Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 27



Category:People from Lethbridge County, Alberta

 * 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. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * people from lethbridge county, alberta


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete A single entry is listed here. The county has a population of 10,000 people. It is doubtful enough people from the county are notable enough to warrant much more expansion. Kmsiever (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep is my vote. The page completes the schema of having people from Alberta categorized by county or similar jurisdiction.  (And thanks for letting me know of this vote occurring) Mayumashu (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as part of overall categorization scheme of Category:People by county or municipal district in Alberta. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think in this case it's more beneficial to the project to have an underpopulated category than to have to move the single entry (and any ensuing ones) to the parent Category:People from Alberta, since doing so would reduce ease of navigation.  If you want to interpret my argument as a mild form of WP:IAR, feel free. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Part of a comprehensive categorization scheme that absolutely needs to be thorough, and there's no reason whatsoever to believe that there won't be other entries added to it in the future. Bearcat (talk) 01:58, 1 March 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:Bishops of Toronto

 * 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 Category:Bishops of Toronto to Category:Roman Catholic Bishops of Toronto. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 13:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Bishops of Toronto to Category:Roman Catholic Bishops of Toronto
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are also Anglican, Ukrainian Orthodox, Ukrainian Catholic, and god knows what other people in Toronto with the title of of Bishop. Kevlar67 (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. There are plenty of similarly-named categories floating around that we should also track down and rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:01, 28 February 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:Plzeň

 * 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 both. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Plzeň to Category:Pilsen & Category:People from Plzeň to Category:People from Pilsen
 * Nominator's rationale: The article about the city was moved from Plzeň to Pilsen after a WP:RM in June 2006. The categories about the city should match the article title. Plzeň Region is a separate administrative entity. Olessi (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support rename - Categories should match articles, and I'd I'm assuming this has been hashed out repeatedly like the other controversial city name disputes like Kiev/Kyiv Bombay/Mubai, so it seems absurd to circumvent that by having the category different. Kevlar67 (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. The rename was unfortunate but unless it's overturned the cats should match. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:02, 28 February 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.

Holy Roman Emperors and Empresses

 * 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 both. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Holy Roman emperors to Category:Holy Roman Emperors & Category:Holy Roman empresses to Category:Holy Roman Empresses
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Categories should match article Holy Roman Emperor. Olessi (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there any reason why we have separated out female Emperors from the main category? OCAT by gender, perhaps?  Either way, rename. Resolute 01:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The role was very different. With ?1 exception, they were all consorts not rulers. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that would explain it then. heh. Resolute 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom -- Lenticel ( talk ) 12:49, 29 February 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.

People from Baltic governorates

 * 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. Kbdank71 13:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:People from Estland to Category:People from the Governorate of Estonia
 * Category:People from Livonia to Category:People from the Governorate of Livonia
 * Category:People from Courland to Category:People from the Courland Governorate, Category:People from Courland Governorate, or Category:People from the Governorate of Courland

Currently the three categories list people from the geographic regions of northern Estonia, Livonia, and Courland before the independence of Latvia and Estonia in 1918, going as far back as the Middle Ages. The proposed categories will group individuals by specific governorates of the Russian Empire. I will create new categories for the pre-Imperial Russian era when necessary. See also a related discussion at WT:BALTIC. Olessi (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks for asking, but this seems like clear WP:OCAT to me. The categories are already small by the standards of the "people from..." tree. What would be the purpose of this? I accept there may be other examples where such categories are effectively divided by time, but I don't think this is to generally encouraged - it hardly makes finding a person easier. There is only one other person in the project disciussion, & he doesn't seem that bothered either way. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, at least Category:People from Estland could be moved to Category:People from Esthonia. The former province/governorate consisted only of what is now northern Estonia, while modern southern Estonia was part of Livonia. User:Martintg and I agreed that "Esthonia" was used more frequently to refer to the province than "Estland". Modern historians usually use "Estonia" to refer to the former northerly province, but Category:People from Estonia seems too easily confused with Category:Estonian people. Olessi (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:People from Estland only. This particular category ought to be moved for reasons of Naming conventions (use English), "Estland" is the German/Danish term for "Estonia", while "Esthonia" is the older english term that fell out of use before 1920. My preference is for Category:People from Estonia. Note in 1917 the Russian Provisional Government expanded the Governorate of Est(h)onia (today northern Estonia) to absorb the northern part of Livonia, hence that was how the whole territory of modern Estonia got its name.  However if you believe it would be confused with Category:Estonian people, then Category:People from Esthonia would be second choice.Martintg (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with this. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Leave it alone The probelm with this is that they were not always Russian governorates. Courland was at one period an independent Duchy, and most were at another period Swedish provinces. Still earlier they belionged to the Teutonic Knights.  We have recently discussed People from Birmingham (or Birmingham, England).  I think we have people from Worcestershire, so why not people from Livonia?  The situation is complcated by the fact that the old provinces and modern nations are not co-extensive, but that is a problem with which we have to learn to live.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "Category:People from Estland" and the requirement to use English in the naming convention? Martintg (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename although more verbose, they are more accurate. Livonia is still a region and people can be from there today, e.g., Estland is German/Scandinavian term for Estonia - use English, Esthonia is an English archaism and was used to refer to the geographical place regardless of the political entity located there: like Servia is archaic English for Serbia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:45, 27 February 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:Synth rock

 * 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.  Per Tikiwont, the main article was restored.  If deleted per afd, this can be reopened/renominated. Kbdank71 13:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * synth rock


 * Nominator's rationale: Main article Synth rock described a nonexistant music genre and was deleted, thuus the category should be deleted as well. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Rolling Stone magazine seems to think that synth rock is not a "nonexistant music genre". And so does wikitionary.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Notice that the term "synth rock" is only used in the title. It is not used as a genre term anywhere in that article. In the article itself, the Pet Shop Boys are called a "synth-pop" band, which is an established genre. Synth rock has not be properly defined as a genre, or described by reliable secondary sources. Still, the main issue is that the main article was deleted, so the category should be deleted. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nom. NSR 77  T C  02:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Synth musical groups Lugnuts (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've restored the article Synth rock as contested prod (See also Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_1) If there remain doubts about the genre, it might be better to go first to AfD and put this discussion on hold.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:43, 3 March 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:Russian-language poets

 * 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 13:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * russian-language poets


 * Nominator's rationale: We already has much more comprehensive Category:Russian poets that completely covers the topic. If a poet writes in Russian language he or she is a Russian poet. The place of residence, religion or the ethnic composition of blood is absolutely irrelevant here Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom - See below. No reason not to use this category in the by-language tree. But nominator is wrong about the Category:Russian poets. That should not include at least Ukrainians born since independence. It is a national category. Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose in the absence of a wider discussion of the Category:Poets by language structure and its parent, Category:Writers by language. The question is whether categorizing people by the language(s) in which they write is needed if they are categorized by nationality and, more broadly, whether the language(s) in which one writes is categorizably defining. Otto4711 (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think headcats collecting national groups such as English Spanish French-speakers is obviously useful. Where nations have different languages - Belgium, Switzerland etc, it is also useful. The argument that the language a writer writes in might not be defining seems impossibly weak to me, but these by language cats should normally only collect sub-cats, except in the case of odd examples, writers in yiddish etc. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Defining in terms of grouping around a useful shared trait. Is it useful to categorize, oh I don't know, Ghulam Ali Allana with William Alfred Quayle because they both happened to write poems in English? Is that encyclopedically significant? I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other, just throwing it out for discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly so imho. Quayle should be covered by including the whole American poets cat, but it is for people like Ghulam Ali Allana that these categories are especially useful. Above all for poets, the language you write in seems totally defining. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - when it comes to written work nothing is more defining that language. It is much more important than citizenship or ethnicity, for example.  Plenty of Ukrainians and Georgians and Armenians and Americans write/wrote in Russian, plent of Russians write/wrote in German, Yidddish, French, etc, etc.  I can't oppose this strongly enough.  Kevlar67 (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to Oppose. I have added Category:Russian poets as a sub-cat. The current members are all Russian & should be merged there, but the category should be retained for Ukrainians, Americans (not also counting as Russians) etc. writing in Russian.  It would be useful if Kevlar could add the "plenty" he knows. Johnbod (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * oppose There are two parallel sets of categories here: by language and by country. Both are important. Deletion argument is fallacious. Hmains (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (Oppose merge) It makes far more sense to categorize a writer by language than by nationality. If pressed to choose one to be deleted, I'd choose nationality.  But we don't have to choose, we can have both.  The important issue to decide is whether Category:Russian poets should be a subcategory.  I don't think it should for two reasons.  While one may currently be a sub-set of the other, it is not defined that way, and there could be Russian poets in the future that don't write in Russian. Second, if a user is looking for Russian-language poets, they shouldn't have to browse in more than one category.  The split is not helpful to users, they should be duplicated in both categories.  This situation is covered in WP:SUBCAT - they are related categories (albeit closely related) and should only be linked manually. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 06:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Russian poets not writing in Russian is probably more of an issue for the past (Yiddish, French) than the future. I think American poets should equally be a sub-cat of Eng-lang poets, even though there may be a handful who never wrote anything in English. There were 8 poets in this category, and over 200 in Category:Russian poets.  There is no point in attemopting to replicate huge categories for the sake of the odd exception. For Switzerland, Belgium etc it is completely different, and the national cats should have by-language sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Johnbod, and because nationality we keep and for writers the language used is category-based materials. We hashed a similar cat out with something unwieldy cat like Latin American authors vs. Spanish authors or some such. During the Soviet era many non-Russians no doubt wrote in Russian, they don't thereby become Russians - any more than by writing this I become English. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, and oppose deletion or merge of "by language" - We do indeed need for a fuller discussion of this. I have long thought that "writers by language" is a much more useful category than "Nationality writers". However, "Nationality occupations" is a ubiquitous subcategory structure for other reasons. So, the best outcome would be to have both "Writers by language" (definitely) and "Nation X writers" to maintain those nationality category structures so long as they're deemed useful. --Lquilter (talk) 23:32, 28 February 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:4-Zone albums

 * 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: Deleted by User:NrDg. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4-zone albums


 * Nominator's rationale: Only article in category is currently up for speedy deletion, and I doubt said article will survive (it's an album by a non-notable artist whose page was speedied in May 2006!). Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. If the article gets deleted, then delete the category—not before.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Article has been deleted. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC) It was undeleted because an admin thought the album was speedied too hastily.  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted as empty.--NrDg 20:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and is there some reason why you keep trying to do this backward? If the article exists the category needs to exist. If the article is deleted then the category can be speedy deleted as empty. Stop bringing these to CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 13:30, 27 February 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:Bridge

 * 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 Category:Bridge to Category:Contract bridge. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 13:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Bridge to Category:Contract bridge
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The topic article of this category is Contract bridge. Bridge by itself is too easily confused with bridge, and I would like to divide Category:Bridges so that the articles about the topic is in Category:Bridge, and all the individual bridge articles would remain in Category:Bridges.  I think this would improve both taxonomies -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 01:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There are and could be more other types of bridge.  Bridge (card game) would be fine though.  2005 (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom to match main article. Not sure about Pt 2 as all the individual bridges seem to be in the sub-cats, and all the general articles in the main cat.  It might be as easy to set up Category:Types of Bridge as a sub-cat. All that is a different issue though. Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom to match main article. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom to match main article. -Sean Curtin (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. From first glance all the articles there belong to this sort of bridge, but there are others that may also belong to another form of bridge. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom to match head article for the category. If the article and category were both renamed to Bridge (card game) that would be fine with me too, but they should match. --Lquilter (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * rename to Category:Bridge (card name) with at least two main articles Contract bridge and Auction bridge. Based on the current contents of the category.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs) 03:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Card "name" or Card "game"? Auction bridge seems to have only the one short article, with all the several hundred others about contract bridge, so it should just be removed to the parent cats, or left. Doesn't justify changing the name anyway. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Yes, there are several different forms of bride, but they should be correctly listed under Category:Trick-taking card games.  If and when there are sufficient articles to merit a new category it can be created. I don't think we need a parent category for all bridge games at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Bridge is proper categorization since it does and can cover multiple variants. moving a few bridge articles for no reason to trick-taking games is aggressively anti-user, and just plain busy work.  There is no problem with the category so a rename is not needed, but if a contract brdge category is created, a bridge (card game) or bridge variants one will be created above it so other bridge games can be categorized where they logically belong.  Still with no rationale presented, aside from a desire to mess with the also logical Bridges category, there is no reason to change good categorization to an illogical one. 2005 (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a convention with categories that a singular title is used for a topic, and its plural form is used for specific members of the topic. We also have the convention that categories are named the same as their topic articles.  This category currently goes against both conventions.  If there are games in this category are not contract bridge, than what is the topic article?  If it is appropriate to keep them all together, then perhaps "Bridge (game)" or "Bridge (card game)" is the appropriate way to disambiguate.  The topic article for the "Bridge" category I want to create will be Bridge. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 10:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Bridge (card game) if only to include auction bridge, which clearly belongs with contract bridge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:35, 4 March 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.