Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 13

< September 12	September 14 >

September 13[edit]

Category:Members of the National Academy of Sciences[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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Members of the National Academy of Sciences to Category:Members of the United States National Academy of Sciences

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I do this with some trepidation, given how mamy articles would be affected, but the proper parent article is United States National Academy of Sciences, with National Academy of Sciences serving as a disambiguation page. I recognize that there are many articles that use "National Academy of Sciences" to refer to the United States National Academy of Sciences and that this issue might be more global than just a category. I am offering this proposal because I was able to easily deduce the category for the other organizations in a bio, but was unable to find this one without dropping "United States". Alansohn (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to avoid any ambiguity. The current name is US-centric and we are already forced to disambiguate for, say, Category:Members of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Pichpich (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and eject any non-US interlopers. Occuli (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. By my count there are (at least) 7 other countries that use the term "National Academy of Sciences". Cgingold (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Renameto Category:United States National Academy of Sciences members because it is shorter. "Members of the..." is an unnecessarily complex construction. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAz GaA 16:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually every sub-cat of Category:Members of learned societies uses the form "Members of Xyz". Cgingold (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~::* Which is a shame; verbosity for the sake of it should be avoided. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)~~ Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAz GaA 16:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename somehow to include US in title. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Trade union leaders[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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Trade union leaders to Category:Labor leaders

Nominator's rationale: Trade union suggests that there is no distinction between being a trade union leader or a labo(u)r union leader. Or am I missing something? A reverse merge would also be acceptable to me: I just don't want duplication, if that is in fact what we have, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment from the Trade Union article "A trade union (British English) or labor union (American English) is an organization of workers..." so I suppose American English loses again. Hmains (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Labor leaders is unclear. In Australia, it refers to leaders of the Australian Labor Party such as our current Prime Minister. It should be Category:Trade union leaders or Category:Labor union leaders. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I agree. Either a reverse merge or a merge to Category:Labor union leaders would be fine with me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment We've worked around this in the past by using the Canadian-English term "Organized labour" (see, for example, WP:UNION, P:UNION) which seems to be unambiguous and internationally understood. Cheers. Haus^Talk 22:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While my personal preference would be Category:Labor union leaders, the head category is Category:Trade unionists, and there is an extensive cat tree under Category:Trade unionists by nationality -- with Category:American labor unionists and Category:American labor leaders being the only exceptions, reflecting the US/UK usage divide. That said, however, the two terms have not been entirely equivalent, at least historically, in US usage. This is probably best illustrated by the two wings of the US labor movement which merged into the AFL-CIO back in 1955, with the AFL being a trade union for workers who had trades, and the CIO being more of a labor union for workers who didn't have a trade. (I realize this is oversimplified.) I believe the term "labor union" has subsequently evolved to a broader usage inclusive of both types of workers. I don't know how this distinction has been treated in other countries, and whether "labor union" is viewed as a broader term outside the US. Cgingold (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour. Cgingold (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment I agree with the comments by Cgingold. I would add, in the U.S. the philosophical division predated the CIO, and was first expressed in a significant way with the birth of the Industrial Workers of the World in 1905. For those who wish a greater understanding of this philosophical divide, i recommend two somewhat related articles: industrial unionism, and craft unionism. The merging of the AFL and the CIO did not end the debate, although (in my view) it resulted in the consolidation of the craft (or loosely, trade) union philosophy's hold on the reins of mainstream labor union power. Richard Myers (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is indeed a defining difference, great. We could note that in the category descriptions and make trade unions a subcat of labour unions, for their leaders and everything else. Thing is, we'd need to amend or split the main article to reflect that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Union leaders, which is pretty unambiguous to native speakers, or Keep. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Trade union leaders but delete Category:Labor leaders. Outside of American, Trade union is the term used so Category:Trade union leaders should be the lead category to match the parent article, with Category:American labor leaders as a subcategory. Having looked through Category:Labor leaders, the entries either belonged in the subcategory Category:American labor leaders, eg James McEntee, or referred to Trade Union leader, eg Stu Laird, so having corrected these entries,Category:Labor leaders can be deleted and the subcat can be made a subcat of Category:Trade union leaders. Cjc13 (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Trade union leaders, notwithstanding the odd antipodean variation, outside of the USA, trade union is the standard term. Aside from the English-speaking countries, "Labor leaders" makes little sense in countries like Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh or Nepal which use English extensively and have significant trade union movements.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A labor leader is meaningless in UK. A Labour leader would probably be the leader of the Labour Party. However there is no reason why its American subcategory should not be Category:United States Labor Union leaders. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lewiston, Maine[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. (NAC Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lewiston, Maine and Category:Auburn, Maine to Category:Lewiston–Auburn, Maine

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Lewiston, Maine and Auburn, Maine are known as the twin cities of the Androscoggin River. It only makes sense to categorize them together, like Category:Minneapolis – Saint Paul and Category:Bloomington-Normal, Illinois.TM 16:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in conjunction with Category:Auburn, Maine, noting that is no article Lewiston – Auburn, Lewiston-Auburn, Lewis/Auburn etc. Occuli (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As evidence, see this, here, here, here, here et etc. I could go on.--TM 20:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you leaving Category:Auburn, Maine asymmetrically out of the nom? The first step would be to create an article on this dual entity, deciding upon the spacing and nature of the dash in the name, taking WP:DASH into account perhaps, then a category with a matching name, then decide whether the existing 2 cats become subcats or are merged into the new one. (Observe that Category:Minneapolis – Saint Paul has subcats for each entity; Category:Bloomington-Normal, Illinois has one for Bloomington but not for Normal.) Occuli (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot it exists and just added it to the nomination.--TM 02:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn--TM 16:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Canons[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. If deletion is warranted, a subsequent nomination may take place. — ξ ^xplicit 06:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Canons to Category:Canons (fiction)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article Canon (fiction). Not the parent category of e.g. Category:Canons of Windsor I was expecting. Tassedethe (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. There's a long list of categories Category:Canons of Foo which we might like to include in a common parent. Pichpich (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to matc parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stong delete These are just a small bunch of articles on groups of fiction by series, fictional universe etc, that happen to use (mostly incorrectly) the word "canon" in their titles, as opposed to the much greater number that don't. At best this should be a redirect to another category, but really it just needs deleting. If it were kept, it would need far clearer disaming to make it clear that it is not concerned with literary canons. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Series[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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Series to Category:Series by medium

~~:Nominator's rationale: Rename - for greater clarity of scope. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)~~ Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAz GaA 16:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Category:Series by medium would (by convention) be a subcat scheme for Category:Series. Category:Series by number of entries is another such subcat scheme. Create Category:Series by medium if 'clarity of scope' is required. Occuli (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:* Series is ambiguous and would not serve as a proper parent for "Series by medium". A parent including the word "series" would need to be disambiguated. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAz GaA 16:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then rename to something like Category:Series (media). Occuli (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Series with ten entries[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 both to Category:Series. — ξ ^xplicit 06:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Nominator's rationale: Delete - with the recent deletions of the TV and film series by number of entries structure and the impending deletion of the literary structure (unless consensus changes rapidly in the next couple of days) these are not needed as container categories. The rest of the structure will be speediable as empty. The ten entries isn't because of the one article and the number of entries one isn't because of the trilogies sub-cat. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAz GaA 16:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what is to become of Category:Trilogies? Is a trilogy not a series? These should be upmerges to Category:Series, not deletes. Occuli (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eg Step Up (film series) is now not in any 'series' tree (following an imperfect 'delete' cfd). Occuli (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge. I don't understand the nominator's final sentence, but I do feel that Category:Trilogies are a different kettle of fish, as the three-part form is a basic and recurring element in storytelling, even at the level of entire works. I would not support deleting/upmerging them, if nominated. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Shawn's remarks re Trilogies, and I would also say that the same applies to Tetralogies, of which there are many noted examples. It's no accident that we have specific terms for both, whereas there are no such terms for 5 or 6 or 8-part series as far as I'm aware. (Quintologies? Hexalogies?) There is, of course The Decameron, but that is a unique exception and certainly doesn't require a dedicated category. Cgingold (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:* Agreed on both trilogies and tetralogies which is why I didn't nominate any such category. I would note that those categories will need to be monitored so that not every series of three and four ends up in it. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAz GaA 16:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to the Series category. Pichpich (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Matthäus Merian[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) 10:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: No apparent need for a category; the only article is the eponymous article. Severo^TC 08:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Malayali[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) 16:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Subject is already covered by Malayali people. Category was created by a user with a recent history of disruptive and unproductive edits. - AtticusX (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convert into category redirect, with the target being Category:Malayali people. The main article is Malayali, which Malayali people redirects to, so this seems like a reasonable search term. — ξ ^xplicit 02:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The contents of the category appear to have been removed, making it impossible to evaluate its merits as a category. Given that Category:Malayali people should only be used for articles about individuals, if there are articles pertaining to the Malayali people as a group, it could well make sense to retain this category. That said, there certainly should not be a large map on the category page. Cgingold (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect) – the creator appears to have placed 2 people in the category, one of whom, Mohanlal, was already in a subcat of M People, and the other, Kaumudi Teacher, has been moved into M People. As Cgingold observes, there might well be a valid use for this topic-category if suitable articles can be found. Occuli (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the redirect is needed and (ideally) we should avoid cat redirects. Pichpich (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category is now empty except a map and a flag. The general article on Malayali will no doubt remain as the main article for the people. Any others can be linked via a navnox template. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Organized crime video games[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 05:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organized crime video games

Nominator's rationale: I think Category:Crime video games suits it better, as other crime media don't have Organized in them, for example, There are no Oganized Crime films, Organized Crime novels, So I think it should be just crime video games. Chigurgh (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is - I'm puzzled by your lack of success in finding those categories. Check out the following: Category:Organized crime by medium and Category:Organized crime fiction. Cgingold (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is - the categories Cgingold mentions are parents of the one in question, and thus are in full view at the bottom of Category:Organized crime video games. It is disorganized crime that is not categorised. Occuli (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is - per Cgingold's statements. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one and create the other if needed. (I'm not so sure) Pichpich (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.