Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 31

< January 30	February 1 >

January 31[edit]

Category:Israel railway routemap[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Looks like a category intended for a single tempalte עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Rail routemap templates Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary. The single template doesn't have any code to make it a template and it doesn't link to any pages, so should be deleted also. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Monarchs of Ceylon[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was sigh, keep. Kbdank71 15:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: We do not require a category for two items. DrKiernan (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at a minimum upmerge to Category:Heads of state of Sri Lanka. It is part of 2 greater overall schemes of classification: (1) It is part of the overall Category:Heads of state by country categorization scheme to provide the heads of state for all sovereign countries since their independence. (2) It also is part of the Category:Monarchs categorization scheme, where monarchs are classified by country for every country that has ever had a monarch. Upmerging would preserve (1) but lose (2); deleting would lose both. Snocrates 08:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Snocrates, (1) and (2). Upmerging would also put George VI of the United Kingdom directly into Category:Heads of state of Sri Lanka which would seem bizarre. (It's not clear to me why there are only 2 - Sri Lanka says that the island was under British rule from 1815.) Occuli (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were only two monarchs of Ceylon: George VI and Elizabeth II. Ceylon was not an independent kingdom prior to 1948 (although there was a kingdom of Kandy 150 years or more before). My point is that the category will never expand, and it will only ever contain 2 people. DrKiernan (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - but there are plenty of small categories which are complete and will never expand. (Eg Category:Kings of Yugoslavia.) Occuli (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless category - how many dozen of these would we need to complete the whole tree for the former British Empire? Will just confuse people navigating. Meanwhile the pre-British rulers are either not categorised or not in this tree. To Occuli, this is supposed to cover the period after independence (1948) until they became a rebublic (1972) within the British Commonwealth. Johnbod (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is in rather a lot already. I'm now not sure whether this is reasonable. Occuli (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many historical leader categories that never expand. I was not at all confused in navigating the category; in fact, I found it helpful to have the Presidents of Sri Lanka and the Monarchs separated within the Heads of state category. Seems like a good idea to me and I wish other countries' head of state categories were as clear. Zoporific 08:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasons described by Zoporific. Dimadick (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Snocrates. --Beloved Freak 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Water cases[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Water cases to Category:Water case law

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with parents Category:Case law by topic and Category:Water law. Snocrates 05:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom for the consistency reasons stated and for clarity Hmains (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency with parent categories. --Beloved Freak 19:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency and clarity. Doczilla (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Rothschilds (Rothschildren?)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete all. Kbdank71 15:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Overcategorization by individuals within families. I would suggest merging all of these into Category:Rothschild family, but the articles are already there. Snocrates 02:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. why not have an informative tree view complimenting the article. It is not that much work - I have finished, but it is much more informative.Chendy (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please check the Category:Rothschild family to see how useful this is. I think this is what they do on the german wiki.Chendy (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single entry categories?????? Making a family tree using the category structure seems to be wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems to be wrong, because it is wrong. Despite the name, there's no clear relationship between the "parent" category and the "child" categories. Are they father-son relationships? Or stepfather-stepson? Or brother-brother? Or heirs? Or lovers? Or what? Or, if viewed as "subsets", there's no sense in which one person is a "subset" of another. Please, create a family tree graphic like the Godwin Shelley family tree and upmerge all the individual articles, and the image, into Category:Rothschild family. --Lquilter (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. overcat. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DrKiernan (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This is not how categories work at all. In future splits by British/French/German might be ok, but at the moment only the Brits have many articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and lquilter. LeSnail (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories named after a person, typically contain multiple articles on aspects of the person. This doesn't seem to be the case here. Dimadick (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorisation. --Beloved Freak 19:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Premier League top scorers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, as per Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Award winners. Similar categories deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_1#Category:Golden_Ball_winners_and_Category:Golden_Shoe_winners. Already listed in the "Top Scorer" column in English football champions#Premier League (1992–present). Chanheigeorge (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - overcategorisation. --Beloved Freak 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:U.S. basketball teams[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 15:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:U.S. basketball teams to Category:American basketball teams

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Duplicate category for presumably the same purpose. Target category is older and is properly named as a "by country" sub of Category:Basketball teams. Snocrates 00:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. unnecessary duplication.Sting au Buzz Me... 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. LeSnail (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment where in WP:NCCAT does it use "American ..."? It looks like it should be "Basketball teams in the United States" according to that page. Neier (talk) 12:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm Actually that seems the only variant not found in the tree - see Category:United States soccer clubs etc. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some modicum of consistency brought to Category:American sports teams and its subcats. Category:American football teams is an especially confusing name. For this particular category, Category:United States basketball teams would be acceptable, although, grammatically incorrect. There are other U.S. xyz teams in the American sports teams category, and I've added rename tags to them as well (to get rid of the abbreviation), if anyone interested in this discussion wants to add their comments there too. Neier (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bit the bullet, and started Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)#Sports teams in each country, to hopefully eliminate many confusing category names. Neier (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to match all others (once the baseball category is renamed).--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate merge both into Basketball teams in the Unites States per WP:NCCAT and Neier. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.