Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 20 July 22 >

July 21[edit]

Category:Students of F. F. Bruce[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 16:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Students of F. F. Bruce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - Even if we accept as fact the description of "celebrated Christian theologian" in the category's headnote (on which I hold no opinion), this is nonetheless not an appropriate basis for a category, imo. Far better to add a short section (or list) about notable students to his article. Cgingold Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like OCAT to me. I'm okay with a list of students as well.--Lenticel (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment F. F. Bruce is widely held as the most prominent Christian theologian of his time. I created the category, and will abstain from offering a keep/delete argument. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - categorizing students by their teachers is overcategorization. Somewhat similar to the previously deleted Brecht collaborators category. Otto4711 (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per deleters - this would never end. They can easily be listed at his article, where none seem mentioned so far. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify in BIO article and delete -- F. F. Bruce was certainly a very distinguished English Brethren theologian. His own article is brief and may not fully do justice to his reputation. However, I do not think we can have a category for the doctoral students of every academic. (With regret) Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 22 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:Applied science and technology templates[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 16:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Applied science and technology templates to Category:Technology and applied science templates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More people-friendly to put the general (technology) before the more academic (applied science)? Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:29, 21 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:Natural science and nature templates[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 16:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Natural science and nature templates to Category:Nature and natural science templates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More people-friendly to put the general (nature) before the more specific/academic (natural science)? Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:29, 21 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:Social science and society templates[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 16:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Social science and society templates to Category:Society and social science templates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More people-friendly to put the general (society) before the more specific/academic (social science)? Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:27, 21 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:Bosnian rock musicians[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 16:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bosnian rock musicians to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina rock musicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rock musicians are categorized by nationality, not by ethnicity, and the style used for the nationality of people from Bosnia and Herzegovina is "Bosnia and Herzegovina foo", not "Bosnian foo", which suggests an ethnicity. See subcategories of Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Begrudged support as this is the currently accepted "style", but I would strongly prefer "[genre] musicians from [place]" across the board for reasons I have explained in similar recent CFDs. — CharlotteWebb 15:53, 21 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:Planet devourers[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. Kbdank71 16:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Planet devourers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little or no growth potential. Not a particularly useful categorization scheme IMHO. If retains, rename to something a bit less dramatic, perhaps Category:Fictional planet consumers. Otto4711 (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Galactus has the more splendid title 'Devourer of Worlds' (as does Colin). The ability to consume planets might well be defining, hereditary and inherently notable, leading in due course to a well-populated dynastic category. Occuli (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also Omnipotus, who has 'a finger named Otto and freakishly small feet'. Occuli (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what does "devour" when talking about devouring whole planets... if you have a weapon that dumps a black hole into planets to consume them, it would fit, and that's not a character. What about the Babylon 5 Shadow planet destroyer? etc 70.51.8.103 (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep --Two of the articles are tagged as needing major attention. Howerver, this appears to be a legitimate (if small) SciFi topic. If kept, it should be renamed Category:Fictional planet devourers]]. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 22 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:Category:Planet devours[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: already deleted. Kbdank71 16:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Planet devours (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Likely type for "planet devourers" -- and, if so, vague criteria for inclusion. Is this for fictional characters? Real-world natural phenomena? Real-world planet eaters?! --EEMIV (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remark I think this qualifies as a speedy delete - the creator made it, made some edits and then blanked it, all in a few minutes. Occuli (talk) 11:51, 21 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:People from Nagasaki, Nagasaki[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 16:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Nagasaki, Nagasaki to Category:People from Nagasaki (city)
Nominator's rationale: as per convention for disambiguating city from alike named jurisdiction, as in Category:People from Lagos (city), Category:People from Osaka (city), Category:People from Rome (city), etc. etc. Mayumashu (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This was recently done for similar categories for other Japanese cities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per precedent.--Lenticel (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per WP:MOS-JA conventions, and the fact that (city) disambiguator is usually only applied to city names which stand alone without a ", Prefecture" designation which prevents confusion. This discussion is completely different from the previous one, which renamed cities such as "Saitama" (in "Saitama Prefecture" to "Saitama (city)". None of the "City, Prefecture" names need this form of clumsy disambiguation. Neier (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it clumsy? and not tidier? Especially for Japanese cities, it s apt in fact - In Japan, you never refer to Nagasaki city as 'Nagasaki, Nagasaki', - you d 'disambiguate' by using 'Nagasaki-shi' (where 'shi' translates to 'city) (because it is perfectly understood that the city of Nagasaki is in Nagasaki prefecture) Mayumashu (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to get into a discussion about moving Japan-related articles to more closely resemble their native Japanese-language names, that is one thing; however, in English (including government web pages, company stock reports, personal correspondence, etc), I have never seen an address in Japan (or any other country) as "Cityname (city)". The overwhelmingly accepted naming convention for a place (city, town, village) in Japan in English is "City, Prefecture". For better or worse, the Japan project decided that certain special cities did not need the Prefectural tail in their names; but, this is not much different than the arguments that pop up (and which I also have participated in) to move US cities such as Indianapolis, Indiana to a shorter name. The previous discussion you have alluded to involved moving the categories for cities that the Japan project felt did not need a ", Prefecture" tail to a less confusing category name. Nagasaki was not one of the cities that lost its prefecture tail, since there is no concensus that the city is more notable than the prefecture. There is nothing at all confusing about the categories with "Nagasaki, Nagasaki" in the name. Having the article at Nagasaki, Nagasaki and categories with "Nagasaki (city)" is clumsy, in my opinion. Neier (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment --When we had a similar discussion some time back, we were told that the Japan project wanted it that way. If so, let them keep it. Personally, I would have liked it as nominated, but I think we should defer to what the project what. Have they been notified? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Defering to projects with category naming would result in absolutely no consistency with it throughout the encyclopedia Mayumashu (talk) 02:17, 23 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:Eurasian people[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 16:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Eurasian people to Category:People of mixed Asian-European ethnicity
Nominator's rationale: for greater clarity, but more in this particular nomination, for consistency with the proposed renamings in the nominations listed here below. 'Eurasian people' can also describe the people of the landmass of Eurasia regardless of their ethnicity Mayumashu (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- in India this is a synonym for Anglo-Indians, who are now an ethnic group, descended ultimately from the offspring of Indian women and British men (mostly soldiers). I understnad them now to be a homogeneous group, and you would casue reentment by renaming in this case. It may be necessary to provide the category with a headnote to define more precisely who is supposed to be included. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Eurasian' is the synonym? Regardless of whether we use the present name or the proposed one, Category:Anglo-Indians would continue to be a subcategory link, of course Mayumashu (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The proposed name is much clearer and less ambiguous. Currently, more than just Anglo-Indians are included; Anglo-Indians are properly placed in Category:Anglo-Indians. Peterkingiron's opposition is a good illustration of why the name should be changed to something less ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. 'Eurasian' is highly ambigous. Note that this has been up for cfd before. --Soman (talk) 20:44, 26 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:Afro Asians[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 16:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Afro Asians to Category:People of mixed Asian-Black African ethnicity
Nominator's rationale: for clarity and in conjunction with the nomination here immediately below. 'Afro-' means of Africa, not just of Sub-Saharan Africa, yet consideration for being "Afro Asian" is restricted (apparently) to people of Black African ethnicity. 'Asians' are people of Asia and one may (I know I did at first) take this to mean native to (a country in) Asia, and not the intended 'of Asian ethnicity' regardless of where one is from. Mayumashu (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I have extreme doubt as to the value of of this category. I have only looked at a sample entry, which proved to be of a Saudi minister with some African blood, no doubt derived from a female ancestor who arrived as a slave. I very much doubt that his ancestry is a notable characteristic in his case. If retained at all this category needs to be radically pruned. Delete if possible. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. There are some things that should not be here, especially Negrito people and peoples like the Semang & Aeta, who have had no connection with Africa for thousands of years or more. Prince Bandar seems ok to me, if we are counting Arabs as Asian, which incidentally the US Census Bureau appears not to do? Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Negrito when putting this together and removed the link. Prince Bandar seems fine with me too, and I don t think at all that we should be concerned with what the US Census Bureau does - if one is Arab of a country in continental Asia, then that s he/she is of Asia, Asian and belongs Mayumashu (talk) 02:15, 23 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:Afro-Caucasian people[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 15:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Afro-Caucasian people to Category:People of mixed Black African-European ethnicity
Nominator's rationale: for clarity. Both 'Afro-' and 'Caucausian' are terms that have more that one meaning. 'Afro-' is another form of the adjective African, and many Africans are not Sub-Saharan(ie. Black), yet this page lists and is meant to list just those of Black African ancestry. Outside of American English, 'Caucasian' more likely describes people of the Caucasus and not anyone of predominantly (northern?) European ancestry. Mayumashu (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though they regard themselves as 'Black', a high percentage of West Indian and Black Americans in fact carry a European male Y-chromosone, being descended from the liason of a white master or overseer and a black slave. This is a surprise to many of them, due to a more recent taboo on cross-racial marriage. Where this refers to Americans, there is will be need to add that they are of that nationality, leading to a triple intersection, which is considered overcategorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The category is clearly defined. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 22 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_21&oldid=1074800608"