Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 14

< May 13	May 15 >

May 14

Category:Constantinopolitans

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 - as pointed out, there isn't a need to add a disambiguator. If there's a strong sense that there is, then no prejudice against an immediate renomination for that, but there is clear consensus that Constantinopolitans should get the works. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Constantinopolitans to Category:People from Constantinople (over redirect)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category is for people from "Constantinople (modern Istanbul) during the Byzantine Empire (330–1453)". I don't see any reason we should not use the standard "People from FOO" format for this category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' I think there should be a daterange attached to that, to make it clear what it is for, since some people still refer to the city as Constantinople, and Constantinople has been used to refer to the city when it was Byzantium during the Hellenic period. I do support removing the demonymic form and instead using the straight name. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People from Constantinople (330-1453), nearly half the population of the city would have still self identified with the Greek name well into the 18th century, and other categories like Category:People from Pittsburg, California do not limit themselves to when the name in question was used for the place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we really need a date range here or do we need a simple rewrite to the article to clarify how long the city existed with that name? It is in the article introduction, but not a fact that jumps out at you. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the latter would be a preferable approach. We don't generally include date ranges in "people from" categories to indicate what years the name of the place was really the name of the place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in general we classify people by city with no regards to what the city was then called. Istanbul is Constantinople. This is a sub-section of Category:People from Istanbul, but that category would be just to large and merge together people with too little in common if we did not make it time sensitive. Category:People from Kinshasa would include those who lived there when it was called Leopoldville for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Constantinople" is time sensitive by implication without an explicit date range being stated—evidence of this is the fact that it does not redirect to Istanbul (whereas there is no indepedent article for Leopoldville as a city) . The better solution is to make it clear from the article what the date range is that the city bore this name, and just format the category as we format all "people from" categories. There is no need to make up ad-hoc new category formats when the standard format will work just fine. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Constantinople per nom and the discussion above. - jc37 01:47, 23 May 2012 (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:Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename to "members" per the list article. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters to Category:Members of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It is functioning as a category for members of the organization. If renamed, the parent categories would require adjusting. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a small number of other articles in the category such as Zoologica Scripta, so maybe just create a members subcategory. Tim! (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any others? Two categories and a subcategory of members might not be enough to warrant a category, but it here are more, maybe ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Members of... or Fellows of... Geschichte (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The list article about membership uses the word "members". I don't know if this is correct or not, but I suggest using "members" for consistency unless someone can demonstrate that it should be "fellows". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. On the members/fellows issue, we only use fellows if the organization itself does so. This organization may, but someone needs to provide this, with sources, in the list article if it is so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2012 (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:Academy of Athens

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Academy of Athens to Category:Academy of Athens (modern)
Propose renaming Category:Members of the Academy of Athens to Category:Members of the Academy of Athens (modern)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed speedy. The article about the organization is Academy of Athens (modern), and the nomination is to match the category name to it. Academy of Athens (a disambiguation page) is regarded as ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

copy of speedy nomination

Category:Academy of Athens to Category:Academy of Athens (modern) – C2D per Academy of Athens (modern) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Members of the Academy of Athens to Category:Members of the Academy of Athens (modern)

Oppose The current name is just fine and does not need to be disambiguated. The article is thus named to leave way for a dab page to avoid confusion with the Platonic Academy, however this is not necessary in the category namespace as "Platonic" or "Plato's" would probably be selected would a category for the ancient academy be created (see also commons:Category:Platonic Academy). "Academy of Athens" as a category name is therefore imho not ambiguous. Place Clichy (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nomination to match article name. Tim! (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Better to use an unambiguous title like we do for the article. Jafeluv (talk) 07:38, 16 May 2012 (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:2011 Japanese nuclear incidents and accidents

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:2011 Japanese nuclear incidents and accidents to Category:2011 Japanese nuclear accidents

Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed speedy. The relevant article is at 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, the rename was to propose that the category name match it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

copy of speedy nomination

Category:2011 Japanese nuclear incidents and accidents to Category:2011 Japanese nuclear accidents – C2D per 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The current name is adequate: after the earthquake, some nuclear plants (in Onagawa, in Rokkasho, in Tokai) had to deal with 'incidents'. See for a similar distinction: Category:Industrial accidents and incidents, List of civilian nuclear incidents + List of civilian nuclear accidents. Stefanomione (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Stefanomione. Also per scheme, which is "accidents and incidents" (List of civilian nuclear incidents & list of civilian nuclear accidents) -- 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This highlights an interesting discrepancy. Across most of Wikipedia, we use the phrase 'accidents and incidents'. However, within the category system, we have Category:Nuclear accidents and Category:Civilian nuclear power accidents as the parents of the nominated category. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Stefanomione (did I really just say that? : ) - It looks like the parents are the ones which need the rename, per BF above. - jc37 01:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even a broken clock is correct twice per d...no, no, no—I take it back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:16, 23 May 2012 (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.

Christian studies

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/delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Christian studies books to Category:Books about Christianity
Propose deleting Category:Christian studies

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The books merger was suggested in an inconclusive discussion on May 4, in which "Christian studies" was described as a neologism. The head category "Christian studies" contains only two other articles which are already suitably categorised elsewhere. – Fayenatic London (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2012 (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 Christian 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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Indian Christian books to Category:History books about Christianity and Category:Indian non-fiction books.

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There are no other intersections of subject and nationality for books. – Fayenatic London (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2012 (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:Television news anchors in Los Angeles, California

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Los Angeles, California television anchors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Television news anchors in Los Angeles, California to Category:Los Angeles television anchors

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be consistent with all the other subcategories in Category:American television anchors by city. The names of all these other subcategories use [CITY] television anchors. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Los Angeles, California television anchors. All categories have the state name included.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Los Angeles, California television anchors per MS. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:33, 21 May 2012 (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:Shareholders of Yahoo!

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Shareholders of Yahoo! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't have a scheme for categorization of shareholders of companies, and for good reason!—categorizing organizations or people for holding shares in a particular company would lead to enormous category clutter. Companies can have thousands–even millions—of shareholders. This is overcategorization in a major way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is not a defining characteristic for most individuals and such categorization would create horrible clutter for anyone possessing an E-trade account... Pichpich (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. --KarlB (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete this definition could incude every single person who owns just one share. Could get rather silly.RafikiSykes (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owning shares in Yahoo is not a defining aspect of an organization. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:06, 16 May 2012 (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:High

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:High (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category of dubious value using a highly dubious title. A "high" is not a scientific term: the cocaine/heroin/cannabis highs are the symptoms of cocaine/heroin/cannabis intoxication and are, contrary to the statement in the current hatnote, the exact analog of drunkenness. Pichpich (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see anything about the highest building, highest flight, highest jump, High Schools, etc, here. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete. Arbitrary. How high is high enough? Benkenobi18 (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uselessly ambiguous (see High), and in this form redundant with Category:Substance intoxication. Jafeluv (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my first expectation was that the category would include Mount Everest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Javulev. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2012 (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.