Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 13

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

March 13[edit]

Category:Cities, towns and villages in South Africa[edit]

See centralised discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. htonl (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Cities, towns and villages in South Africa to Category:Settlements in South Africa
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Merge parent and Rename children. The two categories Category:Cities, towns and villages in South Africa and Category:Settlements in South Africa serve exactly the same purpose. Settlements is a more inclusive term, particularly in South Africa where, apart from cities, towns and villages, there are also such things as suburbs, townships, informal settlements, and so on. The child categories should be renamed to correspond with the parent. htonl (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for brevity and clarity. Unfortunately, Himalayan Explorer (talk · contribs) has been busy merging and renaming settlement categories all around the world to use the clumsy "Cities, towns and villages" format, without seeking consensus for any of these moves, all on the basis of a single 2005 CFD on palces in the former Yugoslavia. AFAICS, many of these have been mass renamings done using AWB, but when I tried discussing it with Himalayan_Explorer, I found an explicit refusal to seek consensus and a rejection of the validity of any consensus formed at CFD (see User talk:Himalayan Explorer#Consensus_for_these_category_moves.3F). So I expect that any decision made here will be reverted out-of-process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resplit out to original names - In South Africa, cities, towns and villages have an explicit meaning, but combining them in this fashion makes no sense whatsoever and seems to be an attempt to establish a result by fait accompli rather than through reasonable process. Orderinchaos 02:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are categories Category:Cities in South Africa, Category:Suburbs in South Africa and Category:Villages in South Africa (for some reason there is no Category:Towns in South Africa, but nothing prevents its creation). Do you not agree that all of these things - i.e. "named places where people live" - ought to share some over-arching category? "City", "town" and "village" don't actually have explicit meanings in South Africa; as far as I know there is no specific rule that distinguishes cities from large towns, or small towns from villages. I don't understand your complaint about not going through reasonable process - surely here, CFD, is the correct process? - htonl (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: Ah, I have just noticed your remark on the global nom about User:Himalayan Explorer, which gives context to your comment about faits accompli. These categories have been with us for almost two years now, so I guess in some sense his fait is already accompli. But yes, I can see where you're coming from with that, although I still think that some type of "Settlements in X" (not necessarily under that name) is a sensible category to have to group together the various kinds of human settlement. - htonl (talk) 10:02, 15 March 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:Grêmio Recreativo Barueri players[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Grêmio Recreativo Barueri players to Category:Grêmio Prudente Futebol players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category needs to be moved to match the main article's name (the main article was recently moved to the current club name, Grêmio Prudente Futebol. Carioca (talk) 22:13, 13 March 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:Uncut magazine compilation albums[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Uncut magazine compilation albums to Category:Magazine compilation albums
Nominator's rationale: This is the parent category and this only includes one article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:59, 13 March 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:Requests for unblock[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: Withdrawn. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Requests for unblock to Category:Wikipedians requesting unblocking
Nominator's rationale: Similar to Category:Wikipedians looking for help. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objections, but maybe "Wikipedians requesting to be unblocked" would be better?  Sandstein  20:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Most "Wikipedians xxxxx" category consist of wikipedians expressing their interests, and it seems to be to be a mistake to use the same convention for a maintenance category. The current name is concise and self-evident, so I'm not sure what problem this renaming is intended to solve. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Solution looking for a problem puzzle to fit into. Also, last I checked, much (not most; much) of those requesting unblock aren't Wikipedians.—Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 21:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Increasing the use of jargon is a bad thing, not a good thing. It's not broken. Don't fix it. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Maybe if this was proposed years ago before every admin had already memorized WP:RFU, then I would support this. But this is an administrative category used for housekeeping and not a category normal users would even every need to look up, so there's no benefit to renaming it. --  Netsnipe  ►  22:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per BrownHairedGirl's rationale. TNXMan 22:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The naming guideline only requires to prepend "Wikipedia" where confusing is likely, which is not the case here. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Wikipedians" suggests a userspace category (and often one supported by a userbox: "This user is requesting unblock". Naaaaaaaaah... ). I don't see what's not working here. Daniel Case (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the pile-on. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedia requests for unblock, since this is not a content category, it is a maintenance category. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't I don't see any reason for this change other than to make it conform to some imagined naming convention. Renaming it will cause more problems than it solves. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too many admins already RFU is easy, it refers to Requests for Unblock - no real need to rename the category as nothing is broken here - no problem is being solved (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:39, 14 March 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:Songs by songwriter[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 08:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs by songwriter to Category:Compositions, instrumentals, and songs by songwriter
Nominator's rationale: :Nominator's rationale: WP:NCM states that "songs" are not the same thing as "compositions" and "instrumentals." To whit, we have Category:Songs by songwriter->Category:Songs written by David Gilmour and that category includes (e.g.) Seamus (song) alongside Quicksilver (instrumental) and Obscured by Clouds (instrumental). It would seem prohibitively cumbersome to have Category:Instrumentals written by David Gilmour and Category:Compositions written by David Gilmour, but it would also seem like these instrumental songs are miscategorized according to WP:NCM. Note that I have not tagged the (1,628) individual subcategories of Category:Songs by songwriter because it would simply be a waste of time if this CfR didn't pass. Also note that there are the categories Category:Songs by composer and Category:Songs by lyricists as seealso cats for this one as well as Category:Songs by composer, so alternately, it may be desirable to merge or recategorize some of these categories if any one of them is renamed. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. There may be some merit is looking at a way of making these categories more inclusive, but this proposal replaces a relatively brief and thoroughly self-evident category name with something which is verbose, unintuitive, and superfluous in the vast majority of cases. I do assume good faith, and I don't want to be rude, but this proposal really would have benefited from more consideration before making a nomination.
    Also, considering the huge number of categories which would be affected, this proposal obviously needs to have wide support if it is to be adopted. Am I right to trust that the nominator has already notified all relevant wikiprojects, and has not yet got around to listing those notifications here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The same aim could be accomplished with a shorter name, such as Category: Music pieces by songwriter. Maurreen (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If needed, this might be a parent category for "songs", but heaven knows the category is large enough already. How does this relate to the recent discussions on works of art categories initiated by Kleinzach? Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Intention seems appropriate but the proposed new name seems clumbersome. National Anthems also don't fit, although perhaps it's intented they are seperate, a bit of exception to be considered. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. For many reasons including those above and others not mentioned. Having said that I have been having an on-off discussion about this very item and if you want to drop me a note maybe we can find a solution? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. There are thousands of categories with "songs" in their title whose contents would have to be reevaluated under this scheme. "Songs" is slightly imprecise, but it's way better than trying to be that precise.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too wordy. Gobonobo T C 05:31, 18 March 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:Songs by artist[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 08:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs by artist to Category:Compositions, songs, and instrumentals by artist
Nominator's rationale: WP:NCM states that "songs" are not the same thing as "compositions" and "instrumentals." To whit, we have Category:Songs by artist->Category:Pink Floyd songs and that category includes (e.g.) Seamus (song) alongside Quicksilver (instrumental) and Obscured by Clouds (instrumental). It would seem prohibitively cumbersome to have Category:Pink Floyd instrumentals and Category:Pink Floyd compositions, but it would also seem like these instrumental songs are miscategorized according to WP:NCM. Note that I have not tagged the (4,217) individual subcategories of Category:Songs by artist because it would simply be a waste of time if this CfR didn't pass. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. There may be some merit is looking at a way of making these categories more inclusive, but this proposal replaces a relatively brief and thoroughly self-evident category name with something which is verbose, unintuitive, and superfluous in the vast majority of cases. I do assume good faith, and I don't want to be rude, but this proposal really would have benefited from more consideration before making a nomination.
    Also, considering the huge number of categories which would be affected, this proposal obviously needs to have wide support if it is to be adopted. Am I right to trust that the nominator has already notified all relevant wikiprojects, and has not yet got around to listing those notifications here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. However, if you had suggested renaming to "Recordings by artist" you would have had my full support. The sub-categories of Category:Foo songs is so often misleading and wrong. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If needed, this might be a parent category for "songs". How does this relate to the recent discussions on works of art categories initiated by Kleinzach? Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – and it should be 'songs by recording artist' (per its preamble "This category and its subcategories list songs by recording artist"), not 'recordings by artist'. Occuli (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Occuli, but that's the rationale behind this nomination, that not all entries are actually "songs" in the technical sense of the word. Besides my reasons for disliking the cat name, Koavf is trying to avoid 2 categories for every artist that has released both instrumentals and songs. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Good intention. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. There are thousands of categories with "songs" in their title whose contents would have to be reevaluated under this scheme. "Songs" is slightly imprecise, but it's way better than trying to be that precise.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, whereas I understand your pain at the number of song cats around that might need changing, equally, there are too many comments and CfD/CfR like as at Category talk:Giorgio Moroder songs, (although I now agree with the nominator here that "songs" may not be the correct word). It would be wrong to say "because that's what WP has always done" and in this case I think "recordings by artist" satisfies all criteria. It might be a big job, but sooner or later it will have to be done. IMO. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 'Tunes' also worth considering. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Unfortunately, "tunes" doesn't necessarily include lyrics, whereas in every instance a "recording" exists - although one could say it should be "audio recording" --Richhoncho (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example article of something that 'include(s) lyrics' but is not a tune? At this moment I can't think what you mean. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was the opposite of what I said. A 'tune,' and you can refer to the disambig page Tune, does not include lyrics, but if you really want something with lyrics but no tune you could start with the dub poets, but I have passed over to WP:OR with that! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I now follow what you meant before and yes I got it the opposite way around. To answer the second part, the Tune link leads to the tune definition. Your referring to the first definition I believe(1. A melody.) without lyrics, whereas my meaning here is the second definition(2. A song, or short musical composition). A tune in that sense covers all the 'Compositions, songs, and instrumentals' that this category is intended to. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
M-W and OED definitions of 'tune' do not include lyrics, although both define 'tunesmith' as a writer of popular songs. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:58, 21 March 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:Image deletion templates[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Image deletion templates to Category:File deletion templates
Nominator's rationale: Per the namespace rename & because some of these templates are used on .ogg or .pdf files, where the term "image" doesn't apply. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per nominator. Everything has long since been renamed to "file". Debresser (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Gobonobo T C 05:32, 18 March 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:Rastafari[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 discussion to move the article was closed as "no consensus". There doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm here for renaming to match the current article name. If the category is renominated now that the attempt to move the article has failed, maybe that sentiment will change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rastafari to Category:Rastafari movement
Nominator's rationale: To match main article and because this appears to be a category named as an adjective. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not an adjective. Rastafari combines a noun, Ras with a personal name, Tafari. Guettarda (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The word is an adjective in addition to being a noun. The problem I was highlighting is that it appears to be an adjective by itself as a name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Appears" to whom? "Movement" seems a little insulting, don't you think? Calling a religion a 'movement' strikes me a as a little denigrating. Guettarda (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Rastafari movement per nominator and to match main article Rastafari movement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose re Guettarda. I think we would be better off changing the article name to Rastafari and we should certainly consider this as an alternative. I am not sure how one would use the word Rastafari as an adjective, it would for instance be a Rastafarian chalice not a Rastafari chalice. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 18:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Seems to be a case where the article is incorrectly named, and should be brought into line with this, rather than the other way around. It's certainly not a "movement", as Guettarda correctly highlights - it seems to be a combined culture and belief from what I can gather. Have heard the BBC refer to "a Rastafari" or "the Rastafari", so it's clearly not a non-standard usage. Orderinchaos 18:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Suggest a WP:RM discussion on the article, and holding this CFD until that discussion reaches a conclusion one way or the other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rastafaris find the term offensive, so they don't use it themselves. Application of the name by Wikipedia might be original research or just plain slander (however obscure and well-intentioned.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Off the cuff I'd say Rastafarian religion nails it, but I'm curious to see if a proposed move at Rastafari movement goes anywhere first. Gobonobo T C 05:45, 18 March 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:Japanese performing arts[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Japanese performing arts to Category:Performing arts in Japan
Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Performing arts by country. I tagged this for speedy deletionrenaming in January, but the renaming was contested on the grounds that "this category appears to be a mix of ethnic and regional content, it should be split in two, one being the suggested category". This may be right, but it seems to most of the material here is about Performing arts in Japan, rather than about the broader Japanese performing arts ... so I suggest that it is best to go ahead with the renaming, and that any splitting can be done afterwards. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 13 March 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:20th-century activists[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. While upmerging is reasonable for cateegories like this, the pages are already in other subcategories of the parent category here, so there's no need to upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:20th-century activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Numerous recent discussions of people-by-occupation-by-century categories have shown a strong consensus against 20th- and 21st-century categories of people-by-occupation-and-century, partly because most biographical articles relate to those two centuries and 100-year blocks are a bad way of grouping articles from that period.
Category:Activists is already sub-categorised both by issue and by nationality (and by intersections of the two in Category:Activists by issue and nationality), and also by ethnicity. This form of grouping is much more useful for navigation than using the arbitrary division of centuries to group largely unrelated articles; if fully populated Category:20th-century activists would lump an Edwardian English suffragette into the same category as a 1990s Bolivian trade unionist, a Japanese anti-death penalty activist, a Norwegian pro-life activist, and an American BDSM activist. This is pointless: we already have Special:Random for readers who want to jump between unrelated articles. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 13 March 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:Inspiration[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Inspiration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an undefined, kind of amorphous category. Inspiration is a disambiguation page, and it has various meanings that are quite different. Grouping Category:Faith with Category:Inspirational literature (the only contents) seems a bit artificial. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:27, 13 March 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:Canadian bowlers[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian bowlers - propose to delete as the correct category name (for lawn bowlers) is Category:Canadian bowls players

  • Delete too easily confused with Category:Canadian bowling players 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Canadian bowlers as duplicate. Having looked under Category:Cricketers, there do not appear to be only one category for cricket bowlers (Category:United Arab Emirati bowlers), so I don't see any scope for making a disambiguation category, but I will notify WP:CRICKET in case I have missed anything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that's a bad idea, since in Canada, a "bowler" plays with a bowling ball that is thrown to knock down bowling pins, just like the gutterball that President Obama threw. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Category:Canadian bowling players (which relates to 5- and 10-pin bowling) needs a headnote making clear what sport is involved. Cricket is not a major sport in Canada, so that I doubt that there are any notable cricket bowlers. However, the target (and its parent) need renaming to match the subcat Category:Paralympic lawn bowls players of Canada. WE are in danger of getting three different bowling sports confused, though they are not at presnet. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge bowls content to bowls category per nom there should not be, IMO, categories for the different types of cricketers anyway. They should all just be "Canadian cricketers". SGGH ping! 16:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the single article is already in the target. I agree that confusion is possible and am surprised that cricketers are not divided by expertise (except for wicketkeeper) as batsman/bowler is undoubtedly a defining characteristic. (Category:Canadian cricketers will contain quite a number of notable bowlers unless cricket in Canada is strangely unbalanced.) Occuli (talk) 17:22, 13 March 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_March_13&oldid=1146511228"