Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 13



Category:Galatasaray S.K. (football) footballers

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Galatasaray S.K. (football) footballers to Category:Galatasaray S.K. footballers
 * Nominator's rationale: While it's generally a good idea to have category names matching articles and other categories, sometimes common sense exceptions should be made. The proposed title is still unambiguous; the basketball teams, for example, don't have footballers. Compare to Category:Galatasaray men's basketball players (not Category:Galatasaray S.K. (men's basketball) basketball players). BDD (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * REname -- the disambiguator is clearly redundant. If it were "players" (which I think it may have been), it would have been needed.  A parent relating to the football team more generally may need to keep a disambiguator.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Galatasaray S.K. (football) footballers? That doesn't sound right.  Really no need for the disambiguator. – Michael (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - when I noticed the CFDS, I thought it was an unnatural name for a category - this is much better. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - over-disambiguated. GiantSnowman 09:55, 20 August 2013 (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: Classical music genres (newly proposed)

 * 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: Suspended/closed per request of User:LazyStarryNights. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to propose the following:
 * Create Category:Classical music genres.
 * The proposed category naming convention follows:
 * Other music genres. (see Category:Musical subgenres by genre‎).
 * The name classical music as opposed to western classical (or art) music following Classical music.
 * Deliberately not these in the name:
 * musical form: since this is a different concept, compare Musical genre and Musical form.
 * (music/composition) style, since some say this is a related and some say the same concept (see Musical genre). But at least across Wikipedia far less used.
 * (composition) type, even less used than style.
 * Its inclusion criteria would be: (sub)genres within the Western classical music genre.
 * Its initial contents would come from:
 * Merge Category:Western classical music styles into Category:Classical music genres (with Bot).
 * Selectively merge Category:Musical forms into Category:Classical music genres and the rest elsewhere.
 * Manually add all articles that describe Classical music genres to the new category.
 * Investigate in the light of this change, what to do with overlapping/related categories, for example Category:Song forms, Category:Opera genres and Category:Dance forms in classical music.
 * Related changes:
 * Selectively merge Category:Musical form to Category:Musical forms. LazyStarryNights (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's a very ambitious plan you've laid out, LazyStarryNights. I've only had a quick look thru, so I won't comment on it right now. However, I would like to suggest that it would probably be better to start the discussion on the talk page at WikiProject Classical music (I'm a member myself), where the editors will bring a greater depth and breadth of knowledge of the subject. At least, that's how I would proceed if I was proposing a major overhaul of those categories. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment / question - I was a bit in doubt were where to put this discussion (CFD or a project talk). I already had immediately posted invites to this discussion on that and another project talk page, would that suffice? See:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force LazyStarryNights (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like you've got it pretty well covered, then, LSN. It's a bit unusual for this sort of discussion to take place at CFD, which is primarily used for making binding decisions, but not entirely unheard of. Just for future reference, it's always good to make note of the fact that you've notified the relevant Wikiproject(s). There's even a nifty little template you can use for that! :) Cgingold (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. I'm learning more every edit and will take this lesson for the next. LazyStarryNights (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Many of these are better described as types of composition than either styles or genres. I'd prefer using that. Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note. The discussion was reopened per a request.  But there have been no comments in almost 5 days, so I'm not sure if there is going to be more input. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have only now taken a look at the talk page for WikiProject Classical music, and I'm not at all surprised that this discussion here at CFD did not get any comments in response to LazyStarryNights' notification. To begin with, it was posted way back in the middle of the talk page, where it was very unlikely to be noticed. Equally important, it this proposal is a follow-on to a discussion that was dead in the water, and which was followed by an extremely rancorous exchange between the other participants. Under the circumstances, I can undertand why LSN might have sought another venue for the discussion.
 * My advice: just leave it alone for now, LSN, and perhaps come back to it a few months down the line. And as I said above, WikiProject Classical music is probably the best place for a discussion of this sort -- it's really not the sort of thing that CFD is well-suited to. Best, Cgingold (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you advice. I'd like to clarify that the state of the wider discussion about genres on the WikiProject Classical music was not my reason to post this at CFD. The only reason was that in my (mistaken) understanding CFD was best because it was about categories.
 * My understanding going forward would be letting this discussion be closed again and I later repost my proposal at a new WikiProject Classical music talk with a reference to this discussion.
 * Since that project is relatively inactive now (holidays, infoboxes), waiting for a while makes sense. I'll also notify User:Johnbod by then, since he did reply. LazyStarryNights (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, then - I will close this out. Cgingold (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2013 (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:Women writers from Oklahoma

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Women writers from Oklahoma to Category:Writers from Oklahoma and Category:American women writers
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge per Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 29 - this category was missed by the user who tagged the rest. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. We have decided to not subdivide by gender below the national level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2013 (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:Royal Army Medical Corps non-commissioned officers

 * 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. No action on comments about other categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Royal Army Medical Corps non-commissioned officers to Category:Royal Army Medical Corps soldiers
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. No reason for this category. Category:Royal Army Medical Corps soldiers (into which this category's sole occupant can be upmerged) already exists for all ranks below commissioned officer and no other subcat of Category:British Army soldiers in the categorisation scheme includes this further subcat. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Hovever, I think there should be a category for Category:Royal Army Medical Corps officers, who would normally be doctors or surgeons, whereas the NCOs and soldiers would be orderlies.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that there is such a category. The soldiers category needs to be purged of officers by transferring them to the officer category, which should be linked.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There may be the odd officer in there by mistake, but as far as I can see the majority are other ranks (although some may later have been commissioned in other regiments, which doesn't disqualify them from this category). The British Army categorisation scheme has been in existence for a long time and includes separate categories for officers and ORs for every regiment and corps. I periodically go through categories to check the categorisation is correct, but there aren't many problems. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2013 (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:Peoria Rivermen 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: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Peoria Rivermen players to Category:Peoria Rivermen (AHL) players
 * Nominator's rationale: Peoria Rivermen (AHL) now defunct/moved out of town. These players are all for the old team (2005-2013).  Similar categories Category:Peoria Rivermen (ECHL) players and Category:Peoria Rivermen (IHL) players already exist.  (Later, a new Category:Peoria Rivermen (SPHL) players will probably end up existing also.) Closeapple (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support was going to put this up for a speedy rename myself but hadn't gotten around to it. I support this so it can be turned into a category disambiguation like other similar situations. -DJSasso (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support no brainer. TerminalPreppie (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2013 (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:Charlemagne Prize recipients

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting charlemagne prize recipients


 * Nominator's rationale: Having received this award is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic (see WP:OC) - especially as most of the recipients are senior politicians/royalty who are in many other categories. This category also (incorrectly) categorizes articles such as Euro and The Raspberry Ice Cream War under Category:Aachen and Category:People by status.  For info: There is a list at Charlemagne_Prize.  Note: Deletion of this category would leave the parent category with just 2 pages so that might be upmerged. DexDor (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:OC -- This is a fairly major prize, but the recipients were recognisably notable long before they gor the prize. This contrasts with the Nobel prize, which confers much increased notability.  List exists.  Upmerge parent.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Having categories like this is why Winston Churchill is in a truly too large number of categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 23:30, 14 August 2013


 * 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:Gay culture in Canada

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Gay culture in Canada to Category:LGBT culture in Canada
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Contains a single sub-category which in turn contains a single page. Not needed. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:LGBT culture in Canada. This one is too small, but the parent is well-populated and part of the established series Category:LGBT culture by country. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom and above. 14:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom and above. Obvious. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom. In addition to the reasons already specified, it's worth noting that this was created by a banned user as part of a nonconsensual and very much unwanted campaign of comprehensively breaking down every "LGBT" category on Wikipedia into four separate L, G, B and T subcategories — much, but not yet all, of which has already been undone in the wake of the userban. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2013 (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:Gay culture in Ireland

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Gay culture in Ireland to Category:LGBT culture in Ireland
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Unnecessary single-item category. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:LGBT culture in Ireland. This one is too small, but the parent is well-populated and part of the established series Category:LGBT culture by country. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom and above. 14:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom and above. Obvious. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom. In addition to the reasons already specified, it's worth noting that this was created by a banned user as part of a nonconsensual and very much unwanted campaign of comprehensively breaking down every "LGBT" category on Wikipedia into four separate L, G, B and T subcategories — much, but not yet all, of which has already been undone in the wake of the userban. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2013 (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.