Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 12

< September 11	September 13 >

September 12

Category:Registered Historic Districts

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. --Xdamr^talk 11:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Registered Historic Districts in Florida to Category:Historic districts in Florida

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To conform to the other US state historic district subcategories. Ebyabe (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Registered Historic Districts in Illinois to Category:Historic districts in Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Registered Historic Districts in Indianapolis, Indiana to Category:Historic districts in Indianapolis, Indiana

Propose renaming Category:Registered Historic Districts in New Albany, Indiana to Category:Historic districts in New Albany, Indiana

Nominator's rationale: Same as above. (Rename all) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:29, 13 September 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:Australian legislation

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:Australian legislation to Category:Commonwealth of Australia laws. --Xdamr^talk 11:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_3#Category:Australian legislation for further comment. --Xdamr^talk 19:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian legislation to Category:Commonwealth of Australia law

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency. This category contains Commonwealth of Australia legislation. All other Australian legislation is categorised by jurisdiction as a subcategory of Category:Australian law by jurisdiction. No category for Commonwealth law exists there. VeryRusty (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- However, the subcat for Victoria and an article including "(NSW)" =New South Wales will need to be recategorised. Furthermore, some one will need to go through all the articles to ensure that none are in fact provincial legislation. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will definitely do that. VeryRusty (talk) 00:25, 14 September 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:The Davis Sisters songs

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:The Davis Sisters songs to Category:The Davis Sisters (country band) songs. --Xdamr^talk 11:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Davis Sisters songs to Category:The Davis Sisters (country band) songs

Nominator's rationale: To match article name, as there is more than one group called the Davis Sisters. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that these are The Davis Sisters, while the others are just plain Davis Sisters. Debresser (talk) 19:20, 13 September 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:Non-free Wikipedia files

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. --Xdamr^talk 11:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Non-free Wikipedia files to Category:Wikipedia non-free files

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions: "Categories used for Wikipedia administration are prefixed with the word "Wikipedia" (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories." See CfD 2009 Aug 24. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The files are called "Wikipedia files", together. Compare Category:Non-free Wikipedia file copyright tags and quite a few others at Category:Non-free Wikipedia files and Category:Wikipedia files by copyright status. So according to your idea it should be Category:Wikipedia non-free Wikipedia files. Which you'll probably agree with me is a little overdone. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My approach is this: the files are called "non-free files", together, and the prefix "Wikipedia" is needed to indicate that this is a non-mainspace category. To me, "non-free Wikipedia files" suggests that we are dealing with non-free files related to Wikipedia, whereas "Wikipedia non-free files" translates to non-free files on Wikipedia. See, for example, Category:Wikipedia non-free content. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 23:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_Zero 18:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how about Category:Wikipedia files, non-free ? 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I support this renaming, per Black Falcon. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename, as per Debresser. There isn't really much else that I can say; currently, all of the non-free categories use the current format and, additionally, the current version seems easier to read. Maybe it isn't grammatically correct, but it is pretty danged close to it and easier to understand than "Wikipedia non-free files". –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:59, 18 September 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:Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman 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: Delete. --Xdamr^talk 11:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Small category with only two articles (one that probably doesn't merit inclusion). No hope of expansion. — Σxplicit 07:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "No hope". It's possible that someone will find a reason to support articles on the other episodes, just not probable. That aside, the List is sufficient for navigation among whatever episode articles there may eventually be. Delete - J Greb (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small category with very little likelihood of expansion as it's unlikely that very many individual episodes of this particular series are independently notable. Otto4711 (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two articles has been deleted by PROD. Otto4711 (talk) 20:10, 19 September 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:Policy against illegal drugs

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:Policy against illegal drugs to Category:Drug policy. --Xdamr^talk 11:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Policy against illegal drugs to Category:Drug policy

Nominator's rationale: Merge duplicative category with no reason for separate existence. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 05:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nom: clearly duplicates. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Although not all drugs are illegial in all countries, I do not see that as sufficient reason to have these two categories. Debresser (talk) 19:17, 13 September 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:Liberal 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: Delete. --Xdamr^talk 10:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The main reason for removing this category is presented pretty well Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_6#Category:Liberals here. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely subjective, deleted previously. faithless (^speak) 07:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As with everything, inclusion is acceptable if reliable sources support the description That's how Wikipedia deals with everything else potentially contentious: reflecting the opinion of the rest of the world, which is, by definition, impartial. Nothing wrong with that. Furthermore, there's no doubt that liberalism is more notable and clearly defined for politicians than for non-politicians, so the other debate is not a strong precedent. Bastin 09:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. No neutral, objective metric to determine membership. And assigning politicians to a one-dimensional political spectrum is a bad idea anyway. And 'liberal' means different things across different countries and times. And many U.S. politicians self-identify as 'progressive' not 'liberal'. And so forth. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who emptied the category? -- This is now an empty category. If some one can find the culprit, please propose that user for appropriate sanctions. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably User:Irbisgreif. See this version. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did so, but I left it very easy to undo. I just commented out the category tags. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes it is easy to do, but when a category is subject to CFD it is "out of process" i.e. forbidden. The purpose of a CFD is so that we can all discuss the category, but we cannot if people like you empty it. Unlike articles, categories have no "history", so that one cannot roll back to an earlier version. Leave dealing with it to the closing ADMIN. Irbisgreif appears to have been editing only for a month or two, so that I think we must forgive him (or her) on this occiasion. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd never dealt with CFD before. I could open up the cache and re-populate the category, if so desired. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As with a number of other political labels, it has differnet implications in differntly countries. In UK, it would signify a member of the Liberal Democrat party, but the party of the same name in Russia is a right wing one. If kept it should only be as a parent category for other ones with "liberal" in the name, as a finding aid. We deleted "conservative" some time ago, because it was ultimately a POV category (based on the editor's view), and this should be no different. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the cached version, I am not changed in my view. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in the past, "liberal" and "conservative" categories have ended up getting deleted, since those labels tend to be subjective. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if this is a category for politicians that are members of a liberal party, because that can be proven (both the membership and the self-proclaimed liberal character of the party). Delete if this is a label stuck to politicians by interference from their stated opinions. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussions. Can be confusing because it means very different things in different countries. If grouping politicians who happen to belong to a party that is called "the Liberals" or has "Liberal" in its name, it essentially violates WP:OCAT#SHAREDNAMES. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this can result in nothing but the equivocation of unlike things. As noted above, "liberal" is too variable a word over time and between different places, and even when linked to a particular time and place still far too vague. Postdlf (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overcategorization based on political belief or opinion. Categorize by specific party affiliation, not general political philosophy. Otto4711 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename to Category:Liberals. Category:People by political orientation includes various labels that are not entirely easy to define. If we can stick to the same notion as say Category:Communists, namely people who are/have been members of a self-professed liberal political party, then the categorization becomes less problematic (this essentially means using caution when categorizing American politicians). --Soman (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soman, that rename would just get speedied as a recreation of previously deleted material. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was on the wrong side of the Category:Liberals CfD. I see now that it just does mean too many different things in different places to be anything other than a WP:OCAT#SHAREDNAMES. (And I say that as a member of two Canadian "Liberal" parties!) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 19 September 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.

Pendulum categories

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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The first to match parent article, Pendulum (band) and avoid confusion with pendulum and disambiguate from Pendulum (disambiguation). The rest to be consistent with the parent category to be renamed Category:Pendulum (band). — Σxplicit 03:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom, noting that there is Category:Pendulums. Occuli (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom & Occuli, Johnbod (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Pendulum, leave the rest alone. There's no confusion for the albums or songs categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. I agree with Mike Selinker that there'd be no confusion with the category Category:Pendulum albums and the other sub-cats, but as per nom, it would be best to stay consistent with the parent category. --Wolfer68 (talk) 08:05, 19 September 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.