Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 7

< March 6	March 8 >

March 7

Category:Abductors

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 Category:Abductors (muscles). Timrollpickering (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Abductors to Category:Abductors (muscles) or Category:Abductors (kinesiology)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Abductor" is ambiguous, and can mean one who commits a kidnapping, among other things. This needs to be disambiguated in some way. The main article is Abduction (kinesiology). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! rename to muscles. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - from the perspective of clinical classification I would prefer the "muscles" option to the "kinesiology" option. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:37, 8 March 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:People from St . Joseph, Michigan

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 per creator request. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from St . Joseph, Michigan to Category:People from St. Joseph, Michigan

Nominator's rationale: I messed up the punctuation when creating the category. Should be a no-brainer/speedy rename (please). ukexpat (talk) 21:37, 7 March 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.

Atlantic Coast Conference football seasons

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) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: To expand the abbreviation, per general category naming conventions, the parent category Category:Atlantic Coast Conference football and articles such as 2008 Atlantic Coast Conference football season, 2009 Atlantic Coast Conference football season and 2010 Atlantic Coast Conference football season. The issue came up recently in an objection at WP:CFD/S, so that's why I am bringing it to a full discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. While we're at it, let's also take care of Category:2007 SEC football season, Category:2008 SEC football season, Category:2009 SEC football season, Category:2010 SEC football season, Category:2011 SEC football season, Category:2007 WAC football season, Category:2008 WAC football season, Category:2009 WAC football season, Category:2010 WAC football season, Category:2011 WAC football season as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have nominated them here. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't have much preference one way or another, I'm just all about consistency. De FaultRyan 20:26, 7 March 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:Heritage places on Register of the National Estate

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: Close, discussion superseded by wider discussion. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Heritage places on Register of the National Estate to Category:Heritage places on the Register of the National Estate

Nominator's rationale: grammatical correctness Muhandes (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Obviously better.--Grahame (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where is the main discussion on these cats? As the purpose is standardization, they shouldn't be split up this way. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, when I requested these moves they were not from reason of standardization but from grammatical correctness. A day later the whole issue of standardization occurred to me, which started a separate discussion on the subject here. I'm perfectly OK with resolving the entire issue at once. --Muhandes (talk) 22:15, 9 March 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:Heritage places on Queensland Heritage Register

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: Close, discussion superseded by wider discussion. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Heritage places on Queensland Heritage Register to Category:Heritage places on the Queensland Heritage Register

Nominator's rationale: grammatical correctness Muhandes (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Obviously better.--Grahame (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where is the main discussion on these cats? As the purpose is standardization, they shouldn't be split up this way. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standardization discussion is here. --Muhandes (talk) 22:16, 9 March 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:LGBT wings of political parties

Category:LGBT wings of political parties - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. These organizations are not "wings" of any party. They are organizations with varying degrees of official affiliation with a political party ranging from "none" to "accredited". These should be categorized under the appropriate subcategory of Category:LGBT political advocacy groups by country. Lafe Smith (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I moved the list that was serving as this category's namesake to List of LGBT organizations that affiliate with political parties which while awkward is more accurate. If this grouping of articles is thought to be worth a category then that is a possible rename. Lafe Smith (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Wouldn't List of LGBT organizations affiliated with political parties be a better title? – ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's hair-splitting but "affiliated with" implies to me that the affiliation is mutual, that the organization has some standing with the party. Lafe Smith (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stanford University Graduate School of Business

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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Stanford University Graduate School of Business to Category:Stanford University schools

Nominator's rationale: This is a single-entry eponymous category for the Stanford Graduate School of Business. There appears to be only one other potential member, the alumni category, which already is adequately categorized within Category:Stanford University alumni and Category:Alumni by business school in the United States. If there is no consensus to merge, then rename to Category:Stanford Graduate School of Business per the main article and usage on the school's official website. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:50, 7 March 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:Drug dealers

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Drug dealers to Category:Drug traffickers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Aren't drug dealing and drug trafficking virtually the same thing? Category:Drug traffickers should cover all of them. Karppinen (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have the former as a redirect category to the latter. Lugnuts (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the difference to me seems to be one of scale. The guy selling loose joints or dime bags is a "dealer" while a "trafficker" is someone who moves and distributes large amounts of product. This may be subjective but may also be a useful distinction. Lafe Smith (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trafficing is distribution, dealing is retail or wholesale trading, though I accept there's plenty of overlap. Shouldn't they be "People convicted of ..." like similar criminal cats? Minor celebrities convicted for smaller offences like Cathy Smith should be distinguished from the Medellin cartel. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yes, the difference is one of scale. Drug traffickers generally ship drugs internationally and are effectively businessmen (and rarely users themselves). Drug dealers, on the other hand, are the people who sell the drugs on the streets and frequently do it to finance their own habits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I know that some jurisdictions differentiate between possession of illegal drugs and distribution of illegal drugs, but is there a legal distinction, at least in certain jurisdictions, between "dealing" and "trafficking"? If there is not, then there is little objective basis by which to keep separate the categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Traffic" as a verb is defined in most legal dictionaries I have access to as simply "to trade or deal in", so I doubt that there is a difference in most common law jurisdictions. The standard distinction is always—as you say—between possession and trafficking. In some jurisdictions, you have possession, and then what is colloquially called "trafficking" or "dealing" is called something like "possession for purposes of supply". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, there is overlap between the definitions. However, in English law simple possession and selling of drugs is covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, whereas the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 is largely aimed at large-scale import, export and dealing operations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:33, 10 March 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:Filipina poets

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 redirect. The category in question is a redirect with no articles presently in it; articles placed there will be automatically shifted to the target. The question of which adjective is appropriate is a much wider matter best handled at the Manual of Style discussion. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filipina poets - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category redirect "fork" based on presumed gender bias, see [1]. This redirect means that its member(s) do not appear in Category:Filipino poets. ukexpat (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Filipino poets. This problem, if it is one, should be addressed at the higher levels of Category:Filipino people and in particular Category:Filipino women by occupation. There is also Category:Filipina writers, which should be merged to Category:Filipino women writers. (We also have Category:Filipina ballerinas, unusual in both respects as Category:Ballerinas is not subcatted by country. And Category:Filipina beauty pageant winners which was renamed at cfd.) Occuli (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's actually a redirect (I correct my text above) so there isn't anything to merge. – ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there is an article Ivy Alvarez which has been placed in it. My understanding (of category redirects) is that a bot will stroll round at some point and move Ivy back into the 'Filipino' category, thus undermining the raison d'etre of Category:Filipina poets (cf [2]). Occuli (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, everyone! I originally brought this subject up so I thought I should comment here. It is common usage in English to refer to women from the Phillipines as Filipina and the men as Filipino. It is also common practice to use the (originally Spanish) masculine to talk about mixed gender groups, eg. one can refer to "Filipino people." In this day and age - and especially as today is International Women's Day :) - I propose we find a better, less confusing way to deal with this issue in WP once and for all.

It might be easiest if we headed articles with gender-neutral titles like "Poets from the Phillipines," "Phillipine beauty pageant winners." "Ballerinas from the Phillipines," etc. I would like to hear what editors from the Phillipines themselves suggest. Are there any Filipina or Filipino editors out there who would share their thoughts? Sincerely, John Hill (talk)

Comment: I've dropped pointers to this discussion on the Philippines and Feminism WikiProjects' talk pages: [3][4]; hope this will get you some more input. Cheers, --JN466 03:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that one of the books cited in the Ivy Alvarez biography, published by the University of the Philippines Press, refers to "Philippine women writers". This suggests that it would be acceptable Philippine English to have a category named "Philippine women writers" as well as a gender-neutrally named category "Philippine writers": Google Books matches for "Philippine writers" are plentiful, including in the Philippine Journal of Linguistics. For comparison, see references to Filipina writers, Filipino writers.
It seems there is, or was, also a notable "Philippine Writers' League."
References to "Filipina writers" in Philippine University Press publications over the past 20 years are rare: [5] References to Filipino writers over the past 20 years occur at about the same rate as references to Philippine writers in Philippine University publications.
Unless there are reasons for objection that I am unaware of, I'd say let's follow the "Philippine X" model, as it seems to reflect mainstream Philippine English usage and eliminates gender bias, at no cost to reader acceptance. --JN466 03:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that with the detailed support provided by User:JN466 above, there is no reason not to start using the "Phillipine X" model as he calls it. So, as soon as I can I will start moving pages and leaving redirects so that people looking for, say, "Filipina poets" or "Filipino poets" will be redirected to the correct page. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just had a look at some of the pages I thought should be moved and can't figure out how to do it (there is no "Move" tag at the top of the page like on ordinary WP articles) and when one clicks on "Edit" the full page does not appears - so it is impossible to cut and paste easily. I have had a quick look through help notices, etc. and can't find out how to rename category pages. Can anyone please tell me how to do this? Many thanks in advance, Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Categorization FAQ to answer some of these general questions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per the Philippines Manual of Style, "Philippine is generally used with inanimate objects; Filipino may be used with either inanimate objects or people, though preference swings towards the latter; Filipina may be optionally used, when dealing with people only." A simple redirect to Category:Filipino poets in this case would be appropriate. I would not want to start using "Philippine FOO" for people categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Usage with people seems to be pretty evenly split, per research above. If we have two current words, and one of them is gender-neutral, it seems reasonable to use the gender-neutral one for people categories. --JN466 05:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would disagree until the Philippine MOS is amended. Making the change on one category without gaining a broader consensus to change across all article and category text is pure folly. "Filipino" is also gender neutral, in its own way. I agree with Occuli when he said, "This problem, if it is one, should be addressed at the higher levels of Category:Filipino people". I'm not convinced it's a problem at all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've made a WP:BOLD change to the Philippine MOS, and have posted the above evidence to the MOS talk page. [6][7]. Let's wait a while to see if that change proves controversial. --JN466 06:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've reverted this change. "Filipino" is the preferred adjective for people. --seav (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        With respect, you cannot declare so by fiat. Tens of thousands of books, including books written and published in the Philippines, use Philippine as an adjective applied to people: Philippine women(this alone is used in over 10,000 books), Philippine workers, Philippine politicians, Philippine peasants, Philippine scientists, Philippine doctors. We follow language usage in reliable sources; it is not our place to decide that one-third or one-half of all available published sources are "wrong". --JN466 00:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        We can neither implement the change nor refuse to implement the change to the MOS via fiat. It is done by consensus. Since someone has objected to your bold change, the appropriate approach would to be to use discussion pages to seek a consensus decision. I see it's being discussed there, so let's keep that debate there and not duplicate it here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've initiated an RfC on the use of "Philippine" as an adjective at
- Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Philippine-related_articles)#Usage of the adjective "Philippine" – only for inanimate objects, or for people as well?.

--JN466 04:11, 9 March 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:Georgian musical instruments

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) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Georgian musical instruments to Category:Musical instruments of Georgia (country)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Category:Georgian people, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#Category:Georgian culture and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 14#Category:Georgian society, where other "Georgian" categories were renamed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:56, 7 March 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:Defense universities

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: Merge to Category:Military academies & Category:Staff colleges as appropriate. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Defense universities to Category:military academies

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Does anyone know the difference between a military academy and a defence [sic] university? We certainly don't have articles that explain the difference. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 03:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect: I don't believe there is any difference, and if so then there is no reason not to just redirect defense universities to the military academies and merge current subjects in the defense universities into the military academies.AerobicFox (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge noting that some are already in a country subcat of Category:Military academies. This appears to be 'categorisation by shared name'. Occuli (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and disperse Most members of the category (other than the two disambiguation pages, which cannot really be categorized) are staff colleges; I think a couple might do initial officer training. There isn't one single category to which these all belong. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Military academies or Category:Staff colleges as appropriate. Just a difference in terminology, not in function. A number of initial training military academies and staff colleges are now called universities, but it doesn't change their function. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 10 March 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:Libyan Civil War

Category:2011 Libyan protests to Category:Libyan Civil War

Category:People of the 2011 Libyan protests to Category:People of the Libyan Civil War

Category:Buildings and structures of the 2011 Libyan uprising to Category:Buildings and structures of the Libyan Civil War

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The uprising has become a full-blown civil war. Accordingly, the article 2011 Libyan uprising should be renamed 2011 Libyan Civil War or Libyan Civil War. Stefanomione (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for the outcome of the requested move discussion at Talk:2011 Libyan protests#Civil War?. The renaming should proceed if the article is renamed; if it is not renamed, then (per the main article) rename Category:2011 Libyan protests to Category:2011 Libyan uprising and Category:People of the 2011 Libyan protests to Category:People of the 2011 Libyan uprising. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per Black Falcon and follow the naming the article uses. If the article name changes, then these should change to match the article name (not per nom), but the category names should not lead out on this issue. From reading the move proposal, I gather that this would be a controversial change at this stage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, with alternate rename Libyan Civil War, the presumed parent article for all of the proposed renames is a redirect to 2011 Libyan uprising and would thus be an inappropriate title for a rename. The categories should really be renamed from Category:2011 Libyan protests to Category:2011 Libyan uprising to match the title of the parent article 2011 Libyan uprising, and the corresponding subcategories should be renamed as well. Alansohn (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]