Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 16

< June 15	June 17 >

June 16[edit]

Category:LGBT agnostics[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:LGBT atheists was deleted in 2009. I think the same basic rationale applies to this new category as well: "Per WP:CATGRS, 'Categories should not be based on sexuality unless the sexuality has a specific relation to the topic.' Unlike Category:LGBT Christians and others in Category:LGBT people by religion, there is no article about LGBT [agnostics], and that topic is not well covered by reliable sources." Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is a limited category of persons who are categorized as agnostics and LGBT people. Wikix (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The intersection of these 2 attributes is very limited and borders on pov pushing.Curb Chain (talk) 07:36, 17 June 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:Vaccine critics[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:Anti-vaccination activists. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT#OPINION discourages categorizing people by their views. In addition, opposition to vaccines is not a defining characteristic for most people. szyslak (t) 23:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creator comment I don't feel strongly one way or another and could be persuaded either way. Perhaps renaming it to "Anti-vaccine Activists" preserves something important. It's not clear to me if this level of filtering is good for the encyclopedia. By no means is it obvious one way or the other what should be done under a common sense policy. Deletion or not, at best this is going to be a change that results to little or no improvement to the encyclopedia, it's just change. At worst, it's stepping on some editor's toes (don't count me and this particular case, I don't really care about this one... I'm talking in general). Is it worth potentially alienating editors over changes that are of questionable worth? I don't think so. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Anti-vaccination activists. About half the entries are organizations critical of some aspect of vaccination, and there are a handful of people such as Neil Z. Miller or Eleanor McBean who are indeed defined by their opposition to vaccination. The great majority of people listed here would be removed as their positions on the matter are ill-defined (the various alternative medicine advocates) and/or undefining (Jim Carrey? Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.? Seriously?).- choster (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jim Carrey got into the anti-vaccination movement via his relationship with Jenny McCarthy. McCarthy is quite active in the movement, but I don't think Carrey is self-standingly known for this as McCarthy is. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Carrey's notability as a vaccine critic is far less in comparison to his other attributes than is McCarthy's. He probably ought not to be included. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with choster that this could probably be renamed to Category:Anti-vaccination activists and appropriately purged. There certainly are some who are primarily defined by their opposition to vaccination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to Category:Anti-vaccination activists as alternatively proposed. Alansohn (talk) 21:28, 21 June 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:Agent 51[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:Agent 51 albums. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too small —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Agent 51 albums (which is what they are). Occuli (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Occuli. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:13, 17 June 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:Acoustic Alchemy[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) 19:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too small. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:53, 16 June 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:Against (American band)[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) 19:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too small —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls under WP:OC#Eponymous. No need to have an eponymous category when you can link to all articles within the category from the eponymous article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:12, 17 June 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:2PM[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) 19:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too small —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it contains seven entries. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too small. Navigation from 2PM and Template:2PM should be encouraged instead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 18 June 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:2AM[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) 19:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too small —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Category:2PM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:36, 18 June 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:Farming history[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) 19:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Farming history to Category:History of agriculture

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Farming redirects to Agriculture. No good reason for separate categories for their histories. Mhockey (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I suppose it could be argued that "farming" is a slightly more narrow concept than "agriculture", but certainly the difference is not significant enough to have separate category trees. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agree that "farming" could be treated slightly differently to "agriculture", but the deciding factor is that Farming redirects to Agriculture. Categories should service articles, and therefore should follow their lead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 18 June 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:Carland Cross[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) 19:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category appears to link together four articles entitled "Carland Cross [(x)]" of which only 2 are related and 1 being a disambiguation page. There seems to be no reason for this category to exist. Zangar (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another category functioning as a disambiguation page, which is not the purpose of categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not the purpose of categories.Curb Chain (talk) 07:33, 17 June 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.

Guildford School of Acting[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) 19:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Guildford School of Acting

Nominator's rationale: Cannot for the life of me see any reason for this as it just contains the eponymous article and an alumni subcat. The subcat has plenty of parent cats. Please can we delete.Fmph (talk) 12:08, 16 June 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.

Norwegian State Railways[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 rename, revisit if the main articles are clarified & moved. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Norges Statsbaner locomotives to Category:Norwegian State Railways locomotives

Propose renaming Category:Norges Statsbaner people to Category:Norwegian State Railways people

Propose renaming Category:NSB multiple units to Category:Norwegian State Railways multiple units

Nominator's rationale: Match name of article, Norwegian State Railways, and the top category, Category:Norwegian State Railways Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 15#Category:Norges Statsbaner. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: For some items in category, their main article is not Norwegian State Railways, but is Norwegian State Railways (1883–1996). Note that Norwegian State Railways started life as NSB, before being moved to Norges Statsbaner in July 2005 to remove the abbreviation. It was moved to Norwegian State Railways in December 2009 to apple Wikipedia's Use English Rule (but might now be breaking the OR rule. Now that the present, private company, and defunct state-owned organisation have separate articles, then they can also have separate categories. – Iain Bell (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Might a suggest that Norwegian State Railways be moved to Norges Statsbaner or Norges Statsbaner AS (its untranslated legal name), and Norwegian State Railways (1883–1996) is then moved to Norwegian State Railways. Both would then have better, more concise names. – Iain Bell (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All Norwegian government agencies and enterprises have official English names; there is consensus among editors of Norway-related topics to use these rather than the Norwegian names, which is fully in line with WP:Use English. For instance, see [1]. I don't per se have a problem with multiple categories for the former and the current companies, although there is a certain overlap. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:39, 17 June 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.

British dukedoms[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 move. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dukedoms of England to Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of England

Propose renaming Category:Dukedoms of Scotland to Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of Scotland

Propose renaming Category:Dukedoms of Ireland to Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of Ireland

Propose renaming Category:Dukedoms of Great Britain to Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of Great Britain

Propose renaming Category:Dukedoms of the United Kingdom to Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Gives it a name parallel to "Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom", "Earls in the Peerage of the United Kingdom", etc. After I created the dukedom categories, I noticed that the names didn't fit in with the more established "duke" and "earl" categories. Although "United Kingdom" and "Great Britain" are in other contexts understood as two names for the same country, these are in fact five separate peerage lists. A dukedom in the peerage of England is never a dukedom in the peerage of Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Kauffner (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. jorgenev 05:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all but should the last one be Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of the United Kingdom? Hugo999 (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fixed Kauffner (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming. Consistency is beauty, but here facts get in the way and the proposed titles in Scotland's case is a subcategory of the current name rather than a synonym. There was no peerage of Scotland until the 1440s, but there were two duchies (Albany and Rothesay) for nearly half a century before. These were later part of the peerage of Scotland 'tis true (if a royal duke is actually a peer (="an equal"), which I don't think he would have been in the late middle ages), but these duchies lie outside the peerage too. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this is not a proposed "renaming" (sic). The proposed new cats completely alter the scope of the existing categorisation, and are in fact sub-cats of the existing cats. Simply go ahead and create the new cats if you feel you must, and then add them as sub-cats of the existing super-cats. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:08, 19 June 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:19th-century buildings and structures in Louisville, Kentucky[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) 19:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:18th-century buildings and structures in Louisville, Kentucky to Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 18th century and Category:Buildings and structures in Louisville, Kentucky

Propose merging Category:19th-century buildings and structures in Louisville, Kentucky to Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 19th century and Category:Buildings and structures in Louisville, Kentucky

Nominator's rationale: Merge. These appear to be the only two city categories with a breakout of buildings by century. There is no need for this to aid navigation. Merge to the two main parents. Everything else in this tree is pretty much broken out by year and type of building, but not by city by time period. Once upmerged, the articles can migrate to individual by year categories when someone looks at them. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose These two cats work to organize Category:Buildings and structures in Louisville, Kentucky. I see the issue at Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 19th century, but this proposal is not the solution. Unscintillating (talk) 18:54, 18 June 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:Striborg albums[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, with no prejudice against subsequent speedy deletion as an empty category (under CSD C1) should its only article, Spiritual Catharsis, be deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no point creating a category for a single entry. and the single entry I'm nominating for deletion in any case so this could be an empty category. also not sure if this band is even still active, so little chance of category being expanded. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for result on article. I believe the pattern is to keep categories for albums by artist even for single albums. - Fayenatic (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe it is worth keeping categories on any topic for single entries. that is not what categories are for. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – pending result of afd. The purpose of categories is to capture defining characteristics, such as the artist who recorded an album, the author of a book, the painter of a picture etc etc. (Striborg, who sounds quite engaging, has in fact has recorded several albums.) Occuli (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a long-standing policy for creating single-entry categories in the structure of Albums by X, as it's the primary defining attribute. Same as books by author and films by director. Lugnuts (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body: "Previous discussions have formed the consensus that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future)." Moot if album article is deleted in AFD. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:09, 17 June 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.