Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 25

< June 24	June 26 >

June 25[edit]

Order of precedence 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: keep. Wizardman 14:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - categories capturing people based on their position in the United Kingdom order of precedence. Per the outcome of this CFD, this is overcategorization by trivial characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Unlike those in the last category, these all have honourary titles themselves, which is clearly defining. The categories are not based on their position in the United Kingdom order of precedence in fact. Precedent is irrelevant, and the category is defining. That's not even to go into the last close, which had 3 deletes, including the nom, and 4 keeps, all of whom had more arguments than the deleters. The closer expressed stong views himself, and really should have voted instead of closing. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If these people have titles, then they should be categorized under their titles. I will admit that I am not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to nobility, but is "Daughter of Earl" an official title? If it is, then fine, show me a reliable source that says so. If it isn't, then tell us the official title for the daughter of an Earl and rename the category to it. If there is no all-encompassing title for daughters of Earls then this is trivial. As for the previous close, the main argument advanced for keeping was that they had a place in the OoP and indeed your own !vote was per that argument. CFD is not about the quantity of arguments or !voters. It's about the quality of arguments. Categorization by trivial characteristic is overcategorization and the argument that they have a place in the OoP was not deemed to have overcome that argument. Otto4711 (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some (basically children of earls and above) of these would be "Lord John Smith" (or Lady); others "The Honourable John Smith". You will find the relevant articles if you bother to look. You mean you did NO research before nominating this? Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for a source that says "Daughter of Earl" or "Younger Son of Duke" is an official title. If they are official titles under the names as currently formulated, great. Show me the source. If their title is "Lord Floppybottom" or "Lady Bodiceripper" than categorize them by the correct title. Otto4711 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is their article title - have you looked at these at all? I think a WP:DRV should be launched on the previous decision if it going to expose us to this sort of nonsense. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me an article that's Called "Jane Doe, Daughter of the Earl of Foo." Because I'm not seeing any, or if there are any they are so few and far between as to be quite easily overlooked. There are a lot of articles that include in their titles such words as "Duchess" and "Baroness" and Marchioness" and the like, which are actual titles as opposed to these unreal titles that you're suggesting without apparent foundation are meaningful. Is there some reason why those who are actually titled are not categorized by actual title instead of by their relation to someone else with a title? I'm fine with withdrawing the nomination in its entirety and even supporting the overturning of the previous CFD if you show me a single bloody source that says that these are official titles of these people. The ball's on your pitch, mate. Step up to the wicket or sit down. Otto4711 (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Younger sons of dukes", "Daughters of earls" etc. are ranks, not official titles. In answer to your statement about peeresses: unless is a peeress holds the title in her own right, then that is their title by courtesy of their husband. However, most of the duchesses, marchioness etc. with articles on Wikipedia do hold their titles by courtesy of their husband (i.e. wives of peers), therefore categories like Category:British duchesses, Category:British marchionesses are added to their page. Seeing as your argument relates to those with "relation to someone else with a title", does that mean you want to get rid of those categories as well?

As Johnbod says below, there are no other categories available (or have been created) to explain why someone is called Lord Joe Bloggs or Lady Jane Smith. The only other option I can think of would be to create categories like "People with the prefix Lord", "People with the style The Honourable", which, to me, would be absolutely absurd, as this could possibly (especially the latter) include people totally unrelated to the Peerage. Craigy (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's not all that terribly important to categorize these people by happening to have been birthed in a particular order. Otto4711 (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to fuel you with more ammunition, but other categories exist for people with "relation to someone else with a title" which serve the exact same purpose, i.e. Category:Children of Presidents of the United States, Category:Spouses of members of the United States House of Representatives, Category:Spouses of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, Category:Children of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, Category:Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada, Category:Spouses of French presidents, all the others in Category:Spouses of national leaders (bar those whose country hold 'First Lady' as an official title). You seem to have honed in on the Peerage without even bothering to to see if categories exist like this elsewhere, when your argument clearly applies to these as well. Craigy (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a terribly compelling argument. Otto4711 (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Lady Caroline Lamb so called? Because she was the daughter of an Earl. There are no categories for any of the different types of "Lords or Ladies" using those words (Category:British Lords etc), precisely because there are different types. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - defining and non-trivial, per Johnbod. (Cited cfd closure is bizarre to say the least.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. This is effectively their position in society, not the order of precedence. Dimadick (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. As mentioned, these are defining categories. Category:Wives of younger sons of dukes should not have been deleted anyway as there was clearly a majority of people who wanted to keep it. If the categories above stay, then I'll restore the deleted one. Craigy (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CFD is not majority rule. If you believe the category should be restored, take it to WP:DRV. Otto4711 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well restoring a deleted category makes it eligible for speedy delete of restored material. I suggest that you don't do that. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you take me to WP:RFC when I do. Craigy (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A speedy delete just gets done. No need for a discussion. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun. Craigy (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - I periodically create articles on Members of Parlkiament. Being related to a peer often advanced a career. Furthermore, the relationship enabled me to find brief details in Burkes Peerage. Many possible members of the category will be NN, but that is no reason why notable persons should not be categorised in this manner. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 27 June 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:Kirk Franklin[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) 11:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization. The main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for this material. Otto4711 (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and multiple precedents. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:43, 2 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:Urban transport[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. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty category that does not have a corresponding article. While it may seem a reasonable category at first glance, it is very uncommon to categorize transport as urban, suburban, rural; I fail to see how this category can be used in a constructive, non-overcategorizing way. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is empty, I think it would have eben speedily deleted anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delete the tag, because urban transport is a very important (more than nowaday created in Wikipedia and related with transportation) in the topic. Urban transport has specific problems and themes.--Mac (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. PKT (talk) 16:46, 1 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:Neutrino Physicist[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. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: rename if kept: mis-spelled according to similar categories - should be Category:Neutrino physicists - if kept. Ian Cairns (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am a creator of this page as I followed a read link from somewhere else, I missed the wrong spelling of the name. We can move the page to "Category:Neutrino physicists". Gülməmməd ^Talk 18:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - isn't this a speedy? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename as simple pluralization error. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 25 June 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:Sons of the American Revolution[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. Wizardman 14:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: delete: Unnecessary category, list at Sons of the American Revolution#Partial list of famous SAR members is enough. Jklamo (talk) 15:56, 25 June 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:Higher education in Ontario[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category duplicates Category:Universities and colleges in Ontario, and isn't necessary. We should delete it. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Note: I created the category.) Category:Universities and colleges in Ontario is a subset of Category:Higher education in Ontario. The former would not contain articles such as Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics or University Health Network. I'm still sorting through these articles to properly categorize them. Mind matrix 15:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Over the past ten or so years, researchers (e.g., Glen Jones, 1997) and policy makers (e.g., Ontario Ministry of Education and Training, 1996) are increasingly viewing higher education in Ontario as a system of many elements (e.g., policies, institutions, funding mechanisms, governance models, and interests). The intent of this category is to help gather the relevant elements of the Ontario higher education system into one place either as articles or sub-categories. Adhe536ontario2008 (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename. I think within the context of Education in Ontario, it makes sense to subcategorize between post-secondary education and education up to grade 12. I dislike the title "Higher Education", however. It seems vague and somewhat arbitrary. PKT (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name may seem ambiguous, but it is the standard term used in journals that publish about this topic. (Have a look at some of these search results.) Mind matrix 15:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per mindmatrix. We need more articles actually about HE, and frankly fewer crappy repetitions of the websites of colleges. On the name, there is a tree of Category:Higher education by country etc. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 3 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:Games That started out as rumors[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) 11:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as trivial / overcategorization. If kept, needs a rename and parent categories. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any justification given for the category's sole member, either. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 21:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:11, 27 June 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:Georgian history[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is not a sensible dis-ambiguation category per the fact that the adjective "Georgian" is not standard to refer to the U.S. state. Georgia guy (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom no doubt intends. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overlaps with the category Category:History of Georgia (country). Dimadick (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Georgian" may not be a standard adjective for the US state but it has many other meanings (see Georgian). It seems to me that this category redirect is a sensible dis-ambiguation category, and perhaps other relevant categories could be added to its message (eg Category:Georgian era). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as DAB category. It may not be "standard", but as the DAB page Georgian points out, it certainly can be used to refer to people from Georgia (U.S. state). We probably need more of these DAB pages for "Georgian", not less. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and expand. A helpful navigation tool for the unknowing, which is what an encyclopedia is for. Hmains (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's a DAB-category and not meant to be used, so the argument that it "overlaps with the category Category:History of Georgia (country)" misses the point. I must admit I was unaware of this surprisingly small group of categories, but found a couple of names in Category:People from Birmingham that needed recategorizing. If we make it / them redlinks, then it just causes more work elsewhere to track down ambiguous category creations. Bencherlite ^Talk 06:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As a DAB category, it is needed (1) to warn people not to use it (2) to enable articles so-categorised to be assigned to one or other of the correct ones. The point about the Georgian era is a good one and could usefully be added to the template. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 27 June 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:Spartak Moscow footballers[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. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Spartak Moscow footballers to Category:FC Spartak Moscow players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. WP:FOOTY uses clear guideline for categories of football players. If the name of the club is distnict only to a football club, "players" from should be used. Spartak Moscow is a multi-sport club but FC Spartak Moscow is its football section. In the same manner we have Category:HC Spartak Moscow players for ice hockey players. Renaming is therefore a logical step in further standardizing our WP:FOOTY stuff. Darwinek (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, per article name FC Spartak Moscow and per naming convention in Category:Footballers in Russia by club. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per article name and naming convention in Category:Footballers in Russia by club. Jogurney (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as they do have diffrent names if it was one sports club called Spartak Moscow Sports club or something like that then i would sayit stays the same but as they are known as diffrent names it should be renamed.ROOSTER (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 20:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per WT:FOOTY. Peanut4 (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom and general naming convention. --Jimbo^[online] 13:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom BanRay 19:41, 28 June 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:Baltic diplomatic missions[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: relisted 2008-07-04. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probable delete (or rename if kept).

I might be inclined to support retaining this category if there were more articles with substantial content directly pertaining to the stated subject. There are small bits of info in the biographical articles, but not really enough, in my estimation, to justify a category. If kept, it should be renamed more narrowly to better reflect its intended use. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom. Suggest something like Category:Diplomatic missions of the Baltic states (1940-1991) if kept. There might well be more material than the present 4 articles (3 seem to be about Latvia). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since all but 1 are diplomats, Category:Diplomats of the Baltic states (1940-1991), with new parents, might be better. Or is there a cat for WWII/Cold War governments in exile? Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I am the author of the category and I would agree with the suggestion to rename it to Category:Diplomatic missions of the Baltic states (1940-1991). This really was the purpose to devote the category to WWII/Cold war Baltic diplomats and diplomatic missions in exile. The sole reason why only one mission is mentioned there is that there are no articles yet about Estonian and Lithuanian missions (although someone should create them). Also, there are several other diplomats to add to this category, but they also do not have their articles yet (for Latvia Arnolds Spekke should be added, for Estonia - Johannes Kaiv, as well as Juozas Kajeckas, Stasys Backis for Lithuania. I noticed that Povilas Žadeikis and Stasys Lozoraitis from Lithuania already have their articles, so I'll add them to the category. Avellano (talk) 4:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Support REname but if the intention is to deal with the missions of governmetns in exile, should not the phrase "in exile" appear? I assume that the relevant SSRs did not conduct foreign affairs and so had no diplomatic missions. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tricky case here is that diplomatic missions are per se located in foreign countries, so a phrase "diplomatic mission in exile" may seem a bit strange. At the moment, there is no direct relation of this category to governments in exile of these countries. Governments were detached from diplomacy at that time. See List of Heads of State of Latvia for an insight. Avellano (talk) 15:21, 29 June 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.