Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:59, 2 March 2009

< February 28	March 2 >

March 1

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Adherents of Judaism

Category:Adherents of Judaism - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category is just a more general version of subcategories under Jewish denominations (e.g., Orthodox Jews). shirulashem (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; indeed all my sample were rabbis. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too subjective and vague. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prison sentencing

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: speedy merge and delete per creator request (see below). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prison sentencing - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. As it stands now, this category is redundant to a number of other pre-existing categories, including Category:Penology, Category:Penal imprisonment, and Category:Imprisonment and detention. I don't think we need this one to add to the already-confusing mix. There is no need to merge the contents anywhere as they are appropriately categorized already. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY Merge to Category:Sentencing (law) at author's request (WP:CSD#G7). I didn't realize this already existed, but had I known at the time, I simply would have placed these articles into it. Shaliya waya (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can do that for you. Thanks for posting here to let us know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:39, 2 March 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:Photo Incentive albums

Category:Photo Incentive albums - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete My first CfD so please be gentle. ~~It's a category of one article, which is currently at AfD. Regardless of whether or not it's deleted, a category of one appears to be overkill.~~ Note also the band is a red link (deleted at AfD in Dec. 2008) StarM 20:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yes, there's only one entry, hardly a category. Belasted (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe one article in the category has now been deleted, so I guess there's no reason not to delete the category. Belasted (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment agreed but I don't know protocol for speedying CfDs. Assume someone will be along StarM 00:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment it should be gone in a few minutes. Belasted (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy keep. Nom is not entirely sure what she's doing. LOL--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films shot in 65mm

Propose renaming Category:Films shot in 65mm to Category:Films shot with 70 mm film

Nominator's rationale: 70 mm film is the same as 65 mm film. As the ladder article redirects to the first one, the category should be named after it as well. Additionally, there should be a space between 70 and mm. Also, saying films with shot with or on 70 mm film sounds better than films shot in 70 mm film. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1750-1899 fashion

Category:1750-1899 fashion - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category simply makes no sense. There is no logical reason for grouping these years into a single category - fashions from 1750-1795 are more like fashions from 1700-1750 than they are like fashions from 1800-1899. There are no similar fashion categories for long periods. PKM (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge this bizarre category to Category:History of clothing (Western fashion) (which is also rather odd, with subcats for random decades). Occuli (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Category:History of fashion with has captured some of the decades missing from Category:History of clothing (Western fashion). Occuli (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are ghosts from a long-gone edit war. We should probably pick something that makes sense to non-specialists and sort everything out. - PKM (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per Occuli - my sample article had no other fashion cat. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Labor relations in the United Kingdom

Propose renaming Category:Labor relations in the United Kingdom to Category:Labour relations in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename to the UK spelling. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the UK spelling. (Even Cgingold can stray into error.) Occuli (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was just a youngster at the time! Cgingold (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Category:Labor disputes in Ireland needs doing too, for one. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Category:Labor relations in Barbados. Are these not speedies? Occuli (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US/UK spelling changes don't qualify for Speedy -- though perhaps they should in cases like this. Cgingold (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States children rights case law

Propose renaming Category:United States children rights case law to Category:United States children's rights case law

Nominator's rationale: Rename, More grammatically correct category name. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 08:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - We certainly don't want to be submitting legal briefs with glaring typos. Cgingold (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgian pop music groups

I originally nominated this category for speedy renaming and am bringing it to full CFD now following Good Ol'factory's observation about the lack of disambiguation for categories that use "Georgian". As such, this nomination is intended to test whether there may be support for a large-scale change from "Georgian" → "Georgian (country)". Here is the text of the CFD/S discussion:

Category:Georgian pop music groups to Category:Georgian (country) pop music groups #6 –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike the "Georgia" categories, categories that use "Georgian" have never been disambiguated in this way, though I personally think they maybe should be. See, e.g., Category:Georgian people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Georgian people could be the state, country, or ethnic group... 76.66.193.90 (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said, it perhaps should be disambiguated, but not via speedy since there is no disambiguated parent category that the nominated category is being renamed to match. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - Georgian has arguably more primary meanings than Georgia. Occuli (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I agree that this is probably a good idea, so long as it is implemented across all categories that use "Georgian". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Second wranglers

Category:Second wranglers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This is a procedural request for discussion based on the deletion of Category:Senior Wranglers. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC

Keep and restore Category:Senior wranglers per the more substantial discussion in the 'keep' in the cfd of Jan 2008. Occuli (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This gives an account of the national importance attached to Wranglers in the 1800s, eg p205. I might well have made some efforts to provide citations in the cfd if it had been a delete nom rather than an innocent rename request which appeared to be heading towards keep when I last looked at it. Occuli (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for all the same reasons the senior category was deleted. Noting that this is not the appropriate format for rehashing the senior discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the logical follow-up to the previous discussion—for consistency if for no other reason. But I essentially agree with the deletion positions expressed in the previous discussion, though I can see both sides. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People in the prior discussion for Senior Wrangler keep harping on who cares about being valedictorian from some school. They show a severe ignorance of history. In the 19th century, Cambridge was one of the handful of top universities in the world (some would say still). It'd be like comparing Harvard now to Podunk Community College. Making it on the list of Wrangers (as pointed out by Occuli's source) was a source of nationwide celebration and the news would even make it over the Atlantic (I get several substantial NY Times hits from that period). In a prior discussion that resulted in "keep", a source was found that stated "The securing of the top position as Senior Wrangler was regarded, at the time, as the greatest intellectual achievement attainable in Britain and the Senior Wrangler was feted well beyond Cambridge and accorded pre-eminent status among his peers". This fits in with what I know from having read about the intellectual life in that time period. The Senior Wrangler category should never have been deleted, and since all reasons for deleting this one hinge on that, this one should be kept as being the runner-up to a substantial, defining characteristic of famous mathematicians of that time period. --C S (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do the same thing as for Senior Wranglers, whatever that ends up being. Everyone seems to agree that they stand or fall together. The place to contest the closing of the previous discussion is DRV, not here. Algebraist 01:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Drv is that way... - jc37 11:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and of course restore Senior Wrangler). Even if one thinks distinctions like "valedictorian" should be deleted, this is much stronger, much more defining, and this fact is well-known to anyone acquainted with the history of mathematics and 19th century education in Britain. This was comparable to being first in the Chinese Imperial examinations, also considered an event of national importance, and something we should have lists and cats for too. A glance at Wrangler (University of Cambridge) should help convince doubters, along with the sources provided above and in the earlier discussions. An earlier commenter noted that just why these particular examinations were thought so important is obscure - this explains the "deletes'" reluctance. But that these distinctions were considered extremely important is not in any historical doubt.John Z (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again we see one of the respects in which categories are inferior to lists. I viewed the last deleted version of the Senior Wranglers category to see who was on the list (I'd guess a lot of names that everybody would recognize). But of course, they're not there any more. You can't tell. Categories have no edit histories showing what's been included in them. Somewhere in Wikipedia policies there's something about what to do if a category has been empty for some specified number of days. Guess what: nobody has any way of knowing whether a category has been empty during any specified time period. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While categories have no history of their contents, the edit history of the bot that depopulated the category is available. Here is the full list of articles that were removd from the category. As for knowing whether a category has been empty for a specified period of time, I've seen an innovative approach being used recently: blank the category page and indicate in the edit summary that it is being done so that the category can be deleted in four days if it is still empty. See, for example, here. I hope this helps. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's quite easy to get back to the list of both Senior, and Second Wranglers. The complete listing is at List of Wranglers of the University of Cambridge, so would be easy to repopulate. Incidentally, I'm a keep for both categories. The status of senior wrangler was extremely significant at the time, with much national prestige being attached to the people who obtained that position. Mrh30 (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep both--a major award of significance in the unique system of 19th century british higher education. DGG (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per my and others' comments in this CfD. - jc37 11:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Chicago to Category:Healthcare in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Las Vegas to Category:Healthcare in Las Vegas, Nevada

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Omaha to Category:Healthcare in Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Philadelphia to Category:Healthcare in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Pittsburgh to Category:Healthcare in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: Per many other predecents adding the state to city names in US categories, and to match other members of the category Category:Healthcare by city of the United States. The items in Las Vegas appear to be entirely at places with LV addresses.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom and recent precedents. Occuli (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Having a Vegas address is not material! The majority of Vegas addresses are not in the city. In this case, the work to add a metro area category is small so if this rename goes through, adding a metro area category is not a lot of work. For the record, the main post office is about 6 miles outside of the city. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cemeteries

Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Atlanta to Category:Cemeteries in Atlanta, Georgia

Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Baltimore to Category:Cemeteries in Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Chicago to Category:Cemeteries in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Cincinnati to Category:Cemeteries in Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Nashville to Category:Cemeteries in Nashville, Tennessee

Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Omaha to Category:Cemeteries in Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Philadelphia to Category:Cemeteries in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Pittsburgh to Category:Cemeteries in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Jewish cemeteries in Omaha to Category:Jewish cemeteries in Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Burials in Baltimore to Category:Burials in Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Burials in Chicago to Category:Burials in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Burials in Los Angeles to Category:Burials in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Burials in Omaha to Category:Burials in Omaha, Nebraska

Nominator's rationale: Per many other predecents adding the state to city names in US categories, and to match other members of the category Category:Cemeteries by city and Category:Burials by city in the United States. This doesn't seem to have the outside-the-city-limits issue, except for the mind-boggling Pittsburgh category, which includes cemeteries from seven counties.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom and recent precedents (and move the 1 or 2 non-Pittsburgh articles into the Pennsylvania parent?). Occuli (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename cemeteries, delete burials. Even though I know I have no chance of toppling this particular windmill in this CFD, I still feel compelled to state that where one is buried in all but some extraordinary cases (maybe Poets’ Corner, maybe at sea), is not a defining characteristic. Individual decedents may have no input into where they are buried and may indeed be buried somewhere they would not have wanted to be. Remains can also be moved following burial so the characteristic is mutable. Even if the cemetery in which one is buried is defining, surely the city or state is not and those buried within the city limits of a particular city have no encyclopedic relationship to one another past coincidence of burial. Otto4711 (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the burials categories in this nom is an umbrella category containing only subcats, so Otto is this case is tilting at non-existent windmills. Occuli (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Otto's contention, but I don't think it's what this nomination is about.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that's not the main thrust of the nomination but should the categories come up for deletion later no one can say that I had the chance to make the point about the city-level categories and didn't. As for these being only container categories, if I were feeling particularly cantankerous I'd go find some of the CFDs in which Occuli hung his keeper's hat on considering the contents of sub-categories to be contents of the main categories and note the sweet, sweet irony that a reversal of position for the sake of convenience always brings. But I'm not feeling particularly cantankerous today. Maybe tomorrow. Otto4711 (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meshuggah would be one. No irony or reversal that I can see. Is this perhaps another illusory windmill? Occuli (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Creator (religion)

Category:Creator (religion) - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category is defined as being "intended for religious ideological concepts of diverse philosophy, which include the terms 'Creator,' or, 'Creativity,' in reference to an individual adherent, or deity." As such, this is inappropriate categorization by shared name, with nothing else linking the articles so categorized. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abduction claims

Rename to Category:Alien abduction claims, to eliminate ambiguity, as illustrated by the erroneous (though quite hilarious) inclusion of Mormon sex in chains case. Alternatively, merge to the parent, Category:Abduction phenomenon (which also needs renaming), if that is deemed preferable. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is a little ambiguous. Abyssal (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC) - (Note:Abyssal is the category's creator.) Cgingold (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Re Category:Abduction phenomenon: I think that should be renamed to Category:Alien abduction phenomenon. However, as you know, the main article was recently renamed to "Alien abduction". Would you support renaming that article to "Alien abduction phenomenon" (which was also suggested by another editor)? Cgingold (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category should be 'phenomena' (plural). Occuli (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Alien abduction reports to avoid the word "claim". "Reports" is appropriately neutral and expresses no bias as to the validity of the reports, only their existence. Otto4711 (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless somebody makes a persuasive case to the contrary, I will modify my proposal to utilize this name. Cgingold (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find this illogical. 'Abduction claims' are the claims of abduction, and 'alien abduction claims' are claims which are a subset of that. The Mormon sex in chains case is a valid claim of abduction, and obviously not one of alien abduction. If the category is to reflect real life (no irony intended) then it needs to cater for both aliens and weirdos! I think the existing category should remain, and a sub category for Aliens should be created. So, in summary, oppose rename and support subcategorisation, which, by the way, we can and should do without this discussion! After all, the Mormon case does need to be categorised as a claimed abduction! (and yes, I was the editor who added it to the category under discussion.) Where else would it go? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do see why this proposal has been made, but I think the "problem" is also that the category also needs to be a member of additional categories to widen its "obvious" scope to embrace (if that is the right word) non alien abductions. In that way it increases the benefit to the encyclopaedia without diluting its use. We need to think of broader matters than a simple narrowing of this individual category, and thus bring real additional value to the project, surely? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename, and the create a parent category for abduction claims and fix the categorization of the few articles (one article) that need recategorziation. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 *'''Keep'''.  People in the prior discussion for Senior Wrangler keep harping on who cares about being valedictorian from some school.  They show a severe ignorance of history.  In the 19th century, Cambridge was one of the handful of top universities in the world (some would say still).  It'd be like comparing Harvard now to Podunk Community College.  Making it on the list of Wrangers (as pointed out by Occuli's source) was a source of nationwide celebration and the news would even make it over the Atlantic (I get several substantial NY Times hits from that period).  In a prior discussion that resulted in "keep", a source was found that stated "The securing of the top position as Senior Wrangler was regarded, at the time, as the greatest intellectual achievement attainable in Britain and the Senior Wrangler was feted well beyond Cambridge and accorded pre-eminent status among his peers".  This fits in with what I know from having read about the intellectual life in that time period.  The Senior Wrangler category should never have been deleted, and since all reasons for deleting this one hinge on that, this one should be kept as being the runner-up to a substantial, defining characteristic of famous mathematicians of that time period.  --[[User:C S|C S]] ([[User talk:C S|talk]]) 00:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Do the same thing as for Senior Wranglers''', whatever that ends up being. Everyone seems to agree that they stand or fall together. The place to contest the closing of the previous discussion is DRV, not here. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 01:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
+*: I agree. Drv is [[WP:DRV|that way]]... - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 11:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' (and of course restore Senior Wrangler).  Even if one thinks distinctions like "valedictorian" should be deleted, this is much stronger, much more defining, and this fact is well-known to anyone acquainted  with the history of mathematics and 19th century education in Britain.  This was comparable to being first in the Chinese [[Imperial examination]]s, also considered an event of national importance, and something we should have lists and cats for too.  A glance at [[Wrangler (University of Cambridge)]] should help convince doubters, along with the sources provided above and in the earlier discussions.  An earlier commenter noted that just ''why'' these particular examinations were thought so important is obscure - this explains the "deletes'" reluctance.  But ''that'' these distinctions were considered extremely important is not in any historical doubt.[[User:John Z|John Z]] ([[User talk:John Z|talk]]) 01:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' Once again we see one of the respects in which categories are inferior to lists.  I viewed the last deleted version of the Senior Wranglers category to see who was on the list (I'd guess a lot of names that everybody would recognize).  But of course, they're not there any more.  You can't tell.  Categories have no edit histories showing what's been included in them.  Somewhere in Wikipedia policies there's something about what to do if a category has been empty for some specified number of days.  Guess what: nobody has any way of knowing whether a category has been empty during any specified time period. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 03:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
@@ Line 98: / Line 99: @@
 ***It's quite easy to get back to the list of both Senior, and Second Wranglers. The complete listing is at [[List of Wranglers of the University of Cambridge]], so would be easy to repopulate. Incidentally, I'm a '''keep''' for both categories. The status of senior wrangler was extremely significant at the time, with much national prestige being attached to the people who obtained that position. [[User:Mrh30|Mrh30]] ([[User talk:Mrh30|talk]]) 09:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' Keep both--a major award of significance in the unique system of 19th century british higher education. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 09:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' - per my and others' comments in [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_5#Category:Senior_Wranglers|this CfD]]. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 11:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 ====Healthcare====