Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 16

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

August 16[edit]

Category:Organ systems[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. Organ systems redirect to Biological system, but Biological systems redirect to Systems biology. It would seem that they are different, if even only slightly. . Kbdank71 13:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Organ systems to Category:Biological systems
Nominator's rationale: Merge, According to Wikipedia's entry, an organ system is the same thing as a biological system. Since Wikipedia prefers the latter terminology, this category should disappear and have its contents moved. svadhisthana (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2008
Comment. It seems to me that Category:Biological systems deals with the concept of such systems and general topics relating to them, while the subcategory Category:Organ systems contains specific systems. --Eliyak T·C 14:03, 18 August 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:Rush (band)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rush (band) to Category:Rush
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Also,

All Rush-related categories currently have a (band) disambiguator attached to them, which sometimes creates some odd names (like Category:Rush (band) members). None of these categories need the disambiguators, as there are no similarly-named categories and the word "Rush" by itself in a category really isn't that confusing (the articles that link to these categories clarify the meaning of "Rush" anyway). The disambiguator in Category:Rush (band) might be justified, but that's still pushing it. Xnux the Echidna 21:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This falls under what most people would call "trying too hard". Not a single one of those other meanings could ever justify a category that would last more than five seconds under our speedy deletion rules — and even if they did exist, not a single one of them could actually be named "Rush songs". The word order alone kills all six of them as possible meanings of the phrase "Rush songs" — every single one of them would have to be named differently than this. Bearcat (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per well-reasoned arguments of Black Falcon. Cgingold (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per opposers. There is Tom Rush who had albums and songs etc. Occuli (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Categories were renamed back in March. Given that "Rush" has so many meanings just within music, the adddition of "(band)" is necessary here. I'd compare it to, say, Category:Alabama (band) songs, which clarifies that the songs are by Alabama and not about them (although, with most of Alabama's material, both are true). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, keep "_(band)" per Black Falcon's comments and mine at the previous CFD. — CharlotteWebb 16:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Though I chose to remain neutral in the previous CfD, I do acknowledge that a decision had been made at that time, and I respect it. Without the introduction of new argument or extended rationale, I'm unable to understand why the nom has even been allowed to resurface at CfD five months later. IMO, it's a matter that's already been resolved. -- WikHead (talk) 08:07, 19 August 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:Self identifying drug addicts[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 on deletion, rename per Good Olfactory to fix spelling. Kbdank71 13:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Self identifying drug addicts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary. 91.62.189.197 (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix the spelling of "Self identifying" to "Self-identifying" (it's an adjective, thus hyphenated), pending a more complete rationale for deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:23, 19 August 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:Works of Siniša Vuco[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 13:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Works of Siniša Vuco to Category:Siniša Vuco albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Contains albums only. GregorB (talk) 16:56, 16 August 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:Works of Thompson[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 13:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Works of Thompson to Category:Thompson albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Contains albums only. GregorB (talk) 16:54, 16 August 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:Works of Miroslav Škoro[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 13:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Works of Miroslav Škoro to Category:Miroslav Škoro albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Contains albums only. GregorB (talk) 16:49, 16 August 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:Works of Mate Bulić[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 13:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Works of Mate Bulić to Category:Mate Bulić albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Contains albums only. GregorB (talk) 16:43, 16 August 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:Azureus[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, empty. Kbdank71 13:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Azureus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Requested by owner User Noian. Tyw7, leading new frontiers ‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) 13:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category appears to have been emptied out of process and the nomination is not complete since the category was not tagged. Also Delete Category:Vuze as OCAT with only two entries and navigation can better be handled within the articles themselves. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Owner"? People own categories now? Bearcat (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, didn't you know?!? I guess you missed out on that 2-for-1 introductory sale last month. :) Cgingold (talk) 13:18, 20 August 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:Azerbaijani Georgians[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 13:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Azerbaijani Georgians to Category:Georgian Azeris
Nominator's rationale: as per comments below Mayumashu (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Mayumashu. Good proposal for traditional ethnic minorities. - Darwinek (talk) 09:55, 16 August 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:Russians in Estonia[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. (completely unrelated to the close: American here, and yes, I take it to mean something other than what you are most likely intending. A well written header is necessary IMO. I still don't know why we are categorizing people like this, but that's neither here nor there). Kbdank71 13:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Russians in Estonia to Category:Estonian Russians
Nominator's rationale: as per comments made in nomination immediately below Mayumashu (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Mayumashu. Good proposal for traditional ethnic minorities. - Darwinek (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unhappy -- Mayumashu has done some very good work on expatriate categories, converting them to Fooians of Booian descent, but here we begin to run into difficulty: USSR issued internal passports with a multitude of ethnicities. The Estonian SSR has sicne become Estonia, but has a large Russian minority. Equally, due to Stalin's deportations, there are Estonians in Siberia. These are people of Estonian ethnicity, not merely descent. Mayumashu's original objection to Booian Fooians was the risk that Fooian Booians would appear in it. If we are not careful we will revert to that difficulty and all Mayumashu's good work will have to be undone. I think Category:Russians in Estonia is a good description for a group that has been left quasi-stateless since the break up of the Soviet Union. I similarly think that some of the Middle Eastern ethnic groups (such as Armenians in Lebanon or Iran) might conveniently be dealt with in a similar way, though they are Armenian by religion, rather than exile. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True enough. An American is likely to see the proposed rename and take it to mean citizens of Russia or partial or full Estonian descent. Certainly, an explanation at the head of the page is necessary to avoid any possible confusion. 'Russians in Estonia' is still no better though as it does not in any way differentiate between Russians with Estonian citizenship or permanent right to abode and Russian expats in Estonia, and this differentiation is a fundamental one that we need to be clear about with naming. Mayumashu (talk) 03:29, 22 August 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:Turks in Bulgaria[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 13:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Turks in Bulgaria to Category:Bulgarian Turks
Nominator's rationale: 'Turks in Bulgaria' does not at all differeniate between citizens of Bulgaria who are ethnic Turks and Turkish expatriates living in Bulgaria. The proposed renaming follows the naming pattern of a similar group, Georgians in Persia/Iran, whose page is Category:Iranian Georgians Mayumashu (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Mayumashu. Good proposal for traditional ethnic minorities. - Darwinek (talk) 09:55, 16 August 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 with tinnitus[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: listify at Tinnitus#Notable_individuals_with_tinnitus. Kbdank71 13:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People with tinnitus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category can too easily bypass normal checks for possible violations of wiki policy regarding biographies of living persons. A single source location for a list of this sort is already in place at Tinnitus#Notable individuals with tinnitus, and this location is under the care of several editors who insist on references. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starter's Defense:This list is like other "people of interest with a health condition" category that can list more important people than is allowed on the tinnitus main page. The editors do not wish to have a lengthy list on the main page. It is a serious health condition that has changed many celebritys' lives and there are many more than what's provided on that short list. The article has been checked by a reputable editor and those that survived his deletions have sources. Famous tinnitus sufferers can be important for sufferers and students alike. Radman 99 1999 (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Radman 99 1999 refers to me as the one who made many deletions on the list. I am not arguing for or against the list, but I just wanted to clarify that I removed people from the list if their article did not have a citation at all. I am unsure if the remaining people on the list have reliable sources cited, as I did not check the sources. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The importance of the information is not in question. Adding the tinnitus sufferers you find to Tinnitus#Notable individuals with tinnitus satisfies the need for readers to know which famous people have (or had) the condition. The editors who regularly patrol the Tinnitus page have no limit at all on the length of the list of sufferers, they just insist on a verifiable reference for each listing. The "many more" who aren't currently part of the already-established list can easily be added. Readers going to the already-established list will be on the same page as medically accepted and accurate descriptions of the condition, and they are presented with possible paths to treatment. It's a more complete experience for the reader than a simple category. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentThe list on the tinnitus main page isn't lengthy right now, but it could get that way, due to the enormous number of musicians, actors, and other well-known people with tinnitus and the growing interest in it. The tinnitus page isn't there for a long list of celebrities with tinnitus and this category could instead serve that porpose. These two articles could be related, but two different subjects. The new category could be monitored for sources and questionable additions could be deleted, which someone already has! The tinnitus article is there for the treatments and accurate descriptions, like other health conditions, and not to know what famous people have it or not, the other article is. Otherwise the main article will get crowded and will be forced to downsize. Radman 99 1999 (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. There's no point in worrying about the list of tinnitus sufferers getting too long... if that happens, if the list is ever perceived to be taking over the Tinnitus page, then at that time the list can be split off to its own page. Right now there's plenty of room for additions. Binksternet (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. There is already an incredibly long list of causes of tinnitus and every treatment known to man and the page is already too long. Adding even more tinnitus sufferers to an article is not what the article is intended for. There is no reason why there can't be a split off category of tinnitus sufferers, especially when it is the norm for many health conditions that have many sufferers to have a category for well-known sufferers. The point that it can't be monitored because it is a category is pointless, because the same can be said for other acceptable categories. So far, this category has been monitored. Radman 99 1999 (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete. Clearly this is not going to be defining for most of these musicians. For the others, who knows. In addition we would need sourcing. The suggestion that the category be monitored is useless since there are no tools to even begin to allow anyone to do that and how can we guarantee this would be continued in the future? Listify and cite in the list. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Your commitment to the subject matter is worthy and honorable, but again, the importance of the information is not under discussion. The argument is about where the list of tinnitus sufferers should go. Having two places for the list isn't optimal, so only one should be selected. Vegaswikian's point about the impossibility of the category being monitored for verifiability in light of WP:BLP is a compelling argument against the category. The existing list serves the purpose quite well, and is only 30k in size as of this writing; not "incredibly long". Arguing against having the list of "every treatment known to man" above the list of tinnitus suffers is arguing against reader/sufferers quickly finding a possible solution. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The long lists at the tinnitus article are only used to serve my point, and besides, having a list of fifty different treatments (most that don't have much use for almost all sufferers) does not mean a possible quick fix for a tinnitus sufferer. I know that from experience. Trying to get back on point, there are health-related catagories that have been properly maintained and served their porpose(sp?) like List_of_people_with_multiple_sclerosis and List_of_deaf_people and tinnitus is more common than both of those and can be devastating in its own right. What I am trying to say is that it can be succesfully monitored, and there are enough sufferers to justify separating it.
    And please don't reinstate my other comments, I deleted them because after submitting it, I saw it didn't serve my point and it is just cluttering up this log. Thanks. Radman 99 1999 (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)    [reply]
  • Bringing to attention. Hearing Awareness and Education for Rockers (HEAR) is a reputable organization that tries to educate people about the hazards of loud music. The argument against keeping this category is that the list of the tinnitus article is short and has plenty of room for additions, providing they have a good citation. The website for HEAR has an article that has a list of notable tinnitus sufferers, most of whom have their own Wikipedia article:
    http://www.hearnet.com/features/articles/artist_article_celebs.shtml
    This article has been cited for some of the celebrities listed on the tinnitus article, so it is definetly a good source. It lists artists, musicians, actors, and historical figures, which would be important, for those interested, to list here on Wikipedia. Since adding all of these differing notable people on the tinnitus article would be silly, it justifies a category. A list of people with tinnitus is important enough to be listed here on Wikipedia, but too long to be on the tinnitus article. A category is the best possible solution. Radman 99 1999 (talk) 16:03, 16 August 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:Cincinnati Kelly's Killers players[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, assuming the article redirect switch happens. Kbdank71 13:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cincinnati Kelly's Killers players -> Category:Cincinnati Porkers players
Nominator's rationale: Cincinnati Kelly's Killers currently redirects to Cincinnati Porkers, which is apparently the recognized name of the team in question. I submit that this associated category should reflect that. -Dewelar (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is that the team in question only played one season, and thus can have only one name. -Dewelar (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too many adverbs. Somehow my mind swapped the words "currently" and "apparently" in your comment above. Support. — CharlotteWebb 18:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect PORKERS to KELLY'S KILLERS. Two highly respected websites used as references by many editors officially list the team as "Cincinnati Kelly's Killers". Baseball-reference.com and Retrosheet. Although another says their official team name was actually the Reds], but went by Kelly's Killers informally. [Baseball-almanac refers to them as the Porkers. My opinion of the whole mess, is to use the more historically "friendly" version of Kelly's Killers. Retrosheet is ran by the SABR organization, who use the actual boxscores to come to their results, and Baseball-Reference who are used most often as the source of acurate team names and statistics. I would also support the redirecting the Cincinnati Porkers article back to Cincinnati Kelly's Killers.Neonblak (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this outcome. -Dewelar (talk) 15:34, 19 August 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:The Velvet 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: Deleted by PeterSymonds. Category was emptied after Flash Back got nuked. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Velvet albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only one item, not much of a category, and I have proposed the deletion of the one item in the category. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The decision on a category like this is entirely contingent upon what happens with the article -- so as a rule it's best to hold off on a CFD until the related AFD has run its course. Cgingold (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit I'm not all that experienced with categories, but it seems that either way the decision goes on the PROD, there is a maximum of only one thing that will ever be in this category, so it's not really contingent on the deletion, IMHO. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • True enough -- in most cases, categories with only a single article are, in fact, deleted. But there are exceptions, and "Albums by Xyz" is one of them. If you look at the parent, Category:Albums by artist, you'll see there's a headnote that says: "Please note that all single-artist album articles should have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded." Cgingold (talk) 02:11, 16 August 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_August_16&oldid=1074799969"