Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 10

< March 9	March 11 >

March 10[edit]

Category:Coastal cities by country[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Technical nomination. Found as incomplete doing cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Muslim related controversies in Europe[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) 13:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Apart from the required hyphen, these controversies are generally related more to (alleged) tenets of Islam (the religion) than Muslims (adherents of that religion). Compare also the name of Category:Islam-related controversies. --Lambiam 20:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, I had a think about this very issue when I made the new categories - & I believe in these sub-categories the Muslim term may fit better. These categories are sub-categories of the larger Islam controversies category. However, these new categories are focused geographically at a more local level, and incorporate controversial actions & behaviour by Muslims directly - sometimes, individuals. Yes, of course the Muslims in question follow Islam, but the Euro category isn't about macro theological issues (within Islam) per se that the parent category (Islam related controversies) covers (like Islamism). The Europe topic especially is about Muslims doing Muslim things in a non-Muslim society - hence, the controversies that are generated. These controversies are often locally focused. Indeed, pages on Muslims individuals have long been housed within the wider Islam controversies category - but, they themselves aren't one-man theological disputes. Perhaps saying Islam related is semantics. Best, Tryptobieno (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the individual articles in these categories, of course several involve viewpoints of or acts by Muslims, but in almost all cases they are Islam-related; in some cases because they describe acts motivated by an appeal to what the perpetrators think are tenets of Islam (e.g. the murder of Theo van Gogh), in other cases because they describe issues with (real or perceived) Islamist agendas (e.g. Islamic Forum of Europe). Articles like 2006 Idomeneo controversy and Fitna (film) do not involve any identifiable Muslims or Muslim behaviour. Likewise, for example, Category:Blood libel is a subcategory of the aptly named Category:Judaism-related controversies; even though the blood-libel canard supposedly involves behaviour by Jews "directly", Category:Jew-related controversies would be a misnomer. --Lambiam 18:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename Excellent rationale, thank you. Best, Tryptobieno (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Human migrations[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, but reassort articles as needed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Human migrations to Category:Human migration

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Are these a duplication, or were they meant to be different? Either way it would be simpler if they were merged, whatever subtle difference there was between the two has been lost Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one (the plural) is about particular human migrations, the other (singular) is about the concept of human migration. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Westlife category[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Westlife category to Category:Westlife

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the naming conventions of other eponymous categories within Category:Categories named after musical groups. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per nom. "category" in category names are generally never needed. jonkerz♠ 22:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would say "rarely needed." For example, the mathematics-related Category:Category theory is properly named. Ma^t_chups 19:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Psychiatric nursing organisations[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Over-categorization: there is only one page in this cat. Generally, there is only one specialty organization per specialty. All other specialty organizations are grouped under Nursing organizations. This one needs to be deleted. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 17:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overcategorization. If ever more specialty organizations get articles (most of these specialty organizations are also national, so there may be French, German, etc organizations) the category could be recreated. --Crusio (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this category and I agree that it is an overextension of categorization. I'm happy so long as the Category: Psychiatric nursing is retained. - I'm sorry for putting a hang-on tag on this particular category. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Road infrastructure of Israel[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Road infrastructure of Israel to Category:Road infrastructure in Israel

Nominator's rationale: Infrastructure is in not of a country Hugo999 (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and other similar cats.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename all the subcategories within this one use "in", as do all of the other corresponding categories in the paren Category:Road infrastructure by country. Alansohn (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Film Project redirects[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: These categories were created to contain redirects that fall under the scope of WikiProjects Film and Television. Toward this end, however, they are neither accurate nor necessary. They are not accurate because the scope of their member categories exceeds the scope of the WikiProjects. For example, categories for redirects from fictional characters and elements are not limited only to the mediums of film and television, and their scope can extend to classical literature, comics, radio and web fiction. They are not necessary because a system for categorizing redirects by WikiProject already exists—where enabled, "class=Redirect" in WikiProject banners (on the talk pages of redirects) populates a WikiProject-specific subcategory of Category:Redirect-Class articles—and it was decided, in a recent discussion, that there is no reason to develop a new system. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these should be covered by the wikiproject banner's "Class=redirect" option. And they don't appear to exceed the scope of the Wikiprojects, since the wikiprojects seem to address elements of television or film (such as characters), it just exceeds the scope of the topic called "film" or "television" in a strict sense. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – redundant. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Comics article redirects[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Comics article redirects to Category:Comics redirects

Nominator's rationale: Per the "Foo redirects" convention used in Category:Redirects by topic and by the subcategories of this category—e.g. Category:Comics redirects with possibilities. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – The is no point specifying that the redirects redirect to articles. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Redirects to Nintendo-related topics[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: It does not seem useful to categorize these types of redirects in this manner. To quote a comment on the category's talk page:

What's being solved here that couldn't be solved with putting the erdirects [sic] in Category:Nintendo and its children? I'm thinking of clearing this category out and marking it for deletion, but I want to hear if there was a plan... -- nae'blis 14:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In examining the category's contents, it appears that there is no need even to relocate the redirects to another category, since the targets of the redirects are properly categorized. It may be useful to categorize, for example, redirects from fictional characters to lists of characters—where the redirects could be placed in subcategories of Category:Fictional characters—but it is not necessary to do this for redirects from alternative titles, such as Nintendo Wii → Wii.

If there is no consensus to delete, then rename to Category:Nintendo redirects per the "Foo redirects" convention of Category:Redirects by topic. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "cvgproj|Nintendo=yes|class=redirect" should cover these. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unnecessary grouping of related redirects. If we had a category for every topic of redirects, it would be ridiculously impossible to tag them all. The only categories for topics of redirects should be container categories for very general topics. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Composer redirects[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) 13:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The occupation of the target article's subject is a sub-optimal way to subdivide and organize redirects. The fact that the subject of the target article is/was a composer says nothing about the redirect: what purpose it serves or in what way its title differs from the title of the target. See the similar discussion for Template:R to poet, which ended with the deletion of the template and Category:Poet redirects. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought it useful because of how composers are usually referred to only by their surnames, ie. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart. These surname pages are usually set indexes but in the case of famous composers they're redirects. This category serves as a way to collate these major composer surname redirects in one place. -- œ^™ 22:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This situation does not appear to be unique to composers. For example, Churchill → Winston Churchill (politician), Einstein → Albert Einstein (scientist), Hemingway → Ernest Hemingway (writer), Keynes → John Maynard Keynes (economist), Poe → Edgar Allan Poe (poet and writer), Shakespeare → William Shakespeare (playwright) and Yeats → William Butler Yeats (poet). In each case, the person shares his surname with several other notable individuals, yet the surname page is not a disambiguation page.
  It all depends, I think, on how well-known a person is (relative to others who share his or her surname) and how many others share the surname. In the case of composers, too, well-known composers with unique surnames generally will have the surname as a redirect to the article, while lesser-known composers with common surnames generally will not. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right. So seeing as these redirects are an exception to the rule, shouldn't we keep track of them in a category? -- œ^™ 10:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Category:Redirects from surnames already exists. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unnecessary grouping of related redirects. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Redirects from surnames. Deleting loses the categorization intended for all redirects from surnames.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the redirects now transclude {{R from surname}}, which automatically adds them to Category:Redirects from surnames and Category:Surnames. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, then if that's true, then just delete it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of fictional criminals[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; although it seems that it can be recreated once there are more pages to go here other than just the one (List of fictional crime bosses). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Lists of fictional criminals to Category:Lists of fictional characters by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Only one article in category. I suppose someday we might have List of fictional jewel thieves, but in that eventuality we could recreate this. Ma^t_chups 03:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom, since there's only one. - Ruodyssey (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge per nom. -- œ ^™ 22:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiChiro Bureaucrats[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 11:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete There are only 3 bureaucrats on WikiChiro [1] and chances are they already know one another. So this category is not particularly helpful. Pichpich (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A category that groups users by a particular user access level on a non-WMF wiki does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration on Wikipedia and seems, on the whole, unrelated to the project. The information can be (and is, in fact) expressed via text on user pages. I would support creating Category:Wikipedians interested in chiropractic (subcategory of Category:Wikipedians interested in alternative medicine issues or Category:Wikipedians by interest) for editors who have an interest in the topic. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pretty useless. -- œ ^™ 22:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and past precedent against categories like this. VegaDark (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 10[edit]

Cross-country skiing biography stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy

Category:Finnish cross country skiing biography stubs to Category:Finnish cross-country skiing biography stubs — C2C. Bring in line with other cross-country categories and articles. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Norwegian cross country skiing biography stubs to Category:Norwegian cross-country skiing biography stubs — C2C. Bring in line with other cross-country categories and articles. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Russian cross country skiing biography stubs to Category:Russian cross-country skiing biography stubs — C2C. Bring in line with other cross-country categories and articles. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose the above three. Stub categories should be discussed at WP:SFD. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 23:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps we could make an exception in this case, since the change effectively is just a typo fix (C2A). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd agree that we should just do this. I've never understood why stub categories aren't subject to the same speedy rename rules as "regular" categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To hyphenate "cross country", per Category:Cross-country skiing biography stubs. For future reference, I would like to solicit opinions on whether stub categories should be speedily renamed in cases, such as this one, where they clearly meet one or more of the speedy criteria. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support renames. As far as speedying goes, in simple cases like this, it's almost certainly fine, as long as equivalent changes are also made to the canonical stub list. The main bugbear might be that there are some cases which would be speediable for permcats which might not be as clear-cut for stub cats. (e.g., the differing uses of demonyms with stub cats compared to permcats, in an attempt to walk a reasonable line between grammatical and non-cumbersome names - such as the US history books case you recently brought here). Things like hyphenation seem perfectly acceptable for speedying, though. Grutness...wha? 03:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems reasonable. Minor changes affecting spelling or punctuation (C2.A) can be processed through speedy renaming, with corresponding updates made to the stub list, and changes to words or their ordering (C2.B and C2.C) should be brought here for closer consideration. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Underpopulated scientist categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was upmerge

Category:Turkish scientist stubs. Currently only 1 article, supplied by {{Turkey-botanist-stub}}. {{Turkey-scientist-stub}} would only add 19 artciles. Propose upmerging the botanist template and deleting category.
Category:Soviet scientist stubs. Currently only one article, supplied by {{USSR-botanist-stub}}. There is no {{USSR-scientist-stub}}. Propose upmerging template and deleting category.

Dawynn (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Algerian writer stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was upmerge

I tried to populate this guy, but only found 29 stub articles. I believe the category was premature. Proposing deleting the category, double-upmerging the template to Category:African writer stubs and Category:Algerian people stubs. Dawynn (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to nominate a few other Algeria-related categories that were created prematurely:

Category:Algerian company stubs (17 P)
Category:Algerian government stubs (31 P)
Category:Algerian law stubs (5 P)
Category:Oran Province geography stubs (19 P)
Category:Algerian writer stubs (29 P)

Propose upmerging all of these. Dawynn (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Redirected categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete all

Also from the stub type sizes list. I question the helpfulness of redirect categories. I propose deleting all of the existing redirect categories:

Dawynn (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in soft redirects for stub categories, since they're always populated by templates. These can happily be deleted. Grutness...wha? 21:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, there's really little or no use for redirects to template-populated maintenance categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Yugoslavian film stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, use the Yugoslav one instead

Found with the March 9 Stub type sizes list. The template listed here actually loads to Category:Yugoslav film stubs instead. Dawynn (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this can be done speedy IMO (as I created it). Now superceded following the rename of the Yugo' cats. Lugnuts (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.