Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 8

< November 7	November 9 >

November 8

Minor league

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: Closed. This was a discussion with no nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the proper capitalization of "minor league" for use in subcats under the teams in Category:Major League Baseball teams?

Category:Seattle Mariners minor league affiliates

Category:Seattle Mariners minor League affiliates

Category:Los Angeles Dodgers Minor League Affiliations

--Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 21:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no formal nomination here, I have placed the Dodgers category under speedy to match others under Category:Minor league baseball teams by Major League Baseball affiliation. The Seattle Mariners categories are redundant and I have consolidated them into one. --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2009 (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:Monmouth School Alumni

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Monmouth School Alumni to Category:Alumni of Monmouth School

Nominator's rationale: To correct the extra capital letter, and to switch word order as per the usual format at Category:People by school in England where there isn't an "Old --ians" name in use, (and, yes, this is a Welsh school. but the same format ought to apply). Bencherlite ^Talk 20:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. Comment Note that "Former pupils of" is more in use in this category than "Alimni of". Although the latter is what we use more globally. Debresser (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename where this no particular name for alumni, "Alumni of" seems to be the prevailing standard. Alansohn (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2009 (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:Goofy: How to...

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:Disney animated shorts starring Goofy. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Goofy: How to... to Category:Goofy shorts

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It's not clear that all the contents are a specific series of How To... shorts. But they do all star Goofy. So rename to match Category:Mickey Mouse shorts and Category:Donald Duck shorts. Tassedethe (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename instead to the less ambiguous name, Category:Goofy (Disney character) shorts, or maybe Category:Animated shorts starring Goofy . ^{Carlaude:Talk} 17:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Disney animated shorts starring Goofy to match title of parent category Category:Disney animated shorts and to avoid ambiguity of Category:Goofy shorts. Alansohn (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea. Thought of this option also. Maybe it is the best option, but it seems a little redunant since there aren't any "non-Disney animated shorts starring Goofy." ^{Carlaude:Talk} 02:29, 11 November 2009 (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:Methodist women

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a non-notable intersection by gender, and thus violates WP:CATGRS. If you look in Category:Christianity and women, no other denomination has this intersection. If you click each of the entries in Category:Christians by denomination, you also find no other denomination having this intersection. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nothing constructive is accomplished by this category. The only women-specific categories that I've ever seen any merit to (both in my own opinion and as reflected by consensus) are those for which women have been underrepresented or faced particular or unique challenges. Female Methodist ministers might be a worthwhile category. But there's certainly no entry barrier for women to become practicing Methodists, nor are there women-only Methodist churches or scriptures. The only net effect of this category, or any other category for women of particular religions, would be just to needlessly duplicate the categorization of a woman's religion on every article about a woman (e.g., placing them in both Category:American Methodists and Category:Methodist women; Fanny Crosby is now in four separate categories that say she's a Methodist). postdlf (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Methodist women have always played an important part in various Methodist denominations. It is not a meaningless intersection. Indeed, Methodist women is more significant than Methodist women clergy (or what have you). Methodist women have been in the forefront of many important advances in society and in religion. This is as significant as Category:Mormonism and women. Noama Nelson (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Mormonism and women ≠ Category:Mormon women. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 03:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Which is indeed to say I completely disagree with the argument of Noama Nelson. Debresser (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete; I'm mainly in agreement with postdlf's comments on these "women" categories. I don't agree that this is similar to Category:Mormonism and women at all—that is not a category reserved for women Mormons! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Historically, most clergy were male. Even 40 years ago, women ministers were very much the exception. I therefore have concerns about the idea of deleting it. Certainly, plain deletion ought not to be an option. I cannot argue for UPMERGE, because the relevant category is a parent only one. Before any deletion, every article needs to be placed in some other medthodist category (if it does not have one already); otherwise useful information (their denominational category) will be lost. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, this isn't Category:Methodist women clergy, or even (per Noama Nelson) Category:Methodist women in the forefront of many important advances in society and in religion, it's just Category:Methodist women. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Every entry is already in a subcategory of Category:Methodists by nationality. postdlf (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2009 (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:Template-Class articles

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. While the reason for the nomination may be correct, the problem is that this is really an issue that needs to be discussed first with the WP1.0 assessment team. While the name is in the main category space for the talk page, it is not really an encyclopedic navigation tool so it's not clear that any harm is resulting from leaving this along. So, have a discussion with the project involved and see if there is a consensus for change. If there is, they will need to change the templates. Part of the problem may be that the project does not come here to make category name changes so maybe that needs to change to avoid future issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Template-Class articles to Category:Template-Class pages

Nominator's rationale: Per WIAA, a template is not an article. So maybe rename this category to a "page" ending would be better. Jimmy Xu (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This category is linked in to the WP1.0 assessment system; it is not something that can be considered individually. Changing the name of this category has run-on effects to the rest of the assessment scheme. This category's name may not be ideal, but it is consistent with the overall schema: see the rest of the top-level categories in Category:Articles by quality, and the majority of the category's subcats. This consistency is vital to allow templates like {{class}}, {{cat class}}, {{WPBannerMeta}} and many others, to reference these categories easily and without ridiculous amounts of special-casing in their code. Renaming one category will achieve nothing and will cause large amounts of extra work for these templates and their maintainers. Discussion on the state of the entire system is warranted (see for instance User:Dinoguy1000/Assessment category RfC), but looking at individual categories in isolation is completely imprudent. Happy‑melon 13:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Keeping an incorrect name because it is part of a system of incorrect names suggests the question "should we change the lot?" To which my answer would be an unequivocal "yes". Grutness...wha? 00:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment it's not like it's an encyclopedic content category... 65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Grutness, I absolutely agree, both that the question should be asked, and what the response should be. But picking off invididual categories, as is being done here, is an actively counterproductive way to go about changing the system. Happy‑melon 23:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to tag all 900+ subcategories as well. :)) Debresser (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for now, per Happy-melon (who is a great expert in the structure of the WP1.0 assessment system). This change would have huge consequences, which need to be considered as a whole rather than just by picking off one part of a system. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:20, 10 November 2009 (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.