Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 6 March 8 >

March 7[edit]

Category:Harlow Wilcox 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: keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Zero chance that this will ever contain more than the one song. It was Wilcox's only single. He was a session musician and only had two albums, all of instrumental music I think. Herostratus (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the general categorization of songs by artist. Category:Songs by artist says "all song articles should have subcategories here, regardless of how many songs the artist has recorded". Eric444 (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, so it does. Well, people will write anything I guess. But so? It's patently ridiculous to have single-entity categories and is not helpful to the reader and will only send her on a wild goose chase. So let's not do it. If anyone can come up with argument better than "Well, somebody wrote a requirement that we do silly things, so let's" that'll be different. Herostratus (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the recording artist is a defining characteristic of a song. The number of items in the category is irrelevant (unless 0). We have plenty of single-entry categories. Oculi (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Occuli and Eric444. However, if Herostratus wants to open up a debate as to why a category (which by definition means two or more) can exist with only one member, then let me know. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do and did, here: Wikipedia talk:Categorization#RfC: Forever Alone?. It's not something I feel that strongly about, but it's worthwhile considering things like this from time to time I think. Herostratus (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2014 (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.

Later Liang (Five Dynasties)[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: already processed at WP:CFDS. ([1]) – Fayenatic London 16:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Later Liang Dynasty" has been renamed to "Later Liang (Five Dynasties)". Timmyshin (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2014 (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.

Mt. SAC athletics[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both This junior college uses "Mt. SAC" in an athletic context, not Mt. San Antonio. See their official website for example. If you Google "Mt. SAC athletics", a website for the Mt. SAC Relays along with many other hits pop up. It's more commonly used than Mt. San Antonio, thus its common name is Mt. SAC. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Mt. SAC is what the school is referred to commonly. Best illustrated by the fact their website is mtsac.edu Furthermore, there is Mt. San Jacinto College somewhat nearby, which some people (Its beyond me how) have confused with the full formal name of Mt. San Antonio College. Trackinfo (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2014 (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:Fellows of the Royal Society by year[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) 17:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the contents which are all lists, as opposed to subcats of people. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2014 (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:Thailand alpine skiers[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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories seem redundant. I'm not sure if the distinction was deliberate, but I don't see it done for any other category. Paul_012 (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I created Category:Thailand alpine skiers, along with Category:Olympic alpine skiers of Thailand and Category:Alpine skiers at the 2014 Winter Olympics, in January; at that time Category:Thai alpine skiers did not yet exist. Category:Thai alpine skiers was created a week or so later. If the naming was incorrect, Category:Thailand alpine skiers probably should have been moved to Category:Thai alpine skiers, rather than a new category created, but I assume the creator of Category:Thai alpine skiers was unaware of the existing Category:Thailand alpine skiers.
If merger is done, the new cat should, at this time, be empty other than Category:Olympic alpine skiers of Thailand; and Category:Olympic alpine skiers of Thailand should be categorized in the surviving category. At present, we have no articles for any Thai[land] alpine skiers who are not also Olympic alpine skiers of Thailand. TJRC (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2014 (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:Latin adjectives in current use[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) 16:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia categorization should be on characteristics of the topic of the article, not on characteristics of the word used to refer to that topic. Most/all of the pages in this category are disambiguation pages which (by definition) don't have a topic. We also generally avoid the word “current” in category names. DexDor (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this category – it has been on Wikipedia for nearly five years and nobody has raised any objection. I cannot see that anything would be gained by deleting it, but if you wish to merge it into Category:Latin words and phrases I won't lose any sleep over it. — Hebrides (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hebrides: what is the inclusion criteria? What is meant by 'in current use'? How do we determine if something is currently used or not? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hebrides. The nomination is not to merge this category; it's to delete it. Category:Latin words and phrases should consist of articles about words/phrases (e.g. this, this and this). Dab pages (and articles about concepts) should not be in that category. It's fundamental to (non-administrative) categorization that it's by characteristics of the article topic, not by characteristics of article title - e.g. the Apple article belongs in Category:Fruit, but not in Category:English words and phrases. Categories like the one under consideration here make things less clear and have little/no purpose. DexDor (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We avoid "current" as the plague it is. Plus, how do we determine if something is "currently" in use?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Your points are all well made and I apologise for wasting everyone's time by creating this category. Categories are not my forte. Humanum est errare. — Hebrides (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We might as well have English words of Latin origin, which would be perhaps a quarter of the English dictionary. Latin words and phrases should contain articles about particular words or phrases, such as Catholic doctrines or legal maxims, not about what a dictionary may tell one about the word's origins, often not even mnetioned in the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite; An article about a Catholic doctrine should be in Category:Catholic doctrines and not categorized based on the language used in a/the name used to refer to it. DexDor (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2014 (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:American-Canadian novels[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) 16:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Subcategory of Category:American novels by ethnic background, which apparently exists solely to contain a single novel by William Gibson — however, the novel is also in Category:Novels by William Gibson, which itself is already filed in both Category:Canadian novels by writer and Category:American novels by writer, and thus the novel is already adequately categorized for its relevance to both Canadian and American literature without needing this category on top. Seems like a classic WP:OCAT to me; while certainly there are writers from Canada who live in the United States and vice versa, being American-Canadian or the obverse is hardly a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the writer in anything like the same way that being an African-American writer is. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, how can a novel have an ethnic background? Seems to be a case of trying to have a book inherit the racial traits of its author. Resolute 14:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. We should also take a much closer look at that whole category - a novel can't have an ethnic background, indeed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably true. I do understand what the idea was attempting to get at — novels by writers of a particular ethnic background, rather than the novels necessarily having an ethnicity of their own per se — but it's ambiguously named for exactly that reason, and in most cases that intersection is trivial information anyway. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In theory, novels can have characters of a given background, although those can be very different from the author. It is much more useful to categorize novels by the nationality of the author, and then subdivide them by author. Author is usually the best way to categorize novels.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete somewhat ambiguous. Is this for novels by Americans who are Canadian, or Canadians who are American? Or is it for novels set in both the United States and Canada? Or which was published in Canada and the United States as native markets? Novels written by Americans set in Canada? Novels written by Canadians set in the USA? Canadian written novels published initially by a US firm? American written novels first published in Canada? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is clearly a small intersection. If a person has both Canadian and United States ethnicity he should be in both ethnic categories, not a dual ethnicity one. Adding a further intersection with novel/ist is not useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2014 (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/2014_March_7&oldid=1074813534"