Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 18



Category:Black rock 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: Never edit Wikipedia unless fully coherent. It's been one of those days.  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Black rock musicians to Category:African American rock musicians
 * Nominator's rationale: Most categories of this sort use "African American" instead of Black. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – so all black people are American? Occuli (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2009 (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:Defunct cities in Oregon

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Defunct cities in Oregon to Category:Former settlements in Oregon
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Better to include all types of settlements. In Oregon, "city" is the term for a municipally incorporated settlement, but there are many in this cat that were never "cities". Also better matches parent cat, Category:Former cities in the United States. Katr67 (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Are you planning to nominate the other defunct and abandoned categories under Category:Former cities in the United States? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. Katr67 (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2009 (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:Social structure by country

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Social structure by country to Category:Social class by country
 * Nominator's rationale: It seems to be nothing more than a mostly-empty container for a subcat and two articles that could very easily fit into "Category:Social class by country". Social class by country should be moved up and placed into Category:Sociology directly. Octane (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2009 (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:Texas music artists

 * 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: relisted on 24th. Kbdank71 14:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * texas music artists


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Not a clearly defined category. Music of Texas doesn't make it clear which artists would qualify as "Texas music" artists. Do they just have to be from Texas? Do they have to be country, Americana, etc.? Do they have to have a certain style? "Music of Texas" doesn't make it clear. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Texas Country musicians, as the category is for artists of Texas Country Music (aka Texas Music). When categorizing by music genre, "musicians" is the common style, not "music artists," e.g. Category:American country rock musicians and Category:Canadian bluegrass musicians.-choster (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There is now a related CfD for Texas music, and capitalization (Texas Country vs Texas country) should match between the two.-choster (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2009 (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.

Renamed of categories:Bosnia and Herzegovina people convicted of war crimes

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming


 * Category:Bosnian Croats convicted of war crimes to Category:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina convicted of war crimes
 * Category:Bosnian Serbs convicted of war crimes to Category:Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina convicted of war crimes
 * Nominator's rationale: the accepted adjective form of 'Bosnia and Herzegovina' on wikipedia has become 'Bosnia and Herzegovina' and not 'Bosnian' (and there have been ethnic 'Bosniaks', Croats, and Serbs all resident to Herzegovina) Mayumashu (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Upmerge both to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people convicted of war crimes; their ethnicity is not what distinguishes them, it's their convictions for war crimes, and BiH is a nation, we don't need to have each broken up by ethnicity so someone can try to synthesize who "won". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "their ethnicity is not what distinguishes them"?? I suspect that will come as news to the people in question. That remark would be hysterically funny if it wasn't so pathetically and tragically absurd. Seriously, their ethnicity is precisely what they fought a bloody civil war over, ferkrisake. So because of your personal animosity toward ethnicity, your "solution" is to engage in ethnic cleansing of our categories?? Sorry, but our readers deserve better. Cgingold (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just in case there was any lingering doubt about where I stand on these cats: Keep and also Rename per nom for clarity. Cgingold (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. -- Since these two categories respesent opposing sides in the Civil War, it is utterly appropriate theat they should nbe separate. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. This case is an exception, I think, as Peter points out. We normally wouldn't class convicted criminals by ethnicity within a nationality, but the ethnicity of the people, not the nationality of the people, were most significant in the trials of all those included. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2009 (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:Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna

 * 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 match the article.  I note that nobody replied to Carlos' suggestion of renaming the article to match "Herceg-Bosna".  If consensus appears there for that change, this can be renamed back just as easily. Kbdank71 14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna to Category:Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia
 * Nominator's rationale: this name mixes English and Croatian and to match Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia Mayumashu (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's where the article is now, but I think it shouldn't be. Using ghits as a guide to what the more common English name of the place is "Herzeg Bosna" seems to outpoll "Herzeg Bosnia" about 4:1 among English webpages catalogued at Google. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Beyond going by the article name, I have no opinion on it, myself Mayumashu (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I didn't have a "support" or "oppose", because I believe that the cat should match the article, but I also believe that the article is mis-named. Let's see what editors there say when I propose moving the article. If I survive, I'll report back. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2009 (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:Bosnian Serbs

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Bosnian Serbs to Category:Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * Nominator's rationale: there have been people of Serb ethnicity in Herzegovina and to match Category:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina Mayumashu (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unneeded ethnic category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Bosnia remains a divided country despite the Dayton accord.  Thsi categorisation is as relevant as having separate English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish categories.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename for clarity. Most citizens of B–H define themselves in this way, by ethnicity. Wasn't that what the war was all about? It seems relevant. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly, Rename as already explained. Cgingold (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2009 (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:Science fiction related lists

 * 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:Science fiction lists. Kbdank71 14:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Science fiction related lists to Category:Science fiction-related lists
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Conventional hyphen when the word "related" is used in a category of lists. Tim! (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Then it should be Category:Science-fiction-related lists, otherwise it is science lists related to fiction. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the simpler Category:Science fiction lists would be preferable. Tim! (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per Tim. Pegship (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, rename as . I've populated it with a bunch of sub-cats. I find it surprising that this didn't exist already. The head category:Lists of books by genre or type does not cover the field, as the contents cover media other than literature, but there seem to be no other lists-by-genre categories; perhaps they will follow. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2009 (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:LGBT atheists

 * 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. does anyone know of an emoticon of my jaw hitting the floor?  Just wondering... Kbdank71 14:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * lgbt atheists


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Per WP:CATGRS, "Categories should not be based on sexuality unless the sexuality has a specific relation to the topic." Unlike Category:LGBT Christians and others in Category:LGBT people by religion, there is no article about LGBT atheists, and that topic is not well covered by reliable sources. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unneeded religion/sexuality category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unlike where there is a meaningful issue regarding Christianity and homosexuality that makes it useful to have Category:LGBT Christians, there does not seem to be any purpose to grouping Category:LGBT atheists. I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Alansohn (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2009 (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:Gender differences in peace, war and aggression

 * 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 (has remained empty). Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * gender differences in peace, war and aggression


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Overly narrow. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - It looks like you managed to jump on this before it was even populated. Or perhaps it was never going to be populated. Seeing as it was created by a very new editor, I suspect s/he may have had something else in mind. Cgingold (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was populated with an article in sandbox-space. I can't see the category ever being useful as it's far too narrow in scope. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. It would have been helpful to mention that in your nominating statement. In any event, I tend to agree that the category is too narrow in scope, especially seeing as we don't even have a Category:Gender differences. Cgingold (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete empty, and per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2009 (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:Sex victim advocacy

 * 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.  Everyone brings up very valid points, including Carlos.  "sexual abuse" is subjective, and I think, too broad for what we're trying to capture.  That said, it's a better name than "Sex victim advocacy", even if cumbersome. (I did like the "Rape victim advocacy" (or anything as specific) suggestion as it is more objective, there wasn't consensus for it) Kbdank71 14:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

sex victim advocacy
 * Rename to Category:Sexual abuse victims advocacy. The current name is grammatically/semantically flawed: what is a "Sex victim"? I considered "Sex crime victims" and "Sexual Assault Victims", but I think "Sexual abuse" is preferrable as it is somewhat broader.  Cgingold (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Fine with me, if cumbersome. Sort of like "Sex slave" becoming "sexual abuse victim slave" &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 04:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC) (Note: Mattisse is the category's creator.)
 * Yikes, please tell me you were joking... seeing as "Sex slave" is the standard term -- and "sexual abuse victim slave" is just garbled & nonsensical. All the same, feel free to suggest another name if you think you can come up with better wording. Cgingold (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete what's "sexual abuse" is purely subjective. Arranged marriages? abuse? Divorce? abuse? Plural marriages? abuse? A 17-year-old having sex with an 18-year old [or fill in your place's age of consent]? abuse? I've even heard circumcision, prostitution, abortion, lack of availability of sex education and contraceptives classed as "sexual abuses". Way too broad. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good grief, Carlos. If you really think that "'sexual abuse' is purely subjective" I suggest you might want to go to the source of the "problem" and see about getting rid of Category:Sexual abuse, along with most or all of its sub-cats. Btw, none of the silly strawman examples you cited are included there. Alternatively, if you really want to be helpful, perhaps you might suggest an improvement on the category name I've proposed. Cgingold (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think whoever went and tried to create a "sexual abuse" category by cobbling together what they think belongs and excluding what they think doesn't is the root of the problem. Category:Rape victims advocacy works just fine and we know what we are talking about: people who are victims of "rape" as such is defined in the statutory laws of the place concerned; "abuse" is a cobbling together of unlikes that someone synthesizes are alike enough for him/her: Category:Abusive regimes, Category:Abuse perpetrators, etc. would never fly (even the Category:Abuse is a cobbling together of everything for whistle blowing groups to various activities some people consider "abuse", which the article abuse defines as "Abuse refers to the use or treatment of something (a person, item, substance, concept, or vocabulary) that is harmful." So if I confuse "their" "there" and "they're" I'm an abuser - or is it harmful? And many things few consider "abuse" fit the definition: incarceration of the guilty, honking your horn in traffic, giving time-outs to your children, killing animals to eat them, deforestation, driving on fossil fuels, etc. These "abuse" categories need an overhaul and let's start here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree the thing is a mess. Try to tackle Category:Sex crimes which is supposed to be about the crimes, and not the criminals, but is pervaded with much more interest in the criminals, even Category: Fictional pedophiles, Category:Pedophile activism, Category:Films with a pedophile theme, Category:People acquitted of sex crimes, Category: Rapists, Category:Sex offenders by nationality etc. The Category:Sex victim advocacy is both under Category:Sex crimes, then repeated again under Category:Sexual abuse. As far as your suggestion, should it be Category:Sexual abuse victims advocacy or Category:Sexual abuse victim advocacy? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 16:27, 22 February 2009 (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.