Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 16



Category:Awesome

 * 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: awesome, naturally. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * awesome


 * awesome wikipedians


 * epic wikipedians


 * Nominator's rationale: Nonsensical category - creator has had it speedy deleted as a test page once, and so far he's only got himself in it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Besides I wasn't categorized here ;).-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this, as well as and, by the same creator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Also support deletion of the other two - I've added them above -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all - None of these support encyclopedic collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Creator has now been blocked as a sock -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Don't knock it until you give it a try. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete all, per G5. The creator is a known disruptive troll and sockpuppet who has a habit of moving other users' draft into mainspace and taking credit for their creation. -- &oelig; &trade; 19:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All gone Speedy deleted G5. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, at least I got to be awesome for a few hours. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2011 (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.

Sendai Earthquake 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: rename all. There is unanimous support for renaming these categories, and I am closing the discussion early (after 6 days rather than the usual 7) per WP:IAR because this is a current event, and accurate category naming will assist the editors who are building wikipedia's coverage of this topic. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami to Category:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami
 * Propose renaming Category:Cities and towns destroyed by the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami to Category:Cities and towns destroyed by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami
 * Nominator's rationale: I created the parent category, with a name matching the main earthquake article. The main article has now been moved, and IMHO the category associated with it should follow. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to match parent articles and cat.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename: Main article should match category name where possible, and there is no reason for it not to be the case here. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Easy call here.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. (But what if the name changes again?) - 220.101 User talk:220.101.28.25\ 18:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do it already It's been 48 hours, where's the problem? Is it anything to do with the fact that the list's own page is suggesting it be renamed from its present name to - its present name? Morag Kerr (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2011 (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:Nuclear energy in Greece

 * 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: Upmerge to Category:Nuclear technology in Greece. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * nuclear energy in greece


 * Nominator's rationale: Useless category: Greece has opted out of a nuclear energy programme, so this category will not be populated except by the one stub overview article. Constantine  ✍  15:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Greek Atomic Energy Commission is another stub that belongs into the category. Please help EXPANDING nuclear energy content, and not deleting. E.g. add details about "a decision has been made not to implement a nuclear power program to generate electricity." NuclearEnergy (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: the articles won't be deleted, certainly. But a category with one or two articles, which is not likely to grow and which has no real relevance to the real world (as there is essentially no "Nuclear energy in Greece" as such) is rather redundant. These could just as easily be categorized at Category:Energy in Greece. Constantine  ✍  18:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The category creator has been building out other subcategories of Category:Nuclear power by country aggressively. Many are thin on content. On the other hand, who can tell any more which branches are determined to be part of a "system," allowing even a single stub to be placed in its own category.- choster (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment There is still Category:Nuclear technology in Greece (of which "Nuclear energy in Greece" is a subcat. The "Nuclear Technology .. " category has the advantage that it will apply to all countries whether they have a nuclear energy programme or not. Hugo999 (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment on the Comment While the only thing currently in the parent category is this sub-category, I do agree that it is conceptually more durable whether or not Greeced pursues nuclear energy.RevelationDirect (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete & Upmerge: This is a rare example of where I'll support a cat with less than 5 articles since I don't think a European category would work. But I do not support two categories for 2 articles.  Up merge this one to Category:Nuclear technology in Greece until such time as the article count can justify 2 categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2011 (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:Images of New Albany

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Images of New Albany to Category:Images of New Albany, Indiana
 * Nominator's rationale: Name of state should be attached to category. DanTD (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support to match parent article, New Albany, Indiana.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2011 (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:Images of Terre Haute

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Images of Terre Haute to Category:Images of Terre Haute, Indiana
 * Nominator's rationale: Name of state should be attached to category. DanTD (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support to match parent article, Terre Haute, Indiana.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2011 (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.

Canadian independent record labels

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * alien8 recordings


 * Category:Anthem Records
 * Category:Aquarius Records (Canada)
 * Category:Audiogram
 * Category:Constellation Records
 * Category:Dine Alone Records
 * Category:G7 Welcoming Committee Records
 * Category:MapleMusic Recordings
 * Category:Mint Records
 * Category:Murderecords
 * Category:Paper Bag Records
 * Category:Six Shooter Records
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. These eponymous categories are unnecessary as they each have only one or two subcategories and the eponymous article itself (and sometimes a discography page). The categories for Foo Records artists and Foo Records albums will already have a link to the main article using cat main or cat more. Links, if wanted, from either of these categories to the other can be obtained by adding category see also. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. First:  It's already established practice to have a category for a record label and subcats for albums, eps, etc... See Category:Tommy Boy Records, Category:Creation Records (there are many more under each country Category:Independent record labels).  Second the categories are needed to link Foo Records artists and Foo Records albums to the Canadian music tree.  Without these categories, the artists and album categories do not exist for the Canadian music project. Third, I wasn't actually done adding items to the categories (I didn't create them all).  Argolin (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not an established practice when only a small percentage of the overall number of articles within Category:Independent record labels have eponymous categories. At that, either they have additional articles/subcategories to warrant this type of categorization or they have the same issues as the ones nominated here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank-you Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. I guess you are stating that it not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme?  I surprised it has not been discussed before.
 * I'm asking in good faith: what policy/guideline are we discussing?  Argolin (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy in question is WP:OC, in which eponymous categories are generally discouraged. I also believe the placement in Category:Canadian independent record labels is incorrect as by placing subcategories of albums and artists in the record label category implies the albums and artists are also record labels. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments – I don't myself see much point in Category:Alien8 Recordings (1 subcat): Category:Alien8 Recordings albums could easily include Alien8 Recordings and could be placed directly in a Canadian music category. I do see a value in Category:MapleMusic Recordings as it collects together 2 subcategories (artists and albums). Occuli (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've set up another sub category Category:Alien8 Recordings artists. I believe this record label should have it's own discography article (which will be added to Alien8 Recordings).  Argolin (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm having difficulty seeing the point to a lot of these, if not all of them. As the nominator says, if there is more than one subcategory or article, they can easily be linked through non-category means. I don't think this is an established scheme whereby every record label needs to have an eponymous category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Question. Can I ask again:  what policy/guideline are we discussing?  Argolin (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Answer We're discussing WP:SMALLCAT. Even without knowing the guideline though, you're arguing that these are part of a large sub-categorization scheme which is the recognized exception. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Anthem & Murder, Delete the Rest: Those two seem to have enough articles to justify the cat. The rest are more or less container categories for the record and artist sub-cats.RevelationDirect (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weakish keep but I strongly oppose keeping those which we consider big and deleting those which we consider small. For one thing, the cutoff will be pretty arbitrary and the size of such categories is typically not a reflection of their inherent maximum size but rather a function of whether or not someone has taken the time to populate them. Furthermore, a coherent category tree structure is important for readers. Pichpich (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm all for salvaging workable cats that just need a little TLC. The two record labels that I checked what links to them (Alien8 & Mint) seemed to be limited to records and albums so I'm not so sure there are articles waiting in the wings. But maybe I lack the expertise to identify them?RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The cats will get a discography article (when I get around to it). There were only two for these record labels that I found.  Argolin (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2011 (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:American Old West

 * 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 and clean up if individual entries are problematic. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * american old west


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. On the surface, this seems like a sensible category. However in actual usage, I'm not convinced that it is.  For example, why is Thomas Fitch (politician)‎ included?  Was his presence in the area between 'c. 1827 - 1911', as stated in the category, defining.  Is 'c. 1827 - 1911' subjective? One would think that the Arizona Territorial Legislature was part of the old west but it is not categorized as such.  So is this a maintenance issue and we need a cleanup or is the category itself a problem? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Category includes articles that are in no way limited to the Old West. For instance, the article on Abilene, Kansas focuses on the city in the present day, and the historical significance of Vasquez Rocks is related to prehistoric times, not the era of the American Old West. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 03:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * keep This has a main article, many subcats, over a hundred articles, and is a appropriate sub-category to the categories in which it exists. Categories are to help readers navigate to articles.  This category serves that purpose.  If editors want to improve the category contents, then do so. Hmains (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep & Purge: Some of the criticism of current articles are valid, but I think the cat is useful. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hmains, and purge per RevelationDirect. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although I agree that there is some cleanup needed to this category tree I think the categories themselves are useful. Perhaps asking WikiProject American Old West to take a look at them would be helpful. Not sure how active that project is though. --Kumioko (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2011 (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:TI-99/4A

 * 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:Texas Instruments TI-99/4A.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:TI-99/4A to Category:Texas Instruments TI-99/4A
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match the article Texas Instruments TI-99/4A. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2011 (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.

Various senators

 * 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 all. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming


 * Category:Antigua and Barbuda senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Antigua and Barbuda
 * Category:Argentine senators to Category:Members of the Argentine Senate
 * Category:Bahamian senators to Category:Members of the Senate of the Bahamas
 * Category: Barbadian senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Barbados
 * Category: Belgian senators to Category:Members of the Belgian Senate
 * Category: Belizean senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Belize
 * Category: Bolivian senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Bolivia
 * Category: Brazilian senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Brazil
 * Category: Burundian senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Burundi
 * Category: Cambodian senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Cambodia
 * Category: Canadian senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Canada
 * Category: Chilean senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Chile
 * Category: Democratic Republic of the Congo senators to Category:Members of the Senate of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
 * Category: Republic of the Congo senators to Category:Members of the Senate of the Republic of the Congo
 * Category: Czech senators to Category:Members of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
 * Category: Dominican Republic senators to Category:Members of the Senate of the Dominican Republic
 * Category: Fijian senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Fiji
 * Category: French Senators to Category:Members of the Senate of France
 * Category: Gabonese senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Gabon
 * Category: Grenadian senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Grenada
 * Category: Iranian senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Iran
 * Category: Italian senators to Category:Members of the Italian Senate
 * Category: Jordanian senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Jordan
 * Category: Kazakhstani senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Kazakhstan
 * Category: Lesotho senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Lesotho
 * Category: Malagasy senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Madagascar
 * Category: Mauritanian senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Mauritania
 * Category: Mexican senators to Category:Members of the Senate (Mexico)
 * Category: Palauan senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Palau
 * Category: Paraguayan senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Paraguay
 * Category: Peruvian Senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Peru
 * Category: Romanian senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Romania
 * Category: Rwandan senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Rwanda
 * Category: Saint Lucian senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Saint Lucia
 * Category: Senegalese senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Senegal
 * Category: Swazi senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Swaziland
 * Category: Thai senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Thailand
 * Category: Uruguayan senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Uruguay
 * Category: Venezuelan senators to Category:Members of the Venezuelan Senate
 * Category: Zimbabwean senators to Category:Members of the Senate of Zimbabwe


 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. I propose changing the nominated categories from the "FOOian senators" format. There are a number of reasons that this should be done:


 * Consistency among categories for legislators. For categories that categorize members of legislative bodies, the usual format is "Members of LEGISLATIVE-BODY", where "LEGISLATIVE-BODY" is the name of the WP article about the body. The only type of category where this pattern is not overwhelmingly adhered to is if the legislative body contains the word "Senate" in it. I don't think there is any good reason to use one format consistently but then change to a "FOOian senators" format just because the body is called a Senate. In each case above, the proposed category name has incorporated the WP article name of the Senate in question.
 * Clarity of meaning. Ultimately, these are categories for a particular governmental position: they are not nationality/occupation categories. While it is true that most Members of the Senate of FOO will be of FOOian nationality, that will not invariably be the case, because in some countries a person may be a member of the Senate of that country even without citizenship. France and its former colonies presents a particularly vexing problem if the "FOOian senators" format is used. Prior to their independence, French colonies in Africa sent representatives to the Senate of France. So it may be confusing to classify a person from Senegal who served in the Senate of France as a "French Senator". Couldn't he also be classified as a "Senegalese senator", if one interprets the latter as being a nationality category? If we call the categories "Members of the Senate of France" and "Members of the Senate of Senegal", where to put certain legislators becomes far more obvious.
 * Consistency among categories for senators. There are already a number of categories for senators that have adopted the proposed approach, including categories for legislators who have been members of the Senates of Colombia, Haiti, Jamaica, Liberia, South Africa, Spain, the Netherlands, Bermuda, and Trinidad and Tobago. (I realise that this isn't determinative of anything, but I include the point here to reassure that this will be promoting some consistency and not the reverse.)
 * One final point is to note that I have not included within this nomination. I think that the U.S. case is somewhat different, because the category is named after a formal title ("United States Senator") rather than a nationality/occupation combination ("American senators"). I think the U.S. case should be left to a separate discussion if anyone wants to suggest changing it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This is yet another example of how adjectives make for poor category names, by creating ambiguity. We should go much further in removing adjectives from category names. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nominator, for consistency with other categories of legislators, and to ensure that the membership categories are explicitly include the name of the legislature.


 * 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:Garissa

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Garissa to Category:Garissa District
 * Nominator's rationale: There is, at this time, insufficient material to warrant an eponymous category for this city. The category contains only three articles—of which one is the main article and a second is about a sanctuary located near, not in, Garissa. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge per nominator. I hope that in time we will have enough articles on the city of Garissa to merit a category for it, and when that happens it should be named Category:Garissa (city), to disambiguate it from the eponymous district. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 23 March 2011 (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:Embu, Kenya

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Embu, Kenya to Category:Embu District
 * Nominator's rationale: There appears, at this time, to be insufficient material to warrant an eponymous category for this provincial capital of c. 50,000 people. Three of the four articles in the category already are in Category:Embu District, so merging will bring the number of articles in the district category to just six.
 * (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge per nominator. At some pint in the future we may have enough articles on the city of Embu, Kembu to merit a category for it, and when that happens it should be named in a way which will disambiguate it from the eponymous district, perhaps as Category:Embu, Kenya (town),. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 23 March 2011 (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.