Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 18



Category:Progressive jazz musicians

 * 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 14:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * progressive jazz musicians


 * progressive jazz composers


 * progressive jazz arrangers


 * progressive jazz musicians by instrument


 * progressive jazz clarinetists


 * progressive jazz double-bassists


 * progressive jazz drummers


 * progressive jazz guitarists


 * progressive jazz keyboardists


 * progressive jazz pianists


 * progressive jazz saxophonists


 * progressive jazz singers


 * progressive jazz trombonists


 * progressive jazz trumpeters


 * progressive jazz vibraphonists


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete:The article 'progressive jazz' was already deleted as a neologism so this should go too. All other categories with 'progressive jazz' in their name should also be deleted. Munci (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. There is no need to upmerge, as the member article is already in other categories. This also appears to be true for the other 10 sub-cats of Category:Progressive jazz musicians by instrument.  Nevertheless that head category and its other 10 sub-cats need to be tagged and listed here at CFD. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Other articles now added. Munci (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Neo-bop musicians

 * 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 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * neo-bop jazz musicians


 * neo-bop ensembles


 * neo-bop albums


 * neo-bop jazz musicians by instrument


 * neo-bop double-bassists


 * neo-bop drummers


 * neo-bop flugelhornists


 * neo-bop guitarists


 * neo-bop pianists


 * neo-bop trumpeters


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete:Neo bop is neologism and does not have an article. As such, it is inappropriate for it be in category names. All other categories with 'neo bop' in their name should also be deleted. Munci (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. There is no need to upmerge, as the member article is already in other categories. This also appears to be true for the other 5 sub-cats of Category:Neo-bop jazz musicians by instrument.  Nevertheless that head category and its other sub-cats need to be tagged and listed here at CFD. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I added the rest. Munci (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Special territories

 * 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.  No reason to keep outside of "good collection of articles", but does not explain why a category is needed.  Would it be difficult to pull them together just be reading articles?  Sure.  But looking through the category, there is no definition of "special territories" to explain why you would want to pull these together, nor what even goes in this.  Extremely subjective, and most likely OR. Kbdank71 14:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * special territories


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete: Very vague; the category includes some articles on exclaves, enclaves, condominiums, Special Administrative Regions, and other weird kinds of territories, but does not define what should be considered "special". I don't think something is to be gained by a category for territories that are "special"; they should rather be categorized for their objective status (as exclave, condominium, SAR, etc.). Ucucha 19:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * keep A good collection of governed entities that would be very difficult to pull together just by reading articles. Good navigation aid: the prime reason for a categroy.  If subcategories are needed, then make them.  Hmains (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And how would you define a "special territory"? Ucucha 05:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hmains, but maybe rename - :Category:Territories without full sovereignity  or similar, perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you realise that would include virtually anything? New York City is also a "territory without full sovereignty". Ucucha 05:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No I don't. NYC has no sovereignity at all. Johnbod (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So it does certainly not have full sovereignty. But I realise that that was a rather bad and pointy example. However, when you look in the category, you see that it includes territories that actually has full sovereignty (Andorra, in subcat, and German Austria, which seems to be a short-lived and likely unrecognized state), but also territories without any sovereignty (Steinstücken, Tangier, free economic zone, EuroAirport Basel-Mulhouse-Freiburg, El Caguán DMZ, Guantanámo Bay Naval Base) and occupied territories like Occupied Japan, for which an appropriate category, Category:Military occupation, already exists. The category also includes several articles on sovereignty over the sea and outer space. On the other hand it does not include the articles on other special territories like former colonies, current overseas territories of the Netherlands, France, Denmark, and Norway, and Bosnia and Herzegovina (which, coincidentally, does not have full sovereignty either because of the High Commission of the International Community). Ucucha 11:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose Vatican City is there perhaps because of its status 1870- Mussolini Concordat.  Andorra does not have full sovereignity, and the French overseas territories are regarded by the French as normal French departements. I don't know about those of the other countries.  The free trade zones should go somewhere else - no doubt an appropriate category already exists. The point is this category is a useful collection of oddities of various sorts, and should be kept. Johnbod (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Andorra does actually have full sovereignty (see Constitution of Andorra). The fact that it is in a weird kind of personal union does not change that. However, that is not quite important.
 * My point is that "oddity" is not really an objective measure. I may also find NYC - to return on that point - "odd" because it comprises multiple counties and is a sui generis entity within the state. You may protest that NYC is a subnational entity, but so are the American Indian reservations which are in the category. I think all subcategories of Category:Country by status (the parent of this cat) are in some way "odd", so with the creation of additional categories for neutral territories and condominia and some other organization, the need for this category disappears. Ucucha 12:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No definition and inclusion criteria are not at all clear. Too mushy and subjective. All the categories may be appropriately categorized elsewhere, per nom. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as vague and ambiguous. Being a good collection is not a reason to keep a category. Also this category is not a collection of governed entities, look at Extreme points of the Arctic or Extraterrestrial real estate or Outer Space Treaty.  Why is Category:Andorra included?  Bottom line, this category is simply a collection of unrelated articles and categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Americans with Huguenot ancestry

 * 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.  Not every intersection deserves a category, and the nomination does a good job of explaining why this should be deleted, esp. "does the Lincoln family members have much in common ... or is there something innate about these one-drop of Huguenot blood folks that makes these folks do things differently?" The first keep says this is defining, but does not explain why (and then goes on to attack the nominator, instead of sticking to the category), the second keep states that yes, this is trivial and then invokes WP:ALLORNOTHING.  A quick look through the category shows that only one of the articles listed under A even mentions "Huguenot" (outside of this category), and the one that does makes no mention of how or through whom, and lacks references to indicate Huguenot ancestry . Kbdank71 14:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * americans with huguenot ancestry


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete a triple intersection of nationality, ancestry, and religion; many of the individuals included here are members of a few prominent families with a trace of a French protestant ancestor - does the Lincoln family members have much in common with the duPont family with the Bush family, the Roosevelt family, etc. other than being rich, famous and political - or is there something innate about these one-drop of Huguenot blood folks that makes these folks do things differently? It's non-defining, and trivial to say the least. And yes, all race/ethnic categories are, but these intersections are doubly so. Otherwise we'll have Category:Americans with Irish Catholic ancestry, and Category:Americans with Irish Protestant ancenstry, Category:Americans with Russian Jewish ancestry, Category:Americans with Russian Orthodox ancestry, Category:Americans with English Pilgrim ancestry, and on and on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * keep Nomination is factually false on its face. This is certainly defining.  Nomination is from editor who states he wants to see all ethnic/racial/religious categories deleted--to the detriment of WP and not agreed to by WP editers in general.  Accompanied by the usual exaggerations and fears.  Hmains (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree that the informativeness of this particular page is largely a collection of triviality, but assert that there no place to draw the line between either doing away with all ethnicity/religion category pages and having a complete set, and feel that having the pages as a whole adds rather than deters from wikip.  As for the legitimacy of this particular page, reference to Huguenot ancestry is established in genealogy to my knowledge, and therefore the page does not simply indicate a religious affiliation, in the same way (but perhaps to a lesser extent given the shorter history and fewer followers of Calvinism) that Jewishness refers to both a relgious and ethnic grouping Mayumashu (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Mitsubishi Motors timeline templates

 * 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 14:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Mitsubishi Motors timeline templates to Category:Automotive company timeline templates
 * Nominator's rationale: There is only one Mitsubishi timeline - no need to have its own category yet. --Vossanova o&lt; 17:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've "been bold" and recategorized Template:Mitsubishi Motors North America timeline accordingly and disabled its own categorization. As it requests, however, I haven't removed the "CFD TEMPLATE" message. Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:French Muslims

 * 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 14:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * french muslims


 * Nominator's rationale: I believe this violates individual rights, this is like creating a list and this can be abused. You shouldn't need to have a category of Muslims, this is subjugation, for others can go through this and then vandalism all these article in this category. Govvy (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - there are 113 similar pages at Category:Muslims by nationality. -- Alan Liefting- ( talk ) - 12:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Maybe they should all be removed!! heh. I still don't think it's right for all these categories. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not defining OCAT by intersection of race/nationality & religion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * keep as definiing on it face and part of an accepted WP pattern that is not being nominated for deletion. Hmains (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as part of the widespread and established Category:People by nationality and religion. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * → Talk about sick! All those categories, that has to be the worse thing I've ever seen, now wikipedia is an enemy to the people by discrimination!! Govvy (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Try to calm down a bit, rather than projecting your personal assumptions. Surely you know the expression, "Seeing is believing". In this case it's reversed to "Believing is seeing". All of these categories have nothing even remotely to do with "discrimination", Govvy. How better to dispel all manner of stereotypes than to help readers locate concrete examples that display the full range of diversity among and across various groups of people? Cgingold (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * → One, I am calm! Two, When you write a biography on wikipedia do you consider all the impacts of it. Everyone tries to be rational but then you have all these categories, this being a category (one of many) that points on they are French Muslims. I am not saying the category is discrimination, I am saying that categories like this one are a way for those to abuse them by discrimination to vandalise articles in the category. Then the next problem is the articles in the category have people with no sourcing or information that they are actually Muslims. I am arguing that these categories are not needed and will only work for those that want to vandalise all the articles in the category. Govvy (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - of course (sorry, one does get weary of explaining). Cgingold (talk)
 * Keep - listing a persons nationality and religion is not discrimination nor is it subjugation. Also, any vandalism can be dealt with as it occurs, the same as it happens on all other pages of WP. -- Alan Liefting- ( talk ) - 00:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Articles should only be categorised by religion if the subject has notably identified their own religion as a defining characteristic of their lives, and this will normally be referred to in the biographical article before adding one of these categories. Subject to this, the sub-cats of Category:People by nationality and religion are useful and well-established. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per many of the above. Especially Fayenatic's, which reminds us of the purpose for these and similar categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Horticulture and Gardening project

 * 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:WikiProject Horticulture and gardening. Kbdank71 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * horticulture and gardening project


 * Nominator's rationale: appears to be something the should be in WP space rather than article space. -- Alan Liefting- ( talk ) - 10:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:WikiProject Horticulture and gardening which was probably what was intended. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Secondary operating systems

 * 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.  None of these are operating systems.  The windows articles are already in Category:Discontinued versions of Microsoft Windows.  And DOSBox is an emulator, already categorized. Kbdank71 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * secondary operating systems


 * Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NEO, and there is no indication that this is a useful category since it is basically just old versions of Windows. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, essentially because of the NEO issue and the term is probably not familiar to most people. Category:Microsoft Windows and the other related categories for operating systems have so many intricate subcategories surely these can appropriately go somewhere else. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just rename it to a term which conforms to similar criteria. Because some major programs may have an API of their own, in which the host OS cannot run some programs unless that one program is running (e.g. Windows 3.1 had programs of its own even though Windows 3.1 was technically a DOS program; albeit with a stand-along Windows NT spinoff). --Roadstaa (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, perhaps merge to Category:Desktop environments. This will necessitate removing DOSBox from the category, but it's questionable as to whether it should be in there anyway. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Nolan Batman film series

 * 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 15:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * nolan batman film series


 * Nominator's rationale: Created by repeated sock puppeteer User:Creepy Crawler/User:EJBanks. Such categories are redundant to other film categories and serve as forks. ThuranX (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Doczilla  STOMP! 04:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Antique instruments

 * 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:Antique musical instruments. I have also moved all Stradivarius articles into a new Category:Stradivarii. There were several other suggestions that were made as well, but none of them had clear consensus, while some form of the above two moves did. Additional subdivision by Stradivarius instrument or age of antique can be done editorially. (Non-admin closure.) --erachima talk 06:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Antique instruments to Category:Stradivarii
 * Nominator's rationale: This category has an extremely wide name, but 34 of its 36 articles covered Stradivarius violins, etc. The other two were cross-listed to "Invidivual Violins", so I moved them.  The category is now pure Stradivarius, and can be renamed and filed under "Category:Individual violins" with no other changes to content. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Note Category not tagged - please do this. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, and create as a subcategory. I suspect there is undercategorising being done here - there are surely other noted antique instruments not listed, such as Napoleon's Piano Pipe organs of Blenheim Palace, Lamont Harp, Queen Mary Harp, and the like. Grutness...wha?  00:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC) ("Invidivual"? Good word...)
 * Comment: I think Grutness is basically on the right track here. However, the situation is rather more complex, which is more readily seen now that I've placed it in new parent cats, Category:Antiques and Category:Individual musical instruments. The category should be renamed in any event, probably to Category:Antique musical instruments (I think this particular sub-cat can dispense with the word "Individual"). Cgingold (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Most of the instruments are C17/18 Stradivari, or C15 harps. An antique, depending on whose definition you use, can be as new as 50 years old, which brings all those 50s electric guitars into the scope. I think the category should be kept, per Grutness, but renamed to maybe Category:Pre-modern individual musical instruments with a cut-off at 1900. Category:Stradivarii should be set up as a sub-category, and itself divided into violin and cello (there are about 10 Strad cello articles) sub-cats, that can be sub-cats of those "individual" cats. I've added Category:Pipe organs to the parent, and a Category:Individual bells could be easily filled - many of both are very old, and I'm sure there are many other articles out there, or will be.  Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Pre-1900 individual musical instruments? Pre modern could be ambiguous.  On the other hand, 1900 is arbitrary.  Maybe musical instruments by century using whatever the correct convention is? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally (with Dr S no longer around) "pre-modern" with a defining note would be ok for me, but I see the problem. Some centuries would be somewhat thinly populated, and a century is itself rather an arbitary cutoff - Stradivarius's career (I now see) neatly straddles 2 centuries - 1680-1730 were his years as a master. Johnbod (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename to something the current name is inappropriate. What about medical instruments or scientific instruments? 70.55.85.177 (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * REname to Category:Antique musical instruments and create Category:Stradivarii as its subcategory. This will allow room for articles on instruments by other makers and non-stringed instruments.  If we need to keep early 20th century instruments out of it, that can be done by a note at the top of the category page.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Antique musical instruments and create Category:Stradivarii as its subcategory. Clearly the current name is vague and ambiguous.  I think there is consensus that the current name should be changed and this proposal is the most general so is a good consensus compromise.  Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, and here's why. Renaming to Category:Antique musical instruments and create Category:Stradivarii makes no sense, as a bot will add all of these articles to Category:Antique musical instruments and then someone will need to manually move the majority of them to Category:Stradivarii.  If the bot moves them to Category:Stradivarii per the nomination, someone can be bold and create Category:Antique musical instruments, move the what, 4 articles into it, and recategorize Category:Stradivarii.  Of course, nothing at all is going to happen since the category still hasn't been tagged.  Someone might want to relist this. --Kbdank71 15:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh man, you've got to be wrong about the lack of tagging, Kbdank -- I mean, surely there's no way eight different editors could have missed such an obvious thing! Do you have any proof?? Cgingold (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As for your proposal, I had kinda wondered about doing it that way to cut down on the labor involved -- so that makes sense to me. The only thing I'm not entirely sure about is whether is adequate, or should it perhaps include a clear indication of what that refers to, since that term -- as the plural of Stradivarius -- is slightly pedantic, imo. Perhaps  or ? Cgingold (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a note re the lack of tagging on the 18th. But on your suggestion, I would say most of the articles would need sorting anyway, between violins and and a new Strad cellos cat. Renaming this to Category:Stradivarius violins would be better; I could move the cellos to a new cat using hotcat, and set up the Antique/Historic or whatever parent. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good plan -- that way the new cello cat could also go into the cello parent cat. Btw, I left a note on MatthewVanitas talk page to let him know what's up. PS - I hope my humor wasn't too tongue-in-cheek.... Cgingold (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.