Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 25 April 27 >

April 26[edit]

Category:Alumnae of the Sacred Heart[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 Erik9 (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alumnae of the Sacred Heart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category lists Alumnae of the Sacred Heart, but Sacred Heart is not a specific school, rather a collection of high schools, none of which have produced enough noteworthy people to merit their own categories. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Snappy (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are five New Zealand schools with the name "Sacred Heart College" in the first 10 ghits that are not even on the list of schools being used as the reference. This indicates to me that the category is mis-aligned and impossible to be accurate. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2009 (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:Supporters of Invisible Children[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 Erik9 (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Supporters of Invisible Children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Cat used for promotion of Invisible Children Inc. only, almost no context or sources for cat in the articles themselves. Rehevkor ✉ 22:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not aware of other charities or similar groups who have a category for their supporters. The category is of no utility that I can see. It may well be promotional in intent. I see no way to verify its accuracy. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 'supporters of' categories are a bad idea; categorising people by opinion is generally discouraged. Robofish (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete supporters of categories are a people by opinion, and the name is obtuse. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2009 (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 that charted from unsolicted airplay[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 14:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs that charted from unsolicted airplay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not really a defining characteristic. There are very few US music charts that are airplay-only anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plus, most songs that chart from unsolicited airplay chart low and aren't notable, so they don't have articles to go along with ... I don't see a point of the category CloversMallRat (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Note: if the decision is to keep, that spelling needs fixing - unsolicted? Grutness...wha? 23:59, 26 April 2009 (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:Fijian professional wrestlers[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. Kbdank71 14:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fijian professional wrestlers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only 2 articles in the category. PrepareToQualify (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2009 (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:Mongols[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 14:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mongols to Category:Mongols (motorcycle club)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To avoid confusion with Mongols. I've simply copied the article name in the nomination, but there may be a more correct category name not using parentheses. --DeLarge (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2009 (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:Indian marxism[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:Communism in India. Any articles that don't apply can be removed. Category:Socialism in India could also be created at any time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Indian marxism to Category:Socialism in India
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "marxism" should be "Marxism", but socialism is a better way to describe this category. Madhava 1947 (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy rename section.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the nominator again. Johnbod (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Think twice before renaming; I don't know much about politics in India, but socialism elsewhere is a concept completely different from (and wider than) marxism in all respects. Hell, a party can claim it's anti-socialist, denounce marxism and nazism equally, but in reality build a perfectly socialist state for decades. Go figure. NVO (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe socialism has a universal meaning belonging entirely to leftist politics. In the USA, anything the Republicans do not support is "socialist". That is not the case in Indian politics, about which this category is about, where Marxism is part of socialism. Madhava 1947 (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Communism in India perhaps removing some entries. This would not adequately cover "socialism in India" at all, though if somebody wanted to set that up & populate it, that would be fine. Johnbod (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2009 (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 with lyrics by Carl Sigman[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: Withdrawn by nominator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs with lyrics by Carl Sigman to Category:Songs written by Carl Sigman

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Also nominated Category:Songs with music by Carl Sigman. Like most "lyricists" this guy also composed music Sorting out overcategorization. Richhoncho (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, bad nomination, there already is the target cat. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, withdraw the nomination while I consider my error. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2009 (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 composed by Turner Layton[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs composed by Turner Layton to Category:Songs written by Turner Layton
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match other categories. Richhoncho (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2009 (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 with music by Saul Chaplin[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs with music by Saul Chaplin to Category:Songs written by Saul Chaplin
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Also nominated is Category:Songs with lyrics by Saul Chaplin. There are only 2 and 1 entry in each cat, For me, it's overcategorization. Richhoncho (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2009 (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 by Oscar Brand[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Oscar Brand to Category:Songs written by Oscar Brand
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To standarize with others in cat. Richhoncho (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2009 (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 with music by Tommy Wolf[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs with music by Tommy Wolf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only one entry in category and no corresponding article. If anybody can expand cat or add relevant article I will be be more than happy to withdraw nom. This should be the last of this kind of nomination, at least for a while! Also nominated:-
Richhoncho (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all. Is there some kind of WP:MUSIC policy that requires these categories to be created? I don't think so, in which case we should get rid of them until they're needed. Robofish (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2009 (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:Former Adult film stars[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: Being bold and summarily deleting as overcategorization. Tabercil (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Former Adult film stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unneccesary subcategorization; additionally the adult film industry is notorious for having many former stars make comebacks. Tabercil (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2009 (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:Multiple 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: relisted on may 12. Kbdank71 16:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, this needs to be renamed to something more clear.

It also should be pruned of any fictional entries since the intent as noted in the introduction on the page is that this is for biographies of real people.

That said, except as a project category to note that an article is a biogrpahy of more than one person (as typically noted in the article name), I'm not sure that this is useful for navigation.

What would be the purpose?

And noting that any article on a group of individuals could be added. Should that include companies, organisations, and the like? Apparently yes, looking at even just the subcats...

  • Not sure yet - as nominator. - jc37 02:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, changing "multiple people" to "people sharing a common name". These really amount to a kind of disambiguation pages, detailing the different individuals with a shared name. Alansohn (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not sure what's really wrong with this category. It collects articles that are biographical accounts of more than one person (e.g. couples). That seems like a useful category to me, and the current name is appropriate. The renaming suggested above wouldn't work, as many of those categorised here don't share a common name. Robofish (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a hidden category Basically these are categories containing articles that are disambiguation pages that (may) need sub-dividing. Whether a more appropriate name can be found is another matter, I'm sure there is. Hats off to the people who populated these cats! --Richhoncho (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, these are articles that could be disambiguation pages if each of the individuals listed had separate articles. As they don't the shared name is listed along with brief capsule bios of the alternative individuals. If articles were created for each alternative, then these would be rather traditional hndis pages. Alansohn (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK so let's go with that. If these people are grouped in one article, then at least one of them is notable and that justifies an article. So the text would make up one or more stubs and the remaining information would become a dab page. So why not do that and eliminate the category? Or maybe this is in fact a maintenance category were the articles need splitting. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting doesn't seem appropriate for several of the examples I looked at. For example, very little if anything would be known about groups of martyrs like Narcissus, Argeus, and Marcellinus besides their common martyrdom, and it's more effective to cover them together in one article than have an article for each. So I don't see this as just a maintenance category. -- Avenue (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted, Avenue, I agree, these are people united by a single event and I can't think of any benefit listing them in this or similarly named category. If it's not a maintenance category you could add any formal or informal organization, from political parties to businesses, pressure groups, criminal gangs, musical groups etc the list could be endless. Your "biographies" suggestion below is neat and I certainly wouldn't oppose, but most of those I looked at appeared to require disambiguation, hence my suggestion. Looks like every article needs looking at separately in any event which does confirm that something needs to be done with the category. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a category precisely for articles that don't need splitting. It should be part of the definition that any individual articles on members of the "multiple" is a disqualification for belonging here. Johnbod (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete multiple people usually are a group or a family. Categorize appropriately. Why do bands need to be in Category:Multiple people? If it's a one-man-band, it isn't multiple people, and if it's not a one-man-band isn't it obvious that there are multiple people. It's a cat looking for a purpose and doesn't help people find similar articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but removing bands, sports teams & so on. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Biographies of multiple people (as the scope on the category page indicates), and similarly Category:Biographies of multiple people in ancient Greece and Category:Biographies of multiple people in ancient Rome. Further clarification of the scope would be useful too. For example, should this be restricted to articles where the group members are identified as individuals, excluding amorphous organisations or movements? Perhaps "biography" implies this, but more clarity wouldn't hurt. I'm not convinced common groupings like bands are useful to include here either. -- Avenue (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Virtually every article on a group of people, where a band, a criminal gang, a religious sect, or such is in essence a biography of multiple people. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What, like Roman Catholic Church??? Johnbod (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - The question of "defining characteristic" aside for a moment, is there some unambiguous definition (inclusion criteria) for this category which would do as some above have suggested, without this being filled with every type of group in existence? - jc37 12:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Joint (disambiguation), this could be ambiguous. (For example, does it include Spike Lee et al.)
That aside (since we can try to figure out some synonyms), do we already have a category scheme for types of biography article presentations? We don't "have" to have such in place, I'm just curious if anyone knows if we do. - jc37 22:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may or may not be the solution, but I really don't see any problem of "ambiguity" as it's inconceivable that anybody would imagine that the term might refer to "biographies" of non-human entities. Cgingold (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The problem is that the name is ambiguous I don't see any way to fix this from the discussions above. Deleting these should not prevent the creation of better named categories based on a defining characteristic for the individuals in the included articles. I think the needed cleanup described above shows the extent of the problem and argues that deletion is the best way to cleanup the categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- once upon a time (before 2006), these would have been called "summary" or "multi-stub" pages, often with "----" horizontal lines. Foolish editors would shorten them into disambiguation pages (throwing away valuable information), instead of lengthening them into fully fledged articles — especially those who have a hammer and everything looks like a nail at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. Just split them into separate stub articles, with the primary as a disambiguation page. We don't really care about disk access anymore.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2009 (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/2009_April_26&oldid=1088721528"