Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 14

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Royal Hunter characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. The category contains only one article, the List of Royal Hunter characters, which is unreferenced. All the characters are redlinked, and there is no evidence so far that any of the characters is notable. The list describes the series as a "cult series", which seems a little premature given that the head article says that the series premiered on ABC on December 29, 2009. No prejudice to re-creating the category if and when there are articles to populate the category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom- but if someone ever manages to write- and keep up- more articles, it can be recreated. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2010 (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: Merge. Jafeluv (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Eastern Christianity liturgy, rites, and worship to Category:Eastern Christian liturgy

Nominator's rationale: The categories overlap substantially, with no clear distinction. No clear consensus on how to name similar categories (e.g. ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Catholic liturgy, ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Anglican liturgy, ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Latter Day Saint ordinances, rituals, and symbolism, ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Lutheran liturgy and worship). ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Eastern Christian liturgy is the larger of the two, and more similar to existing names. Mairi (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I agree; having both categories is a redundancy, and the shorter-named category should prevail. MishaPan (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge per nominator. Category:Eastern Christian liturgy] is more consise. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2010 (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: rename all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communities in Alameda County, California to Category:Settlements in Alameda County, California

Category:Communities in Contra Costa County, California to Category:Settlements in Contra Costa County, California

Category:Communities in Marin County, California to Category:Settlements in Marin County, California

Category:Communities in Mendocino County, California to Category:Settlements in Mendocino County, California

Category:Communities in Napa County, California to Category:Settlements in Napa County, California

Category:Communities in Orange County, California to Category:Settlements in Orange County, California

Category:Communities in San Bernardino County, California to Category:Settlements in San Bernardino County, California

Category:Communities in San Diego County, California to Category:Settlements in San Diego County, California

Category:Communities in San Mateo County, California to Category:Settlements in San Mateo County, California

Category:Communities in Santa Clara County, California to Category:Settlements in Santa Clara County, California

Category:Communities in Santa Cruz County, California to Category:Settlements in Santa Cruz County, California

Category:Communities in Solano County, California to Category:Settlements in Solano County, California

Category:Communities in Sonoma County, California to Category:Settlements in Sonoma County, California

Rename to adopt "Settlements" as the generic term for all named settled places. I created at least a couple of these and that was the intended purpose; scanning through I didn't see any alternative interpretations of "community" so a straight rename should be possible.- choster (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renames to use Settlements as generic term. Alansohn (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renames as the creator of many of these, I think this is a good idea. --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom to match other counties, US states, countries, etc etc. Hmains (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2010 (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: Keep. Jafeluv (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:France – United Kingdom border crossings to Category:France–United Kingdom border crossings

Nominator's rationale: endashes shouldn't be spaced when used to link two concepts like this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The proposed form is prevalent, but far from universal for either categories or articles, within Category:International border crossings; see for example Category:Border crossings of South Africa or Category:Canada – United States border crossings.- choster (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That just means that we have a lot of poorly-named categories. The MoS contains a very clear treatise on the use of the en dash; if it's to be used in titles it should be used properly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, it is very clear: "Spacing: Disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight; the New Zealand – South Africa grand final; June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but June–August 1940)." This suggests the spaces are correct. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  ... ahh. Yes, that does rather seem to settle it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename as spaces are not needed here. Alansohn (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – this is correctly (and logically) spaced according to WP:DASH, unless there is a Kingdom of France-United of which I am unaware. (It leads eventually to France – United Kingdom relations, which is correctly spaced as Good Olfactory sorted out the incorrectly spaced ones some time ago.) Occuli (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Occuli and MOS. This is correct per WP:DASH and it matches Category:France – United Kingdom border anyway. The reason it is spaced is because we are connecting a one-word name (France) with a two-word name (United Kingdom). As Occuli says, we connect the one-word name with the complete two-word name; we don't connect "France" with "United", otherwise it means the Kingdom of "France–United". A piddley detail, but obviously not correct to depart from. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:DASH, but whatever the outcome I wonder why this was worth bringing to CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the "categories for discussion" page. We're discussing a category. I should have presumably taken it to Facebook instead? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  MySpace. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  very punny :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 15 January 2010 (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: NO CONSENSUS. As long as a category exists, any editor can be bold and decide that an article does or doesn't belong in it, so appropriate pruning does not need a mandate from CFD. Otherwise, it's best to come back and discuss deletion again (if you're so inclined) when the subject is not still all over the headlines. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake

Delete: Maybe "Category:People killed by the 2010 Haiti earthquake" is okay, but Wyclef Jean in this category is absolutely ridiculous. Cosprings (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and scrub, at best. As it is, this category is very, very, broad- I could add Barack Obama to this category and not be that incorrect. I'd say keep for now- we don't know how many articles will belong in this category in a week or so. If it turns out to be very few, we can re-evaluate then. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as another vague "association" category, several of which have been deleted recently. Any person who was in Haiti at the time of the earthquake or in its aftermath, who issued a statement in response to the earthquake, or who was, is, or will be in any way involved in rescue or recovery efforts could be classified as being "associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake". A "people killed by" category might be viable, but I think that its creation would be premature until more information becomes available; for now, Category:Deaths in earthquakes should suffice. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. The scale of the international rescue effort and media attention suggests that it may throw up some characters notable for their role in the rescue effort. A broad category like this will inevitably attract a lot of inappropriate entries, such as Barry O'Bama, but this category will serve as a useful place to collect the articles which will inevitably appear on the topic. I suggest reviewing the category when things have settled down a bit (in a few months). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I do hope we can devise a superior naming convention, but clearly there are people notable mainly for their ties to an event, and we should have a mechanism for grouping all such people. Often, they are listed directly in the main category, as John Chroston is listed in Category:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake or Sunil Verma in Category:Bhopal disaster, but more populous categories can have lots of "associated" people who aren't victims or survivors, reseachers or witnesses, heroes or criminals, and so forth.- choster (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now -- The subject is too raw for us to make decisions about for the moment. I would suggest a renomination in (say) a month, when we can perhaps find a category with a rigid boundary to replace it with. "Associated with" categories tend to involve POV issues of "How closely associated?". Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify as this is not a very nice name, and a list would be better, since it would tell you why they are included. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Perfect example of "recentism". Notable victims should be categorized in "Deaths in earthquakes", other people are not worthy to be categorized here at all. - Darwinek (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Consider Rename and Prune this isn't an ideal title, but the event and those associated with it are defining. Alansohn (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2010 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Marbella, Spain to Category:Marbella

Nominator's rationale: Merge, these two categories cover the same municipality, but the latter follows the naming convention of the subcategories of Category:Municipalities of Spain. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 07:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Merge as target matches title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as we don't need two, and Marbella is the parent article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2010 (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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Templates for CABAL Online (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Following the recent deletion of the few templates that were in this category, the only current member is a user subpage, so the category no longer serves a useful function. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) –Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete iff this is all that still belongs in this category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2010 (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: Delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ohio Junior Classical League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Procedural relisting from MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category:Ohio Junior Classical League). The nomination statement was:

The category really doesn't do much besides list the schools. It is better covered on the page of the article itself. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I was a member of my the local chapter at my high school. I also created the WikiProject that basically covers the JCL and SCL. If I thought that creating a category for something that was already listed on the page of the state chapter, I would have done so. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion at this time. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – categories have a tendency to do no more than list their occupants, so the nom needs a little more work. Is membership of this league a Big Deal, and thus a defining characteristic of the school? To judge from a few of the articles it might well be, in which case the category is justified. (There are a lot of links from schools to National Junior Classical League and Ohio Junior Classical League.) A better name might be Category:Ohio National Junior Classical League schools or similar. Occuli (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete JCL is a student club with chapters at various schools; it's no more defining for the school than having a Key Club, National Honor Society, or FBLA chapter. - choster (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2010 (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: MERGE and SALT. postdlf (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Provinces of Finland to Category:Former provinces of Finland

Nominator's rationale: This merge was proposed on the category talk page, because all Provinces of Finland are now former. (I was wondering if the prefix “former” is necessary, but maybe it is needed for clarity, as Lapland and Åland are both current regions and former provinces.) --Silvonen (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge. Using "Former provinces" makes it clear to the reader that the category is not about current provinces (like Category:Provinces of Spain is, for example). Jafeluv (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support seeing as they are all former now. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, but either salt ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Provinces of Finland or keep it as a soft redirect, because otherwise it will probably be created again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge then Salt -- Category redirects are a nuisance because some one has to patrol them to keep them empty. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge BTW, Peterkingiron is wrong. There is a category that tracks this automatically, and I am one of the editors who check this category daily. Debresser (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2010 (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: Keep. Jafeluv (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies based in Suffolk County, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Companies based in Suffolk County, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Found listed as a speedy delete since it was empty. Listing here for a full discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and repopulate or populate as the case may be along with Category:Companies based in Nassau County, New York. This is part of the established Category:Companies based in New York by county. It appears that all of the entries are located in Category:Companies based on Long Island. Note that Brooklyn or Queens based companies may be on the island and should be directly included in Category:Companies based on Long Island and not included via another category. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Companies based in New York City is not subdivided by borough. I'm not certain it needs to be.- choster (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Vegaswikian. Note that Category:Companies of the United States by location is subdivided by political jurisdictions, not geographic features, so if anything the Long Island category is the odd one out.- choster (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of an established series, if there is anything to populate them with. Otherwise speedy delete as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are no longer empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we really need to be subcategorizing companies by the individual counties that their head offices are located in? I say no, though I realize that's probably a losing battle. Delete, but take any and every "companies based in individual county" category on Wikipedia into the trash heap with it. If they're based in a town or city that isn't large enough to have a subcategory at the municipal level, then state-level should suffice. The issue shouldn't be whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or not — it's whether there's any actual need for this level of categorization, which there really, truly just plain isn't. Bearcat (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not as simple as that, because sometimes county identity is stronger than city identity, and in a diverse state it's more useful to speak in county terms than state terms. Category:Fairfax County, Virginia and Category:Orange County, California are two cases which come to mind.- choster (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Virginia is an odd case because all of its cities are independent of counties, so it's not that useful an example. postdlf (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Montgomery County, Maryland works just as well, and perhaps might be a better example. For example, Category:Companies based in Bethesda, Maryland is somewhat subjective because Bethesda, Maryland is an unincorporated community with no defined boundaries. Using postal designations is unreliable; when I lived in Friendship Heights, my mail was addressed to Chevy Chase, and those are two communities which do have defined and non-overlapping boundaries.- choster (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we can agree that location categories shouldn't be defined around such localities without officially defined borders. I'd support upmerging that (and any other) Bethesda category to Montgomery County as the best option. postdlf (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Some general observations. I agree that we generally shouldn't pick a couple examples out of a structure rather than consider the whole structure at once. Regarding that structure, one reason categories that are too geographically specific are problematic because they fragment groupings too much into numerous, sparsely populated categories. Most states have a few metropolitan areas and are otherwise thinly populated and developed, so often it may make sense only to subdivide within a state only by those metropolitan areas, if at all, and then otherwise leave everything together at the state level. But my biggest concern with localized categories is when they force navigation only at that level of specificity, by intersecting with other facts also at too specific a level. Here that is probably not a concern right now, where companies by type are grouped at the state level (with the arguably reasonable exception of NYC-specific categories), and the -by county groupings are for all companies generally rather than subdivided by type. If type and county were to intersect, however, then we'd effectively lose a vertical structure of navigation, by forcing all readers to search for companies in New York state only by county and by type, and we'd have lots of very small categories. It's all a question of finding the right balance; often where categories that intersect two facts (here, type of thing and place) are very specific in one way they should be more general in another. postdlf (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All Location is a strong defining characteristic and breaking the state ctageory down by county allows for easier navigation across companies within a state and within other characteristics of each county. I've created a structure of Category:Companies based in New Jersey by county and have started to split out the entries in Category:Companies based in New Jersey by the specific county. It's amazing that it took so long to get started on breaking these ctageories down by county, given the number of companies statewide. Alansohn (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and populate; many companies are based in county areas, not cities. Hmains (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2010 (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.