Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 16

< February 15	February 17 >

February 16

Category:Canada Education Program

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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Canada Education Program to Category:Wikipedia Canada Education Program
Category:Canada Education Program courses, 2011 Q3 to Category:Wikipedia Canada Education Program courses, 2011 Q3 added later
Category:Canada Education Program courses, 2012 Q1 to Category:Wikipedia Canada Education Program courses, 2012 Q1 added later

Nominator's rationale: Convention? To identify it as a project category rather than a content category. The two subcats also need renaming. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the 2 subcats need renaming, then add them to the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added the two subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 19 February 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:Conjugations

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) 19:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Conjugations to Category:Grammatical conjugation

Nominator's rationale: The current name implies that this is a set category containing articles about individual conjugations but, in reality, it is a topic category containing articles related to the topic of grammatical conjugation. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of WP:CFD/S listing and discussion

Category:Conjugations to Category:Grammatical conjugations – C2D per Grammatical conjugation Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While this would be outside the scope of WP:CFD/S, I think that this should be converted from the current set category to a topic category: Category:Grammatical conjugation. The contents of the category are not conjugations but rather articles about subjects related to the topic of grammatical conjugation. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are probably right that it should be changed—good luck in convincing the grammarians, or the logicians—I mean the logical grammarians. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to a full discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – it is, as the nom says, a topic category (with a topic subcat - Category:Grammatical number) and should be singular. And conjugation is ambiguous. Oculi (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Needs to be disambiguated, and it is a topic category. (I already suggested my agreement in the speedy section: please don't double count my opinion.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 16 February 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:GA-Class Queens of the Stone Age taskforce articles

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: Speedy delete (G7-author). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is covered by Category:GA-Class Queens of the Stone Age articles which adheres to the naming style of the rest of the categories. J36miles (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Are the two categories the exact same? Or are there some that appear in the taskforce that don't appear in the main one? Jeancey (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made a mistake in this process and created redundant categories. I thought I had CSD'd them all, but apparently I missed this one. I endorse this category being deleted, either in this process or if you close this CFD I'll CSD it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it is a CSD valid category, I would do that, because this will take longer. Jeancey (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is under G7, I'm the only editor (aside from the deletion tag). Can't do both at the same time, though, right? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I was thinking that this would be withdrawn by the nominator and then CSD'd Jeancey (talk) 17:45, 16 February 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.

Cats to Indy

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) 11:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indy Racing League teams to Category:IndyCar Series teams

Propose renaming Category:Indy Racing League tracks to Category:IndyCar Series tracks

Propose renaming Category:Indy Racing League media to Category:IndyCar Series media

Propose renaming Category:Indy Racing League people to Category:IndyCar Series people

Propose renaming Category:Indy Racing League drivers to Category:IndyCar Series drivers

Propose renaming Category:Indy Racing League owners to Category:IndyCar Series team owners

Propose renaming Category:Indy Racing League on the radio to Category:IndyCar Series on the radio

Propose renaming Category:Indy Racing League on television to Category:IndyCar Series on television

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name of this particular racing series is IndyCar Series, which it has been since 2003. Now, "Indy Racing League" is still the official name of the sanctioning body (d/b/a IndyCar), so the top-level Category:Indy Racing League should probably remain as-is (Category:IndyCar Series wouldn't work for the sanctioning body as a whole, while Category:IndyCar would be ambigiuous). These cats proposed here, however, clearly refer to the series itself, which is an extant and continuing body under the proposed name and, therefore, as there is no "Indy Racing League Series", but an "IndyCar Series", using the "IndyCar Series" name is the more appropriate name here. (Note for instance Category:Indy Racing League drivers, categorised under Category:Formula racing drivers by series and Category:Racing drivers by American series; "Indy Racing League drivers" is nonsensical under that scheme while "IndyCar Series" is.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support I created a number of these categories many years ago and I have been meaning to do this for awhile but have never gotten around to it. Thanks! -Drdisque (talk) 16:05, 16 February 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:Million Dollar Quartet members

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This was a one-off supergroup--hardly a band. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I considered that when I created the category, but the group certainly passes the notability test, and I didn't see longevity as a factor. YMMV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It isn't "notability" but 'defining-ness' that we must consider. To quote from the parent article, this quartet was "the name given to recordings made on Tuesday December 4, 1956 in the Sun Record Studios in Memphis, Tennessee. The recordings were of an impromptu jam session..." A single such jam session does not define these notable individual musicians. It's a fascinating convergence of four great talents, but a fleeting one. And given that it refers to a single jam session, I wonder if WP:OC#PERF doesn't apply, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't really matter whether this relates to a single jam session, a year in the recording studio, or a 5-minute recording. What matters is the notability of the group and how defining it was for participants. 2400 mentions on Google Books is enough for me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 19 February 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:Obama administration controversies

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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Obama administration controversies to Category:Barack Obama administration controversies

Nominator's rationale: Per main article/cat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the convention of Category:United States presidential administration controversies. Also, I don't think that it is common practice to refer to American presidential administration by the full name of the president – e.g. 'Clinton administration' rather than 'Bill Clinton administration'. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the two Bush categories under the parent cat mentioned by BF above are, I presume, the reasoning behind this nomination - but they are outliers because they have to be disambiguated (in real life as well as on Wikipedia!). You never hear any administration other than the Bushs' being referred to as anything other than "Foo Administration". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:32, 16 February 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.

I agree with the outcome. I would say Johnson, Rooselvelt and Adams are other exceptions. However they are exceptions for the same reason that Bush is, and Obama is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Darth Vader actors

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) 12:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Created by an editor I just indeffed; I really can't see any more than two other names (Brock Peters, at least) being added to this. Daniel Case (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OC#PERF. We don't categorize actors by character they have played. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What purpose could this serve? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while the role of Vader seems like something that would be defining, it is, oddly enough, not at all. (Who, beyond the most passionate Star Wars fan, remembers David Prowse as Vader? Anybody?) To sum up this deletion !vote's likely delete result: All too easy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No encyclopedic purpose . The unseen voice is probably more famous than the bodies in the black costume. I gotta kid ya tho Bushranger us geeks of a certain age and film fanaticism know David Prowse's other roles all too well. MarnetteD | Talk 11:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete performer by performance. ```~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlossuarez46 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 17:21, 22 February 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.

Pentagraphs and hexagraphs

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) 12:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories each contain only one article—pentagraph and hexagraph, respectively. To my knowledge, there are no articles that could be added to either category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very obtuse of us to have these two categories. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 16 February 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:Squares in Tripoli

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 to Category:Squares in Libya and Category:Tripoli. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Squares in Tripoli to Category:Squares in Libya

Nominator's rationale: There is only one square in this category, and only one in the parent category. Two squares are not enough to justify a split. Also, since, to my knowledge, there aren't any other major squares in Tripoli, this category is unlikely to grow at all. Jeancey (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dual upmerge to Category:Squares in Libya and Category:Tripoli. The nom's reasoning is sound in that there is no need to split out a subcategory for Tripoli when we seem to have only two articles about squares in the whole of Libya; I'm sure there are many squares in the country, but we should not have extra categories to accomodate them until the articles are created. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
do not change. Upmerging would lose this square from the parent category: Category:Squares and plazas by city, a fact that the above comments do not take into account. Is this desirable? There does not seem to be a 'list of squares by city' so this category-based navigation aid would be lost. This category is part of pattern. Hmains (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are you suggesting, then, that we create a Category:Squares in Benghazi to account for the single other article about a square in the country? The pattern isn't required, it's there if needed. In this case, it is completely unneeded. A good example would be the merge from Category:Mediterranean port cities and towns in Libya to Category:Port cities and towns in Libya because ALL of them were on the Mediterranean. While the Mediterranean port cities and towns by country pattern exists, it was completely unneeded, and thus was ultimately removed. I believe that this is a similar type of situation. Jeancey (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Don't need a category for a single article. Mad Man American (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dual Upmerge per Black Falcon. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dual upmerge - as above. Neutrality^talk 08:57, 21 February 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.