Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 25



Category:Interpretation

 * 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) 01:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Interpretation to Category:Interpretation (philosophy)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article for this category is Interpretation (philosophy), and Interpretation (a disambiguation page) alone is ambiguous. Normally, this would be a WP:CFD, but the category creator has informed me that he opposes any attempt to rename the category, so I bring it here for community discussion. (As a category, I think it's verging on associating various topics based on the shared word "interpretation", but if philosophers group all of them together, then I suppose a category could if named properly.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename – clearly ambiguous; we even have Category:Interpreters, with nary a philosopher amongst them. (The article Interpretation (philosophy) groups together many of the 'interpreter' articles.) Oculi (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to match catmain article, or Delete. I'm not sure the category has any Meaning.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I strongly oppose what I see as a ghettoization of philosophy articles and categories. It would be more appropriate to move Interpretation to Interpretation (disambiguation) and leave the title of this category alone. Category:Interpretation (general) would be more appropriate and equally unnecessary. Greg Bard (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is intending to "ghettoize"; we just need to acknowledge that there are meanings and uses of the same words outside of philosophy and have our category system reflect that. There's only very rarely a good reason to have a category name and the name of its corresponding article differ. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. I'm sure it's all in good faith. However, I have observed several instances where the goal seems to be to separate the general reader from the philosophy department by portraying terminology which is of general use as philosophical jargon. Greg Bard (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is that here Interpretation is not about the philosophical jargon. Interpretation (philosophy) is. Most people probably are not referring to the philosophical concept when they use or think of the word. Philosophers might say that they are using it in that sense whether they know it or not, but that's not really how WP works since it's not exclusively a philosophy wiki. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, point COMPLETELY missed. This is exactly the problem I was talking about. No, G.O. it's not a "philosophy wiki" *sigh*. You are quite a philosopher apparently, you know, all using "arguments (philosophy)" to make your case and all. Greg Bard (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * rename to match parent article.--- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename it is inappropriate to have philo take over priority over language interpretation/translation. 70.49.124.157 (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator to match parent article and avoid ambiguity. If the head article is renamed, then the name of this category can be revisited, but per many precedents category names should be no more ambiguous than the head article. In many cases, categ names are disambiguated even when the head article is the primary topic, because of the difficulties involved in monitoring ambiguous category anmes. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename/WP:SNOW. Categories and articles should have matching names. I honestly don't understand the objection here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:14, 1 February 2012 (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:Corse politicians

 * 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) 16:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Corse politicians to Category:Corsican politicians
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Assuming this category is desired, it surely should be titled in English, not a mixture of English and French. R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom, and per other sub-cats of such as, , , , and . -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * rename to match sister cats.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 06:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom.RevelationDirect (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2012 (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:Progressive rock suites

 * 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) 20:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * progressive rock suites


 * Nominator's rationale: The subject of the category "progressive rock suites" is a user creation and has no criteria for what constitutes a "prog rock suite" of music. There is no supporting Wikipedia page for "progressive rock suites" which contain valid references declaring what that term means. From the way it's being thrown onto Wikipedia pages it appears to be simply "long songs" from artists who may be linked to the progressive rock genre. Although, in some cases, these long songs are not even progressive rock songs themselves. Besides WP:NOR and WP:V... it is just a fanboy's POV list. Mr Pyles (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2012 (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:Male basketball players

 * 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 position categories, and delete "players" category. There is clear discomfort over the concept of segregating players by the triple-intersection of gender/sport/position. I'm less clear from reading this whether the concept of Category:Men's basketball players would pass a CfD. It might. But "Male" basketball players is such a small category now that I'm deleting it with no prejudice against the creation of Category:Men's basketball players.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * male basketball players


 * Category:Male basketball centers
 * Category:Male basketball forwards
 * Category:Male basketball guards
 * Nominator's rationale: Men and women do not truly play their positions or the game differently. Women's basketball, which is somewhat of a different sport with different rules, is already subcategorized. TM 18:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Basketball is not a sport where mixed-gender competition is common, and the article women's basketball also shows that the gender segregation even extends to women playing with a smaller ball and different court markings. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Or do you just want to ignore the guideline? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge all up to non-gender parent categories per nom. Differentiating between genders is an unnecessary filter. Guards have the same responsibilities whether they're male or female, as do forwards, centers and players in general. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Agree - I have never understood why someone felt the need to create gender-specific basketball position categories. Rikster2 (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. This is clearcut case of categories which should be segregated by gender, per WP:Cat gender, which says As most notable organized sporting activities are segregated by gender, sportsperson categories constitute a case where "gender has a specific relation to the topic". As such, sportsperson categories should be split by gender, except in such cases where men and women participate primarily in mixed-gender competition.
 * Merge per nom, only the most PC among us would force a construction such as Category:Players of male basketball vs. Category:Players of female basketball. Many sports have differences for the sexes: tennis championships are frequently best of 3 sets for females while males have best of 5 sets, different sized courts, too often; perhaps leading to such informative PC categories such as Category:Wimbledon champs who have never won a third set in any match (to avoid the word "women"), etc.  Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you claim that basketball is a sport where men and women participate primarily in mixed-gender competition?
 * WP:IAR per WP:COMMONSENSE. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm all for common sense, so let's apply some here. Common sense suggests that where a sport is widely played by both genders, but in separate competitions, gender is central to the topic and the two genders should be categorised separately to least some degree. Having one category called "basketball players" and the other called called "women basketball players" is a form of ghettoisation which creates the false impression that women playing the sport are some sort of minority anomaly. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Take a gander at Category:African American basketball players if you want to use the ghettoisation argument. That category shouldn't exist either. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Basketball has been notified . -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: per User:BrownHairedGirl.  Basketball competitions are separated by gender.  This makes gender an important defining characteristic for players.  There are enough articles about players to further break down these categories to avoid making them unwieldy. --LauraHale (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is already Category:Women's basketball players which differentiates female players. The issue I have is that positions cut across all kinds of barriers between players who don't face each other.  Position categories apply to players from high school to the Spanish league to the NBA - and none of those players compete against each other either.  As a comparison, the category Category:Association football goalkeepers doesn't differentiate gender either.  Why?  Because it's the same position being played.  Lisa Leslie and Shaquille O'Neal are centers.  Jennifer Rizotti and Chris Paul are point guards.  Period.  My concern is that we'll start to split categories like Category:Basketball players from Pennsylvania and Category:American expatriate basketball people in Germany by gender unnecessarily.  Rikster2 (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Rikster2's concern is already covered by WP:CATGRS, which says that in regards to the "ghettoization" issue, an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree. If a category is not otherwise dividable into more specific groupings, then do not create an E/G/R/S subcategory. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Help me understand why NOT segregating positions by gender leads to ghettoization - sounds like equality to me. If your issue is with the category "Women's basketball Players" then suggest something new with that category.  I'd be open to that.  To be honest, female players are categorized as players from Country X/State X anyway so I'm not sure that category is needed either.  I just don't see any difference at all with guards or forwards or centers between the sexes.  Rikster2 (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rikster2, please could just try re-reading WP:Cat gender so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel here? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have read it. It says nothing about position-specific categories and in fact the current convention is that they are not currently segregated (see my associated football goalkeepers example above). Rikster2 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2012 (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:Moon-related 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: No consensus to delete; rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Moon-related films to Category:Films about the Moon
 * Propose renaming Category:Moon-related television series to Category:Television series about the Moon
 * Nominator's rationale: Per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_30, we have been removing the word "-related" from categories of this type, and switching to "Films about (X)". This could also become Category:Films set on the Moon, following the convention of Category:Films by setting.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom and create Category:Films set on the Moon as needed. If a film is about the Moon—fine. If it's set on the Moon—fine. Both can be categorized. But if a film is only somehow vaguely or squishily "Moon-related", we shouldn't be categorizing it as such. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Apollo 13 is a film related to the moon, but it is not set on the moon. Similarly, several moonshot/moon program films never get to the moon... 70.49.124.157 (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete what exactly is a moon-related film? Judging by the category's content, it can mean anything from film is set on the moon, film is partially set on the moon, film is partially set on a moon flight, film is about the exploration of the moon, film features a character discussing moon exploration, film features a character who plans on stealing the moon and so on. This is much too vague for a category. Changing the title to "Films about the moon" does not address this problem. Category:Films set on the Moon would be fine of course but that would be a much narrower scope. Pichpich (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Moon isn't vague, and neither are nor . Films like Iron Sky and Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me contribute to encyclopedic coverage about the Moon in fiction, and are of course easily identified as films, so there's no problem with retaining such a subcategory for films. However, separating the fiction from the documentary could clarify the relationship, so alternatively I support renaming this to  or, and sorting the non-fiction into a new subcategory . (I agree with IP that "Films set on the moon" could be seen as excluding e.g. Apollo 13.) – Pnm (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete how much about the moon must a film be and what reliable sources tell us it is at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2012 (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:Article Rescue Squadron/Wikipedia deletion sorting

 * 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 Category:Article Rescue Squadron/Wikipedia deletion sorting and its subcats. Now that the template is deleted (and the deletion endorsed at DRV - something several commenters were waiting on). Essentially, categories missing their populating template. Keep Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue for manual placing on articles, should the WikiProject members so wish. (The potential "valid purpose" noted by commenters.) Probably should be renamed from using the word "tagged", but let's leave that for a future nom. - jc37 18:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * article rescue squadron/wikipedia deletion sorting(and all the child categories


 * Also :
 * category )






 * Nominator's rationale: Now the template has been deleted (which used these Categories) they are now redundant.  Mt  king  (edits)  06:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Clear effort to liquidate Article Rescue Squad. There should be a site-wide RFC on this question. That a group of editors managed to delete a template after three tries in a contested deletion discussion is no mandate for this sort of action. Carrite (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is an effective tool in alerting editors to articles in need of improvement. While debate is ongoing regarding proposed changes to the Article Rescue Squadron, elimination of the tools associated with the ARS should not be removed.  Ebikeguy (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 *  Speedy delete all /Hold for now as empty categories per WP:CSD. The  template which was used to populate this category was deleted 4 days ago, and unless it is restored the categories will remain empty. That deletion has not been challenged at WP:DRV, so there is no ongoing process which should prompt us to wait, and the categories have now been empty for the required 4 days. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment C1 does not apply to "project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion". These categories are intended as temporary placeholders for articles subject to AfD discussions, so it's obvious that they may become empty when those discussions end. I have tagged them with as suggested by the policy. Diego (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * These are no longer categories which "by their nature may become empty on occasion". They were populated by a template which no longer exists, so their emptiness is no longer occasional. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the template is now being discussed at DRV, I have changed my !vote to "hold for now", until the outcome of the DRV is known. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue under criterion G8, which explicitly mentions "categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates". In light of why Template:Rescue was deleted, it is unlikely that articles will again be tagged for deletion and rescue. Hold, for now, on Category:Article Rescue Squadron/Wikipedia deletion sorting and subcategories as it's possible that those may continue to be used manually by the ARS. -- Black Falcon (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This is being debated here. Diego (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * comment I have already declined speedy delete so this is not an option here. The reason it is rejected is that deletion is clearly controversial, as shown by opposes above.  The consensus to delete the template was almost a no consensus and only just over the edge to delete, so this could easily be overturned.  Also the category could be used directly without addition of a template.  So that is why no speedy delete.  So this means that the votes of BrownHairedGirl and Black Falcon can be ignored unless they change them. If people vote to keep the category, then they should also use it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Any actions taken to implement a controversial decision will, inevitably, also be controversial; however, such controversy should be discussed and resolved without negating standard processes. As I see it, deleting a template-populated category whose template was deleted is not substantially different from deleting the template's /doc or /sandbox subpages – pages which merely are technical extensions of the template itself. The fact that the WikiProject can use the categories in another way is, of course, an altogether different consideration that may apply to the sorting categories (hence my "hold" vote) but not Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue, which can be valid only if tagging of AfD'd articles for rescue is resumed – i.e., if Template:Rescue is undeleted. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Article could be tagged for rescue regardless of whether the template exists; don't see a redundancy.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The tagging mechanism was to use the template. How exactly would they be tagged when the template is gone? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all the template responsible for populating these categories has been deleted and the ARS has already moved to a different process at Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list. The categories could possibly be used on their own without the template but such use would be subject to the same problems as use of the template. This isn't the place to have another discussion about whether such use is appropriate, we've had that discussion at TfD and the result was that it is not appropriate. Admittedly the TfD result has been appealed to DRV but it does not look as if there is any possibility of it being overturned there. Hut 8.5 12:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The DRV has now been closed as endorsing the deletion. Hut 8.5 17:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no wiki-rationale for deletion by the nominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawahitech (talk • contribs) 15:29, 3 February 2012‎ (UTC)
 * I agree that we should wait until the DRV on the template closes, but please see: "they are now redundant" (because they are categories populated by a template that was deleted). -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion May still serve a valid purpose.  D r e a m Focus  17:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Does your comment apply to the DELSORT categories only, or also to Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose One doesn't need a template to use a category. The function of these categories is to assist article improvement and so deletion would be disruptive. Warden (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is use of this category by itself any better than the use of Template:Rescue? Hut 8.5 17:12, 4 February 2012 (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:New Jersey books
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 Category:Novels set in New Jersey. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * new jersey books


 * Nominator's rationale: No other books-by-state categories exist that i know of. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge the novels to Category:Novels set in New Jersey. The non-novels could perhaps go to Category:New Jersey in fiction or suitable subcats thereof. Oculi (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per occuli. - jc37 05:44, 4 February 2012 (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:Ancient Lesbians
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 20:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Ancient Lesbians to Category:People from Ancient Lesbos
 * Propose renaming Category:Ancient Lesbian poets to Category:Poets from Ancient Lesbos
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. True, the capital "L" should indicate to all that these are people from Lesbos and we're not talking about small-"l" "lesbians", but the modern meaning of the word "lesbian" and hence the ambiguity is probably a bit too overpowering here. I suggest we just rename this to "people from Ancient Lesbos" to mirror the parent category . Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to match parent cat.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support overly ambiguous, categories that are ambiguous require constant patrolling, so should be renamed. 70.24.251.194 (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to match parent category and to eliminate ambiguity. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 25 January 2012 (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.