Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 5 June 7 >

June 6[edit]

Category:Culture-specific syndromes[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) 10:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Culture-specific syndromes to Category:Culture-bound syndromes
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:32, 6 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:Jews with Aspergers[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) 10:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jews with Aspergers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an unnecessary intersection and one that is not particularly relevant. Categorizing the person in Category:People with Asperger syndrome and appropriate subcategories of Category:Jews is sufficient. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Category:Musicians with Aspergers (same creator) to the nomination for the same reasons. BencherliteTalk 11:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response A musician being blind or deaf is extraordinary--the simple fact that someone can play or compose without hearing or being able to see the instrument is noteworthy. Autism spectrum disorders have no inherent conflict with playing music. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Indeed, but it's the inherent "giftedness" which is of interest. Asperger syndrome#Cultural aspects and this article refer to some people with AS having advanced abilities in music. (A quick search for "Asperger music" confirms that such a category could be validly populated.) - Fayenatic (talk) 18:48, 9 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:People from Den Bosch[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) 10:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Den Bosch to Category:People from 's-Hertogenbosch
Because it is Category:'s-Hertogenbosch and article 's-Hertogenbosch. It is the official name. Wikix (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to bring in line with article. jorgenev 02:52, 7 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:Registered Historic former synagogues[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) 10:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Registered Historic former synagogues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is not correctly included in one parent, Category:Synagogues by heritage register, but rather it appears to be for synagogues that were previously included on some register. The other parent Category:Former synagogues in the United States is not correct since it includes synagogues from other countries. I suppose that it could be merged to Category:Former synagogues, or better, split into the correct subcategories there, if that is the consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:14, 6 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.

Miss Venezuela[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) 10:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Miss Venezuela titleholders to Category:Miss Venezuela winners
Propose renaming Category:Miss Venezuela International titleholders to Category:Miss Venezuela International winners
Propose renaming Category:Miss Venezuela World titleholders to Category:Miss Venezuela World winners
Nominator's rationale: No other country's pageant winner categories use the term "titleholders."--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:26, 6 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.

More famous animals[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 to individual. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Famous apes to Category:Individual apes
Propose renaming Category:Famous chimpanzees to Category:Individual chimpanzees
Propose renaming Category:Famous gorillas to Category:Individual gorillas
Propose renaming Category:Famous humpback whales to Category:Individual humpback whales
Propose renaming Category:Famous mares to Category:Individual mares
Propose renaming Category:Famous monkeys to Category:Individual monkeys
Propose renaming Category:Famous orangutans to Category:Individual orangutans
Propose renaming Category:Famous orcas to Category:Individual orcas
Propose renaming Category:Famous Warmbloods to Category:Individual warmbloods (and probably split the breeds to Category:Warmbloods)
Propose renaming Category:Named turtles to Category:Individual turtles
Propose renaming Category:Famous organisms to Category:Individual organisms (added McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC) [both its subcategories use "Individual"])[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Famous Connemaras to Category:Individual Connemaras
Propose renaming Category:Famous Trakehners to Category:Individual Trakehners
Nominator's rationale: There is a discussion going on here about the merits of "individual," "named," "notable," and other words that can precede the species of the animal in question. The process of moving from "famous" (which no one seems to like much) to "individual" was started in this closed nomination, and should either be completed for the rest of the "famous" animal categories and this one "named" one, or a new standard should emerge from this discussion. Leaving some as "individual" and some as "famous" and one as "named" seems a poor choice. (As a minor point, I don't see any reason for "Warmbloods" to be capitalized. That category may also need a purging since there seem to be some breeds in there.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy nomination
The issue for all of these is currently being discussed at Category talk:Individual animals; nothing should be done with these until that discussion is concluded. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we know the outcome isn't going to be to go back to "famous". Until something is done, they may as well be consistent. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it seems quite likely that the outcome will be "named", which matches the turtle category. Secondly, I see no reason to rush and rename these. They're all listed on a single page (User:Od Mishehu/individual organisms), and are all part of a single category tree. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't "Warmbloods" be called "Warmbloods (horse)"? Since warmblooded animals could be called warmblood as well. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article for the breed is at Warmblood. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a nomination for these categorieshere.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename to "individual." A better choice would be "named," or "notable," (preferably "notable"), particularly when some articles so categorized may be pairs of teams of animals. Montanabw(talk) 17:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just an aside, the "warmblood" category is a broad group of horse breeds that are heavily used in Olympic level competition. They look remarkably alike to the outsider -- even among horse people -- but to those who care, they have clear differences in pedigree, geographic origins, etc., hence there are a number of "warmblood" breeds (Dutch Warmblood, Swedish Warmblood, American Warmblood, Oldenburger, Hanoverian, Trakehner, etc... you get the picture). To break it down by breed would mean about three horses in each category, and hence the group category. At least, take that one to WikiProject for our comment before deleting. Montanabw(talk) 17:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems necessary to split that category: half of the entries to whatever "individual" category it becomes, and half to "Warmblood breeds" or the like.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Category:Notable -" or "Category:Individual -" This is just to finish what we started.Curb Chain (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated. "Individual" is better than "famous" or "notable", in my opinion, since a category referring to something as "famous" or "notable" is redundant—a WP article would not exist about the individual animal unless it was "notable" or "famous". Also agree with splitting out the warmbloods category, since many included in there are not individual horses. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Individual" per Good Olfactory. jorgenev 03:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – "Individual" is fine. I don't understand why people are still saying "notable" is good. "Notable" solves none of the problems of "famous" and is completely pointless since everything is Wikipedia is supposed to be notable. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; the categories can still include articles about pairs or teams of individual animals of each species/etc. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming. Individual has significant problems associated with it. Please see the discussion linked to at the top. The category includes animals that are not individuals. "Notable" or "famous" or some other solution is needed. It may fit the neat and tidy CfD norms, but this proposal does not serve our readers well. --Dweller (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Individual has significant problems associated with it. I'm afraid the same could be said for "notable" or "famous", so some other standard will need to be used to decide. There is no perfect solution. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there isn't a better solution, renaming to it is a pointless exercise. The current name may not be perfect, but it is not misleading. "Individual" is a misleading name as many of the articles are not about individuals. --Dweller (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't say there wasn't a better one. I said none were perfect. In my opinion, the "individual" option is "better". Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No longer give a flying rip but don't split the "warmblood" category into the constituent breeds because then we'll have about eight cats with one or two animals in each. Montanabw(talk) 18:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - 'Individual' is not a perfect choice, but everything else seems worse. For one thing, I naively expect Category:Famous monkeys to collect those species of monkey that are particularly well-known; I don't see why it is clear that the category should house articles about individual animals. LeSnail (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What about articles about animals that are notable as duos, trios or indeed groups, but not as individuals? Would you expect to find that in "Individual animals"? --Dweller (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The animals in a trio are individuals. I would not expect to find it in a category called "Individual animal," but that isn't what's being proposed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So, to take a human equivalent, you'd expect to find the article for the Dave Clark Five under a notional category of "Individual musicians"? --Dweller (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the closer analogue is Duff sisters. The Dave Clark Five is a band name, but a collection of related people? Sure.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I found two more of these in the subcategories of Category:Individual horses: Category:Famous Connemaras and Category:Famous Trakehners. These two breeds are undoubtedly capitalized, unlike warmbloods. There's also the possibility of just calling those Category:Connemaras and Category:Trakehners, since they are very small categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For clarity and standardisation, I think it would be best to keep the same name format as the rest of categories. If they're named differently, they'd probably be speedily renamed under C2.C at some point.
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:Miss USA representing in the Miss Universe pageant[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) 10:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Miss USA representing in the Miss Universe pageant to Category:Miss USA winners in the Miss Universe pageant
Nominator's rationale: The current name seemed to need some plural noun.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:12, 6 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:Bing[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) 10:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bing to Category:Bing (search engine)
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. This article is about the search engine by Microsoft. JJ98 (Talk) 11:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support highly ambiguous. This could easily be a category for the sound "bing". 65.94.45.185 (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Go for it. As per the guidelines, the category title should match the corresponding article (if there is one). In this case, Bing (search engine) is the article's name. --Damaster98 (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename It is confusing.Curb Chain (talk) 06:32, 7 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:Nickelodeon[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) 10:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Nickelodeon to Category:Nickelodeon (TV channel)
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. This article about the TV channel, not the movie theater and film. JJ98 (Talk) 11:25, 6 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:Horror awards[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) 10:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Horror awards to Category:Horror fiction awards
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 29#Category:Horror. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per my rationale in the previous. jorgenev 07:14, 6 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:Settlements in Nova Scotia[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) 10:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Settlements in Nova Scotia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty category. Replaced by Category:Communities in Nova Scotia.Plasma east (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete (C1). Empty category. jorgenev 03:53, 8 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:Horror by medium[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) 10:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Horror by medium to Category:Horror fiction by medium
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 29#Category:Horror. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:29, 6 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:Shorter College[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) 10:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Shorter College to Category:Shorter University
Propose renaming Category:Shorter College faculty to Category:Shorter University faculty
Propose renaming Category:Shorter College people to Category:Shorter University people
Nominator's rationale: These categories should match main article title Shorter University so as to not be confused with Shorter College (Arkansas). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match article title. jorgenev 05:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:21, 7 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:1900-1949 British children's literature[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) 10:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:1900-1949 British children's literature to Category:20th-century British children's literature
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are 18th-century and 19th-century equivalents--why have one for just half of the 20th? Also, there is no corresponding category for 1950–2000 and 1900 was in the 19th century. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:08, 6 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:Mystery television[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:Mystery television series. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mystery television to Category:Mystery television programs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To clarify that the category is for TV shows within the genre and not the genre itself. Harley Hudson (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggested "programs" because of the difference in meaning between American and British English of the word "series" as applied to television and also so the category can capture non-series mystery programs. But I don't have strong feelings either way. Harley Hudson (talk) 06:08, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_6&oldid=1083678297"