Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 13

< September 12	September 14 >

September 13

Athlete-politicians by sport

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: self-close: it appears that the categories were speedily deleted as G5s. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I believe this level of subdivision takes the athlete-politicians category scheme too far. If we assume that categorizing someone as an "athlete-politician" is not overcategorization (and this is a debatable point), surely we don't want to take it one step further into possible overcategorization territory. (See also the related nomination below.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Category:Sportsmen-politicians The category has been nominated for deletion at least 2 times before — the arguments/persons in the previous discussions indicate that there is sufficient interest in the category. (But it might be nice if there was a personal user setting, so that a user can hide a category that one does not like to see on the screen. Perhaps it would ruin my mama's day (or mine) if one's eyes had to be bothered by reading category:porn actresses-turned-politicians.)--Arvein (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC) User was blocked as sockpuppet.[reply]
- None of these particular categories have been nominated before. Only Category:Athlete-politicians has been discussed before, and I'm not proposing that it be deleted. These are by-sport subdivisions of that category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There must be a limit to everything. But no one has made a good case for where the sub-categorization must stop. In Iran, champion wrestlers get elected to political office. In Norway, I do not know about any wrestlers who became Norway-champions, and then were elected to political office; maybe there is one, maybe more. Yes, this in not only my wikipedia or Good Ol’factory's wikipedia. (Prediction: one day the category:athlete-politician will be obsolete, when wikipedia will revamp its search engine so that one can search category:athlete + category:politician. But until then I will have to deal with my sockpuppet investigation due to critical edits to Norway-related topics Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sju_hav#14_September_2011.)--Arvein (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC) User was blocked as sockpuppet.[reply]
Delete This is the type of intersection that is supposed to be limited to those for whom both their athletics career and policical career are fully notable. This requires close scrutiny, and thus should not be unduly subdivided.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as CSD G5, also remember Category:Politician/wrestlers. Geschichte (talk) 19:17, 18 September 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.

Athlete-politicians

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 to Fooian. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

nominated categories

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There have been some vigorous no-consensus discussions over whether the "athlete-politicians" category tree should be kept or deleted: here and here. As long as the tree is going to exist by default, we should at least get things right.

(1) In the category tree, Category:Athletes is not used because of its ambiguity, but in most countries, "FOOian athletes" means FOOians who compete in athletics, ie, track and field and related sports: see subcategories of Category:Athletes by nationality. So for most countries we should not be using "athletes" to mean "sports competitors in general". "Sportsperson–politicians" therefore seems to be more correct than "athlete–politicians", since most of the individuals in this tree are not track and field athletes. I haven't suggested renaming the American category since "athlete-politicians" is the terminology that is generally used in the USA.

(2) Some of these use "FOOian ..." and some use "... from FOO". All should be consistent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not rename as suggested per your suggestion. If you had suggested Sportsperson-politician from Nation, then I expect that you would have my full support. This is my "expert opinion" after having subcategorized the majority of the articles that previously were in the athlete-politician category. (On my talk page I have tried to "open a subdiscussion to explain why".)--Arvein (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC) User was blocked as sockpuppet.[reply]
- Both the politicians category and the sportspeople categories use "FOOian BARs", as do the parent categories Category:FOOian people and I don't see any good reason to depart from that standard here. And frankly I don't think creating a bunch of subcategories makes anyone an "expert" in anything. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename as nominated Names should be 'Fooian...' something or another to match the sibling categories for each country, such as Category:French sportspeople Hmains (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you were head-faked somehow. The nomination is to change the format to "FOOian ...", so that they will match the parent categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:41, 20 September 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:Maidstone

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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 6#Category:Maidstone. — ξ ^xplicit 07:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Maidstone to Category:Maidstone (district)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is ambiguous. Is this for the borough or the district or the county town? Add to that the other uses on Maidstone (disambiguation)? I'll let those in the know decide if there is a better name then the one proposed. The links in the category imply that this is for either the district or the borough. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The borough is the same thing as the district - see Borough status in the United Kingdom. The category is piped but appears to be for the borough - there seems to be a general problem with the Kent categories (and probably other places) as they seem to be based on the districts/boroughs/city but copy the main town/city article title. The whole structure may need a rethink. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing the category rename to Maidstone (district) for as long as the article is Maidstone (borough). There should be some name conformity. A closing admin could consider changing both the article and category name. gidonb (talk) 04:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
REname to Category:Maidstone (borough). The district is a borough, which (I think) consists of the town of Maidstone and various nearby villages. Articles relating to the town will fit here, and the present category can if necessary be re-created for town-related categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---Closing Admin - please relist for discussion of this suggestion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support any meaningful consistent name. gidonb (talk) 01:39, 3 October 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:Rotana

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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rotana to Category:Rotana Group

Nominator's rationale: Rename Rotana is ambiguous and in fact Rotana is a disambiguation page. The intended scope of the category is clearly Rotana Group. Pichpich (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of the category, no objection. In fact Rotana Group is more accurate as a category werldwayd (talk) 22:40, 13 September 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:Novels set in Falkirk

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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Novels set in Falkirk to Category:Novels set in Scotland

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Falkirk is a very small town so there's no need for such fine-grained classification. Pichpich (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge. If we get a large number of novels set in Felkirk that have articles later on we can recreate the category, but there is no reason for this category with just one item.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 18 September 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:Electoral divisions in the United Kingdom

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Electoral divisions in the United Kingdom to Category:Constituencies in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is no overwhelming consistency to the subcategories of Category:Constituencies and Category:Constituencies by country but Electoral divisions seems to have only be used for the UK and Singapore categories. The rest seem to be divided between constituencies, electoral districts and electorates. I think Constituencies would be the best choice for the UK because all of its subcategories follow the form Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies, Category:Scottish Parliamentary constituencies etc. Tim! (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I created this category, I deliberately chose not to use "constituencies" because local government electoral divisions are not called that; "electoral divisions" was intended to encompass both "parliamentary constituencies" and "council wards". But there currently seems to be only one article about wards, so I guess "constituencies" is a good enough cover term. jnestorius^(talk) 10:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Constituencies. I was surprised to find a whole category tree of Category:Wards of the United Kingdom but it is probably better that Wards and Constituencies be sibling categories within Category:Subdivisions of the United Kingdom rather than have a parent-child link. – Fayenatic (talk) 19:59, 14 September 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:Film soundtrack record labels

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. — ξ ^xplicit 07:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Since most major record labels will release soundtracks along with albums by their signed artists, I don't see how categorizing them as a "film soundtrack record label" is defining to the label. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought: If their are labels that release exclusively film soundtracks, then this category should just be purged of inclusions such as Columbia Records and Polydor Records. Just because a label releases soundtracks doesn't mean they should be placed into this category. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it was originaly created exclusivly for record labels that only released soundtracks. Lugnuts (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Include heading in category that makes the only-soundtracks issue explicit. Of course this may or may not help since most people never check category headings and some go balistic on you when you try to enforce them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nearly every major label releases film soundtracks, and that's what this category is filled with. There are very few soundtrack-only labels, and I don't see a need for a category exclusive to such things.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hardly a defining feature. In any case not for most included labels. gidonb (talk) 01:14, 1 October 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:Goobi

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete The category is named after a piece of software but there's no reason to think that it will ever contain any article other than Goobi. Pichpich (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 18 September 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:Isulan

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one member; I'm not sure what else could be added. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:21, 13 September 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:Scrubs: Interns episodes

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Will only ever contain the main article. Upmerge and delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since Scrubs: Interns is not an episode of the series, it doesn't belong in Category:Scrubs episodes, and it's already in Category:Scrubs (TV series), so this should just be deleted. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not need categories for series episodes where the individual episodes are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 18 September 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.

American architects of FOOian descent

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: Speedy merge C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:American architects of Armenian descent to Category:American architects and Category:American people of Armenian descent

Propose merging Category:American architects of Finnish descent to Category:American architects and Category:American people of Finnish descent

Propose merging Category:American architects of Luxembourgian descent to Category:American architects and Category:American people of Luxembourgian descent

Propose merging Category:American architects of Polish descent to Category:American architects and Category:American people of Polish descent

Propose merging Category:American architects of Romanian descent to Category:American architects and Category:American people of Romanian descent

Propose merging Category:American architects of Ukrainian descent to Category:American architects and Category:American people of Ukrainian descent

Propose merging Category:American architects of English descent to Category:American architects and Category:American people of English descent

Propose merging Category:American architects of French descent to Category:American architects and Category:American people of French descent

Propose merging Category:American architects of Irish descent to Category:American architects and Category:American people of Irish descent

Propose merging Category:American architects of German descent to Category:American architects and Category:American people of German descent

Propose merging Category:American architects of Italian descent to Category:American architects and Category:American people of Italian descent

Propose merging Category:American architects of Russian descent to Category:American architects and Category:American people of Russian descent

Propose merging Category:American architects of Asian descent to Category:American architects and Category:American people of Asian descent

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This is a follow up from this discussion, where there was general agreement that these types of categories for architects should be upmerged. These are the categories that weren't formally nominated with the previous nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge There no reason to make such a narrow category. The articles will have the American architects category and the descent category. It doesn't need to be any more clear.Curb Chain (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge I don't find the intersection meaningful. It's not like architects of French descent share the common habit of designing their buildings so that they look like baguettes. :-) Pichpich (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge – at least until we have the baguette school of architecture. Occuli (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. As, I hope, an ultimate move to not devide people by ancestry by occupation. Mayumashu (talk) 17:47, 13 September 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.

Ambassadors of Colombia

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: Speedy rename C2C/C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

nominated categories

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a bit of a test nomination to see if this general pattern could be developed for most of the ambassadors categories. I can think of three reasons to prefer the proposed format:

(1) Accuracy. Technically, one does not have to be a FOOian national to be an ambassador of FOO. A Venezuelan national could be selected to act as an ambassador of Colombia. This is particularly relevant in the history of some countries prior to the 20th century, where they commonly employed non-nationals as ambassadors.

(2) Matching to category format. In each case, the parent categories are Category:Ambassadors of Colombia and Category:Ambassadors to FOO. This format can be reflected in the subcategories in this way.

(3) Matching to articles. The majority of the articles are named this way, as with Ambassador of Colombia to Venezuela, Ambassador of Colombia to Belgium, Ambassador of Colombia to the United Kingdom, Ambassador of Colombia to the United States, etc.

A few years ago, this format was consistently applied to the subcategories of Category:Ambassadors of Russia via CFD, and there was some discussion of it being tested out in CFD for other countries, but it never did happen. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment on (1). Maybe it's just me but when I read "Colombian ambassador", I understand that this means "ambassador of Colombia" and not "ambassador who happens to be Colombian". Arguments (2) and (3) are more compelling. Pichpich (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is very true, and I agree—but I think you will find cases where users have removed such categories from articles, arguing that the person in question was "not a FOOian citizen". So although you can get away with it, the change is partly to avoid such confusion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – "Colombian ambassador" is ambiguous: one could have a Colombian who was the ambassador of Venezuela to Brazil. And arguments (2) and (3) are also compelling. Occuli (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - First of all I am the one who has created like 80% of those categories, and from the begginig I felt weird about them, but because the categories that were already there did follow the "Category:Colombian ambassador to" format I just went with it, it wasnt until I had created the "Category:Colombian ambassadors to Russia" and it was subsequently renamed "Category:Ambassadors of Colombia to Russia" that I realized that another format would work better, but I didnt want to go edit each and every one of those pages and reformat them myself when there are other methods (like this) to do so. One thing though, I really would like this to become the general pattern for ambassador categories but I couldnt help but notice this then and now that in the already generalized Category:Ambassadors to Russia page, the only category that, how shall I say this, gets "special" exclusion or treatment is the "Category:United States ambassadors to Russia, which just goes against the rest of categories. mijotoba (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – makes sense. Agathoclea (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, with caveat - be aware that for some countries, using the demonym will be problematic (Dominica/Dom. Rep; DRCongo/RoCongo; PRChina/RoChina). Grutness...wha? 01:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The proposal is to move away from using any demonym, to an "Ambassadors of BAR to FOO" format. No BARians or FOOians at all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops - apologies. Misunderstood the nom :) Support. Grutness...wha? 03:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question/comment/suggestion Should we leave category redirects behind? My hunch is that some of the Fooian ambassadors category will be mistakenly recreated. Pichpich (talk) 14:01, 14 September 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.