Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 3 February 5 >

February 4[edit]

Category:Former municipalities of Aargau[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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator; there is a new discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 7. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 00:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: for renaming – Back in January 2012, there appears to have been some confusion about these category name formats. A bot did some renames, most of which were like the above nominations. I did find an instance where the same bot moved in the opposite direction; however, as these subcategories show, there are fewer that have been left in the format Category:Former municipalities of [name]. If other editors support that these stay as they are and the other categories be renamed to this format, that is okay with me. I just think the names should be consistent and the unnecessary redirects deleted.
The first category in the proposal above is a case where I tried to rename the category myself, completely forgetting the guidance in the FAQ, so that category will need a history merge or whatever else an administrator will do to make it right. Thank you in advance for your help! – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, with the proposal the category names would become unnecessarily long - unnecessary because it's entirely obvious that it concerns cantons. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you would like to see the long entries in this category shortened to the format Category:Former municipalities of [name]? That is entirely okay with me; I'm just shooting for naming consistency. We should note, though, that the shorter choices do not quite "stand alone" as stipulated by the policy WP:Category names#General conventions, bullet #6. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 22:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many canton category names that can be made shorter indeed. If you look at Category:People by canton in Switzerland, some of the child category names contain "the canton of", others don't. In my view all of them should be without "the canton of". Marcocapelle (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This change introduces redundancy as only cantons have such municipalities. SFB 21:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paine Ellsworth: If consistency is your main concern, can we then reach consensus by closing this discussion and opening a new discussion for changing all category names that contain "the canton of" into the equivalent name without "the canton of"? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2015 (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:Scandinavian Mountains[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 by nominator. DexDor (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose deleting Category:Scandinavian Mountains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We normally categorize mountains by country (e.g. Category:Mountains of Finland) so I don't see a need for this categorization. In addition the word "Scandinavia" has several definitions. If kept, this needs a definition of what its inclusion criteria are (and probably reparenting) - and possibly renaming to "Mountains of Scandinavia" to match the names of other categories. DexDor (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator, my mistake. DexDor (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2015 (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:Enrico Fermi[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 and purge. – Fayenatic London 15:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME - this category includes things as varied as a class of subatomic particles, a metro station, a school and an asteroid. For info: There is a List of things named after Enrico Fermi. DexDor (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative: purge the category while keeping everything related to Fermi's own work. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any/many articles actually about Fermi's work ? Articles like Fermi liquid theory don't even mention Enrico and we don't normally categorize articles about laws of physics etc based on who the law is named after (which can vary by country/language) - e.g. Boyle's law is not in a "Laws of physics named after British scientists" category. DexDor (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see some articles about things in physics/maths that Fermi may have had some involvement with - although often even this is unclear from the article (e.g. Fermi coordinates). What I don't see is articles specifically about Fermi's work (cf. Einstein's unsuccessful investigations) - i.e. if someone else made/makes a discovery about Fermi foobar that belongs in the article. DexDor (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right that these articles mostly refer indirectly to Fermi's work. Still I wouldn't delete the entire category for that reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what would you leave in this category (apart from the eponymous article and the list) ? DexDor (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I guess that all derive from Fermi's work. As a notable scientist who evidently worked in a number of fields, I think a category to draw him and his work together is useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the person and his works drawn together by article text/links ? DexDor (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, keep the category but purge it of certain pages. Pages that should definitely stay in said category:
In general, a category containing articles that don't belong, is a poor reason to delete it.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category and list can co-exist. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The vast majority of things is this category have to little connection with Fermi to be so categorized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and purge. There are enough articles here which are directly associated with Enrico Fermi, but anything that just happens to be named for him should be removed I would actually say that fermium should not be included. kennethaw88 • talk 13:37, 25 April 2015 (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:Creative Communism License[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, without prejudice against further renaming if better ideas come up. – Fayenatic London 16:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To make clear that these are categories for wikipedians (i.e. user pages), not for articles about licensing or files for which the licenses apply etc. See related discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_9#Category:Creative_Commons_Attribution-No_Derivative_Works_License. DexDor (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested target categories specified. DexDor (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sensible to highlight the user nature of this tag. The current naming choice is a little opaque. SFB 21:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • admin comment. @DexDor:, I'd be happy to process these renames, but apart from the first one I'm not sure what the proposed category names are. Are there any suggestions for should go in the <TBD> spots, or is that something you can't figure out either? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that someone who understands the intricacies of copyright would have commented. I've added suggestions - they're rather long, but I'd rather err on the side of including information than unintentionally change the meaning too much. Pinging User:Ram-Man. I've also left a note at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Please leave this open for a few days hoping for a response. DexDor (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems rather meaningless, since what it disclaims is never claimed possible anywhere else. You specify the license grant every time you hit "save", and the SA requires re-use under the same license. CrowCaw 19:12, 17 February 2015 (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:Islam in the Gambia[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:Islam in the Gambia. I'll leave a redirect since both forms are acceptable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Recently-created cat that duplicates existing cat: Gambia and The Gambia are the same country. Redrose64 (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2015 (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:Rubber Soul[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 (was also previously deleted here). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I cannot see a case for eponymous album categories. (We routinely delete eponymous artist categories with 2 subcats.) Oculi (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The use of a template (two of them when it comes to the songs from the album) within the related articles is sufficient. An eponymous category for specific album titles is overcategorization, as the relationship between such albums to have them under Category:Wikipedia categories named after albums is minimal and could lead to an abundance of such categories being created by enthusiastic editors. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:42, 5 February 2015 (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:Tributes to the White Album[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:The Beatles tribute albums. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Seems like it would be best to keep naming of such categories in line with the name of the main article, as the White Album redirects to The Beatles (album). Upmerging to Category:The Beatles tribute albums is another option. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to category:The Beatles tribute albums and do similarly with Category:Tribute albums by album. There is no need whatever for these tiny categories. Oculi (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't rename it is too close to Category:Tributes to the Beatles when typed into the search box. - Bossanoven (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Oculi. Readers may look for Beatles tribute albums, but unlikely for tribute albums for specific Beatles albums. If it is a significant number of Beatle tribute albums it would be better served as a list. Which album, which year, which artist, which genre - stuff that categories were not designed for. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Rename per Bossanoven, clearly the proposed name would be "albums" that are tributes to "The Beatles", which is not the scope of the category. Upmerge per Oculi -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2015 (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:Ani DiFranco[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary layer of categorization with only a single child category and the eponymous article. Nothing but albums which are already categorized appropriately. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not serving any navigational purpose that the albums category isn't already doing. SFB 19:21, 4 February 2015 (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:Fictional pirates[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. Impossible to tell if comment of 7-Feb is sarcastic or serious. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Some are technically (ex-)privateers; the only difference between them is that one is sponsored and legal. Inclusiveness is preferable over creating more categories. --173.55.119.156 (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2015 (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:Washington (state) sportspeople 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: merge to Category:Washington (state) people stubs and Category:American sportspeople stubs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can see, there is no other stub category for US sportspeople by state I don't think this is a good idea to start stubbing people based on the state they are from (is that born in, reside in now, lived most of their lives?). Also upmerge into Category:American sportspeople stubs too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2015 (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:Highlife albums by Nigerian artists[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The scheme at Category:Highlife albums by artist nationality was deleted. This is too small and narrow to support. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tend to oppose, it's questionable if this category is 'too small' (4 entries) and even more questionable if it is 'too narrow' (given the other Nigerian genre categories). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2015 (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/2015_February_4&oldid=1136462602"