Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 19

< April 18	April 20 >

April 19

Category:Washington (U.S. state)

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Washington (U.S. state) to Category:Washington

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Washington. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Washington is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The prior CfD is here. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The prior cfd came to a very solid conclusion (and it is surprising that Washington is not a disamb page). Occuli (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Mayumashu (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I started the test nomination that instituted this change, and I was not particularly wedded to either format at the time, but the support for disambiguating was quite strong. So I support the current approach. And there's little doubt that Washington alone is ambiguous, since Washington, D.C. is often referred to colloquially as just "Washington". Some day Wikiproject Washington will see the light and consent to the disambiguation of the main article. Some day. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per reasons already given. Mayumashu (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose stupendously excessive ambiguousness and super large need for constant patrolling and maintenance. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As a Washingtonian, I have to constantly explain I'm not from D.C. So a little disambiguation here seems very apropos. As for WikiProject Washington, I would politely say that its members do not represent the wishes of all Washingtonians on Wikipedia. The Georgians on Wikipedia have figured out that clarity beats regional pride any day.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2010 (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:Acoustic music 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overly broad and basically trivial categorization. There is no need or utility in categorizing albums as being primarily recorded with acoustic (or electric) guitar and if this was properly populated, there would be an unnavigable number of articles. This is also subcategorized under Category:Albums by genre even though "acoustic" is not a genre of music. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:43, 19 April 2010 (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:Anglican bishops by diocese in the United Kingdom

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: upmerge as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in the United Kingdom to the two parents

Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Anglican bishops by diocese and Category:Church of England clergy. This small category with limited growth potential is better eliminated to improve category navigation. If the number of dioceses becomes so large that navigation is an issue then it could be time for by country categories like this. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2010 (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:Anglican bishops by diocese outside the United Kingdom

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) 09:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Anglican bishops by diocese outside the United Kingdom to Category:Anglican bishops by diocese

Nominator's rationale: Merge. We normally don't categorize by exceptions. The proposed parent is rather small and listing these dioceses in the parent will not hurt navigation and would likely improve it. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – noting that one of the subcats is Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in Europe and the Middle East, which seems to imply that the UK is not in Europe. (The Caribbean ones could perhaps be gathered together.) Occuli (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they say, fix one problem and find two more. 00:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

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:Footer and header message boxes

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) 09:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Was removed from Fmbox, the subcategory Category:Wikipedia editnotices should just be fine in remaining within Category:Wikipedia maintenance and not having this category. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2010 (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:American Professors of English

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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 6#Category:American Professors of English. — ξ ^xplicit 06:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American Professors of English to Category:???

Nominator's rationale: This is categorized under Category:American academics, but this is narrowly about professors specifically and not broader English academics. I'm not sure what the best name is, but it's certainly not this one (if for no other reason than its improper capitalization.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – there is Category:Scholars and academics by subject which has a few relevant subcats (eg Category:English literature academics, which also needs a rename if we are going to have American ones). Occuli (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Departments of English are standard in U.S. education. Maurreen (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:American academics of English literature, although I don't know where that leaves the linguists. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2010 (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.

Party ethnic groups 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: delete/upmerge to American politicians by ethnicity categories, which are at this time Category:African American politicians, Category:American politicians of Cuban descent, Category:American politicians of Mexican descent, Category:Native Hawaiian politicians, and Category:Vietnamese-American politicians. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Recreation of previously deleted categories, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 6#(Ethnic group) Democrats (United States). Hekerui (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created some sub-categories, but I admit I did that to increase visibility to promote discussion. I probably should have just put it up for deletion though.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – and agree with T Anthony that creating subcats is not the optimal route to deletion. Occuli (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts these should be upmerges, to Category:African-American politicians etc, assuming they are already in a party category. Occuli (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A minor problem with that is they're not all politicians and that was true before I created sub-cats. For example Rachel Campos-Duffy and Gloria Estefan are not politicians. I'm not sure why Cesar Romero is in it at all as his article does not even indicate he was Republican.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerges needed as per Occuli, to 'Fooian American politicians' or 'American politicians of Fooian descent', as per case Mayumashu (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2010 (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:Video games featuring Nazism

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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video games featuring Nazism to Category:Video games containing Nazism

Nominator's rationale: The "featuring" part of the title suggests that the games promote or are mainly based around Nazism. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If a Nazi appears in a video game, it is not necessarily defining for the game. Nazis have become such a stock "bad guy" character that this is probably nothing more than a trivial aspect of a game. I would think that a category that is mainly based around Nazism might be worth categorizing, but not any game that happens to contain aspects of Nazism. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Video games featuring Nazis. The ones I looked at did not feature an ideology, but did feature Nazi persons. Similar categories exist for games featuring US Marines, for example. Hmains (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or (second choice) rename to indicate that the games "feature" (or whatever word is more appropriate, per G.O.F.) soldiers of Nazi Germany (Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine etc.), not nazism ("the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany"). Nazi chic, perhaps, but this one is too subjective. NVO (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (i.e: I don't care about the title, I think the category sucks and should be eliminated), because:
(a) 99% of these games are set in World War Two, so why not use the existing category (Category:World_War_II_video_games)?
(b) Nazism is an ideology. I don't see ideas being discussed and debated in a combat zone. The Wehrmacht, while being loyal to the German high command, were largely apolitical.
(c) A more objective name would be Category:Video games containing German soldiers, but I think we would be over-categorisating.

I don't think there is much of a difference between "featuring" and "containing" Kransky (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2010 (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:Hollywood families

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:Show business families, without prejudice to a future nomination for deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hollywood families could do with the bigger picture treatment. OK, most of the people there were indeed involved in Hollywood at some stage of their career. But some, such as the elder Redgraves, were very much English and did very little work in the USA. Their grandkids Natasha and Joely Richardson have become more associated with Hollywood, but that isn't really true of the whole family/dynasty.

I’m suggesting the category be renamed to Theatrical dynasties or Acting dynasties or Acting families. There could then be a sub-category that mentions the word “Hollywood” if that's really necessary.

On a related note, I see that we now have subcats for the Coppola, DeBarge, Eastwood, Estevez, Jackson, Mankiewicz and Sedgwick families. How are these any different from the Rajesh Khanna, Redgrave, Rooney, Sheen-Estevez, Stiller and Travolta families, all of which subcats were deleted in 2007? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Acting families, per the other categories in Category:Families by profession. Calling a family a "dynasty" is puffery. postdlf (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Category:Acting families. I think this is somewhat ambiguous. It sounds like it is for people that are acting as families. My thought was to suggest Category:Actor families, but I don't think that works either. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the primary list is List of show business families, why not rename it Category:Show business families? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is a list do we really need the category? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 05:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Show business families which doesn't seem ambiguous. On the related note I think all the subcats should be deleted: Category:Jackson family is hopelessly ambiguous, and I see Category:Trump family has been recreated (without any evidence that I can recall of a change in consensus). Occuli (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Show business families if we decide to keep the category. With the list behind this choice of name, I'm not convinced that we need the category. However I am ambivalent about that point but would not object if someone wants to see this deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2010 (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.