Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 2

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

March 2[edit]

Georgia to Georgia (country)[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These rename proposals were opposed in the speedy rename section (see discussion copied below) because disambiguation is unneeded. It has become a convention (very well established, in my opinion) that we always disambiguate "Georgia" in category names to match the ultimate parent Category:Georgia (country) (or Category:Georgia (U.S. state)), even when a good argument can be made that in the specific case disambiguation is unnecessary. Compare, for instance, Category:Georgia (country) at the Olympics and Category:Olympic competitors for Georgia (country). This issue has been discussed a number of times and in my opinion has reached the stage where such changes should continue to be accepted under speedy criterion C2B. These are currently the only categories I can find that refer to the country of Georgia that are not disambiguated in this way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
Oppose Georgia the US state does not compete at the World Championships in Athletics so there are no grounds for confusion. Compare for example Georgia at the Olympics. SFB 21:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per consistency with Georgia country and US state articles, which use parenthetical disambiguators by default. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My gosh, we've been through this issue so many times in full CFDs. We always end up adding the parenthetical—it's seriously getting to "waste of time" stage to continue to send these there. @Sillyfolkboy: you point of Georgia at the Olympics, but note that the corresponding category is Category:Georgia (country) at the Olympics. The categories are always disambiguated to match the parent Category:Georgia (country). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good Olfactory: Perhaps a little tiresome, but I don't see any other way of challenging the idea that we should disambiguate things that are unambiguous. Note that I'm happy for the other nominated Georgia categories to proceed due to their inherent ambiguity. This should only take quick comments from a couple of others if I'm in the minority in this case. SFB 00:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sillyfolkboy: I understand why users would oppose it. It just seems to me that there should come a point where the issue is considered more or less settled, and that even those who disagree with the consensus should allow the previous consensus to be used to make speedy changes consistent with that consensus. (We've quite literally had several dozen discussions on this exact same topic.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good Olfactory: I think it's fine as long as it isn't repeatedly the same sole person objecting to the same point, or if the point is clearly an inadequate one. While I can see you frustration, I think any alternative is to make consensus ossified, which isn't desirable at all. I don't think it too burdensome to wait a week for a couple of people to support you – or perhaps it gets more drawn out, which would suggest that a full discussion was warranted. SFB 19:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right—these Georgia ones sometimes do get opposed, but it's not typically the same user. That would be more of a problem if it was one user opposing on the same issue repeatedly. I don't regard it as a personal burden on me to take it to a full CFD, but in the grand scheme of things it starts to be a bit tedious and bureaucratic and calls into question why we have speedy criteria at all if there are worries about ossification of consensus. In any case, I'll move this to a full CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. For simplicity of categorization use "Georgia (country)" and "Georgia (U.S. state)" in all applicable categories. The alternative is that every time someone creates/uses a "Foos in Georgia" category they have to decide/check whether that category has the paranthetical bit. DexDor (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I very much trust that this particular consensus – to follow the lead of the main category Category:Georgia (country) – has ossified, otherwise we are in for endless reruns of 2007 cfds. Oculi (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency with the Georgia (country) category tree -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Georgia is so ambiguous that any mention anywhere needs to be disambiguated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have Category:Members of the Parliament of Georgia, Category:Members of the Georgia General Assembly, and other un-disambiguated categories for things that can only occur in the country or in the US state. As noted above, the US state doesn't send athletes (or competitors in other sports) to international sporting competitions. A proposal that all mentions everywhere be disambiguated might be helpful, but since that's not currently the case, we ought to attempt a new proposal to that effect, rather than acting as if it's already in effect. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 9 March 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:Nancy Ajram[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Strange category to have it seems-also given that it has a bunch of categories in it that wouldn't go in a category (like living people and 1983 births) Wgolf (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We should only have eponymous categories for people where they are really needed. Otherwise they tend to collect articles about related subjects that shouldn't be categorized together (they are linked together by normal page links) and (as in this case) get put in inappropriate parent categories. DexDor (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete – insufficient content (just 1 subcat). Oculi (talk) 14:07, 3 March 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:Songs about food[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. MER-C 12:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This list is just a collection of "songs" that have a food mentioned in the title. Hardly defining. Then, at least two of these songs that are "About food" are instrumentals. A Taste of Honey is nothing to do with honey, but it is included here. Most of the entries in this category do not state what the subject matter of the lyrics are so should NOT be included in the category. That, my friends, is why these "about" categories are pointless and a waste of time. That's without mentioning parable, metaphor and other literary tricks used in lyric writing. Richhoncho (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or purge. If deleted it should be without prejudice to being recreated and populated with songs that really are about food (not songs named after a food that are about something completely different). DexDor (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining to the contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick note It's easy to define whether a song is about food (obviously the VeggieTales cheeseburger song is about food, for example), but I have no opinion as to whether it's defining or otherwise helpful. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 9 March 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:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page[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, but do not empty. MER-C 12:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The creation of this category defeated its very purpose. It was intended as a humorous self-referential category which must itself be red. There are currently eleven pages in the category, and in ten of those, this had been the only non-existent category; by creating the category, it no longer applies to most of its members. Note that when this is deleted, a bot should not remove it from the pages which use it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DH85868993 (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as one of those 11 users. This category only makes sense to use if it does not exist. (Also, I think even for a user category, it doesn't satisfy WP:OC/U.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hmm. And here I was about to trout you for lacking a sense of humor. Delete away! ResMar 02:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if this category is blue, than the users should be removed from it. It would then be deleted for being empty, then it would be repopulated. It would effectively be a perpetual motion machine, and thus must be deleted per the first law of thermodynamics (or per Mandarax and David Eppstein, whichever makes the most sense).--kelapstick(bainuu) 16:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify in case the bot removes it from the userpages, but delete, and then delete the list if the bot doesn't remove it from the userpages. Nyttend (talk) 05:54, 8 March 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:Television programs set in grocery stores[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A category for this particular setting is believed to be unnecessary. NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Far too specific to be of use. I haven't seen any study of the grocery store as a television setting. However, I think there is a potential broader category that is reasonable: Category:Television programs set in retail stores. As a major place of work, this is important as a reflection of this aspect of society. We have some similar stuff in Category:Office work in popular culture and Category:Prison television series‎. I'm not sure if a re-purposing of the nominated category is appropriate or not. SFB 21:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or possibly rename to the more general category proposed by SFB. For some programs where it's set is highly defining. E.g. Are You Being Served? is more defined by being set in a store than, for example, being LGBT-related or set in London. DexDor (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments below make good points about this form of categorization potentially being a mess. DexDor (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "set in" suffers the same problems as all the "about" categories. How much time must the program be "set" in the location and what reliable source tells us that its at least that much, and that the threshold chosen is a notable characteristic of tv programs? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The scheme of Category:Television programs by setting seems more by geography then an actual physical local. That seems to be the way to go; otherwise, we'd have things like Television programs set in schools, court rooms, and hospitals, which all would be much more populated than this one. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When will this category delete?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too hard to define, and what % needed to qualify. I have to say our setting by location has gone too far in categorizing by short scenes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Category:Television programs by setting consists of subcategories for geographic settings; there are no other categories for "television programs set in a specific type of building or institution" (Category:Prison television series being a recognized genre of television in its own right, rather than a mere "happens to be set in" factoid.) And its parent category Category:Food retailing in fiction isn't a thing we need either — but if this goes, that will automatically be deletable as an empty category anyway since this is its only content. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, you all missed the boat when you thought this type of cat was only by geography - Take a step up the tree and see: Category:Works by setting, when has quite a few settings that are not geographic. That said, as noted above, defining setting in serial fiction can be a bit more challeging, due to its episodic nature. - jc37 03:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per my comments above. - jc37 03:31, 31 March 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:Briton deities[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Deities of the ancient Britons, Category:Gods of the ancient Britons and Category:Goddesses of the ancient Britons. – Fayenatic London 19:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Using "Briton" as an adjective is awkward (this might have been standard usage for a while during the 18th century or so, but it's not now). The alternative adjectives aren't very satisfactory: "Britannic" sounds too Victorian, "British" is immediately understood to refer to something else (i.e. pertaining to the Kingdom of Great Britain and its successor states), and "Brythonic" and "Brittonic" are a bit technical-sounding and belong properly to the domain of linguistics, not religion. "Category:Deities of ancient Britain" seems like the best solution to me. I'm open to suggestions, but "Briton deities" just grates on my ear. The same goes for the subcategories "Category:Briton gods" and "Category:Briton goddesses", which should be renamed to match what we decide for "Briton deities". Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename to Category:Gods of the Ancient Britons. The focus of the topic is the gods of this people. Using the anything which could pertain to Britain is confusing at best and misleading at worst. Other categories have less of an issue as the demonym doesn't overlap with understanding of different Celtic areas. SFB 21:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative's principle, maybe even easier is: Category:Deities of the Britons. (And if "ancient" really needs to be added, it's probably with a lowercase.) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a bad idea. (And thanks for giving feedback on this proposal!) I do think "ancient" is probably advisable to avoid chronological confusion. Now, in some cases, changing the focus to ethnicity, rather than territory, might complicate matters (for example there are one or two deities worshipped by Germanic soldiers stationed along Hadrian's Wall; they definitely belong to the history of Roman Britain, while people interested in Germanic religion are less interested in them). But perhaps the category is more interested in ethnicity than territory after all. Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also a possibility. The disadvantage is this: figures from Welsh mythology (or even Cornish and Breton folklore) would creep into the category, and the articles pertaining to the ancient Britons would be submerged. Also "Brythonic" is, I suspect, not a widely known term outside of linguistics circles (and Wales itself, presumably). Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a thought. My idea had been that by saying "ancient" we could include the Roman period for sure, while at least implying we were covering the pre-Roman period too. (There's much less material for that period, so it tends to be annexed onto the Roman period.) Sub-Roman Britain too, to the extent that paganism continued there.
    So far we seem to be evenly divided between those who want a territorial designation ("of ancient Britain" or "of Roman Britain") and those who want an ethnic one ("of the Britons" or "of the ancient Britons"). Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems pretty obvious that it should be by ethnicity. Otherwise we would need to include Roman deities in this category as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be in favour of moving to Category:Deities of the ancient Britons. Wikipedia generally seems to use more of an ethnic than a territorial organizational scheme for things like this. IMO, "ancient" is just ambiguous enough to cover pre- and sub-Roman Britain (which we want), and clear enough to avoid confusion with the UK since 1707. Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom or Category:Deities of the ancient Britons. This should cover the gods of Roman and pre-Roman Britain. I would oppose Brythonic, because it might exclude the Goidelic ones. Pagan Saxon deities should be a separate category. I have not mentioned sub-Roman, because Britain may well have been largely Christian by then, but I do not intend to exclude that period. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be happy with it, although I think that "ancient" is redundant in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:30, 17 March 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:Albanian former Shia Muslims[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. MER-C 12:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This currently only contains Enver Hoxha. The parent category was just merged to Albanian Sufis, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#Category:Albanian Shia Muslims. Hoxha's father was a Bektashi, and they are Sufis rather than Shias, but I do not think we need to categorise him so precisely, in the absence of any info about personal religious allegiance on the part of Enver Hoxha. – Fayenatic London 15:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Catholic category is subdivided by the new religious conviction of the former Catholics, but this kind of information is often lacking for former Shia Muslim people. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 8 March 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:Audio Adrenaline 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two entries? Not at all necessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. The recording artist/band is a defining characteristic of a song. (This and the one below are entirely standard categories.) Oculi (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oculi. The artist of a song is too crucial to its identity. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SMALLCAT, "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:13, 4 March 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:Nine Lashes albums[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Minor band with three albums to date. Not needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As part of a bigger overall scheme for albums by artist, per the parent category - "Albums by the artists that recorded them. Please note that all single-artist album articles may have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded." Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. The artist/band is the paramount defining characteristic of an album. Oculi (talk) 09:36, 2 March 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_March_2&oldid=1138408923"