Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 18: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' '''Delete''': Articles tagged in this categories are part of the [[A History of the World in 100 Objects]] 100-part radio series (15 minutes each). Categorizing pages in this way will inevitably lead to over-categorization. After removing said articles only the main article will be left. [[User:Jonkerz|jonkerz]][[User talk:Jonkerz|♠]] 19:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' '''Delete''': Articles tagged in this categories are part of the [[A History of the World in 100 Objects]] 100-part radio series (15 minutes each). Categorizing pages in this way will inevitably lead to over-categorization. After removing said articles only the main article will be left. [[User:Jonkerz|jonkerz]][[User talk:Jonkerz|♠]] 19:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' This categorises items in the British Museum selected by its director as the 100 most important of the artefacts. I appreciate that this is like an awards category (which we would delete and listify), but few museum objects will receive an "award" in this way, so that this will not lead to the severe over-categorisation which awards categories and performamce by performer categories produce. Being selected as one of the most important objects in one of the world's most important museums is surely a notable distinction. [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 21:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' This categorises items in the British Museum selected by its director as the 100 most important of the artefacts. I appreciate that this is like an awards category (which we would delete and listify), but few museum objects will receive an "award" in this way, so that this will not lead to the severe over-categorisation which awards categories and performamce by performer categories produce. Being selected as one of the most important objects in one of the world's most important museums is surely a notable distinction. [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 21:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete and listify''' trivial association better maintained as a list. This listing has little to do with the objects themselves, rather, it is the opinion of a specific bunch of curators on what they think of as important, a highly subjective rating. [[Special:Contributions/70.29.212.131|70.29.212.131]] ([[User talk:70.29.212.131|talk]]) 20:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==== Category:People born in Shropshire ==== |
==== Category:People born in Shropshire ==== |
Revision as of 20:04, 19 June 2010
June 18
Category:Philosophical works
- Propose merging Category:Philosophical works to Category:Philosophical literature, along with its subcategory structure: Category:Philosophical works by author, Category:Philosophy books by author, Category:Philosophical works by era, Category:Ancient philosophical works, Category:Contemporary philosophical works,Category:Medieval philosophical works, Category:Modern philosophical works.
- Nominator's rationale: The philosophical literature category was created with the intention of containing all of this. There is no need for a "works" category for philosophy. Every "work" can be classified under literature.
- Note: WP:PHILOSOPHY notified.
- Note: WP:LITERATURE notified. Greg Bard 22:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Question - are ALL philosophical works written and therefore literature? Are there no philosophical works within other spheres such as the fine arts or music? Is Die Zauberflöte, for example, not a philosophical work? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Philosophical fiction (however arbitrary) can be well extended into music or spoken epics. But opera libretto and spoken epic are literature. East of Borschov (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Question - are ALL philosophical works written and therefore literature? Are there no philosophical works within other spheres such as the fine arts or music? Is Die Zauberflöte, for example, not a philosophical work? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:A History of the World in 100 Objects
- Category:A History of the World in 100 Objects - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete: Articles tagged in this categories are part of the A History of the World in 100 Objects 100-part radio series (15 minutes each). Categorizing pages in this way will inevitably lead to over-categorization. After removing said articles only the main article will be left. jonkerz♠ 19:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This categorises items in the British Museum selected by its director as the 100 most important of the artefacts. I appreciate that this is like an awards category (which we would delete and listify), but few museum objects will receive an "award" in this way, so that this will not lead to the severe over-categorisation which awards categories and performamce by performer categories produce. Being selected as one of the most important objects in one of the world's most important museums is surely a notable distinction. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and listify trivial association better maintained as a list. This listing has little to do with the objects themselves, rather, it is the opinion of a specific bunch of curators on what they think of as important, a highly subjective rating. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:People born in Shropshire
- Propose merging Category:People born in Shropshire to Category:People from Shropshire
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NCCAT#Heritage, biographies are not categorized by place of birth, as it's hardly ever notable. — ξxplicit 19:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. "From" is an inclusive term, covering "born in", "living/ed in", and "used to live in". No split is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:Wanted (comics)
- Category:Wanted (comics) - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - the category was recently nominated for renaming and I suggested it be deleted as a small category with no likelihood of expansion. Since that nomination closed most of the contents of the category were deleted (per my prods) as not being notable. This would seem to confirm that the category is not needed for the few remaining articles (which are interlinked through their text). Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:Jewish sportspeople
Category:Jewish American sportspeople
Singaporean people by descent
- Propose renaming:
- Category:Cantonese Singaporeans to Category:Singaporean people of Cantonese descent
- Category:Hainanese Singaporeans to Category:Singaporean people of Hainanese descent
- Category:Hokkien Singaporeans to Category:Singaporean people of Hokkien descent
- Category:Peranakan Singaporeans to Category:Singaporean people of Peranakan descent
- Category:Punjabi Singaporeans to Category:Singaporean people of Punjabi descent
- Category:Singaporean Hakka people to Category:Singaporean people of Hakka descent
- Category:Singaporean Jewish people to Category:Singaporean people of Jewish descent
- Category:Singaporean Kristang people to Category:Singaporean people of Kristang descent
- Category:Singaporean Malay people to Category:Singaporean people of Malay descent
- Category:Singaporean Minangkabau people to Category:Singaporean people of Minangkabau descent
- Category:Teochew Singaporeans to Category:Singaporean people of Teochew descent
- Nominator's rationale: Rename: These categories should be renamed for consistency with similar categories that have already been renamed. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Many of the individuals are not of the 'ethnic descent' described, but of that ethnicity (i.e. they speak the language of the ethnic group as a first language, amongst other things) I do agree that we should not, ideally, categorise both for ethnic descent and ethnicity separately as it is nearly impossible to distinguish in most cases, as bios typically lack the required info. I think we need, eventually, to rename the categories to, for example, Category:Sinagporean people of Cantonese ethnicity or ancestry to cover both ethnic descent and ethnicity. What the heck, I ll suggest it here now as alternative rename, with the goal of setting precedent to rename the whole tree - Rename each to Category:Singaporean people of Fooian ethnicity or ancestry etc. except Rename Category:Singaporean Jewish people to Category:Singaporean Jews Mayumashu (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support Mayumashu. Certainly these all need some kind of rename. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not really understanding the distinction between ethnicity and ethnic descent. Could you explain? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:New Zealand Democratic Party
- Propose renaming Category:New Zealand Democratic Party to Category:New Zealand Democratic Party for Social Credit
- Propose renaming Category:New Zealand Democratic Party activists to Category:New Zealand Democratic Party for Social Credit activists
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name of this party has changed to New Zealand Democratic Party for Social Credit. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support Rename to match revised title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:Christian Heritage New Zealand
- Propose renaming Category:Christian Heritage New Zealand to Category:Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose using full name to match main article Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:Military installations in Canada
- Propose merging Category:Military installations in Canada to Category:Military facilities in Canada
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Clear duplicaiton. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:Socialist Workers Party (UK)
- Propose renaming Category:Socialist Workers Party (UK) to Category:Socialist Workers Party (Britain)
- Propose renaming Category:Socialist Workers Party members (UK) to Category:Socialist Workers Party (Britain) members
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Slight change the disambiguator proposed to match the category names to the article Socialist Workers Party (Britain). (From what I can tell, the page was moved from using the "(UK)" disambiguator because this particular party only organises in England, Scotland, and Wales. The Socialist Workers Party (Ireland) has traditionally been the organiser for the same causes in Northern Ireland. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support, makes sense, since Irish SWP organizes in N.Ireland. --Soman (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:Pirate Party UK
- Category:Pirate Party UK - Template:Lc1
- Category:Pirate Party (Finland) - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous categories that only contains the main articles Pirate Party UK and Pirate Party (Finland), respectively.. The articles are also in the same categories that the categories are in, so there is no need to upmerge anything. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete -- at least in the UK case. This is a NN party that got nowhere in the last general election. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:Liberal Unionist Party politicians (UK)
- Propose renaming Category:Liberal Unionist Party politicians (UK) to Category:Liberal Unionist Party politicians
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguation is unneeded: main article is at Liberal Unionist Party and there is no Liberal Unionist Party (disambiguation). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support, per nom. --Soman (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:Conservative Party donors
- Category:Conservative Party donors - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Generally we don't categorize people by which organisations or causes they have made donations to. If kept, should rename to Category:Conservative Party (UK) donors to match parent Category:Conservative Party (UK) and Conservative Party (UK). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:Frank Miller
- Propose renaming Category:Frank Miller to Category:Frank Miller (comics)
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose renaming to match to main article Frank Miller (comics). Frank Miller is a disambiguation page. When I saw this I thought it was about Frank Miller (politician) and couldn't believe there was an eponymous category about him. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OC. The contents of this category do not come close to the complexity that makes an eponymous category necessary. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support Rename to match title of main article. With 7 well-defined subcats and sub-subcats there is more than enough to justify an eponymous category. Occuli (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:Cook Island people
- Propose renaming Category:Cook Island people to Category:Cook Islands people
- Nominator's rationale: Checking on-line didn t seem to turn up any definite answers to this grammar issue. I m basing this nomination on that other WP cats use: 'Cooks Islands' and not 'Cook Island' as the adjective form, in Category:Cook Islands culture, Category:Cook Islands society, and Category:Cook Islands law Mayumashu (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. As far as I know, "Cook Island" is the correct adjective except when referencing "Cook Islands Māori" (the language). The people are "Cook Island Māori". Certain organisations have also been given an official name that includes "Cook Islands" as an adjective, such as the Cook Islands Government. User:Grutness was a bit of an expert on this issue, as I recall, and he was strongly in favour of "Cook Island" being accepted as the standard in generic usages. You can find usages of either on the web, but official sources from New Zealand, the Cook Islands, and UNICEF tend to use "Cook Island" (though exceptions can be found). Some Cook Island(s) gov't sources are: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and UNICEF. At the end of the day I don't have a strong preference one way or the other but I suppose they should be standardised to one or the other. "Cook Islands" is probably more intuitive, if not completely correct. For similar reasons we have favoured "Kiribati" even though "i-Kiribati" is technically correct. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)