Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Blaze The Movie Fan (talk | contribs) at 21:38, 6 March 2007 (→‎[[Category:Hoenn locations]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< March 5 March 7 >

March 6

NEW NOMINATIONS

Chingy Immortal Technique

It was useful but now it has only two articles that's in the category, the rest was merged to a new page. So I think it should be removed. TheBlazikenMaster 21:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antisemitic canards

Category:Antisemitic canards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unfortunately it severely violates WP:NPOV, by making the accusation that the subject of the article is a canard (canard = "a false and baseless claim"). Though I may personally agree with the sentiment that the various claims are canards, this is still only a personal opinion, not a concretely proven fact beyond dispute. Imagine adding a "Category:Fundamentalist Christian Canards" to the Teach the Controversy article. --User talk:FDuffy 20:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is reserved for anti-Jewish ATTACK stories which have been widely recognized as factually incorrect by competent scholars or authorities in the relevant field, but which are still continually dragged out to ATTACK Jews year after year for decades. Note the first distinction between this category and Intelligent Design -- intelligent design was not contrived for the purpose of attacking or denigrating any one national/religious/ethnic or racial group of people. The second difference is that the main dispute over Intelligent Design is actually not whether it's true or false, but rather whether or not it's science -- a dispute which quickly leads to abstract realms of philosophy and falsifiability. By contrast, the disputes involved in the "canards" category are largely about simple facts, dates, and events. So keep. AnonMoos 21:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Previous CFD is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_6#Category:Anti-Semitic_canards -- AnonMoos 21:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the logical parents of this would be Category:Antisemitism, which does exist, and Category:Canards, which does not, there might be a better term than "canards" to use, unless some sources can be provided that indicate "canard" is the usual and definitive referent. Antisemitic canard does exist, but it is a recent creation and a mere unreferenced stub. There are not any other specific "canard" pages, other than Canard (computing), which has its own problems. Why not just merge Category:Antisemitic canards into Category:Antisemitism? Also note that Template:Antisemitism uses "Allegations" as a header, so renaming to "Antisemitic allegations" would also make sense. Postdlf 21:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media in Capital District, New York

There should be a consistent media market name for radio/TV/newspapers in the Albany/Schenectady/Troy NY area, aka "Capital District". Maybe it could be "(media) in New York's Capital District" instead. --Vossanova o< 18:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fox Broadcasting Company personalities

Category:Fox Broadcasting Company personalities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as an inappropriate performer by network categorization. Otto4711 17:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CNN people

Category:CNN people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - another personality by network categorization. Otto4711 17:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UEFA European Football Championship goalscorers

Category:UEFA European Football Championship goalscorers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - This is another "football player who scored in a championship" category. As stated before, sportspeople in general have many categories, and sorting people by whether they scored in a championship simply adds to category clutter. Also, as stated before, categories like this are not created for other sports championships. Therefore, this category should be deleted. (I can provide links to the previous discussions on similar categories that were deleted.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Dr. Submillimeter. -- P199 17:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a useful way of grouping players. Some players who do not score a goal in any given tournament play a more prominent role in the competition than most of those that did. Haddiscoe 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bangladeshi laws

Category:Bangladeshi laws (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, With the existence of Category:Bangladeshi law, which is a part of Category:Law by country this empty category is completely redundant. Aditya Kabir 16:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as empty and redundant. Otto4711 17:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alanis Morissette

Category:Alanis Morissette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - cat contains subcats for albums and songs, both of which are correctly housed under Albums by artist and Songs by artist parents, and three articles which are all linked together. No need for this eponymous category. Otto4711 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It would sure be nice if we had a guideline about musician categories before they're all nominated independently. Mine would be, "If the artist has at least two subcategories, it stays." But I'm sure that's not everyone's opinion.--Mike Selinker 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Torchwood people

Category:Torchwood people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete - the category is holding subcats for cast, writers and directors, which will be emptied and deleted by the end of the day. The category will then be empty and can be speedily deleted. Otto4711 15:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:RCA Records artists

Category:RCA Records artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - this is something of a "test the waters" nomination. Recording artists are extensively categorized by what label or labels they recorded for. This strikes me as being very akin to categorizing television performers by the networks for which they've worked. I understand that it is less likely for a recording artist to hop from label to label the way an actor or a commentator may jump from network to network but the similarity between the categorization scheme leads me to conclude that musician by record label is a form of overcategorization. Certainly the label should be mentioned in the artists' articles and I have no quarrel with listifying before deletion. Otto4711 14:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (as first impression) My first impression here would be to agree with Otto. This sounds akin to actors-by-studio, which is generally deleted since actors often work for many studios in their career. I could see that musicians-by-record-label might suffer some of the same problems, although I could be wrong. So I'm leaning toward delete, but I'm certainly open to counter-arguments. Dugwiki 17:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unlike actors, musicians sign long-term contracts with recording studios and may only work with one or two recording studios during their careers. Therefore, the identification of a musician with a studio is more meaningful than the identification of an actor with a studio. In some cases, the studio also indicates the style or origin of the music (especially a famous studio such as Motown Records), which is an additional reason to keep. Furthermore, since articles on performers are unlikely to have more than a couple of these categories, the studios categories should not contribute to category clutter. (Like Dugwiki, however, I am open to counter-arguments.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the American studio system, actors signed long-term contracts with individual studios and became strongly identified with the studios. MGM, Paramount, RKO, etc. had stables of stars and distinctive production values. I understand what you're saying as well but the identification of movie star with studio is for many stars of that era possibly stronger than the identification of most recording artists with their labels. Otto4711 18:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ZZ Top

Category:ZZ Top (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - article is serving as a container for articles about each of the band members, the band, and a former band that two of the members were in, along with subcats for their songs and albums. All of the articles are extensively interlinked with the main article and each other and the subcats are appropriately categorized as children of the Songs by artist and Album by artist categories. There is no need for this eponymous category. Otto4711 14:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Does a fine job of uniting its three categories and articles. I'm in favor of keeping all of these band categories.--Mike Selinker 19:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CJOH people

Category:CJOH people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - another improper performer by network categorization. Otto4711 14:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for all the reasons in the last discussion, do we have to have this talk every week? see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 7#Category:CJOH people cmacd 16:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The last discussion reached no consensus, so further discussion is warranted. As with other people by network categories, the people at CJOH have worked elsewhere; see, for example, Peter Jennings and Alanis Morissette. As stated before, categorization by network is inappropriate, since people work for many networks during their careers and since the categories lead to category clutter. Moreover, in light of the deletion of similar categories for other TV networks (such as Category:NBC personalities and Category:CBS personalities) and the status of pending nominations to delete other "people by network" categories (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 5, for example), this category should also be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per cmacd. GreenJoe 16:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per similar cfds for other actor-by-network categories. It also looked like this cfd was leaning toward a possible deletion at the time it was closed for no consensus, so I don't have a problem with the discussion continuing. Dugwiki 17:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. This is even less valid than most other categories of this type because it is just for one local part of a network. Haddiscoe 18:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Data Vault

Category:Data Vault (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Looks like new user created a category rather than an article by mistake. There will only every be one article associated with this category. Stephenpace 14:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ASEAN

Propose renaming Category:ASEAN to Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Based on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(acronyms)#Acronyms_as_words_in_article_titles, acronyms are acceptable if they ase used in common usage (evidence: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), so I guess using the less lenghty Category:ASEAN would be better since it would attract less clutter and also it would avoid renaming disputes such as Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations members versus Category:Members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations for Category:ASEAN members. --23prootie 13:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Anyway, I've read Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Abbreviations:_to_expand_or_not_to_expand.3F and it said there that if an acronym becomes a word it becomes acceptable, well sometimes people use the word Asean-pronounced AH-SEE-AHN-to describe ASEAN, so I guess that makes this acceptable. --23prootie 14:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wilderness Areas of Georgia

Category:SYN 907

Category:SYN 907 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Local radio station with 3 articles in two categories. Also delete Category:SYN Presenters. Vegaswikian 08:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Edmonton's Baseball History

Category:Edmonton's Baseball History (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Seems to be an article more than a category. Perhaps move the text to its own article and rename the category Category:Baseball in Edmonton. Djsasso 05:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move text to Baseball in Edmonton and rename category as Category:Baseball in Edmonton - This is the case of an article written in category space. The text should be moved to an appropriate article. Although no equivalent baseball categories can be found for other Canadian cities (although several "sports in city" categories do exist), this subdivision makes sense, and the category should be kept. Dr. Submillimeter 10:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and rename per nom and Dr. Submillimeter. Suggested naming convention is the best option. Resolute 14:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo-area station categories

Category:Stations of Negishi Line to Category:Negishi Line
Category:Stations of Ome Line to Category:Ome Line
Category:Stations of Sagami Line to Category:Sagami Line
Category:Stations of Saikyo Line to Category:Saikyo Line
Category:Stations of Sobu Main Line to Category:Sobu Main Line
Category:Stations of Jōban Line to Category:Jōban Line
Category:Stations of Joetsu Shinkansen to Category:Joetsu Shinkansen
Category:Stations of Keihin-Tōhoku Line to Category:Keihin-Tōhoku Line
Category:Stations of Keiyo Line to Category:Keiyo Line
Category:Stations of Nambu Line to Category:Nambu Line
Category:Stations of Narita Line to Category:Narita Line
Category:Stations of Shonan Shinjuku Line to Category:Shonan Shinjuku Line
Category:Stations of Sotobo Line　to Category:Sotobo Line
Category:Stations of Takasaki Line　to Category:Takasaki Line
Category:Stations of Tōhoku Main Line　to Category:Tōhoku Main Line
Category:Stations of Tōkaidō Main Line　to Category:Tōkaidō Main Line
Category:Stations of Yamanote Line　to Category:Yamanote Line
Category:Stations of Yokohama Line　to Category:Yokohama Line

Category:Scottish Americans

Merge / Redirect into Category:Scottish-Americans, obviously a redirect is needed here, category:American people by ethnic or national origin is inconsistant. -- Prove It (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sculptors who exhibited at the 3rd Sculpture International

Delete, this seems like performers by performance to me. Do you agree? -- Prove It (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Categorizing sculptors by every exhibition that they appear in will be infeasible; the large lists of categories will be difficult to read and use. Dr. Submillimeter 10:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with above. -- P199 17:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with above. This would work as a list in an article but not as a category tag on every artist article who appeared. Dugwiki 17:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Museums in England

Merge all into Category:Museums in England. Note all three of these contain the same two museums. -- Prove It (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all The visitor attractions categories provide sufficient breakdown at a local level within England. Haddiscoe 18:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medieval and Renaissance hill towns in Italy

Merge into Category:Italian hilltowns, see also discussion of January 28th. Stub article in category space. -- Prove It (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tuskegee Institute alumni

Rename to Category:Tuskegee University alumni, Tuskegee Institute is a redirect to Tuskegee University. -- Prove It (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Louisiana counties

Merge / Redirect into Category:Louisiana parishes, convention of Louisiana. -- Prove It (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect per nom. This is a correct distinction of names. Hmains 02:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect is fine, but I think complete Deletion of the category is better.Speaking as a lifelong resident of Louisiana, since my state doesn't have counties - Parishes instead - calling them counties is misleading and inaccurrate. I have felt the Wiki should always strive for accurracy and characterizing Louisiana's parishes as counties doesn't accomplish that.--Avazina 05:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Avazina. Louisiana has no counties. Dating back to its Napoleonic history, it has parishes. Doczilla 10:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of these articles are already in Category:Louisiana parishes, there is nothing to merge. Not sure what purpose a redirect on a category would serve. Resolute 14:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Many people are unaware of Louisiana's unconventional naming scheme and the couty construction is a likely possible search term. Otto4711 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Americans by place subcategories

Propose renaming
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_6&oldid=113156030"