Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 9 November 11 >

November 10

[edit]

Category:Songs produced by The Rolling Stones

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs produced by The Rolling Stones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The songs in this category are also performed by The Rolling Stones - and all come from the same album. Other categories containing only self-produced songs have been recently deleted, namely Songs produced by Tinchy Stryder and Songs produced by B.o.B. These categories of self-produced songs are non-defining. To keep the whole Songs by producer meaningful it is much better to delete categories that only include self-produced songs, don't you think? . Richhoncho (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a category that only includes self-produced songs is inherently meaningless or necessarily makes the songs by producer category meaningless, any more than a category that only includes self-written songs in meaningless or makes songs by writer meaningless. Although this particular category isn't all that important given that it only represents songs of a single album. Rlendog (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response. A production relates to a specific recording whereas songs are often recorded by several artists. Also, Song production is a specific part of music creation, it's not that the artists become producers, its the relationship between the artist and the producer, engineer and record company that changes. This is certainly true of analog recorded songs. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that self-produced song categories are fine and have argued in favor of them before, but songs written by or produced by an aggregate of individuals I don't like--who constituted the Rolling Stones are the persons who produced a track. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Taylor Swift live albums

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Taylor Swift live albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category only houses one album. Nothing wrong with the album being included in the regular album category. At this point its WP:SMALLCAT. QuasyBoy 19:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Camanche class minelayers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The official designation is Auxiliary Minelayer (the "A" in ACM) whereas another, generally larger vessel type is the minelayer, CM designation. Current category conflates two distinct U.S.N. designations, ACM with CM. Further, of the sixteen ACMs, fourteen were ex U.S. Army mineplanters. Six of those Army vessels became Camanche class with eight others (ACM-1 - ACM-3 and ACM-5 - ACM-9) becoming Chimo class (also recommended for change). Palmeira (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - I'm not sure this is necessary, but I'm also not convinced why not, if that makes sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - ship naming conventions state that articles should be titled as simply as possible (so Camanche class minelayer, not Camanche class auxiliary minelayer). There's no reason for the categories to not match the article title. Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Parsec. A similar situation are the aircraft carriers, which had all sorts of designations, often for the same ship (USS Midway (CVB/CVA/CV-41)) for example. And also have numerous subgroups (auxiliary aircraft carrier, escort carrier, light fleet carrier, supercarrier, etc). Rather than go by difference in hull classification, I think we should stick here to the common practice of applying the simplest designation of their ship type. Benea (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator's response:The simple fact is that the organization defining the classifications has defined them: ACM=Auxiliary Mine Layer and MMA=Minelayer, Auxiliary. In all cases as "auxiliary" and, unlike the carrier classification change example above, this case is more kin to deleting the "escort" from escort carriers; an entirely different breed of cat from attack carriers anywhere, anytime. I note there is such a category: "Category:Escort carriers of the United States Navy". Shall we just keep that real simple and make "Casablanca class escort carriers" "Casablanca class carriers‎"? I am not sure a category for every reclassification the Navy has done for similar ships is necessary, but when ships were distinctly different and the Navy classes them in all cases as "auxiliary" or "escort" refusing to follow that convention makes little to no sense. Palmeira (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Regardless of the distinction made by 'www.nvr.navy.mil' there doesn't seem to be enough of this particular type of designation/vessel to warrant another category. Should keep categories for ships (and in general) as simple as possible. Gwillhickers (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Parsecboy and Gwillhickers. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Chimo class minelayers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The official designation is Auxiliary Minelayer (the "A" in ACM) whereas another, generally larger vessel type is the minelayer, CM designation. Current category conflates two distinct U.S.N. designations, ACM with CM. Further, of the sixteen ACMs, fourteen were ex U.S. Army mineplanters. Eight of those Army vessels became Chimo class with six others (ACM-11 - ACM-16) becoming Camanche class (also recommended for change). Palmeira (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - I'm not sure this is necessary, but I'm also not convinced why not, if that makes sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - ship naming conventions state that articles should be titled as simply as possible (so Chimo class minelayer, not Chimo class auxiliary minelayer). There's no reason for the categories to not match the article title. Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Parsec. A similar situation are the aircraft carriers, which had all sorts of designations, often for the same ship (USS Midway (CVB/CVA/CV-41)) for example. And also have numerous subgroups (auxiliary aircraft carrier, escort carrier, light fleet carrier, supercarrier, etc). Rather than go by difference in hull classification, I think we should stick here to the common practice of applying the simplest designation of their ship type. Benea (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator's response:The simple fact is that the organization defining the classifications has defined them: ACM=Auxiliary Mine Layer and MMA=Minelayer, Auxiliary. MMA does not apply to the Chimo class because those had been transferred or sold before the MMA reclassification. These were never anything except "auxiliary" and, unlike the carrier classification change example above, this case is more kin to deleting the "escort" from escort carriers; an entirely different breed of cat from attack carriers anywhere, anytime. I note there is such a category: "Category:Escort carriers of the United States Navy". Shall we just keep that real simple and make "Casablanca class escort carriers" "Casablanca class carriers‎"? I am not sure a category for every reclassification the Navy has done for similar ships is necessary, but when ships were distinctly different and the Navy classes them in all cases as "auxiliary" or "escort" refusing to follow that convention makes little to no sense. Palmeira (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'd support a proposal to rename it to 'Casablanca class aircraft carrier', rather than your suggestion of 'Casablanca class carrier', and indeed over the existing 'class escort carrier'. And no, I would not apply the navy's categorisation scheme in this instance to wikipedia, when we already have a working system that says use only the basic form of ship type. Benea (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that an 'escort carrier' is a distinct type of ship as opposed to a regular carrier, whereas an auxiliary minelayer is a minelayer operated by the auxiliary forces. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Regardless of the distinction made by 'www.nvr.navy.mil' there doesn't seem to be enough of this particular type of designation/vessel to warrant another category. Should keep categories for ships (and in general) as simple as possible. Gwillhickers (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppoose per Parsecboy and Gwillhickers. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Massey Medal

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Massey Medal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary eponymous category for an award—contains only Massey Medal and the subcategory of recipients. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Legal defense organizations in the United States and Category:Legal defense organizations

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Legal defense organizations in the United States and Category:Legal defense organizations

Propose renaming Category:Legal defense organizations in the United States to Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States
Propose renaming Category:Legal defense organizations to Category:Legal advocacy organizations
Nominator's rationale: "Legal defense" is too narrow here - it's actually sort of a misnomer (and could be easily confused with Category:Legal aid). The majority of these organizations defend clients, and initiate suits as plaintiffs, and file amicus briefs, and many also do lobbying or political communications. In addition to being more accurate, it's also more common: "Legal defense organization(s)/group(s)" gets around 642,000 hits, while "Legal advocacy organization(s)/group(s)" gets 1.4 million. Neutralitytalk 05:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Real people associated with novels

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: Delete. No consensus to stay with the current name. Consensus is to delete, with some concern about upmerge to maintain a relationship with the main character. However some of these are already covered in a navigation template and there is no need to merge those. Even some of the upmerge opinions express reservations about which to upmerge. So feel free to add any articles to the parent category that really should be there since the association is defining. You can use the bot log to see what was removed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Real people associated with novels to Category:People associated with novels
Nominator's rationale: I think 'real' is unnecessary here. In Wikipedia categories, 'people' means real people; fictional people are categorised as 'fictional characters'. It's unlikely anyone would put Dorothy Gale in Category:People associated with Oz by mistake. Renaming would also make this consistent with the other subcategories of Category:People by association. Robofish (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Populated places in the United States with Asian plurality populations

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Populated places in the United States with Asian plurality populations to Category:Populated places in the United States with Asian American plurality populations
Nominator's rationale: Fits the naming convention for the other categories like this one: Category:Populated places in the United States with Asian American majority populations; Category:Populated places in the United States with African American plurality populations; Category:Populated places in the United States with Native American plurality populations. I think that Category:Populated places in the United States with Hispanic plurality populations may also need to be changed, but I'm not really sure if Hispanic American is as common as simply Hispanic. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I see no reason for such classifications.Curb Chain (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I deliberately did not include the "American" in the formulation of this category name. The issue is that the population is of Asian racial origin, as self-identified on the census. There is no reason to presume that the people so identifying are actually "American" in any sense of the word. In some parts of the US, especially college towns, many of these people are foriegn citizens in the US on temporrary (in college towns, student) visas, who in most cases intend on returning to their home countries in the near future. There are clear and distinct ethnic enclaves involved here, but the data we are using with does not lend to subsuming these people as American when in fact the term used on the census is Asian and not Asian American. Thus it is not analogous to the African American issue. On census forms the terms is Hispanic or Latino. Inserting American is even less justified there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are queried on American censuses?Curb Chain (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.- choster (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment race, and being Hispanic/Latino or not that are queried on the US census, and the results are released. These factors are described for all census designated places, be they cities, towns, villages or just designated places. They are also described for states, counties and townships.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand censuses, they only query citizens. Students are not defined as citizens.Curb Chain (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct. The Census counts people, and has no resources to verify citizenship or alien status.- choster (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Move some common sub-categories from Category:Cultures

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: don't move them as proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cultures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Move some common sub-categories from that category to upper category - Category:Culture: Category:Arts by culture, Category:Culture by ethnicity, Category:Culture by language, Category:Mythology by culture, Category:Names by culture. I think, the upper category is more preferable place. --Averaver (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_10&oldid=1074808035"