Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 12

< December 11	December 13 >

December 12

Category:Transportation in the Charleston & Huntington metropolitan areas

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) 19:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: These are two separate metropolitan areas: the Charleston, West Virginia metropolitan area and the Huntington–Ashland, WV–KY–OH, Metropolitan Statistical Area, and there should be separate categories for each one. If kept, the "&" in the name would need to be changed, and we'd need the category renamed to give a better indication of what states are involved. Imzadi 1979 → 23:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Two separate metro areas as nominator mentioned. I question the need even for separate categories, especially in the case of metro Charleston which already corresponds well with Kanawha County. Bitmapped (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – These two metropolitan areas are 50 miles apart. Very few roads in this category belong to both areas. Split the category into two. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:57, 26 December 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.

Category:Arp 297

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) 23:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Arp 297 to Category:Arp objects

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Not sure why this needs to be a category for a stub article that provides ample navigation. Note appears to have been created since the category was a red link. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Arp 297 is an Arp object, the members of the category are parts of Arp 297, and are not Arp objects in and of themselves. The category "Arp objects" is for actual members of the Arp catalogue. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case Delete as not needed for navigation since the template, as pointed out below, and the article are more then ample. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment that could also work. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this category is populated by the template Template:ARP 297. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so the guideline says do not add categories with templates. So we create the template and have it categorize articles and then someone sees the redlinked category and creates it, even though we don't need it. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 14 December 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.

Category:Samuelson films

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:Films produced by G. B. Samuelson. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Samuelson films to ONE OF TWO OPTIONS BELOW

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are two options to rename:
1. Category:Films produced by G. B. Samuelson (per G. B. Samuelson; place in Category:Films by producer)
2. Category:G.B. Samuelson Productions films (per G.B. Samuelson Productions; place in Category:Films by studio)
The only disadvantage of #2 is that some of the films were produced under the name British-Super Films. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go for option 1 then. Lugnuts (talk) 18:43, 12 December 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.

Category:Goofy

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Goofy to Category:Goofy (Disney)

Propose renaming Category:Goofy video games to Category:Goofy (Disney) video games

Nominator's rationale: Rename both. The second category loks like it's about video games which are goofy, and the first seems like it may be about goofy things. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support since it is not about videogames that are goofy. Support the other one since "goofy" is ambiguous. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Especially the second one, who is clearly confusing. Salvidrim! 04:08, 15 December 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.

Category:Washington Senators (1961–1971)

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 merge; rename to Category:Washington Senators (MLB 1961–1971). Timrollpickering (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Washington Senators (1961–1971) to Category:Texas Rangers (baseball)

Nominator's rationale: The current category name makes it sound like a reference to Senators from either Washington (state) or from Washington, D.C.. I also don't understand why the first 10 years of the team need to be covered by a different category. (I do intend to make siilar nominations for other teams which had moved, but this one has the additional ambiguity issue.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment several of the subcategories also suffer from the same ambiguity. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Category:Washington Senators (MLB 1961–1971) if we keep this (and rename the subcategories the same way). 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See History of Washington, D.C. professional baseball. It appears that several separate clubs have successively used the name. We have a convention that when colleges merge, the alumni of the predecessor go into the category for the successor, but in most cases both colleges are in much the same places and often operate in the same buildings. The question is how far we should carry this precedent. I have no answer for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I would rather rename then merge. We have different categories for Brooklyn/New York incarnations of their respective teams as well as the Expos. Just is opening a can of worms. Levineps (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge per Levineps, but not against a renaming that makes it clear we're talking about an MLB franchise. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's nice to be able to associate people, places, and other history of the team with its former home. See Category:Montreal Expos or Category:Seattle SuperSonics for examples of categories for more recently relocated teams. - Eureka Lott 03:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't rename. I think it should be kept for the same reason we have categories for Category:Montreal Expos, Category:Brooklyn Dodgers, and so forth. Why would we eliminate this one out of the dozens of teams that have moved to other cities? The naming also matches the format of the other MLB team by this name, which is Category:Washington Senators (1901–1960). The reason we have a separate category is because players who were on the team during 1961–1971 played for the Washington Senators, not the Texas Rangers. Sports people would get very confused finding their Washington Senators players categorized as Texas Rangers players. Come on, they are sports people. I also don't think ambiguity is a problem. It would make no sense to sort political senators in a 1961–1971 time frame, so anyone who sees the category should know something is up. It they follow the link to Washington Senators (1961–1971) which is prominently displayed in two different sports on the category page, all should become clear to the uninitiated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't merge per Good Olfactory, although no objection to a slight rename along the lines Muboshgu suggests if there is ambiguity in the current name (although I don't see a problem). 19:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlendog (talk • contribs)
Keep, no merge, no rename - senators as in Congresscritters would be either "Washington (U.S. state)" or "Washington, D.C." - there is no ambiguity, and there is ample precedent for "dead clubs" to be just as categorised as "live" ones. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 26 December 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.

Category:Native American tribes in Georgia (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: No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Native American tribes in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Native American tribes in Georgia

Nominator's rationale: Does anyone actually think there are Native Americans in the Caucasus? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are likely people with Native American blood who are in or have been in the Caucasus. Perfer to keep the current title, since the main category for Georgia is named thusly. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While I agree that no one actually thinks there are Native Americans in the Caucasus, I think that this category should match its parent category, Category:Georgia (U.S. state), unless there's a strong reason for it not to; merely the fact that the disamiguator is unnecessary in this category isn't that striong a reason. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- While a category for the Causasian country would potentially be empty, I consider it important that categories for the US State should indicate that it is that Georgia and not the country. We have a similar rule for Washington - DC/State. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The disambiguator is added as a matter of course per speedy criterion C2B, not because anyone thinks there are native Americans in the Caucasus. Adding the disambiguator with categories avoids having to go through this debate every single time a category named after the state or country comes up. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and snow close - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:29, 16 December 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.

Category:Cold War foreign relations

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Cold War foreign relations to Category:Cold War

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I stumbled across this while researching a reply in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_6#Category:Cultural_Cold_War. In this case, the Cold War was obviously a contest between nations: between east and west blocs. It was all about "foreign relations," in one way or another, was it not? The parent Category:Foreign relations does not contain any other foreign relations by conflict categories. His category description "This category is for Cold War policy, diplomacy, propaganda, strategy, tactics, and other topics regarding Cold War" is as good summary of the Cold War as a whole as one would want. I believe this is another unnecessary splinter category by User:Target for Today in the Cold War subject area. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:53, 12 December 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.