Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 22 April 24 >

April 23[edit]

Category:Female British racing drivers[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) 09:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Female British racing drivers to Category:British racing drivers and Category:Female racing drivers
Propose merging Category:Female English racing drivers to Category:English racing drivers and Category:Female racing drivers
Nominator's rationale: These are the only regional/subregional subcategories of Category:Female racing drivers. I don't believe that the gender+geographical+sport intersection here is defining enough, especially in the absence of an established category tree utilising that intersection, to avoid WP:OC, and thus propose it for double-upmerging. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:08, 23 April 2012 (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:Theorems in Galois theory[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. However, the category is empty, so I will speedy delete it per WP:CSD#C1, without prejudice to recreating it.
Editors may wish to have a wider discussion on the "Theorems in" subcats of Category:Mathematical theorems, possibly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Theorems in Galois theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no reason to diffuse the self-contained Category:Galois theory into a microscopic subcategory. (Part of a massive campaign by Brad7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to totally screw with the existing mathematics categorization.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no opinion on the merits of this category, but it was emptied (and removed from all its head categories) out of process. I have left a note for the nominator about this. – Fayenatic L (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment To understand Professor Biały's comments, it suffices to consult the discussions of Brad's good-faith recategorizations, e.g. at the WikiProject Mathematics and Brad's talk page. Sadly, Brad's efforts are only several orders of magnitude more informed than the generic floundering at "Categories for Discussion/Deletion".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 5:47 pm, Today (UTC+2) —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Proposal: how about renaming it to Galois representations, which is clearly more than Galois theory. -- Taku (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming what? Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing creating a category in lattice theory? (Birkhoff has a discussion of Galois correspondences in his monograph.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: from CfD 2012 April 15
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Mathematics has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see, looking at the related changes, this category only ever had 4 entries, and the parent has only 32. So I don't think that the parent is too large for browsing, but this one was indeed quite tiny and I don't see a high change of growth in the near future. So I agree with: merge this one to its parent (apaprently already done) and delete this one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Related changes looks only at the articles currently linked on the page. I'm not sure if it's useful for telling how many entries there have been in a category. (You can test this by removing an article from a category and then looking at that category's related changes – once you remove the page from the category, it disappears from related changes as well). Jafeluv (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the related changes for the parent category, where the articles were moved back to. I noted only four edits on April 15 that restored the original parent category to various pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that makes sense. Never mind then :) Jafeluv (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment delete, the further sub distinction doesn't seem necessary for navigation.--KarlB (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There may only be a few dozen theorems in Galois Theory notable enough for Wikipedia, and even before depopulation not many were listed here. But that's not a valid reason for deletion. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My general feeling is that having categories of the form "Theorems in..." is a mistake, because most of the categorization is based on the title of an article (a syntactic consideration) rather than on the semantics of what the article is actually about. As an example from a different category, Dilworth's theorem is categorized as a theorem, because it has "theorem" in the title, but with very minor changes the same article could instead have been titled Width (order theory) in which case it would not be classified as a theorem. But, this CfD does not do much to resolve the problematic nature of these categories, because it only affects one relatively insignificant category, and as long as we're keeping the rest of these categories I don't see the additional harm in keeping this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2012 (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:Sports in the Marshall Islands[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: Reverse merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Sports in the Marshall Islands to Category:Sport in the Marshall Islands
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Merging two existing categories; unification with the other categories in Category:Sport by country. Gumruch (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
support speedy close if possible. this one looks like a no brainer. --KarlB (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems to be leaning towards a reverse merge; tagging target and relisting to make sure that users viewing that category will be aware of the discussion and be able to give their opinions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:18, 23 April 2012 (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:Reed aerophones[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: Reverse merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Reed aerophones to Category:Reedpipes
Nominator's rationale: In the Hornbostel–Sachs classification system, 'reed aerophone' is a synonym of 'reedpipe' and both they are designated as 422. Tijd-jp (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2012 (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:History of Albania during Ottoman administration[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) 09:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:History of Albania during Ottoman administration to Category:Ottoman Albania
Nominator's rationale: Merge (or reverse merge) I believe the two categories have the same intended scope. There's no consistency within Category:History of the Ottoman Empire by country so I'm proposing a merge to the oldest and the most populated of the two Albania categories. Pichpich (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2012 (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:Old Westminsters[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 - Note that primary topic is typically trumped by precision when dealing with categories (as opposed to articles). - jc37 06:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming: Category:Old Westminsters to Category:People educated at Westminster School, London
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC and note below) which combines a plain English phrase with the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the category to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
The proposed name follows the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom. Since 305 "Old Fooian" categories have been renamed in 82 separate CfDs, this convention is now used by by all but 11 of the ~1,045 people-by-school categories in the UK. It adds a geogrpahical disambiguator to distinguish the London school from the many other similarly-named schools listed at Westminster School (disambiguation).
Westminster School is one of the most prominent public schools in the United Kingdom. However, the term "Old Westminsters" is highly ambiguous. Westminster (disambiguation) list many different meanings, and an "old Westminster" could refer to all sorts of things, such as an old Westminster car or an old Westminster helicopter. The ambiguity is demonstrated by the fact that a Google News search for the singular form "Old Westminster" throws up masses of false positives. As shown by the table below, the plural term "Old Westminsters" is much less widely-used than the the Old Fooian terms for the two most prominent schools, Eton and Harrow.
Articles Category CER[1] School GNews hits
school name		 GNews hits
"Old Fooian"		 Notes GNews hits
"Old FooianS"		 Notes
360 Old Carthusians C R Charterhouse School 703 97 Abbout 35 of these hits refer old Old Cathusian monks, Old Carthiusian monsateries etc 76 Some of these hits are for the eponymous sports club
285 Old Cliftonians R Clifton College 1240 36 28 Hits mostly relate to the eponymous sports club
2437 Old Etonians C E Eton College 7930 4290 1210
738 Old Harrovians R Harrow School 2980 417 78
188 Old Malvernians R Malvern School 287 7 27 At least 13 of the 27 hits are for the sports club
354 Old Marlburians E Marlborough College 2370 27 12
113 Old Radleians R Radley College 562 8 16
445 Old Rugbeians C R Rugby School 3730 26 20
208 Old Salopians C R Shrewsbury School 1630 38 10
646 Old Westminsters C E Westminster School 11,000 4210 Masses of false positives for "Old Westminster" and "Westminster school" 37
602 Old Wykehamists C R Winchester College 1420 38 20
In previous discussions, some editors have expressed a preference for retaining "Old Fooian" category names for prominent schools. However, there has been a consensus to rename such categories where the "Old Fooian" terms is obscure or ambiguous, including:
24 renamed categories for Old Fooians from prominent schools
Articles Category Old Fooian term School CER[1] CfD
112 People educated at Ampleforth College Old Amplefordians Ampleforth College CfD 2012 March 19
76 People educated at Bradfield College Old Bradfieldians Bradfield College R CfD 2012 March 31
61 People educated at Bryanston School Old Bryanstonians Bryanston School E CfD 2012 March 31
170 People educated at Cheltenham College Old Cheltonians Cheltenham College R CfD 2012 February 29
152 People educated at Christ's Hospital Old Blues Christ's Hospital CfD 2012 April 2
100 People educated at Downside School Old Gregorians Downside School CfD 2012 February 21
250 People educated at Dulwich College Old Alleynians Dulwich College E CfD 2012 April 7
104 People educated at Fettes College Old Fettesians Fettes College CfD 2012 March 19
215 People educated at Gresham's School Old Greshamians Gresham's School CfD 2012 April 14
104 People educated at Highgate School Old Cholmeleian Highgate School E CfD 2012 February 22
148 People educated at King's College School, Wimbledon Old King's King's College School E CfD 2011 August 17 and 2010 November 29
193 People educated at Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood Old Merchant Taylors Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood C CfD 2012 February 11
111 People educated at Millfield Old Millfieldians Millfield CfD 2012 March 19
24 People educated at Monkton Combe School Old Monktonians Monkton Combe School R CfD 2012 March 31
50 People educated at St Edward's School, Oxford Old St Edwards St Edward's School, Oxford R CfD 2012 February 11
74 People educated at Oundle School Old Oundelians Oundle School R CfD 2012 March 31
245 People educated at St Paul's School, London Old Paulines St Paul's School, London C E CfD 2012 February 26
107 People educated at Stowe School Old Stoics Stowe School R CfD 2012 February 9
75 People educated at The King's School, Canterbury Old King's Scholars The King's School, Canterbury E CfD 2012 March 6
144 People educated at Repton School Old Reptonians Repton School R CfD 2012 March 31
122 People educated at Sherborne School Old Shirburnians Sherborne School E CfD 2012 March 31
122 People educated at Tonbridge School Old Tonbridgians Tonbridge School, Kent E CfD 2012 February 28
185 People educated at University College School Old Gowers University College School, London E CfD 2012 February 25
135 People educated at Uppingham School Old Uppinghamians Uppingham School R CfD 2012 March 31
  1. ^ a b C = "Clarendon Group" of schools reformed by the Public Schools Act 1868; E = Eton Group; R = Rugby Group
Note that in previous discussions of "Old Fooian" categoiries, some editors who appear not to have read WP:NDESC have claimed that the full phrase "People educated at Foo School" must be sourced. This is incorrect: WP:NDESC explicitly says that such titles "are often invented specifically for articles", and that is the case here, where a plain English phrase is combined with the WP:COMMONNAME of the school. (A further paragraph of NDESC refers to the use of non-neutral terms in titles, which does not apply here). However, if editors do want sourcing despite the lack of a requirement for it, then please note that a Google News search for the phrase "Educated at Westminster School" throws up 87 hits, which is more than twice as many as the 37 Gnews hits for the jargon term "Old Westminsters".
Descriptive titles are used in tens of thousands of Wikipedia categories, including the closely-related example of the heavily-populated Category:People by city. The use of demonyms as category names for people from towns and cities is specifically deprecated in the Categorization of people guideline. That issue was settled at CfD back in July 2006 and has been incorporated in the guideline since at least August 2006. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion (Old Westminsters)[edit]
  • Support the merge to the clear, concise, unambiguous, non-confusing, jargon-free, more commonly used and standardised name. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • support rename for clarity, per previous CfDs. almost a snowball at this point.--KarlB (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I think we're able to rename the remaining five categories as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominated this one separately because I thought it needed a disambiguator, whereas the others don't.
    I suggest leaving the other 5 until the discussions on Old Etonians and Old Harrovians are closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. It is time for total consistency with these cats. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and per dozens of similar cfds over the last year or so. Oculi (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This concerns the old boys of a major public day school that has existed for 100s of years. The term is not obscure. However, the decision on this ought to match Old Harrovians. Depsite the number of false positives in the Gnewshits, it should be noted that the category contains 850 names. This is a measure of the school's significance and accordingly of the alumni category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Peter, there currently 651 articles in the category rather than the 850 you mention, but it's still a big number and I agree with you about the significance of the school. However, the significance of the school does not appear to have translated into widespread usage of the term "Old Westminsters", because as shown in the table above there are only 32 hits on Google News for "Old Westminsters". That's less than 1/20th of the number of Gnews hits for "Old Etonians" and less than half the 87 Gnews hits for "educated at westminster school".
    So even before we consider the ambiguity of the term or the benefits of a consistent naming format, the sources point to the use of the descriptive format. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename. keep disambiguator. I have no idea what an Old Westminster is, in spite of their famous alumni. Sorry, for the rest of the english-speaking world, these names are still obscure. --KarlB (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and per recent CFDs. Snappy (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename It is time for the change. In this case, is it possible this might be a term for former members of Parliament?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure that we need the London disambiguator though. Westminster School is about the institution in question here. The Old foos (it is not old fooians, that would be old Westminsterians) form here does not shout a connection to a school, it might mean former or aged residents of any place called Westminster. However the school is presumed to not need disambiguation. If that is not the case a rename of the article title should probably be done first.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:TITLECHANGES is explicit that titles should be sourced. "Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." If there is a need for disambiguation then it can be done in other ways. Cjc13 (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read the full Wikipedia:Article titles rather than cherry picking favourable quotes. Your point has been answered many times before, including in the nominator's rationale. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point has not been answered. Indeed to ignore this policy is to cheery pick Part of the basis of Wikipedia is that it is based on sources. Cjc13 (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity per past CFDs, there's no need to make an exception for Westminster. How often do people refer to "the Old Westminster Nick Clegg"? Timrollpickering (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is an example[1]. How often do people refer to "people educated at Westminster School? Cjc13 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is standardisation a WP policy?. How can it be a standard when American categories do not use the proposed form? Cjc13 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is the naming of categories to be based on ignorance? That appears to be the basis of using "People educated at Westminster School, London". Wikipedia is meant to be based on sources. Cjc13 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Why is London included in the proposed name? The article for the school is Westminster School. Westminster is an article about the area of London. Cjc13 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (with regret that we're so obsessed with "standardisation" nowadays on such things that WP:COMMONNAME can go hang) rename to "People educated as Westminster School", but not "People educated as Westminster School, London"; we're meant to use Primary topic disambidguation on Wikipedia, I believe. Disclaimer: Theoretically I have skin in the game as an OW, but I'd consider it de minimis. :-) James F. (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2012 (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:Yes (band) Yessongs[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) 09:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting: Category:Yes (band) Yessongs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a pointless category for one album, which is un-needed because the relevant articles are already adequately interlinked.
See also the related discussion further down this page about Category:Yes (band) Yessongs songs. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category includes a subcategory of the notable media (cover, and 4 Roger Dean paintings) and a subcategory of songs.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I am sure that the 'songs' subcat is redundant, whether in jest or not, and I would probably upmerge Category:Yes (band) Yessongs album covers as well. (All these names are wrong and should simply be Category:Yessongs etc, as the album is Yessongs.) Oculi (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted below, the title reflects the category creator's desire to indulge in what he described as "horseplay" with category names. The WP:POINTiness may be grounds for speedying the deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As explained below, BrownHairedGirl has a problem with honesty or intelligence today. She should rest before she is reminded of WP:NPA's prohibition on quoting remarks out of context.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subcategory on songs should be deleted so we would be left with an unnecessary container category for the images category. Pichpich (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Excessive categorization; we don't need a category for a particular album. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was created just to be belligerent and there is a precedent of deleting categories about albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redundant cat. Snappy (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia does not do categories for individual albums. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band doesn't even have its own special eponymous subcategory, and it's an album that would have a much stronger claim to being "The One Album That We Should Treat As the Exception to the Rule" (every song has its own separate article already, there have been numerous tributes to it where other artists rerecorded the whole album, there was a movie, there are spinoff lists just to name the people on the cover, etc.) than this one does. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2012 (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:Johann Strauss II[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 to Category:Strauss family. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting: Category:Johann Strauss II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous categories are discouraged--only contains main article and one subcat. Why does this exist? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 23 April 2012 (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:Watches (specific model)[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:Watch models. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Watches (specific model) to Category:Watch models
Nominator's rationale: Natural disambiguation, matches category:Watch brands. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC) ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with the nominator in principle, but the proposed rename could be easily misread as "model watches". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Model watch" as in "model aircraft"? I'm not even sure those exist so the probability of confusion seems pretty slim. Pichpich (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems that model watches do exist. A Google search for "model watch" mostly returns results relating to the fashion models, but a search for "model watch mechanism" throws up lots of results.
        How about a rename to Category:Models of watches? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm only mildly surprised to hear they exist but my point is that if model watches are a rare occurrence, then there's no reason to expect a reader to misinterpret the phrase "watch models". For that same reason, I don't really expect any sane reader to think that this is a category for persons whose wrist appears in Rolex commercials. Pichpich (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. I don't agree with the risk of confusing what "watch models" means in this tree. --KarlB (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree a rename should be done, but "watch model" to me indicates different procedures for standing watch (in a military context) The current name also suffers from this, as does "model of watch". I suggest Category:Watch (product)... 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Another alternative would be Category:Makes of watches. It's a bit awkward, but avoids every issue brought up here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Makes" doesn't quite work. Casio and Rolex are makes of watches, but both produce many different models of watch. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This is an improvement. While not perfect, it likely has fewer issues then the current name and the other options. I can see may problems with the alternatives proposed. By renaming we start moving to a better title (if there is a better one to be found). Vegaswikian (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. "Watch models" is reasonably clear and I don't think the possibility of confusion with scale models of watches is a big problem. As for 70.49.124.225's comment: If we want to avoid that interpretation, we could use Category:Wristwatch models. However, I would prefer sticking to "watch" since that's what the parent article is called. The article for the military term is titled watchstanding and we don't seem to have any categories directly related to it, so the potential for confusion is not overwhelming. Jafeluv (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2012 (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:Supergroups[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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Supergroups to Category:Supergroups (music)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article and remove ambiguous current name. I also wonder how subjective the inclusion criteria is? So deletion could be on the table. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2012 (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:Slovene painters[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) 16:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Slovene painters to Category:Slovenian painters
Nominator's rationale: Merge.
  • This was an opposed speedy, and raises an issue that could become confusing. The copy of the speedy nomination should be read for full context of the nomination. This particular category is for ethnic Slovene painters; the suggested target is for painters of Slovenian nationality. The merge was opposed on the grounds that we need the distinction because the concept of a Slovenian nationality did not emerge until the 1840s. However, it was countered that in WP categorization, we categorize Dante Alighieri as "Italian" even though there was no Italian nationality at the time, and the same goes for most other nationalities. I agree with this basic approach when it comes to categories, which is a relatively blunt instrument to describe someone's national/ethnic background and group it with others. The difficult subtlties are best dealt with by actual article text, not by categories with extremely fine distinctions.
  • At the time of the speedy nomination, this was an isolated issue, with only one article being categorized as "Slovene", but following the discussion below, the user who opposed the merge created a fairly expansive new structure of "Slovene FOOs" categories, which sometimes involved the emptying out of corresponding "Slovenian FOOs" category. So this is a bit of a test case to get a broader view of what we are going to do with this new Slovene/Slovenian dual categorization scheme. Right now, the parent categories for both are Category:Ethnic Slovene people and Category:Slovenian people.
  • Adding further complication to the issue is the fact that most dictionary definitions of "Slovene" include a definition that is equivalent to the meaning of "Slovenian" on Wikipedia, and in many cases the two different words are simply treated as synonyms. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Category:Slovene painters to Category:Slovenian painters – per C2B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: I disagree. There was no 'Slovenian nationality' in the time when Franz Caucig (member of category) lived, the concept of Slovenia emerged only in 1840s. He was a Gorizian painter by nationality and Slovene painter by ethnicity (this is notable, because he achieved the highest position of them). He is not the only one, because there were numerous Slovene painters before 1840s. In addition, there are minority members in Italy and Hungary that I feel reluctant to include in the category by nationality. --Eleassar my talk 10:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there was no Italian nationality when Giotto or Dante Alighieri were around, and no British nationality when Chaucer and Shakespeare were around, but you will still find those people in Italian and UK cats/subcats. Whether or not we ought to is a question for another day! --Mais oui! (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or we should populate the category. Per WP:CAT: "Categorization must be verifiable" and "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial." So because 'Slovenian painters' (by nationality) is controversial and unsourced, if this category is deleted, only 'Gorizian painters' remains, and this introduces bias, because a main characteristic of the subject is ignored. I also don't see anywhere written that a category must have a minimum number of members (except for being empty). --Eleassar my talk 10:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be more inclined to just treat the Slovenian nationality as we tend to treat other nationalities in categorization, per Mais oui's comment above. I don't think doing so would be broadly controversial. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the point of view of experts (historians), it is controversial (as may be seen e.g. from my talk page regarding the nationality of Trubar), and it is unsourced. --Eleassar my talk 09:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think when we say "controversial", we mean controversial within WP among the consensus of its editors, not controversial in a group claimed by a WP editor. I doubt it would be controversial to the former. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realise that. My point is this: I don't think merging it as proposed will be controversial to the WP community as a whole. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, per stated above: historians participate here too. --Eleassar my talk 22:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, yes ... didn't you write that immediately above? That was the same comment I was referring to. Or is this a competition as to who can say present their argument the most times, or last? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He could be included in the “Slovenian” category, as many countries are regarded as existing before their unification/creation, with Australia having an article and category for 1788. Many present-day countries were only unified in the 19th century (Canada, Germany, Italy) or 20th century (Australia, South Africa). Hugo999 (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of the large issues involved here, I strongly suggest that this decision take place pursuant to a Full CFD discussion that includes the entire category tree. Cgingold (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That wouldn't be too difficult a nomination to start, as the "tree" consists of one article categorized amongst four categories in total. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want this to happen, it should happen soon, or this speedy nomination will be closed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not only was there "no Italian nationality at the time" of Alighieri, there was no "nationality" (in the legal sense) full stop. To take another slant, yesterday I was horrified to discover that Wikipedia was describing the Roanoke Colony as a "British colony" (sic) in its Infobox and categories (although thankfully not in the actual article text). Now this was122 years prior to the establishment of the British state, and over 350 years prior to the legal invention of UK citizenship. So, how on earth those poor men, women and children could ever be called "British" colonists is totally beyond my comprehension. Wikipedia is, I'm afraid, jam-packed full of such idiocies. I blame the very early Users who first decided to categorise by nationality alone, and not by citizenship too. Please note that our wiser colleagues at WikiMedia Commons have Category:People of the United Kingdom, cat:People of the United States etc. This is a very intelligent and useful scheme and ought to be adopted here, in addition to our categorisation by nationality. For example, Bermudan people are British, but are currently excluded from all our British biography cats. Now, they ought to be excluded from all our UK biography cats, but never from our British cats. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The idea of British or American sportspersons as meaning sportspersons from the United Kingdom or United States is preferable to me without having an additional category of (say) sportspersons from the United Kingdom. Many countries have overseas territories or dependencies, with people generally classified seperately eg people from American Samoa. Are you regarding Bermudan people as "British" by descent (which some are probably not) or as people of a former British colony? The Caribbean has many political entities; the Netherlands Antilles is linked to the Netherlands as (several?) overseas territories, but not now Bermuda and the UK. And the idea of "British" people certainly predated the adoption of 20th century citizenship requirements. Roanoke is described (accurately) as an English colony in the article. though the categories include both "Former English colonies" and "Former British colonies". Re Europe, I favour using the terms German and Italian for people who lived before before the 19th century unification of those countries. Hugo999 (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, to avoid duplication of categories and because it is hard to delimit ethnicity from nationhood (per [2][3]). However, the category Ethnic Slovene people should be retained for cases where this is verifiable and "relevant to the topic" (like Franz Caucig or France Prešeren), per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. --Eleassar my talk 08:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If people did not self-identity as with the Slovenian nation, we should identify then as part of the nationality they did identify with (that would be Austrian in 90% of all cases). In the case of writers the issues will be more complexed, because there the language is the medium.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and maybe perge. The distinction between ethnic and by nationality Slovenians is not just a process over time. This is especially if we date the issue back to the 1840s. We do not get an independent Slovenia until 1991, and it was only a semi-defined nation from 1918 forward. The idea of the Slovene nation might date to the 1840s, but for all intents and purposes we are dealing with Ethnic Slovenes with Austrian nationality until 1918. From 1918 until 1991 Slovenes have a semi-autonomous state to identify with. Things get more fun because you have many people who are Slovnian by nationality and Italian by ethnicity. The Slovene/slovenian distinction will always be too subtle to be useful. It is also open for a lot of debate in some cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2012 (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:Orders with sash worn on the left shoulder[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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting: Category:Orders with sash worn on the left shoulder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems like a trivial characteristic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2012 (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:Yes (band) Yessongs songs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Yes (band) songs. Jafeluv (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Yes (band) Yessongs songs to Category:Yes (band) songs
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I believe that we have had consensus in the past not to subcategorize songs by particular album. This is an example of such a subcategorization—Yessongs is a particular album. I suggest upmerging to the parent category that contains all songs by the band. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge – one of KW's little jests, I suspect. Oculi (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nominator, and per WP:SMALLCAT's warning against "categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members". The exception of categories which "are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" does not apply here, because there is no Category:Songs by album.
    Since the creation was clearly WP:POINTy, this could be speedied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are notable images in the album's other associated category. Please reduce the AGF violations and hypocrisy, BrownHairedGirl and Oculi. I discussed these categories within the last fortnight with G.O. Factory, after he too quickly (as he admitted, but perhaps justly, as I'll admit for fairness) deleted another category, as patent nonsense.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:AGF, I am required to sustain the assumption of good faith in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. Your intentions in respect of these categories were made very clear on your talkpage on 5 April, when you wrote I can propose redundant categories as a rhetorical ploy to make the proposer of the Yes-renaming a bit uncomfortable, or one hopes to smile at the occasional absurdities consequent upon consistent application of a WP heuristic. The "Yes (band) (band)" suggestion was horseplay. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are quoting my comments out of context, BrownHairedGirl, especially stupidly or dishonestly.
    I trust that the others were able to read and understand the context of the remark BHG misquoted out of context. G.O. Factory acknowledged my good faith in that discussion, which confirms his superiority to BrownHairedGirl, who botched her reading assignment despite G.O. Factory's example.
    I acknowledged that I had suggested "Yes (band) (band)" as a joke within a discussion like this, for the reasons I stated. (The needling remarks were struck through, by me, when I was informed that this forum has a ban on the appearance of multiple voting.) In contrast, I mentioned the utility of collecting the covers of Yessongs in our conversation, which caused G.O. Factory to acknowledge my good faith, despite his thinking that I was out to lunch.
     Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Kiefer, your talkpage is hard to follow, because it includes large chunks of material which appears to have been copied from discussions elsewhere ... but once you start indulging in horseplay with a topic, please don't expect other editors to follow precisely where you have chosen to draw the boundaries. The aggression which you being to this and other discussions is unhelpful to consensus formation; please knock it off. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that KW has accurately represented my interaction with him, but I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. But I agree with BHG that KW's talk page is very difficult to follow due to lots of "clean-up" editing done by its owner, especially if one comes at it cold. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge we do not categorize songs by album. Pichpich (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge and speedily as a category created to disrupt Wikipedia by making a point. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Snappy (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom; Wikipedia does not categorize songs by individual album that they happen to have appeared on. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2012 (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:Artists' muses[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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting: Category:Artists' muses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Calling someone a "muse" for an artist or writer is often a subjective call. We've deleted categories very similar to this in the past: Fashion muses; Muses of famous writers, but the discussions have not been heavily participated in. I'm wondering where we should go with this type of category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2012 (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:Television series by HIT Entertainment[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Television series by HIT Entertainment to Category:Television series by Hit Entertainment
Nominator's rationale: Correcting capitalization per WP:MOSCAPS. Trivialist (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2012 (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/2012_April_23&oldid=1087824944"