Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 17

< October 16	October 18 >

October 17

Category:Images of military insignia

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. Postdlf (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Emptied (thought I'd list it here rather than try to remember to come back in four days). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and populate. As the deletion rationale for the template that formerly populated the category is not rationale for deleting the category, since fair use images can be of military insignia, and would reside on Wikipedia, they should be categorized. So, whatever images we have left where the former template were replaced by a FUR should populate here. And any other images that weren't deleted. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The IP users argument ignores the copyright issue mentioned on the category page. Can always be recreated when/if the copyright issue will be resolved. Debresser (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the copyright issues are dealt with in my rationale. Changing the populating criteria to any military insignia image will allow categorization without the deleted template, and if such images exist on Wikipedia, they should be categorized. I don't see where copyright issues enter into the existence of the category. A Fair-Use-Rationale (FUR) issued for a military insignia image would be a copyrighted image on Wikipedia. Such images, either free or FUR, should be categorized. 76.66.201.240 (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2009 (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:Vespertilionidae

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. Postdlf (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Vespertilionidae to Category:Vesper bats

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate, Vespertilionidae is the scientific name for vesper bats, and the main article is located at the common name. Ucucha 21:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2009 (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:Bat species

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. Postdlf (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Bat species to Category:Bats

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Confusingly named, as this is not a category about species of bats, but about the identification of bats. The single article in this category can go comfortably into Category:Bats, the parent category. Ucucha 21:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge clearly. Tassedethe (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2009 (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.

Monogeneric bat families

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 all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 21:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four families of bats that include a single genus currently have categories for both the genus and the family. That is redundant, so I am now nominating the genus categories (all of which were bot-created without prior discussion as to categorization) for merging into the parent (family) categories. The categories are the following:

Ucucha 21:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not keep the genus categories and include under Category:Bat genera, but get rid of the family categories? At the very least, the genus articles should also be in Category:Bat genera, which only has one article at present. Postdlf (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Bat genera was created unilaterally, has never been filled, and is inconsistent with usage in other mammalian orders, and I plan to nominate it for deletion. Using categories for the families is consistent with other subcategories of Category:Bats. Besides, the scheme you seem to be proposing (Category:Bats -> Category:Bat genera -> genus categories -> species articles) would make it difficult to find the species articles from Category:Bats. Ucucha 21:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Makes sense. Merge per nom. Postdlf (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2009 (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:Birds of Ontario

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 Category:Birds of Ontario to Category:Birds of Canada. --Xdamr^talk 21:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Birds of Ontario to Category:Birds of Canada

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, OCAT. I checked every included article, and none of the included species are even endemic to Canada, let alone Ontario; many are even distributed worldwide. This is the only provincial subcategory of Canadian birds, as a prior CFD determined that they should be merged into the country level (and there is already a FA list of birds of Ontario). There is not even a Category:Fauna of Ontario, so this is an oddball category that was never integrated into the broader system (the only provincial fauna category I could find is exclusively used for list articles and species endemic to that province). I've listed for merging to Category:Birds of Canada, though I noticed many (if not all) of the included articles are already in that parent as well. Postdlf (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as with other subdivisions. It's the common way people look for material--and the common way people write it also. See the Worldcat list of books with this title. Some are popular guides, but some are by university presses, and some by major museums] Of course there will be duplication. NOT PAPER. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTPAPER tells us not to be concerned with how many articles we have; WP:OCAT conversely tells us we should be concerned about the kind and number of categories an individual article can and should sustain. Further, WP:NOTPAPER tells us "there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done." As past CFDs have determined over and over on this point, it is not reasonable to have hundreds of subnational categories on species articles, where many have continental and even worldwide distribution, and their articles almost never even mention such subnational entities individually. Just for North American-distributed species we'd be looking at 13 Canadian provinces and territories, 50 U.S. states, and thousands of U.S. counties. If you're seriously calling for every sliver of range covered by a dedicated guidebook to be categorized, then that leads into cities, individual parks, individual rivers... All of which is completely fine as lists, but completely burdensome and unfeasible as categories. Postdlf (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to correspond with the featured article List of birds of Ontario so that they can work together synergistically per WP:CLN. Alansohn (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. This isn't a sensible system unless the birds are endemic, which they aren't. We could have an infinite number of subcategorizations, as the nominator points out. It makes more sense to, at most, have these grouped by country. Even by-country doesn't make such sense to me, since nature has very little to do with artificial political boundaries, particularly the 49th parallel. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge per nominator. There have been many such nominations as of late in US categories, and Canada is no exception to the logic behind these nominations. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge until we have consensus to subcategorize birds by Canadian province. This consensus doesn't currently seem to be there. Ucucha 03:44, 23 October 2009 (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:K.D. Lang albums

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. Postdlf (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:K.D. Lang albums to Category:k.d. lang albums

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:MOSCAPS, k.d. lang is the acceptable spelling for the parent article: "Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lower case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources." The article was just moved per consensus at WP:RM regarding the above quote. The songs category already uses the lowercase spelling, so this category should be renamed to match. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename Now that article title is lower case, the category should be renamed to match the article title. Alansohn (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename Mayumashu (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator (Perhaps somebody contact her and advise her to keep it simple and use capitals like everybody else?)
rename, but note that is will have to be at Category:K.d. lang albums. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 24 October 2009 (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:Ian Matthews albums

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. Postdlf (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ian Matthews albums to Category:Iain Matthews albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match main article Iain Matthews, reflect current name of artist. KathrynLybarger (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per factual content of nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2009 (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:New York soccer teams

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:New York soccer teams to Category:New York men's soccer teams, repurpose Category:New York soccer teams to be parent of male and female categories. --Xdamr^talk 22:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New York soccer teams to Category:New York men's soccer teams

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For parallelism with Category:New York women's soccer teams Powers ^T 15:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Create new Category:New York men's soccer teams and use current category as a parent of both the men's and women's categories. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – the standard is to use 'clubs', not 'teams' and to assume footballers are male unless otherwise specified: see e.g. Category:German football clubs. So in my view all we need to do is make Category:New York women's soccer teams a subcat of Category:New York soccer teams (and change teams to clubs, per the great majority in Category:Soccer clubs in the United States by state). Occuli (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ASSUME FOOTBALLERS ARE MALE? Is this a serious suggestion? Powers ^T 21:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Considering the percentage of notable footballers who are male, this seems entirely reasonable from a categorization standpoint. I don't think the comment was meant to be interpreted normatively or as a reaction to or critique of post-feminism. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Regardless, unless the numbers are weighted something like 99%-1%, I see no reason to make the female category a subcategory of the male category. Powers ^T 14:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - If I had to guess based on all WP articles about footballers, I would guess that it would be in that range. Maybe 97–3? I don't know, but I would guess it's overwhelmingly male dominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well the categories in question are only 8-to-1. I still don't see the point, though, when it's just as easy to balance the two genders. Powers ^T 00:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support User:Grutness idea. 'team' likely the preferred American equivalent for 'club' Mayumashu (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2009 (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:Goodie MOb albums

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. Postdlf (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Goodie MOb albums to Category:Goodie Mob albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match article Goodie Mob. Tassedethe (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, to match article. Occuli (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2009 (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:Lesotho politicians

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: NOT RENAMED. Postdlf (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lesotho politicians to Category:Basotho politicians

Nominator's rationale: The demonym for Lesotho is Basotho, and as Category:Politicians by country appears to use demonyms for categorisation, this should be renamed to follow that. This would also affect Category:Botswana politicians which should also be renamed Category:Batswana politicians. The entire Category:Politicians by country is a mish-mash of "Foo politicians" and "Fooian politicians". Another options would be to rename all in the "by country" category to "Politicians of Foo". That would be my suggested option, but am using demonym here in order to fit into current categorisation. Russavia ^Dialogue 03:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not rename per this 2008 discussion, where consensus selected this name from 3 possible approaches. See also here and here. There is no reason to treat the politicians categories differently than the dozens of others that use this format. For many nationalities, "FOO people" is used when there is no "good" or commonly recognizable "FOOian" form. Finally, I would add that strictly speaking, "Basotho" and "Batswana" are ethnicities, not nationalities. These are nationality categories. E.g., there are Category:Basotho South Africans, who are Basotho by ethnicity and South African by nationality. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename per Good Olfactory and also Category:Lesotho people and its subcats. Occuli (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for preference, but if we must change, how about Category:Politicians of Lesotho. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians of Foo would probably be the best way of categorising all politician categories, and dare I say it, most of these Fooian people categories? But geeze, what a task that would be :) --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some day someone with a lot of time will go through all of the "Barian foos" people categories and nominate them all for renaming to the "Foos from Baria" format. Then there will be a huge argument about it, and then even though there is no consensus the closing admin will decide to rename them all because he doesn't want to remove all of the CfR templates from hundreds of categories. You watch. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps that is something that should be looked at. As you know, I may have some time on my hands. I have come across another category that is problematic. Category:Fijian people - the main article for this category would rightly be Fijian people, but as some may know, Fijian is an ethnic group, which excludes the large Fijian-Indian population. The fact that Fooian can often relate to an ethnic group, this is why these categories should be either People of Foo or People from Foo. Would you agree with my assertation? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a change were wanted for the Fijian ones, I'd just prefer using Category:Fiji people to match the other similar categories. Having a massive nomination for all of them would certainly be interesting. It might be better to somehow gauge the level of support or opposition to such a move before nominating them all, though. It would be a shame to do all that work just to find out that there was no support for the change. I think on balance I would prefer to keep the current format. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:53, 24 October 2009 (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:HORSE the band albums

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. Postdlf (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:HORSE the band albums to Category:Horse the Band albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match main article Horse the Band. KathrynLybarger (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Category:HORSE the band video albums to Category:Horse the Band video albums -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both per nom, to match article. Occuli (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominators. Debresser (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2009 (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:Tethered helium balloon

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:Tethered helium balloon to Category:Images of balloons. --Xdamr^talk 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tethered helium balloon to Category:Images of balloons

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Small category with little potential to grow. The sole article Tethered helium balloon can be changed to Category:Balloons (aircraft). There are 4 images. We appear to missing a category for balloon images and there are probably few enough in total to collect in one subcategory of Category:Images of vehicles which itself has some balloon images currently. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move the images to commons. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2009 (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 Stamford

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. Postdlf (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Stamford to Category:People from Stamford, Lincolnshire

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the article Stamford, Lincolnshire. Even as an ex-pat Englishman now living in a Commonwealth country, "Stamford" instantly means Connecticut to me, as I'm sure it does to othersGrutness...wha? 00:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, to match article and not Stamford. Occuli (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Badly needed disambiguation. Debresser (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2009 (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.