Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 12

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Associations for pulmonology and respiratory therapy to Category:Pulmonology and respiratory therapy organizations

Nominator's rationale: Rename This is technically a slightly wider scope although the current contents already reflect this. I'd also note the corresponding List of respiratory therapy organizations and the parent Category:Medical and health organizations by medical specialty. Pichpich (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I agree with the nominator's rationale. Je.rrt (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 18 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.

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) 22:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artificial scripts used in natural languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The rationale for inclusion here is very unclear. All scripts are artificial when they are invented begin. Some catch on, like Hangul and Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics, and others do not, like Deseret and Shavian. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A crazy thing just happened. I discovered that i created this category myself once and completely forgot it. Well, i proclaim that i shouldn't have created it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll take that as a delete. And since you're the sole author, I've marked it for speedy deletion accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've recreated it. The articles and categories linking to it should have been recategorized. — kwami (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or rename this to follow lead article Constructed script, although the lead sentence there recognises this alternative term. This category should not be deleted in isolation as there is a parent Category:Artificial scripts, siblings Category:Artificial scripts in literature, film and games, Category:Artificial scripts used in mysticism as well as the child Category:Auxiliary and educational artificial scripts. It seems valid and useful to me. - – Fayenatic (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The whole notion of "artificial" and "Natural" languages is hard to define. Articifical means made by man, and all language is made by man so what a natural language is can be debated to some extent. This also applies to scripts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 18 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.

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) 22:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete The intended scope of this category is unclear and looking at the contributions history of the creator, I'm tempted to view it as a simple experiment. What is clear though, is that the other members of this category have no idea that they are members. Most linked to Category:User months if not years ago whereas the present incarnation of the category dates back to last week. Pichpich (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The inclusion criteria is unclear. If we were to take it to include all users, the category would be so huge it would be useless.
• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 18 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.

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) 23:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rainmaking to Category:Rainmaking (ritual)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the stated scope of the category. (The aim is to include articles related to rainmaking (ritual) and not rainmaking) Pichpich (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename-It's best to rename.Smallman12q (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category is about articles on the belief, and does not include all ways of making rain such as chemical meansCurb Chain (talk) 05:58, 13 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.

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) 22:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:That's ridiculous. It's not even funny. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete It's pretty clear that there's not enough material to create a category for Kingdom of Loathing and it's even clearer that such a category would be called "Kingdom of Loathing" and not "That's ridiculous. It's not even funny." Pichpich (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "That's ridiculous. It's not even funny." is a Kingdom of Loathing injoke for the number 11. I do agree that the category would be unpopulated. Two articles that would fit in the article are Kingdom of Loathing and Asymmetric Publications. James1011R (talk, contribs) - That's ridiculous. It's not even funny. 19:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete This is ridiculous and not even funny. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is no reason to have this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 18 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.

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 merge C2A. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Japanese writers' templates to Category:Japanese writers templates

Nominator's rationale: Speedy merge as obvious duplication due to a typo. Pichpich (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the template. It was a typo - wondered why it came up red. The category can be deleted. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as empty with creator's consent. - – Fayenatic (talk) 20:01, 14 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.

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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Women's association football players to Category:Female association football players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category and its subcats were recently moved from "Female association football players" to "Women's association football players" and from "<Nationality> female footballers (soccer players)" to "<Nationality> women's footballers (soccer players)". This strikes me as extremely odd. Why use the possessive here? These players do not belong to women; rather, they are female. Using "female" would seem to fit better with our other gender-based categories like Category:Female economists. We don't say "women's economists", do we? Of course not; that would imply that the economists in question work only for women, or that they focus only on economic issues relating to women. No explanation for the recent move is apparent; Cydebot did the moves without comment. Powers ^T 12:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – the article is Women's association football, the related category is Category:Women's association football, unlike, say, Economics. (The cfd which effected this rename was on 18 Aug 2011.) I would however agree with the nom that eg Category:German women's footballers seems oddly named (was this a speedy?). Occuli (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the main article is where it is because there's no other reasonable title -- "Association football as played by women"? But for categories dealing with players, what's important is not that they play "women's association football" -- which is pretty much indistinguishable from "men's association football" -- but that they are women who play association football. Powers ^T 12:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note the previous full discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for missing that; I looked but didn't see a link anywhere to a previous discussion. Powers ^T 21:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does the rename of Category:German female footballers to Category:German women's footballers follow as a speedy? The speedy would be Category:German women's association football players. Occuli (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename this particular category. Since the sport is women's association football, I think it makes sense to name the category for players after the sport. If there's an issue with the subcategories, you might want to contact User:Black Falcon—I think he was the speedy nominator of those. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Women's association football" is not a sport. "Association football" is a sport, and it is played by the female players in this category. Powers ^T 17:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure it is, unless you're suggesting that a man could play in the women's game. Many countries have a separate code of laws (rules) for the women's game. FIFA doesn't distinguish yet, but they haven't exactly been a paragon of enlightenment in dealing with the women's game. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • So in the event that a woman played a game in a men's league, you would move her article out of this category tree and into a category with her male countrymen? That strikes me as extremely odd. Powers ^T 02:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the point is that in association football that does not happen. Women play on separate teams and in separate leagues, and often they have separate rules. If men and women play together on the same teams and the same leagues, then I would question the need to separate women from men at all in categorizing people who play the sport. Men and women compete against each other in Scrabble, and we don't subdivide Category:Scrabble players by gender. Thus, I see this category as essentially a categorization by sport, not a categorization by the intersection of gender and sport. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yet we do separate Category:Female pool players, and all of these categories are in the Category:Sportswomen tree. We have Category:Female golfers, Category:Female ice hockey players, and even Category:Female American football players. I see no reason soccer should be any different. What's important is that they are women who play a sport, not that they play a "sport for women". Powers ^T 14:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • But as I stated above, I question your very premise that at their heart these are categorizations by gender. If men and women compete together in any given sport, I don't think they should be separated by gender at all. (But whether they are or not is essentially an issue left to the whim of any particular editor; but what exists is not necessarily the correct approach. But in any case here, it's clear that the correspondence between female footballers and those who play women's football is going to essentially be 1:1, so I don't think the current name is a problem.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not sure how you can question it when it's quite clear from the category structure, and from the names of the parallel categories. If this category was merely "people who play soccer-for-women", then it wouldn't be in the Category:Women tree. Powers ^T 22:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sure it would be. Only females play women's soccer. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Bit of a circular argument, isn't that? Powers ^T 12:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Not really, if one can accept that only women play women's football. It's only circular because the gender of those who play the sport is the reason why the sport is called what it is called—females play it so it's "women's" football. It's not brain surgery or anything. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The vast majority of subcats of Category:Sportswomen by sport are of the form "Female <sport> players" (or "Female <sport>ers"). No one has yet giving a compelling reason why this category should be different. Powers ^T 12:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that previous efforts to standardize on one over the other have resulted in a consensus of change them on a case by case basis. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Compelling" to whom? It has been suggested that the category name should match or mirror Women's association football; that's a "compelling" reason to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that's not a reason to be different from all others. We have Women's American football, for instance, but the category is still, as it should be, Category:Female American football players. Powers ^T 11:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps not in isolation, but considering the entire ball of wax, I would think it's some of the other categories that should be renamed, not these ones. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Women's sports players are refered to as women. Thus we have women's basketball, women's volleyball and so on. There is no reason to not follow this precedent with football. I have always seen it refered to as women's soccer, and the women's world cup, never female soccer and the female world cup.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're worried about precedent, how about Category:Female ice hockey players, Category:Female American football players, and Category:Female golfers? Powers ^T 12:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The vast majority of these categories should be switched over to women's. The ones that have not should be. The current category tree is largely flawed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Like Good Ol'factory, I view this as an intersection of sport (women's association football) and role (players) rather than a triple-intersection of gender (female), sport (association football) and role (players). Even though the rules of the game are largely the same, the sport of women's association football – consisting of its competitions, teams, statistics and culture – is basically separate from traditional (men's) association football. Thus, and to address the issue of grammar, this is a category of 'players of women's association football' (I've added a category description to help clarify this). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you say it's a separate sport? The rules are not just largely the same, they're exactly the same. They use the same code and the same grounds and the same traditions. Women's association football is about organization and history, not about the rules of the sport. If it was a separate sport, it would include details on how it's played. Powers ^T 12:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Outside of FIFA, there are some national organizations that have adopted modified rules. For example, some allow the players to touch the ball with their forearm or back of the hand if doing so was judged to be a deliberate action to protect the breasts. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be the same game, mostly (see above), but I believe it's fair to say it's a separate sport. It has separate clubs and teams, separate leagues, separate competitions, and (to a certain extent) a separate culture and history and, in many cases, faces unique issues. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's that different, then Category:Women's association football players shouldn't be a subcat of Category:Association football players. Or, if it's going to remain a subcat, the men should be moved to Category:Men's association football players. Powers ^T 13:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think the parent–child categorization system needs to work that strictly. There are definitely situations where a parent–child setup does not "work" in a perfectly logical manner, as here. But I also think it's OK to adopt a flexible system in which we try to set up parent–child relationships that very roughly correspond to where readers might expect the information to be found. I think that most readers would probably expect to find information about women football players in the women sportsperson tree and in the association footballers tree. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:47, 20 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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Copyright laws of the European Union to Category:Copyright law of the European Union

Category:Intellectual property laws of the European Union to Category:Intellectual property law of the European Union

Nominator's rationale:

These categories relate to law in a particular jurisdiction (the EU) so should be “law” not “laws” as in Category:Patent law of the European Union. They relate to all aspects of the category, including applicable legislation. Categories for articles on particular laws only use the term “legislation” as in Category:United States federal copyright legislation.

But these categories above should be for articles about EU laws only, and articles on particular countries of the EU should be in other categories eg Category:Copyright law in Europe and Category:Intellectual property law in Europe, which would include non-EU countries also. Categories on aspects of laws in particular countries or regions/continents should use “”in” not “of”. Europe is not a jurisdiction, and federal jurisdictions can have articles on subsidiary state or province jurisdictions which may not have appropriate subcategories (eg Category:Alcohol law in the United States includes the law/laws in various states). NB: subcategories of Category:Alcohol law by country or Category:Environmental law by country all use “in” but subcategories of Category:Property law by country use “in” or “of”. Should they be standardised/standardized? Hugo999 (talk) 02:20, 12 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.