Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 20

< October 19	October 21 >

October 20[edit]

Category:Political parties in the People's Republic of China[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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Political parties in China. PRC and ROC are two states, both claiming to be the legitimate gov't of more or less the same territory. There is overlapping, parties like the Communist Party of China existed in both ROC and PRC. And a party like the Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League is a Taiwanese exile party, but not organized in ROC. Soman (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are separate categories for (e.g.) North and South Korea as well. This works because the DPRK and PRC are communist states with united fronts or constitutional supremacy for the communist party, whereas the ROK and ROC are electoral democracies with legitimate party differences and candidates. Simply put, although these are two different states for one country, they are also two separate electoral systems and to that extent, categorizing them separately is useful for readers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; actually Korea is a similar case, parties like the Communist Party of Korea predates the division of the country and existed in both parts. --Soman (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response And parties that exist now and predate the division due to the Chinese Civil War can be in the parent category, but that is not the case with (e.g.) the Orange Party, which only exists in the Republic of China. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article this is based on is titled People's Republic of China, so all related categories should match to not cause confusion. Linda Olive (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Just as there are separate categories for the 'politics of ...' each of these states, so too should there remain separate categories for their political parties. Hmains (talk) 17:56, 23 October 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:Skye villages[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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Skye villages to Category:Villages in the Isle of Skye

Nominator's rationale:Standard naming convention.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main article is at Skye, not "Isle of Skye" - and I also have vague memory of some debate here several years ago about how the article/category is best named - I think tending to consensus not to use the "isle of " preamble. But haven't checked and my memory may be wrong. AllyD (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Villages in Skye to conform with Villages in Foo format and match main article. (There was a previous discussion to correct capitalisation). Cjc13 (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Villages in Skye to pass "Villages in Foo" muster and match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* WP:SCOTLAND notified. AllyD (talk) 13:21, 23 October 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:Hearst_family_(newspapers)[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 October 30#Category:Hearst_family_(newspapers). — ξ ^xplicit 00:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Merged into Category:Hearst_family, which had most of the Hearst newspaper dynasty. Hearst_family_(newspapers) had only two, and they've been moved. Category now empty. John Nagle (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose and repopulate from Category:Hearst Corporation publications. Then clean up the parent categories of both to be correct for the included content. Another option would be to rename to Category:Hearst Corporation newspapers. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hearst_family_(newspapers)" contained not newspapers, but two members of the Hearst family, descendants of William Randoph Hearst. The other family members were in Category:Hearst_family. The split was arbitrary; some of the William Randoph Hearsts (there's a I, a II, and a III) were in one category, and some were in the other. --John Nagle (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are still valid. Category:Hearst Corporation publications is a mix of newspapers and magazines categorized into the newspaper tree. By re population from Category:Hearst Corporation publications we can clean up some categorization problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about creating Category:Hearst Corporation newspapers under Category:Hearst Corporation publications and moving the newspapers down a level. --John Nagle (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but rename the Category:Hearst family, merge target to Category:Hearst newspaper dynasty, to exclude other people who happen to bear the surname Hearst, who would properly belong in it under its present name. As this is an expired nom Relist and also list (with it) Category:Hearst family for renaming. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 29 October 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:Welsh royal families[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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Welsh royal families to Category:Welsh royal houses

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I incorrectly included this category in my nomination of noble houses categories, which passed. This subsequent nomination on royal houses did not pass, meaning this is now an improperly renamed outlier. If we're not renaming the royal houses categories en masse, this should be put back.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to match other royal houses. Cjc13 (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per previous discussion, preferring "house" to "family" generally for this purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:02, 21 October 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:Antigentilism[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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Neologism, apparently only used in race-hate literature. Inappropriate for a Wikipedia category. An article with the same name was deleted some years ago.[1]RolandR (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely delete for reasons given by nominator. An attempted "counter" to Category:Anti-semitism, no doubt. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:57, 25 October 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:Wikipedians on an island[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale - Delete - Doesn't help collaboration to know which users happen to be on an island. A specific island, perhaps so, but "an island" in general can't possibly group users together in a meaningful process that fosters collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This category is currently under construction. The rationale for this category is the creation of a transnational community of island dwellers with mutual concerns. Please see the United Nations Environment Programme Small Island Developing States. Yours aye, Buaidh 14:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of a "multinational community of island dwellers with mutual concerns" is not an appropriate use of a user category, unless the mutual concerns have to do with Wikipedia, in which case "Wikipedians on an island" May not have any concerns whatsoever and joined the category simply because they live in Hawaii. The category description doesn't say anything of the sort either. Either way, the category is either inappropriate or grossly misnamed for its intended goal. VegaDark (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. FWIW, I signed up, and it's as much RL stuff as I can safely reveal. East of Borschov 14:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the case, but user categories should not simply be bottom of the page notices. They have a purpose, and that is collaboration with other users to improve the encyclopedia. If you can't safely reveal your location unless broadly defined, a simple user box will be sufficient. There is no collaborative value to go searching for people "on an island" in general. VegaDark (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems rather overbroad. It's not at all targeted to the purpose identified by Buaidh, because not all islands are "small developing states." The island I currently live on in the Caribbean is, but other islands I've lived on (Manhattan and Long Island) were not. Then there's the British Isles, Japan, Iceland, Singapore... There certainly aren't "mutual concerns" among all island residents worldwide. Region-specific categories such as Category:Wikipedians in the Caribbean and Category:Wikipedians in Oceania seem much more useful. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and postdlf as an unnecessary layer between Category:Wikipedians by location and more specific subcategories. The grouping itself (islanders) does not, in my opinion, serve a collaborative purpose because it is overbroad and, therefore, does not reflect any particular interest, ability, expertise or understanding which could be useful for encyclopedic collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overly broad. Not a useful layer of categorisation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Manhattan is an island, Staten Island is an island, Long Island is an island. Great Britain is an island, Ireland is an island, Iceland is an island, Montreal is an island, Hong Kong is an island, Japan is a bunch of islands... exactly what in common do these island dwellers have in common with people from Kiribati? 76.66.199.238 (talk) 08:08, 22 October 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:Scientific Wikipedians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ ^xplicit 00:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale - Delete - "This category contains Wikipedians who identify themselves as being practitioners of modern scientific method in their search for truth. You need not be a professional or amateur scientist to be included in this category." I think that says it all. How would categorizing such users be beneficial to Wikipedia? Many people have practiced the scientific method (most people do in school at least once in their lives), I can't fathom how grouping such users together would foster collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The members of this group feel we are very much a collaboration with the goals of Wikipedia foremost among our mutual concerns. Yours aye, Buaidh 15:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? How would this facilitate collaboration? What articles could this group of users be reasonably expected to collaborate on? And even if there are a couple articles, would the focus be too narrow?, or would the only collaborative merit mean original research by the category members? VegaDark (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I support the ideas expressed in the userboxes and category description, but I do not think that a grouping of users who share this general philosophical leaning could be used to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. I'll gladly reconsider if a reasonable use (even a hypothetical one) is offered. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Category:Scientific Wikipedians is certainly as well justified as the following subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by philosophy:

Please note that Category:Scientific Wikipedians refers to scientism as a philosophy, rather than science as an occupation or avocation as in Category:Wikipedian scientists. Yours aye, Buaidh 04:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is "as well justified" as the others, but it may be the case that the others are poorly justified; to be honest, I can't think of a collaborative use for those categories either... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the first category on the list, Category:Absolute Theocratic Wikipedians, for deletion; see here. I haven't yet had a chance yet to look much more closely at the others. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Other stuff that needs to be deleted, that is. VegaDark (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious about all the categories list above. I support the userboxes as declaration of a Conflict of Interest, but worry that the result of associating by prejudice might be more effecting team POV pushing. Am very dubious about allowing categoristion (which reads as asserted fact) of scientists without credentials. "Amateur scientist" has too much overlap with "kook". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Smokey Joe. The explanation offered by Buaidh of what this category means does not follow clearly from the category's name, nor does it justify keeping the category as a means of collaboration. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 29 October 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:Prose by John Neihardt[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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Is this category really needed? One member. It is in all kinds of inappropriate categories (philosopher i.e. person, rather than literature). I found it hard to figure out what literature categories to put it under, so I finally ended up proposing deletion. Greg Bard (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to more general Category:Works by John Neihardt, which contains a subcategory for his poems. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Works by John Neihardt. Or rename to Category:Books by John Neihardt, subcat of Category:Works by John Neihardt and Category:Books by author (assuming it is a book). Occuli (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Membership too small. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:16, 21 October 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:United States Senators of a third party[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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is defined as "United States Senators who served as neither Democrats, Republicans, nor Independents as part of their service." If all we were dealing with was the history of the U.S. since start of the American Civil War, this scheme could make sense. But because it encompasses history both before and after the civil war, it doesn't make much sense. Before the civil war, there were senators from a variety of parties—Federalists, Democratic-Republicans (who were called "Republicans" at the time), pre-Democratic Party Jacksonians, National Republicans (Anti-Jacksonians), Whigs, Free Soilers, and others. The Democratic Party was not founded until 1828 and the Republican Party was not founded until 1854. If applied correctly, this category would include virtually all pre-Civil War senators who were not members of the Democratic Party, in which case it begins to lose its utility, since that would also include every senator before 1828. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a well-thought-through category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the modern American two party system evolved after the American Civil War, this category could be restricted to U.S. Senators serving since 1873. Yours aye, Buaidh 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why would we want to though? There was also two-party system in the early decades of the United States. Why is a non-Federalist/non-Democratic-Republican senator in 1815 any less significant than a non-Democratic/non-Republican senator in 2010? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - A difference of 195 years perhaps? The current U.S. two party system has survived nearly 150 years, but its continued existence has been repeatedly challenged. This issue seems quite relevant today. Buaidh 03:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course it's "relevant", but I'm trying to find out why this would be something we would want to categorize by. You haven't explained why a non-Federalist/non-Democratic-Republican senator in 1815 is any less significant than a non-Democratic/non-Republican senator in 2010. Maybe it is to you, if you are more interested in current events, but to a historian, perhaps not. This seems something that is perfect for an article but not so great or clear with a category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Better to address this through a list of some kind, because categories are too clumsy to handle these kinds of distinctions. Note also that there is no equivalent category for U.S. presidential candidates; instead, Category:United States presidential candidates by party just subgroups by party rather than by perceived party status as third-party or not. postdlf (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is better for an article to be in more precise subcategories of United States Senators and American politicians by party than in a somewhat-vague "Other" category. I realize that, in a two-party system, the fact of being a third-party candidate can be as significant as being a candidate for a particular political party, but the nuances described above are not suited to the dichotomous nature of categorization. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd just like to point out that the political climate can (and probably will) change over the years. a "third party" may grow to no longer mean non-democrat and non-republican, thus making the members inaccurately categorized if such a change occurs. I think we should try and avoid this type of scenario in our category naming scheme. VegaDark (talk) 07:48, 21 October 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:Selected Biography[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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Selected Biography to Category:Bihar portal selected biographies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Clearly not what you'd expect. Adding the name of the portal will clear that up.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, but either use Category:Bihar selected biographies to match parent or rename Category:Bihar selected content to Category:Bihar portal selected content. PC78 (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've nominated the latter category here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:38, 23 October 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.