Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 20: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:46, 21 July 2008

< July 19	July 21 >

July 20

Comic book titles by publication length

Category:Comic book limited series

Category:One-shot comic titles

These are just a category containing any series which isn't "ongoing" (i.e. these are "limited" or "one-shot"). Each is just a voluminous grouping. And essentially they are just being used only as a "bottom-of-the-page" notice. Which is obviously not what categories are to be used for, per WP:CAT, etc.

The only way that I see either of these as worthy of being "kept" is for use only as a parent category. Presuming someone is willing to sort (sub-categorise) these all by publisher (as is the current convention). - jc37 23:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both with no prejudice against re-creation as a parent cat only. - jc37 23:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the question should be - is either of these a 'defining characteristic'? If the answer is 'yes' it's a keep (regardless of subcats) and if 'no' it's a delete/upmerge. Picking Damnation Crusade from the first, is 'limited series' defining? Possibly - it's mentioned in the lead. Picking Mad Love (comics) from the second, is 'One-shot' defining? I would say yes; it's mentioned in the lead and there is an article One-shot (comics). Also the second only has 68 articles so is not really unduly 'voluminous'. (There is Category:Television pilots which is perhaps analagous.) So I'd keep the second. The first seems arguable either way - pass. Occuli (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:R. Antwerp F.C.

Propose renaming Category:R. Antwerp F.C. to Category:Royal Antwerp FC

Propose renaming Category:R. Antwerp F.C. matches to Category:Royal Antwerp FC matches

Propose renaming Category:R. Antwerp F.C. players to Category:Royal Antwerp FC players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the club's main article. – Pee Jay 21:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – Pee Jay 21:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Entities which received funding from the Unification Church

Category:Entities which received funding from the Unification Church - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Category seems to have no purpose. According to talk page, "there are already categories for UC sponsored organizations." There were originally 3 articles in this category, now none. Exucmember (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator - I'm not sure how to see what those 3 articles were. One was University of Bridgeport, which now has no category related to the Unification Church. If someone wants to make the argument that readers would benefit from this kind of categorization they can do so, but the University of Bridgeport article already has a substantial discussion of this issue in the text, which seems sufficient to me. -Exucmember (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have restored the 3 articles + the parent cat of Category:Entities which received funding from the Unification Church. My own suggestion would be - upmerge to Category:Unification Church affiliated organizations (this seems to work for 2 of the articles; the 3rd, University of Bridgeport, ought to be in some Unification Church category but was perhaps never affiliated). Occuli (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I took this category off the articles. For one thing the word "entities" sounds like something from a conspiracy theory, or maybe Star Trek. Besides that there is also the affiliated organizations category, which is used on many more articles. The Washington Times had both categories. The University of Bridgeport could just have the Unification Church category since there is a relationship between them but one is not the affilate of the other. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Freedom Coalition also has both the "affiliated" and the "entities" categories. It will probably soon be merged to List of Unification Church affiliated organizations anyway since it has only one source.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put University of Bridgeport in the Unification Church category and now agree with 'delete' ... emptying categories should be done after the cfd rather then before. Occuli (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pokémon soundtracks

Category:Pokémon soundtracks - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category, and it will probably be merged too. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yishuv haYashan

Propose renaming Category:Yishuv haYashan to Category:Old Yishuv

Nominator's rationale: Rename to the usual English name. --Eliyak T·C 17:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Eliyak T·C 17:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Eliyak T·C 17:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quebec communities with important anglophone populations

rename to

The use of the word important in the context is a Gallicism (in French important can mean large). Suggest renaming to a correct English word. This has already been discussed on the category's talk page, with everyone in agreement. --Countdown to oblivion (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, either Category:Quebec communities with large anglophone populations or Category:Quebec communities with major anglophone populations. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you want the normal WP:CFD, instead of WP:uCFD. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from UCFD. VegaDark (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Important" is completely subjective, but so are "large" and "major". How does one objectively determine what constitutes a "large" or "major" population? Whatever number or percentage population selected is inherently arbitrary and unsuitable for categorization. Create a List of Quebec communities with anglophone populations and source it with census data to confirm the size of the anglophone populations. Otto4711 (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify as per naming suggested by Otto4711 Mayumashu (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either Listify as per above or change scope very slightly by making that "predominantly" or "majority", thereby making the far less arbitrary 50% mark the cutoff point. Or possibly do both the above. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or listify and majority English speaking population is not necessary for an important population in either the English community or the anti-English community. 70.55.84.212 (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Watership Down locations

Category:Watership Down locations - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: LISTIFY this within the Watership Down article. This is a category that serves no logical purpose since it could only contain the six entries it already contains and presumably to qualify for the category, each entrie's article references it as a Watership down location. Embedding this list of six articles in the Watership down article seems much more appropriate.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think we even need to listify in this case, due to Template:Watership Down, per WP:CLN. However, should (for some unknown reason) the navbox be deleted, then, yes, the list should be made. - jc37 21:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or upmerge to Category:Watership Down. We seem to be losing sight of the point of categories - per WP:Categorization, nutshell, 'Categories are for defining characteristics'. An article on a Watership Down location has to be in a Watership Down category (or at a stretch a Richard Adams category), unless it can be argued that 'Watership Down' is not a defining characteristic of a Watership Down article. (WP:CLN says at the beginning that lists, templates and categories are supposed to be complementary, synergistic no less.) Occuli (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:AADD#Notability is not inherited. That said, I would think that your comments about "notability" would have more to do with whether those location pages should be kept, than the category which has them as members.

Also, "complementary" doesn't necessarily mean that there must be a category, a list, and a navbox for every topic. Yes, it's possible, when useful. But while a list, a category, and a navbox are all useful for navigation, sometimes it's better to have all three, sometimes it's better to only have two out of three, and sometimes it's better to have only one. In this case, the navbox would seem to be the more useful navigation tool. (With the possibility of merging all the novel-based information to a list.)

This especially since several locations (including two rivers, and Watership Down, Hampshire) are actual places merely used in the novel.

I also note that the other three location articles are more plot summaries than descriptions of the locations. (One of which only exists in the TV series, and not even in the novel.)

So to summarise: This is likely too small for a category (3 novel-based locations; 3 "real-life" locations); This is a disparate group of "locations", which need explanation by media-type; the novel-based information from each member could conceivably be merged into a single list page.

So, no. I don't believe that this is a good example of "what categories are for". - jc37 01:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens I had looked at the first 3 (fictional) but not the last 3 (actual places). I agree entirely that actual places should under no circumstances be categorised by fictional works that happen to mention them. London would disappear in a welter of 1000s of categories. Definitely not defining. Efrafa in contrast does need a 'Watership Down/Adams' category, just as Mordor has to have a Tolkien/Lord of the Rings cat of some sort. Occuli (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Leslie Satcher

Category:Songs written by Leslie Satcher - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Requesting deletion for the same reason that I requested deletion for Songs written by Anthony Smith (which was deleted as an underpopulated category). Satcher has only written a fairly small number of singles according to a search (I count fewer than ten that were released as singles, based on my extensive chart knowledge), and of the few that were singles, only one — "Troubadour" — has a page. Most of her compositions were not big chart hits, and therefore this category seems very unlikely ever to grow. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "For These Times" by Martina McBride, which was written by Satcher, did have a page, but it got redirected as it was a permanent stub. I don't see it ever growing beyond stub class. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of wider scheme Category:Songs by songwriter. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother if only one song fits the category, though? Category:Songs written by Anthony Smith had two songs in it and it got deleted as overly narrow. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly narrow scope. If there were even just a few songs I'd likely keep it, but one is getting kinda ridiculous. Wizardman 21:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 12:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've decided to relist this. As roundhouse0 points out, this is part of a wider scheme. Ordinarily that wouldn't be an issue, but a lot of those categories have very few members - of the first 20 subcats, 6 have only one member and a further 4 have only two members. Therefore I think there should be further discussion before setting a precedent for all these. Should they be counted as "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" similar to Category:Songs by artist as described at Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth? the wub "?!" 12:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Category:Albums by artist also permits single entry categories. A rename to Category:Leslie Satcher songs is another possibility (the 'written by' scheme is not well-developed - but writing a song seems a more significant achievement than singing it). Occuli (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, everything in Category:Songs by artist is ambiguously named 'XXX songs'. Does anyone have a tame bot that would tag all these for a rename to 'Songs recorded by XXX', as stated in the intro to the category? Occuli (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled & unreleased media

Proposal: Merge and/or rename (to be determined).

Rationale: These categories are somewhat redundant to one another, and in addition, neither is properly named relative to their contents. I'm thinking that we might want to merge them into one category, along the lines of Category:Unreleased works by medium or Category:Unreleased works by genre. But there may well be a better solution. Notified creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I say that they're not properly named, the point, very simply, is that it's not the media themselves that are cancelled or unreleased, it's particular works (creative works) -- sorted by medium. Cgingold (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and untangle - there's a difference between for example a "cancelled" book (for instance, a contracted sequel to a novel that didn't sell) and an "unreleased" book (completed but unpublished manuscript). This is a useful distinction IMHO. But the two cats should not be subcats of each other. Otto4711 (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time looking more deeply into these cats & sub-cats, and discovered that it's even more of a mess than I realized. With perhaps one exception (for cancelled films) it would not make sense to maintain separate and distinct categories. I'm short on time right now, so I'll try to come back later and discuss this in more detail. Cgingold (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to sketch out the problem, which essentially revolves around the issue of cancellation versus all other reasons for creative works not to be released. I would agree in principle that there can be a distinction. But in actual practice the lines are very blurred and -- with the perhaps notable exception of cancelled films -- it's very difficult, if not impossible, to make a determination as to the exact reason that that something wasn't released and how best to describe it. (You may remember the recent CFD that ended up merging Category:Civil rights and Category:Civil liberties into the new Category:Civil rights and liberties, because we agreed that, in practice, it was simply too difficult to make those distinctions.)
More on this later, I'm out of time right now... (Please relist if necessary.) Cgingold (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 11:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brahmins speaking Hindi and its dialects

Category:Brahmins speaking Hindi and its dialects - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization.See : Wikipedia:Categorization#When to use categories. There are Brahmins all over India speaking almost all Indian languages. Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 02:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Rename Category:Hindi-speaking Brahmins, to contrast with "Bengali-speaking Brahmins", "Tamil-speaking Brahmins" etc. However, I leave open the question of whehter it is necessary or desirable to categorise by caste. I am English, not Indian. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 11:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places in Gujarat

Category:Places in Gujarat - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate of Category:Geography of Gujarat Eastmain (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - there are a few more Category:Places in XXX (see index) some of which are redirects to Geography (eg Category:Places in Gibraltar). Occuli (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB All these 3 are empty. I see Bahirgachi was in one but was moved (20 July) by Eastmain ... Occuli (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places in India

Category:Places in India - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate of Category:Geography of India Eastmain (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places in West Bengal

Category:Places in West Bengal - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate of Category:Geography of West Bengal Eastmain (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Afghan porn stars

Category:Afghan porn stars - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains only one article for Silvia Lancome, who is Slovakian and only of part Afghan heritage. Category name suggests porn stars from Afghanistan. PC78 (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Create Category:Slovakian porn stars and put Silvia in that category instead. If no other "Afghan porn stars" have articles, the above-nominated category will be deleted as empty, but likely not for any other reason as it is part of a firmly established occupation-by-nationality structure (see Category:Porn stars by nationality). There is a precedent to keep analogous sub-categories with at least one member (see Category:English popes). "Afghan porn stars" can be kept (or undeleted in the future) if an article belonging to it is found or created. — CharlotteWebb 10:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African religions

Propose renaming Category:African religions to Category:African traditional religion

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proposed name parallels both the name of the main article African traditional religion and the category Chinese traditional religion. Also makes it clear that this category is not for articles that belong in the category Religion in Africa. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - but should it not be to Category:African traditional religions? While they undoubtedly share common features, given the diversity of African cultures, there clearly are many distinct religions, so I don't believe it's entirely comparable to Chinese traditional religion. Let's see what other editors have to say on this point. At any rate, renaming will hopefully help keep out articles like Zionist Churches, which I just removed from the category. Cgingold (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since religion can be used as both a count noun and a mass noun, I have no preference on whether it should be plural or not, but if the plural form is used, the associated article needs to be pluralized as well. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:African traditional religions per Cgingold. Occuli (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:African traditional religions per Cgingold. Plural more correctly reflects the obvious diversity, and is unambiguous. Associated article should be pluralized. Also, without the modifier "traditional" what would be the basis for excluding Islam and Christianity? -Exucmember (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:African traditional religions per Cgingold for the reasons he provides. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 85: / Line 85: @@
 :<span style="color:Chocolate;">'''Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.'''</span><br/><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 12:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->
 *Note that I've decided to relist this. As roundhouse0 points out, this is part of a wider scheme. Ordinarily that wouldn't be an issue, but a lot of those categories have very few members - of the first 20 subcats, 6 have only one member and a further 4 have only two members. Therefore I think there should be further discussion before setting a precedent for all these. Should they be counted as "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" similar to [[:Category:Songs by artist]] as described at [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth]]? [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 12:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
-:* Good idea. [[:Category:Albums by artist]] also permits single entry categories. A rename to [[:Category:Songs by Leslie Satcher]] is another possibility (the 'written by' scheme is not well-developed - but writing a song seems a more significant achievement than singing it). [[User:Occuli|Occuli]] ([[User talk:Occuli|talk]]) 12:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
+:* Good idea. [[:Category:Albums by artist]] also permits single entry categories. A rename to [[:Category:Leslie Satcher songs]] is another possibility (the 'written by' scheme is not well-developed - but writing a song seems a more significant achievement than singing it). [[User:Occuli|Occuli]] ([[User talk:Occuli|talk]]) 12:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
+::* As an aside, everything in [[:Category:Songs by artist]] is ambiguously named 'XXX songs'. Does anyone have a tame bot that would tag all these for a rename to 'Songs recorded by XXX', as stated in the intro to the category? [[User:Occuli|Occuli]] ([[User talk:Occuli|talk]]) 11:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 ====Cancelled & unreleased media====