Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 1



Category:Transport ministers of Nigeria

 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * transport ministers of nigeria


 * Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Appears to heve been moved to Category:Transportation ministers of Nigeria by Vuvar1. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If so then it should be empty and will be eligible for speedy in another few days. Debresser (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the intent is to get CfD to ratify the change rather than speedily deleting it and thereby passively allowing an out-of-process move. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support new name. The new name appears use the official name of the Nigerian ministry ("transportation", not "transport"): . Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ratify per GO & nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. According to politics of Nigeria, the minister is called "Minister of Transportation". Jafeluv (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ratify Official name of role. Orderinchaos 15:46, 6 July 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:Solar energy by territory

 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Solar energy by territory to Category:Solar energy
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. I'm not convinced that we need this extra level with a name that is ambiguous and confusing. Upmerge to parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per nominator. Beagel (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator - unneeded. PasswordUsername (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with nominator completely. Debresser (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per all - Category:Solar power in the European Union, containing only 1 article, should be upmerged (2 ways) too. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 5 July 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.

European music groups

 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Category:European music groups -- Definition of countries that lie in Europe is dubious. Not necessary anyway.  Cosprings (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly reject the first argument, but agree with second argument of nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not necessary if they are classified by country. Orderinchaos 15:47, 6 July 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:Musical groups by nationality and genre

 * 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 all.  --  X damr  talk 21:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Category:Musical groups by nationality and genre and Category:Musical groups by genre and nationality. Both seem useless to me.  There are already categories  Category:Musical groups by nationality and Category:Musical groups by genre.  Someone's misguided attempt at over-categorization. Cosprings (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add Category:South African jazz albums to this discussion since it appears that the nominator emptied it out of process. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that these categories have not been properly tagged. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll also add Category:Jazz music groups when these are correctly nominated. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll also add Category:Organ trios when the first ones are correctly nominated. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep – the first 2 - these are merely (double) subcat schemes arranged as usual. Keep and repopulate Category:South African jazz albums unless some rationale for deletion can be provided. I can see no obvious rationale for deleting Category:Jazz music groups. Category:Organ trios seems an unlikely candidate for a category. Occuli (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would guess that Category:Jazz music groups is redundant with the more developed Category:Jazz ensembles. Category:South African jazz albums is the intersection of Category:South African albums and Category:Jazz albums; Category:Jazz albums by nationality has not as yet got very far. Still, these are matters for cfd. Occuli (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Occuli. Debresser (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge all -- Category:Musical groups by nationality and genre, Category:Musical groups by genre and nationality, Category:South African jazz albums, Category:Jazz music groups, and Category:Organ trios (already deleted C1) -- no need for triple intersections, over-categorization. Apparently, Occuli rudely removed the article space merge tags, instead of helpfully fixing the nominator's tags (fixed now).


 * 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.

Asian Games

 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * syria at the 2008 asian beach games


 * syria at the 2005 asian indoor games


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. In each case, there is one short article which would fit into that category, with the same title as the category. Syria won 1 medal at each games, so it seems unlikely that there will be enough further articles to fill a category in each case.thisisace (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As the creator of both has blanked both, and they are both empty, this can be speedied. Occuli (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with nominator. I'm not sure if Occuli mentioned a valid speedy criteria. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have more faith. Occuli (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here it is - Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. Occuli (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I have much faith in you. I forgot about the general speedy criteria. :) Debresser (talk) 21:54, 2 July 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:One Network

 * 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.  Tiptoety  talk 03:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * one network


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. The network has been broken up, due to its takeover by another company. The article The One Network, which describes this, is now in Category:Former British radio networks.thisisace (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. However, I'd also like to point out that at some point recently, an anonymous user also blanked the article about the topic, leaving only the "who took over all the old stations" part. The fact that we no longer need a category for this doesn't mean that we no longer need an article about it, given that people might legitimately still want information about what this was. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Moreover, it could be speedied after the cat is empty 4 days. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 1 July 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.

Chatham-Kent categories

 * 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 all. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:


 * Category:Chatham-Kent, Ontario to Category:Chatham-Kent
 * Category:Communities in Chatham-Kent, Ontario to Category:Communities in Chatham-Kent
 * Category:Education in Chatham-Kent, Ontario to Category:Education in Chatham-Kent
 * Category:High schools in Chatham-Kent, Ontario to Category:High schools in Chatham-Kent
 * Category:Geography of Chatham-Kent, Ontario to Category:Geography of Chatham-Kent
 * Category:Media in Chatham-Kent, Ontario to Category:Media in Chatham-Kent
 * Category:Parks in Chatham-Kent, Ontario to Category:Parks in Chatham-Kent
 * Category:People from Chatham-Kent, Ontario to Category:People from Chatham-Kent
 * Category:Radio stations in Chatham-Kent, Ontario to Category:Radio stations in Chatham-Kent
 * Category:Transportation in Chatham-Kent, Ontario to Category:Transportation in Chatham-Kent


 * Nominator's rationale: Rename - I would like to propose a newly renamed categories. These categories will be renamed to just Chatham-Kent. I already read about renaming and move the article to Chatham-Kent on the talk page. And one user already apologize for renaming without it's discussion or permission. So right now it is already agreed by some users to renaming to Chatham-Kent. According to Chatham-Kent's talk page. All those Chatham-Kent categories will be renamed without including the province name. Steam5 (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article was recently moved without discussion, though also without much subsequent opposition. But category names sometimes have to be that much clearer, & given there is Chatham, Kent in England, this seems to be one of those cases. Most comparable Ontario categories still have the state in their name. Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But there is a talk page at Talk:Chatham-Kent. The article was already renamed to Chatham-Kent as already agreed to some users. and the dash (-) is between "Chatham" and "Kent" to become a city/municipality in the province of Ontario without it's confusion. Steam5 (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the article was moved in 2007 with a perfectly acceptable consensus-establishing discussion to support it. I disagreed that comma vs. hyphen was really sufficient disambiguation, but the consensus was what it was. And while I've often seen the claim that the standards for category names need to be higher than the standards for articles, I have yet to see one single, solitary example in which a category name really was any more ambiguous than that of its head article. Truthfully, I'd still prefer to see the article go back to Chatham-Kent, Ontario, as I still don't think a mere hyphen is sufficient, but the principle of "match categories to article name" trumps any other consideration here. Either move the categories per nominator or propose redabbing the article — my own preference would be the latter rather than the former, but either way there's no valid reason for them to be left at different levels of disambiguation from each other, a solution which itself creates more confusion than it solves. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I would also oppose the renaming of the article. The point is that articles are named by editors who think their Chatham is of global significance and not to be disambiguated, whereas cfd is a wider forum. I have never heard of either Chatham but we can't have Chatham-Kent and Chatham, Kent (and many others - see Chatham). Occuli (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We can't have Chatham-Kent and Category:Chatham-Kent, Ontario, either. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We can - categories often need to named more clearly. The article has a disam header & the 1st line makes the subject clear. This could be repeated in a category, but people using categories look at the contents rather than the small print imo. But I think the article would be better moved back. Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we can't; it creates more confusion than it fixes. If you ever end up with a situation where the city's head article and its associated categories actually have to be named differently from each other, it doesn't mean there are genuinely different issues to consider — it means you're doing something wrong and one of the two titles needs to be changed.
 * The thing is, unlike an article, it's really, truly, flatly impossible to get to a category by accident: you can only get there either through an article, which has already made the context obvious because the article provided the detail you mention, or by navigating the category tree, which has already made the context obvious because you can't get to it without branching your way down a succession of categories that included "Canada" and/or "Ontario" in their names. So it's simply not possible for the same name to be more ambiguous in a category than it is in an article title — while you're right that the category doesn't necessarily explain itself, you can't get to it without that explanation already having been provided to you before you even got there. Bearcat (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But one can easily place articles inadvertently in the wrong category (without visiting it, eg using Hotcat) if the names are imprecise, as happens regularly with Category:People from Birmingham. This is not a risk to which articles are susceptible. Occuli (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason that even happens at all is precisely because there's an article-title-to-category-name mismatch. And articles are, in fact, susceptible to being mislinked. People frequently link to incorrect topics — either disambiguation pages or articles about the wrong thing entirely — in body text, which is even less likely to get caught promptly than a category misfiling is. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of categories not matching their main article, eg many US cities. Category:People from Birmingham usually contains a motley crew (4 at present). Category:People from Chatham should be renamed or repurposed whilst we are on the topic of Chathams. Are we really suggesting Category:People from Chatham, Kent and Category:People from Chatham-Kent? Occuli (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- I know nothing of the place in question, but without "Ontario" it would easily be confused with the original Chatham in the original Kent. Ideally, move the article back; otherise make sure that it has a capnote linking it to the original Chatham.  Chatham was the location of one of the four Naval dockyards in the Thames estuary, and is a substantial town.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and rename articled. "Chatham-Kent" will mean Chatham, Kent to 99% of Wikipedian users outside Canada. Grutness...wha?  01:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - You all don't get the point opposing users, The difference for Chatham, Kent is the comma the comma is the town in the United Kingdom. And the dash (-) for Chatham-Kent is for the municipality in Ontario, Canada. I nominate all the Chatham-Kent categories for renaming on a National Holiday in Canada, cause Chatham-Kent is located in Ontario and part of Canada. Also these categories Chatham-Kent is to match the main article including the dash (-). Steam5 (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I'm afraid it's you that doesn't get the point. Most of these people seem to want "Chatham-Kent" moved back to "Chatham-Kent, Ontario" because the difference with "Chatham, Kent" is too subtle. This would then also match the existing categories. I don't care one way or the other, so don't debate me on this. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. The difference between Chatham, Kent and Chatham-Kent would be lost on most readers. As such, the Ontario place needs disambiguation. Grutness...wha?  01:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have set up a move request to go back to "Chatham-Kent, Ontario"; survey at Talk:Chatham-Kent. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Let me make everyone a deal, Johnbod already make a survey is to rename back to Chatham-Kent, Ontario if everyone supported the article back to Chatham-Kent, Ontario, the existing discussion from 2007 is about renaming from Chatham-Kent, Ontario to Chatham-Kent will be removed from the talk page, and maybe I will withdrew the nomination, if everyone supported. And we all won't talk about renaming it back again. Steam5 (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to comment -whatever the outcome, the previous discussion should be left on the page, but a note should be added to it indicating the later counter-survey. Grutness...wha?  01:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the talk page at Talk:Chatham-Kent and looks like most users supported to rename the article to Chatham-Kent, Ontario. The title will change for the main article soon. So, right now I would like to withdraw the nominated categories and keep the categories to match with the newly titled article Chatham-Kent, Ontario. Steam5 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to confusion with the locale in England. Orderinchaos 15:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Recommend decision be postponed until the requested move at Talk:Chatham-Kent is settled. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That has now happened, with a move to Chatham-Kent, Ontario, so this can now be closed as Keep, as the current name of the category is again consistent with the article name. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 10 July 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.

Rugby league players by club

 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Adelaide Rams rugby league players to Category:Adelaide Rams players
 * This didn't work for some reason. There is a multitude of categories to be re-named, to which I added what I thought was the right template, but they aren't appearing here. They are most (but not all) the subcategories in Category:Rugby league players by club.
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. No need to specify the sport in team player categories, as per this discussion. Jeff79 (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename unless the club in question plays other sports. (Eg Adelaide Rams is a rugby league club so rename.) Occuli (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree per Jeff79 and the logic behind his argument. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 1 July 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.

Radio stations by frequency

 * 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.  Tiptoety  talk 03:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 94.7 mhz fm radio stations in the united states


 * 87.9 mhz fm radio stations in the united states


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete or at least rename. Is this a good way to categorize radio stations? I'm not convinced that it is. Currently these are the only two categories in this scheme. While you could argue that frequency of a radio station is defining (how else would one find it on a radio if the frequency was unknown?), I'm not sure there is much utility to grouping radio stations together by frequency, since they will have nothing else in common and will of necessity serve different markets. At the very least, we need to reduce the caps on "Radio Stations" to "radio stations" for these two categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Radio stations are already categorized geographically, by format, and (where enough are in common) by owner. Those are all defining characteristics, and so are logical groupings. Frequency is not. Even if this were to be considered appropriate, it would be a huge job to set up this category structure. It would need to be done in a very organized manner, and should be coordinated with the relevant WikiProject. Mlaffs (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per both. Another 0.5% complete grand scheme we don't need. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone above. PasswordUsername (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – contenders for 'least interesting category' award. Occuli (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - while I would venture that a radio station's frequency is defining for it, in the same way your house number is to you, categorizing on this point seems not really helpful as I can't figure out why someone would see a radio station and want to see what other radio stations have the same frequency and more than people would want to know who else lived at places with 1234 as their house number, say. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. While there's been a consensus established that lists by frequency are acceptable, categories simply aren't necessary or desired by WP:WPRS. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per all above. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 19:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This was posted at WikiProject Radio Stations.  Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone. Steam5 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a station's frequency is factual but not truly defining. When KLOO-FM moved from 106.1 to 106.3 MHz as part of a multi-station frequency shift, it didn't change personnel, format, location, or anything else that truly defines it as a radio station. There are already lists that cover this by-frequency breakdown and give far more contextual information. - Dravecky (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/listify -- speaking as a former radio professional, frequency is critically important. However, much better as a list because of context.
 * Delete I'm not seeing frequency as a defining characteristic. i.e. 99.3 in my city (Perth, Australia) and the same frequency in 99.3 in Vancouver, Canada have nothing else in common with each other. However it may be suitable for a list. Orderinchaos 15:53, 6 July 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.