Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 29 May 31 >

May 30[edit]

Category:English Regency[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:English Regency to Category:Regency era. Ambiguous? Probably. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:English Regency to Category:British Regency
Nominator's rationale: This category is at its present title because the main article was wrongly named English Regency in 2002 and somehow managed to remain at that title, despite protests on the talk page, until I renamed it today. I find it hard to believe that anyone would defend the title "English Regency", which is certainly not what modern history textbooks use and is not even a commonly used phrase in the UK. About time we put it right! Deb (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with Category:Regency era; given the others it's probably better than my suggestion above. I think the spread of the term described by PK mainly applies to its use for an architectural style. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 1 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:Turkish footballers in United Kingdom[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: merge all up, i.e. Category:Turkish footballers in United Kingdom to Category:Expatriate footballers in the United Kingdom, Category:Turkish expatriate footballers and Category:Turkish expatriates in the United Kingdom and the same for Dutch and German categories. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Turkish footballers in United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 24#Category:Turkish footballers in The Netherlands (the category was not tagged). Possible options include:
  1. Double upmerge to Category:Expatriate footballers in the United Kingdom and Category:Turkish expatriate footballers
  2. Triple upmerge to Category:Expatriate footballers in the United Kingdom, Category:Turkish expatriate footballers and Category:Turkish expatriates in the United Kingdom
If the second option (triple upmerge) is selected, please also consider addressing the appropriateness of categories like Category:Turkish expatriates in the Netherlands (i.e. Fooian expatriates in Booia). –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Nominated by Matthew_hk Category:German expatriate footballers in Italy
Category:Dutch expatriate footballers in Italy

I also nominated two more. Matthew_hk tc 20:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and Keep I created those categories recently, because I think it is more useful, clear and informative to split for example Category:Dutch expatriate footballers into several subcats. They usually replace three broad parent categories (Dutch Expats in Italy, Dutch Expatriate footballers, Expatriate footballers in Italy) and offer a good way to keep track of those players. If I'm interested in international football and want to informe myself about Dutch players who spend a time of their career playing in Italy (like van Basten, Gullit, Seedorf or Bergkamp), such a category would be a great help. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The simple fact that a Dutch, German, Italian etc. player spend a time of his career abroad is not very informative, unless we know WHERE he actually played. And the parent cats (Fooian expatriate footballers in Booia) would soon be oversized, so there will be a need for subcats. Maybe this is a triple intersection, the categories are useful nontheless. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 12:04, 12 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:Young adult novels for boys[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: merge Category:Young adult novels for boys to Category:Young adult novels. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Young adult novels for boys to Category:Young adult novels
Nominator's rationale: Merge, It is unclear how one would determine the target sex of reader. Tim! (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Even it we could hypothetically agree on which books belong in this category and which don't (rather unlikely to begin with), Wikipedia should not put its imprimatur on stereotypical gender divisions such as this. Nothing wrong with discussing, in relevant articles, the fact that publishers have historically targeted their book lists at market segments along gender lines -- but it should not be a Category. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated. The talk page explains why the category was created but it's not persuasive. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as encouraging original research as to which books fall within its scope. I'm similarly unpersuaded by the explanation on the category talk page. BencherliteTalk 16:46, 9 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:Modern Library's 100 Best Novels[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) 09:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Modern Library's 100 Best Novels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Didn't these used to be copyvios? Either way this is overcategorisation - just one of dozens of not hugely influential lists. Delete. Flowerparty☀ 14:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. a list would probably be a copyvio too. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not defining for any of the books on the list. BencherliteTalk 16:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons above. If inclusion was a rare accolade for any of the novels, then it can be noted in the articles for those novels.
    • I have notified the creator of this category on his talk page. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:07, 9 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:Bishops of Auckland, NZ[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:Bishops of Auckland, NZ to Category:Anglican bishops of Auckland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bishops of Auckland, NZ to Category:Bishops of Auckland
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary, bad dab. See also main article. If not Bishops of Auckland, then at least "Bishops of Auckland, New Zealand." -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to Category:Anglican bishops of Auckland, New Zealand to be perfectly clear what the category is about. Hmains (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Hmains.--Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing in category:Auckland has this disambiguator. Category:Anglican bishops of Auckland should be fine. Flowerparty☀ 01:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Anglican bishops of Auckland. Whatever is decided about the DAB issue, at least include Anglican in the name. Hundreds of churches have bishops, what makes any one church think they have the exclusive right to call someone the "Bishop of Auckland"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The Enlish place giveing rise to the New Zealand name is probably Bishop Auckland. In the Commonwealth, or at least the old Commonwealth, only the Anglican and Catholic Churches have bishops. In reintroducing an episopacy to England in the 19th century, the Catholics were careful not to choose sees that already had an Anglican bishop. Where two have the same name, it is often because the Anglicans created an extra see later. I expect that applies elsewhere. Accordingly, the prefix "Anglican" is redundant unless there is a Catholic bishop. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Commonwealth, or at least the old Commonwealth, only the Anglican and Catholic Churches have bishops. I hope you're referring to some now-long-ago time, because if you are seriously wrong if you mean this today, in 2008. Today, hundreds of Christian churches have bishops in New Zealand and Auckland, and more than one of them is called "Bishop of Auckland". Since categories apply to yesterday and today, I strongly disagree that "the prefix 'Anglican' is redundant unless there is a Catholic bishop". These two churches may have had exclusive use of "Bishop of Foo" in the past, but to say that they still do in 2008 borders upon the absurd. I'm also unclear on how Bishop Auckland is relevant to this rename proposal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:46, 2 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:Chamber jazz violinists[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: merge Category:Chamber jazz violinists to Category:Chamber jazz musicians and Category:Jazz violinists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chamber jazz violinists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Over categorization. Maybe we need to look at the parent. This is one of the better populated children but is a triple intersection. I see this as a litmus test for the other siblings. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In any case Jennifer Choi should probably not be there. Her articledoes not mention jazz at all, and her repertoire on her website seems purely classical [1]. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's apparently performed works by jazz musicians and there's something on the "art of creative improvisation" at her web-bio. Still it might be a tad iffy.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:16, 30 May 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:Progressive bluegrass violinists[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: merge Category:Progressive bluegrass violinists and Category:Progressive bluegrass fiddlers to Category:Bluegrass fiddlers and Category:Progressive bluegrass musicians. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Progressive bluegrass violinists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category overlaps entirely with the more aptly named Category:Progressive bluegrass fiddlers. — eitch 01:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummm... okay, I give up. (something seems to be missing here!) Cgingold (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're looking for... I propose deletion, as the P.b. violinists cat is redundant (in what it includes and what it means) with P.b. fiddlers - that's why I used the cfd templates on the category's and this page, and put 'cfd' in the summaries. If there's something else missing that you want, let me know. — eitch 18:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed it, but stand by since this user is creating a bunch of new cats with one article in each. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This thought is followed in the "fiddler categories" discussion, below. — eitch 22:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Third to upmerge. While we're at it would make sense to also upmerge Category:American bluegrass fiddlers to Category:Bluegrass fiddlers- they're all American (with the exception of one who was not born but was trained in the US). (Vegas: I don't think I created it. I don't remember, though - if I did, I'm apologize.) — eitch 22:41, 11 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.

fiddler categories[edit]

—This thread grew out of the Progressive Bluegrass Violinists CFD discussion (above), following Vegaswikian's comment of 02:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC). The categories in question are the subcategories of category:Fiddlers.— eitch 22:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Re:one-article cats: My category creations yesterday were the first phase of replacing the List of fiddlers with categories, as per the L.o.f.'s talk page. There will soon be many more entiries in each of the categories. — eitch 18:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the small number in many of those groupings and the lack of a demonstrated need why the list is failing in navigation, I would not continue creating these categories. While categories and lists, can and do, exist side by side, the fact that there is a list and not a categroy is not in and of itself a reason to create numerous small categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As to the discussion at Talk:List of fiddlers. Yes you listed your proposal there, and there were no objections. In fact there were no comments at all. Hardly a reason to continue before the discussions here reach a conclusion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. The proposal was, explicitly, to substitute categories for the list, not to increase redundancy. Here are some reasons: 2. "There were no objections" in four months, during which time he article was actively edited by a fair number of editors other than myself (≤16, depending on the identity on anon editors)— I took that as a sign of assent. 3. The List has problems. For example, I found while creating the categories that many of the articles were mis-listed. 4. Categories wouldn't have those problems: If a fiddler article is mis-categorized, its editors will see immediately that a mistake was made and can fix it immediately. 5. The List is already incomplete compared to the already established categories (compare, for example, category:Irish fiddlers (which I had nothing to do with) with the Irish fiddlers listed in the List). 6. These categories are sparsely populated, but because of a lack of articles not because of a lack of subjects. I therefore assume that as WP grows these categories will fill up. They are, in fact, considerably more populated than they were 30 May, as now all the Listed fiddlers have been categorized. *7.* This categorization is in keeping with the guidelines of and categories created as part of the Musician Categorization WikiProject. — eitch 22:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadians taken hostage[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:Canadians taken hostage to Category:Canadian people taken hostage. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canadians taken hostage to Category:Canadian people taken hostage
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use standard "Canadian people" rather than "Canadians" per parent Category:Canadian people. (I think "Canadian" is generally limited to an adjective in category names as opposed to a noun since other nationalities (for parallel categories) don't always have a good single noun word to refer to their citizens.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 30 May 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_May_30&oldid=1138391165"