Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 20



Category:Short stories by Dana Dutch

 * 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) 23:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Short stories by Dana Dutch to Category:Comics by Dana Dutch
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename I don't claim any sort of expertise here but all the comics by Dana Dutch listed on the main article are in fact short stories. In Wikipedia categories, the "short story" distinction does not exist for comics writers. Pichpich (talk) 23:32, 20 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.

Nuclear power stations by reactor type

 * 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 to Category:Nuclear power stations using FB reactors where FB is the main article name. European Pressurized Reactor has not yet been subject to a formal move request; if it is moved then the category can be speedied according to the convention set by this CFD. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:AP1000s to Category:AP1000 reactors (main article is AP1000)
 * Propose renaming Category:CPR-1000s to Category:CPR-1000 reactors (main article is CPR-1000)
 * Propose renaming Category:EPRs to Category:European Pressurized Reactors (main article is European Pressurized Reactor)
 * Propose renaming Category:RBMKs to Category:RBMK reactors (main article is RBMK)
 * Propose renaming Category:VVER to Category:VVER reactors (main article is VVER)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. It seems to me that these should be renamed slightly for clarity, as the other subcategories of are named. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Nuclear power stations using AP1000 reactors, et al. For the most part, the articles are not about the reactors themselves.- choster (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be fine with me, though it doesn't match the format of the other subcategories in Category:Nuclear power stations by reactor type, and they are not nominated here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That could run into UK/US station/plant language difficulties. Rwendland (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems safest to just use "stations" to match . Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Reconsider EPRs: I will tomorrow rename European Pressurized Reactor to "EPR (nuclear reactor)" as per discussion at Talk:European Pressurized Reactor. EPR (a trademark) is the name Areva has been using since 2005 or earlier, and the old name we currently use is hardly seen in news reports now. Category name could be left alone, or go to "EPR reactors" or "EPR (nuclear reactors)". Rwendland (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Such a rename should probably go through a formal move request before being made. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Nuclear power stations using AP1000 reactors etc, per choster. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename: I prefer the Category:AP1000 reactors format but "Nuclear power stations using..." is also superior to the current (baffling) category names.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:36, 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:Princely major bachelors

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * princely major bachelors


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't categorize people by marital status. That alone is enough to justify deletion of this category, but the category also only includes living people. For living people, we especially do not categorize by marital status because it may and often does change later in the persons' lives. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 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:Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary inmates

 * 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 & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge Category:Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary inmates to Category:Prisoners and detainees of the United States federal government
 * Delete Category:United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge and delete. We do have some categories for "prisoners by prison", but categorizing in this way is generally reserved for instances where being a prisoner of that specific prison is defining in and of itself, like, or . Being imprisoned at United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth is not really like this. Leavenworth is most notable for having been the largest maximum security federal prison in the U.S. Having been a prisoner there is not particularly defining any more than being in . This is similar to "Prisoners at Lewisburg Federal Penitentiary" and "Federal Correctional Institution, Texarkana inmates", both of which were deleted.
 * If the inmates category is deleted, the parent category would contain only United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth and could therefore be deleted.  Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge & Delete per nom. I wasn't really sold on this nomination until I looked at the other contents of Category:Prisoners and detainees by prison. The other listings tend to be prisons that tell you something about the inmate like Guantanamo and the Tower of London. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 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.

Athletes by gender

 * 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: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * male athletes


 * female athletes


 * female athletes (track and field)


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per the discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics, these categories seem to be too broad to be useful. Location (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination to delete withdrawn. Occuli has raised some good issues that need to be addressed in WP:Athletics first. Location (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments – (1) no-one seems to have bothered to populate these categories (in particular their subcats) so there seems to be a large 'consensus to neglect'. (2) WP:Athletics needs to consider its position on and,  etc: does Flo Jo go in  or in , or is her gender not worth a category (as at present)? (Contrast with Category:American tennis players which is completely split by gender. Category:American track and field athletes has no male and female subcats ... and yet athletics competitions are invariably gendered.) (3) It would be foolish to delete the above without doing something about their subcats first:  are undoubtedly Category:Female athletes (track and field) (or, better Category:Female track and field athletes per a recent rename of the T&F parent). (4) Category:Female athletes was renamed to Category:Female athletes (track and field) in this cfd, so why does it still exist? Occuli (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Athletics competitions are mostly (or all?) segregated by gender, so this categorisation is directly relevant to the subject matter. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that many people confuse "athlete" with "sportspeople" and that Category:Athletes has been moved to Category:Competitors in athletics, would you be OK with renaming these to Category:Male competitors in athletics and Category:Female competitors in athletics? Location (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, a renaming to bring it into line with the parent categories sounds like a good idea, and I'm happy to support it. It's a bit of a mouthful, but this is not the place to revisit the decision to rename the parent category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Although I was a little hasty to bring it to Cfd, there are multiple issues with the categories and their names that do need to be resolved. One issue, as BrownHairedGirl has addressed, is whether or not competitors in athletics should even be categorized by gender. A second, as Occuli has addressed, are the terminology issues associated with athletics articles (e.g. "sportspeople" vs. "athletes", "athletes" vs. "runners", "athletics" vs. "track and field"). Category:Athletes has been moved to Category:Competitors in athletics, therefore Category:Male athletes and Category:Female athletes should at the very least be renamed as Category:Male competitors in athletics and Category:Female competitors in athletics. A third issue is how gender-specific categorization is tied or not tied to nation-specific categorization. Location (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename and populate. I approve of the five actions outlined by Location here. Since men and women effectively do not meet in the same competitions, categorisation by gender for common categories is a good idea. SFB 19:51, 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:Drawn-on-film animated films

 * 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: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Drawn-on-film animated films to Category:Drawn-on-film animation
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename per parent article and to reflect the fact that this category contains not only films but filmmakers. I think a rename is a better solution than creating Category:Drawn-on-film animation as a parent, as we do not have enough articles to properly populate such a split, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Then again, renaming as nominated would mean that the contents could no longer be categorized in Category:Animated films by technique, which is itself an impediment to easy navigation. Given the lack of interest in this nom, I shall WITHDRAW and create Category:Drawn-on-film animation as a parent category, after all. Doing so will aid in integrating both films and more general articles on the technique and its practitioners into "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme," per WP:SMALLCAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 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:Wako-Pro World Grand Prix

 * 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) 17:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Wako-Pro World Grand Prix to Category:WAKO Pro World Grand Prix
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the title of the corresponding article. Pichpich (talk) 17:08, 20 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:21st-century Native American conceptual 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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 21st-century native american conceptual artists


 * Nominator's rationale: With conceptual art being a relatively new discipline, it seems to me that we have not yet established that we even need a "21st century" subcategory. If not, then clearly this category should be deleted (or upmerged). I believe that as 20th/21st century was judged as non-defining for the relatively new art form of photography, per the link in the Indigenous photographers by century group nom below, this even newer art form does not require or benefit from such a split. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * 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:Maya conceptual 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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:Maya conceptual artists
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. The fact that we have a few national categories for conceptual artists does not necessitate creating this one, with its single article.  Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * 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.

Indigenous photographers by century

 * 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) 16:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:21st-century First Nations photographers to Category:First Nations photographers
 * Propose merging Category:20th-century First Nations photographers to Category:First Nations photographers
 * Propose merging Category:20th-century Inuit photographers to Category:Inuit photographers
 * Propose merging Category:21st-century Native American photographers to Category:Native American photographers
 * Propose merging Category:20th-century Native American photographers to Category:Native American photographers
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_8. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Merge all per nominator. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 27 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:Aerial tramways in Germany

 * 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) 16:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Aerial tramways in Germany to Cable cars in Germany
 * Propose renamingCategory:Aerial tramways in Austria to Cable cars in Austria
 * Propose renamingCategory:Aerial tramways in Switzerland to Cable cars in Switzerland
 * ...and ditto for other European countries.
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. They are overwhelmingly referred to as "cable cars" in Europe; "aerial tramway" is very much a US-only term. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nominator. An "aerial tramway" sounds like an elevated section of urban rail. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 27 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:Cherry Hill Township, New Jersey

 * 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) 16:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Cherry Hill Township, New Jersey to Category:Cherry Hill, New Jersey
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match title of parent article Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to match lead article. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:54, 26 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.

Australian heritage registers

 * 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) 16:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Heritage places on Register of the National Estate to Category:Register of the National Estate
 * Propose renaming Category:Heritage places on Queensland Heritage Register to Category:Queensland Heritage Register
 * Propose renaming Category:Heritage places on the Commonwealth Heritage List to Category:Commonwealth Heritage List
 * Propose renaming Category:Heritage places on the Northern Territory Heritage Register to Category:Northern Territory Heritage Register
 * Propose renaming Category:Victorian Heritage Register sites to Category:Victorian Heritage Register
 * Nominator's rationale: Standardization. The quasi-consensus at the previous discussion was to use the register name itself as the category name to avoid the problem of some of the registers not being limited to places or sites. Retrying, as the previous discussion was closed as "no consensus". --Muhandes (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename: I'm not sure that "place" is so problematic. The examples in the original discussion are a demolished bridge (former place) and moved building (changed place). (The American registry is plagued by boats which have an annoying tendency to set sail.) That being said, the proposed names are more straight forward and a 'register' implies that the included articles would be from a list.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename: I can live with this. Does this proposal extend to sub-categories such as Category:Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne.   Names such as Victorian Heritage Register sites in Melbourne, Victorian Heritage Register buildings in Melbourne and Victorian Heritage Register, Melbourne don't seem to be an improvement. Billingd (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the situation is in Victoria but in Queensland not all heritage buildings are on the Queensland register, some are on the Commonwealth register and some listed only on the National Estate list. This means that there is room for "Heritage Buildings in Queensland" which isn't a sub category of "Queensland Heritage Register". If needed, this could have a sub category "Queensland Heritage Register Buildings in Queensland" which is a sub of both "Heritage Buildings in Queensland" and "Heritage Buildings in Queensland". Would the same apply to a specific city like Melbourne? --Muhandes (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne states it is for Victorian Heritage Register sites. I didn't create it - just used it. Billingd (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I am sorry I raised the side-issue of the sub-categories in this discussion. Can sort them out once agreement is reached for the higher level. Billingd (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, lets take it one step at a time. --Muhandes (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)a


 * 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.