Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 23 April 25 >

April 24[edit]

Dominican categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 12:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dominican rappers to Category:Dominican Republic rappers
Propose renaming Category:Dominican cuisine to Category:Dominican Republic cuisine
Propose renaming Category:Dominican hip hop musicians to Category:Dominican Republic hip hop musicians
Propose renaming Category:Dominican hip hop groups to Category:Dominican Republic hip hop groups
Propose renaming Category:Dominican hip hop to Category:Dominican Republic hip hop
Propose renaming Category:Dominican male singers to Category:Dominican Republic male singers
Propose renaming Category:Fictional Dominicans to Category:Fictional Dominican Republic people
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Dominican" is ambiguous, it can refer to the Dominican Republic, Dominica, or the Dominican Order. All these categories are being used for Dominican Republic articles, and should be renamed to make this clear. jwillbur 22:56, 24 April 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:Comparison of[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. Kbdank71 12:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Comparison of (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A category based on a WP naming scheme seems worthless and overly self-referential. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:07, 24 April 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:Discrete chips board[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: re-delete, as the category is empty and I have no idea what was in it. If the original merge target, Category:Discrete video arcade games, needs renaming, nominate and tag it. Kbdank71 13:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Discrete chips board to Category:Discrete video arcade games
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current title is not a proper encyclopedic descriptive. I'm proposing a move to Discrete video arcade games, because it more aptly describes what was intended. My reasoning for including video in the title, is to follow along with established naming divisions such as at Timeline_of_video_arcade_game_history. Arcade games are not just video games but also consist of redemption games, merchandisers, pinball, and other electromechanical devices. Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:06, 24 April 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:Communist Romania[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, unless a common solution is obtained for all of the soviet states as mentioned in the discussion. Kbdank71 13:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Communist Romania to Category:Socialist Republic of Romania
Nominator's rationale: Rename, also rename Category:Communist Romanian regions. There was no country "Communist Romania". Its name was "Socialist Republic of Romania". THe fact that it was also named differently (Romanian People's Republic) is irrelevant: it was the same state and there are plenty of similar cases, like Burma/Myanmar, etc. `'Míkka>t 16:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - for fully 42% of the regime's existence, the state was called "Romanian People's Republic". The difference with Burma is that Communist Romania has ceased to exist and thus we must look to historiography, not official names (which are important but not determining - see United States not United States of America, United Kingdom not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, etc), to determine usage. Given that Communist Romania is widely used by sources and that it encompasses both names, the category should not be renamed.
Plus, there's a very real accuracy issue: Danube-Black Sea Canal, Collectivization in Romania, Piteşti prison - these are intimately associated with the RPR, not the RSR. Biruitorul (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild oppose The term "Communist Romania" is widely used in literature to designate the state from 1948 to 1989, and the distinction between "those states" is minor (both worked with successive constitutions, and the constitutional change from one to another was minimal, while the changes in constitutional order within the two regimes are quite substantial, at least in theory). While I do not consider the anomaly of including 1948-1965 articles in a cat named after the 1965-1989 state to be a major problem, I consider that both the cat and the parent article should be kept/moved back to their old title, per the usage in historiography, and per a single denominator that would apply to both avatars of the regime without creating confusion. In such situations, I tend to say that a rose may have any name (provided that name is not POVed), but this scale looks to me like it's leaning over on the "Communist Romania" side. Dahn (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment suggest a common solution be obtained that would apply to all the categories and articles in Category:Soviet satellite states Hmains (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - not only for categories, but for articles on the communist states themselves we should see if there's any appetite for uniformity; we currently have History of Communist Albania, History of Communist Bulgaria and People's Republic of Bulgaria, History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989), East Germany and History of the German Democratic Republic, People's Republic of Hungary, History of Poland (1945–1989), Communist Romania and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - quite a grab-bag. Biruitorul (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Biruitorul above, although I'll happily defer to a more general consensus on this issue for all Soviet satellite states. Terraxos (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - if the decision is to rename, the old version should remain as a redirect. In view of the successive names, I would if anything opt for keep as is. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the official name of a state isn't as important as how reliable sources periodize a country's history (See Nazi Germany v.s. Deutsches Reich). In all cases in Eastern Europe the communist era is seen a one epoch no matter how the name of the state may have changed. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Biruitorul's rationale, the terms aren't equal, they only overlap. If for almost half its existence the state referred to as "communist Romania" was not called the "Socialist Republic of Romania", I don't see that we can rename it as such. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:08, 30 April 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:College Station-Bryan 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. Kbdank71 13:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:College Station-Bryan metropolitan area to Category:Bryan-College Station metropolitan area
Nominator's rationale: This category needs to be renamed to Bryan-College Station metropolitan area. No one uses the name "College Station-Bryan" it is "Bryan-College Station." Even the chamber of commerces and both cities put it in the order of "Bryan-College Station." We should use the proper name. Article has already been renamed, but category needs to follow suit. Collectonian (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I created the page/category and named it College Station-Bryan metropolitan area because that is the official name used by the United States Census Bureau to define the area. The change went into effect in 2003 [1]. Prior to that, it was officially known as the Bryan-College Station metropolitan area [2]. I was fully aware that Bryan-College Station is the common term for the area, but since this is an encyclopedia, I felt that the formal name should be used.
  • I think the cities/metro area's official name should take precedence over what was used in a single census. Collectonian (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The Census Bureau names metropolitan areas in strict order of population of the core cities, which means that its naming scheme can change from one census to the next. Since the local usage is less likely to change over time, I believe that should trump the Census Bureau. — Dale Arnett (talk) 05:31, 28 April 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:European Route of Industrial Heritage Anchor Points[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, although can someone check on the capitalization? It doesn't seem right, but I don't know enough about the subject to say if it's right or not. Kbdank71 13:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletion
Nominator's rationale Delete This category is circular, in that the anchor points are listed in the article, and each of the articles link back to the main site.Amwyll Rwden (talk) 06:59, 24 April 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:High Priority Free Software Projects[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:High priority free software projects to remove capitalization (note: I guessed at what it should be, because as roundhouse noted, the nomination doesn't say what the rename to should be. Let me know if it's incorrect and I'll fix it). Kbdank71 13:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:High Priority Free Software Projects to Category:High Priority Free Software Projects
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Modifying capitaliztion to clarify that this is a concept vs. an official title of these projects. Cander0000 (talk) 06:36, 24 April 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:American women Senators[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: do nothing. I'm probably the last person on earth that would use the term "slap with a large wet trout" but I may need to add it to my repertoire, as way too many people are emptying categories while these discussions are ongoing. I'm really tempted to undo any future moves and close the discussion as "wet trout slap". I understand where Bearcat was coming from, with only one article, but dammit, you're not a newbie; you should know better. Kbdank71 13:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American women Senators to Category:Female United States Senators
or deletion.
I think this category is intended for women who were United States Senators, since Diane Feinstein was the only article included at the time of nomination.
Alternative 1: Rename. First—"United States Senator" needs to be used rather than just "Senators", since there are State Senators and other types. Second—having the "United States" in the name makes the "American" redundant. Third—"Women United States Senators" sounds awkward as it would be using "women" as an adjective. The proposed name is similar in format to Category:Female_United_States_presidential_candidates.
Alternative 2: Delete. The category named Category:Female United States senators was deleted by a 2006 NOV 3 CfD. Re-deletion is certainly another option based on the arguments there. Category:Female United States Senators was created after this and was deleted as re-created material on 2006 NOV 26. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since 2006, there have been CFD debates which resulted in a consensus explicitly allowing female politicians to be so categorized; the reason for creation here was to prevent Category:American women in politics from getting too large. As well, unlike in 2006, all US Senators are now subcategorized, so having a category for the female ones doesn't "ghettoize" anybody from the principal category since nobody's in it in the first place. Rename. Bearcat (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bearcat seems to have pre-empted this discussion. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all. The category only had one article in it when it was first nominated, because I created it while in the process of working on a different batch job, with the express intention of coming back to it afterward. I renamed it when I came back to it, given that there was only one entry in it anyway, but the option of deleting the new category if people still feel strongly that it's unnecessary or unwarranted is still very much open. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete empty now and superfluous, but that is a bit naughty. Johnbod (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nominator) : I'm getting quite used to editors pre-empting the nominations I create by creating the proposed category after I notify them of the discussion. It seems to be the price of being polite by notifying creators. ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've given up complaining about this, and the wording of the procedures page, on talk, but if anyone wants to try again, I'll happily support... Johnbod (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and repopulate. Consensus in 2006 was to delete this category, but I think it has encyclopaedic value; female U.S. Senators are historically uncommon (though obviously less so today), and in my view this intersection is of sufficient relevance for a category to exist. Terraxos (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nom - "United States" is the preferred qualifier, not "American", which would cover other countries on the continent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not necessary, that something is historically uncommon (as per Terraxos above) does not make the intersection valid. Do female senators legislate differently than their male counterparts? If we took their voting records vs. their male counterparts' to a blind review would people be able to say "ah, she votes like a woman senator"? Of course not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure if the last three have noticed that User:Bearcat has emptied Category:American women Senators and moved them all to Category:Female United States Senators. My delete was only on this basis. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 28 April 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:Demon-based superheroes[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. Kbdank71 13:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Demon-based superheroes

Delete as redundant category.--Lenticel (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, category with excessively vague/unclear inclusion criteria. Terraxos (talk) 23:10, 26 April 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:Interurbans[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. Kbdank71 13:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Interurbans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and
Category:Kansas City interurbans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Rename per nom. Interurban is not clear at all (from a UK perspective). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. It's not clear from a US perspective either! Otto4711 (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename for clarity Hmains (talk) 18:35, 25 April 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:Never-electrified interurbans[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 to Category:Interurban railways per the rename above. Kbdank71 13:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Never-electrified interurbans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Single article category. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:30, 24 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_24&oldid=1074799883"