Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 1 November 3 >

November 2[edit]

Category:4Kids Entertainment voice actors[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:4Kids Entertainment voice actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Standard overcategorization of performer by performance. See guideline at WP:OC#PERF. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 2 November 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:Roman Dams[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:Ancient Roman dams. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative nomination: copied from speedy rename section due to comments below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
End of copied material from speedy section. Make new comments below this line.
  • Further comment and !vote. It looks like it's for Ancient Roman dams - {[cl|Ancient Roman architecture by type}} is a bit mixx and match as far as its subcategories are concerned - 13 subcategories, of which seven use "Roman", four use "Ancient Roman", one uses "Ancient X in Rome", and one ("Church architecture") doesn't really belong there. I'd suggest they should all be at "Ancient Roman foo", including the current nomination. As such... rename to Category:Ancient Roman dams. Grutness...wha? 22:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Ancient Roman dams per Grutness. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Category:Roman dams. Is it Roman Empire or Ancient Roman Empire, Roman Republic or Ancient Roman Republic? Roman dams is not more ambiguous than all the other Roman categories such as Category:Roman bridges are. For structures in Rome, we have the suffix "in Rome" or "of Rome" (see Category:Rome): Category:Education in Rome, Category:Economy of Rome, Category:Burials in Rome, Category:Religion in Rome, Category:Sport in Rome, Category:Piazzas of Rome and so on and so forth. Apart from that, "Roman dams" is commonly used in scholarly works, whereas "Ancient Roman dams" is very rare and practically never used in prominent places such as headlines, book or article titles, etc. For example: Smith, Norman (1970), "The Roman Dams of Subiaco", Technology and Culture 11 (1): 58–68 Gun Powder Ma Same is true of other architectural works, the English standard reference being: O’Connor, Colin (1993), Roman Bridges, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-39326-4 (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's Roman Empire simply because there is no Modern Roman Empire - the same with Roman Republic. Given that there is an article on modern Rome, however, we have Ancient Rome - the key article to all ultimate parent of all these categories. There are, however, bridges and dams in Rome which were not built by the Ancient Romans. Thus, "Roman dams", although you know what it means, would likely be ambiguous to the average reader. The same with Roman bridges. Adding "Ancient" to the front does not change the meaning, but it does make it less ambiguous and easier for the average reader. It also makes sense, given that Category:Ancient Roman architecture is the overall parent. As to what the standard work on a subject is, that has little relevance to category naming on Wikipedia - it's akin to saying that because the world governing body of soccer is FIFA (the second F standing for Football), all articles on the sport worldwide should use "Football" - including those relating to the United States, which has a different sport which uses that name. Similarly here, we have two distinct things which can use the term Roman, so we need to use an unambiguous term. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What has FIFA to do with it? It is pretty straight forward: For categories related to the city of Rome, it has long been standard to use "of Rome" and "in Rome" to distinguish them sufficiently from the Romans. And the scholarly world, whose judgement should form the basis of all our considerations, is unanimous in its use of Roman as opposed to ancient Roman. I can quote a heap of references here to prove that. You don't have a mandate here to rename all these pages which would also affect by analogy a lot of articles like Roman bridges, List of Roman watermills, Roman aqueducts, etc. etc. Please turn to the Roman portal for sweeping changes through the backdoor like this, I haven't seen you once working on articles related to Roman history (not ancient Roman history).... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) FIFA is used as an analogy. The 'experts" call the sport football, but here on Wikipedia we have to be less ambiguous. The same holds true for Rome and Ancient Rome. 2) The scholarly world is not the basis of all our considerations - ease of use for readers is. And that remains true regardless of how many references you quote to support what the scholarly world calls things. Another analogy may be in order: Experts on Ancient Rome simply refer to Rome because in context the term is easily understood. Similarly, histories of Lincolnshire refer to "Boston". We, however, use the tert Boston, Lincolnshire, because out of context, Boston is more likely to refer to Massachusetts. Category titles are almost always out of context - thereforte they need more precise naming. 3) No, there is no mandate here to change article names -no-one ever claimed there was. There is mandate here to change category names, which is what we are discussing. 4) It is largely irrelevant whether I regularly edit articles on Ancient Rome (or Rome, for that matter), though if you haven't seen my edits, perhaps you have been looking in the wrong places. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have changed dozens of categories to "Ancient Roman Foos" here. Category names need to be clearer than article names may do. The bridges and the few other categories in Category:Ancient Roman architecture by type that still lack an "Ancient" should also be renamed. I think almost all biography categories now have it, and most other types. Johnbod (talk) 09:04, 3 November 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:Welsh Illulminated Manuscripts[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:Illuminated manuscripts of Welsh origin. — ξxplicit 21:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative nomination: copied from speedy rename section due to comments below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Cfd to Category:Illuminated manuscripts of Welsh origin would be preferable, if we must have this category. Only 1 is wholly in the Welsh language, which the name might suggest. Johnbod (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
End of copied material from speedy section. Make new comments below this line.
  • Rename to Category:Illuminated manuscripts of Welsh origin per me above. Or a similar name. The origin of a number is in fact unclear, but all of these have been claimed to have been written in Wales. This is the only such geographical category, but I don't think that can be objected to. Thanks for moving here, GO.Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per Johnbod. As the original nominator, that suggestion is completely fine with me. I don't really know anything about this topic and whether the articles actually belong, but if the category is going to exist Johnbod's suggestion makes its meaning more clear. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 4 November 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:Saint Peter's College, New Jersey alumni[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Saint Peter's College, New Jersey alumni to Category:Saint Peter's College (New Jersey) alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match title of parent article Saint Peter's College (New Jersey). Alansohn (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

&Suggest rename to Category:Alumni of Saint Peter's College, New Jersey. This form is used for Oxford and Cambridge colleges (which mostly have their own alumni categories). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 6 November 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:Ventura County musical groups[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ventura County musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Ventura County, California
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I should have just bundled this with the last one, but requesting rename to follow established conventions for Musical groups from Foo, California. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:32, 2 November 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:Orange County musical groups[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) 04:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Orange County musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Orange County, California
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In addition to Orange County being ambiguous, the naming follows established conventions for other cities/locations in California, such as Category:Musical groups from Los Angeles, California --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:15, 4 November 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.

Subcategories of Category:Locomotive manufacturers[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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: All but one of these categories have recently been created. The WP:NCCAT suggested forms for companies is "... of <country>". All but one of the existing subcategories followed this form. Iain Bell (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom to match other 'country' subcats Hmains (talk) 04:40, 4 November 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:Spadones[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; though may I suggest to the nominator that it would have been preferable to simply nominate this category for renaming to Category:Castrated people rather than moving all the articles to a new category and then proposing deletion of the emptied category. If the former approach is taken, it can avoid problems that result when others disagree with your unilateral decision, as illustrated below. (Incidentally, the word is spado, and is found in OED as a synonym of eunuch. The plural form is spados or spadoes. It is related to the word spayed, which refers to having ovaries removed, usually in the context of animals.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Spadones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Idiosyncratic usage: word "spadone" is not in any English dictionary I can find; now replaced completely by category with hopefully noncontroversial name Category:Castrated people. The Anome (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or speedy as empty. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 3 November 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:Recipients of the Soldier's 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: Keep. NW (Talk) 02:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Recipients of the Soldier's Medal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not convinced that this award is defining for those who receive it. It is awarded at discretion of the powers that be. On September 11, 28 of these were awarded. How many of those individuals have an article? We should revert back to only using the list which can explain why the individual received the award and provide sourcing. Looking at the first entry, was this really defining for Marty Allen or his career? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If deleted the membership should be upmerged to the parent category, and this is not desirable, as the parent is so large that it should contain only subcategories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely speedy keep - the nomination doesn't even make sense. Is where or when a person was born define their career? Or what college they graduated from? Maybe all award categories should be deleted since they are issued by "the powers that be." Get rid of Medal of Honor categories, get rid of Academy Award categories. The award is a rare award given for peace time heroism, and therefore is more "defining" (whatever that means) than many of the biographical related categories.--Monkeybait (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep no more and no less 'defining' than all the other medals that US service members receive. Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive: both can exist for good reason. Hmains (talk) 04:18, 11 November 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:Mann Act arrests[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mann Act arrests to Category:People convicted of violating the Mann Act
Nominator's rationale: Rename. While we may wish to categorize people by criminal conviction, I see little benefit in categorizing people who were merely arrested pursuant to a criminal statute. Doing so essentially turns a category into an "alleged" category, which we generally have not endorsed. This category should be renamed to make it one for criminal convictions. Those who were not convicted should be removed. (Right now, Frank Lloyd Wright is in the category; Wright was arrested under the Mann Act once but the charges were dropped and he was never tried.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename Arrests here are non-defining. Alansohn (talk) 17:11, 2 November 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:Wheel of Fortune franchise[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: Category:Wheel of Fortune franchise to Category:Wheel of Fortune (franchise). --Xdamrtalk 15:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wheel of Fortune franchise to Category:Wheel of Fortune (game show)
Nominator's rationale: No other categories that I know of use "Franchise" in the name. I see no reason to use the word "franchise," but would say that (game show) should be used since other things are called "Wheel of Fortune," and game shows are qualified by (game show) instead of (TV series). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:44, 2 November 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:Babyface[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. — ξxplicit 04:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Babyface to Category:Babyface (musician)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match main article Babyface (musician). Babyface is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Speedy rename as creator of category for same reasons as nom. Note that the article Babyface (musician) was renamed to that only recently. Shaliya waya (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. I noticed this one at the time of the article rename, and am content that the category is following. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 3 November 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:Starving Wikipedians[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. postdlf (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Starving Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - "This category is named after the term Starving artist" - "A starving artist is an artist who sacrifices material well-being in order to focus on their artwork" - I fail to see how this facilitates encyclopedic collaboration, a requirement of user categories per WP:USERCAT. VegaDark (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised that the category did not exist already, i searched for any similar thing prior to creating it. Methinks it'd be interesting to see how many of us are obsessed enough by this Wiki project to sacrifice otherwise lucrative activities such as regular employment, etc. Notice that i did not advertise its existence anywhere, as i wish only motivated individuals to locate it on their own, without being enticed/lured to it. But now you've made noise about it: bravo, nice going. And what's become of your sense of humour ? Is there no room for harmless humour in here ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid profession. Conceivably allows for a person with specialist knowledge or experience. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how this is a valid profession in any way, shape or form. The category is for starving Wikipedians, not Wikipedians who are starving artists. i.e., it is meant for people who sacrifices material well-being in order to focus on Wikipedia, at least by my reading of the category. VegaDark (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read it as a category for wikipedians with knowledge of experience of the profession/practice of being a "starving artist". I see I was probably wrong, but would like to keep such a category as a form of wikipedian style. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read this as Wikipedians suffering through a famine, so would sow confusion on who should be categorized here. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. The meaning is not clear on its face, and regardless of which one it actually means, it's of dubious use for collaboration purposes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:42, 14 November 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:Unbiased Wikipedians[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. postdlf (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Unbiased Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - A "Categorizing users by what they should be by default" category, which has been deemed not collaborative or helpful in the past (see here for similar categories. VegaDark (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-categorization in here is in itself a biased act. 76.66.203.102 (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The set of unbiased Wikipedians is a subset of the set of unbiased humans, which for better or worse is the null or empty set. No such animal.TSRL (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As creator of course, I believe it should be kept. The basic principle is that if a editor believes that they don't allow personal beliefs to interfere with their edits, which, by the way, is a Wikipedia policy. It is not a judgement on other users, it is just a statement that the user will attempt to make sure that he or she will not allow bias to get in the way of their judgement, making them more reliable in the process. In any case, how is this any less relevant than many other Wikipedia categories? - Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 21:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't that be Wikipedians who wish to be unbiased and attempt to be so ? 65.94.252.195 (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per VegaDark and TSRL—this is a category that we all aspire to apply to ourselves but all fall short of and therefore this is relatively meaningless. On a grander scale kind of reminds reminds me of the proposed Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is an initiative showing a very Wikipedian attitude. We should stimulate this, not hinder. Also I'd like to repeat that I believe we should be leniet when dealing with voluntary organisation of Wikipedians, much like we allow leniencies on userpages. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. This is an unattainable goal. The current membership presumably fails to recognise the existence of their own bias. Or he is not a living human. Otherwise, as per Debresser. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TSRL. However, if this category is kept, then any editor who adds themselves to it should automatically indef-blocked, since they clearly don't understand WP:NPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TSRL and then per BHG. Whatever next Category:Wikipedians who are perfect people Snappy (talk) 01:06, 6 November 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:Wikipedians who use Keymanweb[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. postdlf (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who use Keymanweb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - I fail to see how this category would foster encyclopedic collaboration. No point to categorize users who are using this tool. If they have a question, I highly doubt they would go anywhere other than the tool creator's page. VegaDark (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by category creator - No real issues with deleting the category if deemed irrelevant; was following the model that other user scripts have established, e.g. Wikipedians who use wikEd. Keymanweb (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think that and similar categories are generally not the best ideas for categories. I don't really see how they would benefit the encyclopedia, with the exception of finding a user to ask a question related to the software (which, in the case of this particular software, I don't see users going anywhere other than to you seeking an answer to a question, so a category seems unnecessary). Also see here, deleting a somewhat similar category (but rationales somewhat different). VegaDark (talk) 01:53, 3 November 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:Wikipedian Fortaleza Esporte Clube supporters[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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 19#Category:Wikipedian Fortaleza Esporte Clube supporters. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian Fortaleza Esporte Clube supporters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Wikipedian Fortaleza Esporte Clube fans to match the naming convention currently used by Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) team fans. I'm not a fan of this naming convention either, as I don't feel "fans" adequately conveys an encyclopedic use, but that discussion is better left for a group nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:28, 2 November 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:Wikipedian Trade Unionists[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:Wikipedian Trade Unionists to Category:Wikipedians interested in trade unionism.
Clear consensus for retention as an aid to collaboration in the area of trades unionism. Only real difficulty arises over naming.
This category had no parent category, so I have placed it in Category:Wikipedians by interest. This has the naming convention Wikipedians interested in XXX, hence the rename. As an alternative I considered placing this category in either Category:Wikipedians by profession or Category:Wikipedians by skill, both of which use the form Wikipedian XXX. I rejected this course of action on the grounds that, strictly speaking, membership of a trade union is neither a profession, nor a skill.
Xdamrtalk 00:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian Trade Unionists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - I fail to see how this facilitates encyclopedic collaboration, a requirement of user categories per WP:USERCAT. Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in trade unionism per explaination below that this is intended for people who are philosophically trade unionists and not for those merely part of a union. VegaDark (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. While I support the other user category deletions proposed by VegaDark above, I can see that this one would be useful, given that we have numerous articles on unions, organised labour, workforces, workers rights, and similar which could well be expanded by editors who have working knowledge of trade unionism. It is also true that several of these articles may have the potential for editing which may be biased in one direction or the other. As such, knowing which editors have both (a) knowledge of the workings of trade unions but also (b) potential conflicts of interest in such articles is useful. Grutness...wha? 04:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is linked to a userbox saying "This user is a Trade Unionist". That article redirects to Trade union. Thus, my interpretation of the category is that it merely groups users by being members of a union, which I don't think reasonably groups users by likely collaboration topics. If "Trade Unionist" is meant as something else, a brief overview of the category didn't make it obvious. VegaDark (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Srong oppose. When I joined the Wikipedia community, I was very surprised there was no Trades Unionist category, given that folk categorised themselves, for example as atheists or christians etc. These are philosophical positions which mean (amongst other things)that we may have knowledge (good) about a particular subject area or have blinkered prejudices (bad), as set out by Grutness above. Though I am a member of a particular Union, that is not primarily what I mean when I say I am a trades unionist; rather I mean that I believe in the importance of the Trades Union movement in providing a community in which people help each other when they are in difficulties. Given the very large number of folk who are in unions and believe in their importance, I'd be surprised if I were the only one to want to add this to my Wiki identity. Of course, there are countries where to identify yourself as an active trades unionist can mean death, like Colombia, so some will stay under cover. I don't suppose I fussed over where the redirects from Trade Unionist went to (at the time I did not know about redirects!), but if I were doing it I'd redirect to Trade Unionisn, not Trade Union. Perhaps these are the sort of reasons why Wikipedia needs to identify people who understand the broader aspects.TSRL (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having looked at some other category pages, I see the need for the overview mentioned by VegaDark, which did not exist but does now, though I'm sure it could be improved.TSRL (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trade unionism also redirects to trade union. As named, there is no way of telling if the category is meant simply for people belonging to a union (an unhelpful category) or people that are philosophically trade unionists (more helpful). In the end, user categories are meant to support collaboration, so in my view the category would be more clear (and thus better foster collaboration, as to avoid mere members of trade unions from adding themselves) if renamed to Category:Wikipedians interested in trade unionism, which I would support existing as it seems there are enough topics on that for a category to foster collaboration. This rename would also be inclusive of people who are philosophically against trade unionism, which is an improvement in by book (as there is no benefit of distinguishing pro or anti trade unionists in different categories, in terms of encyclopedia improvement) VegaDark (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You keep falling back on Wiki's current redirects. It seems to me these inadequate connections merely emphasise the need for input from folks who know something about the subject, W. Trades Unionists. TSRL (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This at minimum needs a rename, as "Unionists" is improperly capitalized. VegaDark (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments"Wikipedian Trade unionists" is fine, though mostly people do capitalise the U. Have a look at the category overview, which I've just added (I'm new to making categories) and see if it clarifies things for you. I have not Wikilinked to Trade unionism for the reason above. On the suggested renaming: are you saying Category:Atheist Wikipedians should become Category:Wikipedians interested in atheism? Surely not?TSRL (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Trade unionist Wikipedians" is also fine if it helps with the capitalisation. There doesn't seem to be a standard order.TSRL (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the suggested renaming: are you saying Category:Atheist Wikipedians should become Category:Wikipedians interested in atheism? Surely not? - Actually, yes. Or deletion. I've supported deleting or renaming all the religion categories for a while now as not facilitating collaboration. Wikipedians interested in (religion) would be a far more collaborative category system than what we currently have. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, in that just because some other (imo bad) category exists, that doesn't mean we have to follow the same naming scheme for this category. Wikipedia categories, in general, should not be used for self-identification. We used to allow a lot of leeway in "demographic" type information, and the religion categories are left over from that era. Now, per WP:USERCAT, wikipedia categories must facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, and my proposed rename would achieve this goal much better than the current name. VegaDark (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Following all that, I propose a change to Category:Trade unionist Wikipedians. This order is in line with e.g. Category:Atheist Wikipedians and Category:Anglican and Episcopalian Wikipedians.TSRL (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, "Wikipedian x" is much more common of a naming convention than "X Wikipedians". The religion category tree is a notable exception. I'd prefer the "Wikipedian trade unionists" name over that, although my proposed rename above is my #1 choice. VegaDark (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm happy with "Wikipedian trade unionists". I do now understand better where you are coming from, so thanks for that. My problem with categories like "Wikipedians interested in XXX" from a possible collaboration point of view is that it is very broad, to the point of telling me almost nothing. "interested in" is not the same as "having expertise in" or some such phrase. Even though it's inevitably a self assessment, the latter is much more use. If I'm writing an article on (let's say) the geological time scale but need better to understand a technical cosmological issue, I would look for "Wikipedian cosmologists" and be very wary of folk in the "Wikipedians with an interest in cosmology" (haven't we all). Other authors might find the second category more useful, if their interest was in (say) myths and legends (though there ought to be a better cat), but the two categories at best are distinct and serve different possible collaborations. Likewise if I need information about (say) the history of Trades Unionism in Colombia, I would start looking in the (disputed) "Wikipedian trade unionists" cat, rather than those "Wikipedians interested in Trades Unionism" (aren't we all? - in the UK we are in the middle of a postal strike). "Wikipedians with expertise in Trades Unionism" would do; if you object to the self assessment "Wikipedians who believe they have expertise in Trades Unionism", horribly long winded would cover it. The cat overview might need a tweak after all this discussion, bu I did imply that was a works in progress.TSRL (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer something more aligned to providing a resource, such as "Category:Wikipedians with expertise in Trade Unionism" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • From a collaborative standpoint, that name is definitely an improvement. However, there is no way to confirm that the members who add themselves to such a category actually do have expertise, which was a concern last time this sort of naming convention was mentioned. (This is obviously a problem with all user categories, but when it comes down to claiming expertise on a particular subject, I think the concerns are higher). Additionally, that category name could exclude people who want to help work on trade unionist topics but don't believe they have expertise on it, so they may be dissuaded from joining the category. My ideal naming convention would be Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on trade unionist topics, a convention I've advocated for for a while. I do think that the "expertise" name is better than the current one, however. VegaDark (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't like "interested in" because it converys no extra useful information. If you weren't interested, you wouldn't add the category to your userpage. Expertise may be too strong. How about ""Category:Wikipedians with knowledge of Trade Unionism" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "If you weren't interested, you wouldn't add the category to your userpage" - In a perfect world this would be true. I think the "interested in" portion of my above example is simply synonymous with "wishing" and that it is helpful because it weeds out users who simply use categories as a badge of honor for their userpage, rather than those who actually want to use the categories for collaboration. If "with knowledge of" started being the norm for naming conventions, I can imagine quite a few users going through and adding categories for what they are knowledgeable about, but when asked if they wish to collaborate, they would say no. For instance, I have knowledge in plenty of areas that I'm not particularly inclined to collaborate in. Many users don't know that user categories are intended for collaboration, or don't care, and will add themselves to any category that applies to them. Thus, I feel we need to make the category names "interested in collaborating" (Or willing to collaborate, but "willing" gives more of an "under duress" impression, imo) to get the best result. I would agree that Category:Wikipedians with knowledge of trade unionism is either a better or at least equal option compared to my original Wikipedians interested in trade unionism suggestion, though (since that suffers from the same problem of "I'm interested in it, but don't wish to collaborate"). Also, not sure about the proper capitalization in this context. VegaDark (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it is good to assume that any personal information put on your userpage (especially a link to a category), is an invitation to be invited to assist.
I imagine that few would say “no” to reasonable requests. I think we should wait for that sort of thing to occur before worrying about it.
I think your tendency to collaborate (I prefer to say “help”) will depend on the nature of request. Specific requests are easy to help.
ManyMost users don't know thatwhat user categories are intended for collaboration. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I presume that this is to enable WPians to identify themsleves as a Trades Union member. That may well be a defining characteristic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
    • Being a "defining characteristic" is a measure used to keep article categories, not user categories. See WP:USERCAT - Collaborative value is the measure for keeping user categories. VegaDark (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might help to consider one of my other categories, that is Wikipedian physicist. What is that for? Well, one thing that is useful for others is that it may help them understand where I am coming from if they think they detect bias; they may still want to edit, but they at least can do this despite understanding my take on things. But more important given the stress on collaborations, which perhaps do happen, is for them to know if I'm likely to be any help. If they have a religious or biological question, probably not. If if they have a vaguely physics issue for solution or clarification, then maybe a Wikipedian physicist is the person to ask or work with. How do they know if I know any physics: they don't if they don't ask, but why would I claim to be a physicist (by which I mean a life spent doing research, and maybe some teaching) if I was not? I'd soon get rumbled. It seems to me adding "with expertise in" does not add much (I would not be a physicist if I did not have considerable expertise in the subject) and find the "with an interest in" quite unhelpful" (see the bit about cosmologists up above somewhere). I'm interested in the symphonies of Sibelius just now, but have nothing worth saying about them.

So now replace physicist with trade unionist, capitalised as you wish. The only difference I can see is that there are folk in trades unions who are members but not generally much involved (VegaDark's "mere" trades unionists) and therefore maybe lacking expertise, bit like only having GCSE Physics. I don't think many of them would describe themselves as Wikipedian trades unionists, but those of us who are or have been more deeply involved would. We do have some expertise in the subject. I would not object to W. trades union activists or officials, if you like. I prefer to keep the simpler original cat, for it identifies me to possible collaborators, as well as saying where I am coming from on certain social issues, trying for lack of bias of course. This is not to say there should not be cats like W. historian of the trades unions movement or even W. anti-trades unionist scholars, etc.TSRL (talk) 19:51, 6 November 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:People from Martin[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. — ξxplicit 21:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Martin to Category:People from Martin, Slovakia
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match Martin, Slovakia. Martin is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 3 November 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:Railway workshops in Great Britain[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: Reverse unilateral action: merge new Category:Railway workshops in the United Kingdom back to Category:Railway workshops in Great Britain. If the GB category is going to be combined with Northern Ireland articles and changed into a UK category, this should be formally proposed and discussed in a new discussion. For now, there is no consensus to make that change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Railway workshops in Great Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Completely replaced by Category:Railway workshops in the United Kingdom, which follows the more common country-based convention used in similar templates. The Anome (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Railway categories of Britain and Ireland (of which this is one) are split on island basis (i.e. "... of Great Britain" / "... of Ireland"), not a nation basis ("...of the United Kingdom", "... of the Republic of Ireland"). See the explanatory text at the top of Category:Rail transport in the United Kingdom. Iain Bell (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, partly on logical grounds. The set "Railway workshops in Great Britain" is clearly greater than the set "Railway workshops in the United Kingdom" since it includes those in Eire, so the latter cannot replace the former; it's included within it. The reason for including Eire is presumably historical, the railway network having begun in Ireland long before independence.TSRL (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong Great Britain is the island made up of England, Wales and Scotland. Eire is part of the island of Ireland. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Schoolboy error. Should have said British Isles, not Great Britain.TSRL (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Railway workshops in the United Kingdom back to Category:Railway workshops in Great Britain (deleting that so as to do so). This ought to be a case for adminstrative action against the person who emptied it out of process. The categoiries are not the same. UK includes Northern Ireland, which is not part of GB. Nevertheless, many British categories are split into England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. At present there are not enough articles for a split to be needed. The railways of northern and southern Ireland connect with each other, I can therefore see the logic of Iain Bell's case. Note all current articels are in fact in GB. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 6 November 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:People from the Big Island, Hawaii[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from the Big Island, Hawaii to Category:People from Hawaii (island)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match Category:Hawaii (island) and its other subcategories as well as Hawaii (island). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (and I was the one who created the initial cat).--Epeefleche (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy support, per support of category creator. Grutness...wha? 04:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • support I was looking at how odd this category name looked earlier today. I did not see any other category pertaining the island with the name 'Big Island' being used. Hmains (talk) 05:40, 2 November 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:High schools in Palestine[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. — ξxplicit 21:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:High schools in Palestine to Category:High schools in the Palestinian territories
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Palestinian territories" is standard usage in categories; tp match parent Category:Schools in the Palestinian territories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator, and because there is no Palestine. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ouch on the Palestinians. But let's not say anything that would needlessly cause a fight. After all, the governments of a majority of world states say there is a state of Palestine, and I imagine a good percentage of Wikipedians might agree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Though I remain confused, if there is no Palestine (and I'm not arguing the point one way or the other), why we have a Wikipedia page entitled State of Palestine.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per nom. Otherwise Palestinians will start adding schools in Israel to it, since they do not admit the legitimacy of its existence. Peterkingiron (talk)
  • Rename to match parent category Category:Schools in the Palestinian territories. An uncontroversial move which does not need to be controversialized here. Yes, I did just invent a word. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 10 November 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:FUNimation voice actors[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 Category:FUNimation voice actors and Category:Funimation Entertainment voice actors as overcategorization. — ξxplicit 04:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:FUNimation voice actors to Category:Funimation Entertainment voice actors
Nominator's rationale: Funimation Entertainment is the full name of the company without stylization. Goodraise 01:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added to nomination: Category:Funimation Entertainment voice actors (created after the start of this discussion; added because editors have made comments in favour of deletion) — Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 2 November 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_November_2&oldid=1144514335"