Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 27 March 1 >

February 28[edit]

Animal and botanical surnames[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 all. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Animal surnames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Botanical surnames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Piscine surnames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another similar category added to Cfd on 04 Mar 2011 older ≠ wiser 21:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biologic surnames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This nomination is a follow-up to this discussion, where Category:Avian surnames was deleted. These appear to be more of the same variety—names being categorized because they share a name with a specific animal, plant, or fish, respectively. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I added Category:Biologic surnames after the initial nomination as it matches the same pattern as the others. older ≠ wiser 21:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Trivial point of commonality, serving primarily to overcategorize disambiguation pages. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, not notable or encyclopedic. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as trivial and misleading. In theory, I could see a categorization of surnames by documented origin, but I see no indication, in the categories or the articles (and disambiguation pages!) included that that's what this is. It instead appears that these are merely categorized on nothing more than linguistic coincidence, while suggesting some relationship beyond that without any support for it. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These new ones are not materially different from the avian surname intersection. Trivial and unenlightening to the reader. Nothing significant is learned about the people in the category. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as with Avian surnames. I agree with Postdlf that conceptually such a categorization might be possible, but this current effort looks to be largely Original Research. older ≠ wiser 21:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, NN categorization. —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 18#Category:Avian surnames; note that these categories were created by suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sheynhertz-Unbayg, as was the category Avian surnames. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2011 (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.

Literature from/of location[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: A mix. There's consensus to rename:

There's no consensus on the Bihar and Uttarakhand categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted discussion The original discussion found consensus on the Georgia category but no consensus so far on the others. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming according to one of the following:

or

Rationalle: These should all use the same pattern. Note that while the Georgia (country) still uses the "Fooian literature" patern, once oone of these paterns is established it would be speedsy renamable under C2B - per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#Category:Georgian culture, where the parent category was renamed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timrollpickering (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • I would say there are enough problems with forms like "Congolese" and "Nigerian" both of which refer to two countries, and the former can refer to certain people and places in Angola as well, to make the slavish insistence on the adjective forms everwhere in category names relating to countries over the top. I would say we should avoid going down the same path at the sub-national level. Literature of Bihar and Literature of Northern Ireland make the most sense to me. Of the top of my head the only worthwhile "from" categories are ones like Category:Immigrants from Algeria to France or Category:Converts to Islam from Roman Catholicism. Although the first is probably Category:Algerian immigrants to France, so the later may be the only one where from is currently regularly used in a category other than as part of a proper name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep first two; rename last to Category:Literature of Northern Ireland. "Bihari literature" would be an acceptable alternative. I do not know the adjective for Uttarakhand; finding a neutral adjective for Northern Ireland has been problematic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Of" versus "from" Northern Ireland is also problemmatic; that is why we should stick to the form other NI categories use. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2011 (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.

Human rights organizations by country[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: It is not clear from the current format whether the categories are intended for human rights organizations which are based in a particular country or operate in the country. For better or worse, the current method of categorizing organizations by location focuses on where they are based (see Category:Organizations by country). In addition, it is problematic to categorize by the latter characteristic since many HROs operate in multiple countries (e.g. Human Rights Watch; also see Category:International human rights organizations) and can, at any time, choose to initiate or discontinue operations in one or more countries. Other HROs are based in one country but focus on another (e.g. Human Rights in China (organization), New Israel Fund)—in these cases, it may be appropriate to place the organization directly into "Category:Human rights in {Country of operation}".
In cases where the spelling of "organi(s/z)ation" in the category title does not match the spelling in the top-level "Organizations based in {Country}" category, a speedy-able change from "z" → "s", or vice versa, is also proposed. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2011 (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.

Soviet Cold War weapons[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 without prejudice for wider discussions on the category structure. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Category names#Miscellaneous "of country". Although the objection raised at CFD/S about the naming of a category that intersects two 'X of Y' schemes, resulting in awkward titles such as Category:Weapons of the Soviet Union of the Cold War, is correct, the scope of the issue is greater than just these three categories. Perhaps it is necessary to reconsider the move of Category:Cold War weapons to Category:Weapons of the Cold War, or perhaps these triple-intersections of equipment, war and country should be upmerged to their parent categories for weapons by war and country, but a broader discussion is need in either case. Until such discussion takes place, however, I think that these categories safely can be renamed to follow the format used by their parents. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2011 (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:LGBT musical groups[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:LGBT-themed musical groups without prejudice to further discussions. There's no consensus for deletion or upmerger; there is support for a clearer name but uncertainty about what it should be. For now a renaming to -themed is the least worst option. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:LGBT musical groups to Category:Musical groups with LGBT members
Nominator's rationale: The term "LGBT musical groups" is somewhat vague and unclear, and may be mis-interpreted as a group that plays music mainly for a LGBT audience or groups that are involved with LGBT activism. The proposed renaming will make the category more understandable and a clear definition of the inclusion criteria. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to its parents (or at least upmerge the 2 subcats to its parents) – having an LGBT member is not defining for a band. (Being involved with LGBT activism would be defining. Playing music 'mainly for a LGBT audience' seems marginal.) Occuli (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but not per nom - I agree with Occuli that the mere fact of having one or more LGBT members is not defining for a musical group. On the other hand, producing LGBT-themed works or being strongly associated with LGBT culture is defining, so perhaps there is room for a category here (maybe Category:LGBT-related musical groups or Category:LGBT-themed musical groups). However, clear inclusion criteria are needed (as well as some pruning) if the category is to be useful; there is some discussion on the category's talk page, but it appears inconclusive. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe rename but... There seem to be three levels of, um, queerness involved here. I wish to join the consensus in saying that merely having non-heterosexual members isn't notable, and for that reason I oppose the specific proposal for renaming. The subcategories clearly belong here; where things get iffy is the seeming adoption by the LGBT community of various groups which do not present themselves as LGBT-connected. So I'm doubtful that "LGBT-related" is a clear enough categorization; perhaps "LGBT-themed" might do although again it's a bit vague. Mangoe (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, starting from Black Falcon's position above, it is clearly a BLP nightmare as it stands. I'm not convinced that the proposal is defining as regards a musical band. For example Judas Priest aren't listed, despite its lead singer Rob Halford, and in no way do that band have any sort of LGBT agenda. Similarly with Bluesology and Elton John, who wasn't even "out" at the time. Even The Village People were not all gay, so, sorry, I can't agree with the targets of the proposed renaming; the alternative proposals of Category:LGBT-related musical groups or Category:LGBT-themed musical groups, per WP:BLP would require scrupulous sourcing, and The Village People might be adequately sourced in that regard, but other groups might tend to be the subject of original research, either by fans or antifans. I think on balance that there is no real need for this sort of categorisation, and to retain it is going to be more trouble than it is worth. I also agree with Mangoe that vagueness is unhelpful when you take WP:BLPCAT into account. Rodhullandemu 23:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, this category was never meant to be for all musical groups that happen to have an LGBT member; it was (and is) meant for the smaller subset of musical groups which are defined by that fact to a larger degree, such as specifically addressing LGBT themes in their music or being targetted specifically to LGBT audiences. For example, Scissor Sisters would qualify as an "LGBT musical group", because their relevance to the LGBT community is a disproportionately large part of what makes them notable in the first place — but The B-52's probably should not be, because they're a band who happen to have several LGBT members but who have never really pitched themselves to a gay-specific audience or written songs about their sexuality. Similarly, The Hidden Cameras would belong here, as their cultural context is defined almost entirely by Joel Gibb's lyrical focus on gay themes — but bands like Bloc Party and Ocean Colour Scene, despite sharing the fact of being led by a gay vocalist and songwriter, don't belong as they've never really presented or packaged themselves as being defined by their singer's sexuality the way the Cameras are. I wouldn't oppose a rename to keep the intention clearer, but this particular rename isn't really the right one as it turns the category into exactly what the existing one isn't supposed to be. And given that a band which can't be properly sourced as belonging in the category just shouldn't be added to it in the first place, it doesn't present a WP:BLP issue as such. Keep or rename, although I'm not sure what to suggest as a viable rename target. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) This problem about the proposed target of renaming highlights, I think, the difficulty we have here. On the one hand, some bands might obviously fall within such a category (which is in any case something of a blunt instrument) but as I've already pointed out above, less obvious cases are open to abuse from both sides of the argument, and we are back to discussing reliable sources. I'm not sure how any rename could satisfactorily address our policies, but I'm open to further discussion. Rodhullandemu 22:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest, somewhere between 50 and 80 per cent of our entire category system would have to be deleted if we disallowed categories which might attract some edge cases in which inclusion or exclusion was a matter of subjective debate. You're right, it comes down to reliable sources — but that's not a reason to delete a category, so much as to simply not file a given article in it if the supporting sources aren't there. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't disagree with the thrust of your argument, but I think the point is what name of category would adequately summarise what it is intended to categorise, and that, to me, remains unclear, because people will see category names only and think "Oh, that applies to X", whatever the sources say, and that will lead to endless arguments unless the category is fairly strictly defined so as to tend to exclude edge cases- and that is the major problem here, I think, is that how can we do that and minimise dissent about those borderline cases? I see categories as being dichotomous, in that you're either in it or you're not, and I don't see any bright line emerging, whatever category name we decide upon, and that isn't helpful to managing any such category that might emerge. As I say, however, if anyone comes up with a brilliant solution, I'll be all for it. Rodhullandemu 23:20, 4 March 2011 (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:Georgian 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: Rename to Category:Wikipedians from Georgia (country). Timrollpickering (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging renaming Category:Georgian Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians in Georgia (country)Category:Wikipedians from Georgia (country)
Nominator's rationale:  
  1. I see no real difference between the scope of these categories.
  2. Wikipedians in Georgia (U.S. state) Wikipedians from Georgia (U.S. state) are also "Georgian Wikipedians"; consensus for this is clear at other CfD discussions, such as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Category:Georgian people, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#Category:Georgian culture and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 14#Category:Georgian society, where other "Georgian" categories were renamed.
עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:19, 28 February 2011 (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:Films by Georgian directors[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Films by Georgian directors to Category:Films by directors from Georgia (country)
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Category:Georgian people, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#Category:Georgian culture and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 14#Category:Georgian society, where other "Georgian" categories were renamed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a good example where common sense should apply over the potential confusion over the country/US state. We don't categorize film directors by which US state they are from (and hopefully, never will). A simple note on the category page to say its about the country should suffice. All of the categories in the parent (Category:Films by director) are of the structure "Films by x directors". Lugnuts (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Lugnuts underestimates the category entropy that tries to push every people category towards division by subnational entity. Confusion is likely here. Particularly given the marked tendency of U.S. southerners to identify strongly with their home state. postdlf (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. We categorize lawyers by US state, politicians by US state, basketball players by US state where they are from and who knows what else. The entropy of people by profession is very strong. Georgia (U.S. state) already has categories for Actors (which is in some ways most relevant here), Architects, Artists, Bishops (with Episcopal and Roman Catholic sub-cats), Journalists, state court judges, lawyers, musicians (with sub-cats of songwriters, rappers, musical groups and musicans from Atlanta), politicians, radio personalities, sportspeople (with 8 different sports having sub-cats of this) and writers. Also, never under-estimate the power of Gone With the Wind.John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2011 (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.

Television series in Georgia (country) by decade/year[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, the question of upmerging can be revisited at a later date if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Rationalle: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Category:Georgian people, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#Category:Georgian culture and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 14#Category:Georgian society, where other "Georgian" categories were renamed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a good example where common sense should apply over the potential confusion over the country/US state. We don't categorize television shows by which US state made them (and hopefully, never will). A simple note on the category page to say its about the country should suffice. Lugnuts (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another consideration is that uniformity with the overall category structure can aid predictability, even if disambiguation isn't necessary in every instance to prevent confusion. postdlf (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all to Category:Television series of Georgia (country). It should not be necessary to cargorise them by decade. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2011 (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/2011_February_28&oldid=1074807323"