Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 12 August 14 >

August 13[edit]

Category:Deborah Cox[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: no consensus. If this discussion is any indication, after many years of this there still seems to be little consensus on "how much is enough" to justify eponymous categories for people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Deborah Cox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I've tried to start a discussion on minimal requirements for creating eponymous categories for musicians and musical groups here, but no response to date. If a category such as this is permitted to exist, with only the artist's article, a discography page and categories for songs and albums, then every musical artist with a discography page should have its own category named after it, which I think is overcategorization. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but upmerge song and discography categories Mangoe (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – certainly keep the 2 subcats (per schemes Category:Songs by artist and Category:Albums by artist). I agree that the existence of the parent cat is marginal. (The discography page could go in both the subcats.) Over-categorisation refers to potential category clutter, of which there is none. Occuli (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sub-cats have not been nominated as I have no problem with the "by artist" schemes mentioned. With so little to populate in many of these eponymous categories, though, I would think it goes against WP:OC#Eponymous. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was Mangoe who mentioned a subcat. WP:OC#Eponymous (IMO) was intended to prevent the creation of say Category:John Wayne which would then fill up with anything that mentioned JW (eg films which starred him, for which we don't have categories, due to the difficulty in deciding who is 'starred' in a film) and would lead to endless category clutter. Here we have a container category with 1 or 2 articles and 2 well-defined subcats: where is the potential for clutter? (The articles in the subcats are populating the parent.) Occuli (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - categories named after a person should exist only when the material related to that person is so complex that the person's article can't serve effectively as a navigational hub. Clearly that is not the case here. I do not agree with the notion that articles in a sub-category populate the parent but even if that were the case Deborah Cox contains links to all the material in those categories (as does the navigational template). Overcategorization does not refer only to category clutter but also overall maintenance of the category system. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the 'maintenance of the category system' affected by extra categories? Are we running out? Article qua 'navigational hub' ... that's a familiar phrase. 'Articles in a sub-category populate the parent' is not a notion (unless it is a category of categories, in which case articles in a subcat do not populate it). Occuli (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTPURP. Redundancy of lists, templates, and categories has long been accepted. This and other categories sharing a name with a musical artist are if anything beneficial to Wikipedia. They are a useful aid in navigation to articles, and absolutely to not disrupt such navigation. At the very least, they can contain the categories of the artist's albums and songs, their discography page, and possibly any multimedia pertaining to that artist. For bands, it could also contain a category of their members. Any artist who has at least this much (that being at least several albums and several songs with articles) should be entitled to an eponymous category. Shaliya waya (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories and lists are not the same thing and per WP:CLN there are times when one is clearly preferable to another. Categories are not awards of merit and no one is "entitled" to a category. Small categories that are unlikely to expand like this one are discouraged per WP:OC#SMALL. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create template then delete category -- A navbox will do the job much better than a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the point I've been trying to make is that Wikipedia guidelines state redundancy between categories and navs is good and necessary. Shaliya waya (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CLN redundancy between lists, templates and categories is not "necessary" since the guideline spells out examples of when one or another is the superior choice. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Small, eponymous that hardly aids in navigation. — ξxplicit 06:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These umbrella categories for artists help me, because they take all the related subcategories and allow navigation between them. I know that navboxes do the same thing, but that doesn't mean categories aren't helpful too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All two of the related subcategories can easily be linked by a "see also" note, something that should be widely implemented anyway. Even without such notes I doubt the average reader is going to have any difficulty getting from songs to albums in the absence of this category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2010 (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:Israeli people wounded in war[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. Courcelles 18:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Israeli people wounded in war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Being wounded in war is not a sufficiently significant characteristic to categorise by; if this was extended to other nationalities and wars, it would grow very large very quickly. Subcategory of Category:Israeli casualties, which I don't have a problem with, as it includes people killed in action as well. Robofish (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that this is overdoing it. If someone's war wounds are so defining, they could just be included in Category:Israeli casualties, but we don't need to open to the door to categorizing everyone ever wounded in a war. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2010 (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:Chorus frogs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Pseudacris into Category:Chorus frogs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Chorus frogs to Category:Pseudacris
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Main article indicates the two terms are interchangeable. Choosing the scientific name over the common name for parallelism with other categories under this parent. Dawynn (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life. See the "Categories" section. It indicates that, if a common name exists, that it is preferred to use the common name. With this in mind, can we agree to merge the articles from Category:Pseudacris into the Category:Chorus frogs group? Dawynn (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with that i.e. merge these two to the common name. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2010 (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:Second Life residents[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. Courcelles 18:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Second Life residents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category categorises people by participating in an online game/virtual world, which is not usually a distinguishing characteristic. We don't have Category:World of Warcraft players or Category:Facebook users, and we shouldn't have this for the same reasons. (We do have Category:Notable Wikipedians, but obviously that's a special case.) It might be acceptable if limited to people who are notable because of their role in Second Life, such as Anshe Chung, but I don't think there are enough of those to justify a category. Robofish (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I've become aware that this category (under the previous name, Category:Second Life Residents) was nominated for deletion and kept back in 2006, at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 6#Category:Second Life Residents. I've notified all the editors who contributed to that discussion about this one. Robofish (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I supported deletion at the previous CFD, but am not just parroting my previous view. I have just checked a sample of the contents of the category, and find that it remains an unholy mess:
  1. It includes some people whose articles do not mention the game other than in the category, let alone provide a reliable source for it: e.g. Thomas Barnett, Cory Doctorow, Tod Maffin, Tony Moore (musician), Cezary Ostrowski, Howard Rheingold, R. J. Rummel. If this categ was not already at CFD, I would promptly remove these people from it
  2. Others included have refs to confirm their involvement in the game, but there is no evidence that their role in the game is a defining characteristic (e.g. Adam Curry)
  3. Suzanne Vega played live on Second Life, but the article offers no evidence that she is a "resident"; on the basis of the article, it looks to me like she visited to play a gig, in the same way as a performing artist visits hundreds of places. This sort of performers-by-performance-venue categorisation has long been deprecated (see WP:OC#PERF)
  4. Other articles (e.g. Khannea Suntzu, whose notability is in dispute) are fictional characters in the game, who don't belong in the same category as real people
  5. Richard Minsky is notable not being a resident of Second Life, but for writing about it. (I write a lot on Wikipedia about Members of Parliament; by the logic applied here, I would be categorised as a resident of the Palace of Westminster)
When I started going through the category, I thought that I would probably repeat my previous "delete and listify" recommendation ... but having looked at the current state of the category, it's too much of a mishmash to make a coherent list. Just delete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – there was a list (coherent or otherwise) in earlier versions of Culture of Second Life. Anshe Chung will need some other categories. (The earlier keep is rather surprising.) Occuli (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination and above comment(s). Very apt. Jared Preston (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a great example of overcategorisation. We don't generally categorise people by what they do in their spare time. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not something we need a category for. Just like why we don't have Category:People known for enjoying wine and cheese. —fetch·comms 21:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is amazing this category has lasted this long. If this standard were applied to my article, I would have fifty categories of the format Category:(X) players.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.. I think the category is confusing, poorly defined, and without purpose. I'm the person who originally nominated the category and I haven't edited for quite awhile. shotwell (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - possibly rename to Second Life people or People in Second Life, possibly also listify
  1. OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST isn't a reason to delete.
  2. If the cat is a mess, remove those who don't belong.
  3. This is not about people who simply happen to have a SL account, any more than Cat:Oboe players is about people who happen to play the oboe. The parent category is very heterogeneous, and its subcategories are useful.
Rich Farmbrough, 15:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Oh and entities such as Heartun Breaker are not "fictional characters in the game" they are most nearly described as pseudonyms, so Torley Linden should be either a redirect to or from Torley Wong. Rich Farmbrough, 15:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Um... neither Torley Linden or Torley Wong are articles. Assuming they're a person in Second Life, then fair enough, but I think there's a key point here - very few people are notable (by our standards) primarily through participation in Second Life. That's the difference with Category:Oboists - they're people notable for playing the oboe, but the majority of people in this category are people independently notable for other reasons who just happen to have accounts in Second Life. Robofish (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, kinda my point, Torley should have an article. And people "who just just happen" to have an account should be pulled form the category mercilessly. Rich Farmbrough, 16:25, 15 August 2010 (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:Oxychaeta[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. Empty, so nothing to merge. Courcelles 18:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Oxychaeta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category empty. Dawynn (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2010 (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.

1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig[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. Courcelles 18:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lokomotive Leipzig to Category:1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig
Propose renaming Category:Lokomotive Leipzig managers to Category:1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig managers
Propose renaming Category:Lokomotive Leipzig matches to Category:1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig matches
Propose renaming Category:Lokomotive Leipzig players to Category:1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename all Lokomotive Leipzig related categories to match the parent article name 1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig. Jared Preston (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought about that, just wasn't sure I could get away with nominating all of the categories for speedy in one go just because of the parent article being named 1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig. On the other hand, it doesn't seem that anyone would be against a renaming in this case. Whether it takes 2 or 7 days, it doesn't really matter because the main category has been named as it is for 2 years without anyone having noticed it until now. I just wanted to get it sorted out. Jared Preston (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2010 (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:Business qualifications[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. — ξxplicit 21:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Business qualifications to Category:Business degrees
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The contents are all academic degrees; the current name is ambiguous and might be taken to imply professional qualifications. I do not think there is a need for a category that does embrace the latter as "business qualifications" ia vague and far-reaching, including various disciplines such as financial services and engineering. Fayenatic (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points, but most of the member articles are academic degrees; if the cat is moved, I would tidy it up afterwards.
If we were starting from scratch, isn't "business qualifications" too vague to be desirable as a category? It could have sub-cats for these business degrees, plus accountancy / financial services / engineering / IT qualifications, but could probably also hold most of the other current members of Category:Professional certification. I don't think it is useful.
In contrast, a category for business degrees is useful and clear-cut, alongside Category:Medical degrees and Category:Religious degrees. I could have just created it and nominated the current one for deletion, but I thought I'd let a bot do the work as there is a close match! - Fayenatic (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_Zero 12:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • solution! Make a Category:Business degrees subcat of Category:Business qualifications and everyone be happy. Hmains (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not all business qualifications are degrees. In law, accountancy, and other professions the awarding body is a professional body, not a university, so that they are not degrees. There seems to be a move to convert them all into Masters degrees, but that has not yet happened. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2010 (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:Hotels by year of establishment[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: No consensus. The problem of underpopulation should be addressed before any future nomination. Ruslik_Zero 18:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Subcats of Category:Hotels by year of establishment upmerged by decade or similar.
Nominator's rationale: Lots of little cats with few pages in each.

for example, the following cats:

  • Hotels established in 1950 (1 P)
  • Hotels established in 1951 (1 P)
  • Hotels established in 1952 (3 P)
  • Hotels established in 1954 (1 P)
  • Hotels established in 1955 (1 P)
  • Hotels established in 1956 (1 P)
  • Hotels established in 1957 (4 P)
  • Hotels established in 1958 (3 P)
  • Hotels established in 1959 (2 P)

upmerged to

    • Hotels established from 1950-1959 (17 P)

For all cats in the Category:Hotels by year of establishment. Avicennasis @ 07:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge but also to 'XXXX establishments'. (Eg Category:Hotels established in 1882 has to be upmerged to its decade + Category:1882 establishments.) Occuli (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment'. Upmerging to 'XXXX establishments' may be the only option, but it's not an ideal one because the 'XXXX establishments' categories are usually in dire need of diffusion. Is there a more specific set sub-categories, such as "Businesses established in XXXX"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • UpMerge to Category:Hotels established in 1950s (renmaing the presnet parent) and upmerge to e.g 1951 establishments. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It seems that these categories are simply underpopulated. One now has 7 and another 8 so this series clearly should be kept. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Peterkingiron. There can't be that many notable hotel articles for each year. I doubt the majority of them will grow beyond 10. -- œ™ 00:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Vegaswikian. Some of these have substantial membership: 13 for 1924; 17 for 1927. Pace OE, I would suppose that there are probably a great many hotels to be added which are notable on architectural, cultural or other grounds. Systemic bias likely to be a problem as ever. Also why clutter up the overgrown XXXX establishments yet further? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom (no opinion on upmerging to xxxx establishments). Even those few years that do have more than ten, eg 1924 and 1927, combining them into hotels in the 1920's isn't going to create a massive category (59 articles if I added correctly). And the rest won't even have that many. If, as is suggested, that these are just underpopulated, we can always break them apart again once that is rectified. But to keep "Hotels of 1806" (and many others) with its one article merely because a very few have more than ten doesn't make sense. --Kbdank71 18:17, 3 September 2010 (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:Live CD[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:Operating system distributions bootable from read-only media. — ξxplicit 06:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Live CD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unless we are willing to create subcategories to organize these by what they do, navigation is much better served by List of live CDs. If kept we have two issues with the name. At a minimum it should be Category:Live CDs. Since it is not limited to CDs, the name is misleading as it can include DVDs. I do expect some discussion here due to the nature of the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename along the lines suggested by 76.66.193.119. I did suppose these were live CDs released by musicians - some of them have rather nifty titles. Occuli (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per IP Rich Farmbrough, 15:40, 14 August 2010 (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/2010_August_13&oldid=1141928310"