Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 26

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnbod (talk | contribs) at 02:01, 27 June 2007 (→Category:Portmanteaus: correct). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< June 25 June 27 >

June 26

Category:Mesoamerican codices

Propose renaming Category:Mesoamerican codices to Category:Mesoamerican pictorial documents
Nominator's rationale: The term codex, as used in the context of Mesoamerica, is kind of ill-defined. It certainly doesn't match up with the standard definition, since many of these aren't books at all. It's mostly used to describe documents in native writing systems (regardless of medium or format), but is also sometimes used for alphabetic texts. I'm proposing that the category be made specifically for the pictorial documents, with textual ones put in Category:Mesoamerican historical documents. Ptcamn 22:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are indeed not always standard codices, but the description of them as codices is well established, and most of them have it in their name (perversely, books that actually are codices are not normally so called in groupings). The couple of items that are text only should be moved to Category:Mesoamerican historical documents, but the pictorial ones should remain as they are. The description should be added to to clarify the specialised use of the term codex. Johnbod 01:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cities and towns in Poland

Category:Lists of films with disabled protagonists

Propose renaming Category:Lists of films with disabled protagonists to Category:Films with disabled protagonists
Nominator's rationale: Rename - category is mis-named. In the alternative, delete as non-defining. Otto4711 19:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American asses

Category:American asses - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: :) Chetblong 18:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Banjo-Kazooie characters

Category:Banjo-Kazooie characters - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: All the characters have been merged into List of characters in the Banjo-Kazooie series. (trogga) 18:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Destructive cults

Category:Destructive cults - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - beyond the issues with the use of the word "cult" in category names, the lead article defines "destructive cult" as being one of a "small number of religious groups that have intentionally killed people, either the group members themselves or others outside of the group." This definition applies to huge numbers of religious groups, including almost every denomination of many of the world's major religions. I am cognizant of the discussion that centered around this category but in the long run this scheme isn't going to work. Otto4711 18:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Green Arrow

Category:Green Arrow - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - for all intents and purposes this is being used as a "superteam" or "supporting character" category. The articles are extensively interlinked. Otto4711 16:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wives of Henry VIII

Category:Wives of Henry VIII - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with no possibility of growth. The article Wives of Henry VIII and the extensive interlinkages between the articles suffice. Otto4711 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of United States stations available in Canada

Category:List of United States stations available in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as non-defining, or at least Rename to Category:United States television stations available in Canada. See also list of United States stations available in Canada. -- Prove It (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Best selling music artists

Category:Best selling music artists - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: These artists, although probably deserving of inclusion in such a category, can never have their claims quantified. The contentious debate on List of best-selling music artists testifies to this. Gareth E Kegg 15:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scotland international footballers born in the Highlands

Category:Scotland international footballers born in the Highlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting - Overcategorisation. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Distillery F.C. players

Category:Distillery F.C. players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Lisburn Distillery F.C. players, convention of Category:Footballers in Northern Ireland by club. -- Prove It (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like many clubs it has moved twice (what 3 miles, perhaps?) and has changed its name. But I doubt it told its supporters they should go away as it was now a different club. Are we expected to have pre- & post- Emirates categories for Arsenal FC? Johnbod 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current members of the United States House of Representatives

Category:Current members of the United States House of Representatives - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - People are generally not categorized on Wikipedia according to status ("active", "current", "former", etc.). The category's contents are already listed at 110th United States Congress. This category therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 13:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sub nom.—Markles 13:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American College of Medical Practice Executives

Category:American College of Medical Practice Executives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, almost no chance of growth. contains only American College of Medical Practice Executives. -- Prove It (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Queen consorts

Propose renaming Category:Queen consorts to Category:Queens consort
Nominator's rationale: The usual plural is "queens consort". Psychonaut 11:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian soccer players

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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was procedural speedy close, take everything to the DRV (see here). I've copied Blackmissionary's comment over there for him/her, by the way. Daniel 11:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian soccer players to Australian football (soccer) players
Nominator's rationale: Merge - I propose that this category be moved back to Australian football (soccer) players. This category was moved yesterday. No one from the Australian football community knew this was happening, nor was given any chance to comment on it.Tancred 10:42, 26 June 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Current racehorses

Category:Current racehorses - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: *Delete - Athletes are generally not sorted according to their status ("active", "retired", etc.), and racehorses should not be an exception. The horses are already in several other racehorse categories, so they can be deleted from this one. Dr. Submillimeter 10:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who were raised as children in the Children of God

Suggest merging Category:People who were raised as children in the Children of God to Category:Members of the Children of God
Nominator's rationale: Merge - People in most other religions and spiritual movements are not sorted according to the religion that was used to bring them up, and it is unclear why this movement should be an exception. The "children" category should be moved into its parent category (no pun intended). (Also note that the parent category is nominated for renaming below.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The communal, removed from parents, nature of this particular group's way of raising children is not unique, but is sufficiently distinctive in Europe & North America to make it a defining characteristic (without going into other more extreme aspects). The topic has been the subject of at least one good tv documentary. Secondly the group seems less effective than most at retaining as members those raised inside it, so the merged category is not appropriate. Even though past members should be included in the "members" cat, I don't think those merely brought within the group by their parents as children should count. Not all the dates are clear in some articles, but for example the parents of Rose McGowan appear to have left the group when she was 5, so she should not be called a "member" in my view. Johnbod 17:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - What Johnbod has said about this group could also be said about many other small spiritual or religious groups, such as the Hutterites, the Bruderhof, etc. Why should this category be treated differently? Also, why arbitrarily decide who should be included or excluded based on when their parents left the group? Thjat type of subjectivity leads to edit wars. Dr. Submillimeter 19:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually these seem very different: "Bruderhof life is built around the family..." - exactly the opposite in fact. Those two just have their own schools, like, um, Catholics etc. A better comparison might be with early Kibbutzes, but without the persistent accusations and evidence of routine sexual abuse of young children the CoG are famous for. I don't understand the second point. Johnbod 19:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The comparison to the Kibbutzes is more accurate, but the Hutterites and Bruderhof are still communal peoples. (I have first hand experience and printed references to back me up.) This is beginning to get into a discussion on whether a society is communal enough to have its children in a separate category. Dr. Submillimeter 22:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, the comparison of the Hutterites and Bruderhof to Catholics is incredibly inaccurate. The Hutterites and Bruderhof live separately from other US/Canadian people in communes or colonies which contain multiple families that live, work, eat, and pray together. It is hardly comparable to Catholicism. Dr. Submillimeter 22:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or to the CoG I hope. Johnbod 01:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current and past members of the Children of God

Propose renaming Category:Current and past members of the Children of God to Category:Members of the Children of God
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The "current and past" part of the current category name is redundant (no pun intended). Just using "Members of the Children of God" in the future would be sufficient (pun intended). Dr. Submillimeter 09:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Johnbod 17:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current California State Senators

Suggest merging Category:Current California State Senators to Category:California State Senators
Nominator's rationale: Merge - People in specific careers are generally not sorted according to status (such as "current", "former", "retired", "dead", etc.). The category should be upmerged accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 09:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Previous NCAA bowl game venues

Propose renaming Category:Previous NCAA bowl game venues to Category:Former NCAA bowl game venues
Nominator's rationale: Rename - "Previous" makes little sense when taken out of context. However, "former" makes more , as it more clearly indicates that the venues are no longer used for bowl games. Therefore, I recommend changing the category name. (However, it may or may not be appropriate to delete this category following the criteria for venues at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. I also do not know if separating these venues into "current" (Current NCAA bowl game venues) and "former" is a good idea.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current Members of the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services

Category:Current Members of the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - This is the only category for members of a US congressional committee. As these people serve on several committees, having categories for all of these things would be cumbersome (especially since the names are so long). A complete list is already given on United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, and the list is easily reached through the articles on the individual people. The category is unnecessary and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Batman actors

Category:Batman actors - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete and salt this recreation of category that has been deleted at least twice. Yet another performer by performance category. Yet another category created by what has to be yet another sockpuppet of User:EJBanks/User:Creepy Crawler/User:Fatone411/User:BarackObamaFan/User:Batman fan/User:TheJediCouncil. He has been permanently banned under several names for, among many other things, stubbornly recreating articles and categories. Doczilla 07:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vocalese musicians

Category:Vocalese musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename as Category:Vocalese singers, as that is the only variety of musician pertaining to the genre. (Mind meal 07:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Category:NRK

Propose renaming Category:NRK to Category:Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation
Nominator's rationale: Prove It (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is usually known as the NRK, which is also more practical as a category name. Compare Category:BBC. Kristinewes 15:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved from speedy. Conscious 06:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We avoid abbreviations in category names since the name of the category should clearly identify the contents. Is this about Norrköping Airport? How about the NUVEEN INSURED NEW YORK TAX-FREE ADVANTAGE MUNICIPAL FUND which has this as its trading symbol which happens to match the symbol for 'Northern Rock.' which is on a different exchange? Or the common abbreviation for Neurospecific Receptor Kinase? Vegaswikian 19:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Avoid abbreviations? Obviously untrue. NRK is, like the BBC in Britain, the public service broadcaster of Norway, member of the EBU and employs thousands of people. Your comparisons are ridiculous. NRK refers to the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation and nothing else (surely there is an obscure airport somewhere whose name consists of the letters B, B and C as well, but that doesn't mean the BBC category has to be moved). The NRK is always known under the abbreviation, and the three television channels and the 14 radio channels does not use the full name, but rather the abbreviation, in their names. Kristinewes 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The Norwegian edition uses NRK as the category name. Kristinewes 20:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Portmanteaus

Category:Portmanteaus - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:WINAD, this category describe the word Moez talk 05:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is the categorization of subjects with names that are portmanteaus. However, the articles, which range from infotainment to smog to snuba, are otherwise unrelated. This is a variation on the categorization of unrelated subjects with shared names, a form of overcategorization, and it should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 13:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete subcategories as this is a variation on the categorization of unrelated subjects with shared names. Alex Middleton 20:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was looking forward to seeing some famous suitcases. Johnbod 21:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- this category contain nearly 170 entries (along with 7 subcategories) and you all claim that this is overcategorization? A very diligent user obviously spent a lot of time building this category, and it should remain. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but nevertheless it does contain many categories that are entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia because they link words/vocabulary in a historical and sociological sense (not to mention the history of language, neologisms, and word coinage). Frankly, it would be rather rather moronic to delete a category of this scope and size. I ask you all to kindly reconsider. --User:Wassermann Invalid "vote" from an IP used for block evasion. ElinorD (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very diligent people spend time creating articles about their bands, but that is not an argument for keeping their work. Anyway, most of these articles are not linked in a "historical" or "sociological" sense; many are in fact not technically portmanteaus at all. —Centrx→talk • 23:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The topic is interesting, but I cannot deny that besides the superficial linguistic connection, articles about very unrelated topics will be grouped together. However, some of these articles are about words or phrases, and I think in those instances it is entirely appropriate to group articles based on notable linguistic qualities (also, other categories such as slang and neologism are similarly helpful).-Andrew c 00:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a huge list, which has been transferred to Wictionary. Inevitably, it is up for deletion there, the nominator saying that the (local) category can do the job! here Johnbod 01:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Template documentation

Propose renaming Category:Template documentation to Category:Template documentations
Nominator's rationale: Rename, Most (all?) categories are plural or at least collective. —Markles 02:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Documentation is the collective form. I have never heard it pluralized as "documentations," nor does that form appear in any dictionary I own (admittedly, all are American English).-choster 06:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't worry, British English is the same. Johnbod 21:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_26&oldid=140864350"