Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 19



Category:Johnny Cash songs

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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The result of the debate was Withdrawn. Vegaswikian 05:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Johnny Cash songs to Category:Songs recorded by Johnny Cash
 * Nominator's rationale:

OK. Withdrawn. One of the mysteries of English language for me, probably. Still, I feel uneasy when a song has a dozen of owners: lyrics and muscis authors plus ten singers. Whatever. `'Míkka 03:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Cash sung it, so it's a Johnny Cash song, regardless of whether he wrote it. Otherwise, there would be almost no entries in Category:Elvis Presley songs or Category:Tina Turner songs.--Mike Selinker 01:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose, per Mike. This nomination just makes me cry, cry, cry.  If it gets renamed, I’ll have to send that boy named Sue after Mikka. ;-) --Chicaneo 02:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Better send me a Girl Named Johnny Cash :-) `'Míkka 02:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Headhunting among tribal societies

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 14:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Headhunting among tribal societies to Category:Tribal societies that have practiced headhunting
 * Nominator's rationale:

I created this category and I am all for the renaming if people think it is clearer.Jmm6f488 17:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to something - Category: Former headhunting societies is shorter. Johnbod 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The creator of the category alerted me that he also made Category:Cannibalism among tribal societies, which is similarly a collection of tribes that practice(d) cannibalism, and is a subcat of an already existing Category:Cannibalism. He suggests that if we rename one, then we should rename the other in parallel, which I agree with. Rigadoun (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to something -- I suggest Category:Tribal societies that practiced headhunting as shorter than Category:Tribal societies that have practiced headhunting, but either is fine. I worry that Johnbod's suggestion of Category: Former headhunting societies would make it sound like the societies no longer exist, which is not necessarily true; some of them still exist and just no longer practice headhunting. LeSnail 16:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename: all of the suggestions above seem clearer and better, and category creator has no objection. In order of preference, I would probably say: 1. "Tribal societies that practiced...", 2. "Tribal societies that have practiced..." and 3. "Former...", but I think any of the three either of the two is probably acceptable.  Xtifr tälk 03:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)  Addendum: withdrew my support for the "Former" option because of the comment from Jmm6f488 below.  Xtifr tälk 03:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename as long as we keep the phrasing consistent. Why is it that there is no, or is this meant to be a subcat of ?  Tewfik Talk 05:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all headhunters are cannibals and not all cannibal are headhunters. Also not all of the tribes listed are former headhunters some are still active. Jmm6f488 02:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename - I was about to weigh in in favor of renaming to Category:Tribal societies that practiced headhunting. But after reading Jmm6f488's last comment, he appears to be stating that there are still some tribal groups that continue to practice headhunting, which was, in fact, my own impression as well. If that is indeed the case, then the cat should be renamed as proposed, to Category:Tribal societies that have practiced headhunting, since that embraces both former and current headhunters. Cgingold 12:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be helpful if Jmm6 could specify which tribes still headhunt. Supposedly there is now none (as a socially accepted practice anyway) in Sabah, where most come from. I also notice that not all the articles, like eg Ilongots mention HH at all. Really if it is not in the article they should not be in the category. Johnbod 13:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Tribal societies that have practiced headhunting. I think this is the best choice since it covers everything. Jmm6f488 04:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I also added a reference to headhunting in the article about the Ilongots. Michelle Rosaldo, who is mentioned in the article, husband Renato Rosaldo, wrote a book entitled Ilongot Headhunting, 1883-1974: A Study in Society and History. I have not updated the Sabah article but if you google Sabah and headhunting you will understand why I listed it in the Category. Jmm6f488 04:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Camp Lazlo episodes

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * camp lazlo episodes


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Speedy Delete as an empty category with no possible population.  Tewfik Talk 05:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Team Rocket

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * team rocket


 * Nominator's rationale: The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav 16:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - small with little or no chance of growth. Otto4711 16:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Queen discography

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge Category:Queen discography to Category:Queen (band) albums. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * queen discography
 * Merge into Category:Queen (band) albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom; inconsistent and redundant. Xtifr tälk 03:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge deviant category per nom,  Tewfik Talk 05:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge redundant with an inconsistent name. Carlossuarez46 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Modern obsolete currencies

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was  no consensus  --Kbdank71 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Modern obsolete currencies to Category:UNKNOWN
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Comment - Also, it might be worth sorting currencies no longer in use by century if possible. This would avoid the ambiguity problem with the term "modern".  Dr. Submillimeter 15:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Having objected to "modern" in the other debate, I must say I don't see a problem here. As I expected, this is a fellow-category with ones for Ancient, Medieval and Circulating currencies. Clearly "modern Greek drachma" is not ambiguous in the way that "modern US dollar" is, as the United States as such does not have a pre-modern period. The Early Modern Period is a very well-established concept. I see no benefit in sorting by century - the primary categorisation is by country, and this would lead to a plethora of one or two-article categories like Category:Eighteen-century Portuguese currencies. Johnbod 16:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - When I renominate Category:Historical currencies of the United States for renaming, can I point to this comment as support for renaming the "Historical" category using "modern"? Dr. Submillimeter 08:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, of course not! The difference between the cases is explained above: "Clearly "modern Greek drachma" is not ambiguous in the way that "modern US dollar" is, as the United States as such does not have a pre-modern period". Johnbod 11:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Your logic makes no sense. Surely, things such as the Guatemalan peso, the Argentine sol, and the Grenadan dollar have no pre-modern counterparts, yet these are listed as "modern obsolete" currencies.  Either the US category should be renamed to match the main category or the main category should be renamed.  Dr. Submillimeter 13:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My comments have mucho logic. Your sentence above should surely read: "Surely, things such as the Guatemalan peso, the Argentine sol, and the Grenadan dollar have no pre-modern counterparts, so naturally these are listed as "modern obsolete" currencies" (improvement in bold). There would be a problem if the sub-cats for the US, Guatemala, Argentine, were called "modern", because by definition these countries only have modern currencies.  But there is no problem including all of these countries in a modern category - so long, of course, as they are not also represented in the medieval or ancient categories. QED. Johnbod 13:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Further comment what I would suggest for Category:Historical currencies of the United States is, as I suggested in the last debate, firstly to overcome the main issue with it by dividing it between:A) perhaps Category:Discontinued currency forms of the United States dollar to cover Indian Head cent, United States Note etc - all of which issued since 1861 are actually still legal tender, and B) Category:Obselete/Former non-US dollar currencies of the United States to cover the Confederate & private currencies. The existing category can be renamed Category:Obselete currency of the United States. Johnbod 13:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is obsolete a correct classification? Vegaswikian 00:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For which categories? In general I think so. Johnbod 02:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For the ones being discussed here. My concern is that many forms of currency are not obsolete in that they still have value and may be legally used.  That's why the suggestion in the other discussion to use no longer minted or printed.  That is an easy and clear break point.  Obsolete here could be very POV.  Vegaswikian 21:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Very POV"? Something of an exaggeration, surely? A 1928 $10 Federal Reserve Note could be exchanged for $10 as legal tender, but would cost $300 to buy (says ebay). That formula could be used for the $ sub-category, but it would be more confusing than accurate to rename the global parent Category:Modern obsolete currencies in that style, in my view. Johnbod 02:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment maybe I missed it above, but what is the problem with listing old US currency in the category as named?  Tewfik Talk 05:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Historical" has multiple interpretations. In this case, it could refer to currency that has been in use a long time, currency that is no longer in use, or currency that dates from some vaguely-defined older era (such as the 19th century and earlier).  Does this answer your question, or were you asking about something else?  Dr. Submillimeter 08:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment and proposal? two problem words: "modern" and "obsolete" (I think we know what currencies are). Modern is ambiguous (or POV); even the pointer to early modern provided above redirects to early modern Europe, so has no particular relevance elsewhere (like "medieval", a sister cat of this one is Category:Medieval currencies, by the way); "ancient" is also subject to interpretation. Categorization by centuries, as proposed above, at least has the beauty of not being ambiguous, but all disused currencies would have to be organized by country and by century - maybe not overkill, but hardly the best user experience - especially if we categorize by when the currency was in use rather than when it went "former" as apparently is the practice now (see French franc, which is in Category:Medieval currencies but was evidently still in use at the time of the Euro's introduction, somewhat beyond even the widest definition of "medieval").  Is there a real split that we want to achieve here between eras that century or other definable date cannot substitute for, e.g., if centuries are too limiting, perhaps throwing a few together like Currencies in use during 1000-1499 or something of the like.  Obsolete is not WP's prefered term for ex-things, "defunct" and "former" (I'll leave off "historical" because those are getting re-done all over the place). Here, "former" seems better wordsmithing, so I would think either a series of Currencies in use during XXX-XXX or even Former currencies used during XXX-XXX if we want to distinguish those currencies that have gone to that great cashbox in the sky.  Carlossuarez46 22:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are several problems with this. Firstly it is rarely a good idea to categorize things of long duration by century - I have described the results above. The franc was first introduced in 1360 odd, discontinued in 1641, brought back after the Revolution & re-organised as the "New Franc" (1 NF= 100 old F) in 1960. Very sensibly all these are covered by one article, like drachma which deals with both the ancient Athenian and modern Greek drachma. There aren't as many currencies as you perhaps think, and given the primary classification is by country, as it should be, the last thing we want is a load of tiny categories. Ancient, medieval and modern are very often used as global, or at least Eurasian terms - the fact we don't have decent articles with these titles is neither here nor there.  I absolutely will not accept that in the correct context, as here, they are "ambiguous". You then suggest a arbitary period, just like dozens that have been voted down here!   In terms of adjectives, my order of preference is obsolete first, former, with defunct a definite last. But I think we are drifting away from the actual (rather small) problem here. I've just noticed that I haven't actually !voted yet, so since I think the nominated category name is ok, its Keep. Johnbod 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Historical currencies and make it the parent category of its current parent. "Historical" is a perfectly clear term in this context. Postlebury 12:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:State elections in the United States

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 14:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:State elections in the United States to Category:Elections in the United States by state
 * Nominator's rationale:
 * A notice has been added to Talk:Elections in the United States. --Tim4christ17 talk 13:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Category:Elections in California should be taken into account, and any others in that format that are sub-subcategories of — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkestone (talk • contribs)
 * Further Note: A sub-category of with similar purpose also has the same format as the current category - Category:United States Senate elections by state. Other subcategories are in the "state elections" format [the category you mentioned is a sub-subcategory of this one and appears to be an accurate title (dealing with elections solely within California)- though it could probably be merged with Category:California elections] - their different naming format is justified by their different purpose. --Tim4christ17 talk 14:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support as it seems to fit the hierarchy quite well.  Tewfik Talk 05:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:People by United States government agency

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 13:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:People by United States government agency to Category:United States government officials
 * Nominator's rationale: It seems they cover the same area. The first category appears to have been created more recently without knowledge of the other. --Eliyak T · C 10:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There is certainly some duplication. Two of the four subcategories (Defense & Labor) are also in Category:United States Executive Department officials, which I find not very helpfully named. Both are (now) sub-cats of Category:United States government officials. I think it would either be better to move all the by-department sub-cats into the one named for deletion (perhaps renamed), or (my preference) have them all in the main category, so merging & deleting both the nominated one and also Category:United States Executive Department officials. Johnbod 12:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support per nom and,  Tewfik Talk 05:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom, further to my comment above, as a step in the right direction. Johnbod 03:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * los angeles county metropolitan transportation authority


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Keep for now. Just because not all of the articles have been cleaned up as per the guidelines of WP:SUBCAT does not warrant deletion. Plus, this category contains two sub-categories, Category:Los Angeles County Metro Transitway stations and Category:Los Angeles County Metro Rail, in which many of their articles are not in Category:Transportation in Los Angeles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, since LACMTA operates in other areas of Los Angeles County besides the city of Los Angeles (including Long Beach and other cities), this should really be a sub-category of in Category:Mass transit in Los Angeles County. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not all articles about transportation in Los Angeles are going to be related to LACMTA, so the category is not exactly redundant with Category:Transportation in Los Angeles. The airports, for example, seem to be a separate topic.  Therefore, I suggest keeping this category.  Dr. Submillimeter 08:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per both above. Johnbod 12:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per "county" issue,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 05:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.