Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 18

< December 17	December 19 >

December 18

Category:Orphans

Category:Orphans - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a recent creation. I'm amazed that this category hasn't been created/discussed in the past, but apparently it hasn't been. We generally do not categorize people according to familial or parentage issues such as this. But rather than advancing a position one way or the other, mainly I'm just looking for a discussion on whether to keep this category or not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete anyone who outlives their parents becomes an orphan. (People do use the word that way, regardless of how old one is when they are "orphaned") 76.65.128.198 (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to orphan, it's most often used in reference to children, though it's not necessarily incorrect to refer to an adult as an adult orphan. I think on balance that's right. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Good Olfactory. While it may be an important to note in an article if a person has lost their parents as a child, it is trivial to categorize and subjective as noted above.--TM 03:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kwanzaa

Category:Kwanzaa - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Only ~~four~~ three articles (in addition to the main)--all can be interlinked easily. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I turned Karamu (feast) into a redirect--it was an unsourced orphan stub (the only inline ref was Wikipedia itself.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female socialists

Category:Female socialists - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This seems like a trivial intersection to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator). There is a long history of International Socialist Women's Conferences and other specifically socialist women's socialist organizations. Socialist feminism is an ideology which specifically links women and socialism. I think it makes perfect sense to have a category containing both female socialist people and socialist women's organizations.--TM 18:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response It looks like you're confusing this with Category:Socialist feminists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not confusing it with anything. There are huge numbers of essays, books and academic articles written on the topic of women and socialism, which has been the standard for keeping other gender or ethnicity-related categories. So, if the question is, do women practice socialism differently than men? The answer is undoubtedly yes. Female socialists, not just "feminist socialists" (though they are primarily coterminous), is a sufficient category.--TM 19:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:EGRS#Special subcategories, combining gender and political orientation is permitted when the "combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right," in the same way that Category:Female heads of state and Category:Women in politics are valid intersections because they are widely recognized as unique. If this is doubted, I can easily provide dozens of academic journal articles, essays etc about women and how their relationship with socialism is different.--TM 13:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:OC#EGRS. Trivial intersection. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hockey team mascots

Propose merging Category:Hockey team mascots to Category:National Hockey League team mascots

Nominator's rationale: This category contains only NHL-related articles and categories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are many mascots for non-NHL teams though... so there is the possibility for growth. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And when Steagle Colbeagle the Eagle gets his own article, we can recreate it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no problem with a merge currently with no prejudice towards recreating the category when/if non-nhl mascot articles appear. -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not that big a deal but Steagle Colbeagle the Eagle is a categorized redirect. I think that makes perfect sense to categorized the redirect and its proper place is in Category:Hockey team mascots not Category:Sports mascots (I've just changed it). However, I'd suggest a rename to Category:Ice hockey team mascots. Pichpich (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going to go with keep now that Pichpich has found a hockey mascot not from the NHL. -DJSasso (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned Steagle above. We're going to keep a category to contain one redirect and one subcategory? That really doesn't seem like what we do.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should check for university teams with mascots, there should be many more to fill the category. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs produced by Sufjan Stevens

Category:Songs produced by Sufjan Stevens - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I have several arguments for the deletion of this and similar named categories under the general heading of non-defining and the analogy is because I cooked my own dinner last night it does not make me a chef, therefore the catgeory should only include people who have been paid to produce, not just people who can claim to be have been involved!:-

WP:SONGS states, Per WP:CATEGORY, a song may be categorized by a characteristic (such as producer, composer, record-label, etc.) only if it is a defining characteristic of the song (i.e. reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define the song as having the characteristic—not just mention it in passing or for completeness). A suitably amended version of this is also in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body
Self-produced song categories are no more defining than Category:Songs Sufjan Stevens sang on or Category:Songs Sufjan Stevens played guitar on which I am sure the wider community would object to vehemently as overcategorization
Record producer states, A record producer is an individual working within the music industry, whose job is to oversee and manage the recording (i.e. "production") of an artist's music. A producer has many roles that may include, but are not limited to, gathering ideas for the project, selecting songs and/or musicians, coaching the artist and musicians in the studio, controlling the recording sessions, and supervising the entire process through mixing and mastering. Producers also often take on a wider entrepreneurial role, with responsibility for the budget, schedules, and negotiations. As you can see there is a natural overlap between what a producer and an artist do, this does not make the artist a "producer."
The technical part of the job of producer is understanding and knowing how to use a mixing desk (especially before the invention of the undo button in the digital age) and is quite a complex task and the job of "production" is done by the recording engineer under the supervision of the artist.
The continual inclusion of redirects in these particular categories is misleading because there may be more than one version of the song and a production would only refer to a specific recording - not all recordings of the song. This category contains 3 members, of which two are redirects.
There are instances where somebody is credited with "producer" just because they are in the room, husband of, or just have the clout to get their name as producer on the disk label! c.f. Category:Songs produced by Yoko Ono.
The term "producer" for some artists is merely a way of telling their fanbase that they have "control of their product," but even then, this can be misleading.
When somebody is only a self-producing artist, inclusion in Category:Songs by producer is a prime example of fancruft.
In general categories in Category:Songs by producer should only include those people who are defined as record producers, or in addition to self-produced, have produced for other artists, this I interpret as contained in the guidelines anyway.

Richhoncho (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As he has produced albums for other artists. By your own criteria, this should be kept. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This nomination is in respect of songs, not albums, and the three entries only refer to Stevens' own songs. As you correctly say, if there was WP articles about other artists' songs, I wouldn't have nominated would I? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there aren't articles about other songs now, but they may well be written later - there is room for expansion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If and when there are actually other artists' songs to be added there would be a prima facie case to reinstate the category. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the principle that producing your self is as valid as producing someone else. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Failed micronations

Category:Failed micronations - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Thoroughly unneeded category, linking together disparate groups such as a protest camp, several tax dodgers, cities which "seceded" to protest one action or another by the government, and a "nation" which claimed all of space. Horologium (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and because of that word "failed." WP:OR perhaps? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Former micronations Lugnuts (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Former" categories are discouraged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But not Category:Former world record holders in athletics (track and field) prohibited? Lugnuts (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a quick search found Category:Former countries, which would be a good parent category. Lugnuts (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that would not be a good parent category; the articles in that category are for former real countries, not fake ones. We already have way too much micronation cruft as it is, and mixing them in with real countries (even defunct ones) only makes the problem worse. Horologium (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Former Countries" might be a WP:IAR candidate, but Category:Former world record holders (etc.) would, indeed, be a category that should be CfD'd - thanks for finding it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Micronations - "failed"/"former"/"current"/etc. categories are discouraged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- We do not like "former" categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who is we? Have they done this search? Lugnuts (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"We" being Wikipedians and the consensus of many CfD discussions now.. The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean we WP:DEMOLISH the ongoing effort to discard the "Former"/"Current"/"Defunct"/"Active"/etc. category types. Thanks for the list, though - that shows us what needs to be CfD'd next. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Micronations. I think it should be acknowledged that there is a fairly robust Category:Former countries tree, but I think making Category:Former micronations might be problematic, if only because it's quite difficult at times to tell when a person has ceased claiming statehood for the entity in question. I think simply subdividing micronations by country in Category:Micronations by country is the best approach for now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Students' associations

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:Students' unions by country is all over the place due to differences in local usage, but I think in foo should be used over than fooish regardless of the actual names of the type of organisation used in particular countries. Tim! (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked the Vietnamese category which is different to the other two in that it contains association of Vietnamese students at universities in other countries. Shows quite clearly the name is ambiguous. Tim! (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that match the rest of the tree, though? If the tree is for associations-in-Foo, those should be removed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Vietnamese category could be renamed Category:Students' associations of Vietnamese to solve the ambiguity. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that matches no existing scheme, as far as I know, and is a grammatical train-wreck. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former North American Soccer League teams

Propose merging Category:Former North American Soccer League teams to Category:North American Soccer League teams

Nominator's rationale: As "former"/"previous" categories are discouraged, I believe that this should be merged into the parent category. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per recent precedent of former minor league baseball affiliates.--TM 18:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Citizen Band Repeaters in Sydney

Propose deleting Category:Citizen Band Repeaters in Sydney - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Category doesn't appear to have much potential for expansion, and isn't part of an overarching category tree. Only content is an article also categorised under parent Category:Citizens' band radio in Australia. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Establishments in the Thirteen Colonies by millennium

Category:Establishments in the Thirteen Colonies by millennium - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Exactly how many millennium did the Thirteen Colonies exit for? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. - I'd agree with the OP, except looking at Category:Establishments by country and millennium, the same could be said about a good many of the other categories that are subcats of it, like this one. Yes, it's a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but there is a rather large category tree that this is a part of. (The tree shouldn't exist, IMHO, but that's a different discussion). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion would not remove this from the tree since the content would still be in Category:2nd-millennium establishments in the British Empire and Category:2nd-millennium establishments by country which is also questionable. Is a colony a country? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The entire Category:Establishments by country and millennium tree is largely superfluous. I suggest it be gotten rid of. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Category fits into a comprehensive scheme. The point is not whether it might be useful to navigate from the bottom up, i.e. from a category for one year's establishments in the thriteen Colonies, that's obviously not something we'd be interested in. The useful part is to be able to find all subordinate members of Category:Establishments by country and millennium. __meco (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The converse to this would be a 21st cnetury category. We abolished the 20th/21st century distinction in category some tme ago as an attempt to re-create a current/past distinction, of which we disapprove. Since there will be little in America to be categorised before the 16th century, there is no need to have a distinction by 1000 years: the highest level for periods should be by century. There may be a case for a millennium category where there are a significant number of BC categiories, for example in Middle East and China, but certainly not in America. It is not merely this category but the whole tree that needs cutting down. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you didn't happen to read my rationale for voting to keep this category, I think it addresses just the issue you are raising. __meco (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]