Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 7

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.51.9.151 (talk) at 09:32, 8 July 2008 (→Category:Asteroids, discovered in April 2008). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< July 6 July 8 >

July 7

Category:High school fight songs

Suggest merging Category:High school fight songs to Category:Fight songs
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single-item category, likelihood of expansion is low, no need to split off the one article from the parent. Otto4711 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NHL fight songs

Propose renaming Category:NHL fight songs to Category:National Hockey League fight songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand the abbreviation. Otto4711 (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NFL fight songs

Propose renaming Category:NFL fight songs to Category:National Football League fight songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand the abbreviation. Otto4711 (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MLB fight songs

Propose renaming Category:MLB fight songs to Category:Major League Baseball fight songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand the abbreviation. Otto4711 (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Major League Baseball music

Suggest merging Category:Major League Baseball music to Category:Major League Baseball media
Nominator's rationale: Merge - category is not needed to hold the single subcat; unnecessary layer of categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rugby songs

Category:Rugby songs - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - overly broad inclusion criterion. There literally is no known song that couldn't be sung after a rugby match, therefore every song article is eligible for inclusion in this category. Otto4711 (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Memorial music

Category:Memorial music - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization based on trivial characteristic. Overly broad ("has been used at") and POV ("suitable for") inclusion criteria. Any piece of music can be used at a funeral or memorial. There was just a story on the radio on Sunday that mentioned that such songs as Highway to Hell and Stairway to Heaven are becoming popular at memorial services. Categorizing compositions on the basis of the purposes to which they can be or have been put will lead to category clutter. Otto4711 (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Folk songs adapted by Joan Baez

Category:Folk songs adapted by Joan Baez - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Either delete as a confusing category (what does it mean for a folk song to be "adapted" by someone?) or if Baez is strongly associated with the songs, merge to Category:Joan Baez songs. Otto4711 (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional obese characters

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 DELETE, recreation. See prior CFD. Postdlf (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional obese characters - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: This category includes fictional characters that were never even mentioned as overweight, let alone obese (see Nelson Muntz); in addition, it seems to be munging the idea of what is overweight v. what is obese -- all in all this is a nonsense category. Quaeler (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2008 (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:Asteroids, discovered in April 2008

Category:Asteroids, discovered in April 2008 - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: I don't see why there needs to be a special category for asteroids discovered in April 2008. Captain panda 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States ambassadors to the United Nations

Propose renaming Category:United States ambassadors to the United Nations to Category:American ambassadors to the United Nations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the common form in Category:Ambassadors to the United Nations. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to the Soviet Union

Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to the Soviet Union to Category:British ambassadors to the Soviet Union
Nominator's rationale: For consistency within Category:Heads of Missions of the United Kingdom and to follow customary usage (the building is the British Embassy, the person is the British Ambassador). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NB - there are several similar discussions here (1st July). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ambassadors of Russia to Latvia

Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Russia to Latvia to Category:Russian ambassadors to Latvia
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match all siblings in parent Category:Ambassadors of Russia save one, which was created by the same editor who created this one and is nominated for renaming below. Otto4711 (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Category:Ambassadors of Russia is a subcat of Category:Russian diplomats so they are presumed Russian already (possibly not always correctly). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This category is placed in Category:Ambassadors of Russia and Category:Ambassadors to Latvia, joining the two would give you Ambassadors of Russia to Latvia. There is a difference with these categories, in relation to say Category:Russian actors, because in diplomatic terms the titles aren't Russian ambassador but Ambassador of Russia, as it isn't their nationality or ethnicity which is the qualifier, but the State which they are representing. Take Philipp von Brunnow, that's a German name if ever I saw one, and yes, he was German, not Russian, yet he was an Ambassador of Russia. Additionally, in terms of briefness, the suggested category rename is 1 character more than the current category. --Россавиа Диалог 19:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. Russia is not an exceptional place requiring exceptional naming. Hmains (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for consistency. If Russavia wants to propose a wholesale rename for all ambassadors categories according to the principles he has set out, he's free to do so, but until then the categories should be named consistently to avoid confusion in the meantime. Anyways, "Russian" can also mean "of Russia as a state", and does not necessarily imply nationality or ethnicity. Thus, a "Russian ambassador" can mean an ambassador of the state of Russia, regardless of that individual's nationality or ethnicity. I don't know which is in more common usage, but I do know that it's not uncommon for me to hear/read in news about the "Russian ambassador" or the "American ambassador", etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ambassadors of Russia to the United Nations

Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors of Russia to the United Nations to Category:Russian ambassadors to the United Nations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the naming convention used by all siblings in the parent Category:Ambassadors to the United Nations. Otto4711 (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, as above. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This category is placed in Category:Ambassadors of Russia and Category:Ambassadors to the United Nations, joining the two would give you Ambassadors of Russia to the United Nations. There is a difference with these categories, in relation to say Category:Russian actors, because in diplomatic terms the titles aren't Russian ambassador but Ambassador of Russia, as it isn't their nationality or ethnicity which is the qualifier, but the State which they are representing. Take Philipp von Brunnow, that's a German name if ever I saw one, and yes, he was German, not Russian, yet he was an Ambassador of Russia. Additionally, in terms of briefness, the suggested category rename is 1 character more than the current category. --Россавиа Диалог 19:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused by the joining comment. We are not joining anything. I guess you are suggesting that if the category has two parents you would think both of those name should be in the category name. That is not the case. What would we do with 4 parents? Length is only a consideration when you have two well suited options. Otherwise it is only a minor consideration if considered at all. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. Russia is not an exceptional case that needs exceptional names. Hmains (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for consistency. If Russavia wants to propose a wholesale rename for all ambassadors categories according to the principles he has set out, he's free to do so, but until then the categories should be named consistently to avoid confusion in the meantime. Anyways, "Russian" can also mean "of Russia as a state", and does not necessarily imply nationality or ethnicity. Thus, a "Russian ambassador" can mean an ambassador of the state of Russia, regardless of that individual's nationality or ethnicity. I don't know which is in more common usage, but I do know that it's not uncommon for me to hear/read in news about the "Russian ambassador" or the "American ambassador", etc. to the UN. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Final Fantasy III

Category:Final Fantasy III - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: This category now has two articles, so it is basically unneeded now Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional agnostics

Category:Fictional agnostics - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale Category:Fictional characters by religion was deleted as non-defining. I don't necessarily agree, but if this is what was decided than lack of religious belief would seem to be the same.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jamaican-American actors

Category:Jamaican-American actors - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete, overcategorization, arbitrary intersection. No evidence that acting is significant for Jamaican-Americans or that American actors of Jamaican background are a distinctive, recognized, studied group. As expected, from browsing the handful of entries, the individuals for whom their Jamaican heritage is most prominent are not particularly known for being actors, and those known for being actors are not prominently known for being Jamaican. Anyone can make a sourced list if they like, and I won't complain. Postdlf (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bahamian-American actors

Category:Bahamian-American actors - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete, overcategorization and arbitrary intersection. No reason to believe that Bahamian-American actors have been recognized as a distinct, definitive subgrouping of either American actors or of Bahamian-Americans. Only one entry and not likely to expand; that one article is already in all the logical categories so there is no need for upmerge. Postdlf (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Croatian-Australian Socceroos

Category:Croatian-Australian Socceroos - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Not notable nor needed nor relevant. We don't need to subdivide national football teams into ethnic subgroupings. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category. Previously there was a page title 'list of Croatian-Australian Socceroos', which was deleted. At the time through a similar discussion the consensus was that such a thing would be better suited as a Caetgory. Yet now thats not fine either? MelbCro (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Arrghh! That's appalling. Could you give us a link to that discussion? I can only say that the folks who took part in that AFD are utterly clueless as to what qualifies as a valid category. Good grief. Cgingold (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remark – it's at this afd. Perhaps a template? Seriously, I can't see what is wrong with a sourced list, but for a category one would need a potential article on the distinctive contribution of Croatian-Australians to the Socceroos, otherwise it's a trivial intersection. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore list and delete category. This sort of thing happens much to much. We need to have a serious discussion with the AFD participants about what makes a good category! -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's an ongoing problem -- not really sure what can be done, though, short of adding a stern admonition somewhere in the AFD guidelines. Cgingold (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I realise this will most likely be unpopular, but I don't really see what's wrong with this category. The criteria for inclusion are pretty well defined, and "not needed or relevant" is a pretty subjective judgement to make. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • What you need to understand is that we don't even have concensus on categories for Ethnicity by Occupation -- some are kept, some get deleted. In this case, we're not just talking about Category:Croatian-Australian footballers, we're talking about another whole step beyond that. As far as I'm aware, this category is quite unique in that respect -- and there is virtually no support for categorizing at that level of detail. That's why I said "the folks who took part in that AFD are utterly clueless as to what qualifies as a valid category." Given that the AFD decision was based in large part on the seriously erroneous assumption that the list made better sense as a Category, I would suggest taking it to WP:DRV and getting the decision reversed. Cgingold (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway stations in Idado

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. Postdlf (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Railway stations in Idado to Category:Railway stations in Idaho
Nominator's rationale: Rename, as the current name is a typo. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:25, 7 July 2008 (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:Nazi glossary

Category:Nazi glossary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:We didn't start the fire

Category:We didn't start the fire - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: That's just silly. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cultural references within the song are listed at the song's article. That a songwriter decades after the fact happened to mention some historical person or event doesn't mean that it should serve as the basis for a category. Otto4711 (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do as you will. I realize now that this category is in violation of the rules as they now stand. I had not realized that those rules had become so detailed. My motivation behind creating this category was to link these articles together in a new and novel way. Although I admit the category might not have been particularly useful and that it could have been given a different name, I still think that it, and categories like it, have a place on Wikipedia. Perhaps there should be two types of categories. One for regular "categorization" and one for "common factors". Just a thought.--*Kat* (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_7&oldid=224319971"