Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 22



Category:Images of J. Williams (singer)

 * 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: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Images of J. Williams (singer) to Category:J. Williams (singer) album covers
 * Nominator's rationale: Nine of the ten images in this category are album or single covers (which are, currently, categorized together under Category:Album covers); the tenth is a music video screenshot that fails the non-free content criteria and is listed for deletion. I propose renaming this category to better reflect its contents and, then, moving it from Category:Images of musicians into Category:Album covers by recording artist. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support – the usual standard is to have Category:Images of foo, subcat Category:Foo album covers (cf Category:Images of Barbra Streisand). It would be unusual to have no image at all of J. Williams (singer) (but the article does have no image). Anyway, the rename/move seems perfectly reasonable. Occuli (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. If, in the future, an image of J. Williams is uploaded that is not an album cover, the 'Images of...' category can be recreated and made a parent of the 'album covers' category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:56, 22 September 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:Adaptations of literature by source

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Adaptations of literature by source to Category:Works based on literature
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge These appears to me to be parallel branches categorizing essentially the same thing. Or am I mistaken? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was creating multiple branches depending on what the user is searching for. At the time I created it, "Works based on literature" was organized by genre of the adaptation (movies, games, etc.). I created this category as part of a tree that focuses not on genre but on specific titles. But I'm not wedded to that structure, and with the removal of the "media/works" distinction, the whole tree could be usefully reorganized. Aristophanes  68   (talk)  00:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge these seem to be essentially the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 30 September 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:Non-article Uruguay pages

 * 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:Wikiproject Uruguay.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * non-article uruguay pages
 * Nominator's rationale: This scope of this category would include much more than just images of Uruguay, but it is unnecessary because WikiProject Uruguay utilizes more specific rating for non-article pages: Category-, File-, Portal-, Project- or Template-Class (see Category:Uruguay articles by quality). Also, WikiProject categories belong on talk pages, not category description pages, and Category:Images of Uruguay is already appropriately categorized. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:38, 22 September 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:Sexual references in popular culture

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Sexual references in popular culture to Category:Sexuality in popular culture
 * Nominator's rationale: Not just for sexual "references," I recommend a rename to bring it in line with category contents. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename The category encompasses much more than sexual references.Curb Chain (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename The wider scope is already necessary to reflect the current content of the category. It's also a more natural name for a subcat of both Category:Human sexuality and Category:Topics in popular culture. (Also the current name sounds ridiculous!) Pichpich (talk) 20:27, 29 September 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:Historically segregated American Indian schools in the United States

 * 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 and purge. Feel free to move out those that don't fit the new category name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Historically segregated American Indian schools in the United States to Category:Native American boarding schools
 * Nominator's rationale: The wording of this category ("segregated") is too charged with a social/political term; the main article is supposedly "Native American boarding schools" so it should be that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I"m neutral here but I wonder if removing segregated in favor of "boarding schools" is going too far the other way. "Segregated" is the most neutral term for the practice of the social quarantine of a certain race to their own institutions, if that's indeed what happened at those schools it falls to us to be neutral, and call a spade a spade.  You wouldn't call a blacks-only school an "african-american boarding school" after all! HominidMachinae (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We're talking about children of separate nations. What nation do blacks belong to and what language do they speak? Completely different situation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep.As the category creator I was intending to keep in line with Category:Historically segregated African American schools in the United States, of which this is a sister category. And note that not all these schools were boarding schools. If need be, an article can surely be created called Native American schools. • Freechild talk 19:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Restructure. I will acquiesce, and suggest that a restructured category would be more apropos to existing articles. There are schools in the current category that are not boarding schools, and there are historical boarding schools in the list that are not active. So I would suggest the appropriate movement of some of these to Category:Native American schools, the creation of a subcategory called Category:Native American boarding schools, and the creation of a sub-sub category called Category:Defunct Native American boarding schools. • Freechild talk 18:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That will be completely acceptable, and noting will keep you from doing that once the category is renamed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand or are misinformed about the topic: segregating black children to keep them away from white people is totally different from preparing Indians to be assimilated into white society. The title I suggest is the most neutral possible. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a complete intention of keeping some tribes completely segregated from White society, and many American Indian schools are still segregated today. Segregation isn't just a legal term, it's a functioning social norm, as well, that still exists today. It can be used to describe something in the same way as using the color "blue" describes the sky; you are politicizing the term by refusing to acknowledge it's validity. • Freechild talk 18:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Native Americans are members of separate, sovereign nations. Schools are only "segregated" when members of the same nation (e.g. the USA) are placed into separate schools based solely on race. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support renaming. Native American boarding schools are a distinct topic that should be reflected in the name of the category. The history of Indian boarding schools is an entirely different situation from that of segregated African American schools. Segregated African American schools were established to educate African American children, almost always in their own communities, during the segregation era when the children were excluded from white schools. In contrast, the Indian boarding schools were intended to separate Native American children from their cultures and communities, and instill the majority culture in them. Uniformity of naming doesn't make sense when the topics are so different. --Orlady (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support renaming. Many of these schools are still Native American and still active today, so "historically" is misleading, and "segregated" does have a negative connotation. The term "Native American" gets the point across in a neutral way. Some of these schools are a major source of community pride today and have more to do with cultural preservation then assimilation. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Support renaming. The Native American boarding schools are a specific set of schools that are identified as such.  They emerge not so much out of segregation but out of a plan for cultural change that starts with a basic recognition that the cultural situation of the students is so different that putting them with other students in regular schools will not work.  Anyway, these schools are so different than on-reservation day schools that emerge primarily after 1930, which are also in theory segregated, that we need to have a term that refers specifically to the boarding schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The black "boarding schools" suggestion as why this fails, fails on its own because most black schools were not boarding schools. I would suggest removal of non-boarding schools for this category.  I also think there might need to be a Category:Former Native American boarding schools for those institutions like Haskel that still exist but are no longer boarding schools.  Since the boarding schools were phased out begining about 1932, I do not think we need to have a defunct cat for the boarding schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 30 September 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.

Women's association football by continent and country

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose (up)merging:
 * Category:Women's association football in Asia by country to Category:Women's association football by country and Category:Women's association football in Asia
 * Category:Women's association football in Europe by country to Category:Women's association football by country and Category:Women's association football in Europe
 * Category:Women's association football in South America by country to Category:Women's association football by country and Category:Women's association football in South America
 * Nominator's rationale: The current organization of this portion of the category tree has resulted in several virtually empty mid-level categories such as Category:Women's association football in Asia and led to a category network that requires too many steps to navigate. I propose placing all country-level categories into one 'by country' category, Category:Women's association football by country, and also into the appropriate continent-level categories such as Category:Women's association football in Europe (see Category:Association football in Europe for an example of what I am suggesting). -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge : Good idea. -Koppapa (talk) 10:21, 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.

Category:People in the history of medicine

 * 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. I've made sure all members of this category had a "(nationality) (medical specialty)" category, or in a few cases were placed into a general category lime Eileen Saxon into Category:Cardiac surgery. Also, Category:People in history is extremely suspect.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * people in the history of medicine


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Subjective selection from Category:Physicians, Category:Medical researchers etc. and redundant to them. Mayumashu (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete redundant; unprofessionalCurb Chain (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * do not delete; instead upmerge, cross-merge, whatever It cannot be assumed that these articles are actually in the other categories mentioned. Work has to be done to make sure they are. Hmains (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see we do have Category:People in history, until this point used solely for historical figures in India and China, which I've added as a parent, for now. But I'm not sure I'd support keeping even that neglected parent category. I agree with the nominator that the nominated category is redundant, and a bad idea. Also, WP:OC: when is a person in the medical field old enough or dead enough to have entered the realm of "history"? A great many person by occupation categories would have as much of a claim to a People in the history of foo category, and I think the subjectivity and duplication would be a mess. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see I didn't explicitly say delete, above. I do so now, in the interest of moving this along. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 11 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:Australian rules football executives

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Australian rules football executives to Category:Australian rules football administrators


 * Nominator's rationale: Current name is too specific. Not all in the category were executives; several were club secretaries, managers, etc. IgnorantArmies?! 11:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename. Nom makes a reasonable argument. Jenks24 (talk) 19:07, 22 September 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:Islamic miracle narrative

 * 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, paralleling the decision here and the Christian category. Again, this is a thinly populated category, so those who think it should be kept should work on populating it or it may not survive another CfD nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Islamic miracle narrative to Category:Islamic view of miracles
 * Nominator's rationale: Per main article, pluralizing, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer Category:Miracles in Islam, but the nom would be an improvement. "View of" does not work well in category names. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming. category was created to parallel Category:Christian miracle narrative. Many articles and sub-categories can go in there; The Muslim view of many of the old testament's and Qur'an's narratives and the Shiites, Sunnites and Sufis miracle narrative about saints etc... Tachfin (talk) 19:52, 27 September 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:Literary devices

 * 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. I can't see the difference either.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Literary devices to Category:Literary techniques
 * Nominator's rationale: Those two seem to be synonymous. Additional give-aways include the literary device article redirecting to literary technique, and the literary device category stating in its description: "The main articles for this category are literary techniques and plot devices". That said, I am no expert in literature, and it is possible that a better solution would be to rename the literary devices category to Category:Plot devices. I am abstaining on that issue, and if the consensus here is "rename" rather than "delete", I'd be ok - but either way, something needs to be done with the literarly devices category (merge or rename?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 02:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a note that this may well have been raised before (by me, perhaps) at CfD. There's a number of past CfDs that link to this cat, and I don't have the time right now to sort through them. So just a head's up that I'm pretty sure we've been down this road before.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 23 September 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.