Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 15

< January 14	January 16 >

January 15

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:WWE Champions

Delete. This is a good example of overcategorization. Here is a section straight from the main page of the guideline:

Mostly overlapping categories:Example: 1971 National League All-Stars, 1852 religious leaders

If two categories have a large overlap (e.g. because many atheletes participate in multiple all-star games), it is generally better to handle these with a single category, and create lists that detail the multiple instances. Categories like this will likely add multiple categories to many articles.

A list page exists for the champions already, and relevant championship information is on the article already. A category doesn't need to exist, considering it overlaps other champion categories as well (which will be in CFD as well). Category:World Champion professional wrestlers serves the purpose of categorizing champions just fineRobJ1981 20:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WWE World Heavyweight Champions

Delete. This is a good example of overcategorization. Here is a section straight from the main page of the guideline:

Mostly overlapping categories:Example: 1971 National League All-Stars, 1852 religious leaders

If two categories have a large overlap (e.g. because many atheletes participate in multiple all-star games), it is generally better to handle these with a single category, and create lists that detail the multiple instances. Categories like this will likely add multiple categories to many articles.

A list page exists for the champions already, and relevant championship information is on the article already. A category doesn't need to exist, considering it overlaps other champion categories as well (which will be in CFD as well). Category:World Champion professional wrestlers serves the purpose of categorizing champions just fine. RobJ1981 20:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Big O characters

Delete, This category is no longer used. Character information has been moved to Characters of The Big O. --SteveA026 20:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actors to Cast Members

Category:Dalziel and Pascoe actors, Category:The Fairly OddParents actors, Category:Futurama actors, Category:Good Times actors, Category:Hannah Montana actors, Category:Leave It to Beaver actors, Category:The Shield actors, Category:Less Than Perfect actors and Category:Good Times actors
Another group of categories named "actors" that should be named "cast members" instead. These cats are relatively small and do not contain every single person that appeared in one scene or one episode, nor should they. >Radiant< 17:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per nom and similar recent cfds. Dugwiki 17:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Danish Superliga 2006-07

Delete, The category is not needed when all the articles exept the main article is deleted. ka la ha 17:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People known by first name only

Merge into Category:People known by single-name pseudonyms, per discussion of October 1st. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People known by a single name - That someone is known by a single name does not mean that the person is using a pseudonym. For instance, "Madonna" is Madonna's real first name, she should not be characterized as using a pseudonym. Otto4711 17:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Austrian people by city

Propose renaming Category:Austrian people by city to Category:People by city in Austria

Rename, for consistency in Category:People by city. RobertG ♬ talk 15:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UK Anime conventions

Propose renaming Category:UK Anime conventions to Category:Anime conventions in the United Kingdom

Rename, per WP:NCCAT. Though I seriously doubt the need for this category as there are only 79 articles on anime conventions around the world. --Farix (Talk) 14:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stalinists

Addition of deleted content. category already deleted 3 times. Soman 13:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Stalinism is an extremist ideology. Those who adhere to such ideologies (*cough Jyoti Basu *cough) are "Stalinists". It belongs as a cat just like Category:Nazis , Category:White nationalists or Category:Anti-Semitic people Rumpelstiltskin223 13:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is those are ideologies and political parties rather than people who adhere to a personality cult or one-man system. We also don't have Category:Maoists or Category:Peronists even though those also exist to some degree. Objecting to this isn't necessarily the same as thinking there are no Stalinists, it can be more like thinking it's something too difficult to categorize.--T. Anthony 17:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, see previous CfD discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 28, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 20, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 6, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 10. --Soman 13:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as recreated content. Aside from that, the term could be considered redundant with Category:Communists (following the previous discussions on WP:CFD). Dr. Submillimeter 14:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I think there are/were Stalinists this is better dealt with at the List of Stalinists.--T. Anthony 14:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Nazis is neutral because it relates to members of a political party and the other two listed are themselves problematic (Category:Anti-Semitic people would probably have been deleted by now if Jewish users had not been statistically over represented in its deletion discussions.) Osomec 15:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian currency categories

Category:Decimal to Category:Decimal currencies of Australia

Category:Pre-Decimal to Category:Pre-decimal currencies of Australia

Category:Florin to Category:Florin (Australian coin) (in line with main article)

Rename, found these currently ambiguous sub-categories of Category:Currencies of Australia. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 14:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:TAU Cerámica basketball players

Propose renaming Category:TAU Cerámica basketball players to Category:Saski Baskonia basketball players

Rename. As the creator of this category, I now believe that it should be consistent with all other "player by club" categories for Spanish basketball clubs, and be named according to the club. This would also forestall any issues that might arise if the club changes sponsorship. Also, the club has not had the TAU sponsorship for all its history. Since this is a basketball-only club (note that the Basque word for "basketball" is saskibaloi), I'd also be willing to accept Category:Saski Baskonia players. Dale Arnett 08:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Forgot to add in original nomination... the existing TAU Cerámica players category should be a category redirect, IMHO. — Dale Arnett 08:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish Americans

Merge / Redirect into Category:Spanish-Americans. -- Prove It ^(talk) 08:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect per ProveIt. The Rambling Man 10:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public Schools in Lee County, Florida

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Schools in Lee County, Florida. -- Prove It ^(talk) 07:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Schools in Florida. Xiner (talk, email) 15:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no Category:Schools in Florida. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Woodstock

Delete all, a successful group will preform at dozens of music festivals, it doesn't work to categorize them this way. -- Prove It ^(talk) 07:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This form of promotion of a festival isn't really on. --BozMo talk 14:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listing the performers in the article is sufficient. Dugwiki 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Allegedly racist restaurant chains

It could be stated in the article(s) that the companies allegedly run "racist" restaurants. It doesn't need to have a category.

Delete potentially terrible problems with POV. The Rambling Man 10:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with my learned colleague, plus OR. --Dweller 11:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice per Rambler and Dweller. — Dale Arnett 14:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for umpteen reasons. Osomec 14:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Huge POV issues. Dugwiki 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Settlements in Oklahoma

Propose renaming Category:Settlements in Oklahoma to Category:Population centers in Oklahoma

Rename, Category:Settlements in Oklahoma was created 03:49, 14 January 2007 by User:Hmains [1] who proceeded to fill it by depopulating the existing Category:Population centers in Oklahoma User:Xaosflux then deleted Population centers in Oklahoma.[2]. Settlement is not a very good word for a population center since it usually means a newly settled place only. In any case, it would never be used to describe Census Designated Areas, Metropolitan Areas, or even neighborhoods. Anyway, it should go through the cfd before I recreate it, and should have gone through cfd before it was renamed. BTW, the settlement category seems to be part of a series and probably all should be corrected. OKtag 02:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification Rename was not proposed because the change did not exactly follow protocol. Wikipedia would shut down if every protocol had to be followed exactly. Rename was proposed because population centers is a more descriptive name than settlements. And it should be for the whole series. IMHO. OKtag 13:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename based on the facts above. The cat should not have been emptied and deleted without a discussion. I do not blame the closing admin since it is difficult to verify that a category has been empty for a while. We have to rely on the good faith of the editors who make these nominations Vegaswikian 03:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We ought to keep Category:Settlements in the United States by state consistant. If we are to change any, we should change them all at once. -- Prove It ^(talk) 07:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like one of these was created for every state. So we need to discuss this for all of them. Undoing 50 of these needs discussion first. Was this mass change discussed anywhere? Vegaswikian 09:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - For every state, it brings towns, villages, cities, and census-designated areas to a common parent. I think this is a good thing, and something like it was needed. I'm not sure if Settlements is ideal, but at least it's not as awkward as population centers. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason why I chose to use 'settlement' for the new 'by state' categories is because 'settlement' is what I found to be already defined and in use in WP. See Settlement (first meaning), Category:Settlements, Category:Settlements by region, Category:Settlements in the United States. Hmains 17:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmains, something like this was clearly needed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional llamas

Delete, there are only two articles in this category: Kuzco and Doctor Dolittle (Book Series), neither of which are actual llamas. I don't believe there is any other article that would even partially fit into this category. –Llama man^{sign here} 02:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No doubt there are fictional llamas in many works of fiction, however, the notability of a draught animal that, say, Tintin happens to ride upon in an adventure, is worse than spurious. On the same lines, Snowy would be notable and worth recording in a category of fictional animals. --Dweller 11:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - NB Category:Fictional camelids and Category:Fictional camels --Dweller 11:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Xiner (talk, email) 15:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and upmerge if necessary into Category:Fictional camelids There doesn't appear to be a need to subdivide Category:Fictional camelids. So if either of these articles needs to be kept, simply change their category to Fictional Camelids. Dugwiki 17:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer and video games developed in Japan

Not a defining characteristic, what do we gain by grouping together thousands of computer and video game articles in this instance? Combination 01:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems more useful to group them by studio or publishing company. Xiner (talk, email) 01:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best way to do it is categorizing studios per country, and games per studio. So delete. >Radiant< 12:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns in Crimea

Propose renaming Category:Towns in Crimea to Category:Cities and towns in Crimea

Rename, because it is currently misleading as it contains both cities and towns and they all as a "town" with the category. —dima/s-ko/ 01:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 01:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natives of Transylvania

Rename to Category:People from Transylvania; some residents are not natives, some natives are not residents. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't the trend to rename similar categories to "Natives of"? Xiner (talk, email) 01:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For residency, the usual convention is People from Foo. I would argue that residency is more important than nativity, because there are always notable residents who were born elsewhere. My favorite example is Arnold Schwarzenegger, California resident and Governer, however he is not a Native Californian. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory

Merge into Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reason for this proposal? It seems a well populated category. --Bduke 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With a current total of 73 members, the faculty cat is hardly overpopulated. Also I have a general tendency to prefer a single large easy-to-understand category over lots of tiny ones. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you prefer is not a reason for merging. I go for keep as is. People might just want to find Cambridge Computer people. --Bduke 01:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - a precise grouping of academics. roundhouse 00:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Cambridge Computer Lab is very different from other Cambridge academics. --lquilter 02:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - (I am the creator of this category, but am also a regular CFD lurker, so I hope that my opinions aren't biases). Once fully populated, the category Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge will be extremely large, so some means of categorisation will be necessary. One obvious categorisation scheme is by the academic subject of the person in question. Noting that someone (not me) recently created Category:Members of the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, I decided to bite the bullet, and start classifying Cambridge academics by this scheme. The scheme isn't perfect -- especially since the departments themselves are relatively recent creations so, for example, Isaac Newton won't fit into any departmental category, but would fit into something like Category:Academic Mathematicians at the University of Cambridge (the lack of a sensible naming scheme is preventing progress) -- but a non-perfect scheme is better that no scheme at all, especially since the creation of the other category will begin to force matter. If, in the course of time, a better categorisation scheme appears, any renamings required will make it into CFD in their own time. Merging everyone back into the parent category isn't a long-term solution. As a side issue, the reason that the Computer Laboratory was one of the first categories created is symptomatic of Wikipedia bias: a computer science professor is more likely to have an article than an arts professor... Bluap 04:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Subdividing people by faculty or lab is overcategorization. >Radiant< 12:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge shouldn't contain any articles at all, as it should be fully subcategorised by college. This looks like a worthwhile supplement to categorisation by college. Osomec 14:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, not all academics are members of colleges, so that structure can't contain everyone. From my point of view, it makes more sense to sort academics by discipline, than by college. (Though there are valid reasons to sorting by college - e.g. to provide a convenient link from the main article on that college.) Bluap 15:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics

Merge into Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reason for this proposal? It seems a well populated category. --Bduke 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With a current total of 73 members, the faculty cat is hardly overpopulated. Also, the current name is overly vague. Also I have a general tendency to prefer a single large easy-to-understand category over lots of tiny ones. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are ignoring the hundreds of articles in the college categories. Osomec 14:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - a precise grouping of academics. roundhouse 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you prefer is not a reason for merging. I go for keep as is. People might just want to find Cambridge Maths people. --Bduke 01:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deletion per my argument on Category:Members of the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory (i.e. Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge will become very large, and needs subcategories). Rename is a possibility, to include University of Cambridge in the category title. Bluap 04:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename it should include University of Cambridge in the title, currently it is too vague. The Rambling Man 10:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a subcat of Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge which maybe makes it clear enough. It does need clarification of its inclusion criteria - does it include past and present members? (And is there an article on the Dept? When did it start? It was there in 1966.) roundhouse 11:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't forget item 5 in WP:NCCAT#General naming conventions – if kept, therefore, suggest rename to Members of the University of Cambridge Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics (assuming this doesn't cause the boxes listing categories to explode). Chuckle, David Kernow (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had quite forgotten it, along with much else. There is 'names should be short and simple', a bit further down, and elsewhere an objection to abbreviations - written by a committee, no doubt. There's Members of the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom yet to come. roundhouse 19:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per my comment in the next discussion up. Osomec 14:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question If the category were called Category:Mathematicians at the University of Cambridge, would it be obvious that it is for people who were academics at the university, rather than for people who simply did a maths degree there? If so, then this would solve the issue of how to categorise people who pre-date the formation of the department (in the early 1960s). Bluap 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artists on Behind the Music

Delete as categorization by non-defining or trivial characteristic. I think the list in the Behind the Music article is good enough. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 01:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, this is best kept to a list within an article. Dugwiki 17:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]