Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 10 July 12 >

July 11[edit]

Category:Food in Montreal[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 in line with similar categories. the wub "?!" 19:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Food in Montreal to Category:Montreal cuisine
Nominator's rationale: Rename, "cuisine" is usually used for this topic. --Eliyak T·C 19:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anglophone Quebecers are very sensitive on enforced use of French, & I must say using cusine sounds very precious to British ears. I'd like to rename the lot. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 14 July 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:Anglo-Quebecers[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 for clarity, current name could be misleading to non-local readers. the wub "?!" 12:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Anglo-Quebecers to Category:Anglophone Quebecers
Nominator's rationale: For clarity. 'Anglo-' can and perhaps more commonly designates British ethnicity or origin. This cat page lists Quebecers who are anglophone regardless of their ethnicity Mayumashu (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Anglo- here clearly refers to language not ethnicity, and is probably better than Category:English-speaking Quebecers. However I am english not Canadian. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anglo-Quebecer is little used to designate Quebecers of English/British origin... So if such a English-origin category were created, it would not fit local English usage. 70.55.84.243 (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category pages, unlike article pages, are generally named to reflect clarity of meaning over correct local usage, although I m not sure that this is stated in WP guidelines - it s more of an observation one can make from spending some time at WP:Cats for discussion Mayumashu (talk) 04:27, 14 July 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:Free energy[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:Thermodynamic free energy. the wub "?!" 12:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Free energy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category with the "main" article being a disambiguation page. Used, apparently, to conflate Free energy suppression with things related to thermodynamic free energy. As an alternative, move to Category:Thermodynamic free energy, and remove Free energy suppression (from the category) with extreme prejudice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, move and keep the {{catmore}} template intact, so it points to that as the main article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:42, 11 July 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:Songs written by Leslie Satcher[edit]

Relisting at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 20#Category:Songs written by Leslie Satcher - the wub "?!" 12:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English language South Asian films[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. the wub "?!" 11:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:English language South Asian films to Category:English-language South Asian films
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Hyphenation per parent. Tim! (talk) 16:54, 11 July 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:English language Indian films[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. the wub "?!" 11:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:English language Indian films to Category:English-language Indian films
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Hyphenation per parent. Not sure whether it should be Indian English-language or English-language Indian... Tim! (talk) 16:45, 11 July 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:Categories named after musicians and its 847,391,265 subcats[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: Speedy keep Bad idea on my part. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Categories named after musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Okay, I'm being super-bold here, but really, do we need these? Consensus from previous CfDs has determined that we do not need categories for musicians, as the musicians' articles serve as appropriate navigational hubs. I can not think of one musician category that has survived CfD – every one I've ever nominated has been deleted as overcategorization. So why the heck are all these still around? (I'd tag the subcats too, but that would take forever...) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subcats should not be deleted until they all tagged, regardless of the past consensus, or number of subcats to list at CfD. Maybe work through them a letter at a time. This CfD should be speedily closed IMO, and relisted once all the sub-cats have gone (if that happens). Lugnuts (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as non-utility has not been established. Tim! (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep - I have probably been the strongest proponent on Wikipedia of deleting unnecessary eponymous categories. However, not every eponymous category is by definition overcategorization. There are some musicians or bands who have articles that are not easily interlinked through the main article (c.f. Category:The Beatles) or categories that include articles that do not have other logical parents (c.f. Category:Rush (band)). In those instances the eponymous category is warranted. About 200 eponymous musician categories have been deleted over the last year or so, and the consensus/compromise that had emerged from those various CFDs was that if the category contained nothing but subcats for the band's works along with the band's article (and in some cases the discography article) that the category was not needed. My personal approach to eponymous categories is that they are not needed unless the material relating to the subject is too complex for the article on the subject to serve as an adequate navigational hub. Many of the categories under the parent cat nominated here are not IMHO needed but some are, thus a blanket nomination is doomed to failure. Otto4711 (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sub-cats but delete the needlessly self-referential parent category (and all other categories named "Categories named after Foo", for that matter). Re-categorize the sub-cats in a manner relevant to the actual topics. — CharlotteWebb 18:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep everything (although many of them are named after groups rather than musicians). Many of these would be orphaned without their single parent. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split out Category:Categories named after musical groups. I agree with Otto4711 in that eponymous categories are needed when in fact it would be the only correct category for numerous articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Otto - previous Cfds have been (mostly) selective. Now that we can see the number of subcats at a glance on a parent page, it is clear that nearly all survivors have subcats, often many. Do you want to delete Category:Ludwig van Beethoven, with 163 articles altogether? Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 12 July 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:Beach volleyball at the Olympics[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. the wub "?!" 11:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Beach volleyball at the Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: In the eyes of the IOC[1], and the wikipedia articles such as Volleyball at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Women's beach volleyball, beach volleyball is one of the two disciplines that makes up of the volleyball competition. We've had similar situations in the past, with Category:Gymnastics at the Olympics (trampoline, rhythmic gymnastics, etc). Suggest to recat all of the articles to Category:Volleyball at the Olympics and Delete. Neier (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Olympic volleyball articles about beach volleyball can still be individually categorized to that category. Neier (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found the related discussion about gymnastics cats here. - Neier (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful subcategory of Beach Volleyball Competitions, if WikiProject Olympics doesn't like it, just use it for Beach Volleyball. 70.55.85.116 (talk) 05:50, 12 July 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.

Cancelled & unreleased media[edit]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 20#Cancelled & unreleased media - the wub "?!" 11:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Media business[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 as unopposed and pretty uncontroversial. the wub "?!" 11:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Media business (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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 Greencards[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Greencards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category; The Greencards already serves a sufficient navigational hub. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as eponymous overcategorization and extensive precedent that a category named after a musician is not required to house just the main article and a sub-category. As £10 says, the material in the sub-category can be reached from the main article anyway. Scores of such categories have been deleted in the last year. BencherliteTalk 08:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, precedent and WP:OC. Otto4711 (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not because it's "Eponymous", but because there simply aren't enough contents to justify a category. Cgingold (talk) 12:38, 11 July 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.

National Basketball Association players under six feet[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National Basketball Association players under six feet to be deleted.
It is an unnecessary fork of main category and should be deleted.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as arbitrary point of bifurcation. Those in the NBA who have a height of 5 feet 11⅞ inches are in no significant way consistently different that those who are 6 feet even. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Good Olfactory unless someone can explain the importance of 6 feet as a prescribed height for basketball players.--Lenticel (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it has something to do with the fact that they are the shortest NBA players, and this category is an attempt to quantify "Category:Short NBA players". Might a percentile-based definition of short NBA players have a more justifiable importance? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take the number of NBA players under 183 cm (6 ft) in height, divide by the number of NBA players, multiply by 100, then rename the category to "Category:National Basketball Association players in the bottom nth percentile of height". --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:18, 18 July 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:Brahmins speaking Hindi and its dialects[edit]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 20#Category:Brahmins speaking Hindi and its dialects - the wub "?!" 11:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealanders[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 Category:New Zealander ambassadors to the United Nations to Category:Permanent Representatives of New Zealand to the United Nations, and others as nominated. the wub "?!" 11:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:New Zealander ambassadors to the United Nations to Category:New Zealand ambassadors to the United Nations
Category:New Zealander figure skaters to Category:New Zealand figure skaters
Category:New Zealander singer-songwriters to Category:New Zealand singer-songwriters
Nominator's rationale: Rename all. "New Zealander" is a noun; the correct adjectival form is "New Zealand"; yada, yada, yada. (That last phrase is the technical way of citing precedent here in CfD.) The ultimate parent is Category:New Zealand people and almost all subcategories use "New Zealand" as the adjective. Notified creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per original nom. Go get rid of Zealander. Do not use 'permanent representatives', use 'Ambassadors' for the UN; there is no reason to change the standard naming for the UN people: they are called 'Ambassadors' Hmains (talk) 02:31, 14 July 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_July_11&oldid=1074800565"