Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 5

< December 4	December 6 >

December 5

Category:Roseanne episodes

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Jafeluv (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very few if any additional episodes of this series are likely to be or become independently notable so this category will never get any larger. The two episodes are linked to each other in the articles themselves, through the episode list and through other articles which feature them both. 71.150.253.197 (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the larger Category:television episodes by series. Tim! (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't get why the "there's other categories like this" idea overrides the idea of tiny little categories that can never get any bigger. 71.150.253.197 (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a principle found in the guideline that talks about small category overcategorization. See WP:SMALLCAT. There's not really any way of knowing which principle takes precedence in any given case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 180 TV episode categories and there have been tens of thousands of TV series. It appears that categorizing TV episodes at the series level is the exception and not the rule. 70.226.164.143 (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could be—I wasn't expressing an opinion one way or the other, just pointing you to the rationale that was referred to that you seemed to have a question about. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – 'Roseanne episode' is clearly a defining characteristic of December Bride (Roseanne). Occuli (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an appropriate use of a WP:SMALLCAT since it's part of an established category tree, and as Occuli says, it's a defining, or the most defining, characteristic of the article subjects. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And categorize redirects and then create Category:Roseanne (season 1) episodes, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You want nine categories filled with nothing but redirects to the episode list and then a parent category for the redirect categories? Does that seem like a sane proposition, maintaining ten categories for two articles and 220 redirects? 76.201.154.20 (talk) 00:43, 13 December 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:Russian country music groups

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Russian country music groups to Category:Russian musical groups

Nominator's rationale: Only content is Bering Strait (band), which consists of Russians but was founded in the U.S. A Google search has found no other notable Russian country music groups. So if there's only one example, it would make more sense to categorize them under Category:Russian musical groups since there's no point in getting a whole category to themselves. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the general categorization of musicians by nationality and genre. See also the discussions for Category:South African alternative country singers and Category:Australian country guitarists. Eric444 (talk) 15:58, 6 December 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.

Computers in fiction

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) 01:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Computers in novels to Category:Novels about computing

and Category:Computers in films to Category:Films about computing

Rename their head category Category:Computers in fiction to Category:Computing in fiction

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current names are ambiguous and imply an overlap with category:Fictional computers. – Fayenatic (talk) 12:54, 5 December 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.

Intersex works

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) 01:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Intersex novels to Category:Novels about intersexuality

Propose renaming Category:Intersex literature to Category:Intersexuality literature

Propose renaming Category:Intersex-related media to Category:Works about intersexuality

Propose renaming Category:Intersex portrayals in media to Category:Works about intersexuality

Propose renaming Category:Intersex-related documentary films to Category:Documentary films about intersexuality

Propose renaming Category:Intersex-related films to Category:Films about intersexuality

Nominator's rationale: Attempting to standardize these to their various category trees' formats. We removed nearly all "-related works" categories here, except for the widely used "LGBT-related" construction. I think the term "intersexuality" is the right one here, but I wanted to make sure that made sense to people.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not rename, books "about" has the same problems as all "about" categories: how much about the subject must it be, and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're arguing for the overturning of the entire "Works about" structure?--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WEakly oppose "Intersex" is different from LGBT, which results from a mental attitude. This is about people who suffer from certain rare conditions which mean that they are neither male nor female, but something in-between. I am not sure that the appropriate noun for the condition is; I am not convinced it is "intersexuality", which sounds too like "sexuality", but that is more about the expression of masculinity or femininity than about the nature of either. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Intersexuality is the noun used in the Intersex article, and its main category is Category:Intersexuality. I don't know enough about the subject to know if those are wrong, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per generally accepted naming structure and Category:Intersexuality as the parent category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 15 December 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:Chinese traditional religion

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) 01:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chinese traditional religion to Category:Chinese folk religion

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: That sounds fine to me. -- Sjschen (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, categories should follow the main article when possible. Nyttend (talk) 05:56, 8 December 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:Lists of people by community

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 08:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of people by community to Category:Lists of Indian people by community

Nominator's rationale: Solely Indian lists at present and fits neatly with the category tree. Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename - looks like a simple error in the name.--Northernhenge (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, but someone might suggest a better naming Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
REname as nom. "Community" seems to be a euphemism for caste or subcaste. The term is certainly so used. This is primarily an Indian phenomenon, so that the creation of parallel categories for other nationalisites will probably not be necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 8 December 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:Kepler

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 Category:Kepler to Category:Extrasolar planets discovered by the Kepler space program, Category:COROT to Category:Extrasolar planets discovered by the COROT program; consider any mergers separately. Two distinct issues are flying around the discussion and it's easiest if they're separated out but the current names have no support. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kepler to Category:Kepler planets

Propose renaming Category:COROT to ? (added The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Kepler" is an ambiguous name, but I'm unsure what this should be renamed to. "Kepler planets"? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, yes, that's completely ambiguous. "Kepler planets" seems good, but I know very little about astronomy... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about Category:Kepler space observatory discovered extrasolar planets? Anything less is likely going to be an ambiguous name. Of course since the category does not have an introduction, I'm guessing that this is the correct name. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like that, or Category:Extrasolar planets discovered by the Kepler space program. I'm sure there's something better out there that someone who knows about this topic could suggest. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support some sort of rename. The current name is horrid. It's not about the telescope itself, or the person its named after, or Keplerian dynamics, the Kepler Input Catalog (KIC), the Kepler Objects of Interest (KOI)... etc. "Kepler planets" however may be confused with the Kepler model of the Solar System, or Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Or the planets Kepler used to create the laws. Suggest Category:Kepler space observatory planets instead. If we wish to restrict it to planets discovered with the Kepler space telescope then Category:Extrasolar planets discovered by the Kepler space program would be good. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I can tell we do not categorize astronomical objects by the mission, vehicle, instrument, etc. of their discovery, so I presume here there is a catalogue related to the Category:Kepler mission (per Kepler mission). This does follow the convention used throughout Category:Astronomical catalogues, e.g. Category:IC objects, Category:Wolf objects, Category:Bayer objects, and so on. I would recommend a systematic review, involving WP:ASTRO, to determine a scheme suitably unambiguous for categorization by any astronomical object designation system.- choster (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there are atleast three different catalogues associated with the Kepler mission, "Kepler xyz" (Kepler confirmed planets), "KOI xyz" (Kepler Object of Interest) and "KIC xyz" (Kepler Input Catalog). 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Extrasolar planets discovered by the Kepler space program. Also rename Category:COROT to Category:Extrasolar planets discovered by the COROT program - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't categorize by mission, vehicle, instrument, etc. of discovery for any other astronomical objects other than extrasolar planets. I would still like to see a justification for this.- choster (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – an improvement. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Do we need more than Category:Extrasolar planets? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of extrasolar planets is going to explode in the years ahead, so the use of sub-categories seems like a necessity. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. When the number of extrasolar planets explodes we can revisit this. In the meantime, there's not so many that we can't put them all in Category:Extrasolar planets.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True, with only 716 extrasolar planets discovered thus far, we're hardly going to overload a single category. ;-) Regards, RJH (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Far better that just Kepler. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2012 (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:Administrative Thinkers

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think this is basically redundant to Category:Public administration scholars. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:28, 5 December 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:Foster parents

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, trivial characteristic. In cases where it is relevant to a member's notability (whether for being particularly humane or for being particularly abusive), there are probably other categories that would be appropriate. Alternately, I'd be okay with a strict guideline about inclusion that requires that foster parenthood be the basis of the member's notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-defining. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Even if siginificant, there are important privacy issues in relation to this. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:09, 8 December 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:Parents who survived their children in the Holocaust

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:Holocaust survivors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I don't see that this is a notable intersection. Upmerge if the members don't already appear in the parent cat, but surviving one's children appears to be, while sad, a trivial intersection for Wikipedia purposes. (WP:OCAT) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Holocaust survivors. Agreed as WP:OCAT. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Fayenatic. OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- Not a significant characteristic, particularly as children were separated from their parents and killed on arrival. Accordingly, this will be a very common characteristic among survivors. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 12 December 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.