Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 14 October 16 >

October 15

Category:Management of dyslexia

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. -- Xdamr talk 12:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Management of dyslexia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not enough articles for a category. Hardly any of the articles in this category are specific to dyslexia, let alone management of it. Many don't even mention dyslexia. Alynna ( talk) 23:49, 15 October 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.

1208 and 1349 categories

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 all per nom. -- Xdamr talk 12:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Numbers are ambiguous. Should be renamed for clarity, to disambiguate from year categories Category:1208 and Category:1349, and to match parent articles, 1208 (band) and 1349 (band), respectively. — ξ xplicit 21:59, 15 October 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.

ABC categories

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. Mondalor ( talk) 16:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "ABC" is far too ambiguous. Should be renamed for clarity and to match parent article, ABC (band). — ξ xplicit 21:41, 15 October 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:State Colleges and Universities in the Philippines

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 Category:State Colleges and Universities in the Philippines to Category:State universities and colleges in the Philippines. -- Xdamr talk 12:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:State Colleges and Universities in the Philippines to Category:State universities and colleges in the Philippines
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Straightforward case of duplicate categories. The target category is larger and matches the naming of the parent Category:Universities and colleges in the Philippines. RL0919 ( talk) 21:07, 15 October 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:United Uniting churches

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. Mondalor ( talk) 07:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:United Uniting churches to Category:United and uniting churches
Nominator's rationale: To match the main article United and uniting churches. The current title is misnamed and miscapitalized. Mairi ( talk) 20:22, 15 October 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:Algologists

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 all per nom. -- Xdamr talk 12:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
[NOTE - I have left Category:Algologists as a category redirect. Postdlf ( talk) 14:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. No one in the field uses the term "algologist". The term used by such scientists is "phycologist", and they study "phycology" (not "algology"). The major journals in English are the Journal of Phycology (published by the Phycological Society of America) and Phycologia (published by the International Phycological Society). This rename should apply to the various subcategories as well, such as Category:Algologists by nationality -> Category:Phycologists by nationality, etc. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 20:09, 15 October 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:Megacoaster roller coasters

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/2009 October 24 for further comment.
Suggest merging Category:Megacoaster roller coasters to Category:Megacoasters
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a classification by height and is not really a type of coaster as I read the material. Category:Foo roller coasters appears to be used for the various types. I'll place a notice on the appropriate project page so that that we can get some expert advice about this proposal. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:50, 15 October 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:Hypercoasters

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: withdrawn in favor of the preceding discussion. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Hypercoasters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Is a duplicate of Category:Hypercoaster roller coasters. The roller coasters by type categories are populated by a template and this category was manually added. Since Category:Hypercoaster roller coasters was a red link until a short while ago, that could explain why we had two categories. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:40, 15 October 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:Law firms of the Philippines

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, nomination withdrawn. Bearian ( talk) 23:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Law firms of the Philippines to Category:Filipino lawyers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single entry in this category, it would be much better and efficient to merge it into the larger category. Bearian ( talk) 18:47, 15 October 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:Sports in Las Vegas, Nevada

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. Postdlf ( talk) 14:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Sports in Las Vegas, Nevada to Category:Sports in the Las Vegas metropolitan area
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match main article name that covers all of the contents. Since a few of these are in the city, this rename should not prevent recreation of a category for the city if anyone feels so inclined after the move. This change is inline with the various parent categories. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:10, 15 October 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:Historical figures of Omaha, Nebraska

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Historical figures of Omaha, Nebraska to Category:People from Omaha, Nebraska
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, unclear and unnecessary distinction, given that only notable people merit articles, and the category is being used for people at least as recent in history as the 20th century. Seems to be a sui generis category (except for Category:Icelandic historical figures, which is being used differently and should be turned into a -by century scheme; I've already notified the Iceland WikiProject about this). Postdlf ( talk) 17:46, 15 October 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:United States Presidents from Michigan

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:United States Presidents from Michigan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, OCAT, as trivial intersection of specific office held and unrelated place. This is apparently the only such category, and has a whopping one member. Given that there have been only 43 individual presidents (though 44 presidencies; damn you, Grover Cleveland!) but 50 states, most will be sparsely populated. All presidents are already going to be linked to their home state by other categories ( Gerald Ford has six other Michigan-specific categories), so this is only going to add clutter, particularly given that in our current system people may be "from" multiple places if they've moved around; Ford was actually born in Nebraska. Easily distinguishable from politician categories for federal offices representative of states, such as Category:United States Senators from Michigan, as those offices are expressly linked to those states. Postdlf ( talk) 17:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as both an unnecessary intersection and an underpopulated category. -- RL0919 ( talk) 20:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • delete per nom. Unlike Senators, the state a president is "from" has a minimal effect on his presidential-ness. It perhaps plays a role in getting nominated and elected, but after that, no one really cares what state a president is from (except apparently for the residents of the state, who never stop bragging about it and erects all manner of signs, markers, and freeways reminding people). And there's always competing claims, as now with Obama, with Hawaii and Illinois both claiming ownership. And damn you, Grover Cleveland, indeed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this particular one as having only one representative. But the state a president is from can be quite important, and has been historically. Consider those from Virginia, and those from Massachusetts. Even if its mainly important in the nomination, that's still very important. And residents of a state erecting "all manner of signs, markers, and freeways" is extremely good proof of significance. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. An example of a trivial intersection worthy of inclusion on the instructions page. Debresser ( talk) 18:36, 22 October 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:Transportation in Volusia County

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. Postdlf ( talk) 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Volusia County to Category:Transportation in Volusia County, Florida
Nominator's rationale: State name should be included with county. ---- DanTD ( talk) 13:21, 15 October 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:People of Afro-Asian descent

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. Postdlf ( talk) 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:People of Afro-Asian descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Long-standing consensus has shown to delete mixed ethnicity categories as overcategorization, as shown here and here. — ξ xplicit 06:05, 15 October 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:Heroes' Days

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/2009 October 24. No one seems to support the present name, but there is not yet consensus on how to fix that. Good luck in the next round. Postdlf ( talk) 15:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Heroes' Days ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Discuss. This category was discussed once previously and there was no consensus on any proposed solution. Various people in that discussion correctly identified various problems with the category, not least of which is the difficulty that trying to identify an individual as a "national or international hero" presents. There are many people who may be considered national heroes in their home country while many others throughout the world (and even within their nations) find them despicable. There is also the question of whether any given person qualifies as a hero on the "national" or "international" level. Harvey Milk Day was included in this category and while he is undoubtedly IMHO a hero (although the Christian Right would disagree), whether he can be considered a "national hero" is highly debatable. I suggest moving the three articles that are actually about Heroes' Days to the parent Category:Observances and renaming this category to something like Category:Observances commemorating individual people. Such a name much more clearly matches most of the existing contents of the category and resolves any definitional issues. Eddie's Teddy ( talk) 05:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, in my view "observances" and "holidays" would be interchangeable, with "observances" being a little bit broader, to include also non-"day" observances (e.g., the John Smith Remembrance Hour). I'm not aware of any observances that honour people of this narrower type, so either is probably OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 15 October 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:Indian Female golfers

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, particularly given the existence of Category:Australian female golfers. If divisions by nationality of Category:Female golfers are not desired, then I suggest nominating both for merging to be discussed together. Postdlf ( talk) 15:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Indian Female golfers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
[NOTE - now at Category:Indian female golfers - Postdlf ( talk) 15:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization (only one member). Incidentally miscapitalized. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:03, 15 October 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:Rhône

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. I simply kept everything in the category that was there; if anything doesn't belong, as Johnbod notes below may be the case, feel free to change it. Postdlf ( talk) 15:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Rhône to Category:Rhône (department)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match to main article Rhône (department). Rhône redirect to Rhone, the article about the river. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 15 October 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.

River categories: matching to article names

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:
No consensus on remainder of renames - little support for wholesale elimination of the word 'River', regardless of main article name.
-- Xdamr talk 21:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Swan River
Propose renaming Category:Swan River to Category:Swan River (Western Australia)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Swan River (Western Australia). Swan River is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Tamar River
Propose renaming Category:Tamar River to Category:Tamar River (Tasmania)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match Tamar River (Tasmania). Tamar River redirects there but apparently the name is too liable to be confused with River Tamar. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:River Tiber
Propose renaming Category:River Tiber to Category:Tiber
Propose renaming Category:Islands of the Tiber River to Category:Islands of the Tiber
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Tiber. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:River Seine
Propose renaming Category:River Seine to Category:Seine
Propose renaming Category:Bridges over the River Seine to Category:Bridges over the Seine
Propose renaming Category:Bridges over the River Seine in Paris to Category:Bridges over the Seine in Paris
Propose renaming Category:Islands in the River Seine to Category:Islands in the Seine
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Seine. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Zambezi River
Propose renaming Category:Zambezi River to Category:Zambezi
Propose renaming Category:Tributaries of the Zambezi River to Category:Tributaries of the Zambezi
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Zambezi. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Mekong River
Propose renaming Category:Mekong River to Category:Mekong
Propose renaming Category:Communities on the Mekong River to Category:Communities on the Mekong
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Mekong. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
You mean other than Mekong Airlines, Mekong Wagtail, Mekong Auto, Mekong giant catfish?
Then why don't we just rename Category:Mount Everest to Category:Everest, rename Category:Atlantic Ocean to Category:Atlantic, and so forth?
Context for " Mekong" to indicate the "Mekong river" can be given much more readly in the text of articles than " Category:Mekong" could, siting alone and context-less at the bottom of the page. It seems that the correct name is Mekong river and we lack a pressing need to change it here. Carlaude: Talk 04:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The answer to your questions is easy. Because the main article is at Mekong. "Mekong" standing alone does not mean the airline, the wagtail, the company, or the catfish. Context can be provided in a category just as easily as an article. (Yes, a definition can even appear at the top!) I would agree with you if the article were at Mekong River—but it's not, of course.
To draw an analogy which is exactly on point—we have ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Ganges, which reflects the article Ganges. Yes, we have Ganges and Indus River Dolphin; Ganges, British Columbia; SS Ganges; HMS Ganges (1821); USS Ganges (1794); Ganges Township, Michigan; Ganges, Hérault; Ganges Chasma; Ganges (BBC TV series); and Ganges (whaler), among others—but I think anyone would be laughed out of town if they suggested ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Ganges needed to be moved to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Ganges River for clarity. It's the same reason we don't disambiguate ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Paris or ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:London, even though there are dozens of other places and things in the world of the same names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
While I consider myself fairly knowledgeable in geography, I have never seen the word Mekong before this CfR (to my meomory). Having only heard a word that could be spelled multiple ways means context is all the more needed.
While we are at this, I have added this page to Category:Ganges for you to show us what you mean. Please show us how you think that for category tags "context can be provided... just as easily."
In the text of an article I can wikilink it while also adding context that says "I have never been to the Ganges or any of its tributraies."
Please add this same level of context at the bottom of this project page to show us how you think it can be done to category tags there. Carlaude: Talk 01:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
"While I consider myself fairly knowledgeable in geography, I have never seen the word Mekong before this CfR." Hm, are you American by any chance?
As for the context, I think I misunderstood you and that we were therefore referring to two different things. I was referring to the fact that the context can be added to a category page as easily as it can be to an article page. I was not referring to a category "tag". If you need the extra word to provide the context on the tag itself, it may just be that you haven't heard of the word used in the usual context in which it is used. Finally, I'd say--don't add CfD pages to non-administrative categories, and add a "please" to that one. Such an action could be considered disrupting to prove a point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
When you add a label or explanation to a category page that is not context. It is just a label and/or an explanation.
The category system itself is so utilitarian (devoid of context) that even when we give categories the best names we can think of, and people are looking at the category page itself, with the names of current articles in category, it will still sometimes not clear the purpose or bounds of the category is, and so we rightly add labels or explanations. But this is not a good reason to give a category a poor name-- and Category:Mekong is not the best name we can think of.
Do you have something against Americans being able to use the category system? Carlaude: Talk 13:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
"Do you have something against Americans being able to use the category system?" No, it's nothing like that at all. I thought it was unusual that an American would never have heard of the Mekong, what with the U.S. history in the Vietnam War and in bombing Cambodia, etc. Don't they teach that history in U.S. schools? If not, I suppose it makes sense why they don't. (But I don't even know if you are American, which is why I asked.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Read my above comments again. Having heard of the Mekong is different, than seen the word Mekong. Carlaude: Talk 19:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
That's a pretty subtle difference—hearing about it ("heard") vs. reading about it ("seen") ?—I'm not sure what its significance could be in this context, but if it's an important one for you—OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Tigris River
Propose renaming Category:Tigris River to Category:Tigris
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Tigris. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Euphrates River
Propose renaming Category:Euphrates River to Category:Euphrates
Propose renaming Category:Cities and towns on the Euphrates River to Category:Cities and towns on the Euphrates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article Euphrates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Saint John River
Propose renaming Category:Saint John River to Category:Saint John River (New Brunswick)
Propose renaming Category:Bridges over the Saint John River to Category:Bridges over the Saint John River (New Brunswick)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguate to match main article Saint John River (New Brunswick). Saint John River is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 15 October 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:Fishes of Michigan

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 Category:Fishes of Michigan to Category:Fish of the United States. -- Xdamr talk 21:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Fishes of Michigan to Category:Fish of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, OCAT. None of the included "Michigan fish" (such "Michigan fish" as Atlantic salmon, Rainbow trout...) are endemic to Michigan, but instead are widely distributed, often worldwide. Most of those included are also already in the Category:Fish of the Great Lakes (US) category. Postdlf ( talk) 02:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The category is important, and s an article would be notable be. There are entire books on this particular intersection--see the first two items in [1]. The distribution of animals is customarily written about in this manner, especially in books for amateurs, who are quite reasonably concerned with those they might observe in a particular region. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I don't doubt that those interested in what can be found in Michigan would want a list of fish that can be found there and that there are publications that do this. But that's only a reason to make sure that information can be found by browsing through Michigan topics (and why I already added this category's contents to List of fauna of Michigan), which is where people interested in Michigan will start. It's not a reason to categorize fish of broader North American or even worldwide distribution by their distribution in Michigan or any other subnational divisions of one country, because most people interested in those species, and starting from the species' articles, will not care about that (most included articles don't even mention Michigan). Such narrowly-divided categories should not be maintained, where to do so would plaster dozens of such categories on most entries. We should probably eventually create Category:Lists of fish of the United States, which you could then add just as a wikilink under "see also" to the relevant species articles, a solution far better than 50 category tags. Postdlf ( talk) 14:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, since this not an endemic category. If we had one of these for all 50 states, there would be an awful lot of categories on an awful lot of articles. Isn't that the essence of "category clutter"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per deleters & precedent. The "Dinosaurs of Idaho" issue. An article would be fine, but the salmon would potentially have hundreds of categories if this were allowed. Johnbod ( talk) 13:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree with Postdlf that list articles are a better way to handle this situation, both for fish and all other biota. Using categories by US state could lead to dozens of categories on some articles. And that's without considering Canadian provinces, Mexican states, etc. -- RL0919 ( talk) 14:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- overcategorisation: a Great Lakes category ought to be sufficient. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge like all similar nominations lately. Debresser ( talk) 18:19, 22 October 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:Historical or defunct Philippine newspapers

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. Postdlf ( talk) 16:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Historical or defunct Philippine newspapers to Category:Defunct newspapers of the Philippines
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming format of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Defunct newspapers by country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 15 October 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:World Music Awards winners

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.

Relisted for further discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 25#Category:World Music Awards winners. -- Xdamr talk 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:World Music Awards winners ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The winners of these awards are already listified by year in ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Lists of World Music Award winners. (However, the lists only start with year 13 of the award; I don't see anyone in this category who did not win an award in the 2001–2008 lists.) With all but a few awards, the regular practice set out by the guidelines is to create lists. If anyone can identify any further listification that needs to occur from the category, that should be done. Otherwise, just a straight delete will lead to no data loss. See older related discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
"Check again", brother. 2006 is not missing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As a defining characteristic won by the individuals involved. "No data loss", the claim that as long as the information exists in one form it is unneeded elsewhere, would justify deletion of every category in Wikipedia, with no particular relevance to this one, nor does it explain why the list should be kept and the category deleted and not the category retained and the list deleted. In fact WP:CLN argues for the synergistic retention of both the category AND the list, allowing both to exist as an aid to navigation and and as a means of building each one from the other. Alansohn ( talk) 16:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • You've misunderstood his statement re: "no data loss." No one believes that all information should only exist in one form on Wikipedia, nor could that fairly be extrapolated from the nom's comment. What you've instead inexplicably done is criticize the nom's concern that information not be lost.
    • Re: the applicability of WP:CLN, as has been explained before, it doesn't argue that both categories and lists should always be retained, it just says that the existence of one does not, in and of itself, warrant deletion of the other. WP:CLN expressly acknowledges that there are instances in which only a list should be maintained, or only a category, and that the criteria for determining whether either should exist is specific to those individual forms (i.e., lists are deleted or kept according to guidelines for lists, and categories are deleted or kept according to guidelines for categories). No one else reads WP:CLN as you do. Postdlf ( talk) 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As I understand WP:OCAT re: awards, the concern is that as notable people tend to win many awards throughout their lives, categorizing all of them will just result in a flood of category tags, so these should be limited to the most significant awards in their particular field. What I don't know is how we determine the limit. Why shouldn't World Music Awards eligible for the exception? I don't have a conclusion yet, just trying to focus the discussion. Postdlf ( talk) 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Pertaining to Category:Lists of World Music Awards winners, that category is actually the one that should be considered for any kind of deletion of altering, b/c it is incorrectly named. Really what it is is "World Music Awards by year". There are cats for Grammy award winners and BRIT award winners as well as MTV Europe Music Awards winners. The World Music Awards are amongst the most important music awards that there are (far more important than MTV EMAs) – infact, for non-American/British singers it is usually the most significant award an artist can be eligible to win and worldwide they are regarded as the most important music awards. Apart from their universality, they are probably the only awards show that awards based on merit (due to actual sales). Besides, there are only a few pages by year that exist; looking at this, people potentially would never know that ie Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston have won WMAs, b/c the current existing years to not include them. That is why the cat is needed, and we should try to expand it by adding recipients that are not shown on the current individual year pages. GreekStar12 ( talk) 21:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for your input...I see from your user page that you work on a lot of music-related articles. So do you think that the MTV EMA category should be listified, or any others pruned, or do you think that there aren't too many music award categories at present? Is there any consensus for a standard among any of the relevant Wikiprojects as to which music awards might merit categories? Postdlf ( talk) 21:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per GreekStar and AlanSohn.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:50, 20 October 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_15&oldid=1144513581"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 14 October 16 >

October 15

Category:Management of dyslexia

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. -- Xdamr talk 12:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Management of dyslexia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not enough articles for a category. Hardly any of the articles in this category are specific to dyslexia, let alone management of it. Many don't even mention dyslexia. Alynna ( talk) 23:49, 15 October 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.

1208 and 1349 categories

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 all per nom. -- Xdamr talk 12:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Numbers are ambiguous. Should be renamed for clarity, to disambiguate from year categories Category:1208 and Category:1349, and to match parent articles, 1208 (band) and 1349 (band), respectively. — ξ xplicit 21:59, 15 October 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.

ABC categories

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. Mondalor ( talk) 16:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "ABC" is far too ambiguous. Should be renamed for clarity and to match parent article, ABC (band). — ξ xplicit 21:41, 15 October 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:State Colleges and Universities in the Philippines

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 Category:State Colleges and Universities in the Philippines to Category:State universities and colleges in the Philippines. -- Xdamr talk 12:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:State Colleges and Universities in the Philippines to Category:State universities and colleges in the Philippines
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Straightforward case of duplicate categories. The target category is larger and matches the naming of the parent Category:Universities and colleges in the Philippines. RL0919 ( talk) 21:07, 15 October 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:United Uniting churches

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. Mondalor ( talk) 07:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:United Uniting churches to Category:United and uniting churches
Nominator's rationale: To match the main article United and uniting churches. The current title is misnamed and miscapitalized. Mairi ( talk) 20:22, 15 October 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:Algologists

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 all per nom. -- Xdamr talk 12:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
[NOTE - I have left Category:Algologists as a category redirect. Postdlf ( talk) 14:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. No one in the field uses the term "algologist". The term used by such scientists is "phycologist", and they study "phycology" (not "algology"). The major journals in English are the Journal of Phycology (published by the Phycological Society of America) and Phycologia (published by the International Phycological Society). This rename should apply to the various subcategories as well, such as Category:Algologists by nationality -> Category:Phycologists by nationality, etc. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 20:09, 15 October 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:Megacoaster roller coasters

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/2009 October 24 for further comment.
Suggest merging Category:Megacoaster roller coasters to Category:Megacoasters
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a classification by height and is not really a type of coaster as I read the material. Category:Foo roller coasters appears to be used for the various types. I'll place a notice on the appropriate project page so that that we can get some expert advice about this proposal. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:50, 15 October 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:Hypercoasters

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: withdrawn in favor of the preceding discussion. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Hypercoasters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Is a duplicate of Category:Hypercoaster roller coasters. The roller coasters by type categories are populated by a template and this category was manually added. Since Category:Hypercoaster roller coasters was a red link until a short while ago, that could explain why we had two categories. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:40, 15 October 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:Law firms of the Philippines

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, nomination withdrawn. Bearian ( talk) 23:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Law firms of the Philippines to Category:Filipino lawyers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single entry in this category, it would be much better and efficient to merge it into the larger category. Bearian ( talk) 18:47, 15 October 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:Sports in Las Vegas, Nevada

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. Postdlf ( talk) 14:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Sports in Las Vegas, Nevada to Category:Sports in the Las Vegas metropolitan area
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match main article name that covers all of the contents. Since a few of these are in the city, this rename should not prevent recreation of a category for the city if anyone feels so inclined after the move. This change is inline with the various parent categories. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:10, 15 October 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:Historical figures of Omaha, Nebraska

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Historical figures of Omaha, Nebraska to Category:People from Omaha, Nebraska
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, unclear and unnecessary distinction, given that only notable people merit articles, and the category is being used for people at least as recent in history as the 20th century. Seems to be a sui generis category (except for Category:Icelandic historical figures, which is being used differently and should be turned into a -by century scheme; I've already notified the Iceland WikiProject about this). Postdlf ( talk) 17:46, 15 October 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:United States Presidents from Michigan

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:United States Presidents from Michigan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, OCAT, as trivial intersection of specific office held and unrelated place. This is apparently the only such category, and has a whopping one member. Given that there have been only 43 individual presidents (though 44 presidencies; damn you, Grover Cleveland!) but 50 states, most will be sparsely populated. All presidents are already going to be linked to their home state by other categories ( Gerald Ford has six other Michigan-specific categories), so this is only going to add clutter, particularly given that in our current system people may be "from" multiple places if they've moved around; Ford was actually born in Nebraska. Easily distinguishable from politician categories for federal offices representative of states, such as Category:United States Senators from Michigan, as those offices are expressly linked to those states. Postdlf ( talk) 17:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as both an unnecessary intersection and an underpopulated category. -- RL0919 ( talk) 20:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • delete per nom. Unlike Senators, the state a president is "from" has a minimal effect on his presidential-ness. It perhaps plays a role in getting nominated and elected, but after that, no one really cares what state a president is from (except apparently for the residents of the state, who never stop bragging about it and erects all manner of signs, markers, and freeways reminding people). And there's always competing claims, as now with Obama, with Hawaii and Illinois both claiming ownership. And damn you, Grover Cleveland, indeed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this particular one as having only one representative. But the state a president is from can be quite important, and has been historically. Consider those from Virginia, and those from Massachusetts. Even if its mainly important in the nomination, that's still very important. And residents of a state erecting "all manner of signs, markers, and freeways" is extremely good proof of significance. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. An example of a trivial intersection worthy of inclusion on the instructions page. Debresser ( talk) 18:36, 22 October 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:Transportation in Volusia County

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. Postdlf ( talk) 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Volusia County to Category:Transportation in Volusia County, Florida
Nominator's rationale: State name should be included with county. ---- DanTD ( talk) 13:21, 15 October 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:People of Afro-Asian descent

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. Postdlf ( talk) 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:People of Afro-Asian descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Long-standing consensus has shown to delete mixed ethnicity categories as overcategorization, as shown here and here. — ξ xplicit 06:05, 15 October 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:Heroes' Days

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/2009 October 24. No one seems to support the present name, but there is not yet consensus on how to fix that. Good luck in the next round. Postdlf ( talk) 15:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Heroes' Days ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Discuss. This category was discussed once previously and there was no consensus on any proposed solution. Various people in that discussion correctly identified various problems with the category, not least of which is the difficulty that trying to identify an individual as a "national or international hero" presents. There are many people who may be considered national heroes in their home country while many others throughout the world (and even within their nations) find them despicable. There is also the question of whether any given person qualifies as a hero on the "national" or "international" level. Harvey Milk Day was included in this category and while he is undoubtedly IMHO a hero (although the Christian Right would disagree), whether he can be considered a "national hero" is highly debatable. I suggest moving the three articles that are actually about Heroes' Days to the parent Category:Observances and renaming this category to something like Category:Observances commemorating individual people. Such a name much more clearly matches most of the existing contents of the category and resolves any definitional issues. Eddie's Teddy ( talk) 05:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, in my view "observances" and "holidays" would be interchangeable, with "observances" being a little bit broader, to include also non-"day" observances (e.g., the John Smith Remembrance Hour). I'm not aware of any observances that honour people of this narrower type, so either is probably OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 15 October 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:Indian Female golfers

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, particularly given the existence of Category:Australian female golfers. If divisions by nationality of Category:Female golfers are not desired, then I suggest nominating both for merging to be discussed together. Postdlf ( talk) 15:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Indian Female golfers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
[NOTE - now at Category:Indian female golfers - Postdlf ( talk) 15:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization (only one member). Incidentally miscapitalized. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:03, 15 October 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:Rhône

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. I simply kept everything in the category that was there; if anything doesn't belong, as Johnbod notes below may be the case, feel free to change it. Postdlf ( talk) 15:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Rhône to Category:Rhône (department)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match to main article Rhône (department). Rhône redirect to Rhone, the article about the river. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 15 October 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.

River categories: matching to article names

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:
No consensus on remainder of renames - little support for wholesale elimination of the word 'River', regardless of main article name.
-- Xdamr talk 21:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Swan River
Propose renaming Category:Swan River to Category:Swan River (Western Australia)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Swan River (Western Australia). Swan River is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Tamar River
Propose renaming Category:Tamar River to Category:Tamar River (Tasmania)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match Tamar River (Tasmania). Tamar River redirects there but apparently the name is too liable to be confused with River Tamar. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:River Tiber
Propose renaming Category:River Tiber to Category:Tiber
Propose renaming Category:Islands of the Tiber River to Category:Islands of the Tiber
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Tiber. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:River Seine
Propose renaming Category:River Seine to Category:Seine
Propose renaming Category:Bridges over the River Seine to Category:Bridges over the Seine
Propose renaming Category:Bridges over the River Seine in Paris to Category:Bridges over the Seine in Paris
Propose renaming Category:Islands in the River Seine to Category:Islands in the Seine
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Seine. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Zambezi River
Propose renaming Category:Zambezi River to Category:Zambezi
Propose renaming Category:Tributaries of the Zambezi River to Category:Tributaries of the Zambezi
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Zambezi. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Mekong River
Propose renaming Category:Mekong River to Category:Mekong
Propose renaming Category:Communities on the Mekong River to Category:Communities on the Mekong
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Mekong. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
You mean other than Mekong Airlines, Mekong Wagtail, Mekong Auto, Mekong giant catfish?
Then why don't we just rename Category:Mount Everest to Category:Everest, rename Category:Atlantic Ocean to Category:Atlantic, and so forth?
Context for " Mekong" to indicate the "Mekong river" can be given much more readly in the text of articles than " Category:Mekong" could, siting alone and context-less at the bottom of the page. It seems that the correct name is Mekong river and we lack a pressing need to change it here. Carlaude: Talk 04:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The answer to your questions is easy. Because the main article is at Mekong. "Mekong" standing alone does not mean the airline, the wagtail, the company, or the catfish. Context can be provided in a category just as easily as an article. (Yes, a definition can even appear at the top!) I would agree with you if the article were at Mekong River—but it's not, of course.
To draw an analogy which is exactly on point—we have ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Ganges, which reflects the article Ganges. Yes, we have Ganges and Indus River Dolphin; Ganges, British Columbia; SS Ganges; HMS Ganges (1821); USS Ganges (1794); Ganges Township, Michigan; Ganges, Hérault; Ganges Chasma; Ganges (BBC TV series); and Ganges (whaler), among others—but I think anyone would be laughed out of town if they suggested ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Ganges needed to be moved to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Ganges River for clarity. It's the same reason we don't disambiguate ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Paris or ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:London, even though there are dozens of other places and things in the world of the same names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
While I consider myself fairly knowledgeable in geography, I have never seen the word Mekong before this CfR (to my meomory). Having only heard a word that could be spelled multiple ways means context is all the more needed.
While we are at this, I have added this page to Category:Ganges for you to show us what you mean. Please show us how you think that for category tags "context can be provided... just as easily."
In the text of an article I can wikilink it while also adding context that says "I have never been to the Ganges or any of its tributraies."
Please add this same level of context at the bottom of this project page to show us how you think it can be done to category tags there. Carlaude: Talk 01:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
"While I consider myself fairly knowledgeable in geography, I have never seen the word Mekong before this CfR." Hm, are you American by any chance?
As for the context, I think I misunderstood you and that we were therefore referring to two different things. I was referring to the fact that the context can be added to a category page as easily as it can be to an article page. I was not referring to a category "tag". If you need the extra word to provide the context on the tag itself, it may just be that you haven't heard of the word used in the usual context in which it is used. Finally, I'd say--don't add CfD pages to non-administrative categories, and add a "please" to that one. Such an action could be considered disrupting to prove a point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
When you add a label or explanation to a category page that is not context. It is just a label and/or an explanation.
The category system itself is so utilitarian (devoid of context) that even when we give categories the best names we can think of, and people are looking at the category page itself, with the names of current articles in category, it will still sometimes not clear the purpose or bounds of the category is, and so we rightly add labels or explanations. But this is not a good reason to give a category a poor name-- and Category:Mekong is not the best name we can think of.
Do you have something against Americans being able to use the category system? Carlaude: Talk 13:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
"Do you have something against Americans being able to use the category system?" No, it's nothing like that at all. I thought it was unusual that an American would never have heard of the Mekong, what with the U.S. history in the Vietnam War and in bombing Cambodia, etc. Don't they teach that history in U.S. schools? If not, I suppose it makes sense why they don't. (But I don't even know if you are American, which is why I asked.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Read my above comments again. Having heard of the Mekong is different, than seen the word Mekong. Carlaude: Talk 19:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
That's a pretty subtle difference—hearing about it ("heard") vs. reading about it ("seen") ?—I'm not sure what its significance could be in this context, but if it's an important one for you—OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Tigris River
Propose renaming Category:Tigris River to Category:Tigris
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Tigris. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Euphrates River
Propose renaming Category:Euphrates River to Category:Euphrates
Propose renaming Category:Cities and towns on the Euphrates River to Category:Cities and towns on the Euphrates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article Euphrates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Saint John River
Propose renaming Category:Saint John River to Category:Saint John River (New Brunswick)
Propose renaming Category:Bridges over the Saint John River to Category:Bridges over the Saint John River (New Brunswick)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguate to match main article Saint John River (New Brunswick). Saint John River is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 15 October 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:Fishes of Michigan

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 Category:Fishes of Michigan to Category:Fish of the United States. -- Xdamr talk 21:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Fishes of Michigan to Category:Fish of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, OCAT. None of the included "Michigan fish" (such "Michigan fish" as Atlantic salmon, Rainbow trout...) are endemic to Michigan, but instead are widely distributed, often worldwide. Most of those included are also already in the Category:Fish of the Great Lakes (US) category. Postdlf ( talk) 02:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The category is important, and s an article would be notable be. There are entire books on this particular intersection--see the first two items in [1]. The distribution of animals is customarily written about in this manner, especially in books for amateurs, who are quite reasonably concerned with those they might observe in a particular region. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I don't doubt that those interested in what can be found in Michigan would want a list of fish that can be found there and that there are publications that do this. But that's only a reason to make sure that information can be found by browsing through Michigan topics (and why I already added this category's contents to List of fauna of Michigan), which is where people interested in Michigan will start. It's not a reason to categorize fish of broader North American or even worldwide distribution by their distribution in Michigan or any other subnational divisions of one country, because most people interested in those species, and starting from the species' articles, will not care about that (most included articles don't even mention Michigan). Such narrowly-divided categories should not be maintained, where to do so would plaster dozens of such categories on most entries. We should probably eventually create Category:Lists of fish of the United States, which you could then add just as a wikilink under "see also" to the relevant species articles, a solution far better than 50 category tags. Postdlf ( talk) 14:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, since this not an endemic category. If we had one of these for all 50 states, there would be an awful lot of categories on an awful lot of articles. Isn't that the essence of "category clutter"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per deleters & precedent. The "Dinosaurs of Idaho" issue. An article would be fine, but the salmon would potentially have hundreds of categories if this were allowed. Johnbod ( talk) 13:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree with Postdlf that list articles are a better way to handle this situation, both for fish and all other biota. Using categories by US state could lead to dozens of categories on some articles. And that's without considering Canadian provinces, Mexican states, etc. -- RL0919 ( talk) 14:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- overcategorisation: a Great Lakes category ought to be sufficient. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge like all similar nominations lately. Debresser ( talk) 18:19, 22 October 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:Historical or defunct Philippine newspapers

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. Postdlf ( talk) 16:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Historical or defunct Philippine newspapers to Category:Defunct newspapers of the Philippines
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming format of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Defunct newspapers by country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 15 October 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:World Music Awards winners

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.

Relisted for further discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 25#Category:World Music Awards winners. -- Xdamr talk 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:World Music Awards winners ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The winners of these awards are already listified by year in ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Lists of World Music Award winners. (However, the lists only start with year 13 of the award; I don't see anyone in this category who did not win an award in the 2001–2008 lists.) With all but a few awards, the regular practice set out by the guidelines is to create lists. If anyone can identify any further listification that needs to occur from the category, that should be done. Otherwise, just a straight delete will lead to no data loss. See older related discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
"Check again", brother. 2006 is not missing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As a defining characteristic won by the individuals involved. "No data loss", the claim that as long as the information exists in one form it is unneeded elsewhere, would justify deletion of every category in Wikipedia, with no particular relevance to this one, nor does it explain why the list should be kept and the category deleted and not the category retained and the list deleted. In fact WP:CLN argues for the synergistic retention of both the category AND the list, allowing both to exist as an aid to navigation and and as a means of building each one from the other. Alansohn ( talk) 16:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • You've misunderstood his statement re: "no data loss." No one believes that all information should only exist in one form on Wikipedia, nor could that fairly be extrapolated from the nom's comment. What you've instead inexplicably done is criticize the nom's concern that information not be lost.
    • Re: the applicability of WP:CLN, as has been explained before, it doesn't argue that both categories and lists should always be retained, it just says that the existence of one does not, in and of itself, warrant deletion of the other. WP:CLN expressly acknowledges that there are instances in which only a list should be maintained, or only a category, and that the criteria for determining whether either should exist is specific to those individual forms (i.e., lists are deleted or kept according to guidelines for lists, and categories are deleted or kept according to guidelines for categories). No one else reads WP:CLN as you do. Postdlf ( talk) 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As I understand WP:OCAT re: awards, the concern is that as notable people tend to win many awards throughout their lives, categorizing all of them will just result in a flood of category tags, so these should be limited to the most significant awards in their particular field. What I don't know is how we determine the limit. Why shouldn't World Music Awards eligible for the exception? I don't have a conclusion yet, just trying to focus the discussion. Postdlf ( talk) 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Pertaining to Category:Lists of World Music Awards winners, that category is actually the one that should be considered for any kind of deletion of altering, b/c it is incorrectly named. Really what it is is "World Music Awards by year". There are cats for Grammy award winners and BRIT award winners as well as MTV Europe Music Awards winners. The World Music Awards are amongst the most important music awards that there are (far more important than MTV EMAs) – infact, for non-American/British singers it is usually the most significant award an artist can be eligible to win and worldwide they are regarded as the most important music awards. Apart from their universality, they are probably the only awards show that awards based on merit (due to actual sales). Besides, there are only a few pages by year that exist; looking at this, people potentially would never know that ie Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston have won WMAs, b/c the current existing years to not include them. That is why the cat is needed, and we should try to expand it by adding recipients that are not shown on the current individual year pages. GreekStar12 ( talk) 21:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for your input...I see from your user page that you work on a lot of music-related articles. So do you think that the MTV EMA category should be listified, or any others pruned, or do you think that there aren't too many music award categories at present? Is there any consensus for a standard among any of the relevant Wikiprojects as to which music awards might merit categories? Postdlf ( talk) 21:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per GreekStar and AlanSohn.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:50, 20 October 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_15&oldid=1144513581"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE