Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 1



Category:Miss A members

 * 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) 11:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * miss a members


 * Nominator's rationale: This recently created category is similar to those in this single-member band category nomination, in that the header to Category:Musicians by band doesn't allow for single-member categories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 22:41, 1 October 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:Prehistoric period templates

 * 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) 11:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * prehistoric period templates


 * Nominator's rationale: Create. These are currently lumped together with Category:Historical period templates. This, itself, is a pretty messy category. Hoping to tidy the whole area PatHadley (talk) 21:04, 1 October 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:Cities in the Ottoman Empire

 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * cities in the ottoman empire


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems like a bad idea to categorise cities by countries they used to be in. Tim! (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert but surely this could be a useful grouping? Maybe a renaming: Cities of the former Ottoman Empire would be more appropriate? PatHadley (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think residents of New York would be too happy to have it described as a City of the British Empire, or those of London to have it described as a City of the Roman Empire! Tim! (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete nondefiningCurb Chain (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The cities will now be in one of the successor countries. Those countries could be categorised as formerly Ottoman, but I do not think this is useful for cities.  Peterkingiron (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - and there are other categories of this ilk. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:01, 3 October 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:Neosurrealism

 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * neosurrealism


 * category


 * Nominator's rationale: The main article for this cat, Neosurrealism, was deleted by AfD in December 2010, but these cats somehow escaped my notice. The same argument made there applies here: there is no such movement and the term is vague and has no agreed upon definition.  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  19:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nominators rational. Also for this kind of category to be added to an article there should be referenced info in the article about said category. None of the articles with these categories attached meets this criteria. MarnetteD | Talk 19:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as the article has been deletedCurb Chain (talk) 03:04, 2 October 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's Republic of China

 * 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. Unfortunately the nominator said nothing about what to do with the present Category:China and all its subcategories and how to avoid the mess that 119.237.156.46 mentioned below. From the discussion it is also not clear what should be done. Should the categories be merged or should one be replaced by another? In fact Category:China was not even tagged appropriately. Ruslik_ Zero 16:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People's Republic of China to Category:China
 * Nominator's rationale: A whole lot of renames, as People's Republic of China has been renamed China and the old China is now Chinese society. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur With most subcategories eg Category:Cities in China most of its subcategories refer to China, but a few like Municipalities refer to the Peoples’ Republic of China. But some subcategories of "China" like History of China may need special consideration. Hugo999 (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename "China" the category system under "China" should be kept and resorted. Things that don't fall under PRC but still under "China" needs a head category. Category:China (historical) might fit the bill? Or Category:Greater China. 70.24.247.61 (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What about Category:China (geographical region)? 119.237.156.46 (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment We already have the category Category:History of China with subcategories for various periods: History of Ancient China, History of Imperial China, History of the Republic of China and History of the People's Republic of China. There is a category Category:Imperial China which has some subcategories eg Government etc as well as History and the Category:Republic of China could have similar categories. But is a similar category Category:People's Republic of China needed, as it covers contemporary China? Hugo999 (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Response Well, that's precisely the point: there are two Chinese states, so the PRC is not necessarily "China"--it's a China. The Republic of China is also a Chinese state and society. This is precisely why "China" used to be about the Chinese civilization and the contemporary state that is typically known as "China" was entitled "People's Republic of China", but WP:COMMON has won the day (again, for now.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment but that's precisely why a head category is needed. PRC is not ROC, and ROC still exists. 70.24.247.61 (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of the categories about Taiwan are not grafted onto the “China” category (as are the Hong Kong and Macau categories). The question of whether Taiwan is part of China is challenged by the Taiwanese (if not the ROC & PRC politicians). There are only a few if any ROC categories which cannot go into the ROC subcategory of the “History of China” category or a “Taiwan” subcategory. At the moment the subcategories of Category:Sport in China by sport have most (24) sports as “in China” and only two (horseracing and swimming) as in the “Peoples Republic of China”. Change horseracing and swimming to “in China” also. Hugo999 (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sport events are different (and therefore irrelevant and inapplicable to the discussion here), since those articles, categories and lists tend to follow how countries are named for participating in those events. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename. Since the article has been renamed, let's do this. The what-goes-in-which-category problem is at its most profound here, and this rename will settle that (if perhaps nothing else). Let's put everything PRC-related in "China," and make sure any Taiwan category be so spelled out as "Republic of China."--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree. There are many categories named Something of the People's Republic of China as subsets of Something of China. E.g., History of People's Republic of China is a subset of History of China. 'Category:PRC' refers specifically to Wikipedia articles and subcategories relevant to that part of China that becomes the PRC after 1949, or relevant to the régime there. Furthermore, e.g., History of Republic of China is a subset of History of China, yet definitely not a subset of History of the PRC. It's just wrong to make anything about the ROC a subset of a category for the PRC, however the category is named. It's going to be disastrous, controversial and confusing to merge the PRC and China categories. It's simply going to create tonnes of troubles. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename Category and article can match just fine. Whether to include ROC/TW stuff under the China categories is a different question entirely. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hugo999 and 119.237.156.46. 173.254.216.68 (talk) 02:52, 23 October 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:Looney Tunes DVDs

 * 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) 11:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Looney Tunes DVDs to Category:Looney Tunes home video releases
 * Nominator's rationale: Why only categorize by one format? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:14, 1 October 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:2011 in long track

 * 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) 11:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2011 in long track


 * Nominator's rationale: Category needs to be renamed. Long track is far too a generic term to adequately describe the topic. 2011 in Long track racing, or 2011 in Long track motorcycle racing would be more appropriate. --Falcadore (talk) 05:08, 1 October 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:Pepper sodas

 * 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:Dr Pepper-flavored sodas. The group thinks the commonality is worth categorizing, and I agree, but under what name is very unclear.  I don't really like this option much, but it's much better than the incorrect neologism. If someone comes up with something better, nominate this again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * pepper sodas


 * Nominator's rationale: I don't think that's the name for this. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * keep no valid reason given for deletion Hmains (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Categorizing by a name that a.) is not used and b.) corresponds to actually zero articles is a good reason to rename. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak rename to Category:Dr Pepper Otherwise, delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete There doesn't seem to be a consistent use of the category. For instance how does Slice wind up in it? While the rename is an interesting suggestions there are products in the cat that either aren't associated with, or are direct competitors of, DP. MarnetteD | Talk 20:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside I am curious where the pepper flavor idea comes from. There is no mention of it in the DP article. DP as well as Mr Pibb and a couple of others on the list have always tasted more like prunes to me (Though I know that is WP:OR or may WP:TASTE BUDS :-P) MarnetteD | Talk 20:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The parent category does include siblings for other sodas based by flavour, and so this not an outlier in that respect. Slice is there because it includes an apparently Dr. Pepper-style drink, Dr. Slice. This category was created for drinks that apparently taste like Dr. Pepper. But is this an identifiable and well-defined taste like Category:Cola, Category:Root beer, Category:Ginger ale and the range of subcats in Category:Citrus sodas? Seems to me that's the key, not whether these drinks truly taste like "pepper". If kept, we'd obviously need a rename, with "Dr. Pepper-style" or some such phrase in there somewhere, and it would need to be referenced within articles. This category faces a challenge in that there is no generic term, like the subcats linked to above, for this flavour. Personally, I always thought that Dr. Pepper stated a lot like a Cherry Cola.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Except that none of these drinks taste like pepper (unless you can find a reliable source stating this) and believe me pepper is my flavor enhancer of choice. The sentence in the Slice article is unsourced and I have never seen any of the variations claimed for this or other countries so, as ever, relying on a wiki as a source is a mistake. Cherry Cola is not a bad WP:TASTE BUDS option but even that is different from when cherry extract was added to Coca Cola (ack skewing to old now) and adding the term Dr to an item used to mean "reliable curer" and now means "hit BBC series" - I don't think it meant "related to 10-2-4 you'll always want more" MarnetteD | Talk 02:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak rename to Category:Dr Pepper-flavored sodas Otherwise, delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP - If you would do a "little" research, you would find that this category of flavor of sodas IS called "Pepper" flavored sodas. Not JUST Dr. Pepper.  All similar flavored sodas fit into this category.  If you would follow though on Slice, (which is a product line, not just one flavor!!), you would find that Pepsi had "Dr. Slice", a pepper-drink, as a product. The category is for all brands/products that fit this flavor category, just like "Orange sodas", "Colas" or "Citrus sodas".  "Pepper" isn't a reference to a pepper (black pepper, hot pepper) flavor, but rather attributed to the creator of the flavor itself, Charles T. Pepper.  One possible alternative might be "Spice flavored sodas", although I don't really like that.Scoty6776 (talk)


 * Keep, but rename I agree that there is a common theme to these beverages and that they should be grouped together, but the "Pepper sodas" term seems to be a neologism and should be replaced by whatever term the industry uses to categorize this beverages (unless "pepper soda" has a source). Slice (soft drink) and Nehi are questionable entries, in that there was a Dr. Pepper-like product in the family, but I think these should be removed. Alansohn (talk) 02:15, 4 October 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.