Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 23: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:48, 24 December 2009

< December 22	December 24 >

December 23

Category:Rosie Rushton

Propose renaming Category:Rosie Rushton to Category:Novels by Rosie Rushton

Nominator's rationale: Rename per convention of Category:Novels by author. At present this is an eponymous category, which is deprecated by WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, but apart from the author Rosie Rushton, this a category of her novels. If renamed, the author herself should be removed from the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, and it could likely be moved as a sub-category of "British novels by author" in the process. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Primrose International Viola Competition prize-winners

Category:Primrose International Viola Competition prize-winners - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#Award_winners; there is already a list at Primrose International Viola Competition. It's currently uncategorised, so if kept it needs parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It does help to locate winners of the prize. I think that both the list and the category are useful.--Karljoos (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Passenger trains in Alaska

Propose renaming Category:Passenger trains in Alaska to Category:Passenger trains of the Alaska Railroad

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:Named passenger trains of the United States has subcategories by railway and not state. I think we want to avoid grouping these by state since many named trains operate in multiple states and the by railway categories are a better way to group these. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. In this case, all the trains are intra-state (And if they were not, they'd be international before becoming interstate), but the convention should be followed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places associated with the Burke and Wills expedition

Convert to article Category:Places associated with the Burke and Wills expedition to article List of places associated with the Burke and Wills expedition

Nominator's rationale: Listify. It's already a list, and just needs to be moved into article-space. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's this even doing in the Category namespace? It's nothing like a category at all! In fact, I could easily believe it was intended to be created as a list in the first place. Listify it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia images by quality

Suggest merging Category:Wikipedia images by quality to Category:Wikipedia images

Nominator's rationale: There are only two quality classes for images, "valued" and "featured"—both of which already appear in Category:Wikipedia images directly—so this category cannot have more than two members for the forseeable future. "Selected" is a designation for images used by portals, but it is not an assessment of quality so much as of relevance and significance to the subject of the portal. (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely feels like a "don't we have bigger fish to fry?" issue, but I'm not opposed to the merge.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove the parent category per Wikipedia:Cat#Duplicate_categorization_rule (just like Category:Architecture Selected pictures doesn't have it, which is also in Category:Wikipedia images by quality, albeit unnoticed by the nominator), and add Category:Wikipedia valued pictures to Category:Wikipedia images by quality as well. That would be more logical. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did notice the selected pictures category, but it doesn't belong in this category since "selected pictures" is not an image quality class. That a picture is a "selected picture" just means that an editor decided to use it in a portal because it was relevant or significant to the subject of the portal; it is not an assessment of the image's quality. In the end, the category could house only the two categories for valued and featured pictures. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Then just remove Category:Architecture Selected pictures from here. But the argument remains valid, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I still support merging, but for now I've removed the selected pictures category and added the valued pictures one. Cheers, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then at this point I'd say keep, but remove parent category per Wikipedia:Cat#Duplicate_categorization_rule. Debresser (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPFW athletics categories

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The school brands itself as "IPFW" for athletics purposes; see its official site at gomastodons.com. Also, ESPN (and presumably other sports media) use "IPFW" instead of the full school name. Dale Arnett (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per convention of Category:College athletic programs by college.- choster 05:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What convention are you talking about? I see only 1-2 abbreviations among the 200 on the first page, and it is they who should be renamed, as I explained in my vote here below. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? Almost every single category is abbreviated.- choster 05:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose per guideline of not using abbreviations in category names. Note that this guideline is not some obstruse and theoretical mindbog of some editor, but is being used in Cfd discussions every few days. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that category isn't quite as clean as I thought, but it is absolutely longstanding convention to use Institution short name + Institution team nickname for collegiate sports. I'm quite familiar with the general proscription on abbreviations, but it is not the sole governing guideline. WP:COMMONNAME also applies here, and the full name of the institution is essentially never the primary form used either in reliable sources or in everyday speech; pick your college sports authority (ncaa.com, nytimes.com, espn.com, cbscollegesports.com, etc.) and see how often "UCLA Bruins" turns up as opposed to the "University of California, Los Angeles Bruins." This is, in fact, true of all sports, and requiring the maximum level of disambiguation would be an unwelcome innovation— there is really no confusing Category:Florida A&M Rattlers for anything else, just as we can use Category:Boston Red Sox not Category:Boston, Massachusetts Red Sox and Category:Hanshin Tigers not Hanshin Electric Railway Tigers.- choster 22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coomment There are 233 sub-categories of Category:College athletic programs by college. I count 20 of them using an abbreviation in the names, which is 8.6%. That doesn't sound to me like a convention, and in any case the convention against using abbreviations in category names still stands. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not for the narrow subset who follow a particular sport intensively enough to recognise all the abbreviations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same category? Fifteen of the nineteen teams under "A" alone use the team name. Again, we are not willy-nilly assigning abbreviations, but using the team name. It's not the UND Fighting Irish, it's the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. Why suddenly the need to expand this to University of Notre Dame Fighting Irish?

One shouldn't think of major U.S. college sports programs in the same way as a university faculty or research program. The major programs are, for good or ill, institutions in and of themselves, covered widely in mass media, and attracting many millions of fans with no ties whatsoever to the institution— in this respect, they no doubt differ from university sports in most of the world. But it also means that the team name will be by far the most common name found in reliable sources, and the name by which most people who would be interested in the topic would look for them by. Again, the team known as the "Fresno State Bulldogs" would essentially never be cited as the "California State University, Fresno Bulldogs," just as the proper name for the newspaper is The Stanford Daily not The Stanford University Daily (or The Stanford (University) Daily).- choster 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the rename goes ahead, the full name of the college should be givne in a capnote on the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

String oppose - We have been renaming categories from abreviated names, not to them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose IPFW? Really? I follow college sports fairly closely, and that acronym meant nothing to me. Yes, it's Notre Dame Fighting Irish- UND is normally used to refer to the University of North Dakota; but that is a strawman at any rate as no one has proposed renaming a category to "University of Norte Dame Fighting Irish". Categories do not need 'alphabet soup' introduced to them. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:87th Precinct novels

Propose renaming Category:87th Precinct novels to Category:Novels by Ed Mcbain

Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Novels by author. (This category refers to the 87th Precinct series of novels written by Ed McBain.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per convention, and in light of his extensive list of work outside this series that someone could write articles about. It may be useful to contain this category as a sub-category of Novels by Ed McBain, but that's a moot point until quite a few more articles get written. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply No objection to creating a new Category:87th Precinct novels at some point in the future, if and when there are enough articles on Ed McBain's work to require a category. As the Bibliography of Evan Hunter shows, he was an astonishingly prolific author, although I don't know either way how many of his works would be notable per Wikipedia:Notability (books). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Simpsons Christmas episodes

Category:The Simpsons Christmas episodes - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: A similar template was deleted 2 years ago at Christmas time. Some of these episodes have little to do with Christmas. Skinner's Sense of Snow is about a snow day before Christmas break, not actually Christmas. Kill Gil, Volumes I & II has Christmas in the beginning of the episode, but goes through the course of a year during the episode. She of Little Faith is only very partially about Christmas, most of it being around Lisa being a Buddhist. There really isn't a point to have this category. CTJF83 chat 20:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary category for a non-distinct and unrelated series of episodes. In case anyone brings it up, there is a category for the Halloween episodes, but unlike the Christmas episodes, they are a defined and distinct series of episodes that are promoted differently than other episdoes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion, am I being dense? I see a list of the Treehouse of Horror episodes, but I don't even see a specific category for them, all the ones I've spot-checked are only categorized by their respective seasons. In fact, I think THAT category might ought to exist, but this category is undefined and unnecessary. Delete it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archaeological sites in Israeli occupied territories

Propose renaming Category:Archaeological sites in Israeli occupied territories to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: Rename to something better and add parent categories, or Delete. Israeli occupied territories is an article, but there does not appear to be a overall category for the occupied teritories. I know that the terminology is highly disputed, so I will notify WP:ISRAEL and WP:PALESTINE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These areas are archeological sites that are not in Israel but only occupied by Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I understand the definition, but because there appears to be no general category for the occupied territories, there is nowhere to place this category in the category tree. I presume that's why you added no parent categories when you created it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Why would we even want to group archaeological sites in the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights all together? This is mixing non-political archaeology with contentious political pseudo-boundaries, which doesn't make much sense. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Make this into three separate categories- except for the politics there is little connecting these three regions. I agree with Good Olfactory that this category is undesirable, and I think it's ripe for NPOV. The only neutral solution besides delete is to make each region its own category, and re-evaluate as the peace process proceeds. Of course, this has issues with WP:OC#SMALL, but I'd rather break that rule than NPOV. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beijing Zoo

Category:Beijing Zoo - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Category contains only two articles (Beijing Zoo & Beijing Zoo Station), both of which are already interlinked, and I don't see any sign of other articles to add to the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's nothing else to add here, and there's no potential for growth. Nice zoo, but unnecessary category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cold War survivors

Propose renaming Category:Cold War survivors to Category:Wikipedian Cold War survivors

Nominator's rationale: Rename to clarify that it is a user category. Alternatively, delete as trivia irrelevant to collaboration amongst editors, since every person on earth over the age of 20 survived the Cold War. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. When I created that category, I didn't know much about Wikipedia. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories#Inappropriate types of user categories as a vaguely-defined category that groups users on the basis of a characteristic shared by most Wikipedia users or humans more generally. The reason I say that the category is vaguely-defined is that it is not clear what it means to be a "Cold War survivor" in light of the fact that the Cold War was, not surprisingly, a cold war. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 00:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anyone that remembers the fall of the Berlin Wall, or, I'd go farther, anyone that was alive when Lithuania declared independence survived the Cold War. That's 90% of us that are old enough to use a computer- so about as useful as categorizing Wikipedians by species ;) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You think I'm human? ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Digital subchannels

Category:Digital subchannels - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I dunno how a "digital subchannel" differs from any other digital TV channel, but unless there is some crucial distinction I am unaware of, the category is pointless. If kept, it needs parent categories --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is just another channel available through digital TV, now the U.S. standard. Alansohn (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a whopping ONE page in the category. BrownHairedGirl, here in Columbia, the real station broadcasts on say channel 10; then puts a radar or extra programming on 10.1, and then a looping weather report on 10.2, with channel 10.3 just existing. None of them are notable beyond a mention in the WIS article (And I notice 10.3 doesn't even merit that). Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fellows of the International Society for Computational Biology

Category:Fellows of the International Society for Computational Biology - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAT. I may be wrong, but I'm not aware of a practice of categorising academics by their membership of academic societies. There is no Category:Computational biology or Category:Computational biologists, so it may be appropriate to keep this category and rename it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Some academic societies give out their fellowships only selectively, e.g. Royal Society, Royal Historical Society, Society of Antiquaries. In those cases, being a fellow is a clear sign of notability. Do not know about this case. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is definitely a case of selective fellowships. These fellowships are a high honor, not something available merely via paid membership. (Disclaimer: I am the category creator.) Quantling (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We certainly have several categories for fellowships or membership of societies where this is a great honour. This is recent, but seems to be a great honour, so it should be kept. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Essays supporting editor endurance

Propose renaming Category:Essays supporting editor endurance to Category:Wikipedia essays supporting editor endurance

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per convention of Category:Wikipedia essays. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to better clarify the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as creator. Note, my intention is to attempt to subcategorise all of Category:Wikipedia essays, comment at Category_talk:Wikipedia_essays#sub-categorising_essays would be welcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Florida Marlins pages needing attention

Category:Florida Marlins pages needing attention - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. there doesn't appear to be a Florida Marlins wikiproject which could use this unparented category, and in any case the category has been applied to articles themselves rather than to their talk pages, which is where maintenance categories should go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gothic Revival buildings in Idaho

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- nomination withdrawn; non-admin closure. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gothic Revival buildings in Idaho - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SMALL (limited scope for expansion). If kept, it needs parent categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. I was not aware that it was part of a wider category scheme, but as such it's a clear keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The contents of Category:Gothic Revival architecture in the United States are otherwise divided by state, so this is part of a scheme. No judgment at this time as to whether subdivision by state is a good idea, though the state subcategories of Category:Carpenter Gothic architecture in the United States are definitely more questionable. postdlf (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think in the long run, we will have enough examples in enough states to justify keeping the whole scheme, although not every architectural style would justify a state-by-state breakdown. I would favor renaming all such "Foo buildings in Bar" categories to "Foo architecture in Bar," as sometimes only an element of a building or non-building structures exhibit aspects of a style (e.g. Tower Bridge as Gothic Revival; Metro Center as Brutalist; Hunt's Tomb as Egyptian Revival) can exemplify a style, but that can wait for a later discussion.- choster (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of an overall structure organized by state for this defining characteristic. This is not the only Gothic Revival structure in the state and there is no reason to believe that this is the only article. Alansohn (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2009 (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:Greek philosophy

Category:Greek philosophy - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Single-article category with no parents until I added two. The page had been blanked, but not by the editor who created it, so doesn't qualify as a speedy. I have no preferences for what do with this, but if kept it should be populated. I will notify WP:PHILO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one article belonged in the well-populated Category:Classical Greek philosophy. Greek philosophy just redirects to Ancient Greek philosophy, the parent article of Category:Classical Greek philosophy notwithstanding the different name. I smell another CFR on the horizon. postdlf (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there have been non-Classical Greek philosophers. — goethean ॐ 16:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different question than whether there is such a thing as non-Classical Greek philosophy. The fact that title is just a redirect to Ancient Greek philosophy (and that this category is empty) suggests not. postdlf (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now no articles either. I doubt that there would have been many medieval Greek philosphers: they would probably have been theologians. There may be the odd modern one. Delete for now without prejudice to re-creation if required. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic Buildings (St. Marys, Georgia)

Category:Historic Buildings (St. Marys, Georgia) - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. AFAICS from looking at Category:Buildings and structures, we don't do genralised "historic buildings" categories (ISTR some CFDs on this subject two or three years ago, but I am not sure). The only article in the category is Orange Hall (St. Marys, Georgia), which already seems to be adequately categorised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To avoid subjectivity, we use designations and classifications of authoritative third parties (e.g. Category:Railway stations on the National Register of Historic Places in Missouri or Category:Grade I listed buildings in Somerset), and the sole article is already in its appropriate NRHP and geographic categories.- choster (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominator's reasons. We categorize by official historical registers and such, but not by subjective assessments of historicity. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One can only imagine a category for historic buildings of every small town- and St. Mary's is small. It would colapse under its own weight. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hanno R. Ellenbogen Citizenship Award recipients

Category:Hanno R. Ellenbogen Citizenship Award recipients - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OCAT#Award_winners, "people can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category". The list already exists at Hanno R. Ellenbogen Citizenship Award. Please note that this category has no parent categories, and some will needs to be added if it is kept. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lists work much better for awards. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ina Installment films

Category:Ina Installment films - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Uncategorised category with no category text, containing one article Ang Cute Ng Ina Mo, which gives no clue what "Ina Installment" is. A wikipedia search for "Ina Installment" only returns this category, so it seems pointless to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just spotted that the category page was blanked by creator. Is that grounds for speedy deletion, even tho it's not empty? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're the admin but I'd just let this play out now. G7 says "If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request."; and neither C1 or C2 applies. Anyways, someone might wander along that knows what on Earth an 'Ina Installment' is, but that person is not me. No parent article to define the term, nothing on Google that is enlightening, I'd tentatively in the side of deleting this, but am open to someone educating me about Phillipine cinema.

Category:Left-wing organisations of Brazil

Category:Brazilian right-wing associations

Category:Brazilian right-wing associations - Template:Lc1

Category:Left-wing organisations of Brazil - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete, or Rename. Uncategorised categoryies whose content is a list, these two at least needs a cleanup, but I'm not familiar enough with subject matter to know what to do with it. I am very wary of using the category system to label things as "right-wing" or "left-wing", because the application and perception of those terms is subjective. Per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE we don't do subjective categories, so this one should either be deleted or recast to categorise the organisations by their field of activity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jeremy Bentham

Category:Jeremy Bentham - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This uncategorised category contains only one article, a draft in the userspace of the category creator. Per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, we do not usually create eponymous categories for people, except where the main article on the person has grown so large that it has been split into a series of sub-articles. Since that does not seem to be the case with Bentham, I see no reason to believe that this category has any particular utility. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court opinions by justice and term

Propose renaming Category:United States Supreme Court opinions by justice, 2005 to Category:Lists of 2005 term United States Supreme Court opinions

Propose renaming Category:United States Supreme Court opinions by justice, 2007 to Category:Lists of 2007 term United States Supreme Court opinions

Nominator's rationale: Rename to clarify contents, and recategorize under Category:Lists of United States Supreme Court opinions by term. These contain exclusively list articles organized by term of the U.S. Supreme Court (not by calendar year); terms run from the first Monday in October to the preceding day the following year, so just stating the year in the abstract is inaccurate. Stating that these lists are also by justice is an unhelpful and awkward qualifier in the category name, particularly given that other term lists 2005 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, 2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States exist that should be grouped with these. The lists by justice are already subcategorized by justice (e.g., Category:Lists of United States Supreme Court opinions of Antonin Scalia). I tried discussing these with their creator but have not gotten a response. In the alternative, as all of these lists are already grouped together by term through templates, I would also not oppose deletion. postdlf (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. We should specify these are lists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court cases by year

Suggest merging Category:2005 United States Supreme Court cases to Category:United States Supreme Court cases and Category:2005 in United States case law

Suggest merging Category:2006 United States Supreme Court cases to Category:United States Supreme Court cases and Category:2006 in United States case law

Suggest merging Category:2008 United States Supreme Court cases to Category:United States Supreme Court cases and Category:2008 in United States case law

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, OCAT. Dividing the SCOTUS cases by year in this manner is a great detriment to navigation. It is necessary to be able to browse all of these articles alphabetically because case law articles are often extremely variable in possible titles, due to the often complex names of litigants, and to all the different ways in which litigant names can get abbreviated or shortened. Being forced to search through these by year as well as alphabetically is just not helpful, particularly given that well organized chronological lists exist, both by court term for the past decade and by case reporter volume for the entire history of the Court, and the fact that SCOTUS cases will be by far the bulk of entries in the U.S. case law by year categories. So anyone who wants to search in that manner can. postdlf (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. In general I dislike the current tendency to chop up all categories chronologically, because it can be a serious impediment to navigation, so I was initially inclined to support this proposal for upmerger. But now I'm not sure.
Having spent a number of years working on issues where I needed to check a lot of UK law cases, I support the nominator's concern to ensure that cases are organised in a way which facilitates those who want to find a particular case. He is right that names of cases can be complex and variable; the order of parties can be reversed as one side appeals the other's victories to a higher court, and some of the parties can change their names (business merge or rebrand, people adopt a new name on marriage, parties can drop out or be joined to the case, etc). However Category:United States Supreme Court cases currently contains 1,823 non-list articles, with a further 35 in these two categories. That's ten pages of category listing, which strikes me as being a hard-to-use-tool if someone is looking for a judgment by imprecise name (e.g. "I think someone named Snodgrass was one of the parties"). In that case, searching ten category pages for "Snodgrass" is a pain-in-the-neck; I'd prefer one long list. However, one long list covering 200 years of cases would be unfeasibly long, so I don;t think that works, so some form of subdivision seems preferable. That could be by year, by decade, or by Chief Justice; but I don't know enough on the subject to decide.
So I think the best thing is to ask WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases for input~~, which should have been done by the nominator~~. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops! I see that the nominator has already asked for input from WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. Grovelling apologies for not checking properly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think one of the goals in categorization should be to avoid forcing users to browse through too many different variables at once, and to instead give them multiple options by which to find articles or browse between related ones. The trick to that is different levels of generalization associated with each variable; here, case law by court only alphabetically, and case law by year only by country. And we already have lists of SCOTUS case articles by term, by Court (defined by the presiding Chief Justice, e.g., "the Roberts Court"), and by reporter volume; lists are the best way to organize the same data in multiple, highly picky ways. So my preference is to leave Category:United States Supreme Court cases undifferentiated chronologically. Browsing through ten alphabetically organized pages for a particular case name is a lot easier than having to click in and out of multiple year-specific categories (particularly with Template:CatAZ aiding the alphabetical search). But I'd consider subdividing by Court to be the lesser of the possible evils. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are thousands of articles for U.S. Supreme Court cases and thousands more to be created. There are multiple structures and means of navigation, and grouping such articles by the year the case was decided allows readers to navigate across similar articles and to aid in finding the information they are seeking. Alansohn (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep way to many Supreme Court cases. Makes it easier to find by year.--Levineps (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. The usual way to search for these is by name, not by year. This is an impediment, not a help. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Worst lists

Propose renaming Category:Worst lists to Category:Lists of worsts

Nominator's rationale: As already remarked upon by a commenter on the category talk page, the naming of this category makes it sound like the articles included in it are the worst list articles we have, as opposed to being lists of "worst" items. Proposed name would also more closely match the parent Category:Lists of superlatives. RL0919 (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for clarify the category's purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to more clearly reflect the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alumni by senior high school in Taiwan

Nominator's rationale: no precedent for alumni by secondary school, and having such a tree would likely be WP:OC Mayumashu (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename - this is part of Category:People by educational institution, cf Category:People by high school in the United States, which would suggest Category:People by high school in Taiwan. Occuli (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or slightly rename -- We have Category:People by school in England, which is an alumni category for Englsih secondary schools, including public schools and high schools. I do not know how the Taiwanese education system works, but if they have "senior high schools" there is no reason why there should not be an alumni category for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subcats / Rename Parent to reflect the standard used for categorization of such alumni worldwide. Alansohn (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Country covers

Category:Country covers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Original research. Also, we don't categorize songs by what genre they were covered in, nor do we categorize cover songs at all since nearly every song has been covered at some point. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the category name is also ambiguous. A well-sourced list of songs from one genre later covered in another might be interesting, if in fact there are references discussing such things. postdlf (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palo Alto High School alumni

Category:Palo Alto High School alumni - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: no precedent for catting alumni by high school or equivalent Mayumashu (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - part of the extensive Category:People by high school in the United States. Occuli (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- ample precedent: see also Category:People by school in England. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the precedent set worldwide for organization of such alumni using the category system. Alansohn (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete. American high school attended is almost never defining. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BSN players

Propose renaming Category:BSN players to Category:Baloncesto Superior Nacional players

Nominator's rationale: expanding abbreviation, as per norm. Mayumashu (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match full name of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Under Construction football stadiums in England

Convert to article Category:Under Construction football stadiums in England to article List of football stadiums under construction in England

Nominator's rationale: Listify. It's already a list, but badly named and in category space. It just needs to be moved across to article space. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second thoughts. Actually, on second thoughts, any such list would be a maintenance headache. It may better to just delete the category, or rename it to Category:Stadiums under construction in the United Kingdom, as a sub-category of Category:Stadiums under construction and Category:Football venues in the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lack of any category descriptions in this space is rather irritating (general rant not specifically against any editor). We do have Category:Buildings under construction (which perhaps ought to be Category:Buildings and structures under construction), a descendent of Category:Development projects which in turn is under Category:Planned developments (which includes proposed, under construction, and on hiatus projects), plus the oddball Category:Construction projects in the Öresund Region. I do not know if "development project" and "planned development" have specific meanings in the building trade. In any case, I wouldn't worry excessively about trying to slot this category into an existing system, because to my layman's eye, there is no comprehensible system. - choster (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wonder if these are better linked with a template? Then you can add various types of structures in one place and see the whole picture in one place. Given how often these change and the fact that the size can vary greatly over time, including down to zero, a category has some serious issues. So at this point, I'm leaning to create a template. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vermont Maple Syrup

Category:Vermont Maple Syrup - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think this 3-article category is going to come to a sticky end. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Winners of the Grand Prix de Littérature Policière

Category:Winners of the Grand Prix de Littérature Policière - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#Award_recipients, a list is fine, and it already exists at Grand Prix de Littérature Policière. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- lists work much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a defining award that works even better, per WP:CLN, when both a list *AND* category coexist. The argument that "lists work much better" is not even worthy of being considered specious. Plain and simple, categories suck. If we were to actually allow judgments to be based on "lists work much better", we'd just toss the whole category system into the bit bucket as no category can do even a fraction of what lists can. Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the category because categories suck? It's an interesting, albeit novel, logic.
  BTW, I make this the 4th instance in the last week of Alansohn applying the word "specious" to a CFD rationale he disagrees (see the last one). It's not very WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women arrested for electoral participation (United States)

Category:Women arrested for electoral participation (United States) - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Being arrested is not of itself a defining characteristic of someone. If the arrest leads to conviction and imprisonment, or torture or disappearance, then yes; but mere arrest is not so significant. A search of categories no others for people arrested or for arrests. ISTR similar categories being deleted in the past, but can't recall which.
The category contains only one article, Susan B. Anthony, which appears to be already well-categorised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the long run, those known for being activists are known for being activists and not necessarily for the consequences of their activism. If we leave aside the activism, this category is nothing more than a "mere" arrest as noted by the nom, which we do not categorize for.- choster (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peterson Family

Category:Peterson Family - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category with no prospect of expansion, per WP:OC#SMALL. The category contains 3 articles, on a father and his two sons, who are interlinked already. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 *'''Delete''' per [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories#Inappropriate types of user categories]] as a vaguely-defined category that groups users on the basis of a characteristic shared by most Wikipedia users or humans more generally. The reason I say that the category is vaguely-defined is that it is not clear what it means to be a "Cold War survivor" in light of the fact that the [[Cold War]] was, not surprisingly, a [[cold war (general term)|cold war]]. –'''[[User:Black Falcon|B<small>LACK</small> F<small>ALCON</small>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Black Falcon|T<small>ALK</small>]])</sup> 00:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Delete'''  Anyone that remembers the fall of the Berlin Wall, or, I'd go farther, anyone that was alive when Lithuania declared independence survived the Cold War.  That's 90% of us that are old enough to use a computer- so about as useful as categorizing Wikipedians by species ;) [[User:Bradjamesbrown|Bradjamesbrown]] ([[User talk:Bradjamesbrown|talk]]) 10:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
+**You think I'm human? ;) --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 10:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 ==== Category:Digital subchannels ====