Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 22



Barbados cricketers

 * 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 distrinction; one being for the team and the other for the nationality. Remove Category:Barbados cricketers from  and . I've added definitions to each category page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Barbados cricketers to Category:Barbadian cricketers
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. The form "Noun cricketers" is only used for international teams or where there is difficulty with the adjective (e.g., Dominica). With the exception of the adjectival problems, WI cricketers are sorted by nationality using adjectivs (e.g., Jamaican cricketers, Montserratian cricketers). This should be likewise. Grutness...wha?  21:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Duplicate category, name does not conform to convention. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This qualifies for a Speedy Merge per nom. Cgingold (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is a difference between the two categories: Barbadian cricketers are those from Barbados, Barbados cricketers are those who have represented the Barbados national cricket team. One can play for the team without being from Barbados, and conversely one can be from Barbados and play first-class cricket for another team and never represent the Barbados cricket team. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Then why is there no such distinction for any other part of the West Indies? Jamaican cricketers are all in, similarly Guyanese - there are no or . I can understand there being no noun equivalents for Anguillan, St. Lucian, Grenadian, since they compete as part of combined "provincial" first class teams... but Barbados is distinctly the odd one out here. Grutness...wha?  22:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there is a better argument for creating categories to fill these gaps than there is for removing the distinction between these categories.  [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 12:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If so, it is also an argument for removing from, since it is clearly not the purpose of the category (if it hadn't been in there, I probably wouldn't have proposed this for merging - its usage definitely needs clarifying). Grutness...wha?  23:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, should be removed from .  is the correct sub-category for that category. "Barbados" is a first-class cricket team, "Barbadian" is a nationality. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Nev1. Players for the Barbados cricket team do not necessarily need to be Bajan and vice versa. This is consistent with Category:Victoria cricketers and Category:Essex cricketers containing cricketers outside Victoria (Australia) and Essex respectively. This distinction is not just theoretical; Frank Worrell, a Bajan, played much of his cricket for Jamaica. Note that Category:Ireland cricketers and Category:Irish cricketers are not the same thing, a similar principle applies here. If there is a problem with the Jamaican and Guyanese categories then that should be corrected; better to be accurate and possibly inconsistent rather than consistent but wrong. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Nev1 and Mattinbgn. Cricketers from Barbados and cricketers who play for Barbados are not the same thing. To be consistent I think that Chris Gayle should start the category Category:Jamaica cricketers (meaning "Jamaica national cricket team cricketers" and which shouldn't be a redirect), and not that this category should be removed. It is the same as Category:English cricketers and Category:England Test cricketers (except that some international teams haven't played Test/ODI/Twenty20I matches).&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nev1 and others. --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:53, 25 March 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:Watchmakers (Individuals)

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

To match Category:Publishers (people) and other similar categories. — CharlotteWebb 13:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * watchmakers (individuals) → Category:Watchmakers (people)


 * Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support to better indicate purpose. Alansohn (talk) 21:13, 22 March 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:Son

 * 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:Son (music). Kbdank71 14:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Son to Category:Son Cubano
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. If kept, should be named to match Son Cubano for clarity purposes. No opinion on whether keeping a category for this style of music would be appropriate or not—I don't know enough about it to know if the category could be added to substantially or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Two points: 1. Not against renaming as such, but if done would much prefer the more open Category:Son (music), and ditto for the equivalent content page (I'm going to propose a name change for the content page also). The son was indeed a Cuban invention, but is now a widespread form in the Caribbean and Americas, and so, like the bolero, the mambo, the guaracha, and so on, should not be titled Cuban/cubano.
 * 2. But against Category:Son Cubano specifically, because it violates normal Spanish orthography, which would call for lower case: Category:Son cubano.
 * 3. On these various grounds, I propose Category:Son (music) which avoids all problems. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Sure, as long as the article name change were also proposed, I don't see a problem with this alternative. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename (suitably) to match article (Son (music) is a redirect to Son Cubano at present). There are musicians mentioned in the article who can go into Category:Son musicians; no doubt there are songs and albums too, as in Category:Salsa music. Occuli (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename, to either Category:Son music or Category:Son (music). "Cubano" is too restrictive and has the abovementioned Spanish orthography issues. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support to match title of parent article. If a new parent is created, a new name can be considered. Alansohn (talk) 21:12, 22 March 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:British soap opera villains

 * 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. — TKD:: {talk}  04:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * british soap opera villains


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think it's safe to say that there has been a long-standing consensus not to use the formulation of "villains" in category names: see here. The problem is typically that the term is POV and subjective, especially in media where there is not always a clear-cut division of "heroes" and "villains". But even in media where the division often is fairly bright line, like comics, we still usually don't use the term for categories. For a very similar category that was deleted, see Days of Our Lives villains. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I note that Category:Soap opera villains was itself deleted 2 years ago. So unless there is something dramatically (or should I say, melodramatically) different about British soap operas -- perhaps all of the characters designated as "villains" are instantly identifiable as such because they all wear villainous eye-patches or carry villainous riding crops -- I don't see any reason to make an exception for this particular category. Cgingold (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Cgingold. Plenty of soap characters are anti-heroes to some degree, but most are not one-dimensional villains. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & Cgingold & precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, inherently difficult to define effectively. -- Rodhull andemu  17:11, 28 March 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:Trumpet repertoire

 * 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 at close). Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * trumpet repertoire


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete The nominated didn't subst here so I did that for me. My comments are is that it's an empty category that doesn't follow the naming pattern of the rest of categories for music pieces per instrument.  Q  T C 04:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: I substed a CFD. Does not follow naming pattern. Empty category as of March 22. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 15:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The category is empty because it was depopulated by the nominator. It looks like its entries were moved to Category:Compositions for trumpet. - Eureka Lott 16:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I depopulated Category:Trumpet Repertoire, not this one. Q  T C 19:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The main article for the category (Category:Trumpet repertoire/Category:Compositions for trumpet) is at Trumpet repertoire. Occuli (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Compositions for trumpet or reverse merge that to here. No strong view which, but we do not need both.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:39, 26 March 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:Georgian folk instruments

 * 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 (merge to make sure nothing is lost).  Would recommend a rename to fix the "Georgian musical instruments" category; precedent on "Georgian" isn't as clear as it is with "Georgia", and we could do well with a definitive answer. Kbdank71 14:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * georgian folk instruments


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Every single article in this category also appears in Category:Georgian musical instruments. Most of these "folk instruments" categories are completely redundant with "nationality" instrument categories, and offer no benefit while increasing category fragmentation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge the other way, keeping all parents. Nom misses the point that his proposal would lose the instruments to the folk tree. If it is the case that all a nation's instruments can fairly be called "folk" then that should be the only category, but staying in the Instruments by nationality scheme. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say I'm "missing the point."  The Folk tree is nearly worthless, as the Nationality tree is doing about the same thing but far better.  There really hasn't been any problem with non-folk instruments being put into the Nationality tree, so again Folk Instruments and Instruments By Nationality are 95% parallel and just making things complicated.  I voted before to just delete the entire Folk tree, but couldn't get a full consensus on it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is more the case that "Instruments By Nationality" is "nearly worthless" - the only country with a number of genuinely individual instuments only found in one country is the USA. For example the only "German" musical instument, apparently, is the Bumbass, whose article begins:"The bumbass was a folk instrument used throughout Europe"! It would make more sense to do these by culture, or at least merge with the folk tree. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - whatever is done, these should be renamed to "Georgian (country)..." per long-standing precedent. Grutness...wha?  22:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see that being advisable in circumstances where there could definitely be confusion, Cities and towns in Georgia or whatever, but given that US states don't generally have their own unique instruments I'd say it's redundant here. There are plenty of categories about Georgia (the country) that don't have "(country)" in them.  Do we have some huge thread somewhere where folks came to a consensus to label "(country)" rather than just use "(US state)" and let the country be the default use of the term? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, all instances of "Georgia" are slowly converting to either "...(U.S. state)" or "...(country)" for ease of disambiguity - even in cases where the need for disambiguation is a little less obvious - in this case, I'm sure fans of R&B piano or jangly guitar might argue that there are musical instruments and forms closely associated with that state...:) Grutness...wha?  23:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true for all instances of "Georgia", but not for all instances of "Georgian". See Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_10. The approach adopted here was to rephrase the name into "from Georgia (country)" rather than use "Georgian (country)". But as I predicted in the discussion, no effort has been made to change the other uses of "Georgian" throughout the category tree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - presumably all Fooian intruments are Fooian folk instruments - otherwise piano and guitar and drum would probably be in 200+ categories; and someone should nominate to rename the Category:Georgian musical instruments along the lines suggested by Grutness. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Georgian musical instruments. It is not correct to say that all instruments are universal.  There are significantly natioanl instruments: Scottish bagpipes; Russian baliliaka (probably misspelt); Australian digorido.  It is of course true that the instruments used in the western orchestra are ubiquitous in the western world.  For the particular merits of the present category, I am not really qualified to speak.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:19, 27 March 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:Folk percussion instruments

 * 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 at close). Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * folk percussion instruments


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Arbitrary definition (as almost all percussion instruments can be considered "folk"), and current category has zero entries, but instead has a list of items. So irregularly formatted category with no entries and unclear criteria. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - List transferred to new List of folk percussion instruments. Johnbod (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:35, 23 March 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:Roadology

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * roadology


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete "Roadology" appears to be a neologism, the articles should be recategorised in parent categories. — Snigbrook 00:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I support keeping this category. Parent categories do not properly classify the included articles.  Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because you haven't looked! I've added some to Category:Transport culture. Roadology is a neologism that should be deleted, as should Category:Muffler Men, whose one article & a photo are perfectly well accomodated in Category:Roadside attractions. Delete. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, Johnbod makes some very cogent points, and the categories he mentions seem totally sufficient. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A search of Google Scholar reveals that it appears to be used within academia solely as part of the phrase "silk roadology", which I assume to mean study of the silk road. I have not so far found any scholarly use of the term outside of the Silk Road usage, so as a standalone word "roadology" appears to be a neologism which doesn't deserve an article let alone a category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 25 March 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.