Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 12

< July 11	July 13 >

July 12[edit]

Category:Video game anti-heroes[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. >Radiant< 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per strong consensus against "hero" and "villain" categories as expressed through innumerable CFDs. The logical parent category Anti-heroes has been deleted multiple times. Otto4711 22:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hero is ambiguous enough - and consensus seems to recognize that - anti-hero can only be more ambiguous, thus making this category impossible to populate objectively. Carlossuarez46 05:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 07:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Characters are not split into "hero" and "villain" categories because of multiple problems (such as POV problems and the problems caused when the characters switch allegiances). Dr. Submillimeter 07:39, 13 July 2007 (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:Visionary: The Video 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: delete. >Radiant< 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We currently categorize song articles by artist, but not by album. Giving every album and compilation its own category would be a massive undertaking, offer very little benefit, and lead to some songs being included in dozens of new categories. There seems to be nothing special about this boxed set, which, like most compilations, has its own article with a track listing and links to song articles. Delete. ×Meegs 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nathanian 15:53, 13 July 2007 (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.

Solo 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: as nominated. >Radiant< 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename Category:John Sykes solo albums to Category:John Sykes albums
delete Category:New Edition solo albums

The convention of Category:Songs by artist is to categorize all albums by recording artist, regardless of how many albums the artist produced. As such, I've completed the categorization of the members of Category:New Edition solo albums by creating Category:Johnny Gill albums and Category:Ralph Tresvant albums to go along with Category:Bobby Brown albums. The additional categorization by musicians' former groups has little utility and sets a bad precedent, particularly for the cases where musicians have been a part of many groups and collaborations. Similar cats were previously discussed and deleted here. If there's renewed consensus to delete, I'll fix up Category:New Edition albums to match Category:The Rolling Stones albums after the discussion closes. ×Meegs 20:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Delete per nom and convention. Otto4711 02:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Postlebury 10:56, 13 July 2007 (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:International Volunteer Organisations[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. >Radiant< 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:International Volunteer Organisations to ~~Category:International voluntary organizations~~Category:International volunteer organizations

Nominator's rationale: Rename; correct case, consistence with other sub-cats. Her Pegship (tis herself) 20:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:International volunteer organisations and rename any "voluntary" categories to "volunteer." A google search returns a total of fewer than 3,900 total results "international voluntary organization" and "international voluntary organisation" as compared to close to 26,000 results for "international volunteer organization" alone. Otto4711 21:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:International volunteer organisations, which correctly places the emphasis on the role of these organisations specifically as suppliers of volunteers (as opposed to other forms of assistance such as cash). Baridiah 00:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; revising proposal. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:08, 13 July 2007 (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:Subways[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. >Radiant< 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Subways to Category:Underground rapid transit systems

Nominator's rationale: Rename - See the first discussion, second discussion, and third discussion on this category. Many people would like to rename this category, as "subway" is only used for underground rail transportation in some countries and as "subway" has alternate meanings in other countries (such as in the United Kingdom, where it refers to an underground pedestrian walkway.) The suggested name is the one that most people liked at the end of the last discussion, but it was introduced too late to really gain acceptance with everyone. Moreover, the suggested name seems to have the same meaning in all countries, making it more acceptable than the alternatives ("subway", "underground", and "metro"). Dr. Submillimeter 19:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Otto4711 21:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support 132.205.44.5 22:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Johnbod 22:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per previous discussion. -Sean Curtin 23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Hawkestone 23:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename seems to make sense to use a title that does not favor one side of the pond or the other. Carlossuarez46 05:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Unlike the last suggestion, I can endorse this. Xtifr _tälk 13:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Rapid transit. The current name is inappropriate, but a far more serious issue is that the category exists in parallel with Category:Rapid transit, despite being but one type of rapid transit. A better solution would be to eliminate this super-category altogether, after verifying that all included articles are properly categorized within the rapid transit scheme. Mackensen (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think most people want to list subways/undergrounds/metros separately from other rapid transit systems. I myself would oppose such a merge. Dr. Submillimeter 8:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  - I'd be interested in having a discussion on the actual merits of doing so. The current category is a catch-all and not especially well organized. Underground rapid transit systems is necessarily a sub-cat of rapid transit anyway–you're not gaining anything by duplicating the structure, and we'll have endless arguments over whether Metro X is really an "underground rapid transit system" or just a Metro that happens to run in tunnels. I think we're taking a step backward here. Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2007 (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.

Singles to songs[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. >Radiant< 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More singles categories to be merged and renamed to fit the convention of categorizing single releases and non-singles together in Category:Songs by artist. Previous discussion here, here, and in well over a dozen CfDs since. ×Meegs 18:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for Rage Against the Machine: Category:Rage Against the Machine singles is a 16-article subcategory of Category:Rage Against the Machine songs, which otherwise contains 6 songs which are not singles. The categories are emphatically not "almost entirely overlapped" or "coterminous", and therefore fail the deletion criteria suggested by the precedent cited. Skomorokh ^incite 20:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "coterminous" comment referred to the state many of the singles and songs categories were in a year ago, before they were merged: rather than having a two disjunct categories as does the Rage Against the Machine, it was common then for the songs categories to directly contain all of the singles articles in addition to the non-singles (if any). At that time, there were also probably fewer articles about non-singles and suggestion by some that only single releases deserved articles. Many of the discussions since then have focused clearly on the idea that it is not worth separating songs based on single releases at all. ×Meegs 22:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/rename all - per convention of Category:Songs by artist. There is no utility in categorizing singles separately from non-single songs. Otto4711 20:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/merge all per nom and previous discussions. --musicpvm 21:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Dominictimms 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Merga all per discussion of June 9th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Most of these are my fault, as I created most of these (John Mayer, Missy Higgins and Brooke Fraser) before I was aware that "songs" is the standard practice. My bad. Oh, and about RATM, the 16 articles that are in Singles are all songs, so they're all fine to go in there. If they were Singles that weren't otherwise songs by the band (i.e. differently named) then they might be more appropriate in an EP category if that's the case, but that's not with any of the Rage singles; they're all singles named directly for their lead track song, so they need to be merged also. --linca ^linca 05:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem. I'm curious, do you know of any singles that are not named after a song (or a song and its b-side)? "Closer to God" is the only one I've heard mentioned in these discussions, but it does contain a remix by that name. ×Meegs 05:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anything with fewer than say 6 tracks I consider an EP, pretty much (except for Wish You Were Here or Love Over Gold on account of the exceptionally long tracks on each). I can't think of any off hand, but I'll throw in "dual title" singles that aren't intrinsically songs such as most of the Beatles catalogue, Don't Wanna Be Left Out/Good-Day Ray by Powderfinger or Second Solution/Prisoner of Society by The Living End. Despite this, I'd still categorise these as songs, as I did with DWBLO/GDR. --linca ^linca 05:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's good practice, or at least its the best we can do given the current situation where some articles are centered on the single release rather than the song(s) themselves. ×Meegs 08:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per dozens of similar CfDs.--Mike Selinker 09:14, 13 July 2007 (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:Native American Recognition Controversies[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. >Radiant< 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of category of Wikipedia policy. Controversial articles Native American or other are redundant. --Kebron 15:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we need a link to the category. Johnbod 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that.......... got it now. --Kebron 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(personal attacks removed) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this post for what Mr Merkey is talking about please. It is irrelevant what he is talking about in my opinion but please note the discussion for information's sake. --Kebron 20:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive269#SCOX_Issues_User:Kebron

Delete per nom. Ignore the personal attacks and WP:AGF. The category serves no purpose, only content is a redundant template. heqs ·:. 10:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. There should really just be one main article on this anyway. Bulldog123 15:57, 13 July 2007 (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.

eponymous bands - Q[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. Yes, this is what's done in other fields, and no, this is not required for "easy access" of anything. We have ample precedent for this at the other letters as well, as demonstrated by the nominator. Consistency within a field is considered a good thing. >Radiant< 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - as with many other eponymous band categories, the material here does not require the eponymous category. Eponymous overcategorization. Otto4711 14:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Useful for navigation to albums/songs/members, especially in the case of Queens of the Stone Age considering the large number (20+) of former members not widely known to the Wikipedia-reading public.Skomorokh ^incite 20:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current and former members of Queens of the Stone Age should be categorized in Category:Queens of the Stone Age members. Otto4711 20:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Required for easy access to the articles. Dominictimms 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you seriously for making wikipedia harder to natigate than it already is? Categories are how I navigate and I believe it's how many do. This isn't overcategorization because, as that page says, arbitrary categories need not belong, but these are far from arbitrary. If anything they're very definitive and unambiguous. --linca ^linca 05:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is overcategorization because, as that page says, in the section discussing eponymous categories:

As a general rule most people should not have their own eponymous category. The primary reason is that if every notable person had their own category, it would mean many hundreds of thousands of additional categories to maintain. Secondly, such categories normally are of, at best, limited, and in most cases no navigational benefit to readers. Typically, all articles directly related to the subject will be linked to from their main article. For example, an actor or artist will typically have a complete list of his works included in his main article, and a reader interested in reading those links will normally visit that person's article first before visiting a category named after them. Moreover, because notable people often interact with hundreds or thousands of other notable people, an eponymous category is open to misuse, tending to appear on any article that mentions them. Therefore as the navigational needs of the reader are usually adequately served by the person's main article, eponymous categories generally should not be created.

The main exception to this rule would be where Wikipedia's coverage of the person in question is split into multiple directly linked subarticles, articles which cannot otherwise be reasonably categorized. An example of such an exception would be Jan Smuts which has a number of subarticles, such as the Early life of Jan Smuts and Jan Smuts in the Boer War. These function best when categorized together under Category:Jan Smuts. Category:Ronald Reagan is another example which contains multiple subarticles and lists directly related to Ronald Reagan that work best when brought together in this eponymous category.

This guideline should also be considered for categories named after families, bands and television series. Otto4711 19:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Queen Anne's Revenge, barely notable as an article let alone category. Keep the others. heqs ·:. 10:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per numerous previous cfds and WP:OCAT, most bands do not need an eponymous category solely for albums, songs and band members. All those items are already sufficiently categorized under other schemes, and the main article for the band serves as the central hub to navigate them. Dugwiki 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why should an article be used as a "hub" in the category system in these cases? That is not what is done in other fields. Nathanian 15:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per ample precedent. (Note to Nathanian: yes it is what is done in other fields.) Xtifr _tälk 13:07, 14 July 2007 (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.

Eponymous band categories - O[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: as above. >Radiant< 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all

See band categories - A and band categories - W. Unless otherwise noted, each of the nominated categories consist of one or more of the following subcats: members, albums, songs, along with the band article and sometimes a discography. This is overcategorization per precedent. The exceptions are: Category:Oasis which includes an awards list and a DVD subcat, both categorized elsewhere and interlinked with the other material, and Category:OutKast which includes an article on Mr. DJ who is an associate of the band and who is interlinked through the other material. I don't think these warrant an eponymous category either but they are noted as deviations from the standard. Otto4711 13:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Required for easy access to the articles. Dominictimms 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See above regarding numerous previous cfds of eponymous bands and WP:OCAT. Dugwiki 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per next section up. Nathanian 15:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Oasis which has some extra articles that may justify the cat (although you can count me neutral). The rest are all just the standard band and discography articles and members/albums/songs categories, all of which, as is well established, does not need or warrant an eponymous category. Xtifr _tälk 13:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Dominictimms... Ranma9617 02:13, 18 July 2007 (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:October Road (TV series)[edit]

Category:Little Mosque on the Prairie[edit]

Category:Mr. Meaty[edit]

Category:Bones (TV series)[edit]

Category:Dirt (TV series)[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. >Radiant< 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV show. Category not needed for two articles and a subcat. Otto4711 12:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Condensed these entries by --TheDJ (talk • contribs)

Delete overcat. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary, overcat. Carlossuarez46 05:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, categories for two to three articles about minor television shows aren't needed. --RandomOrca2 18:43, 15 July 2007 (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:Alain Badiou[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: as nominated. >Radiant< 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Alain Badiou to Category:20th century philosophers, Category:Continental philosophers, Category:French philosophers, Category:Maoism

Nominator's rationale: Per the eponymous categorisation rule, I nominate this category for upmerging as above. Xdamr^talk 11:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the single article per nom. Johnbod 18:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Nathanian 15:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; see Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous categories for people. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 06:51, 14 July 2007 (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.

Road accidents 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: rename. >Radiant< 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"XXXX road accidents" was the original scheme, and follows that of Category:Disasters by year. The other categories seem to follow a format common in Category:Transportation disasters by year.

Rename for consistency. Circeus 00:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Lugnuts 13:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Tim! 16:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 2004 road accidents is an awkward form. It's natural meaning is, "this category contains articles about 2004 road accidents. Therefore the convention should be, "Road accidents in ...." Dominictimms 21:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I decided to make a normal instead of speedy because I suspected some might favor the other way around. It does look against you so far, though. Circeus 15:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. -Sean Curtin 23:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 06:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]