Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 1

< October 31	November 2 >

November 1

Category:Articles with editnotices

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated category: Category:Articles with editnotices

Delete I'm skeptical that Category:Pages with editnotices is useful, but I really can't understand the purpose of this. It also explicitly excludes pages with an edit notice lacking {{Active editnotice}}, so the vast majority of articles with editnotices aren't categorized here (e.g. Jesus or Illinois (album).) How could this possibly be useful? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:33, 1 November 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:Fredric Brown

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 07:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One subcat. and one article. Eponymous categories are discouraged and this precedent would create thousands of eponymous categories that would essentially replicate the entire scheme at Category:Works by author. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just the main article and a works subcategory doesn't justify the eponymous category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:52, 8 November 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:Short-lived states

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 09:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Random/arbitrary inclusion criterion which is essentially WP:OR. How/why is ten years "short-lived"? Why not 12? Considering how many states there have been throughout history, maybe 10 is a median age... See also from one year ago: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_3#Category:Short-lived_states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koavf (talk • contribs)

Delete arbitraryCurb Chain (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - arbitrary inclusion criteria, poorly defined (it's not always easy to say precisely when a state came into existence or ceased to exist). If it is kept, it should at least be renamed to something specific like Category:States lasting less than 10 years. Robofish (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've thought a lot about this one over the months, and I can't see any way to avoid this being either subjective (if it is not defined) or arbitrarily defined (if it is defined), both of which would go against guidelines for categories. Probably best dealt with by a list which can list the length of the existence. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:56, 8 November 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:Mangkunegaran Palace

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete I'm not sure I understand the intended scope of the category but the current contents certainly suggests that it is more concerned with rulers who occupied the palace (see Category:Princes of Mangkunegaran) than with articles directly related to the Mangkunegaran Palace. Even the Legion Mangkunegaran article could be simply placed in Category:Mangkunegaran. Pichpich (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Mangkunegaran Palace should be moved back to Mangkunegaran as well. Occuli (talk) 00:23, 7 November 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:Dependently typed programming languages

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) 04:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dependently typed programming languages to Category:Dependently typed languages

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category includes languages which are more accurately described as specification languages than programming languages. Also see User talk:Ruud Koot#Dependently typed formal languages. —Ruud 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The current category name is too narrow, in terms of how people may use these languages.--greenrd (talk) 17:23, 6 November 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:International albums released by Avex Group in Japan

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:International albums released by Avex Group in Japan to Category:Avex Group albums

Nominator's rationale: Merge. These are albums released/distributed in Japan by the Avex Group. There is no need to specify it as an international album for its release in Japan. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:54, 1 November 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:Kollywood 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete The name Kollywood is ambiguous, vague and colloquial. The only member of the category currently is a Nepalese film and is properly categorized in Category:Nepalese films. This category basically has the same scope but is unambiguous, precise and has a more formal name that matches that of similar categories on WP. Pichpich (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too ambiguous; redundant to Category:Cinema of Nepal and Category:Tamil cinema, the two possible meanings here. Robofish (talk) 19:55, 2 November 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:Ezzonen

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) 04:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ezzonen to Category:Ezzonids

Nominator's rationale: Per Ezzonids, as "Ezzonen" is the German plural for this German noble family.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 05:26, 1 November 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:Altena

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Altena to Category:House of Limburg-Stirum

Nominator's rationale: Though categorized in Category:German noble families, Altena does not seem to be a family at all, but rather a location in which the House of Limburg-Stirum had holdings.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 05:24, 1 November 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:Atom

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 as nominated. If the article is renamed, the category can be speedily renamed via C2D. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Atom to Category:Atom (standard)

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - proposal is an improvement, but how about renaming the category and the article to Atom (computing standard)? --Northernhenge (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support a rename of some kind. Prefer Category:Atom (computing standard) per Northernhenge. "Atom" is clearly about something else. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 04:02, 2 November 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:Baby boomers 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: Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Impossibly broad. It seems like any film that takes place between 1963 and 1979 in the United States is categorized here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete impossibly large to be definingCurb Chain (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I just noticed this, too. But isn't it a category for characters born with a certain date, rather than films that take place within that period? It's for baby boomers (people) in fiction, not films of that period? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too poorly defined and potentially very broad, even if it's limited to 'fiction featuring people of the baby boomer generation' (as an aside, at least a few of the films categorised here, like The Doors (film), W. (film) and Pirates of Silicon Valley, are not strictly fictional). I also note that we have no supercategory Category:Baby boomers, and rightly so - a generation is just too big and vague a concept to serve as the basis for categorisation. Robofish (talk) 19:51, 2 November 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:Carraresi

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) 04:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Carraresi to Category:Da Carrara family

Nominator's rationale: The family name is Da Carrara, which in Italian pluralization is Carraresi.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Those in the category are Carraresi, so there is nothing wrong here. What is the rationale? Srnec (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything else in Category:Italian noble families (and the rest of the "Families" tree) is either "(X) family" or "House of (X)". That is, it's in English. Carrara family (with or without the "Da") is the English version of the name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:34, 2 November 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:Caminesi

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) 04:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Caminesi to Category:Da Camino family

Nominator's rationale: The name of the family is Da Camino, which in Italian pluralization is Caminesi.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 04:14, 1 November 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:Civitella-Cesi

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Civitella-Cesi to Category:House of Torlonia

Nominator's rationale: The family name here is Torlonia. Civitella-Cesi is the city-state.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 04:10, 1 November 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:Television series mythologies

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 deleted by Vegaswikian under CSD G7. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Just created it, but realized there is a similar category ([[Category:Artificial mythology]]). Thanks. Ruby 2010/2013 03:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per nom by creator

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.