Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 30

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 "scholars", further discussion may be needed about changing to "subject". Timrollpickering (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Literary critics by author to Category:Literary scholars by author

Nominator's rationale: None of the subcategories are for literary "critics" following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_23#Category:Kafka_critics and so a rename is necessary to accurately reflect category contents, I believe. I've taken the liberty of changing the parent category from Category:Literary critics to Category:Scholars and academics by subject accordingly, so if this CfR is unsuccessful, I'll revert that... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've noticed this category is populated by categories, that have whenbeen thru cfd (in the case of kafka), or is currently being debated. I can make nowno opinion at the moment because of the currentconcurrent debates.Curb Chain (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I like the change from "critics" to "scholars," but I wonder if "author" is confusing; could it be changed to "by subject author"? Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point: but would just Category:Literary scholars by subject work, as well? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought about that, but then people might decide that "postcolonialism" counts as a subject, when the category is meant to apply to authors. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. But would it be a problem if this underpopulated container cat (if kept) was opened up to both human and thematic subjects? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not a problem, but eventually someone like me will come in and sort them into "authors" and "topics" anyways, so why not set it up that way now. I've been thinking about sorting "Literary Critics" into "Literary Scholars" and "Literary Reviewers" for similar reasons. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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:Shakespearean scholars without prejudice to further discussion for both this category and Category:Shakespearean scholarship. This is a tricky one with the comments pointing in multiple directions but the immediate parent seems the best tiebreaker and that may need to be renamed as well; in the meantime maintaining consistency between the two seems the best step forward. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Shakespeare scholars to Category:Shakespearean scholars

Nominator's rationale: We should rename to Category:William Shakespeare scholars per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_23#Category:Kafka_critics and top-level eponymous category Category:William Shakespeare or to Category:Shakespearean scholars per the immediate parent Category:Shakespearean scholarship. I do prefer the latter, as Shakespearean FOO is such a commonly known and used term. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Shakespearean scholars - "Shakespearean scholars" is the more common term. Neelix (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to William Shakespeare scholars Although it's highly unlikely that there will be academics about anyone named Todd Shakespeare, we should follow the larger trend and parent cats. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"William Shakespeare scholars" is a very rarely used term. A Google Books search reveals 38 hits for "William Shakespeare scholars" as opposed to 6230 hits for "Shakespearean scholars". "Shakespearean scholars" is also more consistent with the parent categories, which "William Shakespeare scholars" is not; compare with Category:Shakespearean scholarship, Category:Shakespearean phrases, Category:Shakespearean characters, Category:Shakespearean actors, etc. Neelix (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Refraining from !voting here, but just noting 1) that spelling out "William Shakespeare" is exceedingly unnatural in some contexts (simply because Shakespeare has so saturated our culture) and tends to cause dissonance in terms of WP:COMMONNAME; and 2) "Shakespearean <whatever>" tends to evoke "in the style or manner of" rather than "about or concerning" (scholarship in the manner of Shakespeare would be inventive, innovative, and creative; but the man is well known for his factual faux pas' such as giving Bohemia a coastline and anachronisms, so not particularly good science or scholarship). In other words, you could have a "Shakespearean play" or "…poem", but one would be a “Shakespeare scholar" or read a “Shakespeare biography”, and specifying that it is “William” that is the subject just feels badly redundant in most contexts. The reason I'm not !voting here is that, as you'll have probably noted, my preceding arguments are mostly in terms of grammar and good style, and do not specifically touch so much on categorization or ontology. --Xover (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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) 23:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dostoyevsky scholars to Category:Fyodor Dostoyevsky scholars

Nominator's rationale: User:Stefanomione has created another FOOIAN scholars cat. Rename per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_23#Category:Kafka_critics or delete per WP:SMALLCAT? I'm not speedying this rename, because I want to see if deletion rather than renaming is the consensus view. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support For consistency. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 all. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World Bantamweight Champions to Category:World bantamweight boxing champions

Propose renaming Category:World Cruiserweight Champions to Category:World cruiserweight boxing champions

Propose renaming Category:World Featherweight Champions to Category:World featherweight boxing champions

Propose renaming Category:World Flyweight Champions to Category:World flyweight boxing champions

Propose renaming Category:World Junior Lightweight Champions to Category:World super-featherweight boxing champions (junior lightweight is equivalent to super featherweight and it redirects there)

Propose renaming Category:World Junior Welterweight Champions to Category:World light-welterweight boxing champions (junior welterweight is equivalent to light welterweight and it redirects there)

Propose renaming Category:World Light flyweight Champions to Category:World light-flyweight boxing champions

Propose renaming Category:World Light heavyweight Champions to Category:World light-heavyweight boxing champions

Propose renaming Category:World Light Welterweight Champions to Category:World light-welterweight boxing champions

Propose renaming Category:World Lightweight Champions to Category:World lightweight boxing champions

Propose renaming Category:World Heavyweight Champions to Category:World heavyweight boxing champions

Propose renaming Category:World Middleweight Champions to Category:World middleweight boxing champions

Propose renaming Category:World Minimumweight Champions to Category:World minimumweight boxing champions

Propose renaming Category:World Super bantamweight Champions to Category:World super-bantamweight boxing champions

Propose renaming Category:World Super featherweight Champions to Category:World super-featherweight boxing champions

Propose renaming Category:World Super flyweight Champions to Category:World super-flyweight boxing champions

Propose renaming Category:World Super lightweight Champions to Category:World light-welterweight boxing champions (super lightweight is equivalent to light welterweight and it redirects there)

Propose renaming Category:World Super middleweight Champions to Category:World super-middleweight boxing champions

Propose renaming Category:World Super welterweight Champions to Category:World light-middleweight boxing champions (super welterweight is equivalent to light middleweight and it redirects there)

Propose renaming Category:World Welterweight Champions to Category:World welterweight boxing champions

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A few issues here: (1) most of these weightclasses are used by sports other than boxing, so it helps to specify that these are boxing categories (and to match the parent, Category:World boxing champions); (2) there is no single "title" that goes by these names: they are descriptors of a class of champions in various boxing organizations, so it is not a proper noun and "Champions" should not be capitalized; (3) the weightclasses themselves are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized; (4) I've matched the weightclass names to the article names/parent category names about the weightclass: if it is composed of more than one word, it is hyphenated when it acts as an adjective; (5) some of these are duplicate and need to be combined: e.g., "junior lightweights" are the same as "super featherweights"—different boxing orgs just use different terminology for the same weight class. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all This is ambiguous: For example MMA uses such weightclasses as well, but Mixed Martial Arts is not Boxing.Curb Chain (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 per C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WBC Champions to Category:World Boxing Council Champions

Propose renaming Category:IBF Champions to Category:International Boxing Federation Champions

Propose renaming Category:IBO Champions to Category:International Boxing Organization Champions

Propose renaming Category:WBA Champions to Category:World Boxing Association Champions

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Each of these abbreviations (WBC, IBF, IBO, WBA) is ambiguous and they can refer to sport organizations other than the World Boxing Council, International Boxing Federation, International Boxing Organization, and the World Boxing Association.
(WBC=BWF World Championships, World Barista Championship, World Baseball Classic, World Boardgaming Championships, World Basketball Challenge)
(IBF=International Bandy Federation, International Badminton Federation, International Baseball Federation, International Basketball Federation, Iran Basketball Federation)
(IBO=International Biology Olympiad)
(WBA=World Basketball Association) — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all This is an obvious case of ambiguous-use of acronyms.Curb Chain (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 all. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bahá'í history to Category:History of the Bahá'í Faith

Propose renaming Category:Zoroastrian history to Category:History of Zoroastrianism

Propose renaming Category:Sikh history to Category:History of Sikhism

Propose renaming Category:Muslim history to Category:History of Islam

Propose renaming Category:Hindu history to Category:History of Hinduism

Propose renaming Category:Christian history to Category:History of Christianity

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_19#Category:History_of_Buddhism —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The Jewish equivalent cateogry is tricky because it's also an ethnic history one. Some of those are in the form of "Fooian history" and some are "History of Foo" or even "History of Foo people" or "History of [Region]". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, improvement in clarity, irrespective of main article names. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Support per Fayenatic. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 04:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: makes sense to me; I wasn't aware history could have religious convictions anyways... Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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) 20:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cartoon Network original programs to Category:Cartoon Network programs

Nominator's rationale: To make the category all inclusive for anything the network shows. The Pokémon anime is currently in here, but I'm pretty sure it's not an in house CN work... also, expanding the category to all CN programs will allow acquisitions like Almost Naked Animals to be included. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs). Pokémon, Totally Spies and Almost Naked Animals are not Cartoon Network original series. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 20:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I understand Foo programs to refer to shows where original episodes were broadcast on the Foo network, not just any syndicated content put into the rotation. Tom and Jerry and perhaps others would not belong.- choster (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As I understand it, only original shows are supposed to be in any of these categories. Otherwise a popular global show like Pokemon could be in 100s of categories for the networks that have ever aired it. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 04:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 per C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Affiliates of Visveswaraiah Technological University to Category:Affiliates of Visvesvaraya Technological University

Nominator's rationale: Main article is at Visvesvaraya Technological University. Lynch7 18:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Posthumous works to Category:Posthumous publications

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Posthumous works" sound to me like "works by dead people", but the actual meaning is "Posthumous publications". The term "Works" isn't applicable in this context E-Kartoffel (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I think "works" is more accurate, since this includes (audio) songs, films, etc. that were released after the artist's death—these aren't usually referred to as "publications", but they are referred to as "works" in the category tree. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Ol`factory is right: Publications are written sources. Works include non written sources.Curb Chain (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. No one is actually going to think the work is by a dead person; the proposed rename is unnecessary. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I've seen this term used before, for just that meaning. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Universities in Turkey to Category:Universities and colleges in Turkey

Nominator's rationale: Speedy merge obvious duplicate. Pichpich (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No objection. But there are a few links in Category:Universities in Turkey which are not in Category:Universities and colleges in Turkey. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Tula, Russia to Category:People from Tula (city)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are two 'Tulas' in Russia, the city and the oblast, whereas there is only city named Tula in the world Mayumashu (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. A quick look at the Tula disambiguation page will reveal that there are two other towns called "Tula" in Mexico, an unincorporated place in the US, and a place in Kenya.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 30, 2011; 19:20 (UTC)

?None of these are cities Mayumashu (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose since the city article is Tula, Russia. The introduction for the category listed the wrong name for the main article. So I'd suggest that since the current name matches the main article that this request be simply withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 per C2D, main article is Asana. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Yoga positions to Category:Asanas

Nominator's rationale: "yoga positions" is not a term found in our articles; the most common term is "asana". Curb Chain (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 per C2D main article. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bute to Category:Isle of Bute

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Because Bute is ambiguous, I suggest renaming this category to match the main article, which is Isle of Bute. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomCurb Chain (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I hear "Bute" and think of this guy. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 all. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2010s singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Also

Category:1930s singers

Category:1940s singers

Category:1950s singers

Category:1960s singers

Category:1970s singers

Category:1980s singers

Category:1990s singers

Category:2000s singers

Nominator's rationale: Per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_21#Music_groups. This is an overlapping set of categories and it leads to many long-running singers' articles being cluttered by overcategorization. To quote Vegaswikian, "Ample navigate is provided by the by year and by century categories and their associated navigation templates. This level of categorization does not add any value." I also suspect recentism since the scheme stops at the 1930s. Were musicians before 1930 not singers? (Finally, there doesn't seem to be a push to use any of the categories that widely, as none are over 2,000.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed - Delete. Tabercil (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Ambivalent As you pointed out, (e.g.) Category:1980s music groups is redundant if a band is in Category:Musical groups established in 1983 and Category:Musical groups disestablished in 1988, but the same isn't true for singers. Michael Stipe was born in 1960, but he's not a 1960s singer—birth and death year categories don't serve the same purpose as the established/disestablished scheme for musical groups. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to something less ambiguous or delete. Monni (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.