Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 22: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
CalJW (talk | contribs)
29,222 edits
CalJW (talk | contribs)
29,222 edits
Line 64: Line 64:
*'''Delete''' - What doesn't sound like a good idea any longer to me is the entire "works by author" category structure. I initially thought that it would be useful for authors with multiple works subcats but in thinking about it a little longer I don't see the necessity for that layer of categorization at all. It does not appear that any other artistic discipline has that layer of categorization (I'm not seeing for example "Works by composer" with "symphonies by composer" or "cantatas by composer" subcats, or "Works by painter" or "Works by sculptor" category layers). So I think we should delete this category and all of its subcategories and create new parent cats for such things as essays and short stories by author and park them under the Works by artist supercat. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - What doesn't sound like a good idea any longer to me is the entire "works by author" category structure. I initially thought that it would be useful for authors with multiple works subcats but in thinking about it a little longer I don't see the necessity for that layer of categorization at all. It does not appear that any other artistic discipline has that layer of categorization (I'm not seeing for example "Works by composer" with "symphonies by composer" or "cantatas by composer" subcats, or "Works by painter" or "Works by sculptor" category layers). So I think we should delete this category and all of its subcategories and create new parent cats for such things as essays and short stories by author and park them under the Works by artist supercat. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep as is.''' Works (or Writings, if people prefer that) unites all written works by a single person, and that's important to hold works by authors who have multiple formats in which they write.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep as is.''' Works (or Writings, if people prefer that) unites all written works by a single person, and that's important to hold works by authors who have multiple formats in which they write.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This is the type or overall category that other fields ''do'' have. [[User:CalJW|CalJW]] 02:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


==== Category:Southern Cal Trojans baseball players ====
==== Category:Southern Cal Trojans baseball players ====

Revision as of 02:15, 23 March 2007

< March 21
March 23 >

March 22

Category:Young scientists

Category:Young scientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category in fact contains no young scientists, but is a mishmash of various competitions, organizations, training programs, etc, all of which really having nothing to do with one another. Lesnail 23:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quantum Electrodynamics' physicists

Category:Quantum Electrodynamics' physicists to Category:Physicists

Category:Credit Card Cover

Propose renaming Category:Credit Card Cover to Category:Credit card images
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to fix the capitalization and the phrasing. Unint 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with one or more lawsuits

Category:People associated with one or more lawsuits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This seems to be a less than useful category. It contains 18 articles, despite the fact that it has no subcategories and the likelihood that thousands of articles could in theory belong here. Either this is not a defining characteristic, or there is some other category out there (which I can't locate) which serves the same purpose. --After Midnight 0001 22:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Free astronomy software

Category:Free astronomy software to Category:Astronomy software

Category:AfD debates

Category:AfD debates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:AfD discussions. See: discussion vs debate-- Cat chi? 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mathematical lit

Category:Mathematical journals to Category:To be determined by consensus
Category:Mathematical publications to Category:To be determined by consensus
Category:Mathematics books to Category:To be determined by consensus
Category:Mathematics publications to Category:To be determined by consensus
1) Keep Category:Mathematical journals well define and well named.
2) Keep Category:Mathematics books again well defind.
3) Merge Category:Mathematical publications, Category:Mathematics publications into Category:Mathematical literature, which is the top level cat for maths works, or appropriate sub categories.
The publications categories are left overs from the recient CfD [1] which should have been deleted. I have a week preference for Mathematical publications as top level category as litrature makes me think of fiction. --Salix alba (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works by author

Propose renaming Category:Works by author to Category:Literary works which are not books, plays or poems by author
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The category description says it is supposed to be for literary works that are not books, plays or poems. However the category title is apparently already leading to confusion as people are using it to create categories which only have books and plays (see the Shaw cfd below for example). I would recommend one of two changes. Either a) rename the category to something like "Literary works which are not books, plays or poems by author", or b) change the definition of the category to include all works of an author and then make the corresponding Books-by-author, Plays-by-author and Poems-by-author subcategories also subcategories here. So for example, under b), you'd have "Works by Shaw" which includes as subcategories "Books by Shaw", "Plays by Shaw" and "Poems by Shaw". Dugwiki 19:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I know the name I suggested sounds horribly long, so I'm not all that fond of it to be honest. If you can come up with a different, better sounding name, please feel free to post it. Dugwiki 19:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based mostly on the clunk factor of the suggested rename, but if something less clunky is suggested I might support it. I created the category to be placed under Category:Works by artist to be a companion to the Books, Plays and Poems of/by categories. Placing those as subcategories of this adds an unnecessary layer of categorization in most cases. The Shaw category existed before this category did, as did all of the other categories that are currently captured. As I was moving the various existing "works of" categories to this new one, I nominated some for for deletion or renaming based on their contents. Where "works of" categories are justified IMHO is either when the author has a substantial number of subcats (more than the two Shaw has) or when the author has a body of work that isn't properly categorized under one of the existing subcats (essays for example). I think this category works as is but, again, if there's a more clear non-clunky name offered I'm open to it. Otto4711 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just want to be clear, I understand why Otto made the category and I'm ok with the idea behind it. It's just that we need to brainstorm on a name that will reduce confusion. The name I recommended above is pretty horrible sounding, so I'm definitely open to other suggestions. Dugwiki 19:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current name allows the categories to be used for all works, including subcategoroies for books, plays or poems where appropriate, which is how it should be. Honbicot 19:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's the thing, I don't think the category should be used as a parent cat to books, poems, etc. by author categories. Those are already ably housed under Category:Works by artist. Interposing this category into that structure only adds another unnecessary layer of categorization. Otto4711 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why not. The only problem is the misguided introductory text, so let's just delete it. Honbicot 19:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename though I would suggest Works by author not and otherwise categorized for the parent and Works by <foo> for the subs. I would think that should cover it. It also allows for cats for authors who, while notable, do not have books, poems, and/or plays to justify those particular cats. Further, if I read this right, this should be a "holding area" until the appropriate, and more limited, cats are put in place.
    Side note: As per Otto's comment, it may be appropriate to create an "Essays by author" cat. That's something that should be looked into if there are enough essay related articles to support it and the "by <foo>" subs. — J Greb 19:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have Category:Essays with a few "essays by" categories so Essays by author sounds like a good idea. Otto4711 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What doesn't sound like a good idea any longer to me is the entire "works by author" category structure. I initially thought that it would be useful for authors with multiple works subcats but in thinking about it a little longer I don't see the necessity for that layer of categorization at all. It does not appear that any other artistic discipline has that layer of categorization (I'm not seeing for example "Works by composer" with "symphonies by composer" or "cantatas by composer" subcats, or "Works by painter" or "Works by sculptor" category layers). So I think we should delete this category and all of its subcategories and create new parent cats for such things as essays and short stories by author and park them under the Works by artist supercat. Otto4711 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Works (or Writings, if people prefer that) unites all written works by a single person, and that's important to hold works by authors who have multiple formats in which they write.--Mike Selinker 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is the type or overall category that other fields do have. CalJW 02:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southern Cal Trojans baseball players

Propose renaming Category:Southern Cal Trojans baseball players to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's Rationale: Fairly straightforward: Despite its prevalent use in sports-related articles, the official position of USC discourages use of "Southern Cal" in any context, as clearly stated in all media guides: "Note to the media: In editorial references to athletic teams of the University of Southern California, the following are preferred: USC, Southern California, So. California, Troy and Trojans for men’s or women’s teams, and Women of Troy for women’s teams. PLEASE do not use Southern Cal (it’s like calling San Francisco “Frisco” or North Carolina “North Car.”). The usage of "Southern Cal" on licensed apparel and merchandise is limited in scope and necessary to protect federal trademark rights." It’s Not ‘Southern Cal’, 2005 USC Football Media Guide, USC Athletic Department, pg. 3. This category is an exception to the others, so I request a quick change to either Southern California Trojans baseball players or USC Trojans baseball players. Thanks. Bobak 18:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armed Armenian Organizations

Category:Armed Armenian Organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have just created this category and am not certain what the best title of it. Suggestions? -- Cat chi? 18:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kappler's Indian Affairs citations

Category:Kappler's Indian Affairs citations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another by-source category for deletion per recent precedents. Not a defining characteristic of the subject matter, most sources don't have categories, and if they did the clutter would be horrendous. CalJW 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television program cancellations by year

Propose renaming Category:Television program cancellations by year to Category:Television program series endings by year
Nominator's Rationale: Television program cancellations by year and all by-year subcategories
  • Rename and explanation I've received complaints from a few people that the category title "cancellations" is misleading and implies involuntary ending of the series. In fact the category description makes it clear that the scheme is for all programs regardless of the reason for the series ending, and it is part of the broader scheme of including years of establishment/disestablishment for entities and works. Therefore I'm recommending we rename this and all its related subcategories to Category:Television program series endings by year to remove any ambiguity in the title. Note that while this sounds like a minor change, there have been some stubborn editors insisting that the category not be added to television programs unless the category names are changed. So this is to avoid edit wars of category inclusion and removal based solely on the name of the category. Dugwiki 16:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
individual subcategories included
  • 20th century television program cancellations -> 20th century television program series endings
  • 21st century television program cancellations -> 21st century television program series endings
  • 1930s television program cancellations -> 1930s television program series endings
  • 1940s television program cancellations -> 1940s television program series endings
  • 1950s television program cancellations -> 1950s television program series endings
  • 1960s television program cancellations -> 1960s television program series endings
  • 1970s television program cancellations -> 1970s television program series endings
  • 1980s television program cancellations -> 1980s television program series endings
  • 1990s television program cancellations -> 1990s television program series endings
  • 2000s television program cancellations -> 2000s television program series endings
  • 1933 television program cancellations -> 1933 television program series endings
  • 1947 television program cancellations -> 1947 television program series endings
  • 1951 television program cancellations -> 1951 television program series endings
  • 1952 television program cancellations -> 1952 television program series endings
  • 1953 television program cancellations -> 1953 television program series endings
  • 1954 television program cancellations -> 1954 television program series endings
  • 1955 television program cancellations -> 1955 television program series endings
  • 1956 television program cancellations -> 1956 television program series endings
  • 1957 television program cancellations -> 1957 television program series endings
  • 1958 television program cancellations -> 1958 television program series endings
  • 1959 television program cancellations -> 1959 television program series endings
  • 1960 television program cancellations -> 1960 television program series endings
  • 1961 television program cancellations -> 1961 television program series endings
  • 1962 television program cancellations -> 1962 television program series endings
  • 1963 television program cancellations -> 1963 television program series endings
  • 1964 television program cancellations -> 1964 television program series endings
  • 1965 television program cancellations -> 1965 television program series endings
  • 1966 television program cancellations -> 1966 television program series endings
  • 1967 television program cancellations -> 1967 television program series endings
  • 1968 television program cancellations -> 1968 television program series endings
  • 1969 television program cancellations -> 1969 television program series endings
  • 1970 television program cancellations -> 1970 television program series endings
  • 1971 television program cancellations -> 1971 television program series endings
  • 1972 television program cancellations -> 1972 television program series endings
  • 1973 television program cancellations -> 1973 television program series endings
  • 1974 television program cancellations -> 1974 television program series endings
  • 1975 television program cancellations -> 1975 television program series endings
  • 1976 television program cancellations -> 1976 television program series endings
  • 1977 television program cancellations -> 1977 television program series endings
  • 1978 television program cancellations -> 1978 television program series endings
  • 1979 television program cancellations -> 1979 television program series endings
  • 1980 television program cancellations -> 1980 television program series endings
  • 1981 television program cancellations -> 1981 television program series endings
  • 1982 television program cancellations -> 1982 television program series endings
  • 1983 television program cancellations -> 1983 television program series endings
  • 1984 television program cancellations -> 1984 television program series endings
  • 1985 television program cancellations -> 1985 television program series endings
  • 1986 television program cancellations -> 1986 television program series endings
  • 1987 television program cancellations -> 1987 television program series endings
  • 1988 television program cancellations -> 1988 television program series endings
  • 1989 television program cancellations -> 1989 television program series endings
  • 1990 television program cancellations -> 1990 television program series endings
  • 1991 television program cancellations -> 1991 television program series endings
  • 1992 television program cancellations -> 1992 television program series endings
  • 1993 television program cancellations -> 1993 television program series endings
  • 1994 television program cancellations -> 1994 television program series endings
  • 1995 television program cancellations -> 1995 television program series endings
  • 1996 television program cancellations -> 1996 television program series endings
  • 1997 television program cancellations -> 1997 television program series endings
  • 1998 television program cancellations -> 1998 television program series endings
  • 1999 television program cancellations -> 1999 television program series endings
  • 2000 television program cancellations -> 2000 television program series endings
  • 2001 television program cancellations -> 2001 television program series endings
  • 2002 television program cancellations -> 2002 television program series endings
  • 2003 television program cancellations -> 2003 television program series endings
  • 2004 television program cancellations -> 2004 television program series endings
  • 2005 television program cancellations -> 2005 television program series endings
  • 2006 television program cancellations -> 2006 television program series endings
  • 2007 television program cancellations -> 2007 television program series endings
P.S. Phew!! Finally finished tagging all the individual cats. Please feel free if you spot a mistake in my tags or anything to correct it. Thanks! Dugwiki 17:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Texts by J. R. R. Tolkien

Propose renaming Category:Texts by J. R. R. Tolkien to Category:Works of J. R. R. Tolkien
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - to match all other "works of" categories for authors. Otto4711 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works of Statius

Propose renaming Category:Works of Statius to Category:Poems of Statius
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - both categorized works are poems so rename in line with other poems by author categories. Otto4711 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Story album characters, Category:Mathematical characters and Category:Cereal Character

Overly narrow. The first two have one entry each, the last one has two. These are very unlikely to grow ever, since such characters tend to be merged to the main article (the story album, mathematics book, or cereal brand). >Radiant< 15:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works of Virgil

Propose renaming Category:Works of Virgil to Category:Poems by Virgil
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - all categorized works are poems, so rename in line with other poems by author subcats. Otto4711 15:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works of George Bernard Shaw

Category:Works of George Bernard Shaw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the two subcats, for his books and plays, are already part of the appropriate books by author and plays by author category trees. This is an unnecessary layer of categorization. Otto4711 15:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, since it seems pretty clear to me that Category:Works by author has a very misleading name (it implies it includes everything), I have submitted that category for either renaming or to be redefined above. Otherwise we're bound to have more confusion on how this category is used. Dugwiki 19:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - per my remarks in the CFR for "Works by author"...in thinking about this some more, I've come to believe that none of the various "works by" categories should be kept. They are in all instances an unnecessary layer of categorization between the "Works by artist" supercat and the various "Books by"/"Plays by"/"Poems by" subcats. So in addition to the reason given in the nomination originally I also think the category should be deleted as part of an overall deletion of all such cats. If an author has works like short stories or essays that don't yet have "Foo by author" categories then create those and get rid of the generic "works by" ones. Otto4711 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like the idea of a standard, but it is the "books" category that confuses me -- a book of poetry, a play, a novel, will all also be books. Should it be that category that is changed to "non-fiction", "essays", "treatises" or the like? I like having all of Shaw's or Hemingway's work in one place, which the "works" category accomplishes. So I would have the "works" category include everything, and the other categories subdivide that everything, getting rid of books through renames or merges.A Musing (formerly Sam) 21:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works of Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi

Category:Works of Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete the subcat for books is already in the Books by author category. The images, all of book covers, are in Category:Book covers. No need for this layer of categorization. Otto4711 15:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treat Consistently with whatever is decided for Shaw, above. A Musing (formerly Sam) 21:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works by Arthur Koestler

Category:Works by Arthur Koestler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the only entry, a subcat for books, is already appropriately categorized in the Books by author category tree. No need for this layer of categorization. Otto4711 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Correspondents of Cicero

Category:Correspondents of Cicero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - categorizing people on the basis of whom they corresponded with seems like overcategorization or, at the very least, bizarre. Otto4711 15:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of nomination placed at Talk:Cicero. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know there are several people who have been actively developing the pages relating to Cicero; note that in the error before printing presses (and even in the first couple of centuries following the development of the press, when it was common to have private letters printed for broader distribution), correspondence was a vastly more important area of literature and rhetoric than it is today (for example, much of the early Christian church's doctrines and philosophy see their development in correspondence of Augustine, and much of the bible consists of correspondence of the apostles -- letters to the Corinthians and so forth). I'd sugget input from those contributing to the Cicero and related pages would make sense, and they can give use some idea of whether the correspondence of Cicero fits into this category. A Musing (formerly Sam) 15:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to me, that's what makes it potentially interesting - if it was just his letters, I'd say like most other bios of authors it belongs in the article proper (and there is a list there). However, the list in the bio only includes four entries, so I'd suggest the authors there be brought in on a sensible classification scheme. If there are only four, the category doesn't excite me, but notifying them would be civil. A Musing (formerly Sam) 16:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have provided notice on the page Cicero, which strikes me as a logical place. My suspicion is that there is a better way to reorganize the Cicero pages in general. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have my doubts on this category, given that it has only four members, and that it appears there are not more candidates, but would suggest that the category itelf would make a lot of sense for many figures, so would not prejudge it simply because it is unusual to our eyes.A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that in general categorising people by who they wrote to would be overcategorisation, but this is a special case. The letters of Cicero and his correspondents are by far the most extensive collection of letters surviving from Greek and Roman antiquity. There are virtually no other Latin letters extant within a century of Cicero's life. If I'm reading the article on a figure from the late Republic, it's very useful for me to know that we have letters to or from this person in the Ciceronian corpus. And there are far more than four people who can go into this category. EALacey 17:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there interested editors who can populate it? A Musing (formerly Sam) 18:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added all the authors of letters to Cicero surviving in Ad Familiares for whom I could find articles. The category now contains 22 entries. EALacey 20:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' I think this nomination has done its job and we've got a sensible and populated category here. A Musing (formerly Sam) 20:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a relevant group, though it is an exception--but its the most important example of the genre, and a focus for historical as well as literary discussion.DGG 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this looks like it's going to end up either as a keep or no consensus, so if kept can the category be renamed to "Correspondents with Cicero"? "Correspondents of Cicero" is a weird construction. Otto4711 20:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Harry Potter filming locations

Category:Harry Potter filming locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This does not seem like a good use of categories. Some of these places must have been used as film locations umpteen times. Casperonline 14:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television series starring recording artists

Category:Television series starring recording artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - categorizing TV shows by the sort of person who appears in them just seems like a really bad idea. Otto4711 13:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zoey 101

Category:Zoey 101 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - as with other eponymous categories there should be substantial material that can't easily be interlinked to warrant it. Here there is an episodes subcat which is already categorized appropriately elsewhere and two articles which are interlinked extensively. The main article serves as a navigaitonal hub so the category is not needed. Otto4711 13:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional settings

Category:Fictional settings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - this was discussed once before with a result to rename from "fictional universes" to "fictional settings." The category doesn't work under either the new name or the old name. The problem persists that the category is simply too broad to be useful. As noted in the last CFD, any piece of fiction by definition takes place within a fictional universe so any article about a piece of fiction could be categorized here. The rename was picked as the best of a number of IMHO not good suggestions last time and I just don't think the category is salvageable. Otto4711 13:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The category includes so many disparate articles and sub-categories, that the only common thread is that they are works of fiction. Every piece of fiction writing has a setting, which is nearly always either purely fictional or to some degree fictionalised; the question is how much they are fictionalised. As one example, Category:James Bond is included here, but most Bond settings are not entirely fictional; they are fictionalised. Another is the TV series West Wing: a fictional presidency in a real White House. Categories such as Category:Fantasy worlds are more maintainable because the definition is clearer, but the boundaries on this one will inevitably be hopelessly vague. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated above, virtually all works of fiction take place in "fictional universes". This category would basically envelop all fictional works ever created. It should be deleted. (The current name just hurts my brain. Things like Category:G.I. Joe are listed as fictional settings.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being far too broad a categorization. The number of entries that could be considered such are innumerable. Arkyan 19:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Reading over the previous debate, I can't determine how Radiant came to the conclusion that Fictional settings was the best choice. I only see one user advocating that direction, and a lot more arguing for either keep and purge, or delete. I'd like to hear his rationale for this approach.--Mike Selinker 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Classical guitarists by name

Category:Classical guitarists by name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unneeded subcategory of classical guitarists. If this is kept, all members of the Category:Classical guitarists by nationality which aren't already in ... by name should also be categorized there. If this is deleted, the guitarists which are in no national category should go directly into Category:Classical guitarists to bring attention to their needing a category. rimshotstalk 13:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theatres in Eritrea

Category:Theatres in Eritrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete The only article was about a cinema, so I moved it to category:Cinemas in Eritrea. Haddiscoe 13:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of clothing (ancient Greece)

Propose renaming Category:History of clothing (ancient Greece) to Category:Ancient Greek clothing
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, as per Category:Clothing by nationality. Haddiscoe 12:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters by medium

At present, the category tree works like this:

This is not particularly useful. We should remove the middle one ("Italians by medium") and move the two subcats to its parent, like this:

Same applies to other countries than Italy; these superfluous cats are found in Category:Fictional characters by medium. >Radiant< 12:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it looks like these categories were just created today; perhaps it would make sense to find out what the creator's plans are for them and how populated they will become how quickly? A Musing (formerly Sam) 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer No, they're not new, they all used to be called "by Media", created in July 2006. Earlier today, an admin decided this was a misspelled category and invoked a speedy rename. >Radiant< 15:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Circuit Parties

Propose renaming Category:Circuit Parties to Category:Circuit parties
Nominator's Rationale: Rename to conform with capitalization guidelines, or delete. No strong preference on which. Otto4711 12:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason I suggest the possibility of deletion is because the category is IMHO a bit on the trivial side. As I said, no strong feelings from me and if someone wants to just move this to speedy I have no objection. Otto4711 13:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish Christians

Category:Jewish Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The entries in this category do not conform with the definitions in the WP article Jewish Christians. Some of them for example are, according to their own articles, people of (possible) Jewish origins whose actual or present beliefs are unknown or unsubstantiated (e.g. Tamsin Greig, Jorge Isaacs). Others like Maria Yudina may indeed have had Christian interests (although her WP article does not explain what these were), but do not conform to the typologies of Jewish Christians set out in the article. As the concept of Jewish Christian itself, as set out in the WP article, is somewhat fraught, this category just adds to the confusion. Therefore delete.Smerus 10:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to agree with the nominator. Category is too vague, and it's not remotely clear what a better suggestion for category description would be. Delete. — coelacan — 12:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Christians of Jewish ethnicity. The current name is too vague: the only obvious interpretation of the name is as self-contradictory as "cool hot things". The head article should be renamed too.
    However, this does not appear to me to be a defining characteristic in many cases, so I can only weakly oppose deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this one is a bit of a religious hot potato that will elicit strong feelings from a number of participants; I'd suggest that it would be civil to notify the users of the category, and wikiprojects relating to both Judaism and Christianity, before getting into this one. It deserves a full discussion. A Musing (formerly Sam) 14:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion (see the whole debate about "Who is a Jew?" just to get bearings on one side, much less trying to verify the "Christianity" of the person). Carlossuarez46 17:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many of these are well-lknown and appropriate by any possible definition. But names on this general topic are always a problem. I do not consider that a reason for deletion. if someone can propose a better name, we can look at it. DGG 19:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • but what exactly does 'appropriate by any possible definition' mean in this case? It sounds to me a bit POV - 'if I can think that 'Jewish Christian' is an appropriate definition for such-and-such a guy, it must be appropriate'. By the same token, someone could wade in and argue that none of these people qualify by 'any possible definition'. But the real problem is, I think, that by most people's standards, some of them might qualify, and some might not - but it is impossible to agree what those standards are; no two people are ever likely to agree who should be in and who out.--Smerus 21:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stuart Little

You have called {{Contentious topics}}. You probably meant to call one of these templates instead:

Alerting users

  • {{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification.
  • {{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation.
  • {{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
  • {{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic.

Editnotices

Talk page notices

Miscellaneous

Category:Stuart Little (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Relisted from 2007 March 13 Tim! 07:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stuart Little (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category is being used improperly as a performer by performance category. The articles on the book, films, TV series and actors are all extensively interlinked so the main article serves as a navigational hub without any need for the category. Otto4711 04:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I cleaned up the category so that it now only contains articles on the stories/films/TV series. I have no strong opinions on keeping the category at this time, but it should not be used to categorize actors. Dr. Submillimeter 10:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Since this category represents a franchise of closely related products, I can see keeping it for the purpose of putting all those links in the same category. On the other hand, there are so few articles I could see interlinking in the articles probably working to, so I wouldn't be opposed to deletion either. So I'd lean toward keep by default but I'll defer to deletion if desired. Dugwiki 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is really too little here to form a proper basis for categorisation. As Dugwiki points out, most of the articles here relate to iterations in a franchise — this is best accomplished through a series box cf Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 2#Category:Poltergeist films. Rather like eponymous bio categories, I think we need a substantial number of directly connected articles to justify categories like this.
Xdamrtalk 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly—why? --Xdamrtalk 10:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed]

Category:Charlotte's Web

You have called {{Contentious topics}}. You probably meant to call one of these templates instead:

Alerting users

  • {{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification.
  • {{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation.
  • {{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
  • {{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic.

Editnotices

Talk page notices

Miscellaneous

Category:Charlotte's Web (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Charlotte's Web (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Relisted from 2007 March 13 Tim! 07:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The main Charlotte's Web article serves as a navigational hub for the various articles. The other articles and categories are extensively interlinked and just to be sure I added links to the sub-categories to the main article. No need for this category. Otto4711 04:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Categories are more than navigational hubs (Gnevin 16:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Actually, they really aren't more than navigational hubs. The point of the category system is to serve as a index, not to serve as just a "tag" or the like. The reasoning for deletion is similar to Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous categories for people - the main article serves as a sufficient navigational hub for the reader. Dugwiki 16:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is rendered redundant by the use of links on the Charlotte's Web article. Ravenhurst 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The overcategorization guidelines should apply to all eponymous categories, not just people. Eponymous categories should only be created when there is an identifiable need. There should be numerous categories that are related to the topic that would be hard to find from the eponymous article, or there should be subarticles that would be uncategorized if the eponymous category did not exist. -- Samuel Wantman 08:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why is this relisted? To me, this looked like a clear consensus to delete (even if I did not vote and still have no opinion). Dr. Submillimeter 09:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This and the one above were closed with a "no consensus" and a request was made by one of the participants in the discussion to relist them for further discussion as he thought there was a delete consensus. I'd like to suggest that the articles on these books be tagged and those people interested notified these discussions are here: it strikes me this information would best be included in the articles instead, but it would be civil to seek their input. A Musing (formerly Sam) 22:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed]

Category:Trolls

Category:Trolls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Obvious - stupid category created by a self-proclaimed troll. Plasticbottle 06:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prostate cancer survivors

Category:Prostate cancer survivors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Surviving cancer is a major life event, but the list of categories at the bottom of an article is not supposed to be a potted biography, and there is no connection between the notable public achievements of people who happen to have survived the same disease. CalJW 04:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per comments above—as far as categorisation goes, surviving disease is not a defining characteristic. --Xdamrtalk 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or restrict As I've said in similar disease related categories, the main thing to me is that the category must be restricted to articles significantly mention the person having the disease. It's possible, for example, that an individual is primarily known for having a disease and not having a category for that disease could mean the person's article is inadequately indexed in the category system. On a second note, if I were to keep a category like this I think I'd prefer just having Category:Prostate cancer victims to include anyone whose article significantly talks about them having prostate cancer, regardless of whether they survived, died or survived and then later died, etc. That would I think be more in line with other subcategories of "people by medical condition". Dugwiki 19:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. Doczilla 21:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chronicles of Oklahoma citations

Category:Chronicles of Oklahoma citations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This is of these cluttersome by-source categories that link articles with little in common, and it should be deleted in line with the recent precedents. CalJW 02:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Qing Dynasty chancellors

Propose renaming Category:Qing Dynasty chancellors to Category:Qing Prime Ministers
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The category Qing Prime Ministers was recently moved to "Qing Dynasty chanellors" in accordance with a group renaming (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_9#Category:Han_Prime_Ministers). This renaming is an obvious mistake, because the Qing Dynasty never had a position called the "Chancellor", nor even the equivalent of a Chancellor. Policy functions were instead exercised through a succession of ministerial councils, such as the Grand Council. It was only in 1908 that a new "imperial Constitution" created an office of "Prime Minister", which was clearly and unambiguously called a "Prime Minister", not a Chancellor. As the move was inappropriate, I propose that the renaming be undone and the category moved back to its original name. Sumple (Talk) 01:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Separate Brigades of the United States Army

Category:Separate Brigades of the United States Army to Category:Brigades of the United States Army
  • Merge, To start, I actually created the seperate brigade category, but a year later, I think it was a mistake. The criteria for what constitutes a seperate brigade is unclear to most editors, and this category has been repeatedly used incorrectly. The difference between a seperate brigade and a regular brigade has to do with the command structure (a seperate brigade does not fall under a division), but other than that they are for the most part the same thing, especially when you take into account what constitutes a brigade combat team. Nobunaga24 01:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CalJW 02:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Kirill Lokshin 02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. However, note the categories might have been correctly used if an article had been created about Separate Brigades and referenced in the intro to the category. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guildford Grammar School



Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_22&oldid=117192797"