Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 25

[edit]

Category:Ang TV

[edit]
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ang TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of performers by performace. The category is simply grouping actors who appeared in the TV series Ang TV. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:29, 25 August 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.

Fantaserye and telefantasya

[edit]
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/merge C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming/merging Category:Fantaserye to Category:Fantaserye and telefantasya
Propose renaming/merging Category:Telefantasya to Category:Fantaserye and telefantasya
Nominator's rationale: Rename/merge. I propose merging these two categories into a single new category. The concepts are treated together in our article Fantaserye and telefantasya and the two terms are essentially synonymous, so there is no need for separate categories. I suggest the two existing category names become category redirects to assist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 25 August 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:Paintings of people crossing geographical features

[edit]
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Paintings of people crossing geographical features (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not a useful categorization of paintings - "people crossing geographical features in art" is not a topic. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 21:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Images of people crossing geographical features. When people cross a geographical feature in a painting or photograph, they usually (almost always in the case of paintings) do it for a very good reason such as conquering a country. As we are not Commons, we currently have only 12 images in the category. Therefore it seems appropriate to rename it so as to extend its scope. I believe in many use cases for the category a good photo is just as useful as a painting. Hans Adler 22:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Hans Adler. It's no more useless than any other category. If you want to find a painting of somebody crossing a geographical feature where would you look otherwise? Yomanganitalk 23:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I be looking for painting of someone generically "crossing a geographical feature"? Basically my point is that, as Hans Adler points out, we are not Commons, and our aim is not to help people find superficially similar-looking paintings - that's why we don't have, say, Category:Female red hair in art or Category:Accidents in art. If someone was proposing that the paintings of Washington, Napoleon, and Suvorov be grouped together as some sort of non-diffusing subcat of the military art categories, I'd understand that, but just grouping all of these together - the military folk, St. Christopher, Isumbras, the Red Sea - is superficial and non-encyclopedic. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:26, 26 August 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:Australian Film Institute awards

[edit]
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 merge C2A. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Australian Film Institute awards to Category:Australian Film Institute Awards
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The awards are called the Australian Film Institute Awards so the related category should be the one with the capital 'A' on Award (although the category with the lowercase 'a' has more entries). Boissière (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that these awards are now called the AACTA Awards so perhaps there should be a new Category:AACTA Awards instead. Boissière (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On reading the awards article a bit more carefully it seems that this name change has only just gone through and there have been no awards ceremonies under the new name (the first is in January 2012 apparently), so I think that my original request is still correct and any potential rename to the new name should wait until then. Boissière (talk) 21:14, 27 August 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.

People by school parent categories

[edit]
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 the alternative. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Successive CFDs have veered away from using the terms "pupils", "students" or "alumni" to the form "People educated at [School name]" for schools categories in both Australia and the United Kingdom. The Australian school categories were all switched in this CFD. The British categories have been changed in a succession of CFDs including this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one (upheld at Deletion Review), this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one and this one. This leaves the question of what to title the parent categories to match the contents; since both countries are using the same format for the individual categories it makes sense to consider them together. This discussion has suggested "People educated in [Placename] by school" as a workable form for the parent categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As several others below have suggested there is the alternative order of "People educated by school in Foo" which may be better. The changes would be as follows:
Extended content
Timrollpickering (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Despite all the discussions and repeated requests, no third-party evidence has been provided to indicate that there is a problem with using "pupils" for all schools in the UK. The only evidence is anecdotal and there has been evidence presented to contradict it, eg BBC. "Former pupils" or "Former students" is the equivalent to "Alumni" and thus is more consistent with the parent category, and the American and Canadian categories. The proposed names seem so contrived and do not conform to WP:Commonname. Cjc13 (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. As indicated above, the categories themselves have been renamed over many different discussions and it is time to close this off by renaming the parent categories. Cjc13, it is time you recognised that you are in a very small minority (possibly of one) and accept the changes rather than struggling on to the bitter end). --Bduke (Discussion) 23:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am just registering my disagreement with the changes and the reasons for my being against the changes. This is meant to be a discussion and consensus should not mean trying to intimidate and suppress opposing views. Cjc13 (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I now support the alternative of Category:People educated by school in Australia rather than Category:People educated in Australia by school and so on for all the others.--Bduke (Discussion) 02:43, 5 September 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:San Antonio City Cemetery No. 1

[edit]
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 G7. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:San Antonio City Cemetery No. 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Created in error - should have been "Category:Burials at San Antonio City Cemetery No. 1". I am unable to do a Move, so I request deletion. I will already created the correctly worded category. Maile66 (talk) 20:11, 25 August 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:Pinky Dinky Doo

[edit]
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pinky Dinky Doo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not enough to support an eponymous category. Only distinct articles are those for its creator and the main character, which easily navigate from the eponymous article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:57, 25 August 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:Posthumous works

[edit]
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) 18:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Posthumous works to Category:Works published posthumously
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think the rename is a more accurate description; it's not the work that died but the creator of the work. It is also inline with the most directly related article, List of works published posthumously. Another alternative is Category:Works released posthumously. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination also includes the following. Term "published" vs. "released" was used based on the category's definition of inclusion, but I support whichever is more appropriate for the medium.
  • Rename also the works were "published" posthumously, not writen or in other ways made posthumously (at least with books and poems, songs and films it is harder to say because of unclear indications of who exactly died.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The songs is clearly linking it to the singer, although this ignores the fact that some songs were written by someone but never officially and definatively sung, so why we link to the singer and not the writer of the song is worth discussing. The films section says "director and/or creator" that seems an even more unclear set of rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The song category does seem to be a bit different. It is the recording of such songs, not the songs themselves, that are being released posthumously if we are to go by how the category is being populated. Unless it is split between "published" for songwriters and "released" for recordings. Maybe this one requires further discussion at WT:SONGS. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:18, 25 August 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:Ancestors of Elizabeth II

[edit]
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ancestors of Elizabeth II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: What next? Ancestors of Josef Stalin? Ancestors of Brigitte Bardot? Ancestors of Donald Duck? Mais oui! (talk) 19:13, 25 August 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:Townships in Monmouth County, New Jersey

[edit]
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: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Townships in Monmouth County, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is unnecessary; and not populated. This will cause more work for editors to fill it up, and other counties do not have this type of category. The main category, Townships in New Jersey, is sufficient. Tinton5 (talk) 19:00, 25 August 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:Chapin School (Manhattan) alumnae

[edit]
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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Chapin School (Manhattan) alumnae to Category:Chapin School (Manhattan) alumni
Nominator's rationale: Renominating Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_31#Alumnae. This is the only US category of the "alumnae" form. I think it can be dealt with speedily now, but I wanted to give a chance for new debate here, at least for a couple days.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 13:58, 25 August 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:Alumnae of Cheltenham Ladies' College

[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Alumnae of Cheltenham Ladies' College to Category:People educated at Cheltenham Ladies' College
Nominator's rationale: Renominating Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_31#Alumnae. This is now the sole category in Category:Former pupils by school in England that doesn't use "People educated at (X)" or "Old (Xs)." I think it can be dealt with speedily now, but I wanted to give a chance for new debate here, at least for a couple days.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 13:56, 25 August 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:Minor league baseball outfielders

[edit]
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Minor league baseball outfielders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Minor league baseball catchers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Minor league baseball players by position (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A completely unnecessary split. I have argued in the past that split by position and league, i.e. Category:Major League Baseball players by position is a bad idea; the solution we found for every other sport (Category:Association football strikers and not Category:English Premier League association football strikers) is much better. Moreover, the whole category Category:Minor league baseball players is poorly thought out because each player is already in usually multiple subcategories for his team. Anyway, sorting by type of league and position does nothing but overcategorize and add clutter.--TM 11:01, 25 August 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:The Tribe actors

[edit]
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Tribe actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of performers by performace (actors appearing in the TV series The Tribe). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 25 August 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:Categories named after towers

[edit]
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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Categories named after towers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Needless proliferation of "meta" categories. Editor2020 (talk) 02:15, 25 August 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:NZ on Air Funded Show

[edit]
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 C2A/C. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:NZ on Air Funded Show to Category:Television programmes funded by NZ On Air
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category needs to be pluralised and the capitalization fixed. Also, referring to a television programme as a "show" is an Americanism that is is best used, if at all, only in category names that refer to American television. I also suggest reformatting the name for clarity purposes. This category is for television programmes, but NZ On Air also funds non-TV material. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 25 August 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:Tiny Pop shows

[edit]
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 06:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tiny Pop shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Tiny Pop does not produce original programming. We don't categorize TV series by every network or channel they happen to appear on; doing so is overcategorization. A list of programmes that Tiny Pop broadcasts is listed in the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:50, 25 August 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.