Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 30

< August 29	August 31 >

August 30[edit]

Category:Police (town)[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 as nominated. (It's not cool to move the main article during the discussion, which was done here twice by an editor, and was each time rightfully reversed.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Police (town) to Category:Police, Poland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the key article's name and standard naming conventions. Grutness...wha? 23:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: So why not Category:Police, Poland (town). The name Category:Police, Poland doesn't seem that clear to me. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 23:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (after ec)Foo, Poland is the standard naming articles for towns in Poland, and the categories are named to match. Thus, the article for Police is at Police, Poland. If it was an article about Poland's police force, for instance, it wouldn't be disambiguated that way - "Police, Poland" is a highly unlikely name for such an article or category. Other places which sthare their names with other objects are standardly disambiguated in this way (e.g., Venus, Romania, Hell, Norway, Gold, California, and Banana, Queensland). Grutness...wha? 01:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support since it appears to be a settlement from the name. It also happens to match the name used for the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose use Category:Police (town), Poland instead, since the "Police, Poland" could clearly be confused with public security in Poland. 76.66.199.195 (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Police (town), Poland: this is the best solution so far offered. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - to Category:Police, Poland, per nominator and with the belief that the average reader is not so idiotic as to be unable to figure out that this is not Category:Polish police officers. Otto4711 (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Police, Poland to match the main article, since I don't think that it's likely to be confused with Category:Law enforcement in Poland. In any case, consistency—with the article name and category general naming conventions for settlements—is the best protection against possible confusion. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Police, Poland in agreement with the above. It might be briefly confusing but that is usually educational. Note to closing admin: please maintain link to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Police_(town) . If anyone here does CFDs on Commons, maybe that should also be nominated to match. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Police (town), Poland: Disambiguation is standard policy and a good idea; to match the main article: Police (town), Poland.^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, to match the main article that you moved six minutes before commenting here? Hardly compelling logic. Otto4711 (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, disambiguation is a standard when needed, The need is not demonstrated here, Vegaswikian1 (talk) 05:35, 6 September 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.

Ottoman Macedonia (Greece/ROM/Bulgaria)[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: Discussion ended - no action required from closing admin. --Xdamr^talk 19:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ottoman Macedonia is currently subcategorized as Category:Ottoman Blagoevgrad Province (in Bulgaria), Category:Ottoman-era Macedonia (Greece), and Category:Ottoman-era Republic of Macedonia. That is, Ottoman Macedonia is being subdivided by the modern borders which did not exist in the Ottoman period and which are irrelevant to Ottoman history. This categorization is not only historically meaningless, but does not conform to Wikipedia policy Intersection by location says "avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics". --macrakis (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- In principle I agree, but the issue is highly political. All three seem to be parts of Salonika Province, Ottoman Empire, which suggests that the area had not political unity even in 1864-1913 when that province existed. The question that needs to be answered is, "How can we define Macedonia in the Ottoman period?" I have no answer to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No reason this needs to be highly political. I think all historians from all countries would agree that the current borders were not relevant in the Ottoman period. Perhaps the solution is simply to rename Category:Ottoman Macedonia to Category:Salonika Province, Ottoman Empire? As you point out, that province only existed relatively briefly (compared to the Rumeli eyalet), but it does seem to be a meaningful unit in the context of the Struggle for Macedonia and the Balkan Wars. --macrakis (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-1864 Ottoman Macedonia (region) is divided in three eyalets Salonika, Monastir and Kosovo. The one categorization does not exclude the other. (Early and Late Ottoman Macedonia) but even in the wiki-articles, there is no mention that this person was born in the Monastir or Salonika Ottoman Province. Catalographer (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Ottoman Macedonia seems like the appropriate category. I still have seen no rationale for using the modern borders in subcategorizing it. --macrakis (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the simple reason that the one subcategory belongs to the History of the Republic of Macedonia and Ottoman-era Macedonia (Greece) to Category: Ottoman Greece like Ottoman Crete.Catalographer (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just about every historical region/kingdom/empire in the world is contained in multiple modern states. Creating categories for each combination of historical region/kingdom/empire with modern state seems deeply unwise: consider, say, Category:Kingdom of Sardinia in modern France), Category:Kingdom of Sardinia in modern Italy, Category:Byzantine Empire in modern Greece, Category:Byzantine Empire in modern Bulgaria, Category:Byzantine Empire in modern Republic of Macedonia, Category:Byzantine Empire in modern Albania, Category:Byzantine Empire in modern Turkey, Category:Kingdom of Jerusalem in modern Lebanon, Category:Kingdom of Jerusalem in modern Israel, Category:Kingdom of Jerusalem in modern Jordan, Category:Kingdom of Jerusalem in modern Palestinian territories, etc. etc. The way Wikipedia normally handles things like this is by categorizing individual articles into the relevant categories, e.g. the crusader castle of Toron is categorized under Category:Kingdom of Jerusalem and Category:Archaeological sites in Lebanon.

It would be a disastrous precedent to allow categories such as Category:Ottoman Blagoevgrad Province. --macrakis (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Why not? Switzerland in the Roman era, Category:Ancient Croatia,Category:Ancient Serbia and Medieval Lebanon Catalographer (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment I am commenting again because some one asked me to. I agree that categorisation of ancient entities by modern country is undesirable. The categorisation cited in the case of Toron seems appropriate, since it is located in modern Lebanon, but this is a single place. The issue that I raised over Ottoman Macedonia is of how its limits should be defined, sicne other articles do not appear to indicate what its legal extent was. If some one can provide a robust definition of its extent, I see no reason why there should not be an "Ottoman Macedonia" category, probably parented by multiple "history of ..." categories. However a category picking up the intersection of history + former state + modenr state would be a highly undesirable triple intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents worth: since there was no Ottoman administrative, religious or geographic region called Macedonia, it seems futile to invent one with hindesight. Therefore, I suggest we delete that category. Politis (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- But there was neither a Byzantine provinve Medieval Macedonia or a region called Macedonia before Herodotus and Thucydides,so? Catalographer (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- What about the subcategories (non-Roman provinces) in Category:Geography of the Roman Empire? Catalographer (talk) 12:09, 8 September 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.

Serie C1 and Serie C2[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 per nom. --Xdamr^talk 16:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging:

Nominator's rationale: These Italian footbal clubs have been renamed, and thus there are duplicate categories. Since the new name is the Lega Pro Prima and Seconda Divisione, all tagged article should be merged under the new name. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 20:55, 30 August 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.

Croix de Guerre (France)[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging:

Nominator's rationale: Merge iot unify these two into a single category which observes naming conventions for 'Recipients' categories. --Xdamr^talk 16:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom to "Recipients of ..." which seems to be the commoner. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both per nominator. Keep up the good work. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 31 August 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:Opposition to apartheid in Namibia[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:

--Xdamr^talk 16:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Opposition to apartheid in Namibia to Category:to be determined

Propose renaming Category:Namibian anti-apartheid activists to Category:to be determined

Nominator's rationale: Rename - per the result of this CFD these categories should probably be renamed. The first probably to Category:Opposition to apartheid in South West Africa, the second I don't know. Otto4711 (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Category:Opposition to apartheid in South West Africa and suggest Category:Anti-apartheid activists in South West Africa. Did we not discuss a related perent category recently? If so our solution should conform. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will bring this up again; Namibia has been the internationally recognized name of the country since 1968, despite apartheid not officially ending until 1990.--TM 20:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internationally recognized: yes. Most commonly-used: no, not until after 1990. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom and Peterkingiron's suggestion for the other, though it could also be Category:South West Africa anti-apartheid activists to retain "nationality-style" formatting. Per previous discussion and most common pre-1990 usage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 3 September 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.

Military awards recipients[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) 09:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename iot bring all these 'Recipients' categories into the established form. --Xdamr^talk 16:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per nom. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom, assuming no more national disambiguators are needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. Phrasing is much more objective. Student7 (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, except Category:Recipients of the Silver Star medal. I believe that it already has the most adequate name since it makes reference to a "medal". In my opinion it would be wrong move it to "Category:Recipients of the Silver Star" since a "Silver Star" can be anything. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but I don't think that the potential for erroneous use is too significant. There is a prominent link to Silver Star in the category lead and given its place in the general category hierarchy I think that its purpose is clear. Possibly worth noting that the use of the official medal name, without qualification, is general practice in the 'Recipients' categories, and the main article itself is at Silver Star. If consensus is that the danger of misuse is an issue then what about Category:Recipients of the Silver Star (United States)? --Xdamr^talk 19:33, 4 September 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:United States military honor recipients[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) 09:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States military honor recipients to Category:Recipients of United States military awards and decorations

Nominator's rationale: Rename iot conform with naming conventions for Category:Recipients of military awards. --Xdamr^talk 15:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:39, 31 August 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.

Military awards[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) 09:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename in order to bring these categories into line with naming conventions established for Category:Military decorations. --Xdamr^talk 14:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all Actually, this comes close to Wikipedia:Cfd#Speedy_criteria #4. Debresser (talk) 18:38, 31 August 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:Hard-bop 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/Merge per nom. --Xdamr^talk 16:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article Hard bop and parent category Category:Hard bop. Jafeluv (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily rename all Debresser (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Checking Berendt's "The Jazz book", neither the development tree nor the text hyphenate. AllyD (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As a noun "hard bop" is correct. But when used as an adjective, "hard-bop" needs to be hyphenated, so we know that these are musicians who play "hard bop" not "bop musicians" who are "hard". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. We use Hard rock musical groups (not "hard-rock"), Heavy metal musicians (not "heavy-metal"), Electric blues musicians (not "electric-blues"), and so forth. Reliable sources don't use it the way you describe either. The term is used as "hard bop" by most, and "hard-bop" by some, both as a noun and an adjective. See Google Books search, for example. Jafeluv (talk) 07:04, 8 September 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.

LGBT-related films by sports[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:LGBT-related films by sports to Catgeory:LGBT-related sports films, and Merge:

--Xdamr^talk 19:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. These are highly specialised intersections of dubious value. A more generic Category:LGBT-related sports films may be the way to go. PC78 (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's true that the number of movies in each sport category created is admittedly small, but having the individual categories creates access from the particular sports page. For example when one is checking the general Category:Basketball films, there is a direct access from that page to lead to Category:Basketball LGBT-related films. Although better populated categories are more useful as suggested above, by creating one single global category Category:LGBT-related sports films, this important link let's say between all basketball movies (straight and gay) will be lost. Plus that there was never a minimum number of entries set and there are so many categories that are populated with just one or two items. werldwayd (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "important link" between all basketball articles would not be lost because they would all be in Category:Basketball films. I simply don't think this is necessary. It doesn't help that these categories were inappropriate to the two articles you added them to. Shirts & Skins is not a film and I have recategorised it accordingly. Like a Virgin (film) is not about baseball but rather ssireum. Regarding that last article, I don't even think that we need Category:Ssireum films because even that would be too specialised, and creating Category:Ssireum LGBT-related films would be utterly pointless. PC78 (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, can you please stop creating more of these categories until we can determine if they are actually needed or not? For one thing it would be preferable to name them like Category:LGBT-related baseball films. PC78 (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rethink – Category:LGBT-related films by foo is (conventionally) a subcat scheme for Category:LGBT-related films, ie every LGBT-related film should be in at least one subcat. You could have Category:LGBT-related sports films by sport but the starting point for this would be Category:LGBT-related sports films as the nom observes. Suggest a rename/merge of all of them to Category:LGBT-related sports films. Occuli (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT-related films by religion has the same problems. Occuli (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nom notes, far too narrow an intersection. Also small categories with little or no growth potential. Are there even any films that would fit into the baseball or basketball categories, and are there any other "Diving LGBT-related films"? Otto4711 (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only three articles in Category:Diving films. PC78 (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated; no upmerging is needed, as each film is already categorised by sport and as LGBT-related by country. A new article, List of LGBT-related sports films in Category:Lists of LGBT-related films, might be a better idea, as it could contain more information e.g. country and year. It could also include films where LGBT was a notable theme but not the central one; categorising them would be WP:OCAT but the list could state the context. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fayenatic. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 23:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These are not really defining intersections, and having the films in two categories (one for the sport, one for LGBT) seems sufficient. Agree with Fayenatic's suggestion. Jafeluv (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to Category:LGBT-related sports films, per WP:OCAT and above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn in Montreal (talk • contribs) 17:58, 31 August 2009
Upmerge all to Category:LGBT-related films. Indeed too narrow intersections. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That upmerge would not be appropriate, as each film is already categorised in a sub-cat as LGBT-related by country. No objection to merging the nominated categories into Category:LGBT-related sports films as suggested by Shawn in Montreal, but a list would obviously be more informative, mentioning the sport, year, country etc. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subcats and rename parent to Catgeory:LGBT-related sports films The subcats are either empty or severely underpopulated. The parent would effectively serve until additional films are released. The proposed alternate name better describes the category of the content, but reliable and verifiable sources must be provided that characterize the films with the rather vague description of "LGBT-related" (or a close variant thereof) to justify their inclusion. Alansohn (talk) 22:41, 8 September 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:Software comparisons for mathematics-related software[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:Software comparisons for mathematics-related software to Category:Comparisons of mathematical software. --Xdamr^talk 16:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Software comparisons for mathematics-related software to Category:Comparisons of mathematical software

Nominator's rationale: Rename to a less clunky, less redundant name. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 10:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename, makes sense to reduce and lower redundancy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 1 September 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.