Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 16

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. Doczilla _STOMP! 06:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Petersfield Bookshop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rationale for the category, by its author: "a bookshop made famous by the xploits (sic) of its colourful employees". Contains 2 articles. Does a small town bookshop deserve its own category? My village store could be a candidate in that case. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Amazingly, both employees, if they are, are indeed notable. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; perhaps we can expand the cat by putting notable books on sale there in too. Just kidding. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2008 (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. Doczilla _STOMP! 06:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films about torture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Too broad of a topic. Includes "torture porn" films like Hostel, as well as films such as Brazil and Resevoir Dogs. What constitutes a film being "about" torture? I mean, I'm not doubting that torture is apparent in all these films, but I think in most cases its POV to label a film as such.CyberGhostface (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Closet Land was about torture. Agree that depictions of torture is too broad, but not sure right now that there might not be a spot for "about X" -- will have to look at other film subject categories. --Lquilter (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete suffers the same ills as almost all the "films about" categories: how much about the subject must the film be and what RS tells us that it's at least that much about it? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images with permission confirmed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty category, superseded by Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed. Kelly ^hi! 21:09, 16 April 2008 (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: remove the subcats as they are already in Category:New York politicians by County merge the articles per nom. Kbdank71 13:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Hudson Valley politicians to Category:New York politicians

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Hudson Valley is a geographic region in New York State. We already have Category:New York politicians by County (disclaimer: I created it), and a step in between the county cat and Category:New York politicians seems unnecessary. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete politicians by non-legally significant geographies is probably an unwise trend: Category:Upstate politicians? because there seems to be no single board or legislature that governs the Hudson Valley separately than any other part of New York State. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Earthworm Jim characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All characters except Earthworm Jim are in a list. This category is too small to be useful and will not expand due to the list. Pagrashtak 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2008 (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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese voiced video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcatgeorization of articles, there seems to be some consensus that this category is not appropriate. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video_games#Category:Japanese voiced video games?. So thought I would open it up to formal discussion. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not a defining characteristic, bordering on trivia. Challenger 1983 (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Members are based on trivial, intersective, and arbitrary inclusion criterion. Jappalang (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Seems like a trivial detail to organize articles that will probably only amount to unneeded strain of Wikipedia's servers. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete per nom, trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2008 (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 to Category:United States school desegregation case law. Kbdank71 13:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brown v. board to Category:Brown v. Board of Education

Nominator's rationale: Match main article, more comprehensible. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom as below, or merge to Category:United States racial desegregation case law. I'm not sure what links these other cases, rather misleadingly titled either way, and whether it is worth er segregating them like this from the main category. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but Category:School desegregation case law would be more descriptive. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, to Category:School desegregation case law per Brewcrewer. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:United States school desegregation case law to match parent Category:United States racial desegregation case law. Otto4711 (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2008 (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 both to Category:Rear mid-engine, rear-wheel drive vehicles. Kbdank71 13:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:MR layout vehicles to Category:RMR layout vehicles

Nominator's rationale: MR layout redirects to the article RMR layout. We don't need two categories for the same thing. I do want to point out, however, that not all the vehicles in Category:MR layout vehicles belong in Category:RMR layout vehicles. For instance, the Toyota Previa is a FMR layout (with AWD option). This could be moved to Category:Mid-engined vehicles or a new category could be created for the FMR layout. swaq 21:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if kept or renamed. RMR and MR really need expanding. Category:Rear mid-engine, rear-wheel drive vehicles while longish, is much clearer and follows the guideline of not using abbreviations. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Merge both to Category:Rear mid-engine, rear-wheel drive vehicles. OK, I'll change my comment to an opinion. Remove the acronym and spell it out. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you supporting merging both these categories into "Rear mid-engine, rear-wheel drive vehicles"? I am not opposed to that name. swaq 20:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That works since there is a redirect for MR layout. I modified my vote above to reflect this. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article Category:Musical groups with siblings to article List of musical groups containing siblings

Nominator's rationale: "Too trivial to be a category. "The Kinks were an English pop group containing siblings"? I think not. Flowerparty^☀ 13:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There was a complete BBC TV programme a couple of years ago featuring sibling rivalry in bands, particular emphasis on the Kinks (Ray Davies v Dave Davies - the latter had an individual hit early on - Death of a Clown - and the Kinks would never play it, all rather nasty). And Oasis is another example where sibling rivalry has been marked. No doubt there are other examples where sibling harmony has been vital. So I wouldn't say it is necessarily trivial. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah? I missed that one, I'm afraid. Well, I'm not saying it's entirely trivial, just that it's too trivial to be a category. Having two brothers in a band is hardly a defining quality. (It's not just families that don't get on. There are plenty of rivalries that don't involve siblings, like Simon and Garfunkel.) Also, if this is converted into a list it will be possible to add notes saying who's related to who and whether it affected the music, and whatnot. Flowerparty^☀ 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Trivial intersection. Lugnuts (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify as a more generalized/specific familial musical groups 70.55.85.177 (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Too trivial to be a category. If it must be kept, then rename as per above. This could also get confusing, I mean, what about the Ramones...just kidding. I feel like a tourist (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivial - what about Category:Musical groups with the same hair color? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, I also support deletion, if that's the way this is going. Flowerparty^☀ 07:06, 22 April 2008 (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 to Category:Belgian royal princes. The split to Category:Belgian royal princesses can be done as needed. Kbdank71 13:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Princes of Belgium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There are already categories for both Belgian princes and princesses, so this one isn't necessary. Morhange (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Princes of Belgium as appropriate into Category:Belgian princes, Category:Belgian princesses (part of the wider Category:Princes, Category:Princesses resp). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Actually there is a case for this category, as a sub-cat to Category:Belgian princes, which includes non-royal princes like the Arenbergs & de Ligne in sub-cats. All the articles in the main Category:Belgian princes are I think royal, but merging them here and renaming this to Category:Belgian royal princes or something, and making it a subcat would make sense, allowing more precise parent cats & so on. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent point and good idea - but split into Category:Belgian royal princes and Category:Belgian royal princesses. I had wondered about these Arenbergs without looking them up. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Rename/split by sex/merge to Category:Belgian royal princes and Category:Belgian royal princesses, as sub-cats of Category:Belgian princes and Category:Belgian princesses, as above. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed :) Works for me! Morhange (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there don't seem to be any articles on non-royal princesses as yet, so I guess those can just go to the existing cat for now. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tribal societies that have practiced cannibalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining characteristic of any society, and so should be a list rather than a category.gadfium 06:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note See previous debate, which renamed it to this. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning to keep, but would be OK with list. I disagree that it's "not a defining characteristic of any society". Just a couple of examples: Androphagi — the first part of the article states "Androphagi (Greek for 'man-eaters') was an ancient nation of cannibals north of Scythia ...". Sawi: "The Sawi are a tribal people of Western New Guinea, Indonesia. They were known to be cannibalistic headhunters as recently as the 1950's. ..." I think it's clear that this is defining for some tribal societies, at least in the way that the western world defines them through means such as Wikipedia. That being said, I think a list could work for this probably just as well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with points made by Good Ol’f. Tendency to eat people is definitely defining. (Should it not be practised or this another US/UK thing?) Practice - noun, practise - verb (UK). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous debate and those above. Spelling is a US (c) v UK (s) thing. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• List per Gadfium. This category tends to get imposed by the ignorant on the innocent Kahuroa (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just for the record I still feel this is not a defining aspect of societies any more than bayoneting, scalping, or bombing one's enemies. --Lquilter (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep WP is for readers to find and read things. This helps them do so for a subject that often elicits human curiosity. WP is not for thoughtless adherence to some idea of what is defining or not. Hmains (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This argument could apply to any category. We have WP:CAT that specifies that categories are "defining", and we have significant precedent about what "defining" is. I have never seen any support for the idea that practice of cannibalism qualifies. --Lquilter (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep but rename to Category:Societies that have practiced cannibalism - This is a highly significant characteristic that is certainly a proper basis for categorization. Whether it is quote-unquote "defining" is a very subjective judgement -- as is the very notion of what is "defining". We should, however, drop the word "Tribal", a poorly understood, and often pejorative, term which introduces a subtle (or not-so subtle) suggestion of backwardness and inferiority -- and is not necessary in any event. Cgingold (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify. Gadfium is right, it isn't a defining characteristic. Or if it is, why is cannibalism only mentioned halfway down the page in most of these articles, if at all. Flowerparty^☀ 14:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete defining tribes (and people) by what the believe or used to practice near or far in the past isn't useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cannibalism was an important characteristic. Fortunately it is now almost unknown, but it was significant. REname as suggested by Cgingold. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kiribatian law to Category:Kiribati law

Category:Kiribatian society to Category:Kiribati society

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Despite getting almost 10,000 google hits, there really is no such adjective as "Kiribatian" — it's an invented word by people who don't know how to pronounce "Kiribati" and assume it's pronounced like it looks. Technically speaking, the adjective is "i-Kiribati", but I'm going to predict anyway that most editors will not support Category:I-Kiribati law and Category:I-Kiribati society, and just propose plain old "Kiribati", as currently used by Category:Kiribati people and its subcategories. I would love to see a consensus to change these and the people categories to "i-Kiribati", but I'm suspecting that's outside of most users' comfort zones right now. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename, it's a reasonable compromise between the theoretically correct name and the one that Westerners can recognise. In any event, the current name is just wrong.-gadfium 08:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Kiribatian is not a word, Kiribati is used this way here in the South Pacific. Kahuroa (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I have used the term i-Kiribati but agree that simply using Kiribati as the adjective is more user-friendly and perfectly natural usage. "Kiribatian" is as unnatural a term as "Unitedstatesian" Grutness...wha? 02:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I would be willing to support i-Kiribati, personally (on the principle of "use a group's own term for itself whenever possible", I'm totally all about replacing Ojibwe with Anishinaabe these days, though I have to admit that even I'm not about to take on replacing Squamish with Sḵwxwú7mesh), but I agree that Kiribati is probably more user-friendly for most people. Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2008 (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.