Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 3

< April 2	April 4 >

April 3

Category:Liverpool Catholic Bishops

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Archbishops of Liverpool (Roman Catholic). I looked at the parent category and this was the normal form and the more proper way to dab the name. Vegaswikian 02:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Liverpool Catholic Bishops to Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Liverpool

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Reason: accuracy. Brandon97 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Oppose~~Rename ~~Judging by Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese, the norm is "Archbishops in Foo," which is less wordy and it doesn't appear that specifying RC is necessary.~~ I also think they all should be changed to read the same, unless there's some compelling reason for exceptions. bobanny 06:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I recall that in another discussion on a category for Anglican clergy in Liverpool, the addition of "Anglican" was suggested to disambiguate between the Anglican and Roman Catholics with the same title. Is that the case here? Does the Anglican church have archbishops in Liverpool? Dr. Submillimeter 08:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The qualification is necessary because the Anglican Church is the primary church in England. Abberley2 11:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I changed my vote and added it to Category:Liverpool, where there is a Category:Anglican Bishops of Liverpool. bobanny 15:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Even if the Anglican church does not have an archbishop in Liverpool, the words "Roman Catholic" are probably useful for disambiguation anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another quibble: does "Archbishops" need to be uppercase? bobanny 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nature of Azerbaijan

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Nature of Azerbaijan to Category:Environment of Azerbaijan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nature of Azerbaijan to Category:Environment of Azerbaijan

Merge, well-intentioned by non-standard and superfluous category. Most of the article should already be in subcategories of the environment category. Abberley2 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, after a quick glance, I believe that is the correct instruction. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Lakers 20:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Doczilla 07:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:List of Italian sportspeople

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Lists of Italian sportspeople. Vegaswikian 02:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of Italian sportspeople - single entry category. It "seems" to be a part of a larger categorisation structure, but I'm not certain. If not, it should be deleted: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. If kept, it should be speedily renamed (List > Lists), speedy criteria #3. - jc37 13:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 13:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nathanian 18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the Category:Lists of sportspeople by nationality structure, although I could probably be persuaded to delete the entire structure if it were nominated. Otto4711 20:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, it should be Lists ... otherwise it's just a dupe of Category:Italian sportspeople -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of Category:Lists of sportspeople by nationality As Otto points out above, this is a subcategory of an existing scheme to divide Category:Lists of sportspeople by nationality. In such cases the size of the category doesn't matter and it's ok to have a subcategory with only a single entry. Dugwiki 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lists of Italian sportspeople. -Sean Curtin 03:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:List of Dhoom Machaao Dhoom episodes

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:List of Dhoom Machaao Dhoom episodes to Category:Dhoom Machaao Dhoom episodes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:List of Dhoom Machaao Dhoom episodes to Category:Dhoom Machaao Dhoom episodes - Another "List of" category. - jc37 13:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - as nominator. - jc37 13:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Doczilla 07:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:List of architects by country

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:List of architects by country to Category:Lists of architects by nationality. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:List of architects by country to Category:Lists of architects by country (List > Lists) - I didn't list this directly at Speedy, because there is a commented out note in the category introduction whether country or nationality is "better". We might as well determine that as well : ) - jc37 13:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominator. Neutral on country vs. nationality. - jc37 13:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lists of architects by nationality per convention for categories of people. Nathanian 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Lists of architects by nationality. Perhaps a "by country" cat exists somewhere or should exist, but all the entries here are nationality (eg, "French architects," not "Architects of France"), and the parent category is also by nationality. bobanny 06:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:List of urban debate leagues

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:List of urban debate leagues to Category:Urban debate leagues. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:List of urban debate leagues to Category:Urban debate leagues - Needs to at least have "List of" removed from its name : ) - jc37 13:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - as nominator. Possibly speedy? - jc37 13:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The way you are setting out your nominations, it looks like you are voting twice. Nathanian 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Nathanian 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Flops

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete all as POV/subjective or rename and rework the definitions in some fashion to match the parent category Category:Commercial failures and avoid POV in inclusion. Otto4711 12:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Box office bomb" too POV for a rename? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 12:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. POV/subjective and per the talk page. Perhaps some of this could be in a list, but not in a category since it can't list any references or even explanation.
Delete all - After reading through some of the items, I came to the conclusion that "flop" is simply being used as a POV term. Some of these features are low-budget, poor quality features that still make a profit anyway. Others are large-budget features that are critically panned and that lose money (e.g. Waterworld). Some features are actually OK but just lose money (e.g. Treasure Planet). Given how loosely the term "flop" is applied, these should all be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Submillimeter Nathanian 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly due to preference that categories be fairly definitive and complete. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as vague, subjective, useless. Doczilla 07:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Flops is too subjective a term to be used for criteria category or list inclusion. I might be ok, though, with something like "Category:Films that never earned a profit". Such a category would likely house all or almost all the films people consider "flops", and it would be based on something that is potentially verifiable (ie ticket sales vs production costs). It also would probably include some films that received critical praise but which, for one reason or another, didn't sell well at the box office. Dugwiki 15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Arbitrary definition, too open to interpretation to be standardized. I like Dugwiki's suggestion of a "Holy shit we lost a lot of money" category (though I'd suggest his name for it over mine). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, and possibly listify. Some films that fail to break even make a sizeable profit in the international market or on video, but are generally considered "flops" in terms of the original domestic theatrical release. -Sean Curtin 03:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television flops

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essentially a recreation of the deleted "Short-lived television series" category. Otto4711 12:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See my comments in the nomination above. Some of these may be critically approved but may have received low ratings. Others may be both critically panned and low-rated shows. Grouping them together is inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 15:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Submillimeter Nathanian 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Flops is too subjective. I might be ok with something like "Category:Television series cancelled prior to completing their first season". That would be something that is objective and verifiable and which would probably include a number of shows generally considered ratings "flops" (not necessarily critical flops). Dugwiki 15:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that "short-lived television series" was actually created as a well-defined (just not well-titled) alternative for this category with this intend.[1] (But it got deleted anyway.) – Chip Zero 16:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fairly arbitrary. Ran across this when someone tried putting Firefly (TV series) into the category, which has so far been met with very little support. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - arbitrary and subjective; kinda like Dugwiki's suggestion, though. --Orange Mike 23:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary and POV. – Chip Zero 16:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Soft drink flops

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Soft drink flops to Category:Soft drink commercial failures

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - to match the parent category Category:Commercial failures and remove the POV word "flop." Otto4711 12:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - The suggested rename will work here (unlike the rename for the films and TV categories). Dr. Submillimeter 15:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Upon further review, it appears that the entire Category:Commercial failures category tree functions the same as the "flops" category above. The categories could potentially sweep up all sorts of unrelated things (things that were only limited commercial successes, things that were successes in one country but not another, things that were critically panned but still profitable, etc.). This category and the parent should probably be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also review Category:Commercial failures and its subcategories for deletion Personally I think the whole "flop" thing is too subjective to be used as an inclusion criteria. I would say delete this category and also review the parent category, Category:Commercial failures and its other subcategories for possible deletion. (That of course would require a seperate cfd nomination). Dugwiki 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Category:Commercial failures was renamed from Category:Flops. Vegaswikian 22:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rock

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Rock to Category:Rock music. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rock to Category:Rock music

Merge, shouldn't this be a redirect? Elle Bee 12:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Nathanian 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect Under what circumstances are category redirects appropriate? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When we expect people to often use the category they shouldn't use, we add a category redirect to stop the category from being created over and over again. — coel acan — 22:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we leave a redirect, it should probably be to Category:Rocks. Vegaswikian 06:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect sounds right. — coel acan — 22:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, dubious on redirect, since it could also be used instead of Category:Rocks (and is in fact used on one article that belongs there). Mairi 04:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect My guess is that someone looking for "Rock" is more likely looking for Rock music than the geology kind, given the amount of pop culture on Wikipedia, but perhaps a dab note would also be appropriate either way. Alternatively it could redirect to Category:Cocaine; that's what people looking for Rock are usually after where I live. >8=! bobanny 06:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dab on a category doesn't work very well, as a lot of people don't check the contents of a category when they use it. Category redirects are only useful because bots patrol them and move articles to the target category automatically, but a dab will just gather dust. Better to just delete and redlink it if there's no consensus for one redirect over another; the redlink will discourage most people from using it (someone will recreate it, though, and then it's G4 time). — coel acan — 08:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as companion to Category:Paper and Category:Scissors. Just kidding, Merge/Redirect. Otto4711 13:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, LMAO. But how would you decide which ones should be subcategories? bobanny 16:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per nom. -Sean Curtin 03:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Theaters in Russia

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Theaters in Russia into Category:Theatres in Russia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theaters in Russia to Category:Theatres in Russia

Merge, when we have Category:Theatre in the United States and Category:Theatres in the United States (on the grounds that that is the spelling used in the industry), where seems to be little reason to use the "er" spelling for Russia, when nearly all the other national categories use the "re" spelling. "Re" is used in the title of 19 of the articles about individual Russian theatres, and "er" is used only once. AshbyJnr 11:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Nathanian 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Maps showing 20th-century history

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Very misleading category name since not all of the maps in it's subcategories fit the definition of the cat name. Plus I believe this is overcategorization. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category currently contains Category:Maps of the history of Israel and Category:Maps of the history of the Middle East. These subcategories contain maps showing the Middle East as it appeared in earlier historical periods. The category clearly is not being used as the title suggests it should be used; it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 07:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:NRHP Multiple Property Submissions

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename both, expanding abbreviation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:NRHP Multiple Property Submissions to Category:National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submissions

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Abbreviation removal. Bringing this here since the name is rather long and there may well be 50 subcategories. Nomination also includes Category:NRHP Multiple Property Submissions in Illinois to Category:National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submissions in Illinois. Vegaswikian 06:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename with full name. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tau Kappa Epsilon brothers

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought these had all been deleted already. This is not a defining characteristic. No-one has an article because they belonged to a student fraternity. Haddiscoe 01:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ack! You found another one. Probably a few more hiding out there too. This one is, like all the rest were, non-defining indeed. — coel acan — 03:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Don't categorize people by every single membership they have. Doczilla 05:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - People are generally not notable for their fraternity memberships or for other affiliations or achievements at the undergraduate level (except for sports achievements). People are instead notable for their achievements after college. Note that several other fraternity categories still exist. Dr. Submillimeter 08:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Submillimeter Nathanian 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think we have been through this before with frats. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Abberley2 12:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above and/or logic. It's okay to mention it in an article, but it certainly isn't a defining characteristic. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.