Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 11

< July 10	July 12 >

July 11

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Daughters of marquesses

Category:Daughters of marquesses - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate categorisation. Being the offspring of a notable person does not in itself confer notability. The Wednesday Island 16:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ridiculous categorization. Otto4711 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eponymous musician categories - V

Category:Vader - Template:Lc1

Category:The Vaselines - Template:Lc1

Category:Velvet Revolver - Template:Lc1

Category:The Verve - Template:Lc1

Category:Village People - Template:Lc1

Category:The Vincent Black Shadow - Template:Lc1

Category:The Vines - Template:Lc1

Category:Vinnie Vincent Invasion - Template:Lc1

Category:The Voltaires - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - each of these categories consists of one or more of the following subcats: albums; members; songs, along with the article for the artist and an occasional discography article. Per the standard articulated in looking at bands beginning with A and artists beginning with W, along with many additional individual CFDs for eponymous musician categories, this is insufficient material to warrant the eponymous category. The material is accessible through the artists' articles and is categorized in other "...by artist" category structures. The only deviation is in Category:The Vines, which contains links to a template, portal and Wikiproject page. I don't think that material warrants an eponymous category since it's all linkable through the template and articles but it does deviate from the standard. Otto4711 15:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I see nothing here that deviates from the "beginning with A" verdict.--Mike Selinker 15:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sentenced demos

Merge into Category:Sentenced albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and suggest renaming target to Category:Sentenced (band) albums to address ambiguity. Otto4711 15:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & rename per Otto - it confused me. Johnbod 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pre-1914 Association Football players

Arbitrary inclusion criterion. I see no reason for using 1914 as the cutoff point, and would suggest merging with Category:Cambridge University A.F.C. players. >Radiant< 14:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Footballers with 100 or more caps

Arbitrary inclusion criterion. There's no effective difference between a player with 105 caps and one with 95 caps. Furthermore, it's redundant with List of football (soccer) players with 100 or more caps. Suggest deletion. >Radiant< 14:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as arbitrary. Not every list should become a category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A lot of categories can be created to describe individual footballers' achievements. It is infeasible to have all of these categories on fottballers' pages, as the categories at the bottom of individual articles will become very difficult to read and use for navigation. As it currently stands, articles on footballers have category clutter problems anyway. It would be better to delete this category and rely on the list. Dr. Submillimeter 17:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as arbitrary cut off. Carlossuarez46 17:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Footballers from Bosnia and Herzegovina and subcats

Also, Category:Footballers of the Central African Republic, Category:Footballers of the Republic of the Congo and Category:Footballers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

All sibling cats use the format "<fooish> footballers". These should be renamed to reflect that. >Radiant< 14:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, See September 13th discussion ... what country are Category:Congolese footballers from? -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indoor soccer players and subcats

The entire structure uses the term "football (soccer)", these should be renamed to reflect that. >Radiant< 14:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Footballers who died from motor neurone disease

Categorizing sportspeople by the way they died is overcategorization. >Radiant< 14:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The general consensus is not to categorize people by career and form of death. Dr. Submillimeter 15:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Deaths from motor neurone disease. That should suffice. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ProveIt, intersection of occupation and manner of death is usually not acceptable. Carlossuarez46 17:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical Northwest Territories electoral districts

Propose renaming Category:Historical Northwest Territories electoral districts to Category:Former Northwest Territories electoral districts

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historical" has many interpretations. It could be used to indicate that something is old, or it could be used to indicate listing in a historic register. In this case, it is used to indicate that these electoral districts no longer exist. It should be renamed using "former", which communicates this much more clearly. Dr. Submillimeter 14:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic transportation in Oregon

Category:Historic transportation in Oregon - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Merge subcategories into Category:Transportation in Oregon and Delete - This is an ad hoc collection of things that various users may consider "historic" about transportation in Oregon, including defunct railways, road construction projects that were never started or partially completed, roads that no longer exist, defunct ferry services, a person who worked on road construction, and two subcategories for "historic" trails and "historic" ships. The category is very incoherent, and the articles already exist in other subcategories of Category:Transportation in Oregon, so I suggest merging the subcategories into the parent category and otherwise deleting this category. Dr. Submillimeter 14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Every one of the articles in the category concerns a transportation-related topic which is woven into the history of the state. I don't understand how this can be considered "ad hoc" or "very incoherent." The relationships among these topics are generally explored pretty well in the articles. -Pete 15:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The category is a collection of every transportation item that was in Category:History of Oregon which has become rather unweildy. It is one of several sub-categories added to make that category more managable. It really has nothing to do with Category:Transportation in Oregon, thus merging into the Trans category becomes counter-productive. Aboutmovies 15:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I also object to the characterization of this category as "ad hoc" and "incoherent". This category is overseen by a very active WikiProject, WikiProject Oregon, and is by no means random. This category definitely helps us keep the Oregon history category under control and differentiates between modern transportation and everything else. I believe that a user casually searching for Oregon transportation articles is probably looking for modern transportation--the subcategory provides clarity between the historic and the modern, which is a very useful designation. Perhaps the introduction to the category could be made clearer, but that's the only change I think is necessary at this point. Katr67 15:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could the people opposing this explain why the Mount Hood Freeway, Harbor Drive, and the Willamette locomotive are in this category but the Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway, the Sellwood Bridge, and the Mitchell Point Tunnel are not in this category? The inclusion or exclusion of articles really seems arbitrary. Dr. Submillimeter 17:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the Volcanic Byway or Sellwood Bridge would be considered historic - nothing in those articles indicates historic significance. The Mitchell Tunnels could certainly be included. Addressing your broader point: just because it's not immediately clear what articles should or shouldn't get included, doesn't mean the category is incoherent. We're perfectly capable of having productive discussions about each case, and making a determination whether or not it should be included in the category. The current collection is good; there may well be other articles worthy of inclusion. Gray areas are an inherent part of the project of categorization. -Pete 17:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oregon historic ships

Category:Oregon historic ships - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - This is an ad hoc collection of ships with some connection to Oregon, including ships that were built in Oregon, ships that sailed in Oregon, ships from outside of Oregon that were shipwrecked in Oregon, and ships from outside of Oregon that were named after Oregon. It seems awkward to categorize all of these ships together. Also, ships are not categorized by ___location like this in general, and it could become messy to have categories for every place a ship ever went. Therefore, this category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 13:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Same as the above item, not about the ships and ship classification (that's why there is a place name in the name). It is about Category:History of Oregon and trying to make sub categories to move items from the main cat into more navigatable sub categories. Aboutmovies 15:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Again, not ad hoc, and certainly doesn't include "every place a ship ever went". That would indeed be silly. (Does the category include every ship that ever came to Fleet Week during the Portland Rose Festival, for example? Nope.) No, this category lists ships with a significant connection to the history of Oregon, and like Aboutmovies says, and per the above Cfd, the category helps keep the Oregon history category manageable. If any change is to occur, perhaps a rename for clarity about what the category is for, but otherwise it should be kept. Katr67 16:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The inclusion criteria are still subjective, as it relies on editors to determine whether ships have "a significant connection to the history of Oregon". (Someone may indeed decide to include every ship that appeared at Fleet Week.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maps by User:Briangotts, Category:Fictional maps by User:Briangotts and Category:Historical maps by User:Briangotts

This is really not what categories are for. What's next, Category:Articles co-written by Radiant? This encyclopedia is a cooperative effort, so you don't get to sign your work like this. That's what the 'history' tab does. >Radiant< 13:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User-created categories for media (not articles!) exist in Commons, I can't see why they should not exist in Wikipedia. Every article is a collaborative effort, whereas every image is created by a specific wikipedian who needs to be identified. If I created so many media files myself, I would certainly want some sort of category to bring them together, if only to be able to monitor them from time to time. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. images != articles. Neil ╦ 13:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment yesterday was it. But only for categories containing images only of course. Johnbod 16:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why do we need to identify who created what via a category? And what are we monitoring? Changes? A category won't tell you that. To make sure it hasn't been deleted? A category won't tell you that either. There isn't much a category can do that the watchlist won't do better. --Kbdank71 17:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least move to talk pages I am not sure that we should get into classifying material by who provided it. These pages are editable presumably by anyone. If that's done, is it still a map by anyone? We have moved most "by source" categories to talk pages, if kept, this should be no different. Carlossuarez46 18:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any reason these couldn't all be transwikied to the Commons? Then everyone could use them, and there could be a category for whatever use it's for, as Ghirla points out. Rigadoun (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories of Category:Former subdivisions of countries

Rename all to Category:Former (subunit) of (place) - The names of the subcategories in Category:Former subdivisions of countries are rather heterogeneous. Moreover, some of these terms have multiple or vague interpretations. "Historic" could also be used to refer to "old", or it could be used to indicate that the places are listed in some government register. This nomination would lead to all of the former country subdivisions being renamed using "former", which has a very clear meaning. It would also add uniformity to Category:Former subdivisions of countries. (Note that categories for cities/municipalities are not included in this nomination; I may get to them later.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to administrator - I had difficulty with the special characters in the name for the Hokkaido category. It will be properly tagged for this discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. It's good to have a naming convention, and we've been standardizing on former or defunct since historic is prone to many possible interpretations. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom & ProveIt Johnbod 17:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:R.S. Films films

Propose renaming Category:R.S. Films films to Category:RS Film films

Nominator's rationale: Rename, because the name of the company was changed in a rebranding effort earlier this year. — WiseKwai 10:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and see what happens with this AfD. If the main article gets deleted, this category should go as well. PC78 17:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Feature-quality Korea-related articles

Propose renaming Category:Feature-quality Korea-related articles to Category:FA-class Korea-related articles

Nominator's rationale: Rename, wasn't sure if this qualified as a speedy or not, however the proposed name will bring this in line with other such categories for the Korea WikiProject. PC78 07:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:FA-Class Korea-related articles, with an uppercase C, convention of Category:FA-Class articles. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The others should also be renamed to:

Category:A-Class Korea-related articles

Category:B-Class Korea-related articles

Category:FA-Class Korea-related articles

Category:GA-Class Korea-related articles

Category:Stub-Class Korea-related articles

Category:Start-Class Korea-related articles -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:FA-Class Korea-related articles with an uppercase C. WikiProject Korea has a seperate quality scale, thus it would also necessary to merge D-class into Start-class or Stub-class.
- I also propose to merge Very Low into Low in importance scale. eDenE 13:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for above suggestions, including Edene. (Wikimachine 14:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I agree, articles in non-standard classes can't be counted in the assessment statistics. -- Prove It ^(talk)

Category:Juvenile songs

Propose renaming Category:Juvenile songs to Category:Juvenile (rapper) songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename - "Juvenile songs" is ambiguous, as it could refer to songs written for or performed by juveniles. Rename to match the lead article Juvenile (rapper). Otto4711 05:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albums of Ellington-Strayhorn compositions

Category:Albums of Ellington-Strayhorn compositions - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorizing albums on the basis of who wrote the songs on them strikes me as overcategorization. There does not appear to be a Category:Albums by composer or Category:Albums by songwriter structure and I'm not seeing a lot of utility in starting one. If an album is notable then its songwriters can be noted in the album article and if the songwriter is notable then his or her songs can be noted in the songwriter's article and cross-linked. Otto4711 05:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish-American singers

Category:Irish-American singers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT by ethnicity. Irish/Jewish/Mexican folk songs aside, the ethnicity of a singer 99% isn't relevant, because there can't be an true articles written about these ethnicity-singer combinations. I did not nominate African-American singers in this nomination because there might be a reasonable article written about it given African-American's massive contribution to American music (especially singing) but there might be some arguments for deleting that too. Upmerge into Category:American singers and other relevant subdivisions. Bulldog123 04:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge - Ancestry/ethnicity plays virtually no role in the music of Bing Crosby, Pink (singer), Paul Simon, David Lee Roth, and many of these other performers. However, a category could be made for a genre of music (e.g. Category:Performers of traditional Jewish music), and such categories probably exist for Latin American music styles. Dr. Submillimeter 08:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:American singers per nom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Dr. Sub. Carlossuarez46 18:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen appliance bands

Delete, there's only one, see January 6th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Schools in Llanelli area

Merge into Category:Schools in Carmarthenshire, member of Category:Schools in Wales. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic composers

Delete, as non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference, see also April 16th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Trivial intersection, past deletion precedent.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Religion is irrelevant. Bulldog123 04:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A category for the composers of Roman Catholic music would be acceptable, but these composers worked on music that often did not have anything to do specifically with Catholicism. Dr. Submillimeter 08:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]