Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 10

< July 9	July 11 >

July 10[edit]

Category:Peopole of Ottoman Istanbul[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) 23:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Ottoman Istanbul and its sub categories.
- Category:Armenian people from Konstantiniyye
- Category:Bulgarian people from Konstantiniyye
- Category:Greek people from Konstantiniyye (but except Category:Phanariotes becuase it was historically notable community.)
- Category:Jews from Konstantiniyye
- Category:Ottoman people from Konstantiniyye

Nominator's rationale: They are needless categories by Wikipedia:Overcategorization.

As it is not necessary for us to create Category:People from New Amsterdam (New Amsterdam) as a sub-category of Category:People from New York, we don't need them. Furthermore, the term "people from Konstantiniyye" is not common.

are enough and reasonable. If need, we'd better to create categories as the communities (we can find sources easily) such as Category:Jews of Bodrum, Category:Jews of Istanbul etc.

Takabeg (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of these categories are really large enough to make this schema worth while. If Constantinople/Instanbul during the Ottoman period had about 10 times as many people who had articles in wikipedia it might be worth while, but as it is we are creating a set of needlessly small cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 11 July 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:Ottoman Macedonia[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ottoman Macedonia to Category:Macedonia under the Ottoman Empire

Nominator's rationale: Merge. These topics belong together; the main article is Macedonia under the Ottoman Empire. It looks like there has been an attempt to separate the topic related to the region of Macedonia (the nominated category) from the topic related to the current-day Republic of Macedonia (the target category), but such a distinction in the context of this topic is artificial and unnecessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 11 July 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 featuring umbrellas[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 delete per G7. -- Atama頭 17:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We generally do not categorize fictional films by plot device or the appearance of a particular object within the film. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As being non-defining. Lugnuts (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As non-defining. Even with as many categories for Films about FOO was we have -- and indeed, I've been active creating many of these on the documentary side -- we have to draw the line somewhere, surely. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete assuming the nominator's rationale is correct. I created it because I was intrigued by links between Potiche and The Umbrellas of Cherbourg but maybe I got a bit carried away. On the other hand, though, categories don't do any harm and this was an easy one to start populating further. (I see it's been reverted from Potiche already.) --Northernhenge (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With the creator's deletion comment above, I've placed a speedy tag on the category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 11 July 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:Rat-carried diseases[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 as nominated. The question of "carried" vs "borne" lacks consensus and may need a further discussion to settle it. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rat-carried diseases to Category:Rodent-carried diseases

Nominator's rationale: Rat is a vague term that is better avoided, but it is often used to refer to the brown and black rat, the two ubiquitous species of the genus Rattus, as the lead of this category does. However, many diseases in this category are not transmitted by these rats, but by quite different rodents. Argentine hemorrhagic fever, for example, is carried by Calomys musculinus, which I don't think is ever called a "rat" rather than a "mouse". Renaming will clarify the category's content. Ucucha 22:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - restricting this zoonotic disease category to two species within Rodentia seems unnecessarily narrow. As Ucucha says many diseases listed here are transmitted by species other than rats. In fact, some have varying reservoirs depending on the local fauna (e.g. Rabies). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If Category:Rodent-carried diseases gets to large, we can split it back down to smaller cats, but this does not seem neccessary for now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Also, "carried" doesn't seem scientific. Shouldn't it be "borne"?Curb Chain (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems reasonable. We also have Category:Insect-borne diseases and Category:Tick-borne diseases. Ucucha 12:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure if these are really the same thing as "borne". My understanding of bubonic plaugue is that humans get it from flees, but the flees are moved by the rats. Reading the article it mentioned the flees and rats infect eachother, so maybe sometimes humans get it from rat bites. I am also not sure if there really is a distinction between borne and carried, but if there is, I am suspecting carried will allow for more cases and so we should stick with it. I am also not convicned "borne" is really an better of a term. This strikes me more as a style issue than being "scienticif" enough. Lastly, I think WP:Commonname would mean that "being scientific" is not one of the things a category title needs to be. I mean if we really want to be "scientific" should we not be using the proper Latin name for rodents?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:29, 12 July 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:Fictional American people of Belgian descent[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Does this category have the prospect of containing anyone other than Dr Evil and Scott Evil - who of course aren't even Belgian. Dr Evil is the twin of Austin Powers, separated at birth, who became evil because he was brought up by Belgians. :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete thanks Elen, a bit worn out and hadn't got round to nominating this one, I would have emptied it and CSDed it, highly unlikely to contain any other notable fictional Americans of Belgian descent, and I must say I admire your knowledge of the Powers/Evil universe (laughs machiavellically whilst sucking little finger). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're lucky that we haven't gotten to "Fictional American women of Mexican-Jewish descent". This is a non-notable intersection, unless critical analysis of fictional Americans of Belgian descent can be shown to exist. Ucucha 22:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless the east-side Detroit Belgians have written several times as many published works of fiction as I think they have, and they are important enough that we will start getting articles on characters from these books here in wikipedia, there is no point to this cat. I really would question the need for almost any of the Fiction people of X descent cat, but this one is just too much. I think people need to realize that there is no reason to put fictional people in the same number of character realted cats as we would real people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasonings above, jeez. He iro 05:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excessively narrow intersectionCurb Chain (talk) 07:17, 12 July 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:American women of Argentine descent[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: Upmerge to Category:Fooian people of Barian descent. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. As per WP:Cat/gender. Nymf _hideliho! 16:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has to do with women's history. There is a gigantic difference between creating a men's category and a women's category. I wouldn't doubt that is why Wikipedia made this rule and why male categories are given as examples. Another point I'll put in is I created these categories because lumping women of Latino and Hispanic descent into one big category, when they have clearly different descent is completely insensitive. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at least the category of Mexican-Jewish descent, what is this rubbish? Mexicans are Mexicans (nationality) and Jews are ethnic or religious, I am British, christened Roman Catholic (not my choice) and have lived in France for 20 years. I am definitely NOT a "Person living in France of British-Roman Catholic descent". Thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia does not claim any nationality, descent is more of an issue for people of the United States. Thus why I created the category. It was created solely due to a category already named Category:American people of Mexican-Jewish descent. I had nothing to do with the creation of that category--I just created women's subcats of the people categories in "Hispanic and Latino people." --Shakesomeaction (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Shakesome action has misunderstood I think. WP:Cat/gender says Categories should not be gendered unless the gender has a specific relation to the topic. So it OK to create women's categories (but not men's) where the majority of the parent category would be male, and the female category is significant of itself - so Category:Female heads of governmentfor example. However, statistically around half of the people in Category:American people of Puerto Rican descent are going to be women, so there is no way that gender has a specific relation to the topic of "American women of Puerto Rican descent".Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into the respective categories with s/women/people/. There's nothing especially notable about women of these ancestries. I don't think Captain Screebo's specific argument is very convincing, since Jews (unlike Roman Catholics) are both an ethnic and a religious group. Ucucha 22:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ucucha, what I am saying is that there is a certain category of editors that I have encountered that are either a) ethno-taggers (pro- or anti-semitic in my experience) or b) confused, and as soon as they find a mention of "descended from a Polish/Romanian/German Jewish (grand-)mother/father" wish to create a specific category." For example, Category:American people of Peruvian-Jewish descent
- For one, I find this obsession with Jewishness (religious or ethnic) extremely troubling, and for two, whether religious or ethnic, the people need to actively identify with their supposed roots (and not what people fantasize about/wish to impose upon them).CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. We only categorize seperately by gender when a specific role is primarily by the other gender, or when the role is considered differently by gender. The intersection of gender, plus nationality, plus ethnicity/ancestry/whatever we call it is just going to far. Generally three part intersects are discouraged. In these cases they make no sense. This is especially true because the American women of Mexican descent barely has any of even the women who exist somewhere in the American people of Mexican descent category tree. I do not think there is a good argument why any of these Am. People by X descent categories should have a woman subcat but not a men subcat. There is no reason for any of these cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment currently there are only women in the category Category:American people of Mexican-Jewish descent. Even before I purged out most of the Mexican born people who do should be in Mexican people ethnic cats + Mexican emigrants to the US, there were 4 people, two of whom were women, so the cat actually has a majority of women in the structure (assuming the one in the subcat was not in the parent cat), so based on the cats own structure we should have made the category Category:American men of Mexican-Jewish descent because we have evidence there are fewer of these who are notable. This is mainly to illustrate how theis batch of cats are poorly thought out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per John Pack Lambert above. He iro 05:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to respective 'American people of Fooian descent' parent categories. Mayumashu (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I believe that is the proper action, as the original categories have just been replaced by these. Nymf _hideliho! 14:06, 14 July 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:Orphaned Hawaii 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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. No other topics have their own subcateogries of Category:All orphaned articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If projects want project-specific cleanup listings, there are bots for that; they shouldn't multiply the number of maintenance categories. Ucucha 22:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete procedural/maintenance Curb Chain (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delte per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 12 July 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.

Crime victims by nationality[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

"Fooian crime victims" to "Crime victims from Foo"

Rationalle: The current names of these categories is ambiguous - it's not clear from the names of the categories if the "Fooian" refers to the crime or the victims. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I would think everyone is quite capable of understanding that nationality, in biographical articles, refers to the person, rather than to the "nationality of the crime"... Aridd (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – as these are part of Category:Crime victims by nationality there doesn't seem to be any ambiguity. If there is perceived ambiguity, Category:Zimbabwean victims of crime etc would be a better rename. Occuli (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no oposition to your alternate rename proposal, as it handles the ambiguity equally well. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose There is no confusion. Lugnuts (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. No realistic chance of confusion. Ucucha 22:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination. There is plenty of room for confusion. Everyone may be quite capable of understanding that, Aridd - but they may not realise it. It's all very well to say "well we all know that", but do Wikipedia readers simply wandering onto the site understand that? Do established editors all understand that? I for one had assumed that "New Zealand crime victims" would refer to victims of New Zealand crime - that is, crimes in New Zealand, not victims of crime who came from New Zealand. Categories should be what they say on the can. As for them being part of a larger tree which explains what they're for - again, would random Wikipedia readers notice that? It should be clarified whether it is the crime or the victim that the nationality is referring to. Occuli's alternative is reasonable, but is a less natural construction. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Grutness and because there has indeed been confusion about these categories already. If these are nationality categories, why is Category:British crime victims a subcategory of Category:Crime in the United Kingdom? Are there no British people who have been victims of crime outside of the United Kingdom? (The "FOOian victims of crime" format may be a preferable compromise option to retain the "FOOIan BOO" structure, however.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although I think that most editors would understand that "crime victims" is a compound word, with "FOOian" as a modifier, the phrasing still leaves room for confusion. I have no preference for how we rephrase it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the current structure makes it unclear if we are saying the people are victims of crime in a given country, or nationals ofo a given country who suffered a certain crime.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 11 July 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:Crisis titles[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:Crisis (Fleetway) comic strips. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Crisis titles to Category:Crisis comic strips

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The articles categorised are comic strips within a title, not titles, i.e. separate publications.. Nicknack009 (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed title is a little better, but the category name is still ambiguous, since "crisis" has other plausible meanings in comics (see Crisis (comics)). Perhaps "Crisis (Fleetway) comic strips", in accordance with the article Crisis (Fleetway)? Ucucha 22:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, I'd go with that. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:37, 11 July 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:2000 AD titles[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 to further discussions. See my comments below. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:2000 AD titles to Category:2000 AD comic strips

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The articles categorised are comic strips within a title, not titles, i.e. separate publications. Nicknack009 (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See note below. As a fan of comics since the 1960s (yes, readers, I started with Bunty) a comic strip is Doonesbury in The Guardian. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See note below. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:37, 11 July 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:Eagle (comic book) titles[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 to further discussions. As there's no clear alternative proposal on the table and the current category name is't supported this seems the least worst route. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eagle (comic book) titles to Category:Eagle comic strips

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the article Eagle (comic), because the term "comic book" is not used of UK comics, and because the articles categorised are comic strips within a publication, not "titles", as in separate publications. Nicknack009 (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this aged Brit uses the term 'comic book' to differentiate from a comic strip, which is what Andy Capp is in the Daily Mirror. The Eagle was a comic - as was 2000AD, featuring of course Judge Dredd. Neither were 'comic strips'.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's true the Eagle and 2000 AD are not "comic strips", but that's not what these categories collect. I'm looking for a better name for the category that contains Dan Dare, Heros the Spartan and Fraser of Africa, (and Judge Dredd, Strontium Dog and Nikolai Dante) and these are usually referred to as "comic strips" or just "strips". "Titles" is just wrong, as in publishing terminology, Eagle and 2000 AD are themselves titles. If you don't think "comic strips" is appropriate, have you any other suggestions? I toyed with "serials", but Harris Tweed, for example, is not a serial. Possibly "comic features", although I don't think that has any currency? "Comic series"? --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the article is Eagle (comic) should this not make it so we name the category Category:Eagle (comic) titles? That would seem to be the logical way to follow the precedent caused by the form of the title name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no, "titles" in this case is incorrect. A title is a publication - see wiktionary:title. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wikitionary defintion 3 tells us the name of any work of art is a title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The name of a work of art is its title. The work of art itself is not a title. You would not expect to find the Mona Lisa in a category called "Leonardo da Vinci titles" or "Louvre titles". The word "title" is here being used in a specific publishing context, improperly carried over from American comics, where it makes sense, to British comics, where it doesn't. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:51, 12 July 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:Eagle (comic book) characters[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) 11:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eagle (comic book) characters to Category:Eagle (comic) characters

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the article Eagle (comic), and because the term "comic book" is not used of British comics. Nicknack009 (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 11 July 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:Eagle (comic book)[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) 11:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eagle (comic book) to Category:Eagle (comic)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the article Eagle (comic), and because the term "comic book" is not used of British comics. Nicknack009 (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per article title. We do not need other reasons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 11 July 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:Presidents of the United States by succession[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This seems entirely unnecessary to me. The redirects categorized here are also not useful and they have a WP:DASH error, substituting mdashes for ndashes. I would say listify, but any list of presidents of the United States will include their chronological order. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's already a perfectly good list List of United States Presidents. In addition {{US Presidents}} does the sequence also. The category information is a direct copy of that at Category:Presidents of the United States. I fail to see what the nominated category is adding to the encyclopaedia. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reason I created this category is that I came across another editor who was altering the Presidents of the United States category in the individual presidents' articles so that the presidents would be listed in that category in chronological order rather than alphabetically. I suggested to that editor that to leave that category an alphabetical list might be more useful. I did some checking and found that the Presidents of the United States cat is a subcategory of the following cats:

I felt that the readers of these parent cats would find a handy, categorical listing of the presidents by succession useful, so I built the "by succession" cat and made it a subcat of the Presidents of the United States cat. Rather than add another category to each president's article, thereby adding more bulk to already bulky articles, I reasoned that redirects are "cheap" in terms of server space and had the added benefit that they could be titled chronologically. This would give the readers of those more global parent categories the presidents' succession numbers "at a glance". So I did have the improvement of Wikipedia in mind; however, if during this discussion it is found that the new cat would not be useful, then I would of course abide by that decision. Thank you very much for reading, and I wish the best to all! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 11:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Interesting approach, but it seems to me that this essentially duplicates List of Presidents of the United States, which is already in Category:Presidents of the United States. The template also reproduces the sequence, as pointed out by Beeswaxcandle. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Use list articles for complex lists, and categories for simple alphabetical listings. Ucucha 22:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not how categories are used. Tim! (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Beeswaxcandle. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list of presidents does this. A list is where to do this, not a cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be list and not category Bte99 (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, especially Good Ol’factorys reasoning. He iro 05:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ingenious approach though. Agathoclea (talk) 20:08, 14 July 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.