Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 21

< March 20	March 22 >

March 21[edit]

Category:American Peers[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 on march 31. Kbdank71 13:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to American nobility or to be decided by consensus. Peerage applies only to the United Kingdom and France...--Camaeron (t/c) 21:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Renamed Category:Nobility of the Americas or something - nearly all are Canadian, Mexican or Brazilian, and "American" should not be used, as it implies the US only. Category:American nobility exists, as you would know if you had put any links in your nomination. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this page still needs to be deleted. Besides I didnt want to make such a big move with out consulting everyone here first...--Camaeron (t/c) 10:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it needs to be merged, and you need to tag Category:American nobility. Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distribute contents - this category is a hotchpotch of different ones, which need to be sorted inot several subcategories of "American nobility". Spanish viceroys were (I think) governors, not hereditary nobles. The Canadian subcategories could be added to "American nobility". I have removed one mistaken item, a baronet (not a peer anyway) who served in America. "American royalty" (including emperors) are not really "nobility", but gathering them as a subcategory would be harmless. This will largely empty the category. When empty or nearly so, delete. Sorry, not an easy answer. AS a matter of fact, most European countries have or have had a nobility; "peer" probably only applies strictly to British and Irish peerages. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:01, 27 March 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:nu- music genres[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 12:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

entire category is just unrelated musical genres with "nu-" or "new" prefix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk • contribs) 13:32, March 21, 2008

Delete - category is collecting unrelated musical genres on the basis of having a similar prefix. Overcategorization by name. Otto4711 (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 04:44, 25 March 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:Slovenian playwrights[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: closed. Nothing left to see here. Everything has already been moved. No point in stalling or temporarily reverting for the sake of process. — CharlotteWebb 20:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Slovenian playwrights to Category:Slovenian dramatists and playwrights

Rename Category:Slovenian dramatists and playrights to Category:Slovenian dramatists and playwrights

Nominator's rationale: Merge both into single new category. Categories are duplicate; merge into new category named in line with conventions of Category:Dramatists and playwrights by nationality. (Second category listed just has a spelling error in it.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to bring it here -it was a typo error -I'm redirecting it and this is not a matter for discussion ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is the convention dramatists and playwrights rather than just playwrights so the other category should be either deleted or redirected. I don't think you needed to bring it here ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm afraid I don't comprehend why you're upset about this, B of S. It sounds like you, perhaps, simply aren't familiar with the CFD process -- your ideas about how to deal with the situation are completely at odds with what's required. Good Ol’factory handled things "by the book", and I fully concur with his proposal. Cgingold (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just prefer to follow the normal procedure rather than manually emptying categories and creating new ones to replace them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cgingold (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a waste of time when it is clear move that has already been made. Who said anybody was upset? It was a typo error which is not a case for a discussion. However I guess some people like to do it by the book for record purposes which I guess is fine ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[posted as-is following edit conflict] If that's what you believe, then you clearly need to familiarize yourself with the proper procedures for dealing with such things. The typo alone could have been taken to "Speedy renaming", but since a merge was required for the other, it made perfect sense to bring them both here. And you sure come across like you're rather upset -- or at least, bothered -- about the whole thing. If you're not, I have no idea why you're making such a fuss about it. In any event, let's not waste any more time arguing, since you don't seem to be objecting to the end result. Cgingold (talk) 14:25, 21 March 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:Statements (finance)[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 as to keep or delete, rename to match main article. Kbdank71 12:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no requirement for this recently created category. All the articles are already in their more specific categories. In addition, putting articles with the word "Statement" in the article title does not serve any significant purpose or benefit for editors or people using Wikipedia. This category should be deleted. Chessy999 (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Financial statements to match main article Financial statements, though bank statement and the accounting policy statements should be removed, and some other items added. I see no problem with this category - it is the parent Category:Statements that is dubious. Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the usefulness of this one, but please do rename the category to match the article's title (or vice versa) if it is kept. — CharlotteWebb 20:46, 24 March 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:FC Barcelona in Europe[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 12:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category is empty, having been recently depopulated, and I see no reason for its continued existence. European cup final articles should be categorised under Category:Wikipedia F.C. matches, and articles on individual seasons of European competitions should not be categorised by clubs competing in said competitions or their finals. – Pee Jay 10:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 10:58, 21 March 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:Philippine priests[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 12:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Philippine priests to Category:Filipino priests

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use appropriate nationality adjective. I realise this could very subtly change the meaning from "priests in the Philippines" to "priests of Filipino nationality", but since both the parents and the subs use "Filipino" and, after all, the parent is Category:Priests by nationality, I think the change is appropriate. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:37, 21 March 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:Legend of Dragoon[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 12:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I see no reason for the existence of this category as it contains now only two articles because character articles were merged to a single list page. Mika1h (talk) 10:04, 21 March 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:Supreme Allied Commanders[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:NATO Supreme Allied Commanders. Kbdank71 12:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Another category better served by a list (and is at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe#Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR). Additionally, this is a specific job within the military, and makes as much sense as having categories for all commands. Supreme Allied Commander can also refer to positions other than just the NATO position. --Nobunaga24 (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Category:NATO Supreme Allied Commanders. I think holding this position is important enough to be defining for those who have. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you could easily say all four star commands (or for that matter any command, especially flag officer level commands) are defining, and have a category for each one. Past debates (which I am too lazy to search for right now) have vetoed the concept of categorization by units personnel have served in, and commanding a unit is just an extension of that. I still say delete, but if the category stays, then at the very least it should be renamed to your suggestion.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I threw out a precedent, so I have a responsibility to link to it. It's at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 23#Category:United States 7th Cavalry Regiment people--Nobunaga24 (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Without citing and linking to the debates, just claiming something has happened in the past isn't much help.~~ (Deleted comment resulting from near-simultaneous edits.) And anyway, consensus can change. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Category:NATO Supreme Allied Commanders per GO. NATO is more than just a "unit". Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Category:NATO Supreme Allied Commanders - Agreed that we don't want categories for the vast majority of commands, but certainly NATO is an exception to that general rule. This command has great political significance in addition to its purely military role. Cgingold (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
agree with last two. Categories are to be preferred to lists, though lists can add extra information such as dates. Any holder of this office will be notable (per se) so strong keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:05, 27 March 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:Recipients of Distinguished Service Medal[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:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal. Kbdank71 12:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Although a high level award, it is a non-defining award that generally goes hand-in-hand with being a flag officer or senior NCO. It is not an award for valor. Additionally, this category lumps six awards together in one category, and completely ignores the fact that the U.S. version is only one of a few awards in the English-speaking world with the same name (Distinguished Service Medal (Australia), Distinguished Service Medal (United Kingdom)), as well as the English translation of some other awards (see Distinguished Service Medal). Even if you disagree with my argument above in favor of deletion, you would still have to rename the category by inserting the word "the" before "Distinguished." --Nobunaga24 (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I pretty much concur with Nobunaga's assessment, but I'd like to hear what other people have to say on this. Cgingold (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nobunaga24's assessment seems reasonable, although I'm always a bit unsure about the defining-ness of various military-related decorations. I don't think I understand the "the" note for renaming-if-kept, though; maybe N24 could explain that a bit further? --Lquilter (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Recipients of Distinguished Service Medal" sounds like a non-English speaker. The correct phrase would be "Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal"--Nobunaga24 (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BUT rename as per suggestion Kernel Saunters (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So keep six separate awards grouped into one category and ignore awards of the same name that are not from the United States?--Nobunaga24 (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - but it would be better if it were split between countries. This is (or was) an award for Distinguished service, and is not one that comes up with the pay. However, I would doubt that having a DSM would make a person notable without something else. However rename to Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh) It pretty much is for the pay grade. You don't get one if you get caught doing naughty things, but that's about it. And it still is six awards grouped under one category. But I think I said that maybe. "Is or was" - it (they) still exist, as the articles state.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 00:20, 27 March 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:Fictional CIA agents[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 12:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional CIA agents to Category:Fictional Central Intelligence Agency agents

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation in name to match parent Category:People of the Central Intelligence Agency. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I realize that we generally expand abbreviations, but the term "CIA agent" is such a standard term that I don't really have a problem with leaving the current name. It's the counterpart of it's sibling, Category:Fictional MI6 agents -- we're not going to expand that too, are we? And I also note that the parent cat is not Category:Central Intelligence Agency agents. However, if there proves to be a concensus for expansion, then at least rename to Category:Fictional agents of the Central Intelligence Agency. (I just can't swallow "...Agency agents"!) Cgingold (talk) 12:45, 25 March 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.