Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 9

< March 8	March 10 >

March 9

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Dynamicists

Dynamicist seems to be an uncommon term for a person concerned with dynamics. Most articles are already classified in other mechanics related categories. Inwind 17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports video games

Rename all as part of the recent 'computer and video games' to 'video games' migration. (This is my first umbrella renaming nomination, so I hope I've done it right.) Marasmusine 17:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dance Studio

Delete, I have moved the only article into a more specific category. greenrd 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Freemen of the City of London

Delete - This is another honor given to people who win many awards anyway. Like similar award categories, this category indicates little about the individuals' achievements while contributing to category clutter. Like similar award categories, it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_winners. Doczilla 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Royal National Theatre Company members

Delete - The general consensus has been not to categorize actors by production company, as the lists of categories in articles on people would become too long to read or use effectively. This category should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 16:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comparison Articles

I have moved all the articles that used to be in this category into more specific categories. Also it is a duplicate of Category:Comparisons. greenrd 14:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant, incorrectly capitalized category. Doczilla 16:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elections in Asia

Merge into Category:Elections by country, it makes most sense to always divide these by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Business & Enterprise Colleges in England

Propose renaming Category:Business & Enterprise Colleges in England to Category:Business and Enterprise Colleges in England

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, To be consistent with the other categories within Category:Specialist schools in England, and with the format used by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) at their Standards website. ~ Scribble Monkey 14:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avifauna of Northeast Mexico

Propose renaming Category:Avifauna of Northeast Mexico to Category:Endemic birds of Northeastern Mexico

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - Both of the birds in this category have habitats that are restricted to Northeastern Mexico. I suggest changing the category's name to include the word "endemic" so that the category is not flooded with articles on birds with much broader ranges. I also suggest replacing the word "avifauna" with "birds", as has been the preference in other category name changes. Dr. Submillimeter 14:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian critique on doctrines

Delete, The title of this category is ungrammatical (it should have been "of doctrines" not "on doctrines") and its only article does not contain any information on "criticisms of doctrines" of this church, only a link to such criticism. greenrd 13:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games using Bink Video

Contesting the existence of this category as I find it trivial, and it's certainly not a defining characteristic. Combination 13:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caucasia-stubs

Category:Caucasia-stubs to Category:Caucasus_stubs

Merge, Duplicate - note that Caucasia redirects to the article Caucasus. greenrd 13:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avifauna of Maine

Category:Avifauna of Maine to Category:Birds of the United States

Category:Avifauna of Mississippi to Category:Birds of the United States

Category:Avifauna of New York to Category:Birds of the United States

Category:Avifauna of Rhode Island to Category:Birds of the United States

Category:Birds of Connecticut to Category:Birds of the United States

Merge - These are categories missed in the 10 Feb 2007 discussion to merge "birds by U.S. state" categories into Category:Birds of the United States. As stated before, the ranges of birds have little to do with the political divisions within the United States, and categorizing birds by U.S. state leads to long lists of categories at the bottoms of articles that are difficult to read and use. Because of these reasons and because this categorization scheme was already rejected in a previous discussion, these categories should be merged into Category:Birds of the United States. Dr. Submillimeter 13:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big-bust models and performers

Delete Category too subjective. Epbr123 13:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not subjective. It's not performers who have a big bust, it's performers in the big-bust genre, which is fairly distinctive. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close per WP:POINT. The nominator is currently embroiled in a CFD defense of Category:Naturally busty porn stars and has repeatedly cited this category as a reason to keep that one. I don't believe he really wants this category deleted and I suspect that he has nominated this category in hopes of using the argumentation to support his case for keeping the naturally busty category. Otto4711 17:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Epbr123 13:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Category:Fauna of the Great Lakes U.S.

Category:Fauna of the Great Lakes U.S. to Category:Fauna of the United States

Merge - Animals are generally not restricted to the Great Lakes regions. The animals that are already listed in this category are found in much broader regions within the United States. Therefore, I recommend merging this category into Category:Fauna of the United States. (Also see the discussion from 31 Jan 2007, where categories grouping animal by state were merged into Category:Fauna of the United States for similar reasons.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avifauna of the Great Lakes U.S.

Category:Avifauna of the Great Lakes U.S. to Category:Birds of the United States

Merge - Birds are generally not restricted to the Great Lakes regions. The birds that are already listed in this category are found in much broader regions within the United States. Therefore, I recommend merging this category into Category:Birds of the United States. (Also see the discussion from 10 Feb 2007, where categories grouping birds by state were merged into Category:Birds of the United States for similar reasons.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and Monuments Honoring Alpha Phi Alpha Men

Moved from speedy (I will retag the category). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rename~~ Category:Buildings and Monuments Honoring Alpha Phi Alpha Men to Category:Buildings and monuments honoring Alpha Phi Alpha men dm ^(talk) 20:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Changing my vote to delete. I agree with others' reasoning on this. --dm ^(talk) 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead. This is a trivial, tangential way to categorise buildings. LukeHoC 22:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is very convoluted. We are already deleting categories which list people's memberships in societies (although we have not debated fraternity and sorority categories yet), and we are also deleting award and commemoration categories. This category is an ugly combination of those two things. It should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of California at Berkeley alumni

Merge into Category:University of California, Berkeley alumni, to match University of California, Berkeley. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teen Choice Awards

Delete since the only article is the main one about the show. Vegaswikian 06:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Television awards - The category is not needed for this one entry. However, the one article in this category should be categorized as a television award. Dr. Submillimeter 10:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Culture-related lists

Delete - ill-defined vague category. Any list that exists is in some way related to "culture" so there is nothing gained by categorizing lists in this fashion. Otto4711 04:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 16:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catholic

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, it's already empty. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have moved all the articles that used to be here into more specific categories, and a general Roman Catholic category already exists. greenrd 04:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, it's empty. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:25, 9 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Canadian charitable organizations

Category:Canadian charitable organizations to Category:Charities based in Canada

Merge, Duplicate. greenrd 03:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian terrorism

Propose renaming - Category:Armenian terrorism to Category:Terrorism in Turkey

Reason - Most of these incidents occurred in Turkey thats the whole reason this was created, very POV category, not to mention the articles do not fit the description of the category, any others we have the countries of the category. Artaxiad 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Han Prime Ministers

Propose renaming Category:Han Prime Ministers to Category:Han Dynasty prime ministers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Should not be in all upper case. Further, currently, the dynasties' emperors and empresses are in Category:Han Dynasty emperors and Category:Han Dynasty empresses, respectively, and there should be consistency. --Nlu (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also proposing the following related category for renaming for the same reason:

Category:Zhou Prime Ministers to Category:Zhou Dynasty prime ministers

I am proposing a bit of a different renaming structure for several other related categories -- since, particularly in the Tang Dynasty and following dynasties, there can't really be said to be "prime ministers" any more, in that the power (at least in name) is almost always divided between several individuals. I am proposing, therefore, instead:

Also, the supercategory be changed, with same rationale:

Category:Prime ministers of China to Category:Chinese chancellors

If but only if necessary, please indicate your thoughts either as to the entire group of proposals or to specific ones.

General opinion

Opinion as to "Prime ministers of China" only

Opinion as to Han only

Opinion as to Ming only

Opinion as to Qing only

Opinion as to Song only

Opinion as to Tang only

Opinion as to Zhou only

Category:LGBT murderers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as [[Category:LGBT writers]] or [[Category:African American musicians]], should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category should be seen as not valid." This one strikes me as unneeded, verging on gaybaiting. Orange Mike 02:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it should be added that while in prior discussions of this item, the "keep" side argued that it could be useful, in practice this category has been almost entirely unpopulated, even though obviously there must be a statistically significant number of persons who fall into this set. Seems to me that argues for the category's uselessness pretty strongly. --Orange Mike 03:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I don't believe that this category was created for purposes of gaybaiting, categorizing murderers by sexual orientation strikes me as overcategorization. I also have concerns about the existence of any "murderers" category for WP:BLP and NPOV issues which contribute to my unease regarding this category. Otto4711 04:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous discussions unless all LGBT occupational categories are deleted. If we are going to categorise by sexuality we should not cherry-pick flattering combinations. People who remove articles are likely to be ideologically motivated and should be watched and banned from editing related articles as appropriate. CalJW 12:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doczilla Praveen 16:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver streets

Category:Vancouver streets to Category:Streets and squares in Vancouver - Darwinek 09:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - not sure what the criteria intended is, but the "and squares" bit seems unnecessary for Vancouver. "Squares" here tend to fit better elsewhere such as 'parks' (Victory Square (Vancouver)) and 'buildings and structures' (Library Square). Bobanny 16:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having looked at the two articles linked by Bobanny, I am at a loss as to why he thinks Vancouver should not be treated the same way as other cities. Haddiscoe 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because "squares" is a category addition that would do nothing to better organize Vancouver articles; there's already categories for "parks in Vancouver" and for "buildings and structures in Vancouver." As for being like other cities, I don't see any other Canadian city with "squares" on the 'Streets and squares by city' list either, and the only US city with "squares" is NYC, with the singular square being Times Square. Why should Vancouver be more like European cities than those in North America?Bobanny 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the proposed change doesn't meet the speedy rename criteria above - it belongs at WP:CFD, not here. Bobanny 19:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Victory Square is called a square and is just as much a square as any square in the old world. The nature of. Library Square is less clear, but it is called also called square, and that can only have been a deliberate reference to the widespread use of the term around the world. Grouping streets and squares is just as useful for this city as for any other. LukeHoC 22:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Vancouver has "squares," but that doesn't mean it makes a suitable category for Vancouver articles that are already sufficiently categorized. My concern is with overcategorization, which has been an issue with Vancouver articles in the past. Victory Square is also a war memorial, but that's no reason to change "Category:Parks in Vancouver" to "Category:Parks and war memorials in Vancouver." Bobanny 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposal: How about Category:Streets in Vancouver? Looking at Category:Streets and squares by city, not every city's category name includes squares either (eg. Brisbane, Mumbai). And I think that's justified. Not everyone in the world ascribes the same level of equivalence between streets and squares as much as people in other places (eg. Europe) do. - Hinto 22:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support that, for the sake of standardization, and will add "Category:Ottawa roads," "Category:Roads in Gatineau," and "Category:Roads in Hong Kong" to the lists of misfits that should be renamed "Category:Streets in ____" Bobanny 04:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per discussion of July 16th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Categorising a square as a square is not overcategorisation. CalJW 12:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:F.E.A.R. (computer game)

Propose renaming Category:F.E.A.R. (computer game) to Category:F.E.A.R.

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, No need for a disambiguated title. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tamil Americans

Delete and Merge to Category:Indian Americans and other relevant entries to Category:Sri Lankan Americans, Baka man 00:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_5#Category:Keralite_americans for a similar debate. The proliferation of ethnic cats serves to undermine the Indian American cat. Countries with similar demographics like Category:Indonesian Americans, Category:Lebanese Americans and Category:Pakistani Americans do not have subcats for underlying ethnic groups. If there are any allegations of racism, I am Tamil myself, and though I would love to see my "brethren" as it were categorized relevant cats like Category:Tamil politicians, Category:Tamil writers and other cats can affirm the ethnicity.Baka man 00:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is not workable. Somebody like Indran Amirthanayagam cannot be placed in Category:Tamil writers because he uses English to write, not Tamil. Still, he is an ethnic Tamil. This is why we have a category categorising Americans by ethnicity, and this is why we need a category for American Tamils. By your suggestion he won't be in any Tamil related category. -- Ponnampalam 14:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he could still be marked as Category:Tamil people. Cat Bengali-Americans was deleted.Baka man 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody can be put in Tamil people. Then the category will become completely useless as a help in navigation.

Secondly, about Bengali people, I don't know if people from West Bengal and Bangladesh in America have the same institutions like Tamils do. Tamils in the US are one community. Does this apply to Bengalis?

Thirdly, I would like you to explain what the difference is between Category:Tamil Americans on the one hand and Category:Basque Americans, Category:Hmong Americans, Category:Sorbian-Americans, Category:Sicilian-Americans, Category:Scots-Irish Americans and other similar categories on the other. Either they should all be kept, or they should all be deleted. --Ponnampalam 17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge. Per Nom.Gnanapiti 04:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wiki Raja 06:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is no reason to delete and merge Tamil Americans with Indian Americans, other than to feed nationalistic POV. So, what about Sri Lankan Tamils? Indian Tamils? Malaysian Tamils? I am Tamil myself, and to tell you the truth, this is a biased, one sided request. So now, we are going to differentiate between Sri Lankan and Indian Tamils? Wiki Raja 06:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category:Indian Americans is good enough, no need for extra categorization. Sfacets 07:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- comment - User:Wikiraja has been canvassing for votes. (Contributions)
weak keep -- I'm not thrilled with infinite subcategorization, but in the light of Category:Ethnic groups in the United States, and lots of categories of "Americans" based on ethnicity, and Tamils being undisputedly an ethnicity (while "Indian" is not an ethnicity, but either a nationality, or a rough geographical super-group like Category:African Americans ("African" is not an ethnic group either)), I see no way to delete this unless we delete lots of other categories too. Subcategories do not "undermine" their supercat. dab (𒁳) 08:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete any similar subcategories. CalJW 12:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Similar subcategories" will include Category:Hmong Americans, Category:Sorbian-Americans, Category:Sicilian-Americans, Category:Scots-Irish Americans, and probably also Category:Scottish-Americans, Category:English Americans, Category:Welsh-Americans. The situation with these (particularly the first three) is exactly the same as with Tamil Americans. -- Ponnampalam 14:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Tamil is a ethnic group spanning several countries (India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore, Fiji, Reunion) Are you going to put Tamil from i.e. Malaysia, just as malaysians? Then in the vein we shouldn't have Indian-American, just American, we use these categories to define unique groups and peoples, I suspect the reasoning behind these so called merges. This particular targeting of South asian groups is biased, if it is done all the ethnic groups in different countries need to be merged (i.e. Scots-Irish Americans, Basque-Americans, etc. need to merge just to Scottish Americans and Spanish/French Americans). It is a ridiculous that this merge is even being promoted or considered.--Kathanar 13:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep Nearly all Tamil associations (Tamil Sangams) in the United States have a mix of Sri Lankan and Indian Tamil members. The Tamil community in the US is a single community, regardless of which country the Tamils originally came from. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect reality. Splitting the category up is really completely ridiculous and does not reflect reality. If the worry is that the "Indian American" category is being neglected there is no problem to put people in both "Indian American" and "Tamil American" categories. "Tamil American" can also be an independent category, if you are worrying about that. It does not need to be a subcategory of "Indian American," since many of the people who will be mentioned there will ultimately not be Indian. -- Ponnampalam 14:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They may not possess Indian passport anymore, but they still talk in Tamil. Praveen 14:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bakaman started a category called Mauritian Hindus. see here. So you would rather affix one's religious faith than language/ethinicity in categorization. Praveen 15:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime i see a Tamil person on wiki I put them under Category:Tamil people. Everytime I see a Bengali, they get put under Category:Bengali people by occupation. Category:Bengali-Americans was deleted, and all relevant entries were moved to Category:Indian Americans and Category:Bangladeshi Americans, so there is a precedent.Baka man 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Tamil is also on four currencies such as the Mauritian rupee, Sri Lankan rupee, Singapore Dollar, and the Indian rupee. Dravidian Warrior 17:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)This is user's 5th contribution [1][reply]