Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 14



Category:Stevie Ray Vaughan

 * 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. Conscious (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * stevie ray vaughan


 * Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a singer; unnecessary per WP:OCAT. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - With 3 subcats & 5 articles there's enough here to warrant a category, as has been supported in a series of recent CFDs for recording artists. WP:OCAT needs to be updated and clarified on this point. Cgingold (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment - there are 437 entries in Category:Categories named after musicians, almost all of which look very much like this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Wasted Time R (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the material. The fact that there are hundreds of similar categories does not justify this category, as hundreds of similar categories have been deleted over the last year or so. Otto4711 (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, then I would suggest you delete all of them. Leaving them there just invites people to create more of them, then you delete them ... a pointless cycle of unproductive effort.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, there has been consistent support for categories closely resembling this one in a series of recent CFDs, primarily based on the presence of 3 or more sub-categories. A lot of "similar" categories that had fewer sub-cats & articles were deleted -- and would still be deleted under the currently prevailing concensus. Cgingold (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There has been stronger support over the last year to year and a half that categories of this size (and even larger) are unnecessary eponymous overcategorization. Prevailing consensus has not changed, as seen in the recent deletion of Category:Ashanti (singer). The few CFDs in which the musician categories were retained were closed no consensus on the basis of such arguments as citing the existence of Category:Categories named after musicians while failing to take note of the nearly 200 such categories which have been deleted over the last year or so, along with a number of accusations against me of bad faith because I didn't nominate every single musician category that began with the letter A. To make it clear, since apparently I have not done so previously, I do not object to all eponymous categorization. I object to eponymous overcategorization. Not every eponymous category is a bad one, but this particular one is not needed because its contents are extensively interlinked through the main article and each other. Otto4711 (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me then that all Category:Categories named after musicians would be bad, since musical artists' articles invariably interlink with their albums, songs, videos, tours, etc. What are a few examples of ones you think are justified?  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:The Beatles is an example of a warranted category. The volume and complexity of the material is such that the main article on the band can't reasonably serves as an appropriate navigational hub for it. Category:Rush (band) is another, not because the material is terribly complex, but because there are articles in it (Rush equipment and History of Rush) that are not readily categorizable elsewhere. Otto4711 (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured you would mention the Beatles ;-) But why wouldn't the Double Trouble sidemen qualify under the Rush rationale, in this case of Category:Stevie Ray Vaughan?  Why wouldn't a discography article qualify, which many of these artists' articles have?  If you say Category:Discographies takes care of those articles, why couldn't a Category:Band equipments or Category:Band histories take care of what you mention?  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to create Category:Double Trouble members and add it to Category:Musicians by band, feel free. Musicians are usually categorized primarily as musicians, by the instruments they play or vocal range. I imagine that the Double Trouble people have a number of such cats on them. If there are sufficient articles about the equipment that various bands use or history articles that are separate from the main band article to warrant categorization, then I'm fine with categorizing those articles in that way, which would then IMHO render Category:Rush (band) unnecessary. An artist's discography is in every instance I've ever looked at linked through the artist's article with a Main article: Foo discograpy-style link. Otto4711 (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see how adding Category:Double Trouble members is good but adding Category:Stevie Ray Vaughan is bad (in both cases we've bumped up the category count by one), but I surrender nonetheless. Non-vote changed above.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not simply a question of the number of categories on an article, although it is true that category clutter is best avoided. It also has to do with categorizing based on defining characteristics. "Double Trouble member" is a defining characteristic of these people. "Stevie Ray Vaughan" in and of himself is not. "Stevie Ray Vaughan associate" might be, but that categorization structure is also best avoided. Otto4711 (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cgingold & precedent. Tim! (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Precedent is to delete these sorts of categories, dating back over a year. Otto4711 (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See for just a few of the hundreds of examples: Orson Welles, Linda McCartney, XTC, X Marks the Pedwalk, Roald Dahl, N'Synch, Beck, Jimmy Page, Bing Crosby, Gilberto Silva, Rudy Giuliani (since recreated because it now has the material to warrant it), John Wayne, Rudolph Valentino, Barbra Streisand, William Shatner, The Olsen Twins, Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, Hilary Duff, Mel Gibson, Steve Coogan, Sacha Baron Cohen, Ingrid Bergman, Fred Astaire. Otto4711 (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cgingold & recent precedent (and reinstate quite a few of those mentioned by Otto, Jimmy Page for instance). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but a few no consensus CFDs do not establish any sort of a precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 13:50, 15 June 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:Brent Spiner 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: speedy keep, no chance of this being deleted given extensive precedent for keeping such album categories. BencherliteTalk 15:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * brent spiner albums


 * Nominator's rationale: small without potential for growth, can be recreated in future if situation warranted. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 12:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per precendent of ALBUMS - Previous discussions have formed the consensus that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future).  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:20, 14 June 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:Accounting associations

 * 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 Category:Accounting associations and Category:Institute of Chartered Accountants into new Category:Professional accountancy bodies. Conscious (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * category


 * Delete - This category is not required, we already have Category:Accounting organizations. The further sub-category breakdown of 'Associations' is not needed.  As you can see at the +cat, editors are including articles in the 'Association' +cat that are not associations, due to confusion between the similarly named +cats 'Association' and 'Organization'.  All of the articles in the 'Association' +cat should be transferred to 'Organization'.  Green Squares (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you mean "merge". Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No I mean delete Green Squares (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "All of the articles in the 'Association' +cat should be transferred to 'Organization'." is a merge. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge see below... to Category:Accounting organizations. There might be a case for distinguishing between the professional membership bodies and the standard-setting etc bodies, but zzzzzz... Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for professional membership bodies and Merge Category:Institute of Chartered Accountants into it - I don't see the justification for separately sub-categorising a group of equivalent qualifications on the basis of name alone. (I have added a CFD notice on that category.) The only distinctive about the ICA category is that it is a member of Category:Institutes, which seems a pointless category. Move some articles into Category:Accounting associations from Category:Accounting organizations. Take the latter  out of Category:Professional associations, and repurpose it for standard-setting, enforcement and umbrella bodies. Give Johnbod a coffee. :-)   - Fayenatic (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: There should be no merger of Category:Institute of Chartered Accountants with anything else. It is a standalone category.  The ICA has many countries and they should be included in this category for ease of finding them. Green Squares (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Something of a separate issue, but I think I agree with Fayenatic. The Institutes don't I think share anything beyond a name and a certain historical background - there is no international body for them and not CPAs etc, AFAIK. Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * INCORRECT: The Institute of Chartered Accountants is an international organization and they are all linked. They should remain in a separate category.  You people have absolutely no knowledge about this topic, very very scary! Green Squares (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * and where is the website of this international organization? Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there's nothing scary. We've checked the facts -- have you? The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has members in various countries, and helped to set up some of the other national bodies that have a similar name, but there is no other connection. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Note that there is no article for Institute of Chartered Accountants - just a redirect to the England & Wales institute. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fayenatic, I would support this, but you can't ask a bot to do the work i think - & there isn't the coffee strong enough for me to do it. Would you be willing to take it on? Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, will do. If this outcome is approved, please use a bot to upmerge Category:Institute of Chartered Accountants into Associations, and I will manually down-categorise selected articles from Organizations to Associations. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, great - change to merge per Fayenatic above. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The recategorising from Organizations to Associations is now Done; if the outcome changes, a bot can put them all back.
 * On further reflection I think that Category:Accounting associations should be Renamed as Category:Professional accountancy bodies. The ICA category should still be merged into it. Fayenatic (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify the above: we now have a consensus to Merge Category:Accounting associations and Category:Institute of Chartered Accountants into new Category:Professional accountancy bodies. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:24, 25 June 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:Virgin Mary

 * 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:Mary (mother of Jesus). Conscious (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Virgin Mary to Category:Mary
 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation. In the article namespace, this must be named Mary (mother of Jesus), but there is no category named "Mary" so there is no need for the category to be named "Virgin Mary." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If renamed, Rename to Category:Mary (mother of Jesus) to match the article name. The fact that there is no Category:Mary does not mean we choose an ambiguous category name. Rename to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mary is waaaaay too generic. 70.51.9.85 (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So? Do you think there will be another category named Mary? Certainly, "Jesus" is just as generic, as millions of other men have the same name but we shouldn't rename Category:Jesus, should we? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's say I'm Hindu, and don't know "Mary, mother of God", why can't I categorize anyone or thing named Mary in it? "Mary" by itself requires Christian bias. Let's not forget things like the Gospel of Mary (Mary Magdalene), and other things related to Apostle Mary. Yes, I think Jesus should be renamed... say category:Jesus of Nazareth. Afterall, anyone or thing named Jesus is likely to be named after Jesus, the Christ/messiah 70.55.85.80 (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Mary (mother of Jesus) to match main article, per standard (per Vegaswikian). No need to do anything with Category:Jesus, since the main article is at, err, Jesus and so no disambiguation is needed in the category title.  BencherliteTalk 10:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Mary (mother of Jesus) per Vegaswikian & Bencherlite. Cgingold (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Rename to Category:Mary (mother of Jesus) to match article, and per Vegaswikian & Bencherlite. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Mary (mother of Jesus) per above comments. Calling it "Virgin" Mary is a bit slanted towards religious groups that believe she was a Virgin, either when she conceived or throughout her life. Not all Christian groups believe either or both of these and the Bible never calls her the "Virgin Mary". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The largest Protestant groupings believe (whether the members are aware of it or not) she conceived as a virgin. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Mary (mother of Jesus) per above comments. Mary is a non-starter for an article or a category. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sometimes its incorrect to match the article to the category. In this case, the article is about the person, thus the title should have the most objective-leaning title. However, the category is far more encompassing and includes articles about the whole virgin concept. In addition, objectivity is far less important in a category name and is outweighed by the fact that "Virgin Mary" is the well known and accepted name. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The term is well understood by Christians. Some may not believe in the Virgin Birth or have other reasons for disagreeing with the title, but it is inevitable that some articles will have names with which some people disagree.  In that respect a completely NPOV is often impossible.  Are we to rename articles on George W. Bush to soemthing like "alleged President Bush" becasue some people believe he was not duly elected?  I appreciate that this is a ridiculous example, but hope that it makes my point.  I note that there is already a Category:Mariology.  Is there not something else to merge here?  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Question What does NPOV have to do with it? No one is suggesting that the name is a POV violation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep this is the usual name. DGG (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Do you recommend moving the main article as well? Why would the article and the category have two different names? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Mary (mother of Jesus) per above comments. --Kabad (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment keep as Category:Virgin Mary or Category:Mary but not Category:Mary (mother of Jesus) . There is no need to match article names. Category names have to be short to be of any use. If it is long there are many way to misstype it-- e.g. what to capitlize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlaude (talk • contribs)


 * 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.