Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 9 January 11 >

January 10[edit]

Category:Telehealth[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Telehealth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I found this one in the list of uncategorised categories, and it looked like a neologism (keeping your television in good working order? Being teleported to a health farm?). There is an article telehealth, but it's in a poor shape, tagged for merger to telemedicine. I am unsure what to do with this one, but thought I'd list it here to see if anyone had any ideas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WikiProject Medicine notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep catgeory productively organizes articles associated with its parent for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you notice the lack of references in the parent category, and the fact that it's tagged for merger? What exactly is "teleheath" as distinct from "telemedicine"? Or do you just say "keep" as a knee-jerk reaction to every CFD nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A fine dose of incivility from someone who calls herself an admin. To respond to your personal attack, I sit down and review each category before making a decision, looking at the articles and seeing what they have in common. I consider whether to Keep, Delete or Rename based on how the given category serves as an aid to navigation, determining if I or other users would take advantage of the category in moving across similar articles. Based on policy, I ignore the existence of any list, template or other navigation aid as an excuse for getting rid of a category. I will never start out from any assumption -- let alone an automatic one for deletion -- as you appear to do in every nomination, vote and close. Keep? Is the word in your vocabulary? Alansohn (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you'd paid attention, you'd notice that I do recommend keeping categories where appropriate.
          Now, what exactly is "telehealth" as distinct from "telemedicine"? And what are the sources for that, given that the article is unreferenced? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep possibly rename as consumer telemedicine. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good collegues, in fact there is a great confusion regarding the categories of telemedicine and telehealth. This is not the same as fusing the articles, which are two different things (I am an expert in the field). For example, telenursing, teledentistry, telerehabilitation, and telemedicine, telehomecare, public telehealth, etc, are all branches or subdivisions of telehealth. Telehealth is therefore more generic and the article should reflect that (as it does). Telemedicine refers exclusively to the use of ICTs to medical diagnosis, therapy, etc. Sometimes, from the point of view of the categorizer, it is very difficult or confuse to classify a given article into telehealth or telemedicine, so I feel that the categorization of the articles have been a little haphazard. I suggest that we delete the telemedicine category, instead, recoding all to telehealth. This will be much more clearcut. Comsumer telemedicine is not an useful category. R.Sabbatini (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um; since Category:Telemedicine is a redlink, there is nothing to merge. However, if the articles end up merged, we should revisit this to match this category and the article's name. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:15, 13 January 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:Pasadena Playhouse 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: delete. The nominator's rationale and comments of 2010-01-11 05:20 UTC are not addressed by the comments in favour of keeping the category. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pasadena Playhouse alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. People do not usually graduate from a theatre company, and with all due respect to the Pasadena Playhouse this is just another form of performer-by-performance category per WP:OC#Performers_by_performance_venue. On the other hand, the article Pasadena Playhouse says that: A school of theatre arts was established in the late 1920s that became an accredited college by 1937 (known informally in Hollywood as the “Star Factory”). I dunno whether that makes it a better idea to keep the category, because it is likely to just add to category clutter on highly notable people.
If kept, this category should be renamed to reflect what I think is its intended purpose, as a category of alumni of the Pasadena Playhouse school of theatre arts. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Consider Rename The nomination could not have made a better argument for the defining nature of the category. Levels of disruption would be far lower if we tried to solve problems rather than adopting a "shoot the horse" approach for all issues when the nomination itself describes its own solution. Alansohn (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Levels of disruption would be a lot lower if Alansohn actually looked at a category and its contents for a few minutes before robotically waving the "defining" flag when faced with any category relating to a potentially verifiable factlet. The Pasadena Playhouse is so deeply "defining" of Charles Bronson that it gets no mention in the detailed article on him. Same for Eve Arden, and Victor Jory. It is mentioned in George Tobias, Jamie Farr, Victor Mature and Gloria Stuart, but not referenced in any of them. Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman were labelled as no-hopers in Pasadena, so hopped off to New York and built their careers there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If "defining" = "verifiable" in a worldview, CFD must be a bitch. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the words in the nomination are accurate, you yourself have reviewd the category and found individuals with a clear defining connection to the "Pasadena Playhouse school of theatre arts". If you believe that this accredited college deserves less to be a category than any other institution of higher learning, justifying the deletion of the category, you have not provided anything to support the claim. If you truly believe that we are best served at CfD by deleting the category, removing it from each article on which it appears, then recreating it with a different name (somehow avoiding the need to take this to DRV) and then repopulate the category, this disruption you will cause can all be avoided by a simple rename. Yet here we are again with a knee-jerk decision to put this category up for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alansohn, you really should try reading the nomination. I did not, before nominating it, find "individuals with a clear defining connection", and did not say that I had. Having reviewed more articles, I haven't found any which provide a referenced assertion that the individual attended "Pasadena Playhouse school of theatre arts"; the closest is that some acted at the Pasadena Playhouse, not that they attended the school.
            I nominated the category because it raised several problems, some of which are set out in the nomination. How exactly do you define accredited college? Accredited to who? Who was studying there and who just acted there, and which gets included in the category?
            You seem to regard CFD as a killing-machine for categories (you have repeatedly insisted that it is "broken") where your role is to prevent deletion ... and as a result in this case your bad faith led you to entirely miss the obvious fact that this nomination is not simply an attempt construct the best case for a deletion; instead it identifies a few problems, and suggests some possible solutions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per last bit of nom repopulating as nec. Occuli (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Alumni of the Pasadena Playhouse school of theatre arts. This seems to be the purpose of the category. If the category is limited to their graduates, it will not fall foul of the rule against performace by performer categories. Any actors, who have merely performed there should be eliminated, but there is a long list of alumni in the Pasadena Playhouse. That is a somewhat muddly article, since does not have a clear section on the training program, distinct from its role as an arts venue, its outreach program, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 11 January 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.

BYU Cougars standardization[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/2010 January 18#BYU Cougars standardization#CfD 2010-01-18. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Follow up nomination to this CFD. Although there are a number of variations, the team name is most commonly reported as "BYU Cougars", including on the official website. Suggest standardizing these subcategories to match parent Category:BYU Cougars. Some subcategories are already in this format; they are not listed here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. Seems like the more common name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renames to standardize on a single name. Alansohn (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed The parent should be renamed to get rid of the acronym, not the acronym introduced into more categories. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to standardize team name.- choster (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Bradjamesbrown. We usually try to expand abbreviations rather than introduce them, and if the parent category has been renamed to use an abbreviation, that should be reversed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish the opposers would have spoken up when the parent category name was discussed. It looks like we should rename these for consistency' sake and then renominate them if someone wants them expanded. There's little sense keeping the "Brigham Young Cougars" ones since that is neither "BYU Cougars" nor the complete expanded abbreviation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:16, 18 January 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:19th-century national presidents in Africa[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. I'd have considered a merge but one needs to go up many levels to find a likely target. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:19th-century national presidents in Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Pointless category. In the 19th century, most of Africa was carved by the European colonial powers, so national presidents were in short supply. The subjects of the articles in this category were all presidents of the South African Republic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Liberia not also have presidents? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you're right. There were 12 19th-century Presidents of Liberia, which I had forgotten about. But what useful navigational purpose is created by a category of 12 white people from one end of Africa and 5 black people from the other end? The two groups have almost nothing in common. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a parent category after subdividing by nation. Alansohn (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Questions Why??????????????????????????????
      What on earth is the benefit to readers of chopping up the 6-article contents of Category:Presidents of the South African Republic into 2 by-century categories?
      There have been only 22 Presidents of Liberia (tho the complex history means there are 27 articles in the category). How are readers helped by chopping that 27-article category into 3 small ones? (There is already a navigational template and a detailed list). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I think the truth is that we have a category tree that is in a mess. The question is whether it is useful to split this by century at all. I would suggest a single "National presidents in Africa" as a parent-only category, with national subcategories. If we need a split by period at all, I would suggest that it should be pre- and post- 1950, a date that I choose, becuase it is just before the advent of decolonisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the idea of a single "National presidents in Africa" as a parent-only category, with national subcategories. I don't think, though, that the category tree is generally in a mess: most of it is reasonably healthy. We just have a problem with the people-by-century categories poking their way through. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - part of a larger system. Carlaude:Talk 06:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Upmerge to both parents if it is removed. Carlaude:Talk 06:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is indeed part of a larger system of people-by-century, an ill-thought-out idea whose extension down the category tree is causing massive disruption, but by adding to category clutter on articles and by prompting ridiculous subdivisions of small categories as suggested here. It's one of those ideas which sounds great in theory, until one looks at is consequences for article, when it becomes clear that it's a disaster. Look at the categories Tony Blair is in, and consider what happens there if we start splitting his categories by century: we could easily add a dozen or two more categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the topic article rule, the article should be categorised with similar articles, so the categories should be applied to the article (if they exist. See WP:CAT#Eponymous_categories). You also seem to have missed that Blair was PM from 1997 to 2007, so he would be in both Category:20th-century heads of government in Europe and Category:21st-century heads of government in Europe (that's two new verbose categories to be added to an already over-categorised article. But if heads of govt are to be split by century, why not leaders of political parties? Why not Category:People from Edinburgh and Category:Labour MPs (UK)? You may not be proposing to split those categories, but the same logic could easily be applied to them by another editor.
    In the case of this category, Africa has only had national presidents for about 150 years, or one-and-a-half centuries. What on earth is the point of chopping them up into three by-century categories? (19th, 20th, and 21st). It's all very well saying "part of a larger system", but it's a larger system of ill-considered intersections which is applied with disruptive effect to a whole range of biographical categories, and I have yet to see any of the "keep" advocates coming up with a clear benefit-to-readers of chopping up 150 years of African presidents in this way. The period simply isn't long enough to make the split worthwhile, since 90% of the presidents will be in the 20th-century category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now, Category:Tony Blair has only two parent categories; adding two more parent categories is not a problem.
  • While I agree that [Cat:Labour MPs (UK)] is useful, I do not even know why there is a [Cat:People from Edinburgh].
  • See my comments below. If you do want to just remove all the "people by century" categories (and maybe you don't) then I am sure you see that should be brought up in its own CFD. If not then how many 21st-century Fee people are needed to justify a categories. What if some other continents have that category also-- due to the "part of a larger system" rule? Etc? Carlaude:Talk 14:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peter, please see WP:CAT#Eponymous_categories, which I linked to in the message you replied to: adding the categories to the eponymous category is not a solution. And no, I do not want to remove all the people-by-century categories. There are a few situations where they may be appropriate (for categories which span many centuries), but I have set out plenty of reasons why these categories are a bad idea, and it's notable that you and the other keep voters can provide no justification for them other than to say that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that the WP:CAT#Eponymous categories guideline indicates here is that placing the PMs in and their own eponymous categories is always permited, contary to the general WP:CAT#Duplicate categorization rule, not requiered.
  • So then my follow up question was-- how many "21st-century foo people" are needed to justify categories? What if some other continents have that category also-- due to the "part of a larger system" rule? It is notable that you don't seem to have any solution the the troubles that your view creates. Carlaude:Talk 23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick answer: numbers are not relevant. Except in a very few cases, these categories are disruptive and should not be created. The endless, circular justification of "part of a wider system" gets really tedious, because I have repeatedly said that most of that larger system creates. I have a very simple solution to the "troubles" that deleting this category creates: star dismantling the rest of this sill-conceived scheme, and replace any such categories with lists. The only "trouble" is your assumption that these heads of sate must somehow be in a by-century category, and there is no consenus for that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that some form of consensus to resolve the issue has been reached. I would therefore also agree to the proposal to merge the categories involved into a single National Presidents of Africa category, if viable.--JohanSteyn123 (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Johan-- there isn't any consensus reached... in fact, short of a misunderanding of your orginal wish, the "votes" are even:
Keep/Expand : Alansohn, Carlaude, JohanSteyn123
Delete/Merge : BrownHairedGirl, Good Olfactory , Vegaswikian
Carlaude:Talk 04:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, thanks for the heads up. For clarification, I believe that there is sufficient justification in retaining the categories, divided per century and I therefore vote to keep the category. Failing that (and only as the last recourse) I would agree to merge the categories, as the lesser of two evils.--JohanSteyn123 (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have preliminarily expanded category to include the presidents of the Republic of the Orange Free State and the Presidents of Liberia as national presidents of the 19th century. The category now consist of 20 subjects. It should actually be 21 subjects, but Marthinus Wessel Pretorius was both president of the South African Republic and the Orange Free State government. I therefore propose that we objectively consider keeping the category, as all three nations involved were recognized national governments at the time (from the 1850's - 1900) and all the listed subjects were presidential office bearers. --JohanSteyn123 (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. If you do the same thing for the 20th and 21st centuries, we'll have ~90% of the African presidents in a large 20th-century category. How does that sort of a split help the reader? The whole logic of this seems to be "look, here's an intersection so let's create a category", rather than examining what pathways are actually going to provide effective navigational tools without causing category clutter.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And instead we should split them by gender? by parts of Africa?... Also see my comments below. Carlaude:Talk 14:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. All these "heads of government" ones have a bold hatnote that says "This category is for officials that are a head of government only, e.g. prime minister, and not also a head of state as a part of their same office" and it is for this rvery eason-- to avoid president-systems without prime ministers from generating these unneeded categories for the presidents. Robert Mugabe is fixed now. Carlaude:Talk 14:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This gets worse at every turn. You construct a system which is guaranteed to create category clutter, and then to reduce that clutter you arbitrarily exclude some heads of govt from the heads of govt categories. That's daft, as the example of Mugabe illustrates: until the recent power-sharing deal, he was as much a head-of-govt as any prime minister, but you have decided that this fact is "un-needed". If it's not needed in Mugabe's case, why is needed in the case of any other head-of-govt? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks like overkill to me. Why do we have different categories for presidents and heads of state in Africa, divided by century? There are not that many articles that we need to divide this way. If I was looking for articles about African heads of state, I would find this method of division quite annoying and unnecessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the whole problem with these people-by-century categories: one bad idea cascades downwards to prompt more bad ideas to resolve the problem with the higher level categories. It starts by creating people-by-century, then create rulers-by-century, then as those categories become unwieldy they are sub-categorised, and so on down the chain until we end up with a huge edifice of categories divided by century: each new layer is justified not on its own merits, but as way of resolving the problems created by the parent categories. This wreaks havoc with other categories, and could be avoided entirely if these rulers-by-century categories were listified or deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In above comments, you said that you "do not want to remove all the people-by-century categories," but here you again indicate that the problem is even having "these people-by-century categories." So which is it?
  • If someone will create a bot to generate (or help generate) such "ruler by century lists," with this sort of pattern, then that idea has some merit, but I don't see that happening yet. Carlaude:Talk 23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's both. The intersecting nature of these categories causes huge problems as they are sub-categorised, because they either force disruptively-arbitrary breaks in existing categories or cause category clutter on articles. I don't want to delete them all, because I think that there are a few circumstances where they may be useable on individual biographical articles, but I think that most of them should be deleted, and listified if anyone wants to do that. In the case of this category, that would mean a list of twenty-something articles: not exactly a huge jo which needs a bot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is essentially an "overall scheme" that is almost completely self-manufactured by one editor. This is hardly a good rationale to argue for retention. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the arguments above. I'm not convinced that this set of categories is needed at this time. The only issue I have is, is it better to upmerge to all parents rather then a simple delete? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:42, 21 January 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.

Schools of public health[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 as nominated, without prejudice to re-creation when there are more articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These two categories contains just the same two articles, and I see no pressing need to split the parent category Category:Schools of public health. If any split is needed, it would make much sense to split out the much more numerous public health schools in merka.
I found these two categories in the list of uncategorized categories, and added them both to Category:Schools of public health. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • partial merge toSchools ofPu li Health in Africa. It may be sometime before there are more than one in Uganda, but there may even now be more in Africa. Upmerging as for a the world wide category is too far. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The overwhelming majority of the public health schools in Category:Schools of public health are American. With those removed, the world-wide category will be quite small. We can always re-create the African category if and when there are more articles to put in it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:48, 12 January 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:Scala programming language[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: Nomination withdrawn. non-admin closure by original nominator Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Scala programming language to Category:Free software programmed in Scala
Nominator's rationale: Two cats that contain the same two articles. There has to be a better solution than having both of them, though I'm not sure what name should be used. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a merge, it should be he other way around. --JWB (talk) 23:05, 10 January 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.

Presidents of the United States by century, Vice Presidents of the United States by century[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: Procedural close. Last discussed only a month ago, at CFD 5 December 2009. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems unnecessary to me. Also, some presidents cross two centuries? Pointless. Cosprings (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close – the previous discussion was closed a few days ago with the comment that the matter could be revisited after some months. Occuli (talk) 18:55, 10 January 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.

Food museums in the United States[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: speedy deleted per author request. JamieS93 15:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Food museums in Idaho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. far too specific a category that is unlikely to have many entries. categories "Museums in Idaho Museums" and Food museums in the United States cover this topic. LibStar (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need - this was on my list to clean up across the US. They should all be empty within a few minutes... dm (talk) 14:37, 10 January 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:Tana River basin[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:Tana River basin (Norway). I don't see a consensus here to change this from a "basin" category to a "river" category, but I do see a consensus that this needs to be disambiguated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tana River basin to Category:Tana River (Norway)
Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect the name of the main article and distinguish it from Category:Tana River (Kenya). RL0919 (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that Category:Tana River basin (or Category:Tana basin if that is found more approriate, I am not sure) and Category:Tana river (Norway) are two different things. The difference becomes clear if you see the categories Category:Danube basin and Category:Danube. To distinguish the category Category:Tana River basin (or Category:Tana basin) from the category Category:Tana River (Kenya) the appropriate name for the first mentioned in this case would thus be Category:Tana River basin (Norway) (or Category:Tana basin (Norway) if that should be linguisically more appriate). (This is something that I actually should have realised when creating the category, and thus the name really should be changed also in my opinion). And likewise, there could well be category Category:Tana River basin (Kenya), that would include only lakes ands rivers but not cities or districts, as well as there could be (if there were many articles) category Category:Tana River (Norway) for articles associated with the river but not the basin (which is a hydrological concept). So my suggestion for new name is Category:Tana River basin (Norway), because categories for basins and catecories for rivers include different sets of articles, as can be seen from the example of Danube.--Urjanhai (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And one addition still: for example in Category:Danube basin the main article seems to be Danube. (It could well be also Danube basin, if such article had been written). If you do not agree, I advice to consult experts of geography and hydrology in the English Wikipedia to clarify the concept of basin and its use in names of categories.Urjanhai (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm flexible about the exact naming based on the input of the more familiar with how other river-related categories are named. My primary concern was the absence of disambiguation from the Kenyan river. --RL0919 (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And in that respect I agree with you.Urjanhai (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest that disambiguator "Norway" is needed whatever the outcome. I presume that the Kenyan river does not take its name from the Norwegian one, so that no question of priority arises, as it does with places in US and British colonies named after British places. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That question of priority does not seem to be usually resolved in favour the entity which came first. The current "primary topic" for "Baltimore" is the American copycat town rather than the original, or even to the place after which the copycat was indirectly named. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, becasue hardly any one has heard of the place in Co. Cork. I probably knew it was in Ireland, but not where. However, I recall successfully defending some claims to rename English town categories against adding a disambiguator for the benefit of the copycats. We had to give way on Birmingham, because Birmingham AL is also a large city, but not (I thnk) Lincoln. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming this to Category:Tana River basin (Norway). This disambiguator is needed, and the idea of the basin shouldn't be removed in a discussion about disambiguation. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:38, 16 January 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_January_10&oldid=1138393881"