Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 27

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< August 26 August 28 >

August 27

Category:Enlargement of international organizations

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. Dana boomer (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is solely grouping articles and categories about the enlargement of intergovernmental organizations, which is a subtype of the broader international organizations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2013 (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:People from Warley, Essex

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) 18:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only 1 entry. ...William 23:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator, but without prejudice to-creation if there are at least 5 articles to place in it. In the meantime, please re-create this categ as a {{category redirect}}, so that any ppl from this area can be correctly categorised.
    Note that Warley, Essex is not a one-horse village; is the UK HQ of the Ford Motor Company, and has had heavy military uses for over 200 years. It may well turn out to be capable of expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 28 August 2013 (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:George Soros

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Eponymous categories are for subtopics and subarticles. This category is mostly a collection of articles related to George Soros rather than a collection of subtopics or subarticles. I only count two out of 23 articles that are actually a subarticle of George Soros: George Soros conspiracy theories and List of projects supported by George Soros. The rest are mostly family members or organizations he's involved with. Transcendence (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Having made a fortune by betting against sterling on the foreign exchange markets, Soros seems to have reinvented himself as a philanthropist. Being a mere member of organisations woiuld not be notable, I I think he is probably much more than just that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2013 (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:People from Annsville, New York

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) 18:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALL. Small town with just one entry. ...William 22:12, 27 August 2013 (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.

Classic 100 Countdowns

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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per the withdrawn discussion below, deletion is probably not the best idea. So an upmerge is more appropriate. As noted below, navigation is provided by {{ABC Classic FM}}. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2013 (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:Actors from Pennsylvania

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. There appears to be a broad agreement that the current arrangement of gendered actor categories by state is non-ideal, but there is zero agreement as to what should be done about it. I suggest a better-advertised discussion for the whole group. --erachima talk 06:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with this. Pennsylvania is so large a category that splitting by gender makes sense, but what about some of the actors by city cats?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you want a manual split. I am semi-ok with that, but I have grave doubts it will get done. I have tried doing that with say Category:American television actors, but the progress on it is slow. Even say Category:American stage actors which has been tagged as a container category is not moving very fast towards being one. I was thinking it would be a lot faster to just rename, since the actress categories have more or less already been split off. On another matter, I was trying to be clear in saying this was a test nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very important to completely avoid using the stand-alone term "actors" in our category names because it is intrinsically ambiguous. So with that in mind, another possibility would be to rename this category as I proposed above to Category:Actors and actresses from Pennsylvania, to serve as the ungendered (or bi-gendered) parent cat for the two gendered subcats, Category:Male actors from Pennsylvania and Category:Actresses from Pennsylvania, if there is support for keeping them instead of upmerging. Cgingold (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The convention of Category:Actors and its hundreds of subcats is that "actors" is used in its gender-neutral sense. If there are gendered sub-categories those use "male actors" or "actresses"; but a categry of "actors" is consistently a gender-neutral one.
If editors believe that the gender-neutral usage of "actor" is ambiguous in this context, then that applies to the whole of Category:Actors, not just to this one small subset of it. Either do a large group nomination of the high-level categories, or the leave them all alone ... but nowhere in any of the rationales above do I see any argument for making Pennsylvania an exception to such a widely-used naming convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 30 August 2013 (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:Classic 100 Countdowns (ABC)

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: Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't believe that we consider radio station/network top 100 lists defining. Aren't these basically award categories? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - You might want to rethink & withdraw this one, VW. It's not an "award category" per se. Rather, it's for articles about "top 100 lists", which makes perfectly good sense. (Whether those articles merit inclusion on Wikipedia is another question entirely, beyond the purview of CFD.) Cgingold (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I ony said it was like an award category which it is. How is the inclusion criteris The selection of works that was available in the survey was determined between 15 April and 26 April 2013 (with the public being able to add works to the list initiated by the station).[1] Voting (by the public) for the finalised list of works was held between 3 May and 17 May 2013, defining? How are these different then every other station countdown list? Also we tend not to categorize by arbitary numbers which 100 is. Why not 50 or 1,000? But again why is this defining? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not _categorizing_ by an arbitrary number. 19:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This category is the perfect navigational tool for 12 closely related lists which couldn't be better defined than by this category. It also provides (or it did, until the nominator removed them) a convenient place to categorise all its members. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Oppose). It's never right to delete a category that is the only category on most/all of the articles in it. DexDor (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2013 (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.

Norwegian music prize winners

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 all, except no consensus to delete Category:Spellemannprisen winners. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having received an prize like this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the recipient (see WP:OC#AWARD). The prize winners should be (and those I've checked are) in more defining categories such as Category:Norwegian jazz saxophonists. An example of a previous CFD for a music award recipients category is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_8#Category:Detroit_Music_Award_winners. DexDor (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't agree with JPL & DexDor!! Of course people get prices because they are clever or the best at something, it is in the nature of the case... But, at the same time people get attention when they get awards, and this in the next round gives them more opportunities to performe, and gives them more honor ... this is not so clear in my opinion! Regards, Knuand (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2013 (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:Georgia Music Hall of Fame inductees

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) 18:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having been inducted in a HoF like this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic (see WP:OC#AWARD) of a person. Also, as so often with these categories, it categorizes incorrectly - e.g. placing WAYS_(FM) under Category:People by status. The articles should be categorised in categories like Category:American soul musicians. For info: there is a list at Georgia_Music_Hall_of_Fame#Inductees. An example of a previous similar CFD is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_27#Category:Oregon_Music_Hall_of_Fame. DexDor (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2013 (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:Bozcaada

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 redirect to Category:Tenedos. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category - contains just eponymous article. DexDor (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(or merge per Oculi below). DexDor (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Tenedos since Bozcaada is a redirect to Tenedos. Oculi (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:Most Turkish districts have categories in WP and the missing ones are to be completed in the future (There are over 900 of them and it needs time to complete all) . Bozcaada is a district and it also has a category. What is wrong with the category ? If there is a serious rationale to delete a category then nominator should delete at least 300 more district-in Turkey categories and God knows how many in the World ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom to agree with the fact we use the English name in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well Tenedos is the historical name of an island and Bozcaada is the name of a Turkish district. How can we redirect the name of an administrative unit to an island ?Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge leaving a category redirect. There is an article in the category, with a hisotry section where Tenedos is the main article. This raises a problem, common in this part of the world: places have a Greek name and a Turkish one. We resolved this in one place by using the Greek name for the archaeological site and the Turkish one for the present village. Since Greek has been taught as a classical language in the west, and archaeology/history often refers to pre-Turkish periods, that policy is appropriate. However, for places now in Turkey, and dealing with the present or recent times, we need the the article to have the Turkish name. This requires the appropriate use of redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The name here is the English name, based on the Greek name, but not the same. This has been discussed a lot on talk pages related to the article, and the clear consensus was to use Tenedos as the common English name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Contrary to John Pack Lambert's claim, there was no clear consensus on the name. Please check the archieves of the Talk: Tenedos. Anyway the discussion here is independent of the page. Bozcaada is a district and Tenedos is the historical name of an island. The situation is not different from Crete and Chania. Crete is an island and Chania is a city in the island and each has a cat of its own. Why can't we have the same here ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2013 (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:United States defence procurement

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: Moved to CFR-Speedy by nominator. Non-admin close by Cgingold (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's a European spelling but refers to US defense, which probably should have an "s". Many articles in the category have "defense" in their name, all spelled that way, and the category is also itself in a another category, Category:United States Department of Defense, which is also spelled that way. WPGA2345 (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_27&oldid=1074810412"