Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 24 May 26 >

May 25

[edit]

Category:Vision Factory artist

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 12:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Vision Factory artist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorization of performers by management company is a form of overcategorization. Cf deleted Scott Boras clients; Players of American football by agent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 25 May 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:Christianity in Vatican City

[edit]
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 per the "it's a sovereign nation but not a separate city in a 'by city' category tree" argument. Not going to upmerge as the two subcategories are already well-categorized in other religious categories; this doesn't stop anyone from being bold if they want to upmerge these. Kbdank71 13:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Christianity in Vatican City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems a bit, er, redundant. But I could be wrong. Please discuss. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. Interesting. The article Vatican City alternates between the two terms (with/without "The"), but the state's official title is "The state of the Vatican City"). I've never heard it referred to before without the definite article, but it seems thateven the locals refers to it that way, so fair enough. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wha? Whether adjective or noun, it's either "Vatican City," "The Vatican," or "The Holy See" everywhere I've lived in the U.S.— essentially never "the Vatican City."-choster (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a separate state but not, despite the name, a separate city. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I nvever said it was. All i said was that it is technically separate from Rome, which it is. It's a different country. Grutness...wha? 09:35, 30 May 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:Stabæk I.F. players

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Stabæk I.F. players to Category:Stabæk Fotball players
Nominator's rationale: Correct name of the football club. Rettetast (talk) 19:48, 25 May 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:Fredrikstad F.K. players

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fredrikstad F.K. players to Category:Fredrikstad FK players
Nominator's rationale: No dots in the club name. Rettetast (talk) 18:42, 25 May 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:Sentential logic

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sentential logic to Category:Propositional logic
Nominator's rationale: Vastly more common in the literature Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:30, 25 May 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:Larvik Turn & I.F. players

[edit]
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 remove the periods; no consensus on any other change to the abbreviation. Kbdank71 13:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Larvik Turn & I.F. players to Category:Larvik Turn & IF players
Nominator's rationale: No dots in the clubs name. Rettetast (talk) 17:56, 25 May 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:Odd Grenland B.K. players

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Odd Grenland B.K. players to Category:Odd Grenland players
Nominator's rationale: No dots in the club name Rettetast (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article moved. Proposal updated. Rettetast (talk) 19:44, 25 May 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:Tromsø I.L. players

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tromsø I.L. players to Category:Tromsø IL players
Nominator's rationale: No dots in the club name. Rettetast (talk) 17:54, 25 May 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:Aalesund F.K. players

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Aalesund F.K. players to Category:Aalesunds FK players
Nominator's rationale: No dots in the club name. Rettetast (talk) 17:53, 25 May 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:Vålerenga I.F. players

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Vålerenga I.F. players to Category:Vålerenga Fotball players
Nominator's rationale: This category only contains footballers, but the name does not reflect that. Vålerengens IF is a multi-sports club that also includes hockey. The players in this category are players of Vålerenga IF Fotball that is a part of the multi-sports club. Rettetast (talk) 17:52, 25 May 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:Strømsgodset I.F. players

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Strømsgodset I.F. players to Category:Strømsgodset IF players
Nominator's rationale: No dots in the clubs name. Rettetast (talk) 17:46, 25 May 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:Viking F.K.

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Viking F.K. to Category:Viking FK
Nominator's rationale: No dots in the club name. The subcats should also be moved.

--Rettetast (talk) 17:41, 25 May 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:F. C. Lyn Oslo

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:F. C. Lyn Oslo to Category:FC Lyn Oslo
Nominator's rationale: No dots in the clubname. Subcat Category:F.C. Lyn Oslo players should be moved from Category:FC Lyn Oslo players. Rettetast (talk) 17:38, 25 May 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:Moss F.K.

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Moss F.K. to Category:Moss FK
Nominator's rationale: There is no dots in the club name. Subcategory Category:Moss F.K. players should be moved to Category:Moss FK players. Rettetast (talk) 17:36, 25 May 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:Living people

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Living people to Category:Living persons
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Persons is the plural of "person," not people. There are several categories that make this error, but this is a good place to discuss. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The BLP tag on the talk page makes this category redundant (articles are listed in Category:Biography articles of living people too). Lugnuts (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you check whether the overlap is 100%? I believe a common scenario is for people to add the "living people" category, and then for those who are more into the nuts-and-bolts of Wikipedia to come along later and update the talk page. For that reason alone, keeping this as an article category, rather than a talk page category, is good. Carcharoth (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep vs Delete: Keep. It can't be declared redundant to a talk page category, because a talk page category isn't in mainspace, where it can be used by mainspace logic. For example, I'm pretty sure the BLP editnotice relies on it. Snowball keep 7 months ago.
Rename vs No rename: No rename. I advise people (or persons?) to read the last debate about this one, which ended Nom+2 in support; 9 for oppose - that's numbers of course, but the oppose arguments are rather compelling. One of the support votes looks jokey as well. Consensus can change, of course, but as I said, the oppose points raised last time round are rather strong, IMO. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 09:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Occuli; no compelling reason to change it, IMO. --FeanorStar7 (talk) 15:34, 25 May 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.

Locomotive designer and railway engineer categories

[edit]
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 to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_7#Locomotive_designer_and_railway_engineer_categories,--Aervanath (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Locomotive designers/builders to Category:Locomotive builders and designers
Category:Austrian railway engineers to Category:Austrian locomotive designers
Category:British railway engineers to Category:British locomotive designers
Category:German railway engineers to Category:German locomotive designers
Category:Swiss railway engineers to Category:Swiss locomotive designers
Nominator's rationale: Rename for the sake of accuracy and clarity. In most English dialects, railway engineer denotes a person who drives and operates the train, not designs it. Also, I think the main category should be "Locomotive builders and designers", rather than having a slash in it. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 05:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would say rename the category as Category:Locomotive designers (and seperated into Fooland locomotive designers, ie entries by nationality). Also incorporate Category:Locomotive superintendents, which seems to be an old British term for Chief Mechanical Engineer. And call it locomotive designers not locomotive builders and designers (the builder is either a railway workshop or a separate company, or going down to the shop floor is the machinist!).

Railway engineers (category) in practice seem to be mechanical engineers, which ignores the contributions of railway civil engineers in surveying and locating and laying track and bridges/tunnels. There does not even seem to be an article on A M Wellington the great railway location engineer!

Re Rail Transport categories, I have recently made various nationality categories for Category:People in rail transport; so that “German people in rail transport” can also link into “Rail transport in Germany” and “German people by occupation”. How about categorising all the entries in “People in rail transport” by nationality so that they link into these country categories also? Hugo999 (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see OED "Engineer" 5 b: in England only those in charge of engines of war and ship engines, in the US train drivers. Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first two might be ok, but 2engineers" is clearer and more usual than "designers" for civil engineers. Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must admit to being a little confused by the initial comments that "In most English dialects, railway engineer denotes a person who drives and operates the train, not designs it." That may be true in the US with railroad engineers, but in my experience the terms locomotive driver or locomotive operator are far more widely used for, erm, locomotive drivers in UK English-speaking countries (including places like Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand), whereas railway engineer tends to be used for the actual engineers. Sir Nigel Gresley was a railway engineer, but that doesn't mean he drove the trains. Given that we tend to use UK English for non-English speaking countries in Europe on Wikipedia, the above categories are correctly named. I suspect some work is needed both on the title of this category and on an article on railway engineers (which should at least be a disambiguation page rather than a redirect). But even if it was a redirect, this category would still be confusingly named, so the split Vegaswikian suggests is probably a good one. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Railway engineer is now a dab page. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Railroad engineer is the one who operates trains. Confusion is from the similar names and the different usage of the term engineer. 71.55.122.199 (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • While it's true that in the US and Canada, a railroad engineer is an engine driver, as far as I know the term railway engineer is never used there - and that term has a different meaning in the places where it is used. I agree that the category should be renamed and split per Vegaswikian's suggestion, I'm just pointing out that you're arguing under a misapprehension if you think that the term "railway engineer" is widely used for a locomotive operator "in most English dialects" - as far as I know, it's rarely used in any dialects that way. It's not used that way in the US or Canada (where the word "railroad" is used), and it's not used that way in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, or just about anywhere else which uses UK English. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category:Rail transport designers will have as subcategories “Fooland locomotive designers” ie by nationality and as well as Austrian, British German & Swiss there should be American, Canadian, French and Italian locomotive designers; I suppose there would be someone from each of those countries. Are there engineers to justify a separate category by country for civil/construction/surveying and location engineers? The categories for Railway entrepreneurs and perhaps Railway pioneers have only Austrian, German & Swiss subcategories at present; if they are useful categories there should be subcategories for the other countries as well. Hugo999 (talk) 23:20, 4 June 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:Railway engineers

[edit]
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 to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_7#Category:Railway_engineers.--Aervanath (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Railway engineers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, redundant with Category:Locomotive designers/builders; see also above nomination. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 05:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/split per discussion in the next section up. Alansohn, these are a completely different thing to railroad engineers, who are engine drivers - these are the actual railway engineers, i.e., the civil engineers and designers who make the railways. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 26 May 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:Grammy award nominees

[edit]
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: G4 speedily deleted (caps change only from previous category). Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Grammy award nominees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-notable and unnecessary category. There's no precedent of "award nominees" or anything of that type. — Σxplicit 04:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the following comment was added to the page after the discussion was speedily closed:
Hi Explicit and everyone else. I hope I'm responding in the correct place. I have now read a response to me from Explicit that included the following explanation:

The main reason I've nominated the category for deletion is for the fact that it lacks a precedent. For example, for Category:Grammy Award winners, is a subcategory of Category:Music award winners, which is a subcategory of Category:Award winners, and so on. As you'll see, there is currently no Category:Award nominees, and I believe your category is the only one to include nominees.

If my new category of Grammy award nominees needs to be a subcategory of Music award winners and in turn a subcategory of Award winners, that's fine. But, to consider a Grammy Nomination less than an award is quite insulting to many musicians who have been significantly recognized and honored by their. Most musicians go their entire career with no Grammy Nominations whatsoever. More importantly, the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences (NARAS or The Grammys) sends out ballots to its membership, who vote in the first round for the nominees. From a very long list of submissions (submitted only by members and music companies) the membership votes in a first round to determine who the nominees are for each category. NARAS considers the nomination itself as an award and even holds an official ceremony to honor the nominees several days prior to the telecast. During that ceremony, certificates are presented to each nominee for having won the nomination. By way of example, when a movie or an actor is nominated for an academy award, but doesn't win, the studio certainly advertises the nomination long after the awards ceremony. Just being nominated is and of itself is a notable event that is clearly notable and worthy of recognition.

I submit that artists who have won a nomination, should be entitled to be classified as something less than a Grammy Award Winner, but certainly more than an artist who has never been nominated at all.

Explicit appears to be pursuing a career in the music industry himself, and I wish him the best of luck. As a voting member of the academy, I hope to be voting for him one day. If he is nominated, I am quite certain he would consider it an honor worthy of recognition within the pages of Wikipedia, regardless of whether he actually took home the Grammy.

I thank you in advance for considering my opinion.

Todd --Warriorboy85 (talk) 06:17, 25 May 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:Studio killers

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Studio killers to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Rename or delete or do something. I'm speechless—meaning I'm not too sure what to propose here. The idea from the definition would suggest that this category is essentially Category:Films that caused their studio production companies to shut down due to poor performance. I expect any suggested rename is going to be awkward. I suggest deletion be considered, since there may not be a 1:1 relationship between the film's performance and the studio closing. There are always other factors—most likely these films were just one important straw in the load that broke the camel's back. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's saying your intentions were stupid — but I think you might want to familiarize yourself with categorization policies, such as WP:OCAT, to get a better sense of what's considered useful categorization or not. It's not necessarily valid or useful to create a category for absolutely every possible grouping of multiple topics that you can think of — we're an encyclopedia, not The Book of Lists. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 29 May 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:Speculative Science

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating Category:Speculative Science
Nominator's rationale: Delete (or rename if someone knows what this is really all about). I'm not sure what to do with this, though I'm leaning towards deletion. There is no article about Speculative science, which suggests to me that it's probable that this is a POV-fork with Category:Pseudoscience, though I can understand the distinction the creator is trying to draw. But the only article currently included is Scalar field theory (pseudoscience), which (if there is a distinction between speculative science and pseudoscience) obviously belongs in a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience (where it already is), making the nominated category empty and/or redundant. I suggest an article be written prior to the creation of a category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:23, 25 May 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:Parker1297

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parker1297 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per previous consensus to disallow categories for user space organisation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 25 May 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:Irish Pig Breeds

[edit]
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. Kbdank71 13:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to article Category:Irish Pig Breeds to article Irish pig breeds
Nominator's rationale: Article masquerading as a category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 25 May 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:Museum collections

[edit]
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--Aervanath (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Museum collections to Category:Works by museum
Nominator's rationale: Rename.
  1. This is a subcategory of both Category:Museums and Category:Works of art.
  2. The present wording can be read two or three ways, as the lead text notes: "This category is only for a) sub-categories of articles on individual objects, or lists of them, or b) specialized collections, in the Collections of museums and art galleries. Please add articles on museums in the correct sub-category/ies of Category:Museums." This invites confusion and the injunction not to add "articles on museums" that happen to be called, e.g., The Wallace Collection is often ignored. There less ambiguity in the proposed title.
  3. There is confusion in the naming of this category's subcats: Category:Collections of the Musée d'Orsay (collections plural), but Category:Collection of the Hermitage (collection singular). Both formulations are grammatically collect, which makes agreeing on a right one impossible. If we change the parent category title to Works by museum it follows that the subcats all be renamed according to the formula Works in the X Museum, which solves our problem.

Ham 23:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this but perhaps set up Category:Works by museum also, transferring many across. Really articles on individual works should be kept separately from articles on collections. All the 41 articles in the main cat are about collections, not works, although I accept most of the sub-cats contain mainly works. For some reason there seems to be a phobia about categorizing collections and their history, which is a subject that has been receiving a great deal of academic attention in recent decades. Note also that a great number of the museum sub-cats for art galleries, like Category:Collection of the Alte Pinakothek, belong only in the sub-cat Category:Paintings by collection. "Works" is only needed for mixed museums. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry if my proposal seems to exemplify this "phobia" for the history of collecting; I admire your work on Orleans Collection et al. "Really articles on individual works should be kept separately from articles on collections" – I agree 100%. I would happily settle for Works by museum as a subset of a retained Museum collections cat. But IMO many of the 41 articles in the existing cat are better categorised as "Private collections"/"Former private collections"/"Museums" etc. etc. Ham 10:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt a few do, and some belong in both. At first glance Gilbert Collection and National Cartoon Museum for example might not seem to belong here, but in fact both have closed as museums, & I think this is a valid cat for them now. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- a museum may house a number of separate collections of artefacts, each consisting of a number of artefacts. The examples that immediately spring to mind are of books in the British Library (formerly in British Museum), such as Thomason Tracts and Harliean Collection, but the same considerations will apply to museum collections. Category:Works by museum only partly solves the problem. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 31 May 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_25&oldid=1138392919"