Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 25



Category:Fictional superheroes

 * 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. the wub  "?!"  11:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * fictional superheroes


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete: Aren't superheroes, by definition, fictional? Right now, the category includes characters like the Avengers, the X-men and the Justice League, which makes it redundant with Category:Superheroes and its sub-categories. If it's not deleted, I think this category can be used for meta-fictional superheroes, like The Gray Ghost and Radioactive Man. Nohansen (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy merge to Category:Superheroes as obvious duplicate. Otto4711 (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy merge. Yes, last I checked, "superheroes," are "by definition, fictional." ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  22:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So are role models. Merge, obviously. — CharlotteWebb 20:27, 30 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:Theists

 * 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. the wub  "?!"  12:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * theists


 * Nominator's rationale: Overly broad and for those who are identified by they religious affiliation, there are already more specific categories for the various forms of theism. Just calling someone a theist seems to be a non-defining and trivial characteristic and an invitation for WP:OR by deciding that anyone who says the word God must be a theist which is an easily demonstrable fallacy. Collectonian (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying the word God doesn't make one a theist. saying one believes in God(s) does as does believing that one can call upon God(s) to aid people. --Blackeagles (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's how it should be used, but such a person should, if its relevant, be categorizable as a Deist or in any of the other forms of theism than such a broad label. Collectonian (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And since you insist Peter I'll add more people to it if Collectonian will let me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackeagles (talk • contribs) 18:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If this category truly applied to anyone without further breakdown of their specific beliefs, it would be a trivial or non-defining characteristic. It's like saying they believe in a god or gods but otherwise don't claim to know anything else about them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * repurpose as an umbrella category for theism people 70.51.8.129 (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A category with this title could be a supercategory for Christian People, Muslim People, etc, but it has just one indivcidual member at present. However, I doubt that it is in fact be useful, since it would probably cover 80% or 90% of mankind.  Accordingly, delete.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per norm. We list atheists, agnostics, deists, and pantheists. Why not theists?
 * Delete. Too broad to be a useful category, as has been stated above.  If all the category indicates about a person is that they believed in God, or a god, or in many gods, that information would trivial. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  22:53, 29 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:All non-free Logos

 * 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 on the merge; rename both to fix the capitalisation error. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:All non-free Logos to Category:Non-free Logos
 * Nominator's rationale: The 2 categories appear to serve the exact same purpose and categorize the exact same media files. I cannot figure out what the difference is between them. One appears to be populated partially by Betacommand bot, and one is populated automatically by the upload form. However, I don't know which category is populated by which, or if one is populated by both. Bottom line, why are there 2 categories for the exact same type of media files? They should be merged into a single cat. It doesn't matter which is merged into the other...whichever is more convenient. IllaZilla (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hold on. I think the point of this is to have one category which directly contains all of the images, and another which only contains them indirectly via sub-categories. The current redundancy would probably be fixed by editing a handful of templates and waiting for the job queue to finish. To that end, keep both but rename as "Logos" need not be capitalized. — CharlotteWebb 20:32, 30 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:Distributed Computing Teams

 * 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, empty. Kbdank71 13:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * distributed computing teams


 * Nominator's rationale: Useless category, created solely to celebrate a distributed-computing "team"'s achievements (see here) and place more of them onto Wikipedia. Almost-zero chance of any such articles surviving AFD or speedy deletion to begin with, so no point to this category. See also parent category Category:Distributed Computing, duplicate category Category:Distributed computing teams, and Template:Infobox Distributed teams Calton | Talk 16:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. This nomination is a bit unclear. Category:Distributed Computing Teams is empty and could be speedied. Template:Infobox Distributed teams is up for deletion at TfD. Category:Distributed Computing has a CfD template on it, but it is not clear whether it is included in this proposal. Category:Distributed computing teams has one entry and this is the main one to be deleted. The parent category should also be included in this proposal and it should also be deleted. --Bduke (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The template is already listed at TFD -- hell, I did it before this listing -- and is included here for information purposes only. --Calton | Talk 01:23, 26 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:Iowa secretaries of state

 * 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 for consistency.  Per, it would appear that the name of the office is indeed "Secretary of State", not "Iowa Secretary of State".  Therefore, if anyone prefers "State office" instead of "office of state", I would recommend nominating all of the State secretary subcats for renaming. Kbdank71 13:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Iowa secretaries of state to Category:Secretaries of State of Iowa
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard formatting for subcategories of Category:State secretaries of state of the United States. In creating, creator commented that he was formatting to conform with main article Iowa Secretary of State, but I think conforming to the format of the other subcategories is preferable in this case.  Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't rename. The standard for these types of categories is to do "office of state". (see Naming conventions (categories)).  In this case, the name of the office is "Iowa Secretary of State", rendering the following "of Iowa" superfluous.  Hence, I omitted it from the category title, which would otherwise have read "Iowa Secretary of State of Iowa", which is just ridiculous. --Tim4christ17 talk 17:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the fact that the standard for this particular category seems to be "Secretaries of State of Foo" or "Secretaries of the Commonwealth of Foo"? Note that there are no exceptions to this pattern right now except this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The interesting thing about the U.S. is that office titles are not uniform across the states. My suggestion would be more accurate as well in conformance with the naming convention (and an official guideline) I cited.  --Tim4christ17 talk 23:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is interesting, but it still doesn't address what role the consistent pattern in naming similar offices in other states should or should not play. Are you saying we should not care about consistency across states at all, or are you saying they all should be renamed to "Foo secretaries of state"? While diversity among states is interesting, I don't know if it should govern the choice of category names. See this discussion here for a similar example of accuracy/diversity vs. conformity for U.S. state categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That was different because the meaning of "shire town" is not immediately apparent. The meaning of "Iowa Secretary of State" is immediately apparent.  --Tim4christ17 talk 03:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As is the proposed name here, which also has the added benefit of consistency across similar categories for other states. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But it miscommunicates the name of the office in question. The primary goal of an encyclopedia should be accuracy, hence my application of the guideline I cited above.  Additionally, I would note that the guideline I cited is a category naming convention which therefore (presumably) reflects the consensus of the community with regard to the names of categories such as this one.  --Tim4christ17 talk 08:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That confuses the purpose of an encylopedia article with the purpose of WP category. They are not necessarily co-extensive, and categories don't need to be slavishly accurate at the cost of bringing unnecessary inconsistency to the system. The use of the {catmore} template is usually sufficient to resolve any "problems" that may result from a name being different from the article name. Other states have the same issue but the category has conformed: e.g., it's the Oregon Secretary of State officially but the category is Category:Secretaries of State of Oregon. If the naming convention is to be applied, it should be applied uniformly and the other categories should be proposed for renaming (or at least the ones which use the reverse "official name"). So far the consensus seems to be that this category is an exception to the convention; at least that's how it's developed thus far. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, could you please clarify what you mean by "this category"? Obviously there's no consensus on this category in particular as you and I are the only ones discussing it.  Also, my concern about accuracy was more that the incorrect, but "standard" category name would appear on each article in the category; while standardization is only likely to be noticed by those using the Category page.  --Tim4christ17 talk 08:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This category = what I meant was the parent Category:State secretaries of state of the United States and its subcategories. We can see if anyone else wants to comment; I think we've presented both sides well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes more sense. *starts waiting to see if someone else will comment* --Tim4christ17 talk 09:40, 27 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:List of Characters

 * 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: close, nothing to merge or rename. Kbdank71 13:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:List of Characters to Category:Lists of fictional characters
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, Seems to be for the same purpose as existing category which is more descriptive (and uses proper pluralisation and caps).  Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Needless repetition. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  22:54, 29 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:People from Provost municipal district

 * 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 for consistency, per the fact that the nomination was not contested. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:People from Provost municipal district to Category:People from Provost municipal district, Alberta
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Add ", Alberta" per standard formatting of subcategories of parent Category:People by county or municipal district in Alberta.   Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No opinion on this yet, but if Renamed shouldn't it be to Category:People from the Provost municipal district, Alberta? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was mirroring Category:People from Spirit River municipal district, Alberta and Category:People from Taber municipal district, Alberta. Just like we don't generally say "People from the Foo County", I don't think we would use the article "the" in referring to a municipal district. (In Alberta municipal districts and counties are essentially the same, just with different terminology.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:06, 30 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:Syrian playwriters

 * 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: close, move already made. Kbdank71 13:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Syrian playwriters to Category:Syrian dramatists and playwrights
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard formatting of subcategories of parent Category:Dramatists and playwrights by nationality.  Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: By this timestamp, creator had created the proposed category and manually migrated everything in it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * REdirect to new category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:54, 27 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:Syrian Ministers

 * 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: close, move already made. Kbdank71 13:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Syrian Ministers to Category:Government ministers of Syria
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard formatting of subcategories of parent Category:Government ministers by country.  Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. By this timestamp, creator had created proposed category and manually migrated the contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy redirect to new category. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:55, 27 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:Decorative arts

 * 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: reverse merge. the wub  "?!"  12:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Decorative arts - Suggest merge to Category:Decorative art. It is totally redundant. Goldenrowley (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nomination moved from WP:UCFD. Black Falcon (Talk) 03:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. Agreed, I would be fine with either form, but see no need for change now. BananaFiend (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge to Category:Decorative arts which is actually the more widely used term, for furniture, ironwork etc. "Decorative art" rather implies decorative painting schemes etc. I have just moved the main article to decorative arts - like the category description, it already began "The decorative arts ...." Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge per Johnbod. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge per Johnbod and the good argument therein. Certainly 'arts' is the more common form. Hmains (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge sounds even better, thanks. Goldenrowley (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge per Johnbod. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  22:44, 29 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.