Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 24

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. Courcelles 21:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lower East Side of Manhattan to Category:Lower East Side

Nominator's rationale: Rename per main article Lower East Side and for consistency with Category:Upper East Side and Category:Upper West Side. Alternatively, Category:Lower East Side, Manhattan would be acceptable, but I could find no U.S. neighborhood article or category which disambiguates using the of Bar format. - choster (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the Upper East Side should be disambiguated with Manhattan because Upper Eastside is something else, so someone doing bad spacing would miscategorize things. If that is renamed, then should this be consistent with that? 65.95.13.213 (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Outside the scope. Feel free to nominate Category:Upper East Side though.64.125.143.140 (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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.' There's no non-animated material in the category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Crossover cartoons to Category:Crossover animation

Nominator's rationale: Appears to be limited to animated film and television (cartoons can be drawings and comics as well) and should be changed as animated cartoons are a subset of animation in much the same way that cartoon drawing is a subset of artwork. 4.254.81.32 (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild objection - a subcategory is for both anime and manga so at least some non-animated material is included or at least contemplated. If that's not considered problematic (the anime and manga category is also parented in Category:Crossover comics; I don't really get why anime and manga aren't split the way that Western comics and animation are but that's far beyond the scope) then rename as nominated. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. Courcelles 21:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles which may no longer need images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category was populated by a special function of PhotoCatBot, a bot I maintain. I don't expect to do this again via category tagging, so this category should be considered defunct. —Tim Pierce (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As a question, is there any replacement function (e.g., a page which just lists such articles)? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of trying to implement this service as a bot running on the toolserver. I think the concept is still good but that trying to do it via maintenance templates on talk pages was doomed to failure; it just added more ways for the maintenance tags to go stale. If it's run as a toolserver search engine then at least it won't contribute to the plethora of Wikipedia maintenance tags. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - what's the point? Either an article has an image or it doesn't. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. There was no real objection here except for the two individuals whose article will be moved to Category:Victims of antisemitism. The other articles will be added, if needed, to other appropriate categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Victims of antisemitism in the United States
• Nominators rational. The category is almost empty and is redundant with Category:Antisemitism in the United States QuizzicalBee (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This category slots into the Category:Victims of antisemitism tree. That said, however, only Alan Berg and Leo Frank really belong here, as the other articles are about incidents or examples— and even there, I would argue 2002 Los Angeles Airport shooting is more anti-Israeli rather than antisemitic.- choster (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. Courcelles 21:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Old SV to Category:People educated at Sutton Valence School
• Nominators rational. The current name is totally ambiguous. Abbreviations in wikipedia are in general discouraged. The new name is straigtforward and clear as to what it means.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Category:Old SV is particularly obscure; here is the first non-wiki google hit for Old SV. And then there is SV. Occuli (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. Courcelles 21:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed renaming Category:Former schools in Indiana to Category:Defunct schools in Indiana.

Proposed renaming Category:Former schools in New Hampshire to Category:Defunct schools in New Hampshire

Nominators rational to make this category match other sub-cats of Category:Defunct schools in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the New Hampshire one because I noticed it also did not agree with the others. There is another category that uses former, but that one is not quite the same, and so if I nominate I will do it seperately. It appears to possibly include functional schools that are just organized differently, and I am not sure what the best thing to do with it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. Courcelles 21:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Academy Award for Documentary Short templates to Category:Academy Award for Best Documentary Short templates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is an effort to achieve name consistency in the parent category, Category:Academy Award templates.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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:Henry Ford family. Courcelles 21:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ford family to Category:Ford family (Henry)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate from Category:Ford family (Gerald). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Henry Ford family as more straightforward version. Category:Ford family (Gerald) could be renamed to Category:Gerald Ford family, to match for instance Category:Zachary Taylor family. Cjc13 (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Henry Ford family per Henry Ford. (We've had a similar one recently.) Occuli (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Henry Ford Family. We also need to rename related articles. The line about Josephine Clay Ford (Ford)'s (also refered to at times as Josephine F. Ford, this is the name used in the Detroit Institute of Arts gallery named for her <and her husband>) husband "Not being related to the Ford Family" when he is a Ford, and actually came from a well to-do and established Ford family, just does not sound right.
• Rename to Category:Henry Ford Family, and rename the other one to Category:Gerald Ford family, as better disambiguation, and ambiguity. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 08:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. Courcelles 21:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Science of Mind to Category:Religious Science

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match main article Religious Science. Science of Mind redirects there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That's fine with me, the creator of the cat. • Freechildtalk 14:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. Courcelles 21:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Rationalle: Per the national subcats of Category:Politics. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. Courcelles 21:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Books about United States Presidents to Category:Books about Presidents of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Category:Presidents of the United States and other related categories, such as Category:Parents of Presidents of the United States and Category:Official biographers to the Presidents of the United States. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. If the person is the president of x we put that form. Thus we have Presidents of the United States but American generals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 13:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:English privacy law cases to Category:English privacy case law

Nominator's rationale: Rename. More consistent with the other members of Category:English case law by topic and less awkward sounding. Tim! (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Shouldn't this be Category:English law privacy case law to match the main article, English law? On this side of the pond, we have plenty of case law written in English. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The general rule in wikipedia is that a stand-alone adjective like "English" refers to the nationaity, and if you want it to refer to the language you use "English-language". The one possible confusion is that in most of the US the law was originally built around English common law (Louisiana being the one place that never relied on English common law). However it is often refered to as common law. It seems unnecessarily redundunt to use law twice in the category name, and I am not convinced it makes the category any less ambiguous. It may actually increase the likelihood of people putting things from outside of England in this category because it now stands as a unique forming of the cat name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't as far as I am aware cateogrise case law by the language in which the judgment was written, only by the country. Tim! (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment did these cases really set the law or were they just brought under those laws? If the former, ok; if the latter, the category correctly describes what they are. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Case law" is correct terminology whether or not a particular case set a precedent or not. Harley Hudson (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.