Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 26



Category:Electronica albums by artist nationality

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Electronica albums by Australian artists to Category:Electronic albums by Australian artists
 * Category:Electronica albums by British artists to Category:Electronic albums by British artists
 * Category:Electronica albums by Canadian artists to Category:Electronic albums by Canadian artists
 * Category:Electronica albums by Dutch artists to Category:Electronic albums by Dutch artists
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The correct genre name is "electronic", not "electronica".  Snap Snap  21:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. If the albums or artists in question should reside elsewhere in Category:Electronic music, then they can be transferred, but the main article is at Electronica and the root category at Category:Electronica (a descendent of Category:Electronic music), so it does not make sense to rename just this one branch.- choster (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – nom needs to start with and Electronica (and include many others such as Category:Electronica albums). Note that there is the substantial . Occuli (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – The line between electronic and electronica does appear to be rather blurry. There were even a few discussions on the matter at Talk:Electronica, which didn't seem to go anywhere. Still, is the umbrella category.  Snap  Snap  00:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. While the line is blurry, there is still a line. I would suggest further discussion take place at the talk pages for Electronic music and Electronica before merging categories which have different main articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:29, 31 May 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:Communities in the Mojave Desert

 * 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) 18:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Communities in the Mojave Desert to Category:Populated places in the Mojave Desert
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. When we did the rename for various "communities" categories to "populated places", this was missed; both its parents are properly named, just need this one to follow-suit. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename per nomination. This can probably be speedy-renamed because it relates to an established naming convention. Neutralitytalk 18:26, 1 June 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:Country subdivisions named for direction

 * 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) 18:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * country subdivisions named for direction


 * Nominator's rationale: Category of little encyclopedic value recently created by sock master Tobias Conradi.  Ja Ga  talk 19:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, not a useful grouping of articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a classic case of WP:OC. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Not a useful form of categorization. Resolute 16:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is useful as the entries list divisions, and this category should be expanded to municipalities, etc..Curb Chain (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - little encyclopedic value (not useful for either navigation or classification). A list may be appropriate, but even that is pushing it. Neutralitytalk 18:25, 1 June 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:IAAF Diamond League

 * 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) 18:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:IAAF Diamond League to Category:Samsung Diamond League
 * Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, as this the events name currently. Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  17:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I recommend a return to the original titling of "IAAF Diamond League". I believe we should focus on continuity and not concern ourselves with title sponsors (Samsung here) which are often replaced and forgotten. Consider the Premier League or Football League Cup articles as analogues. SFB 18:17, 26 May 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:People with special notability

 * 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) 18:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * people with special notability


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Obviously, "special" and "notability" are too vague and subjective. And the introductory sentence does little to clarify what the intended scope really is. Pichpich (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My motivation for creating this category was an Iranian man who wants to be seen in television and in photos of newspapers, so he is searching for any formal ceremonials or situation that is broadcasted in television and he attends them to be shown in television. He is notable for this reason. But I had difficulty in putting him under current categories. So I created this category. Can you suggest any category for such a person?Ali Pirhayati (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete We might be able to find a better category if we know the article in question; Rainbow Man, for example, is slotted into Category:Sports spectators. As structured now, however, the category is not only subjective but constitutes a "miscellaneous celebrity or notoriety" which runs counter to the principles of WP categorization.- choster (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which category do you suggest for the person I said?Ali Pirhayati (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be easier to answer that question if you told us who the person was, so we could review their article. Bearcat (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that Alipir is referring to Jimmy Jump. Reminds me of Fan Man and that woman with the huge... assets... that used to run onto baseball diamonds and kiss players.  Hypothetically, one could create a category for people who interfere with sporting events, but I honestly cannot think of any others who are notable enough to have articles offhand.  Even the guy who stabbed Monica Seles has no article. Resolute 23:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The article for the phenomenon represented by Jimmy Jump seems to be pitch invasion, so I could see something like Category:Pitch invaders or for North Americans, Category:Field rushers, but the only other example seems to be Morganna, the Kissing Bandit.- choster (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose Category:Assholes is out of the question? Morganna is in the sports spectators category and that seems reasonable for this guy too. FYI Neil Horan, who probably cost Vanderlei de Lima the marathon gold at the 2004 Olympics, is another example of a sports interferer with an article. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we have Jump, Fan Man, Morgana and Neil Horan. It does seem to have potential to create a viable category for such individuals.  But what could we name it that would make sense to both European and North American editors/readers? Resolute 04:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Four is pretty small for a category. A list within the pitch invasion article would probably suffice, for these four along with others who disrupted an event but are not otherwise notable enough for an article. Harley Hudson (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - if I'm understanding the concept, this is supposed to be for people who are famous for being famous. It's daunting to come up with a category name that fits that subjective concept and it's probably best if we find something, anything, about the person other than this to serve as a basis for categorization. In any event the current category name is untenable and it's also empty. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The general term is "celebrity"— people everyone has heard of, even if we don't know why they should have heard of them. Category:Celebrity doesn't specifically exclude articles about individuals, but naturally, the editors there are assiduous about recategorization.- choster (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note empty now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Category:Self-publicists might be more appropriate - people famous for nothing but promoting themselves energetically (like Big Brother winners). HeartofaDog (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - unclear meaning. Neutralitytalk 18:24, 1 June 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:Executive branch of the Serbian government

 * 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) 18:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Executive branch of the Serbian government to Category:Government of Serbia.
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge per the Irish precedent of Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 11, the German precedent of Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 28 and the Singapore precedent of Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 13. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a mirror of the problem addressed in the discussion on Ireland: in the Irish case, LL had applied the "executive branch terminology" without evidence of its use in Ireland. In this case, LL is trying to remove the same terminology without any evidence either way of Serbian usage. I don't know what the usage is in Serbia, but there is no sign that LL knows the answer either. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose for now. The two precedents cited were of cases where the "executive branch" terminology was not used in the countries concerned. The nominator offers no evidence either way as the what the usage is Serbia, and we should make a decision such as this on the basis of the constitutional terminology of Serbia, not the terminology of other countries.
 * Request to strike strong oppose When advocating an "oppose", let alone a "strong oppose", it is usual to either (A) point to flaws in the proposer's logic or (B) introduce new evidence of one's own to support a "no" vote. I see no evidence of (A) in BHG's contribution above. Betting that the nominator does not know something is not the same as proving that the nominator does not know something. Wikipedia is not a casino. I see no evidence of (B) in BHG's contribution above. Indeed she frankly admits "I don't know what the usage is in Serbia". Refreshing as this honesty is, it hardly represents new evidence to oppose. Lastly, BHG says that "LL is trying to remove the same terminology without any evidence either way of Serbian usage". This is not true as the precedents cited contain all the evidence needed for the nomination. As BHG will recall, the discussion on the Irish precedent alone ran over an A4 page; it would as tedious for me to cut 'n' paste those arguments as it would be for editors to read through them. As brevity is the soul of wit, I left them in a compressed form; those with an interest in the topic will no doubt click the link leaving others free to scan the rest of the clutter-free list. I look forward to contributions from Serbians - which reminds me, I must place a notification on their project page, if they have one. The contribution above is also remarkable for the BHG's flexibility in being as keen to oppose the Serbian case as she was to support the identical Irish case. Not content with having won me over to her side with the force of her logic in the Irish precedent, she now seems bent on undoing her good work with this bizarre volte face. In conclusion, the contribution may have have more to do with "IF LL proposes it, then it must be wrong" than with any compelling logic and, if true, would represent an ugly stain on an Administrator's reputation. I invite BGH to think again and to strike out her opposition. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LL, when considering a nomination, it is usual to encounter a coherent rationale. That was not the case here.
 * It is also good practice to refrain from putting words in other people's mouths. I did not "bet" that you had no evidence of the usage in Serbia: I noted that there was no sign that you had any. If you have some up your sleeve, then produce it ... otherwise please stop wasting the time of other editors.
 * The precedents you cite were of discussions which both hinged on evidence of the actual usage in the countries concerned. Since you have not provided any evidence of the usage in Serbia, either in your nomination or in your rambling response, I will continue to note that you have none. If you do offer some evidence, then I will consider it.
 * In the meantime, we have no evidence either way, so we stick with the status quo. I'm sorry that LL finds it difficult to understand that there is no point in discussing a change a category name when we have no evidence on which to base such a decision: it would simply be a shift from one "maybe right, maybe wrong" to another "maybe right, maybe wrong" ... and that is a pointless exercise. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Constitution of Serbia contains the following article: Article 4: "The legal system is unique. Government system shall be based on the division of power into legislative, executive and judiciary. Relation between three branches of power shall be based on balance and mutual control..."
 * Article 122: "The Government shall be the holder of executive power in the Republic of Serbia."
 * Article 125: "The Government shall consist of the Prime Minister, one or more Vice Presidents and ministers."
 * Article 126: "Member of the Government may not be a deputy in the National Assembly...".
 * Similar statements exist in the Irish Constitution:"Article 6 1. All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people...". However, this apparent support was rejected in the final decision. One of the arguments in that case was "The United States constitution views them as difft branches of govt, but that is not the terminology adopted by the Irish constitution. In Ireland, the "executive branch" is the only thing called "Government of Ireland". Those who choose to view Ireland through the doctrine of the tripartite separation of powers may like to apply that label, but it is not the Irish terminology ... and its application to Ireland also ignores the fact that the Oireachtas elects the members of the Government from its own ranks, so the US-style separation does not exist." The same may also be said of Serbia then. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Oppose - You can't decide what the correct terminology for Serbia is based on category discussion for three other different countries. Snappy (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See "Request to strike strong oppose" above. Loyalty noted, but comments equally applicable. I ask you also, what positive grounds for opposition do you have? Have you verifiable evidence that the Government of Serbia uses the term "Executive Government of Serbia" in its public communications, for example? If not, why the opposition? And why not a strong oppose? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You speak Serbian, have a degree in Serbian studies and your mother is Serbian? What knowledge if any do you have of Serbian constitutional issues? Snappy (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion has been posted on the Project Serbia page where I'm sure lots of Serbian constitutional lawywers hang out. Does one need to speak Serbian to know that certain things in or about Serbia are wrong? What make you think that the person who created the inappropriately named category in the first lace meets any of the tests you impose above? If he doesn't, does that automatically invalidate it? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:20, 2 June 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 Idol participants from North Carolina

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:American Idol participants from North Carolina to Category:American Idol participants
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. The definition of a trivial intersection of location and a reality singing show appearance. TM 04:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge The category of American Idol participants does not need to be split into subcategories by state. I would think most of these subcategories would contain only a few names and thus would be unnecessary. Aspects (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also Category:American Idol participants from California, Category:American Idol participants from Missouri, and Category:American Idol participants from Tennessee. - Eureka Lott 20:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Upmerge/delete all. Trivial intersection. Neutralitytalk 18:23, 1 June 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:SS personnel who were not Nazis

 * 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) 18:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ss personnel who were not nazis


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. We generally do not categorize articles about people based on intersections of what they were combined with what they were not. The category is currently small—only contains Karl von Krempler‎. The article mentions that he was not a member of the Nazi party, which should be sufficient to get the point across. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The list would no doubt be expanded in time. I thought it would be a helpful research category for people who want to see what SS personnel were not Nazi party members.Hoops gza (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The non-Nazi status of the category's only member is poorly sourced, but a one-member category probably wouldn't be worth keeping even if the sourcing was rock-solid. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as premature; at least, we should start with a list of such persons.- choster (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Listify per comments above. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This category only counts one entry as I have just removed the second one mistakenly inserted person (Joachim Peiper was a nazi and was member of the nazi party, which means that he does not meet any og the two possible criteria).  I furthermore more wonder how one could be member of the SS without being nazi.  --Lebob (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My source states that Peiper was not a Nazi Party member. Apparently, it was unlawful for non-ethnic Germans to join the NSDAP, so that's how one could be SS and not a Nazi member.Hoops gza (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case every member of Scandinavian SS would automatically qualify. I am split between Listify and Delete unless some reasonable rename can be proposed. Beta M (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I said ethnically German, not German. I don't think it was a perfect system based on nationality, but rather ethnicity as deemed by the Nazis.Hoops gza (talk) 10:09, 28 May 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:Spider-Man articles by importance

 * 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) 18:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * spider-man articles by importance


 * top-importance spider-man articles


 * high-importance spider-man articles


 * mid-importance spider-man articles


 * low-importance spider-man articles


 * na-importance spider-man articles


 * unknown-importance spider-man articles


 * Nominator's rationale: Used by WikiProject Spider-Man and it is currently empty. The Spider-Man work group of WikiProject Comics does not use any more. Also nominating:


 * Category:Top-importance Spider-Man articles
 * Category:High-importance Spider-Man articles
 * Category:Mid-importance Spider-Man articles
 * Category:Low-importance Spider-Man articles
 * Category:NA-importance Spider-Man articles
 * Category:Unknown-importance Spider-Man articles

Since these categories are now empty. JJ98 (Talk)  01:36, 26 May 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:Drug control history

 * 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) 18:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Drug control history to Category:History of drug control
 * Nominator's rationale: Better grammar to to match similar categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:34, 26 May 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:Provincial ministers

 * 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 to renamed target. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Provincial ministers to Category:Provincial and territorial ministers in Canada
 * Propose renaming Category:Territorial ministers to Category:Provincial and territorial ministers in Canada
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge together into a renamed category. These category names are vague and ambiguous. They refer to political office-holders in the provinces and territories of Canada. Since it is usual to group topics by Canadian provinces and territories in the same category, I propose merging these two together into a renamed category that specifies the country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support rename and merge. The categories at present are incredibly vague, and a merge makes sense as the territory category will never have more than three articles and three subcats.  No need to split them out. Resolute 16:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. This would make it easier to navigate for a reader looking into the subject. Beta M (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename Absolutely convoluted relative to other federal jurisdictions.Curb Chain (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What about Category:subnational ministers in Canada, Category:subcountry ministers in Canada or Category:subfederal ministers in Canada?Curb Chain (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In Canada, they are sometimes referred to "provincial ministers" or "territorial ministers". But no one speaks of "subnational", "subcountry", or "subfederal" ministers. Those would be neologisms, at least in the Canadian context. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge/rename per nomination. Neutralitytalk 18:21, 1 June 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.