages that contained inappropriate categories that were created by this one particular editor. The reason for this was that the user had originally added templates and categories to the redirect pages. Other users removed the templates but not the categories. By me removing the categories from the redirects, this category has been emptied. (I didn't set out to accomplish that, but that's what happened.) I think perhaps if a few of us discuss this directly with the creator, that may be the most effective way to approach this issue. Would anyone object if this category were deleted as empty when this discussion is closed? (Of course, if there is an article that goes in the category, the category can always be re-created.) I'm not the type of editor that ever really invokes WP:IAR, but in this case, I think it might be the best approach to the problem, which has been quite extensive it looks like. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2008 (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:Columbia metropolitan area

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) 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Columbia metropolitan area to Category:Columbia, Missouri metropolitan area
Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity, as there is also a Category:Columbia, South Carolina metropolitan area— which is substantially larger. -choster (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2008 (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:Constitutional laws of Ireland prior to independence

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:British constitutional laws concerning Ireland. I see a clear consensus to change, however it is not clear what the best target would be. I think this version appears to have broad support, but it may not be without some issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Constitutional laws of Ireland prior to independence to Category:Constitutional laws of Ireland before independence
Nominator's rationale: Better English. One word "before" is better than two words "prior to". Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better than the original nom, certainly, and does fit the British parent. But the Land Acts are not really constitutional - maybe 2 cats are needed, as there must be other non-constitutional laws. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really think there is no need for another category for non-constitutional laws concerning Ireland - All British laws before independence concerned IRL because IRL was part of the UK. British law was the law of IRL during that time. Those laws are well categorised already as British laws etc. There may well even be separate categories for British land law etc. I think there is no benefit to try to pull all UK law before 6 December 1922 into a separate category because it concerns IRL.
Take the land acts out altogether if you wish. I guess they are there for convenience - the land acts closely followed constitutional developments in that era so having them in the same category was handy for Readers.
I think my modest change i.e.: Category:British constitutional laws concerning Ireland would be enough. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (voted above) another missing item is Crown of Ireland Act 1542 which was an Irish Act. The 1938 Act could be treated as ratifciation of an internatioanl treaty, and perhaps should not appear, but it does no harm. The statemetn that all pre-1922 British Acts applied to Ireland is incorrect: despite Parliamentary Union, the UK contained three separate jurisdictions, England (including Wales), Scotland, and Ireland. Even in the period 1801-1922 the UK Parliament was quite capable of passing Acts relating only to one or two of these. Before 1801, the GB Parliament occasionally passed Acts relating to Ireland, but most legistaltion was that of the Irish Parliament. Most of the constitutional Acts were British ones, but if we add the word "British", we would have to leave out Poynings Law and Crown of Ireland Act 1542. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative suggestion Category:Constitutional laws in Ireland before 1922. This would theoretically exclude the 1938 Act, but its appearance would do no harm sicne it was resolving the loose ends left from the 1922 settlement. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your latest suggestion, tweaked to this sounds good to me: Alternative suggestion Category:Constitutional laws in Ireland before independence. The "1922" date was problematic because some of the most important Constitutional laws were effected in 1922.
Re. not all pre-1922 British Acts applied to Ireland is incorrect. Of course. My point was a huge huge category of British law "concerned Ireland" so an earlier suggestion re categories was not practical. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does all this discussion mean we are stuck with "prior to" rather than "before"? Can the little change I originally proposed not go ahead? Does this discussion now trail off .... with no change? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sounds like there will be no change....One User pointed out why "British" could not cover all relevant constitutional laws and I pointed out that your first choice, "British laws" was much to wide for what this category was intended for...All I wanted was to get rid of the words "prior to" and have the word "before" instead. Sounds like my small improvement is lost amongst all these great ideas and there will be no change. I now give up on it. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2008 (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:Florida Sun Conference

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) 04:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Florida Sun Conference to Category:The Sun Conference
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The official conference name is The Sun Conference, not the Florida Sun Conference. The Category:The Sun Conference reflects correct naming. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2008 (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:Ancient Roman Christianity

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. However it appears that there could be a consesus for a rename so there will be a follow on nomination to continue the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ancient Roman Christianity to Category:Ancient Christian history
Nominator's rationale: Rename. A fairly small amount (or less) of Christian history in the years 1 - 500 AD was not "Roman" (in the Roman empire). This change makes the Category more incusive and makes clear were to place and find Ancient non-Roman Christian history events. It will also match the set of subcategories Category:Christianity of the Middle Ages and Category:Modern Christian history --Carlaude (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are only particular ones than have nothing else in common... Persian, Ethiopia, some germans, Celts, Armenia, Georgia, Indian. --Carlaude (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not convinced by this - it actually covers the period 70-500, earlier than that being New Testament Christianity. Nor is it really just a history category, as so many issues & articles are still highly relevant. I don't think "Ancient Christian" is a commonly used term, or a clear one. Christianity was very much a religion of the Empire, & the relatively minor extent of it beyond those borders before 500 does not pose a big problem I feel. Armenia & Georgia, the main areas concerned, were in and out of the Roman Empire during the period. Johnbod (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1st-- it does "cover" New Testament Christianity, but that is a just under "New Testament history" within "Ancient Roman Christianity"
2nd-- a change to "Category:Ancient Christianity" would be okay with me instead.
3rd-- Again... Persian, Ethiopia, some germans, Celts, Armenia, Georgia, Indian! Many many small examples. Note well that plenty of Europe was non Roman as well. --Carlaude (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4th-- If it is "relatively minor" the "extent of it beyond those borders before 500" then all the more reason to change to the more useful and incluesive "Category:Ancient Christian history" --Carlaude (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the concept of "Roman-era Christianity" is well-understood by students of it, but I can see how it would be misleading to the casual reader. Consider, however, that the main articles are Early Christianity and List of events in early Christianity, and at least some of the topics are theological and not historical. Perhaps a Category:Early Christianity parent should be interposed, while keeping and cleaning up Ancient Roman Christianity. Topics pertaining to Christianity outside ancient Roman civilization in this period (e.g. Gothic, Oriental, perhaps Celtic) could be moved thence, as well as the generic history by century categories. -choster (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing "Category:Roman-era Christianity"? While most people do not know this, the Christians in "New Rome" called themselves Romans and were around until 1450 AD or so.--Carlaude (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing. I pointed out that no rename may be required, and that the contents are a mix of history and theology, so "Ancient Christian history" may not be the best alternative. I believe Category:Ancient Roman Christianity was named to conform with Category:Ancient Roman religion, and think it can be narrowed to Roman topics, adding a parent like Category:Early Christianity, Category:Ancient Christianity, or Category:Christianity in the ancient world.-choster (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC) -choster (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ancient Christianity would still work fine under Category:Ancient Roman religion; there is no need to indicate "Roman" Christianity, just Ancient Christianity.
Also, "Early Christianity" would be a sub-set of "Ancient Christianity" (not the other way around) since Early Christianity in church history either ends with the convertion of Consentine I, or to some, ended even sooner. --Carlaude (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like Category:Ancient Christianity? --Carlaude (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced of the need to rename, but Category:Ancient Christianity would be a better choice than the one in the nomination. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2008 (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:Albums produced by Richard Landis

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 User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Albums produced by Richard Landis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Judging from CFD's like this, it seems that there is a rough consensus that albums should not be categorized by producer unless the producer has an article or at least has the potential for an article. I have been unable to find any reliable sources that are directly about Richard Landis, so I doubt that he will ever have a page, and therefore I think his category should go too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, precedent and rough consensus forming at the category talk page, if the producer doesn't pass WP:MUSIC then s/he should not have a category. Otto4711 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see no reason for this category to stay. The person doesn't even have their own page. --DA Skunk - (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the "Otto Test", under which a category will be retained if it meets three criteria 1) is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the topic of the category? YES 2) is it obvious why any given article would be in the category? YES the title is self-defining 3) does the category fit into the overall categorization system? YES a broad range of categories categorizes music. But most importantly, it groups similar articles together as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2008 (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:Charleston-North Charleston metropolitan area

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) 04:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Charleston-North Charleston metropolitan area to Category:Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville metropolitan area
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The official name of the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was changed in 2007, when Summerville was designated a Principal City.[1] The article has been renamed and I thought that the category should reflect this change as well. --Acntx (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2008 (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:Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice metropolitan area

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) 04:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice metropolitan area to Category:Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice metropolitan area
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In 2007, the official name of the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was changed from Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice to Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice because Bradenton surpassed Sarasota in population.[2] The article has been renamed and I thought that the category should reflect this change as well. --Acntx (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2008 (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:Attributes of African vocality

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) 04:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Attributes of African vocality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - Where to begin??... 1) This is the only category of the sort -- no categories for "attributes" of, say, Asian, Native American or Polynesian vocality. 2) Are these or any other "attributes of vocality" exclusively African?? (or Asian, Native American or Polynesian, etc.?) If not, they would probably need to be listed in multiple categories. 3) These and other "attributes of African vocality" are referenced in the short (2-paragraph) article on vocality. That article -- which was written entirely by the same editor who created this category -- is focused entirely on African/African-American aspects of vocality. Given the issues I've raised, it seems to me that if the article was renamed as "African vocality" (and properly categorized in Category:African music and Category:African American music), that would be far more useful to readers than this category. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this category was created with the best of intentions, but there is no evidence that there is anything African-specific here. As it turns out, I have been using Melisma, one of the two articles included here, without ever knowing it. Given the apparent lack of a parent article, it's hard to tell if there is a real structure here. I will reconsider, but I cannot see this category expanding or forming a connection of related articles. Alansohn (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "African" means "African American" here, and that the two articles included are correctly so described seems wrong. The main article vocality seems very dubious to me. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns in that regard as well, but I figured it was a little beyond the scope of this CFD. Cgingold (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Loose criterion, we don't categorize this way anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I, like Johnbod, think that "African-American" was the concept here, but that aside, I don't see this expanding with a lack of inclusion criteria. Skier Dude (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure we all agree that African and African-American are not the same thing. The "Vocality" article, just because it says something is both African and African-American (the aspects characteristic of African and African-American vocality), I don't think is unclear in itself (that would be the African in African-American). Regardless of that article, if the category "Aspects of African vocality" is inherently inappropriate, it should be deleted. Note that it was created two years ago. Hyacinth (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for joining the discussion, Hyacinth. I think it would be helpful for the article to state more clearly that African vocality carried over into African-American vocality (or something to that effect). As long as you're here, I'm also wondering what you think of my suggestion re renaming the article to reflect its focus. Or alternatively, it could perhaps be expanded to broaden the focus. Cgingold (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2008 (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:Political figures

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) 04:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political figures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No, Iapon Danzan is back (after I reverted tph's highly irresponsible edit - this is exactly the sort of thing that kills you at Rfa, tph) and he does need some categories. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added him to Category:Mongolian communists. This category can be safely deleted, I think. Terraxos (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added Mongolian politicians too, so yes. Johnbod (talk) 11:20, 22 November 2008 (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 in three or more occupations

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) 04:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People in three or more occupations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - per WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Why three occupations? Why not four or six? Also ambiguous. Would Janet Jackson or Madonna qualify because they sing, dance and act? Presumably the people who would be listed here are already going to be categorized in the respective occupation categories so this is just useless clutter stuck on the end of what's likely to be a long list. Otto4711 (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2008 (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:Sean Paul collaborations

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) 04:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sean Paul collaborations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorization category brings no useful, relevant info to any article and is clearly trivial and category clutter DiverseMentality 08:00, 19 November 2008 (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:Hip hop albums in 2008

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) 04:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming deletion of Category:Hip hop albums in 2008 to Category:2008 hip hop albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Changing to Delete. There are no other categories that break down a musical genre by year. Should this be the first? Should it continue with others (country, rock, etc.)? Would each album need to be categorized as Category:2008 albums (as recommended) and Category:2008 hip hop albums (or whatever genre) or just the latter more-defined sub-category. So I thought it would be best to bring this up for discussion because this could lead to a lot of genre overcategorization if not checked. At the very least, I propose the name change for this and the following categories: Wolfer68 (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums as well. --Wolfer68 (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I worry that after these categories get populated, all other genres will follow, and then someone will decide that the parent categories (albums by year) should all be depopulated. I've long advocated keeping useful categories undiffused. As this is an intersection, I'd rather see fully populated categories for both "albums of 2008" and "hip hop albums". The intersections can be found using search, and a list of the search intersections could be made to make the task easier. This would allow people to find both large and small groupings of articles. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all We already categorize albums by year, and by genre, separately. No need to then doubly categorize them by year and genre together. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all to Category:Hip hop albums (the ones I have looked at have all been removed from this) and to the corresponding year category. Occuli (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most albums will be categorized as a hip hop album (normally one of its subgenres) under the respective Albums by artist category and not under the individual album. Which brings up a good point about adding in these categories to every, in this case, hip hop album. The albums (and songs) by artist categories should be reserved for specific genre categorization where appropriate which keeps the maintanence of categorizing albums (and songs) to a minimum. I agree with Hammer...this is overcategorization. --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2008 (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.

Hip hop albums by year

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 (per above discussion). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2008 (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:Johnson Publishing Company

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. Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Johnson Publishing Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains nothing but main article Johnson Publishing Company, which is already in parent category. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2008 (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:Renegades

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Renegades to Category:Gobots
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is for a group of Gobot villains. There's no article about the group, nor are they mentioned at the disambiguation page Renegade, so I'm not sure they are prominent enough to be a subcategory of Category:Gobots. I'll admit I know little about Gobots. If kept, should rename to Category:Renedages (Gobots) Category:Renegades (Gobots), heh. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* But Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2008 (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:Endangered Creole languages

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Endangered Creole languages to Category:Endangered pidgins and creoles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the parent Category:Pidgins and creoles and all the subcategories. If kept, caps should be corrected to Category:Endangered creole languages. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2008 (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:Doctors who became politicians

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 both to Category:Physician-politicians. Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Doctors who became politicians to and Category:Doctor-politicians to Category:Physician-politicians (change made per Cgingold's suggestion below)
Nominator's rationale: Merge, apparently duplicate categories into a re-named new one. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Au contraire! This is, in fact, a highly significant intersection. Health and medical issues are high on the list of major political issues, and physicians have knowledge and perspectives that are rather different from the general run of politicians. Cgingold (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to get all waxy, but any politician coming from any other occupation brings knowledge and perspectives that are different from those brought by members of other professions. Infrastructure is high on the list of political issues, so should we have Category:Architect-politicians? Category:Farmer-politicians because of the importance of agriculture? We've already had one opinion against Category:Lawyer-politicians below but surely they bring a perspective on the law that non-lawyers do not. Why is that different perspective below the threshold of categorization and not doctor-pols? And why stop at politicians? I imagine that athletes may bring a different perspective to their follow-up occupations than non-athletes, so why not Category:Athlete-bankers or Category:Athlete-physicians or Category:Athlete-used car salesmen? What's the logical endpoint for these dual occupation categories? At what point does the perspective of a former occupation stop having a significant-enough-for-categorization bearing on the next occupation and how do we determine that without resorting to POV and OR? Otto4711 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • <sigh>Now Otto is disregarding the Otto standard: Per WP:CAT, three questions that are useful in determining the utility of a category are: 1) Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the topic of the category? YES - Numerous magazine and newspaper articles have been written on the subject. The article "Diagnosing a Nation: Physician Politicians Combine Medicine and Public Service" from the Association of American Medical Colleges is one of hundreds of sources showing that this is a strong defining characteristic. Tell me how many more you need. 2) Is it obvious why any given article would be in the category? YES - Someone who is both a physician and a politician, e.g., Howard Dean and Bill Frist in the United States and say Gro Harlem Brundtland in Europe. 3) Does the category fit into the overall categorization system? YES - Given the broad structure of categories for politicians and physicians, this fits into both structures well. And the first guideline for category usage is that the category groups similar articles together. That is certainly happening here. I will be happy to support your nonsensical hypothetical cases when you find corresponding reliable sources. Do we delete this solely because you've decided it's trivial or are there any policy considerations here? Alansohn (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
amended, but not that way. Johnbod (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the nominator has modified his proposal, so I suppose this is a moot issue now. :) Cgingold (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to pre-empt the comments of those who prefer using "doctor". But I agree that "physician" is by far more commonly used in WP, and it is also far less ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2008 (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:Brady Bunch cameos

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. While there is some support for a listify, these are only cameos and clearly not defining attributes. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Brady Bunch cameos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of performers by performance. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2008 (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:NSW Waratahs rugby union footballers

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 per nom. This seems to be support for a rename of the other existing category. If so, that really needs to be a second nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:NSW Waratahs rugby union footballers to Category:New South Wales Waratahs rugby union footballers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Use category with expanded abbreviation per article New South Wales Waratahs. (Or should this just be Category:New South Wales Waratahs players, since the New South Wales Waratahs is only a rugby union team?) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I think you'll find that their current 'official' name is HSBC Waratahs. For some reason Super 14 teams are refered to by nickname only much more than place-nickname combinations. Aust teams may be the exception as the place-nickname style is what we're used to doing with NRL/AFL teams.The-Pope (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2008 (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.
  1. ^ "Update of Statistical Area Definitions and Guidance on Their Uses (OMB Bulletin 08 - 01)" (CSV). Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. 2007-11-20. Retrieved 2008-11-19.
  2. ^ "Update of Statistical Area Definitions and Guidance on Their Uses (OMB Bulletin 08 - 01)" (CSV). Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. 2007-11-20. Retrieved 2008-11-19.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_19&oldid=1138391273"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy