Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 28 May 30 >

May 29[edit]

Category:RIAA Diamond award 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: rename to Category:Recording Industry Association of America Diamond Award albums.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:RIAA Diamond award albums to Category:Albums certified diamond by the Recording Industry Association of America
Nominator's rationale: To follow the convention of Category:Singles certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America and Category:Singles certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America. — ξxplicit 02:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The problem is that the RIAA doesn't issue Diamond certifications. It issues Gold and Platinum certifications, and a Diamond Award once 10 Platinums have been issued.—Kww(talk) 03:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading Recording Industry Association of America, gold, platinum and diamond are noted as awards, while in RIAA certification lists gold, platinum and diamond as certifications. Additionally, at the RIAA website, it lists certifications under "Award Description", regardless of certification. If anything, they are interchangeable. — ξxplicit 03:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The stuff in our Wikipedia articles doesn't count. Note that in the link you gave, Confessions was given a 10xPlatinum, not a "Diamond". In http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblDiamond the certification levels are in multiple Platinums: no one gets a "2xDiamond", they get a "20xPlatinum". Diamond is clearly a horse of a different color.—Kww(talk) 04:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this is confusing. So is the diamond award not a certification? If not, why is it listed as one on list of music recording sales certifications for some countries? A lot of the articles in this category say something along the lines of "certified diamond", so that doesn't help much. — ξxplicit 04:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That was the quandary I was faced with when the category was originally created, when it was just "Diamond Certification albums". Many certifying agencies do issue diamond certifications, but, so far as I can tell, the RIAA isn't one of them. Unfortunately, every album in the category was one that had received a diamond award from the RIAA. That's why I chose the current title.—Kww(talk) 04:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comment above, forgot to !vote. J04n(talk page) 20:28, 29 May 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:WikiProject contemporary music articles[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 rename (C2.A, C2.C) - no need to wait a full 7 days or even 48 hours. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:WikiProject contemporary music articles to Category:WikiProject Contemporary music articles
Nominator's rationale: To match WikiProject name per conventions Jubilee♫clipman 19:38, 29 May 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.

LGBT categories[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 June 11#LGBT categories. — ξxplicit 22:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:LGBT rights activists to Category:Advocates of LGBT rights
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I recently added Jeremy Bentham to the UK subcategory of "LGBT rights activists". However, of the essays Bentham wrote which argued against regarding homosexuality as something criminal, the first wasn't published until almost 150 years later, long after his death. I propose that it's inaccurate to refer to people such as Bentham as "LGBT rights activists". I would categorize him as an "Advocate of LGBT rights", except that the category doesn't exist, and would seem redundant if it was created.

More than mere advocacy/expression of support (which is valuable, don't get me wrong), the word "activism" connotes a more active involvement, e.g. campaigning, legal challenges, involvement in protest marches, etc.

While everyone who is an activist on behalf of gay rights can be considered an advocate of LGBT rights, the opposite is not necessarily true: Not everyone who has expressed advocacy of gay rights can accurately be referred to as an "activist" on behalf of gay rights.

The proposed name would broaden the scope of the category's intent and more accurately describe the status of several of the people within it regarding the issue of LGBT rights. Also, phrasing it "of LGBT" could perhaps help further clarify that those who are included in the category may not necessarily have been/be LGBT themselves.

I do still think there should be "activist" subcategories, for people for whom that term specifically applies. Adrigon (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - A category for everyone who has expressed support for LGBT rights would be far too broad. Being an LGBT rights activist is potentially notable; having a pro-LGBT opinion is not. For the example you mention, maybe we need Category:LGBT rights writings or something? To address your "may not have been LGBT" point, I think that's adequately covered by calling the category "LGBT rights activists" and not "LGBT activists"; "LGBT" couldn't be mistaken as modifying "activists". --Alynna (talk) 01:23, 1 June 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:RAFAEL Armament Development Authority[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 June 6. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:RAFAEL Armament Development Authority to Category:Rafael Advanced Defense Systems
Nominator's rationale: The company changed its name (not sure when), but the main article and the official website both indicate that Rafael Advanced Defense Systems is the correct and current name. Moved from WP:CFD/S. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:45, 29 May 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:Risk in finance[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 June 17. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Risk in finance to Category:Financial risk
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with main article. Pnm (talk) 16:32, 29 May 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:SuG 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: speedy rename per WP:CFDS, criteria C2A. — ξxplicit 01:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:SuG albums to Category:Sug albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match title of main article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 14:54, 29 May 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:National Professional Soccer League (indoor)[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, invoking WP:SILENCE. — ξxplicit 22:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Per the main article, National Professional Soccer League (1984–2001). -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:09, 29 May 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:Latin writers[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 with only changes being "Latin" to "Latin-language", "Late antique Latin" to "Late Antique Latin", and "Modern Latin" to "New Latin". There is not much that is agreed upon here, but there is a strong case for following the conventions of categories like Category:English-language writers, and another for New Latin and Modern Latin being the same thing. Beyond that, further nominations may be necessary.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming

(other sub-cats can be done speedily, by precedent, should this nomination go through)


Nominator's rationale: current name lacks clarity somewhat - rename adds clarity and remains brief Mayumashu (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question on why you are not suggesting that all of the new categories use New Latin? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On that any Latin of these centuries was (by default) New Latin, I assume. I didn t create them so I m not certain. Mayumashu (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning to just upmerge all of the Category:xxth-century Latin writers to Category:Writers in New Latin. Given the rest of this structure, I'm not convinced that we need by century in that one area. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, all of these categories are rather full. For another, there are substantial changes in the style and subject-matter of Latin over time, especially in this period; and a breakdown by century assists research in this area.RandomCritic (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn t get the top of the tree - expanding this nomination now to include all top branches Mayumashu (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, I notice now that Category:Writers by language (which wasn t linked to Category:Latin writers - I ve linked it) follow are Category:English-language writers and not Category:Writers in English etc., so the other viable alternative, perhaps more so, would be Category:Latin-language writers, Category:Classical Latin-language writers etc. I would say. I d support either pattern. Mayumashu (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that style is precisely because "English" is ambiguous between a nationality (i.e. "of England") and a language; "Latin" is not; there is no Latin nationality, and therefore interpretation defaults to the language without the need of further verbiage. Why create a problem where there isn't one?RandomCritic (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the point of this name change? Is there any evidence that anybody has actually misunderstood the meaning of these categories? What exactly *is* the 'lack of clarity' that is being targeted by this renaming? RandomCritic (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Writers about Latin (history, culture, language); writers who are Latin (Latin American, Latin European, Roman) or writers who write whatever in Latin. That the writers are the third type is my first guess, but it is a guess Mayumashu (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Latin" by itself doesn't have any of those meanings; it refers solely and distinctively to the language. Therefore no guesswork is necessary. RandomCritic (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. I'm confused by the very existence of "cat:Latin writers" for Middle Ages and up to the 19th century. Latin was the recognized language of science, a mandatory part of university programs (or even the language of universities, not to mention the Church), so properly populating these categories will inflate them to an unmanageable size. Is it possible to draw the line between "writing in Latin" = defining feature and "writing in Latin" = following corporate standard? East of Borschov (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really true. While Latin writing was certainly more common in the 16th century than in the 20th (or the 19th, for that matter), it was always a specialized skill which could be (and was) contrasted with skill in writing any of the numerous vernaculars. The number of encyclopedically notable Latin writers for the later period is always going to be smaller than the number of such writers of French, etc. and probably numbers in the hundreds, not thousands. RandomCritic (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 02:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Latin-language writers", etc. for all categories. No opinion on whether we should upmerge any, but that would be fine with me if thought necessary. "Latin writers" is ambiguous because it could mean writers who are Latins, a term which many older people in the U.S. and Canada still use (rather disturbingly) to refer to residents of Latin America. I'd prefer to use the standard format. (Note that I won't be around in in the next few days to respond to further inquiries about my opinion. But I can try to predict! How about this response: "I disagree with you on that point"? or "this is just my opinion"?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When referring to speech, writing, or anything else related to language, "Latin" refers solely to Latin — the language whose wikipedia article, you will note, is called Latin. Not "Latin language", because that is redundant. Gabriel García Márquez would never under any circumstances be referred to as a "Latin writer". Why seek to create ambiguity where none exists?RandomCritic (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, I think I prepared for this ... "I disagree with you on that point" and "this is just my opinion". I also think you need to meet my grandma, who may open your eyes to some circumstances you apparently may not have not anticipated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 21 June 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.

Sub-cats of 19th-century newspaper publishers (people)[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 thusly:
but not to the 19th-century people categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging the following:

to

and

respectively

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC as it stands - such detailed category trees don t exist presently Mayumashu (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'm not supporting by-century grading at all. Is Napoleon a man of the 18th century or of the 19th? Both? what a mess. East of Borschov (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 02:24, 29 May 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 American businesspeople[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. They are part of US and worldwide trees of categories, and therefore a strong consensus should exist in order to merge them, which is absent here. In addition, as Category:19th-century American businesspeople has been created, it alleviated some concerns. Ruslik_Zero 19:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging the following

to ...

and

respectively

Nominator's rationale: WP:Overcategorization as per nom. below however suggest starting Category:19th-century American businesspeople as there were a lot of prominent, notable businesspeople then as the world of business was opening up, especially in the U.S. - 250 odd railway execs alone and over 140 paper publishers. Mayumashu (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on with publishers. Are you confident that they all qualify primarily as businesspeople, rather than editors, men of letters etc.? Should L. Frank Baum be labelled a businessman? That is, upmerge and thoroughly clean it up. East of Borschov (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 02:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is 'Overcategorization' is not a reason for deletion; the reasons must be provided to prove 'over-categorization'. This is not proved here. These categories are members of US and worldwide category trees of similarly named categories. There is no good reason to consolidate these specific categories; they can simply be made into subcategories of Category:19th-century American businesspeople Hmains (talk) 04:19, 11 June 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:Towns in Nevada[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:Unincorporated towns in Nevada; I'll make this a subcategory of Category:Unincorporated communities in Nevada, but you experts on the subject please feel free to add or change the parent categories as appropriate. A future nomination can pursue what to do with this category in relation to Category:Unincorporated communities in Nevada, i.e., whether they should be merged or not and in what direction, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Towns in Nevada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. There are no just thing as being a town in Nevada. The communities that have town boards are CDP's. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home 02:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Vegaswikian, it seems like a good idea. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
In Nevada, CDP's have town boards whch means there are towns. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
  • comment It seems from the article texts that there are unincorporated communities in this category. If the texts are correct, then they should be kept in the Category:Unincorporated communities in Nevada, named like other categories for other US states, and Category:Towns in Nevada removed. There are other article texts that say the place is a CDP; if so, they should be kept in Category:Census-designated places in Nevada and the Category:Towns in Nevada removed. If the Category:Towns in Nevada is then empty other than the ghost town category, one can check that the ghost town category has the same type parents as ghost town categories for other US states that lack towns; if so, then theCategory:Towns in Nevada can be removed. Then and only then can Category:Towns in Nevada can be deleted as empty. Hmains (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial response was going to be urging deletion, because "towns in [U.S. state]" categories are reserved only for municipalities officially designated towns; that term is never used generically in any U.S. category. But these unincorporated towns in Nevada are apparently a sui generis thing. So I think a few things need to happen here to fix this. One, we need article content like Unincorporated towns in Nevada to substantively describe what these are, if it isn't documented anywhere already; if it's an important enough distinction to merit a category, then it should be substantial enough to support an article. Two, this category needs to be renamed to Category:Unincorporated towns in Nevada and given a clear definition on the category page. Three, any articles on communities that do not have town boards need to be removed. I've removed Category:Ghost towns in Nevada because it doesn't belong except by misusing the category as referring to towns generically, and it was already properly in Category:Former populated places in Nevada. I'm still a bit skeptical about this "unincorporated towns" category, because these are still all unincorporated communities; many neighborhoods (and possibly streets, blocks...) have community boards too that liaison with official government agencies, but that doesn't necessarily merit separate categorization. But I'll give it the benefit of the doubt for now, at least pending that article description. postdlf (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The category was not tagged with a notice of this CFD until I fixed it today, so a relisting might be in order. postdlf (talk) 21:50, 12 June 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_May_29&oldid=1138394331"