Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 8

< February 7	February 9 >

February 8

Category:Regions in Northern Areas (Pakistan)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Regions in Northern Areas (Pakistan) to Category:Regions of Gilgit-Baltistan

Nominator's rationale: Rename. (Moved from speedy.) The article is at Gilgit-Baltistan, while Northern Areas (Pakistan) is a redirect. Also, the convention in the region categories is "regions of", not "regions in". (If there's no consensus for the proposed name, at least rename to Category:Regions of Northern Areas (Pakistan).) Jafeluv (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. Seems straightforward. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The parent article's name seems stable & isn't the focus of any current controversy.Dsp13 (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree with the rename I would urge for caution, because this category has seen some controversies lately, with the creation of various subcategories that were deleted soon afterwards (if my memory serves me well), and I don't know if this nominaton has any relation with those controversies. Debresser (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there a relevant Wikiproject where this discussion could be advertised? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've notified Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan. Jafeluv (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2010 (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:Taoist eschatology

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:Eschatology. — ξ ^xplicit 02:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one article. I know a little bit about Daoism and I don't think there is much possibility for growth as it is essentially agnostic about the world to come (i.e. I don't think there is much Daoist eschatology.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum The one article can be upmerged to Category:Eschatology. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is something odd about the one article in that category: it doesn't actually mention Taoism in the text, yet it's in Category:Taoist eschatology. If it wasn't being discussed at CFD, I'd remove it from that category.
I know too little about Taoism to make a judgement on this just now, but I suggest that the nominator should leave a note at WikiProject Taoism to ask for some expert input. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Eschatology. Like the nominator, I suspect that the concept of Taoist eschatology is a bit of an oxymoron. But even if I am wrong about that, there is only one article in this category and no evidence that it has any likelihood of expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 15 February 2010 (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:FloppyOS

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:Floppy disk-based operating systems. — ξ ^xplicit 02:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FloppyOS to Category:?

Nominator's rationale: Arguably a CamelCase neologism. Not sure what to rename it to though. Pcap ping 16:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do we need a categroy for operating systems that were bootable by a card deck? I'm not sure about keeping at this time, but if kept Rename to Category:Floppy disk operating systems. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category: Floppy-based OSes or Category:Floppy disk-bootable operating systems 70.29.210.242 (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as vague. The proposed renames remove the neologism, but do not reflect the inclusion criteria which are set to exclude an OS which can boot off a floppy but requires other mass storage devices to run usefully; that excludes Windows 2000 and many flavours of Linux. A rename which reflects those inclusion criteria would require a horribly verbose category name. I think that this is a topic much better covered in a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Floppy disk-based operating systems (changed to add "disk") to more clearly described the category. Alansohn (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is the best option as it describes the focus of the OS, rather than the possibility of booting some barely functional version from a floppy. IIRC, on Win2000 you can only boot the kernel from a floppy; to get anything usable, you need access to a hard disk (or CD-ROM). The same goes for most Linux distros, but not Tomsrtbt, etc. Pcap ping 02:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose this name since it should include 'floppy disk" since that it the unambiguous name of the article describing the medium. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As has BHG, I have revised my vote to add the word "disk" to address the issue you raise. Alansohn (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Floppy disk-based operating systems (changing my !vote). I'm still not entirely persuaded that this is a good form of categorisation, but since several others believe it is a good idea, I think that a rename to Category:Floppy disk-based operating systems is the best way of clarifying its purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 15 February 2010 (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:Massachusetts College of Art

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. Even though they're not tagged, I'm going to rename the subcategories for consistency to save the work of another nomination that would undoubtedly result in renaming them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Massachusetts College of Art to Category:Massachusetts College of Art and Design

Nominator's rationale: Moved from Wikipedia:Requested moves Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The college changed its name over two years ago. This can be safely renamed along with the other two subordinate categories. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator and head article Massachusetts College of Art and Design. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and the subordinate categories similarly to Category:Massachusetts College of Art and Design alumni and Category:Massachusetts College of Art and Design faculty. Dsp13 (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per both nominator's argument and per main article as pointed out by BHG. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2010 (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:American political documentary films

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 into Category:American documentary films. Kbdank71 15:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:American political documentary films to Category:Documentaries about American politics

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category; merge to Documentaries about American politics. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite the same thing, though I'm not sure how best to resolve this, and maybe others will read the titles differently than I do. But based on its name, I would expect Category:American political documentary films to be for American documentary films that are about politics, but without specifying what country's politics; it could include an American documentary about French politics. Category:Documentaries about American politics, on the other hand, specifies that American politics is the subject but does not specify the country of origin; it could include a French documentary about American politics. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, but then we're facing the prospect of creating an entirely new category tree, are we not? This would seem to me anyway to be a case of WP:OC. An American-produced documentary film about, say, French politics, would imo be better categorized under Category:American documentary films and Category:Documentaries about French politics. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's reasonable. As long as we don't treat the two as synonymous. Some (if not all) of the affected articles will also need to be merged to Category:American documentary films (which should not be a parent of Category:Documentaries about American politics). postdlf (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure I agree with your last point. Since the vast majority of Category:Documentaries about American politics would be US films I still think its useful to maintain Category:American documentary films as a parent, even if the match isn't 100%. But perhaps that's just my personal approach to category trees and I won't insist on it if you or someone else removes it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Is this from User:Levineps? How did I know? The creator probably intended this to be for American-made docs about politics, but I can agree with the slight repurposing in this case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:58, 17 February 2010 (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:Current events from January 2010

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: Speedied as empty/emptied monthly maintenance category. Per convention, any admin can delete these when empty/emptied. Debresser (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: No longer needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:03, 8 February 2010 (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.

Sculptures by artist

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 all as nominated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename all these subcats of Category:Sculptures by artist to clarify that that they are sculptures by the artist rather than of the artist. This follows the convention of the parent Category:Works by artist, though of many of its sub-categories do not follow this convention. This nomination is a proposal to change the convention set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Visual_arts; if there is consensus for this change I will do a similar nomination for the much bigger Category:Paintings by artist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I agree that it's a good idea to rename these to this format. It resolves the ambiguity (they are by that person, not of that person) and it mirrors the format of many of the other categories in the "Works by artist" tree (and the "Works by author tree"). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for better style, though there surely is no "ambiguity". Don't forget to redo the sort codes. Johnbod (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "... there surely is no ambiguity'." You vastly underestimate the potential for error-creation in the human mind. I need to introduce you to some university students I know ... better yet I'll just mail you some exam scripts ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe you, Good Olfcatory. Delaney and Feehan claimed that their classic "Comic History of Ireland, containing 9 invasions (assorted), several rebellions (mixed), many good battles (fierce), 11 feasts (with treachery) and several other sporting events" was based entirely on exam scripts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, that is choice. I should write something like that using my collection. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is extended to "paintings" I strongly recommend a change to the formula "Cat:Art by Foo", which unlike this one, would actually solve a real problem. The sculptures could then be a sub-category, which will work fine, whereas the paintings don't work, being all mixed up with prints, drawings etc. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Excellent idea, which I think you'd mentioned before (but I forgotted). Will do that when I nominate the paintings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to more clearly describe the contents of the categories. Alansohn (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames per above sage remarks. Also support rename to Good Olfcatory (per BHG above) which suggests a further rename in due course to Good Olfcategory, in deference to sterling work in cfds. Occuli (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do hope that my typo is not going to spark the creation of a new Wikipedia:Users for renaming process (WP:UFR), in which editors can assign each other new names! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why reinvent the wheel when you can just list them involuntarily at WP:CHU? Jafeluv (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Canova sculptures to Category:Sculptures by Antonio Canova, per the article Antonio Canova. There's no reason not to use the person's full name in the category title. Rename others per nom. Jafeluv (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Support the renaming of all above categories per nominator's rational Calmer Waters 06:44, 13 February 2010 (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:Songs that reached number one on CCM chart

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 02:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Chart not specified. Per WP:GOODCHARTS, Colombia does not have an official, reputable singles chart. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Somewhere back in history, this cat seems to have been re-purposed. How and why it went from being about contemporary Christian music to Colombian music I'm not quite understanding, though. Odd. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2010 (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:Political organizations in the United Kingdom by ideology

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. Kbdank71 15:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This was just closed due to proceduralism: I emptied it and then decided to nominate it, not emptied it in order to nominate it.

Anyway, it's a pointless category. Delete. Fences&Windows 00:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see form the logs of the "Political organizations in ... by ideology" categories, this is work in progress, actually I just started work. Besides anarchist organizations there are organizations of quite some more ideologies yet to be categorized - and they will be categorized at exactly this category level. This category level is indeed useful to reduce chaos, to avoid cluttering, to allow for consistent structure between countries and between ideologies and to keep categorization in the article namespace clear and simple. So please wait and see it developping, and if the categories should still be quasi empty, feel free to file an rfd. Just stating, it were pointless is no argument though, but an unsubstantiated opinion. PanchoS (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: Take a look at Political movements in Argentina. At the moment, this would be just as much an candidate for an rfd. Now see Political movements in the United Kingdom, which already has been populated. It would have been just as empty be yesterday or so. But apart from this work-in-progress argument: I don't see a problem in varyingly populated categories, as long as they are part of a useful structure. If, say, Political movements in Belize would be hardly populated it still made sense to guide new articles to an existing category structure. If someone writes the second article about an islamist group in Estonia, and the one existing is already properly categorized, then it's easy to place the new one there, too. If not, it will probably end up somewhere else and produce cleanup work. However, this must obviously be carefully balanced with the objective not to overcategorize or produce empty categories. PanchoS (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Political ideologies do not have have clearly-defined edges, and people and organisations rarely fit neatly within those loose boundaries, so they are a poor basis for categorising people or organisations. Such categories inevitably lead to POV disputes, sometimes due to POV-pushing, but more often due to good faith differences in interpretations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed an argument, but it fails the topic this is about. I'm not categorizing individual or organization articles with an ideology tag. In fact there are already hundreds of categories like "Indian islamists" and "Spanish anarchists" or "Canadian conservatives". And there are hundreds of categories like "Trotskyist organisations of Mexico" or "Fascist political parties in Spain" (many of these categories have been existing for years, and obviously the POV-conflicts were containable). All I'm doing is giving these categories a consistent naming scheme and a systematic place within the category tree. Potential POV -conflicts arise from tagging an organization or individual with the label "anarchist" or "communist" or "nationalist". This potentially POVish tagging happens within the article text rather than by categorization. In any case it does not happen within the category tree structure, meaning that this has nothing to do with the contested category. PanchoS (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – there is Category:Political organizations by ideology and this ought to be a subcat of it but isn't (Category:Political organizations by ideology and country or something). Also it should be 'organisations' per UK spelling. Occuli (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean Cambridge not Oxford spelling. Both are in the UK. Sussexonian (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean per Category:Organisations based in the United Kingdom to be exact. (I do recall in the 60s that either s or z was permissible.) Occuli (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BHG. We would be well-advised to avoid going down this track in categorization. It's a POV minefield. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:45, 17 February 2010 (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:FC College alumni

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FC College alumni to Category:Forman Christian College alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match head article Forman Christian College. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match title of parent article and parent category. Dsp13 (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename Debresser (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 9 February 2010 (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:Political organizations in the United Kingdom by ideology

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: Procedural close. Emptying a category before bringing it to CfD pre-empts any decision which might be made at CFD, thereby making the discussion pointless. I have repopulated the category (without prejudice to its merits or otherwise), and it may be nominated again if anyone wants to, but so long as it is not emptied beforehand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I just empted this category by moving the only subcategory up one level - it's not a useful categorisation. Fences&Windows 00:02, 8 February 2010 (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.