Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 7

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete along with Category:Second albums. Conscious 11:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sophomore albums to Category:Second albums

Nominator's Rationale: Delete; the use in articles of "sophomore" for albums is in any case deprecated as local slang, likely not to be understood outside North America (Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Usage), but it's not clear to me that this is a useful category at all; the albums in it are connected only by an accidental feature. Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (I've changed my proposal from "rename" to "delete". --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete - the members of this category have nothing in common beyond happening to be the second album released by an artist or group. The association is too loose to warrant a category. Otto4711 22:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Category:Second albums is a cat redirect to Category:Sophomore albums. So are we proposing to undo that redirect? Maybe a delete is a better suggestion? Vegaswikian 01:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Second album is a simple description of something, not a defining characteristic. Category seems way too broad, and would need to be split up. But that would raise the question of how? by year? by genre? As Otto pointed out, there resulting grouping of articles in these cats will have nothing in common. Too broad, overcategorization.-Andrew c 01:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not change to "Second albums". I don't care whether this is deleted or not, but Second albums will beget Third albums, Fourth albums, and so on. We had a deletion debate (which I can't find) that eliminated all of those, and following this nomination will bring that back again.--05:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Otto4711. Even the article Debut album is now a redirect to album, and even before its deletion Debut album never contained anything more than a one-line intro and a selective list. If we can't sustain a decent head article on Debut album, I don't see much scope for one on Sophomore albums (or Second albums), so this ends up just being categoridation by a trivial characteristic. I can see a reasonable case for retaining Category:Debut albums, but I will nominate Category:Final albums for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 8#Category:Final_albums. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto. Haddiscoe 09:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is not a defining characteristic, and these albums have nothing in particular in common. Xtifr _tälk 21:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MGM musical actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unpopulated category, that should not be populated. This might survive as a list, but seems to be an inappropriate way to categorize actors. Delete. -- Samuel Wantman 20:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per many precedents against categorizing performers by the studios or networks for which they worked. Otto4711 20:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 21:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Johnbod 01:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ECO codes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Category has been empty for over a week now, all articles it previously contained (mostly stubs created from spamming) have been merged into existing articles in Category:Chess openings. youngvalter 19:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Quale 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominated. It is just as he says - there were a few articles in this category, but they were all stubs that have now been merged and redirected. Bubba73 (talk), 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was already speedy deleted by ^demon. Andrew c 02:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Invader Zim locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. This category is now empty due to all the articles being cleaned up and merged into a single article. BillPP 17:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 11:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, According to my understanding as a music fan of many years and, fortunately, according to the article Songwriter too, a composer writes music, a lyricist writes lyrics, and a songwriter writes either or both. Since most of the people in this category are members of Category:Songwriters and since the contents are songs (not lyrics, not music, but either or both) the category needs to be renamed. For the best logical arrangement we maybe ought to have 3 categories (by songwriter, by composer, by lyricist) but in the interests of avoiding over-categorisation I think renaming this category would be the best solution. kingboyk 16:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Works for me. I've occasionally wondered why we have categories for both lyricists and music writers, since they are very often the same person. But that's another nomination.--Mike Selinker 19:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm not sure about this; in popular music "songwriter" is probably more common, but not in the huge area of classical and romantic songs. It would be odd to refer to Wolff or Schubert as "songwriters"... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Song means it has lyrics, to my knowledge. Bulldog123 08:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Compositions by Franz Schubert is part of the Category:Compositions by composer tree, which is separate from the Songs by composer tree. I don't see a category for Wolff but presumably that would follow the compositions naming format. Otto4711 22:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I can't imagine applying the term "songwriter" to a classical composer; the use identified in the nomination is uncited an is contradicted in Song. A Musing 14:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - classical composers are categorized in the Category:Compositions by composer category tree. This nomination does not contemplate anything relating to classical composers. Otto4711 15:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Never Mind. A Musing 15:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Johnbod 16:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per very well-thought-out and well-presented argument by nom, who leaves us little to add. :) Xtifr _tälk 01:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

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 both categories.--Mike Selinker 05:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th century hangings by the United Kingdom to Category:20th century executions by the United Kingdom and Category:People executed by hanging

• Merge, triple intersection, and a rather tautological one, since hanging was the method of execution in the UK for over a century before the abolition of the death penalty. The only exceptions are executions by the military, such those of WWI deserters and of the leaders of the Easter Rising in 1916. There are only 55 articles currently in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:20th century hangings by the United Kingdom, so no need to split it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the category is to be merged to its own category. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 00:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. If there was only one method of execution and executions are already categorized there is no need to further categorize executions by manner. I do not understand what the "oppose" comment above means. Otto4711 01:43, 8 May 2007 (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.

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: hippocratic rename to Category:People in Messianic Judaism, with no prejudice to a later merge.--Mike Selinker 05:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Messianic Judaism important figures to Category:Important figures in Messianic Judaism

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, improve clunky phrasing. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Name should not have POV "important"; if they have articles they are notable, and that is enough. Rename to Category:People in Messianic Judaism unless anyone has a better suggestion. see below Johnbod 20:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - I didn't originally choose that name, but I think it was probably done to distinguish it from Category:Messianic Jews, i.e. people who are significant within the movement as opposed to people who just incidentally happen to be part of the movement (though notable for other reasons). That's why I retained it. Do you think your proposed name makes this clear? We can always add qualification to the category page, but the name itself should be descriptive. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, but this distinction is hardly observed in the choice of people in either category. Looking at both categories, I think the New Trestament period ones should be listified - it is hardly a defining characteristic of them, and the contemporary ones - Merge to Category:Messianic Jews. Johnbod 01:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:People in Messianic Judaism. What's with the 'important'? (as per Johnbod). --Smerus 08:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 20:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer please note - refers to my first suggestion, now changed. Johnbod 01:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:People in Messianic Judaism, at least for now; seems like the best compromise. Further cleanup of the category may reveal other reasonable alternatives, so my opinion here should not be considered to prejudice future suggestions to rename or delete. Xtifr _tälk 18:53, 14 May 2007 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was keep. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Deprecated templates to Category:Templates being deprecated

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category currently maintains a large list of templates that are either no longer in use, or are being phased out of use. This strikes me as unnecessary - if a template isn't in use, then surely it should be passed through TfD and deleted? I can, however, see a use for a Category:Templates being deprecated as a temporary holding place for templates while they're being replaced, before passing them through this page. The existing category already does this job to a large extent, hence this rename proposal rather than me creating a new category and later proposing this one for deletion. If this rename is successful, then I plan on running through the templates in the category and either redirecting the disused templates to their replacements, or nominating them for deletion here. Mike Peel 11:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose. While I understand the logic behind this nomination, not all the templates in here (while orphaned) are ready for deletion. The category adequately describes the templates...they have been deprecated and should not be used, use XYZ alternative. We keep them around for awhile as (especially in the case of high-use templates) some people don't know there's a new template to be used. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense for templates such as Template:Boolne, which have a function replacement rather than a template replacement. However, I can't see any benefit in keeping templates such as Template:Infobox City IE (as a random example) around for much longer than it takes to replace all of the existing usages. That template could be set as a redirect to its replacement template without an issue, or deleted altogether. I believe that having the category named as it is encourages people to use it as a graveyard for old templates such as these, rather than putting them through TfD. Having it named "templates being deprecated" (or better, "templates being decommissioned" as per kingboyk below) implies a transition rather than an end.

Perhaps splitting the category into two would be better: "Templates being decommissioned" and "Templates replaced by functions". Mike Peel

• Oppose per ^demon. Proposed new name adds nothing except length. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Deprecated means "use should be avoided", and is not the same as "decommissioned". --kingboyk 16:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on grounds of grammar if nothing else. I'd not object to a split between "Templates for decommissioning" and "Templates replaced by functions" though. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the name is correct as it stands, and the suggested rename would be factually incorrect (they're not "being" deprecated, they are already deprecated). If there's a problem getting these cleaned up, then maybe it's time to start a cleanup project. Or tag the cat as backlogged. Or teach more people English, if people are truly under the misapprehension that these are "at an end". Xtifr _tälk 02:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

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.--Mike Selinker 05:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories by religion - Single member category that has the potential to be all-inclusive of every religion related article on Wikipedia? - jc37 10:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bulldog123 13:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is really just a duplicate of Category:Religion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 00:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per above--Sefringle 03:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Such this category looks to be useful to categorize sth like religious books by religion, religious leaders by religion and so on. Somebody might want to look for sth by religions. This category need to be expanded.--Soroush83 09:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep (changing my !vote). The explanation could be clearer, but I get what this category is about now. It's a container for categories things-by-religion, whereas the other first-level categories of Category:Religion are for the different religious faiths. This is very useful, and definitely one to keep; it has many parallels elsewhere in the category system, which I somehow hadn't spotted, such as Category:Categories by province of Canada, Category:Categories by country, Category:Categories by nationality, etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BrownHairedGirl. Shyamsunder 23:31, 13 May 2007 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was Delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public intellectuals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete — Unclear inclusion criteria, and the only current member is white supremacist Jared Taylor. *** Crotalus *** 09:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; a potentially infinite, and intrinsically unavoidably subjective, category, serving no encyclopaedic purpose.--Smerus 10:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mowsbury 11:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete white nationalist* Jared Taylor Bulldog123 13:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Public intellectual is a very interesting concept, but it's far too loose a description to allow clear inclusion criteria for the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BrownHairedGirl. Haddiscoe 09:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Publishers of sheet music. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music print publishers to Category:Publishers of sheet music

• Merge; These two categories cover the same topic. However, the term 'music print publishers' appears to be a neologism; a search on Google shows this term only to be employed in a few Wikipedia articles (and nowhere else). The phrase 'publishers of sheet music' is clear and intelligible to all, therefore should be used as the title for the merged category. Smerus 07:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom Johnbod 15:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge sheet music is the normal term. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. A Musing 15:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Bone (comics). After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category related to a comic series. I propose either renaming the category to something more intuitive (Category:Bone (Comic series)?) or deleting it, as it's really not clear what the category is referring to. Cheers, Afluent Rider 05:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to category:Bone (comics) to match the article.--Mike Selinker 05:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match article title. Tim! 07:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Bone (comics) per Mike Selinker. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - everything in the category is well-interlinked through the main article and navigational template. The category is not needed for navigational purposes and should be deleted. Otto4711 12:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or rename to match article title if kept) I agree with Otto above that this seems to be an unnecessary eponymous category for the comic book. Therefore I'd support deletion. If the category is kept, though, I'd suggest renaming it to match the main article title. Dugwiki 20:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename while limited in scope, there are subcats that are rather specific. Grouping comics together by graphic novel makes sense, so I would not support deleting that subcat. And since there are other articles in the topic, having the parent cat helps. So I'm only supporting to keep these cats by a small margin, because, as I said, they are limited in scope and small in number. But I feel the categorization is used in this case for more than navigation, and helps break up the bigger parent cats of comic book titles and fantasy comics.-Andrew c 02:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per previous comments. (Emperor 18:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.