Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 8

< February 7	February 9 >

February 8

Category:Independent colleges

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 CFD 2014 Feb 18. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Independent colleges to Category:Independent colleges in the United States

Nominator's rationale: To clarify that the scope of the category relates only to the United States.
I am not sure whether the category is worth keeping (it has only 4 articles, and I dunno if it could expanded), but if kept it should be renamed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

rename, but not this This seems to actually be Category: American colleges which do not accept federal aid or something like that; "independent" does not capture the apparent membership criterion with any clarity. Mangoe (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mangoe: Good point. A rename along those lines would indeed be clearer, and I'd be happy to support it. Your proposed title feels a little verbose, but I can't think of anything more concise, so let's go with that unless someone can think of an alternative. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That said, IIRC only two of the four articles actually indicate they should be so classified. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would not opposed deletion. On reflection, it occurs to me that the refusal of all federal funds is something which could change at any time, and transient characteristics make for poor categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Delete as de facto "current" category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2014 (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 Indian Wars weapons

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:American Indian Wars weapons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: For a mass-produced object like a weapon which wars it has been used in is not generally a WP:DEFINING characteristic and could lead to some weapons being in a large number of categories - instead we normally categorize weapons by country of origin and period of introduction. For info: there is List of American Indian Wars weapons. For info: example of previous similar CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_28#Category:Spanish.E2.80.93American_War_weapons DexDor (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - List of American Indian Wars weapons is an appropriate means of presenting this information. A category, however, is not something that is appropriate here; while there may be some wars for which most or all weapons used are defined by their service, this is not one of them; saying the Hotchkiss gun is somehow defined by this is downright perplexing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:20, 9 February 2014 (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:Islamic books

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 per C2C. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Islamic books to Category:Books about Islam

Nominator's rationale: Present title is ambiguous. It could mean "Books written by Muslims", not what the headnote intends. The proposed title would be more in line with Category:Books about Christianity and Category:Books about Judaism, both subcategories of Category:Books about religion.Mhockey (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom; books don't have religions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2014 (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:Photography museums 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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Photography museums in the United States to Category:Photography museums and galleries in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Redundant categories. Lexaxis7 (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Museum vs gallery is splitting hairs. - Altenmann >t 18:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support the merge. Yes, there are photography museums that can't be called galleries, and there are photo galleries that can't be called museums. However, there are plenty of outfits that can be called either. -- Hoary (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2014 (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:Surnames derived from patronyms

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 CFD 2014 Feb 18. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Surnames derived from patronyms to Category:Patronymic surnames

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I don't want to create a separate category for surnames which are patronyms. This would be an unnecessry and difficult to prove hair-splitting for some cultures, e.g., Russian language. Not to say that "patronymic surname" is a valid linguistical term. - Altenmann >t 16:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very akin to "Eponymous cities" we deleted long ago; derivation of a name is not a defining characteristic on which to categorize. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, derivation of a surname is a very defining and very researched characteristic. Unlike "eponymous cities" (which is indeed a random trait). - Altenmann >t 04:31, 10 February 2014 (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:Saint Petersburg disambiguation pages

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) 23:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Saint Petersburg disambiguation pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation pages do not (by definition) have a topic so should not be in normal topic categories (although we make an exception for categories populated by disambiguation templates). If any wikiproject wishes to note its interest in a dab page then it should tag the talk page - e.g. to place it in Category:Disambig-Class Russia articles. For info: An example of a previous similar discussion is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_29#Category:Philosophy_disambiguation (although in this case there isn't such a specific dab-class category). DexDor (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I understand the rationale behind this nomination. My response is simple: the category as it exists is *useful*. I did add class=disambig to the WP:Russia tags on the articles. However, as is evident from looking at this set of articles, they are not just about Russia. Saint Petersburg has had such a large influence world-wide that there are places around the world that share the same name, thus the disambig pages. Historically, it is very rich, as well, thus the different treaties, conventions, declarations, etc. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Have also added {WP:History|class=disambig} tags to several of these articles. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is the category is useful (to readers or editors) ? The contents are not articles, they are dab pages. That they are not just about Russia is rather the point - they shouldn't be under the article-space category for Russia. DexDor (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there is anything encyclopedic worth nothing about these topics in relation to Saint Petersburg, they should be in an article not a disambiguation category. older ≠ wiser 14:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unlike the extremely broad :physosophy disambiguation:, this one is clearly useful, being well-defined and covering a disambig-rich subject. Another suggestion: dab-russia, suffers forem being too broad. - Altenmann >t 18:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no precedent for such topic-specific disambiguation categories. Examine the subcategories of Category:Disambiguation pages -- in particular under Category:Place name disambiguation pages -- this category stands out as completely atypical. I don't think this is a good precedent to be setting. older ≠ wiser 23:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, you are mistaken: (a) there is Category:Lists of squares and plazas sharing the same title and (b) Category:Place name disambiguation pages is completely useless for humans and needs to be heavily depopulated, i.e., your opinion about bad precedent is disagreed. And by the way: "no precedent" is usually not a valid argument in wikipedia (WP:OTHERTHINGSDONTEXIST or something). - Altenmann >t 00:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is Category:Lists of squares and plazas sharing the same title in any way comparable to Category:Saint Petersburg disambiguation pages? There is no similarity. Disambiguation page categories are, for the most part, not intended to be useful by humans in the same way that article categories should be. No precedent is a valid argument when it comes to setting a bad precedent. older ≠ wiser 01:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course, there is a similarity: they are "topic-specific disambiguation categories". Once again, "bad" is your personal opinion, rather than an argument. Same for your narrow interpretation of categories. - Altenmann >t 03:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No, one is a category of list articles of things of the similar types that have the same name. The other is a miscellaneous ill-defined grab bag of topics vaguely and subjectively related to Saint Petersburg. Yes it is my opinion that this is a bad precedent and just because it my opinion does not mean it is not a bad precedent. older ≠ wiser 03:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Category:Lists of squares and plazas sharing the same title happens to be another category that muddies the distinction between disambiguation pages and other pages (e.g. lists and SIAs). On Wikipedia a page that consists of a list of topics sharing the same title is a disambiguation page (or possibly a SIA). That a dab page title includes the word "square" or "plaza" does not mean that all the entries are about urban spaces (e.g. see Queen Square). DexDor (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed opinion after arguments of BrownHairedGirl. - Altenmann >t 03:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This sort of category is no use for navigation by readers; it is purely a maintenance tool for the use of editors. We already have a well-established WikiProject-based mechanism for tracking disambiguation pages, through the use of talk page project banners. If WP:RUSSIA wants to specifically track St Petersburg dab pages, this can be done easily by creating a St Petersburg task force. Its project banner {{WikiProject Russia}} uses {{WPBannerMeta}}, which makes this easy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this seems to be unique in the Wiki, without any explanation why this would be useful to anyone either reader or maintainer. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Saint Petersburg" to mean the one in Russia in this category context makes no sense, disambiguation pages about St.Petersburg should not be restricted to that place in Russia. -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2014 (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:Virtual economy

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Virtual economy to Category:Virtual economies

Nominator's rationale: Rename per naming conventions for set categories. Trivialist (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that this category encompasses multiple virtual economies or just one virtual economy with various components of it included here. Hmains (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Category encompasses multiple virtual economies. That said, it may need some cleaning out of non-WP:DEFINING content. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:26, 10 February 2014 (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.