Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 1 March 3 >

March 2[edit]

Category:Queens regnant in the British Isles[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. Some of the mythical entries have been removed since comments were made here, but an overall nomination of Category:Royalty in the British Isles and the relevant subcategories may be better for handling some of the issues raised here. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing deletion Category:Queens regnant in the British Isles.
Nominator's rationale: British Isles is a geographic term, not a political term.
GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Its poorly populated anyway with at least one semi-mythical name. --Snowded TALK 19:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The fact that British Isles is a geographic term is not relevant. This category is up for deletion simply because some editors object to the term "British Isles" and work to remove it from Wikipedia. If "Britain and Ireland" had been used you can bet it would not be proded. LemonMonday Talk 20:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see why breakdown by region is not possible. Though country categories should exist underneath this region category. Or possibly upmerge into a Category:Queens regnant in Europe as a better larger category to collect countries into. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – part of Category:Royalty in the British Isles. And nominators really ought to think more carefully before saying 'delete' when they mean (I hope) upmerge. And it is not poorly populated either unless one fails to notice 2 substantial subcats. Occuli (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Utter trivial. Breaches WP:OVERCAT in terms of location and probably just WP:OVERCAT period as in the case of Liz she already have over 130 categories. It uses a geographic term in a political situation which can confuse the reader and the nail in the coffin for me is that the term British Isles remains controversial. Bjmullan (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Queens regnant in Europe. These British Isles category are an un-necessary sub-grouping of Europe, based on a non-neutral geographical construct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must oppose this proposal as it stands - there needs to be a proper rethink of the category system that includes Category:Royalty in the British Isles and Category:Monarchs in the British Isles - as long as we have those (and Category:Queens regnant), then this forms a natural intersection. The arguments about British Isles being a geographical term and "controversial" carry no weight with me, though if someone can come up with a neater overall arrangement, I'd have no objection. (Perhaps we shouldn't really be categorizing reigning Queens separately from Kings at all - we don't normally split categories up by sex, do we?) --Kotniski (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These categories have long been accepted (see the archives somewhere) - after all they are not separating by gender but by job - there are no male queens or female kings. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the job is the same - only the name is different, like actor/actress, and we don't have a separate Category:Actresses. Of course the job (position) of queen consort is different, so certainly we should have a category for those, but I don't see much reason to keep the reigning queens separate from the kings. (Though I suspect this is off topic for this proposal.) --Kotniski (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Those who keep insisting that the term British Isles is "purely geographical" (which it isn't, anyway - it's also culturual, for example) seem to have forgotten that geography includes human geography, and this encompasses the study of how humans organise themselves into societies and states. ðarkuncoll 09:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I see little value in it, particularly with the addition of mythical characters such as Cordelia. Deb (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per opposers. Nom probably motived by political POV. Historians (increasingly) take the British Isles as a unit all the time. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, I'm not motivated by political PoV. I've no sympathy for those who object to the term British Isles, because they believe it offends the Irish. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough, but especially in remoter periods, the British Isles are not just a geographical unit but a cultural one too, & there is nothing wrong with such categories. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a point of order, there is no such thing as the "British Isles naming dispute". The fact there's an article about it doesn't mean it exists in the real world. LemonMonday Talk 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"British Isles" carries historical and political overtones. It implicitly asserts that Ireland and other places are British. Avoidance of the term suggests assertion or acquiescence of the opposite. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it, but that's garbage. LemonMonday Talk 22:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the only objection to the existence of these categories is the fact that they contain the phrase "British Isles", then perhaps it's enough to rename them rather than to restructure them? Or to split them into separate categories for British and Irish (assuming there are some specifically Irish rulers in there somewhere)? I guess the reason they're called British Isles is that many of the British monarchs were also monarchs of Ireland (or of a United Kingdom that included all or part of Ireland), so the name is actually intended to be inclusive of Ireland, not to assert dominance over it.--Kotniski (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with renaming is that it panders to the political POV of those who wish to remove the term from Wikipedia. The fact is that it's the only term that describes the entire group of islands, and is the most common and widely understood term. And nor does it imply political control, either, since it dates back to Ancient Greek times. It is perfectly normal practice to name a group of islands after its largest island - indeed, in this case, the island appears to have taken its name from the group, rather than the other way round (and, much later, the British state took its name from the island). ðarkuncoll 11:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there were any alternative with any common usage we would not be here, but Category:Queens regnant in the Northern Archipelago doesn't work. If the Irish lived in Canada we'd be having these discussions about "North American" categories. Johnbod (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"IONA" doesn't work either, since that's rather shortsighted and parochial, as if the entire North Atlantic were composed of Great Britain and Ireland. (as if Iceland weren't an island, or in the North Atlantic... or Martha's Vineyard, or Bermuda...) 65.93.14.50 (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not pretend the problem is harder than it is; "Britain and Ireland" is a perfectly good (though some would say less neat) alternative to "British Isles" in this context.--Kotniski (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That term is misleading, because it excludes the Isle of Man and all the other smaller islands. In fact, there is no problem with terminology here. The only problem is that of disruptive, politically motivated editors. ðarkuncoll 12:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite apolitical. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strongly oppose deleting - This is a very valid category and there is no need for it to be removed considering how much shared history within these islands (including the Isle of Man) there is regarding monarchy. I see the crusades are still ongoing to try and rid wikipedia of the British Isles. Im trying to avoid it entirely but i could not help but notice this one. sigh BritishWatcher (talk) 13:28, 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:KLF articles by quality[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) 00:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:KLF articles by quality to Category:The KLF articles by quality
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. The nominated category is populated by subcategories which are empty. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:03, 2 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 by WikiProject[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 and clean up subsequently. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Redirects by WikiProject to Category:Redirects by topic
Nominator's rationale: Despite the claimed difference in scope, both categories contain subcategories of redirects about various topics, such as anime and manga, comics, geography, Middle-earth and philosophy. In addition, there is no need for a new system of categorizing redirects by WikiProject, since this can be accomplished by specifying the "class=Redirect" in the WikiProject banner (on the talk pages of redirects) and already is utilized by many WikiProjects (see Category:Redirect-Class articles). -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WikiProject redirects. That should be done via the WikiProject Banner redirect-class. As WikiProject redirect classifications are not necessarily by topic, they should not be merged together, since the wikiproject classed redirects may be peripherally related, and thus not appropriate for a topical based heirarchy. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct that the overlap is not perfect, but that can be cleaned up after the merge. Deleting the category without merging will remove some of the categories from Category:Wikipedia redirects. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shouldn't that be a manual recategorization then, instead of a heirarchy merge? 65.93.14.50 (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some manual recategorization and rescoping of subcategories will be needed; in order to start it, however, we would need to discontinue this particular method of categorizing redirects by WikiProject. Merging will result in a category like Category:Film Project redirects becoming a subcategory of redirects by topic, which is not accurate, but I plan to nominate it soon after Category:Redirects by WikiProject is gone. In essence, merging is just a way to keep all of the subcategories together so that subsequent clean-up will be easier. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:34, 5 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:Mutualism[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: Split to Category:Mutualism (movement) and Category:Mutualism (economic theory). Timrollpickering (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mutualism to Category:Mutualism (movement)
Nominator's rationale: Mutualism is a dab. I suggest renaming this category to match main article Mutualism (movement). See also older discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_26#Category:Mutualism. jonkerz♠ 15:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Mutualism (movement) only became a "main article" contender when the creator of the article removed the Category:Mutualism tags from Mutualism (economic theory) and rewrote the category page. There seems to be a single editor [maybe a couple of editors now] intent on creating a historically shaky distinction between the cooperative movement and the forms of mutualism associated with anarchism. Libertatia (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear to me what problem a split would solve. The Mutualism (movement) article was created to distinguish a "politically neutral movement" from the "anarchist school of thought" covered in the Mutualism (economic theory) article. There is undoubtedly a need for an article that treats mutualism more broadly. Unfortunately, the "politically neutral movement," if such a thing really exists, doesn't seem to answer that need any better than the article focused on anarchism. But the current disambiguation at Mutualism at least ended the edit wars without quite creating a POV-fork. There is no question that some adjustment is needed on the Category:Mutualism page, since it is currently trying to be both a top-level category page, including Category:Mutualism (biology) and the various articles relating to mutuals. It would be consistent with the current scheme to spin off subcategories for Category:Mutualism (movement) and Category:Mutualism (economic theory), without renaming the page. My concern is that, should we actually be able to move forward with the development of a more comprehensive treatment of mutualism, we're going to end up categorizing identical organizations in different categories, based on whether or not they were started by anarchists, etc. Libertatia (talk)
I nominated this category to disambiguate the movement and theory from the term used in biology, and this is what a split/rename would solve. Mutualism (biology) and Category:Mutualism (biology) should not be a part of Category:Mutualism, but Mutualism (economic theory) should; I only left them as is to avoid skewing the nomination in "my" favor. There is no need for a category containing all of them.
How I think about this is like you mentioned, that:
  1. not all mutualism is anarchistic, and
  2. the anarchist school of thought is a subset of the broader movement.
Given these two premises there are no other options than renaming the category or spliting it since we need to disambiguate the society-related subjects from the biology-relates ones. Currently this is the way that the main articles are organized, and the category/categories should reflect this. Keeping it undisambiguated in not an option in my opinion. jonkerz♠ 00:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting off the biological term makes perfect sense. I'm open to suggestions about what to call the category for anarchist mutualism and the various mutuals, but for a variety of practical reasons would hate to see anarchist mutualism (which is indeed a subset of the larger mutualism) continue to be separated. (Like you, I've put off restoring the category tag on Mutualism (economic theory) and a couple of other pages until this is resolved.) Libertatia (talk)
Sounds good. I think the easiest way to close this discussion is as a split/rename using the current main article names as category names, and then start a move request on the articles you would like to see moved. (The categories will then be speedily renamed to match the main articles.) I hope that is fair for all editors involved. jonkerz♠ 22:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you are abolutely right that Mutualism (movement) looks like a POV fork -- it does not even mention Mutualism (economic theory). jonkerz♠ 00:07, 7 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:Greek architecture[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Greek architecture to Category:Architecture of Greece
Nominator's rationale - Greek architecture is a collection of various architectural points that can be done by non-Greeks anywhere or Greeks far from Greece. As a sub-category of architecture by contry this article should emphazie its country connection, and clearly state we are talking about Greece and not Greek in some other sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:09, 2 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:Nigerian television series[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Nigerian television series to Category:Television series of Nigeria
Nominator's rational Nigerian is unclear whether it referes to Nigeria or Niger, so we should chose forms that make it 100% clear which of these countries is being referred to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The demonym for Niger is "Nigerien," not "Nigerian."--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Mike Selinker is correct. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mike. Niger uses the French-ified "Nigerien", which is typically pronounced quite differently from "Nigerian", even if they differ by only one letter. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mike Selinker. Cjc13 (talk) 13:07, 3 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:Chinese Game Shows[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. If the overall category tree is considered in future don't regard this CFD as a binding precedent. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Chinese game shows to Game shows of the People's Republic of China
Nominator's Rational as a sub-category of Category:game shows by country this category should clearly indicate 1 country, however it currently could easily also include Game Shows made in Taiwan, and conceivably game shows made in the Chinese language in say Singapore, so it should be re-named for more precision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:20, 2 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:Hartt College of Music alumni[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) 00:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Hartt College of Music alumni with Category:The Hartt School alumni
Nominator's rational These are the same institution. The later is the name of the article on this institution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:40, 2 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:Georgian 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) 00:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Georgian awards to Category:Awards of Georgia (country)
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Category:Georgian people, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#Category:Georgian culture and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 14#Category:Georgian society, where other "Georgian" categories were renamed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:36, 2 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:Liberian foreign ministers[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 per nom. Category:Foreign ministers is highly mixed on capitalising "ministers" and this issue is best dealt with in a wider nomination Timrollpickering (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Liberian foreign ministers to Category:Foreign Ministers of Liberia
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match common convention for name, see Category:Foreign ministers of Libya etc. TM 04:17, 2 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:Officer Education System[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: Convert to article. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to article Category:Officer Education System to article Officer Education System
Nominator's rationale: Convert. It looks like article text created in category space, so the extended text should be moved to article space. I'm not sure if the category should be retained as well to hold what it currently holds, but that is an option. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 2 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.

Limerick[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename all to clarify that this refers to the city of Limerick, not the wider area of County Limerick (for which we have Category:County Limerick).
Note that the mayors category is included because in Ireland counties also have mayors (since the Local Government Act 2001). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 2 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_2&oldid=1138395419"