Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 4 July 6 >

July 5[edit]

Category:Pesantren[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 to Category:Pesantren. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Pesantren to Category:Pesantren in Indonesia (or vice versa)
Nominator's rationale: Merge. By definition, Pesantren are schools located in Indonesia, so only one of these categories is needed. Merging either way is fine with me. Discussion is primarily to determine which one to keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 5 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:French libertarians[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) 23:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:French libertarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Consensus against listing liberals by nationality. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_26#Liberals_by_nationality.

Many of these are better classified as liberals than as libertarians, also.

I don't understand why Category:French Socialists exists, if Category:French Liberals was deleted by consensus.

Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment One of the best arguments against "liberal" categories is that it has completely different (and sometimes antithetical) meanings in different countries. The meaning of "libertarian" on the other hand is fairly precise and consistent throughout the world. As for the category French socialists, you can see why it makes sense by checking its subcategories: all individuals listed there were part of official parties which openly described themselves as socialist. I guess you can call this a !vote for Weak keep. Pichpich (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the thoughtful response. However, Serge-Christophe Kolm and several others are listed here because of the thought-crime of "French liberals". Kolm is a liberal socialist, btw. Well, such is life!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless there is a well defined political movement involved and we have people clearly identifying with said political movement in the country and in the category there is no reason to have the category. I see no evidence that a defined libertarian movement as such exists in France so we should delete this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 7 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:People from Ilia Prefecture[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) 23:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Ilia Prefecture to Category:People from Elis
Propose renaming Category:Politicians from the Ilia prefecture to Category:Policitians from Elis
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per common name, the region is traditionally and far more frequently known as Elis. Plus the fact that prefectures have been abolished. Constantine ✍ 21:11, 5 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:Sunderland[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 to Category:City of Sunderland. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Sunderland to Category:City of Sunderland
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Category:Sunderland was recently created and only contains 2 articles. Category:City of Sunderland has existed for a while and contains over 20 articles. No obvious reason for the difference. Boissière (talk) 20:46, 5 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:Thorgal covers[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) 23:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Thorgal covers to Category:Covers from titles related to Thorgal
Nominator's rationale: Conforming to the new character-based comics covers category standard per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_29#Category:DC_Comics_covers.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 20:35, 5 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.

Comic book covers[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/merge as nominated; Amalgam & Epic to include "Comics" per the imprints' articles. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Fawcett comic book covers to Category:Fawcett Comics covers
Propose merging Category:Fox comic book covers to Category:Fox Feature Syndicate covers
Propose renaming Category:AC comic book covers to Category:AC Comics covers
Propose renaming Category:Ajax-Farrell comic book covers to Category:Ajax-Farrell Publications covers
Propose renaming Category:Amalgam imprint comic book covers to Category:Amalgam Comics imprint covers (or Category:Amalgam imprint covers--see below)
Propose renaming Category:Centaur comic book covers to Category:Centaur Publications covers
Propose renaming Category:Columbia comic book covers to Category:Columbia Comics covers
Propose renaming Category:CrossGen comic book covers to Category:CrossGen Comics covers
Propose renaming Category:Dynamite comic book covers to Category:Dynamite Comics covers
Propose renaming Category:EC comic book covers to Category:EC Comics covers
Propose renaming Category:Epic imprint covers to Category:Epic Comics imprint covers (or not--see below)
Propose renaming Category:Helix imprint comic book covers to Category:Helix imprint covers
Propose renaming Category:Magazine Enterprises comic book covers to Category:Magazine Enterprises covers
Propose renaming Category:Milestone comic book covers to Category:Milestone Comics covers
Propose renaming Category:Milestone Media covers to Category:Milestone Comics covers
Propose renaming Category:Moonstone comic book covers to Category:Moonstone Comics covers
Propose renaming Category:Pacific comic book covers to Category:Pacific Comics covers
Propose renaming Category:Paradox Press imprint comic book covers to Category:Paradox Press imprint covers
Propose renaming Category:Piranha Press imprint comic book covers to Category:Piranha Press imprint covers
Propose renaming Category:Top Cow covers to Category:Top Cow imprint covers
Nominator's rationale: Renaming comics covers to a consistent format per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_29#Category:DC_Comics_covers, losing “comic book” in most cases. The word “imprint” is used when a comic book “company” is really just a brand of another company, such as Epic Comics. Milestone's article is Milestone Media, but the comics are all published under the name Milestone Comics, as per Category:Milestone Comics. -- Mike Selinker (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the following exceptions:
Category:Amalgam imprint comic book covers should be renamed to Category:Amalgam imprint covers.
Category:Epic imprint covers should not be renamed. These two imprints should have categories with names that correspond to other imprint categories, such as Category:Vertigo imprint covers and Category:Wildstorm imprint covers. In addition:
Propose renaming Category:Top Cow covers to Category:Top Cow imprint covers
Otherwise, I am looking forward to the renaming of these categories, in order to further the cleanup of Category:Comic book covers. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get the logic here: no "Comics" if it's an imprint? That's okay with me if we're doing it consistently. I've tagged the Top Cow category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on further research, I don't think that's right. WildStorm and Vertigo (DC Comics) don't have the word "Comics" in their name, but Epic Comics and Amalgam Comics do. This isn't a convention about usage, it's a difference in naming in the real world. See also Category:Amalgam Comics images. That's my take anyway, though I probably could be convinced otherwise. (But I do agree Top Cow is an imprint.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:32, 8 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:Tokyo Mew Mew[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) 23:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tokyo Mew Mew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Links into four articles. Not enough to populate. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 18:24, 5 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:X-Digimon[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) 23:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:X-Digimon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A crufty category full of redirects. Only the main article (X-Antibody, which doesn't seem to have any real-world notability anyway) actually exists. We do not need to categorise these many fictional characters based on in-universe details when they are not even notable enough for their own articles. J Milburn (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories that fill with redirects because the topics are not independently notable do not seem worthwhile.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a legitimate use of WP:categorizing redirects. It's very similar to the examples given in WP:CAT-R#Categorization of list entries. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite the fact neither this concept nor these subjects have anything resembling real-world notability, you feel we need a category for it? J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That will teach me to comment without examining the contents. These redirects do not lead to sections, but only to a page of one-word entries. Changing my opinion to delete. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:34, 10 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:Viceroyalty of New Spain[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. Opinion is split almost down the middle on which way, but the main article is at the short form and there's no support for retaining the split. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Viceroyalty of New Spain to Category:New Spain
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Essentially duplicate categories. Viceroyalty of New Spain redirects to New Spain. It is confusing to have two categories for the same thing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The New Spain article could be renamed Viceroyalty of New Spain for consistency.—Look2See1 t a l k → 05:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt anyone would want to rename New Spain to "Viceroyalty of New Spain". It would be like renaming "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Technically correct, but why bother? Same deal with the category name. "New Spain" is usually what it's called, so that's what it should be named. Category:New Spain is older, of course, and you created Category:Viceroyalty of New Spain—I'm not sure why, if it was a fork or what ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general rule seems to be there only needs to be place identifiers beyond the name when the name itself is ambiguous. Peru alone is ambiguous, New Spain is not. In general we do not specify the type of subdivision we are dealing with when just naming the place creats no ambiguity. Category:New Spain is not ambiguous and so should be the prefered form. The discussion about Sutherland above provides clear proof that there is no reason to have type of place modifiers when a place name is not ambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge - duplicate categories, and the short form is more common. Neutralitytalk 05:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • reverse merge to match the contents of Category:Viceroyalties of the Spanish Empire where each viceroyalty is named as such. It is the article that should be renamed, not the category. Hmains (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Article names are selected according to WP:UCN, not so that all the viceroyalties will be named in the same format. For this entity, the common name is "New Spain". I don't think you could successfully get the article renamed, but if users want to start a move discussion and then base the name of the category on the result, I would gladly take that bet. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:23, 8 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:Palestinian Roman Catholic saints[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. It's probably best to start again on this matter rather than try to define & purge a messy name. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Palestinian Roman Catholic saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Complicated, probably delete. This category has no explanatory force because it is unclear if it refers to the modern Arabic-speaking Palestinians or the residents of the many earlier states and regions called Palestine. Also, goes it trouble anyone else that people who lived before the East-West Schism are called "Roman Catholic Saints"? I really think this category is deeply flawed, imposing two modern descriptors "R. Catholic" and "Palestinian" on mostly ancient people. At minimum it needs some disambiguation. At this point, though I would suspect deletion would be needed first.--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 04:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the whole Saints categories need to be rehtought. We cdurrently have St. Paul the Apostle in the category Category:Anglican Saints. This type of categorizing people by posthumous designations is an interesting occuparnce. However I am not sure this is any more or less egregious than this category. We maybe should adopt the rule, people can be saints of any faith that recognizes them as such, but they should only be saint by faith + nationality/ethnic identifier when they clearly were part of the named faith. Thus Mother Theresa counts as an Albanian Roman Catholic Saint, but a 4th century martyr from the area that is now Albania does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if we adopt the new guidelines for inclusion we could purge this category down to those who were clearly both Roman Catholic and Palestinian, then see if it is worth keeping. I am hesitant to do the purging without some support from others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 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:Native birds of Southwestern Canada[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) 10:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Native birds of Southwestern Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename or merge. No such place as "southwestern Canada" (see regions of Canada). I think the creators meant the Canadian Prairies, in which case merge to Category:Native birds of the Canadian Prairies. Alternatively, rename it to a region, either biological or political, which actually exists. Failing that, delete. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 04:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've alerted the category creator. Palliser's Triangle and my own Google searching for the term "Southwestern Canada" make me think that there could indeed be a habitat region in the southern Prairies than is quite distinct from what one would find in the central and northern regions. But until someone writes an article on the subject, by this or any other name, delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The most south-westerly place in Canada is without question the southern end of Vancouver Island. This place is west of virtually all of Canada, and it is south of everywhere west of some point in Ontario. It appears though that this is not the place meant by the use here, which means it is a misleading use and so the category should be delted. The only other contestant for south-west Canada is Windsor, Ontario and its environs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 7 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:United Kingdom graffiti artists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename (or at least semi-speedy). Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United Kingdom graffiti artists to Category:British graffiti artists
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:British artists. Why use UK and not British? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 5 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:Rastafari[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename per C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rastafari to Category:Rastafari movement
Nominator's rationale: Per main article and Talk:Rastafari_movement/Archive_6#Move_to_Rastafari, as the outcome of a previous discussion —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:57, 5 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_5&oldid=1076515867"