Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 1

< August 31	September 2 >

September 1

Dover, Kent (again)

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 per nom and manually tidy out the "People from" category. The suggestion of "Category:People from Dover, Kent (town)" hasn't been discussed enough at this stage but could be considered in a further nomination for clarity between districts and towns/cities. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original category of Dover was split into a disambiguation page following previous discussions. The usual UK naming convention has Category:Town, County when disambiguating places. For the US it is Category:Town, State or Category:Town, County, State. In the US, Dover may be found also in County Kent, however as it is not found in any other county in that state (correct me if I'm wrong) just these two should be fine. A more minor point is that a second Dover in the UK exists, a small village in Lancashire\Greater Manchester. I'm not sure if I should point out that most people searching for Dover in Kent are most likely meaning the English county.

Other Categories where disambiguation is needed includes Category:Rochester, Kent, Category:Plymouth, Devon, Category:Fort Worth, Texas etc.

The Category:People from Dover says it includes people from the district of Dover, yet there is Category:People from Dover (district) which already includes people from the surrounding district. Instead of having two categories on the same subject, People from Dover (once moved) should just focus on the town with those people from the surrounding districts moved out. Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 22:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Previous discussions located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 23#Category:Dover and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 23#Category#Town of Dover. Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 18:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom – this is one of the cases where the category has to be disambiguated, and 'Dover, Kent' seems to be the way to go. (Cf Category:Birmingham, West Midlands.) I would also support 'Dover, England' throughout (as the Dover in Lancs seems very insignificant). Occuli (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support all except one - that to Category:People from Dover, Kent (town) - to disambiguate from the district; ideally I would add (town) to most the other cats too, but I want to get this suggested change done first Mayumashu (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose. I'm no expert or anything in UK-naming conventions, but it seems to me that "Dover, England" is the most unambiguous and that there is at least the potential for confusion with "Dover, Kent" due to the Delaware county name issue. It's true that U.S. names on WP are almost never CITY, COUNTY—which is why my opposition is only mild. In the end, either name would probably be acceptable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose' - the town of Dover is the primary use of the word, therefore there is no need to disambiguate the categories. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dover (disambiguation) is ambiguous, so it will not do for the category (category names must be unambiguous, otherwise articles will be miscategorised). Category:People from Dover should be a dab category, cf Category:People from Birmingham. Occuli (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom I think this is the best set-up for now although cat:Dover, England may be used if confusion would still arise in the future--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Album 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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization. Radio is full of "album songs", especially on rock stations geared to deep cuts and album-oriented rock, but if a song isn't a single, it won't be categorized as a single but as a song (Category:1973 songs vs. Category:1973 singles), so that distinction already exists. Any song from an album that has an article and isn't categorized as a single is obviously an album track, but, technically, any song from an album that is a single would be an album song as well. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an indiscriminate category and would include possibly +10 000 articles.23:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete Wholly arbitrary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 11:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Albums by artist and record label

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Call this a test case on the only subcat. This is an unwieldy and awful scheme for balkanizing album articles and is not at all necessary. The particularity of The Beatles' albums is noted at The Beatles and in detail in The Beatles discography. There is no need for Category:The Beatles Vee-Jay Records albums or Category:The Beatles Parlophone albums or Category:Led Zeppelin Atlantic Records albums etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Cf. with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_14#Category:The_Beatles_Capitol_Records_albums.—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We categories albums by artist, and by record label, but never by the two together. Beatles or otherwise, this is a bad idea.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a reasonable case has been made for the Beatles North American releases but it does not follow that we need any more 'Albums by artist and record label'. Occuli (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would only encourage further use of this category when there should be very few (and, hopefully, no more) exceptions to this artist/label combo. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Like Category:The Beatles Capitol Records albums, which was kept with no consensus to delete.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 11:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Taking another example, my avatar-namesake Faye Wong's bio used to be sectioned off by her three record companies, but I hadn't even noticed that this had changed. Although one of the transitions marked a significant change in her music, the other didn't. This illustrates that the nominated category intersection is non-defining. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Frida 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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Frida albums to Category:Frida Lyngstad albums

Nominator's rationale: Per Frida Lyngstad —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match article. Occuli (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Public transportation in the United States

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C/D. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

"transport" to "transportation"

Rationalle: Per ENGVAR - see also recent discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 21#Rail transport in the United States. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom to have US English usage on US categories. A WP guideline. Hmains (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Go for it. --Kumioko (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Categories named after religious figures

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Categories named after religious figures to Category:n/a

Nominator's rationale: The discussion here is the scheme for the subcategories: sometimes, they are in adjectival form (Category:Categories named after Christian figures), sometimes modifying noun form (Category:Categories named after Scientology figures) and these should be standardized. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems unnecessary since subcats and articles should be categorized by their relation, not by their nameCurb Chain (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the subcats, which are not tagged, use an adjective when one exists and a noun otherwise, which is fairly standard. Occuli (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response What about "Scientologist"...? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid part of Category:Categories named after people and Category:Categories named after people by occupation, unless the whole hierarchy of Category:Eponymous categories is to be put up for deletion as WP:OCAT by shared naming characteristic. As for the names of the contents, the best alternative I can suggest is "Categories named after people in Judaism" etc, but "Categories named after people in religion" is not good for the nominated cat; the existing names are concise and satisfactory. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lists of comics by DC

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C/D. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of comics by DC to Category:Lists of comics by DC Comics

Nominator's rationale: Per DC Comics, Category:DC Comics, and Category:Lists of comics by Marvel Comics. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support better name, less ambiguous. Duggy 1138 (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Magic: The Gathering cards

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: Category already deleted as empty. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Currently this only has one article in it. Individual magic cards seem to fail generally WP:N to the degree that they need a category (although the article in question is notable), this article would be more accessible in the main Category:Magic The Gathering. (I wasn't sure if this was supposed to be a merger or deletion... sorry if I did it wrong) Crazynas^t 01:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this isn't exactly a hard call. I've switched this cat for its parent on Power Nine, so let's say we just tag the category as a C1 and wait the four days. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally going to do just what you did, however the lead in WP:CFD seemed to imply that I shouldn't just remove it. On a technical sidenote (since I'm a newcomer to this xFD) how do you tell that a cat has been unpopulated for four daysCrazynas^t 02:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{db-c1}} takes care of it. I've added the template. I don't see the need to process merely for its own sake here, when the solution seems so obvious. If no one objects in the next few days, it'll show up in CAT:SD and another admin will likely delete it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Grammy Award venues

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 06:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Textbook case of WP:OC#VENUES. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I agree that this is exactly what the guideline is talking about. I'm sensing an issue with the creator of these categories—a number of his/her creations have come up for discussion in the past 24 hours. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-defining attribute for the venue, and per existing policy. Lugnuts (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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