Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 11 February 13 >

February 12[edit]

Category:Avenue D 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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unless it's always considered acceptable to have categories for songs by artist, this one doesn't really work, per WP:SMALLCAT. I like this band, but they're defunct, and none of their albums seem to have sufficient notability for their own articles. Thus, it's hard to see this category ever expanding beyond the one (stub) member. BDD (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:SMALLCAT deprecates small categs unless they are part of a series, as this is. The series is at Category:Songs by artist, where 21 of the 200 categories on the first page contain only 1 page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep actually it is always considered acceptable to have categories for songs by artist and this is in fact the precise example used to describe the exception in WP:SMALLCAT. Pichpich (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, didn't realize that. Withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2013 (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:Christian martyrs of the Roman era[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the rationale and precedent of February 2nd. Match with Category:Ante-Nicene Christian saints which is the parent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Again, these are all Catholic martyrs, and this information is already found there. There is no need to duplicate this information here. This fails to OCAT. Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Catholic martyrs specifically excludes anyone before the 12th century, as anyone prior to the Great Schism is as a rule recognized by all churches who take note of martyrs. Therefore the information is not "found there". Mangoe (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As before, "Roman era" is a non-standard term; and contrary to the immediately preceding comment, these are catholic, not Catholic martyrs. That is to say, every church which acknowledges a class of martyrs at all either commemorates these either explicitly or as a class. Mangoe (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, given the precedent. "Martyrs", unlike "saints", is sub-categorised by the faith for which people died, rather than the denominations that honour them. Category:Catholic martyrs starts from the Great Schism and therefore has no sub-categories for the Roman era. – Fayenatic London 18:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is a very good way to name the period. The situation of martyrs change with the coming of Constantine, and Nicea is the general way to indicate that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 13#Category:Ancient_Christians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 13 February 2013 (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:Strategies for dealing with the two party 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: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete I can't see a viable category under this awkward title. Currently there's only one article in the category: Third party (politics). Now a third party is not a strategy for dealing with a two-party system, it's a party, period. Like other parties, its typical objective is to gain political power usually through elections. The creator of the category also tried to add Tax choice and Electoral fusion. Both additions were reverted which makes sense because neither of those are really strategies and certainly not strategies aimed specifically at dealing with a two-party system. Finally, the title is also awkward because it implies that a two-party system needs to be dealt with. Pichpich (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Whether or not you or even a lot of political science types think a two party system is bad, this is a prejudicial title. Mangoe (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore...you delete rather than rename? --Xerographica (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The category was created in response to my comment at Talk:Electoral fusion#See Also - Tax Choice mentioned by older ≠ wiser above. It's poorly defined, should never have been created, and adding it to any particular article will always be POV. No plausible renaming would avoid these issues. --JBL (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Refers to nothing. Undefined and impossibly vague and general. Its content is inconsistent with the title. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this has to be the most POV-pushing title I have seen in a long time. Anyway, in theory it could include assasination, terrorism and lots of other things, since they could be used to undermine a two-party system. On the other hand, at least historically elector fusion at least in the United States was used not to undermine a two-party system, but to undermine one-party dominance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The very title seems to fly in the face of "wikipedia is not a how-to manual". This category name seems to invite how-to articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I disagree with John Pack Lambert's interpretation of the relationship between electoral fusion and parties. However, that's not to say that I think the category can be saved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Category name presumes that the two-party system has to be "dealt with". Category:Two-party system might have possibilities, but there is no reason to believe that any of the articles added by Xerographica to this category would belong in that one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd note that we already have plenty of more neutral categories for the kind of article that might end up here, such as Category:Voting theory and Category:electoral systems. Plus several articles had been catted inappropriately such as Spacehive which is a crowdfunding organisation in the UK - so not somewhere with a 2-party system, and not a "strategy". @Xerographica - if you survive the current flurry of threats to block you, might I gently suggest that if you think there's enough referenced material to deal with this topic in a non-WP:POV way, then an article in this area (perhaps with a slightly different title) rather than a category might be a more appropriate? Le Deluge (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete where's revolution in the category? Ooops, just pure subjectivity, like the cat itself. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless additional category created by an editor who remains clueless about the purpose of the project as a whole (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but the article could go in the category Category:Electoral reform Hugo999 (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inappropriate category. Neither article in it actually discusses strategies on resolving the problem. "Electoral fusion" is a type of electoral alliance and the existence of third parties does not really resolve the situation. --Dimadick (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:19th-century buildings and structures in Louisville, Kentucky[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. There may be merit in a wider discussion on how to develop the existing Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 19th century, perhaps at WT:CAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think the better model on how to handle the naming of this type of classification is what is used in Boston with a series of categories like Category:19th century in Boston, Massachusetts. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create the other category as a parent and add other things to it. Also renaming this to include only those things built in the 19th-century might be worth while, not that there are many buildings in Louisville that pre-date 1801, but if there are I think they should not be in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge back to parents This is really a triple intersection of the "when", "historic building", and "place" hierarchies. Better to have the intersection occur at the article level. Mangoe (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think JPL may be overthinking the meanings of individual words -- and thus failing to recognize idiomatic English. The term "19th-century buildings" refers to buildings built in the 19th century. People often discuss buildings in that manner. (Comparable usages that use adjective forms to indicate the time of construction include "pre-war apartment building" and "antebellum mansion".) I can't imagine anyone describing a building built in 1815 and still standing in 2013 as a "21st-century building" -- it's a "19th-century building"! Note that none of the three buildings in Category:18th-century buildings and structures in Louisville, Kentucky (which is not listed for discussion here) is also slotted in the 19th-century category. If you need the category names to be spelled out explicitly so as to avoid all possibility of anybody misconstruing their meaning, then rename this category to Category:Buildings and structures in Louisville, Kentucky, completed in the 19th century. --Orlady (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2013 (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:Farms and ranches on the National Register of Historic Places in Montana[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. Ranches and farms are two different things. No reason to combine the two into one category. This would also avoid miscategorization at the parent level where ranches are in the farm tree and farms are in the ranch one. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the rationale, but I don't believe there's a precedent for it under Category:Farms on the National Register of Historic Places. I think a couple states' cats have a mix of ranches and farms and the cat name is based on which is the majority. As I've been categorizing NRHP articles by function, Montana was the first state I came across that had a near-equal mix of both. Anyway, I'm happy to go along with whatever the category experts here decide, I just want to be mindful about the ramifications so the other states can be consistent. -McGhiever (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everything did roll up into Category:Farms on the National Register of Historic Places but that was split and Category:Ranches on the National Register of Historic Places was created. A bigger problem in these categories is the inclusion of houses. This is for farms and ranches and not farm houses or ranch houses. Someone needs to cleanup up those. Also as noted by this discussion, each state can have a category in both branches. There is no requirement to limit these to one or the other. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is there a robust means of distinguishing a large farm from a small ranch? I would guess that it is actually normally the farm house or range house (rather than the land that is designated. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 February 2 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Farms and ranches do have different definitions so it is somewhat easy to classify them. Farms are basically for the practice of producing and managing food (produce, grains, or livestock), fibres.... Whereas a ranch is the practice of raising grazing livestock such as cattle or sheep for meat or wool. The big difference is grazing. Farms that grow animals generally do so in pens and not in 100+ acre fields. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Now that Category:Farms on the National Register of Historic Places and Category:Ranches on the National Register of Historic Places have been separated, there's no reason to be concerned about this split. And for what it's worth, as I've been categorizing NRHP properties by function, distinguishing whether something should count as a farm or a ranch has never yet been an issue. -McGhiever (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • split per nom The facts offered are confirmed to be true so there is no reason to keep the current category as it is. Hmains (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2013 (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:North Dakota Fighting Sioux men's ice hockey players[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 supports below and speedy criterion C2D. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The University of North Dakota has dropped "Fighting Sioux" as their mascot and have not chosen a new one. Beyond the immediate problem, I think that the general pattern for lists of players from different university should be changed from "<short university name> <mascot name> <team name> players" to "<full university name> <team name> players", with "University" or "College" included in the long university name. So, for example, use "University of Michigan men's ice hockey players" instead of "Michigan Wolverines men's ice hockey players". Using "Michigan Wolverines men's ice hockey players" may confuse readers who don't understand that the team in question is a university team, while using "University of Michigan men's ice hockey players" would not confuse anyone. The purpose of these pages is to list players from a particular college or university, not to identify the team's mascot. Rks13 (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought I think any category proposals would be premature. As long as the main article is at Michigan Wolverines I think it will be very hard to get a category rename. So if you want to effect a change, you probably should start with a proposal at the article page to rename it. However I am fairly certain that would fail on "common name" grounds, so I doubt it would work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right - it's hopeless to change all of the hundreds, or even thousands, of university sports pages. Perhaps we should wait until UND chooses a new mascot and change it to the new "<short university name> <mascot name> <team name> players". Rks13 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since they have abandoned this mascot, I think we should change the name now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Like Resolute I support this instance only because the team doesn't currently have a name. But I would not support the renaming of any other articles. The purpose of category names isn't to educate about what type of team a team is. It is just to identify the team the players played for which includes the name. -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2013 (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:Named roundabouts[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/merge all to Category:Roundabouts and traffic circles and Category:Roundabouts and traffic circles in the United States.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. No reason to split out those with names since having a name is not a reason to not include them in the underpopulated main categories. With two parents, there is no reason not to correctly classify these. If discussion tends to support, I'll also nominate the sub categories. Looks like there is only one subcategory that needs merging. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. No reason to split roundabouts with explicit names from other notable ones that lack a clear name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The upmerge almost makes sense except that roundabouts and traffic circles are the same thing. I don't know why we have this WP:FORK but I shall be calling for the merge of the two article shortly. Mangoe (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the basic concepts are the same, they do appear to be different. The traffic circle is a controlled intersection where as the roundabout is not. While similar in overhead appearance, they are not the same. Have fun on the article merge discussion. If the articles are merged, then the categories can follow. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the discussion I see that there's no technical authority cited for the difference, and the one expert in the discussion back last March basically said that there's no distinction. Of course there will be a battle but... Mangoe (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The bigger problem I'm seeing is that the people who are populating these categories can't tell the difference either, to the point where essentially every circular interchange appears in both categories, either directly or because it's in a list. Given the definitions I've seen bandied about I would be hard pressed to say whether any of the many circles in DC are roundabouts by US standards (I'm inclined to say few to none of them are, because they are mostly controlled by traffic lights). I think it makes more sense to make one unified category for all of them because I think it's going to be impossible to cite specifically what they are. Mangoe (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Part of the problem may be that the two categories were is separated trees. I made some changes to bring these closer together and maybe help to reduce the confusion in the future. Of course there is the one intersection that was converted from a traffic circle to a roundabout. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge everything to a new category Category:Traffic circles and roundabouts. From what I have read it sounds like the definition of the terms varries by location, and I have to agree that few people realize there is a difference between them, let alone what the difference is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually all of the traffic circles were removed so all that is contained here is roundabouts at this time. So this is now basically a rename and not a split. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Were it so simple. Looking in Category:Named roundabouts in the United States a cursory examination shows that perhaps none of the members is actually a roundabout in the modern US-traffic-engineering sense. Consider Dupont Circle, perhaps the most extreme deviant: it has two concentric circles and an underpass, all controlled by a complex system of traffic lights. It doesn't seem to fit the definition given in the roundabout article, and it does seem to fit with that article's claim about what makes a traffic circle. I am generally wary of removing members during a discussion, but I would suggest that we're not necessarily going to find sources that say "traffic circle, not a roundabout" or vice versa about every one of these, or perhaps even more than a couple of these. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:Traffic circles and roundabouts per JPL. It looks to me as though it's too difficult to split these two classes precisely. Mangoe (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 January 30 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: There is a clear consensus to merge both categories to a new Category:Traffic circles and roundabouts. However, it is unclear where that fits in the category hierarchy. Is it intended to be a parent for Category:Roundabouts, or a replacement for it?
If it is intended as a replacement, then shouldn't the outcome be to merge these two to Category:Roundabouts, and then rename Category:Roundabouts to Category:Traffic circles and roundabouts, with all its sub-categories to be similarly renamed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 12 February 2013 (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:Ancient Greek works by writer[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per other categories in Category:Works by writer nationality. As these are works by writers, they don't need to say "literary" or "literature." Alternately, we could go with the format of Category:Japanese works by writer for all of these; this would match, for example, Category:French novels by writer.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
copy of Speedy discussion
Relisted from CFD 2013 January 30 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: It is my own opinion that many readers would be confused by "Works by Japanese writer", because it sounds as if it is meant to say "by Japanese writers". It sounds very awkward to me, and presumably also to MS and JPL, hence their suggestion of "Works by Japanese writers". In contrast, you say you find Category:Ancient Greek literature by writer unnatural – have we perhaps not explained clearly enough that it is meant to be a container category, holding no articles directly, but only sub-cats for each notable writer?
You state that there has been no problem with Category:Films by director nationality, but I do see a problem there. Because the sub-cats are named e.g. Category:Films by Swiss directors rather than either Category:Films by Swiss director or Category:Swiss films by director, editors have categorised pages directly in the category (that one currently contains five articles on films) instead of recognising that it is meant to be a container category. It seems to me that all those national film categories within Category:Films by director nationality are mis-named. Films by sundry Swiss directors should be moved up into Category:Swiss films; for directors notable enough to have a sub-cat, their works should be sub-catted down into the grandchild sub-cats for works by individual directors. The national parent in each case is e.g. Category:Japanese films; the holding category for personal sub-cats by director should be "Japanese films by director". This is a direct analogy to "Japanese literature by writer" which I am seeking here.
The albums category is an interesting contrast because there is no head category for e.g. "Japanese albums". The main national category for albums is Category:Albums by artist nationality, although there is also a lightly-populated Category:Albums by country of recording location. The national categories e.g. are not restricted to use as container categories, e.g. Category:Albums by New Zealand artists currently contains 43 articles as well as various sub-cats by artist.
If there was a consensus that Category:Japanese novels, Category:Japanese books and Category:Japanese literature are too ambiguous, as suggested above re writer or location of printing, then we would have to consider renaming them all like the albums categories. Likewise, there should then be no films by country, and all the current categories e.g. Category:Japanese films would have to be merged down to Category:Films by Japanese directors etc, which would stop being container categories.
However, if it is clear enough that "Japanese literature" means literature written by Japanese people, then it can remain as a top category, and we do then want a holding category for national literature "by writer". – Fayenatic London 18:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have gone back to wanting Category:Works by Ancient Greek writers erc. This is the stanrd way we name such categories, it will match Category:Films by Swiss directors. So I think this is the accepted naming practice, and we should accept that if something sounds wrong it is. I still think in this case the clearest source of the nationality is that of the writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for your thorough clarification, Fayenatic. I think I understand better your point of view now. Also, I have meditated why Category:Ancient Greek literature by writer sounded inappropriate (at least to me). A category like that would have a mother category Category:Literature by writer instead of Category:Works by writer, and would have subcats like Category:Literature by Aristotle instead of Category:Works by Aristotle. I think the problem with your proposal is more evident at this level. Right now, the categories "Work by X (writer)" collects all literary works (published or not) of a particular writer. By contrast, it would be not that clear in the hypothetical case of a category Literature by Aristotle, where the article Natural slavery (a term used by Aristotle) could be easily included: "literature" is a broader concept than "works". In conclusion, I agreed with John Pack Lambert, since I still find Category:Works by Ancient Greek writers is the best alternative. By the way, Category:Japanese films contains all films produced by a Japanese studio, regardless of the director nationality, that is why they are two different categories. Andreasm just talk to me 22:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was an interesting example for your statement "literature is broader than works". In general, "works" is broader than literature because it includes music, films, sculpture etc – all of which can be found in sub-cats of Category:Works by writer. IMHO, occasional articles on recurring concepts/devices can be left within the category for the author's works. – Fayenatic London 20:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • For that reason, the proposal is to use "literary works" instead of more general "works" or "literature". Andreasm just talk to me 18:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the proposal is to stop using "literary works". In any case, you argued above that "literary" is redundant to "writer". I would be happy with "Fooian literary works by writer" – Fayenatic London 21:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're right: I started to mix ideas. Sorry about that. Anyway, your proposal and most of this discussion has ignored the established use in Category:Works by nationality. As you can see, nationality is ascribed to creators and not to their works (Category:Works by British people rather than "Category:British works"). Also, the only odd category included is Category:Literature by nationality because "literature" (unlike "films" or "albums") are not "works". Andreasm just talk to me 02:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • On the contrary, in Wikipedia nationality is ascribed to works, following that of their creators; as already stated, Wikipedia:Category names#Categories by nationality includes literature among the socio-cultural topics that are to be categorised by nationality. As for whether literature should be a sub-cat of works: one of the ways in which it is used in the category tree is as an intermediate level containing books and poems, which are clearly works. Given these points, I also don't accept that my proposal would go against established use. – Fayenatic London 16:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The whole "works" category tree has been nothing but trouble from the start. We have "literature" to cover almost everything, and it is a huge redundancy. I created and managed many categories using literature as the fundamental category of organization, and this "works" has contributed absolutely nothing to it, but it has confused the whole issue.Greg Bard (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But Category:American film actors has over 10,000 articles and we have not seen fit to divide it by time period, so size alone is not persuasive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it would be necessary to rename e.g. Category:Works by Honoré de Balzac and the other sub-cats of Category:French literature by writer from "works" to "literary works" or anything else; it is only these national head categories that we are discussing here. If writers have written other works than books, "works" is fine to hold them all. – Fayenatic London 20:10, 18 February 2013 (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:Early American naval commanders[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: relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 13#Category:Early American naval commanders. The Bushranger One ping only 04:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete I don't think it's wise to split US Navy officers by period and unless I missed something, there's no "by period" categorization of officers of any country. In this case, there's another important problem: "early" is not a well-defined era of American history so it's impossible to determine the exact criteria for inclusion in the category. Pichpich (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct. 'Early' is not defined. Can we split and rename the category? How about 18th Century American naval commanders and 19th Century American naval commanders and 20th Century American naval commanders? It would seem lumping all American naval commanders under one umbrella isn't the best way to go either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:United States Naval officers (which oddly enough is a sub-cat). If we are going to have by century cats should we not also have Category:21st-century American naval officers. I think we should use "officers" and not "commanders" in the by century cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the by-century proposal. I don't think this is really much better because centuries are also arbitrary cutoffs. If we really want to classify officers by time period, it would make more sense to classify by armed conflict. (But honestly I don't see much value in that either.) Pichpich (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to comments: 'Officers' are not always 'commanders' of ships. And using 'armed conflict' to define a Cat' doesn't quite get it because many commanders were involved in several wars. e.g.Stephen Decatur fought in the Quasi War with France, the War of 1812 and the First and Second Barbary Wars, all of which occurred in the 19th century, as did John Rodgers and others. Defining the Cat' by century seems the best way to go as this would encompass several wars/conflicts at the same time. There might be cases where a commander fought in wars that took place in different centuries but this is (very) rare. Can't even think of one off hand. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly in the RN it was common in the Napoleonic era, and for Japan/Russia at the turn of the 20th century. Maybe this is less true of the USN but equally it might be best to think of a format that can be replicated by other navies if required.Le Deluge (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth the quasi-war was not in the 19th, but the 18th century. It ends in 1800, the 19th-century does not began until 1801.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Insert: Opps.. You're correct. Decatur in this case would fit into two such categories. 18th Century and 19th Century American naval officers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Officers" is a more useful, general term - "commander" is a bit fuzzier and I doubt an "officers" category would become too overcrowded. Go with the more general term to start with. If you're going with "xth century", then perhaps "commissioned in xth century" or "born in xth century" might be more precise.Le Deluge (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with Le deluge. Let's make the category as broad as possible and then see just how big it gets. We can subdivide from there if it's too large. Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, Let's do it. We can start with and create Category:19th Century American naval officers and move the names (except for John Paul Jones) from Category:Early American naval commanders into it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we do have Category:Union Navy officers which is limited to those who served during the U.S. Civil War.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are many individuals in history that fit into two or more categories. Are we ready to move, yet? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 1,781 entries listed under this category, all lumped together. That is plenty of reason. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But Category:American film actors has over 10,000 articles and we have not seen fit to divide it by time period, so size alone is not persuasive. We might also argue that wars would be a better way to divide. However I think especially in the early 19th-century enough of these people were involved in multiple conflicts that wars would be a split too far, but century is a good way to devide them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous entries, size, is one of the most persuasive reasons for creating sub categories. The reason we have cat's is to sort large numbers of entries -- and on that note I would highly recommend finding sub cat's for 'American film actors'. Sub dividing by 'War' in the case of 'American navel captains' could get tacky because as I mentioned above, many officers have fought in two or more wars. Stephen Decatur and John Rodgers for example fought in four different wars -- all in the 19th century. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While we have the sub Cat's mentioned by Benea, we still don't have any specific to e.g.the War of 1812 (one for People, not naval officers) , the American Civil War, the Barbary Wars, etc, so my thinking was that since all of these wars occurred during the 19th century, and since many officers fought in several, as discussed above, we also need a Cat' specific to this general era. Or should we make cat's specific to all the individual wars -- which would result in just as many if not more Cat's. If anything we should simply rename the Cat proposed for deletion to Category:Early American naval officers (1775 - 1815) This would cover Naval Officers of the Revolution, Quasi-War, both Barbary wars and the War of 1812. Again, there is always an area of overlap among Cat's and many officers accordingly fit into two or more. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply : I don't think we don't need to create a Cat for each Barbary War, while making cat's for all the individual (often lesser) wars will become redundant, some officers fitting into several wars. Overlap is to be expected, but I think only to a point. As I mentioned several officers, that I know of, I'm sure there's more, would fit into four or more Cat's if they were defined by individual wars. While trying to replicate a Cat' structure of another country may sound 'consistent' on the surface it appears not to be the practical way to go for the American navy. It would be nice to have one Cat' for naval officers (there are many) who served in this one defining and unique era of America history. (1775-1815) That would spare us a lot of additional Cat's. If you still would like to create the Cat's you mentioned above they could be sub Cat's to this more encompassing Cat' of 1778-1815. In any case this is really getting to be a discretionary call. For now I still think we should go the simpler route and simply rename the Cat up for deletion. A cat for naval officers of this general period (Early American) would serve well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the problem with having four or more cats on an article? Why not have a category for each Barbary War? Why is it not practical, and finally, what is this defining and apparently unique period of history, that lumps together five wars, with different opponents, over a thirty year period, with intervening periods of peace? This is all getting very subjective. We've tried to define it as 'early', by century, and finally by this arbitrary period by dates. Categories by conflict do not overlap, they are discrete periods of conflict, therefore there will be no redundancy for lesser wars because some personnel fit into several categories. The present suggested system would collect officers who served only in the Revolutionary War with those who served only in the Second Barbary War 35 years later, only for the sake of those officers whose career spanned the entire 35 year period. Organising it along the lines of the British one allows those persons who served in one conflict to be categorised immediately with those who fought beside them in the same conflict, rather than in a vague 35 year block based on someone's definition of defining and unique. Benea (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your arguments are apparently sound. Okay, we need to make a few added cat's for wars, and if a given officer fits into two or more of them (Decatur and Rodgers would fit into at least four) then, on retrospect, this is all well and good. Thanks for your thoughts. A couple of last questions: Should we be making separate Cat's for a given war for Admirals and Officers -- and will we be separating Army officers from Naval officers? I hope so. If we lump too many military types, ranks along with 'personnel' into one Cat it seems it will defeat the purpose of categorization i.e.the effort of sorting and organizing large groups of names. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next phase[edit]

I agree with separating Army from Navy (and other services). Category:British military personnel by war is the parent cat, which divides into Category:Royal Navy personnel by war, Category:Royal Air Force personnel by war and Category:British Army personnel by war. The by war categories are also integrated with the existing Category:Military personnel by war and nation, so you have Category:Military personnel of the War of 1812, and can break down the existing Category:American military personnel of the War of 1812 into army and navy. There's already Category:American militiamen in the War of 1812. As for breaking down by officers and admirals, I'm less keen though. Benea (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Benea, but as you pointed out on 22 Feb, we already have Category:United States Navy officers and Category:United States Navy admirals. How do we integrate War-Cat's with them? We can't place an individual War-Cat under Admirals and Officers -- and we can't place Admirals and Officers under each War-Cat, so it seems War-Cat's and Cat's for Admirals and Officers must be stand alone cats and independent of each other in terms of sub Cat's. Looking at Cat's for both Admirals and Officers there seems to be other items we should be mindful of. For example 'Continental Navy officers' (Revolutionary period, war specific) is under the Cat' for Naval officers, but there is no corresponding Cat' for 'Continental Navy Admirals', for openers. IMO, it seems a condensation of and reordering of Cat's is needed. We have cats for 'personnel', 'Officers, Admirals and Commodores' with war-specific cats mixed into the works. Correction : There were no Admirals until David Farragut (of the Civil War) came along. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bit later I will begin removing the names from the Category:Early American naval commanders if there are no objections or other suggestions. After navigating through the maze of categories it seems there are enough of them, perhaps too many, that seem to cover any individual that may have otherwise fit into the 'Early American' category. Perhaps I was too quick to create that category. My apologies for any inconvenience or trouble I may have caused. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The cats work by categorising people as either officers or admirals. So articles would be tagged with either one of these as appropriate, and then with the relevant war cats. So Stephen Decatur for example would have the category Category:United States Navy officers and then Category:American naval personnel of the Quasi-War, Category:American naval personnel of the War of 1812 and Category:American naval personnel of the Barbary Wars, replacing the existing more general cats Category:American military personnel of the War of 1812, Category:United States people of the Barbary Wars and Category:People of the Quasi-War. Benea (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2013 (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:City and Country School 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: relisted at WP:CFD 2013 February 25. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete I believe that the consensus is that primary school attendance is not a sufficiently defining characteristic to be the basis of a category. A list of notable alumni can be added to the article on the school. Pichpich (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User's rationale: Keep City and Country alumni frequently write that their time at C&C was their most defining and meaningful educational experience--even those who went on to notable high schools, universities and graduate programs. Because the C&C Blocks and Jobs Program--among others at the school--are so unique, and the school consistently graduates students that share the same qualities, the category of Alumni is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.75.17.2 (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
"Frequently write"? I'm not sure you can quantify this and in any case I hate to burst your bubble but it's not unusual for people to say that their primary school years were a very meaningful experience. Moreover there's no evidence that C&C is so exceptional that it justifies being the only primary school alumni category in our system. (Is there even any evidence that the school produces better outcomes than other NYC primary schools with high tuition and strict admissions criteria?) Pichpich (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify This may be a worthwhile thing to connect to the school article or have as a seperate list, but I think that keeping this category will set bad precedents that we do not want to deal with. I think we should limit alumni categories to places that have at least high-school level instruction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that the article on the school already contains a list of notable students. Pichpich (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2013 (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:Hussain Muhammad Ershad[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. The Bushranger One ping only 04:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as essentially empty. The category currently contains two images that should be moved to Commons and a link to the main article Hussain Muhammad Ershad. There's no indication that we have enough material about Ershad to justify an eponymous category. Pichpich (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2013 (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:21st Century attacks on Jewish cemeteries[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category might make some sense if it contained articles on specific instances of desecration but it is used to contain articles on cemeteries where these incidents occurred or worse yet, articles on cities and towns where the incidents occurred. These incidents are typically not a defining characteristic of a cemetery or a city and once these are removed, the category is basically empty. Note that this could be listified. Pichpich (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Improperly applied category that would only work if the attacks themselves had articles. The cemetary/city articles are far too generic for such a category structure. Resolute 17:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete especially since Category:Jewish cemeteries is a subcategory, which is wrong unless someone has manged to attack every single Jewish cemetary in the last 12 years. This might be workable as an article, but it does not work as currently used in a category. If we had articles like x year attack on y cemetary, this category would be worth having, but we don't, so it is premature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that Category:Property damaged by arson would suggest that we don't need to have an article on an attack to have a category? That said, the category is clearly mis-named as is and I'm not objecting to deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the name of that category is about property, this name explicitly says it is about attacks. Likewise Category:Murder victims will have different contents than a murder category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re Category:Property_damaged_by_arson: see WP:OTHERSTUFF and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_14#Category:Property_damaged_by_arson. DexDor (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (or remove all articles that are not about attacks from the category and then delete it because it's empty). Category can be recreated if suitable articles for it are found in future. DexDor (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2013 (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:Riku is a total hottie[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: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G2. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Blatant vandalism Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete with all possible prejudice and speed Mangoe (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2013 (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:Medicinal plants-stubs[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 both template and category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Unproposed, and barely populated, but I'm willing to give it a chance. Propose renaming the category to Category:Medicinal plant stubs and the template to {{medicinal-plant-stub}}. Dawynn (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2013 (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:The Holocaust in Bosnia and Herzegovina[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. delldot ∇. 20:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Bosnia and Herzegovina" did not exist during WWII, the name of the (puppet) state that ruled both modern-day "Croatia" and modern-day "Bosnia and Herzegovina" was the Independent State of Croatia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:29, 12 February 2013 (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:The Holocaust in Croatia[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: relisted at CFD 2013 February 25. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Croatia" did not exist during WWII, the name of the (puppet) state that ruled both modern-day "Croatia" and modern-day "Bosnia and Herzegovina" was the Independent State of Croatia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree re above two proposals. We don’t usually use the full official title of a country for categories; otherwise we would have “Sport in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”, “Transport in the Islamic Republic of Iran” or Sport in the Commonwealth of Australia”. Sometimes for history subcategories eg ROC/PRC, or when the short title America or Micronesia is a region hence “United States of America” or “Federated States of Micronesia”. And “United Kingdom” usually means in full the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Hugo999 (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have added that using "Croatia" instead of "Independent State of Croatia" is incredibly offensive to Croatians as this four year period represents an aberration in the continuity of Croatian statehood. To address your concern about the use of the "official" name, another option might be Category:The Holocaust in the NDH (NDH is the official and commonly used initialisation of the full name in Croatian, Nezavisna Država Hrvatska). The other problem with the above is that the division is ahistorical, neither existed in anything like its current borders in 1941–45 (they were essentially combined into the NDH). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree We have categories called "The Holocaust in France" and "The Holocaust in Germany", although Germans aren’t proud of Nazi Germany. Many countries have changed in area over their history particularly India and Poland, plus the eastward/westward expansion of Russia and the United States over the centuries. Hugo999 (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying that even though Bosnia and Herzegovina didn't exist as a nation until the 1990's, we should still have a category for it because it exists now? Perhaps we should keep the Croatia category and merge the B&H one with it and note in the scope of the Croatia one that it covers the territory of the NDH? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand the rationale. The Holocaust was time-limited, but we link it to a category that is not? I obviously haven't got the hang of categories yet. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I would say you are understanding what is going on better than Hugo999. Italy and Germany are really, really bad cases. A much better example is that we do not have Category:1965 establishments in Bangladesh, because Bangladesh does not exist at that point and is clearly, without a doubt, a part of Pakistan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having elections in 1910 does not mean the place existed in the 1940s. The most logical standard with categories that cover events in a specific time period in a specific place is to use the names of the places when the events occured, and follow the international boundaries that existed at the time. Otherwise we will need Category:Alexander the Greats campaigns in Turkey. Things happening in 1810 in Santa Fe, New Mexico were not occuring in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that makes more sense to me. This is a common problem in the Balkans, and not just with categories, strangely enough. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Using the name of the political body present at the time makes sense and is more neutral. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:37, 19 February 2013 (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:Isle de France[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:History of Mauritius. The Bushranger One ping only 04:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Isle de France" is an alternate English spelling for Île-de-France, as well as a former French spelling for Île-de-France. It is also traditionally associated with the region in European France, so it is not unambiguously about Mauritius, so should be renamed to be unambiguous. 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Mauritius. I see no point in having this as a one article category. If it is kept it should be renamed to Category:French Mauritius.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Present name is too ambiguous and using it to mean an historical name for Mauritius rather than its more prevalent meaning (of the region in France) is potentially confusing. Mcewan (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify - would also support merge to Category:Mauritius. The main thing is get rid of the ambiguity with Ile-de-France. Mcewan (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Support. i must draw the attention of most of you here, because it seems you are not aware of the issue, in fact Category:Isle de France is the same as Category:French Governors of Mauritius, they should be merge. It is a sub category of Category:Governors of Mauritius, the other two sub category are Category:British Governors of Mauritius and Category:Dutch Governors of Mauritius. i would suggest the rename all the three categories, all of them should have the same name as their main articles, note that it was already the case until recently when article British governor of Mauritius was move to Governor of British Mauritius and Dutch Governors of Mauritius to Governor of Dutch Mauritius. The three sub categories should be rename as follow:

The reason for 'Isle de France' rather than 'French Mauritius' is that during Dutch and British period the country was known as 'Mauritius' itself, while during the French period the country was and is still widely known as Isle de France and Île de France. However their was complain that the name is ambigous with Île de France, a region in France, that why the word (Mauritius) was added to Isle de France (Mauritius) to avoid any confusion and i think its category should follow the same path.Kingroyos (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Actually a recent CfD closed where the clear consensus was to call the category Category:French governors of Mauritius. No one else there supported Kingroyos' attempt to rename the category to use something other than Mauritius. There is clear consensus to apply the current name throughout history. I might under other circumstances support the alternate name, but it is too likely to be confused with something else to be worth introducing it in category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Yes, but here its a different request and context.Kingroyos (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm sorry, i made a mistake, i thought the request was about Category:Governors of Isle de France, please ignored what i have written above because its irrelevant. Actually, i don't agree to merge it to Category:Mauritius, its not really a one-article category, i have just add some articles which fall in this category, just take a look.Kingroyos (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure what the justification is, but at the moment Kingroyos seems to be going on a population drive for this category. It's currently being applied to a wide range of articles that only seem to mention Ile de France, often in only a tangential way. For example, Battle of Porto Praya, which took place thousands of miles away, Java campaign of 1806–1807, which has nothing to do with the island in itself, or the Freycinet Map of 1811, which does not feature the island. Also being added are people that took part in some of the military campaigns around those waters, like Henry Ducie Chads, or ships that were involved, like HMS Astraea (1810). At the moment anything that seems to have a wikilink to Isle de France is getting added, like Patamar or Régence. I'm on the verge of reverting most of these as being a wholly non-defining category, and it seems to be an attempt to game this discussion. Benea (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:History of Mauritius or Category:Mauritius, as preferred. Neutral as to the creation of suitable subcats for governors, etc. But let's have no more attempts to counter the 'single article category' argument by filling it with inappropriate articles, such as people who merely visited the island for a brief period. Benea (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still stand by the view of merging this article. I had to remove one of the added articles because it was on a novel set after the British takeover.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the main article is called Isle de France (Mauritius) as a result of the lengthy RM (talk:Isle de France (Mauritius)), so if this isn't merged, it should still be renamed. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2013 (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:Online museums[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. Duplicate categories; WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 07:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge The main article Virtual museum states that these two terms are synonymous, and no rationale has been provided for how this offshoot category might differ. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2013 (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/2013_February_12&oldid=1148953333"