Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 7

< February 6	February 8 >

February 7[edit]

Category:Riots by year[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, recreation ok if to be used for holding individual year categories, like the other "foo by year" categories. Kbdank71 13:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Riots by year to Category:Riots by century

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Contents are by century and not by year. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, and Question: All the way through these century-subcategories there are a slew of 1-article sub-sub-cats -- mostly just one per century. Is that really appropriate and necessary? Cgingold (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been ignoring that question based on those being a part of a series. And yes, it the mass renaming, I have seen many single entry categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I'm sure you've seen tons of them! What concerns me is that we have a bunch of articles about riots, each of which has not one but two riot-categories that were created just for that single article. I'm not persuaded that it's necessary or even terribly helpful to denote the exact year of each riot with an individual, year-specific sub-category, when in most cases those articles could just as well be placed directly in the century-category. Cgingold (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - They can be nominated for upmerges with the comment that when more are available, the categories could be recreated. Maybe one or two as a test nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That sounds like a good idea. Cgingold (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom & get the water-cannon out for the rest. The C19th has per-decade sub-cats, which is one way to go. NB 2 C20th cats! Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, the renames get hung up on the job queue when templates are involved. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually in that case each category needs to be edited! Oh what a pain. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename to Category:Riots by decade, create century and then decade sub-categories, and then upmerge the year categories into the decade subcats. Century is too long of a time span to organize this material, especially without having a count of how many there will be for each century. Hmains (talk) 18:06, 12 February 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:Dallas, Texas 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. Kbdank71 13:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dallas, Texas musicians to Category:Musicians from Dallas, Texas

Nominator's rationale: Okay, a month ago, I suggested renaming this to its current name. However, there has since been a consensus that "Musicians from [place]" is the standard (per this CFD), so I'm asking now that it be moved back so as to comply with the standard. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per previous consensus. Neier (talk) 12:58, 11 February 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:Mobil Travel Guide starred restaurants and chefs[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) 08:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete The category, at the very least is poorly worded, and seems to cover too much. It included restaurants and chefs (though, it doesn't look like the chefs are individually rated, at least not on the website that I could find)? It sounds like it includes any restaurant that has been rated, literally tens of thousand (not that we have articles on all of them...) So does this include 1 star restaurants? only 5 star restaurants? I may see some merit in having a category of 5 star restaurants (and then we could create categories for Zagats and Michelin and AAA, and while we are at it, why not tag articles for products that Consumer Report has rated well...) I've spent the last year or so not dealing as much with categories as I had in the past, so I'm not sure if award categories like this are generally acceptable or not. But I'm pretty sure this category at the very least needs to be renamed, if not rescoped (or even deleted). I humbly put it before the community. Andrew c ^[talk] 19:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason to categorise by this travel guide's ratings and not others, and as you note, we clearly can't have tons of different categories: imagine how many such categories would be on an article about a really prominent restaurant! I just don't see this as a really defining category or indeed a really useful one — aside from the fact that it seems to give too much weight to just another travel guide. Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons already given - this is a restaurant too far. Cgingold (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per all - there was a "Michelin" debate once, I seem to recall... Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 9 February 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.

Categories:1972 through 1989 top-tier pro tennis circuits[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 feb 13. Kbdank71 13:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging the following

(1984, 1983 no Buenos Aires tour tourney held)

Propose deleting these below (there was not a single top-tier pro tour in these years)

Nominator's rationale: the ATP Tour only began in 1990 - prior to that year there was the World Championship Tennis, the Grand Prix tennis tour and a couple others, briefly, in the early 1970s. I can find reference that Nabisco was the Grand Prix circuit's 'name sponsor' from 1985 through 1989 and Volvo from 1980 through 1984. Pepsi-Cola apparently was in 1970 but for the rest of the 1970s, I don t know. Until 1978 and again from 1982 to 1984 the WCT and Grand Prix were separate circuits so a delete is nominated for these years as the contents need to be separated. Mayumashu (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Modify/Merge/Delete: Nabisco and Volvo Grand Prix renames seem too wordy to be used as proper category titles. Propose that current Nabisco Grand Prix categories be kept, proposed Nabisco and Volvo Grand Prix categories be modified to fit (i.e. just Nabisco/Volvo Grand Prix), ATP Tour categories proposed for merging merged while the ATP Tour categories proposed for deletion be deleted. Totalinarian (talk) 19:56, 11 February 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:Artists' Rifles soldiers[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - recreation of previously deleted material. How being a "soldier" in Artists Rifles is somehow so different from being a "member" of Artists Rifles as to not be speediable is beyond my comprehension but an admin declined the speedy thus forcing this pointless CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This category is different to the members category as this category is a sub- category of Category: British Army soldiers. This category is entirely different as it fits into a long standing and clearly defined category structure. One user has been creating their own version of this category namely the speedy deleted member category. Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the standard naming format of Category:British Army soldiers and the long-standing distinction between soldiers and officers (categorized at Category:British Army officers). This means that it is not a recreation of the non-standard "member" category deleted previously. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of Category:British Army soldiers (and keep Category:Artists' Rifles officers as part of Category:British Army officers). Occuli (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a soldiers category for "Other ranks" seems appropriate for a regiment whose soldiers may have eben distinguishied in civvy-street. Note that the "members" category was nominated yesterday, and its CFD suggests merger to this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 11 February 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:Plays that have had incidental music written for them[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 Articles can be added to Plays with incidental music if desired. Kbdank71 13:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is definitely not defining for the plays that are included. Hamlet? The Alchemist? Oedipus? Anybody can write incidental music for any play long after the playwright has died, and doing so is more of a footnote to the play's notability than a complete redefinition of it. Conversion to a list that could be added to incidental music or creation of a new list article would be fine. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm afraid. It's difficult to see how you could maintain this category. Surely most plays that have been popular enough to have revivals have had incidental music written for them at some point. (Also the category name is a bit prolix). AndyJones (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I (sort of semi-seriously) provoked the creation of this category because I reverted a couple of edits that incorrectly applied Category:Incidental music to articles such as Ariadne auf Naxos, Königskinder and Le Bourgeois gentilhomme, see this dialogue (you can ignore the stuff about Russian generals!). Contrary to the nominator's and AndyJones's remarks above, I really don't think that very many, if any, composers these days are writing incidental music for plays - when did you experience any incidental music at a performance of Waiting for Godot or Equus or Separate Tables or The Dance of Death or Anyone for Denis or The History Boys or, if it comes to that, The Second Mrs Tanqueray? - so there is probably a fairly finite pool of plays that currently fall into this category and a very tiny pool of plays that will do so in the future. I agree that the category name is a bit prolix. --GuillaumeTell 18:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Shakespeare Company typically still commission new music, performed live, for most of their productions, not that much of it is notable in any sense. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As the creator of the category, I naturally support it. GuillaumeTell has said most of what I would have said (we were, in a sense, the "parents", so of course we see eye-to-eye about our "children"). The title is a bit of a mouthful but I really can't think of a shorter, meaningful name. The name issue per se should not determine whether or not this deletion proposal succeeds, but I'm certainly open to renaming it. The list/article is a good idea anyway, because there are many plays that fall into this category, for which we don't currently have articles, and that would be a very good way of capturing them for posterity. I'll add that to my To Do list, regardless of the outcome of this process. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm wondering if there might be some way to word this or otherwise restrict it to plays with incidental music that itself meets Notability (whether or not there is an existing article), or failing that, plays with music that does have an article. (Or would this kind of restriction basically negate the whole point of having the category in the first place?) Cgingold (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response: There are 9 cases I’ve identified, but the only one that would cause any concern is a play that is not notable, with incidental music that is also not notable. But even there, while neither the play nor the incidental music would qualify for articles in their own right, a list/article would be an appropriate place to mention them, particularly if the playwright or the composer, or both, were themselves notable. If the composer and playwright were both obscure non-entities, writing plays and music that are also obscure, we’d probably never even have heard of them or their works to begin with, so they’d never put in an appearance anyway. In any event, that would be the sort of issue to be discussed on the talk page for the list/article. That list/article is going to be created anyway, by me, today, unless someone beats me to the punch (Note: now done - see Plays with incidental music). Coming back to categories: A play either

has an article and fits the category because it has had incidental music written for it (whether or not an article for the music itself exists or will ever exist)
has an article but does not fit the category because nobody’s written incidental music for it (that would be the majority of plays)
does not have an article yet, but would pass Notability, and would fit the category if an article did exist and if incidental music has been written for it
will never have an article because it is not notable (whether or not any incidental music written for it is notable, and if it is, whether or not it has an article).

To answer your question, therefore, I would not support the restriction you suggest. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the play article has a significant amount on the music, it could be added to the "incidental music" parent cat. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was about to vote "Keep", perhaps suggetsing a rename to something more apt. My basis was that there are several classical music pieces that are classified as "incidental music." Some prominent examples: Mendelssohn's Overture to "A Midsummer Night's Dream"; Tchaikovsky's Hamlet; and Beethoven's Egmont. If we construe the category as being limited to plays that have been subject to this classical genre, this is a well-defined category. A rename may be appropriate so it's not construed as any play of any kind that anyone ever wrote music to. The only reason I'm Commenting instead of voting Keep is that this may be redundant to the article Plays with incidental music TJRC (talk) 00:09, 10 February 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:Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Area, Alaska[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 13:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Area, Alaska to Category:Prince of Wales-Hyder Census Area, Alaska

Nominator's rationale: Per this US Census Bureau page, the name of this census area has been changed. Rename to fit the current name of this county-equivalent, as was done with a similar situation just last month. Nyttend (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Only makes sense, the articles and templates have been modified to reflect the name, the category should as well. §hep • ^Talk 16:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Acntx (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Articles about places annexed by Ketchikan Gateway and Wrangell have been recategorized, so all articles remaining in this category do in fact belong in POWH. --Lasunncty (talk) 10:20, 13 February 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:LGBT civil rights[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 13:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT civil rights to Category:LGBT rights

Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming to Category:LGBT rights, to match naming scheme used elsewhere across Wikipedia. Outsider80 (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Pinkkeith (talk) 17:33, 11 February 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:Imperial Geography[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) 08:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete The term appears to be a neologism. If retained, it should be decapitalized to Category:Imperial geography since it's not a proper noun. -- Stepheng3 (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not the geography of the Japanese Asia-Pacific Co-prosperity Sphere. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity cat. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The present application of the term appears to be WP:NEO. IN principle, the category could exist for the geography of empires (e.g. British Empire), but I think we are better without it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:37, 11 February 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.