Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 12

< August 11	August 13 >

August 12[edit]

Category:Songs with music by[edit]

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Songs with music by Kenny Dorham to Category:Compositions by Kenny Dorham
Category:Songs with music by Kenny Burrell to Category:Compositions by Kenny Burrell

Nominator's rationale: There are two category trees for musical compositions: songs by composer, which consists of songs (ie. musical compositions with lyrics), and compositions by composer, which consists of all musical compositions. For example, Miles Davis wrote instrumental music, so his music is correctly categorized under "compositions by composer" at Category:Compositions by Miles Davis. Similarly Category:Compositions by Charles Mingus, Category:Compositions by John Coltrane etc. On the other hand, George Gershwin wrote both instrumental music and songs, so his songs are in Category:Songs with music by George Gershwin while his instrumental composition remain at the parent category Category:Compositions by George Gershwin. A similar case is Category:Compositions by Duke Ellington. Now, the two nominated categories are similar in that they both contain (and are likely to contain) only one composition, which in both cases is instrumental. Therefore, as I have explained before (although there was no consensus last time), these would be correctly categorized under "compositions by composer", not "songs by composer" as they currently are. Jafeluv (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that all should be renamed to the form "Songs composed by ...". The counterpart for the lyricist should be "songs written by ...". A head note should make the scope of the category plain. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be even more incorrect, wouldn't it? My whole point is that these compositions are not songs. Jafeluv (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Songs" is intuitive, and far more preferable to having 2 categories, as in the case of Duke Ellington and Frank Zappa, especially in the case of Zappa who didn't co-write with a lyricist. Plus should we create a separate category for every songwriter that just happens to put out an instrumental piece of music? What a massive amount of category duplication just because a musical compostion is not a song. A hatnote would suffice when appropriate. Richhoncho (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2010 (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.

Category:Films distributed by Madman Films[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Self promotion .

Category:People from Richmond, Virginia[edit]

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 and purge. This category should be for people from Richmond, and no one else. A Greater Richmond category is also welcome, for people from the Richmond area.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Richmond, Virginia to Category:People from the Greater Richmond Region

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The description given on this page explains that people listed are not just from the city of Richmond, but the Greater Richmond Region. (If this nomination succeeds, the parent category for this category will need to be changed to from Category:Richmond, Virginia to Category:Greater Richmond Region.) Mayumashu (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A quick look through a couple dozen category members found that each of them was associated with the City of Richmond, not the surrounding area. Clean up the description and categorization to limit the category to the city. No objection to creating Category:People from the Greater Richmond Region as a parent category. - Eureka Lott 20:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This should be kept as is; people who are physically from inside the city limits of Richmond belong here, while people who are from areas near but not in Richmond proper more correctly belong in the appropriate category for the county (or town, if one exists) that they're actually from. And we most certainly do want to keep a city-level category for Richmond itself rather than smushing everything into a onesie for the entire metropolitan area. Bearcat (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2010 (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.

Category:Equatorial Guinea national football teams[edit]

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:Equatorial Guinea national football team. Also moving Category:Equatorial Guinea women's national football teams to Category:Equatorial Guinea women's national football team.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant with Category:Equatorial Guinea national football team. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge them - not sure which way. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All the subcategories of Category:African national association football teams, Category:European national association football teams, etc. use the singular. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2010 (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.

Category:Little Poland[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Little Poland to Category:Lesser Poland

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article name. Darwinek (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as proposed, if not speedy rename. Uncontroversial, stable name. East of Borschov 11:24, 13 August 2010 (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.

Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Elephant[edit]

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 Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Elephant to Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the White Elephant. I will leave it to User:AusTerrapin to finish up implementation of the rest, which he has kindly volunteered to do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Elephant to Category:Members of the Order of the White Elephant

Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicates. Both categories appear to refer the Order of the White Elephant, and I can see no difference between them relating to various ranks of the order. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No strong opinion either way. Clearly, the two should be merged, but the format "Recipients of <article title>" seems to offer some commonality. There are exceptions such as Knights of the Order of Orange-Nassau and Companions of the Distinguished Service Order and others, but "recipients of " is widely used. A common format enables categories to be created and added to easily. So, perhaps the merge should go the other way (despite "Members of " being first created and better populated). Similar arguments apply to Recipients of the Order of the Royal House of Chakri and Recipients of the Order of the Crown of Thailand. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFICS from British awards, "recipients of" is used for medals, but a difft style is used for orders, which one cannot technically "receive" (a person becomes a "member" of some grade on an order). See e.g. Category:Recipients of the Victoria Cross and the other subcats of Category:Recipients of United Kingdom military awards and decorations ... whereas orders use "members" of, as shown by the subcats of Category:Recipients of United Kingdom civil awards and decorations.

I will notify WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Elephant to Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the White Elephant. Thanks for notifying WP:ODM. In accordance with WP:ODM practice (I have been quite active in categorisation for the project), 'Recipient of...' is indeed reserved for decorations and medals, and, as noted by BrownHairedGirl, it is quite incorrect to refer to someone as a recipient of an Order. However the solution is not to merge to 'Member of...' For chivalric and merit orders, the preferred WP:ODM practice is to split based on membership grade (and further if the quantity of category members warrants it), this gives the category structure:

Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Thailand

Category:Order of the White Elephant

Category:Knights Grand Cordon of the Order of the White Elephant
Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the White Elephant
Category:Knights Commander of the Order of the White Elephant
Category:Commanders of the Order of the White Elephant
Category:Companions of the Order of the White Elephant
Category:Members of the Order of the White Elephant
Category:Recipients of the Gold Medal of the Order of the White Elephant
Category:Recipients of the Silver Medal of the Order of the White Elephant

Category:Knights by country

Category:Thai knights

Distribution of members of the Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Elephant is as follows:

Knights Grand Cordon - Ibrahim of Johor, Amha Selassie of Ethiopia?
Knights Grand Cross - Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma; Nathan Farragut Twining?, William Westmoreland
Commander - Pham Van Dong

Based on this my recommendation is to Rename Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Elephant to Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the White Elephant (this will minimise the number of articles to move out), I will then raise additional categories for the various grades as required (based on which will actually be populated) and recategorise articles/sub-categories as appropriate. Given the low number involved and the requirement to move in multiple directions, this will be best done manually. Category:Members of the Order of the White Elephant should be used exclusively for the Member grade of the order. As can be observed with the categories in issue, this practice has not universally been implemented across all relevant Wikipedia articles yet - it is a work in progress. I think that, early on, the practice of lumping all grades together was seen as expedient by some editors and whilst there were low numbers of people to go in these categories, that worked well enough. The difficulty is that once larger numbers of eligible articles are categorised, this leads to an unwieldy number of articles in a generic category and a significant workload to diffuse them into appropriate sub-categories. Much better to start with an appropriate range of clearly definable sub-categories, even if they are sparsely populated initially. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to AusTerrapin for that detailed analysis. That looks to me like a good structure, although a lot of work ... but if someone is ready to volunteer to do the necessary splitting, a rename to Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the White Elephant sounds like the right step to take. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am volunteering - that's the sort of categorisation work I am already doing, although my main focus to date has been British and Commonwealth orders, decorations and medals...except when I temporarily follow tangential threads, like this one. Sorting out this Order is not that big, although there are a handful of individuals where their grade is not readily identifiable, however it is nowhere near the scale of some of the British Orders where there are typically several hundred to diffuse :) I have tweaked the proposed category names for the Gold and Silver medals of the order - medals of orders are not usually considered to confer small 'm' membership of the order, so in this case the convention per decorations and medals is to refer to them as Recipients of the appropriate medal. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ReOrg per discussion with AusTerrapin, above. - jc37 21:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that 7 days have passed and that consensus appears to unanimously support my proposed changes, I have put in place the rest of the category structure and have categorised all articles according. The only people now remaining in Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Elephant are Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the White Elephant (per the proposed renaming of the category). I have done a comprehensive search of Wikipedia and have added a bunch of people to the various grade categories as appropriate (including reviewing everyone in Category:Members of the Order of the White Elephant) - all up 75 people's Wikipedia articles refer to them as having been appointed to the Order and are now categorised by grade, of these 16 pages are now pointing to Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the White Elephant in anticipation of the rename. Those now in Category:Order of the White Elephant, did not have identifiable grades mentioned in their articles. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2010 (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.

Category:People accused of antisemitism[edit]

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 delete. Categories of very similar names have been deleted numerous times before, so this is essentially re-creation of previously deleted material. This tends to come up about once per year. See, eg, here and here, as well as the one pointed out by BrownHairedGirl below. I think it's also clear that articles about people should not be included in Category:Antisemitism just because they have been accused of having made an antisemitic remark. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is an inherently POV category, which can be expected to provide hours of pointless arguments, without adding anything of worth to Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The inclusion criteria is clear and with 428 in the parent cat we really need to take some weight of Category:Antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Need Larger Policy Discussion which I've tried to start here: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Inconsistencies.2Fambiguities_in_categories_about_various_forms_of_bigotry. If there are sufficient WP:RS that people are accused of any form of bigotry either a) there should have a category saying so or b) they should not be in a general, vague category on that topic, overloading it and confusing its message. (Of course, some people are in the category because they are opposed to/work against/are victims of that form of bigotry, which is another issue entirely, but also needs addressing, in a less immediate fashion.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - accused is a bit vague for this type of heavy accusation. Parent cat may be in need of diffusion, but deleting this cat and removing the pages from Category:Antisemitism will take of the same weight as sub-categorizing. jonkerz ♠ 18:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would favor deleting any category solely based on accusations. Mangoe (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This a horrendous basis for a category. A blatantly false and malicious accusation is enough to place someone in here, so long as the the accusation is reported in reliable sources ... yet the fact that the accusation appears prominently at the bottom of the article gives it a lot of weight, and may lead the reader to draw adverse conclusions on the no-smoke-without-fire principle.
Category:Anti-Semitic people was deleted at CFD 2007 March 27, on the grounds of subjectivity: just how anti-semitic do you need to be for inclusion? Is it enough to have said that all things considered, you sometimes don't find Hasidic beards very sexy, or (at the other extreme) do you need to be a fully-fledged mass-murderer? This category carries all those problems of subjectivity, and adds a further layer of subjectivity relating to the significance of the accuser: is it enough to show that the term was once hurled as abuse on the street, or do you need a scholarly biography which makes the charge? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Per WP:UNDUE. Per WP:BLP. Per common sense. Chickenmonkey 19:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Strongest possible delete A POV smear magnet. AllyD (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per BrownHairedGirl. Garion96 (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2010 (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.

Category:Trochilidae[edit]

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. However, a merge the other direction might gain more traction, as the Latin name seems to predominate in our taxonomy system.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Trochilidae to Category:Hummingbirds

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Interchangeable terms. Choosing the common name to match with the main article (Hummingbird). Dawynn (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The category tree appears to be by the classification. That said, I am curious about the various subcats of Category:Birds by common name. The two category trees appear to be each doing something different. So perhaps some cleanup might be needed here for clarity? - jc37 22:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In general, jc37 is right that the dominant form of categorization for animals and plants is by Latin species names rather than common English ones. However, as they also correctly point out, at various places in the category tree there are exceptions where an English name has been used instead (frex, Category:Orchidaceae is a redirect to Category:Orchids, not vice versa) or where both names exist alongside each other. So I'd agree that some cleanup and/or clarity is needed. Bearcat (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2010 (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.

Category:Financial aid[edit]

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. Courcelles 23:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Financial aid to Category:Student financial aid

Nominator's rationale: to match main article, Student financial aid. In addition, this category could be mixed up with Welfare (financial aid). jonkerz ♠ 15:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename as proposed. Mangoe (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2010 (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.

Category:Former anti-Islam activists[edit]

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. Courcelles 23:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. People sometimes change their minds, I don't think it would be useful to have a lot of "former _____" categories. Also two of the three articles in this category are about figures from the early history of Islam who wouldn't normally be described as "activists." Prezbo (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

who wouldn't normally be described as "activists." then how? "Activism consists of intentional action to bring about social, political, economic, or environmental change. This action is in support of, or opposition to, one side of an often controversial argument." I think they could be described as this. And I think it's pretty useful category, as it's a very crucial point in the life of a person who became a muslim after he has been opposing Islam. Userpd (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen Umar described as an "activist"? Wikipedia should describe people the way the rest of the world does. "Activist" is vague enough that you can apply it to anyone if you really wanted to, but generally it's not how people describe the rulers of countries. Wikipedia shouldn't try to convey the full narrative of someone's life through categories; the fact that there are at best three people who fit into this category demonstrates that.Prezbo (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be renamed, not deleted, to a proper name (if it's really that necessary as "activist" being a modern name can be still formally applied to people from the past"), since such category seems to be important and needed. Userpd (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if also delete Category:Anti-Islam activists because it is biased to not allow article on other activists versus other religions. Either they all deserve a category or none do. However, if keep the category, keep this one because if someone decides not to be a bigot any more, they should be recognized as such. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Userpd (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think it's necessary to point out in categories that people have repented from their former misguided views. Robert Byrd is still in Category:Ku Klux Klan members. If you adopt this policy site-wide every objectionable ideology will have a "former ___" category with like one person in it.Prezbo (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we don't generally divide categories by present/former affiliation. If someone thinks there is a problem with Category:Anti-Islam activists, then nominate that one for deletion, but this category at least is not a good idea. Robofish (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't it seem to be non-neutral if delete this, and leave that. As for "there's no former thing" check this out. And also type in the search box: "Category: Former and in the drop down menu you would see a lot of results. So Keep. Userpd (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do categorise by former religion (Category:People by former religion). But that's because religious conversion is a major event in a person's life, one easily verifiable and not easily reversible. But how are we supposed to verify if someone is a 'former anti-Islam activist'? In some cases (like with the people in this category at the moment) it's clear, but not always so - what if someone just stops actively campaigning, but privately keeps the same beliefs? As it happens, this category is currently being used to categorise people who converted to Islam who were formerly activists against it, which is fine, but doesn't seem necessary - they're all in Category:Converts to Islam already. Robofish (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"but privately keeps the same beliefs" - then he wouldn't be called "former", he just stopped being "active". So under this category would fall obvious or clearly confirmed persons. As with the same success how can we sure if a person is "Anti-Islamic activist"? He may have some disagreements at certain aspects but don't be fully against Islam. Userpd (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since this really leans on the "when" of when they became "former", this really should be a list, if anything. (plus it allows for references, etc.) - jc37 21:37, 19 August 2010 (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.

Category:Eponymous categories[edit]

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. Lots of good points were made, but I can't mine a consensus to take any specific actions based on it. Now can some people help remove the CFD tag from all these categories? SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

134 other categories

Nominator's rationale: Delete all. This category and sub-cats are redundant and serve no purpose. Categories for the eponymous articles already exist so it is needless duplication. In most cases if "Categories named after" is removed from the above categories the more useful category is found. Note that this is probably only a small subset of eponymous categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am confused as to the nomination's rationale. Why are they redundant? Yes, the eponymous categories already exist, but these categories group multiple eponymous categories, do they not? I personally have found them quite useful for finding various eponymous categories, so I think it might be a stretch to say they "serve no purpose". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are they of use to you as an editor or reader? If it is the former they should be userfied or assigned to a WikiProject. Also, since there are a huge number of eponymous categories this is only a small collection of the total. Will it ever be a complete list? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both, I suppose. I edit while I read, and read while I edit. The categories can reasonably be complete insofar as they would include all the examples of eponymous categories of a certain type that currently exist on WP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – there is no duplication whatever. Category:Kylie Minogue is not a subcat of anything except various possible 'Category:Categories named after xxx' (the article Kylie Minogue is in various categories; the category is not a subcat of these). (They are of use to any reader who is browsing categories.) Occuli (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Category:Kylie Minogue is only in the category in question is not a rationale for keeping the category. Also, Category:Kylie Minogue can be in any of the categories that the Kylie Minogue article is in. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I tend to disagree. It's logical for Kylie Minogue to be in Category:Australian female singers, but it would make no sense for Category:Kylie Minogue to be a subcategory of Category:Australian female singers since not all articles in Category:Kylie Minogue are Australian female singers. Jafeluv (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll repeat the 2nd comment above: I am confused as to the nomination's rationale. —The Nominators "opinion" says it all: "This category and sub-cats are redundant and serve no purpose." One person's opinion, and I think I know what will become of it: There is, or should be a "Category:Eponymous categories", because I know of the category for "Eponymous named Scientific Laws", whatever the correct category name is... and that is one that goes under the Master category of "Category:Eponymous categories.
And, the reason I added: (2 categories I made) Category:Sierra Madre Occidental, and Category:Sierra Madre Oriental to the cat: Categories named after mountain ranges, was because they were left out of the Category. (I have made other mountain range categories, and others, related.)
And: Where else do you find "categories named after mountain ranges, except at: Category:Categories named after mountain ranges, ? Mmcannis (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of Category:Categories named after mountain ranges is admirably served by Category:Mountain ranges and all of its subcategories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it, as well as the confusion over, eponymous. Under Category:Mountain ranges, there will Always be literally thousands, or tens of thousands of listed articles for "a mountain range". To imply that there should also be thousands of categories, so that each range is covered in its own cat is ridiculous. That's why the person, (or individuals) so quickly made the Categories, for Lakes, Mountain ranges, Valleys(Not Done), Religious texts, (I think there were 2 or 3 others I saw, all quickly created, and almost immediatley 90-95 PerCent populated)-(I doubt "categories named after mountain ranges" will ever exceed 2-4 percent of the Total, (or 1-2.5,percent)(pick a small number)...IMHO, all those categories were overdue, and like I say, the reason i(sic) added category:Sierra Madre Occidental, is that it is a Cordilleran mountain range. How else does the world know that it is also in a category of its own? You'd prefer to force an individual go look for it?. There it is. Right in a "small, exclusive, never to be very large category".) There are others yet to be done(created) in Mexico.. (Why do you think the Rocky Mountains has a category-?), but the Dome Rock Mountains of Arizona, will probably never have a category-? (it has some minerals, and history, but that's about it.)Mmcannis (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a purpose for each of these categories-?, (all needing to be judged individually). Calling them all eponymous is quite foolhardy, and not what was intended by the person that started all this. I suspect more than one person should own up to the 'eponymous' madness. Like I say, there is a category for Laws named after an individuals name, i.e. "eponymous".Mmcannis (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what are you trying to argue above, but there is a difference between categories named after... and laws named after. Laws are notable, categories aren't. I see the categories named after... as useful as if we were to have a category:Wikipedia pages named after article titles :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are certain categories in which the things in question invariably have proper names, and every category about such things is almost with exception going to be eponymous. For example, essentially every entry in Category:Wars and its subcategories, Category:Novels and its subcategories, Category:Religious texts, museums, schools, companies, etc. I don't see why we need a separate set of categories to emphasize this; it's in the nature of the thing. It doesn't even rise to the level of trivia. Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing visible at the top level of Category:Wars is an eponymous category. There is no (independent) article Wars, there is no article Wars by country etc. Category:War is eponymous and could be put in Category:Eponymous categories (but Category:War has several valid parents). (IMO Category:Categories named after wars is not a subcat of Category:Wars and instead the two should be linked using {{CatRel}} on both categories.) Occuli (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there is for the most part a thick layer of classification between that category and any category about a specific war. One need only go down one level, however, and find that essentially every category within Category:Global conflicts is eponymous, because the categories at that level are almost all about specific wars. Most categories under Category:Wars involving the United States are also eponymous, again because they are mostly for specific wars. Categories about specific things that have names are going to be eponymous, but I don't see how the various kinds of things that are given names have anything in common. After all, below this there should be a categorization of articles for Category:Things with proper names which would include articles on War, film, novel, ship, continent, planet, etc. Mangoe (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to Category:Eponymous categories for .... The categories are better described as sharing the name of the person or thing in question, that is being eponymous for (s)he/it, than they are 'named after' (s)he/it. Mayumashu (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that will not solve the problem. They will still be redundant and of little use. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know that there is a problem in having them, per points raised by the 'keepers' here. Mayumashu (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons include clutter, confusion and the need for ongoing maintenance. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Occuli. I must be thick, because I still can't understand how there is a redundancy here. Oftentimes, we don't want Category:Kylie Minogue to be a subcategory of all of the categories that apply to Kylie Minogue. Would we put Category:Kylie Minogue in Category:1968 births? No, because not everything contained in Category:Kylie Minogue was a person born in 1968—it only applies to the article of the same name, not the entire category. These eponymous categories are a solution to this problem, and although they may be annoying or perplexing to some users, they do serve a purpose to readers and editors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I can see Kylie Minogue is a bit of a glitch. Obliously it will not go in all the related categories and if it is put in Category:Australian female singers it will stick out like a sore thumb. Note that Category:Buddy Holly by way of example is in Category:Rockabilly musicians. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is that the Minogue one is done properly and the Holly one is done improperly, hence the need for these categories to provide a home for eponymous categories of the same type. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand your point correctly, you are saying that getting rid of the CnaKM cat and moving all KM article cats to a KM category would result in a wrong overcats to subcats (such as year of birth to a subcat of songs written by...). It has a merit. On the other hand, from a category navigator perspective, if you have a Category:French musicians and in it you have only the article KM, and not her category, there is no link between that category and the songs written by KM category, unless one creates Category:Songs by French musicians. Second, the category system is already full of such problems. Let's take one of the categoris of the KM article, Category:Grammy Award winners. Winners are people - but if you look up, they are also assigned to Category:Grammy Awards (but they are not awards...), and if you go high enough, they are parts of Category:Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and so on :) We should accept that if you go up the levels of categories, think become part of the big picture, which is not necessarily correct for all articles categorized x-levels underneath. Unless somebody can fix the entire system, having eponymous categories only makes things more confusing. As long as Grammy Winners are Members of the NATO, I see no reason why her songs cannot have a year of birth :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per patient explanations of Occuli & Good Olfactory -- one of whom will hopefully recall a previous very similar CFD discussion (perhaps 1-1/2 years back) that I would have sworn was for this category but doesn't show in the edit history, so I guess it must have been for another related category (probably one of the sub-cats). Btw, am I missing something or is there really a good reason for Category:Hemp, Category:Wood, and Category:Oil palm to be listed here? Cgingold (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: the CFD I'm referring to was much more recent than the one mentioned immediately below by Cow of Pain. Cgingold (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all - I believe you mean this discussion which was indeed about several of these. The only reason for keeping any Category:Categories named after Foo is to keep eponymous categories out of Category:Foos. I'm not really not seeing why these need to be separate structures and what's so awful about having categories named for Foos in the Foos category. Just taking one example, Category:Falkland Islands, it's parented in Category:Categories named after islands but it's also parented in Category:Archipelagoes in the Atlantic Ocean, Category:Disputed islands, Category:British Overseas Territories, Category:Special territories of the European Union, Category:Sub-Antarctic islands and Category:Dependent territories in South America. There is nothing to be gained by parking it in a category that serves no purpose but to tell us that a category called "Falkland Islands" is named for an island, which, it's already right there in the name. As far as not wanting to put every eponymous category into every category that applies to its eponym, that may or may not be the case but any concerns about such categorization can be handled on a case-by-case basis without the existence of these categories. Would we want Category:Kylie Minogue in Category:1968 births? Probably not, but wouldn't we want it in Category:Australian singers? The argument that not everything in Category:Kylie Minogue is Kylie Minogue is specious. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge isn't a 21st Century American President but no one seems to be taking issue with its being a level down in that category through its inclusion in Category:Barack Obama. By that logic Category:Kylie Minogue albums shouldn't be parented in Category:Kylie Minogue because an album is not a person, the only thing that should be in the category is Kylie herself because she's the only thing that is Kylie and Category:Kylie Minogue shouldn't be in Category:Categories named after musicians because not everything in it is a category named for a musician. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hemp, Category:Wood, and Category:Oil palm highligh the fact that the parent category does not have a subcat for proper names. To make this parent category useful there are 1000s of eponymous categories that will need categorising under it. I feel that to do this would be a fruitless exercise and may encounter opposition from other editors. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The few categories such as Category:Hemp etc highlight the fact that few editors think it useful to categorise all eponymous categories as such (unlike the ones that have been so categorised in numbers in subcats). The similar one was perhaps Category:Categories named after criminals which was merged (ludicrously) in this cfd. The Bovine Query seems to have absorbed Otto4711's misunderstandings of the category system almost word for word. Category:Kylie Minogue is for articles related to KM: some are albums, some are songs, some are images, hardly any were born in 1968, hardly any were Australian. Barack Obama is a 21st century president, but Category:Barack Obama should not be parented by Category:21st-century presidents of the United States as this is a list category which should contain 3 articles and no subcats. (There are thousands of incorrect category inclusions throughout category space. I take issue with some of them and am often reverted.) Occuli (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me where it's written that Category:21st-century presidents of the United States is a "list category" (whatever that even means, since categories are not lists, lists are not categories, and categories for lists are generally called Category:Lists of Foos) and that it shall contain no sub-categories? Upon whose authority are you basing this decree? Is Barack Obama somehow less closely associated with the Presidency of the United States in the 21st Century than The Loco-Motion is with Kylie Minogue? The contents of the KM sub-categories are associated with Category:Australian female singers by their association with KM. Every single article that has a grandparent category does not need to be categorizable directly in the grandparent as well as the parent. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

>Can you show me where it's written that Category:21st-century presidents of the United States is a "list category"

According to the naming convention in WP:CAT#The category system, the plural "presidents" indicates that the category is a "set category". There was a WP:CAT discussion some time ago where most people seemed to use the term "list category" to mean what the guideline calls a "set category", which is defined as only the presidents themselves, not other subjects that are related to them.

>Every single article that has a grandparent category does not need to be categorizable directly in the grandparent as well as the parent.

That depends on how you define the word "category". WP:CAT defines two kinds of "categories", and the "set" type is defined more narrowly than what you've been talking about.

—Codrdan (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only reason one could possibly call Category:Hemp "eponymous" is because "hemp" doesn't take a plural form, which I suppose is why Category:Cats cannot be called "eponymous" even though "cat" and "hemp" are both garden variety nouns. Therefore Category:Cotton, Category:Jute, and Category:Coal should also be tagged as eponymous, as well as Category:Sheep but not Category:Dogs. I can hardly imagine that "eponymous" should be intended to indicate a mere grammatical/usage quirk. And if we don't care about the plural form, then essentially every category fits, or at least all those with a parent article of the same name. None of this mitigates the issue that every category about a particular film is eponymous, or about a particular book, or about a person, or about anything else that has a name. Mangoe (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those odd-ball categories referred to by Cgingold were recently added to Category:Eponymous categories by Vegaswikian. Why don't we just ask him why he added them? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well they were added after reviewing Wikipedia:Categorization#Eponymous categories. The question arises as to whether eponymous categories should be placed in (made subcategories of) the categories which their corresponding articles belong to. Logically they usually should not (for example, France belongs to Category:European countries, but Category:France does not constitute a subset of European countries). However, by convention, many categories do contain their articles' eponymous categories as subcategories, even though they are not "true" subcategories. In any case, an article should not be excluded from any set category on the grounds that its eponymous category is made a "subcategory" of that category. As far as I know most of those are not set categories. Based on this, eponymous categories provide a logical home for categories that don't belong in other parents since they fail under When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also. When categories contain vastly different contents related to the eponymous name, they really don't have a good parent under the guideline. So they should be simply an eponymous category. Using the hemp category as an example, when you have people, legislation, products, raw material, festivals, diseases, workers, museums and vehicles, there are no categories that really cover all of that, so the only reasonable parent is something in the eponymous tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with the argument made in the guideline is that the very example it gives, of Category: France, violates the principle it wishes to establish! And I didn't check them all, but it seems fairly safe that there is a category for every European country in Category: European countries. This would imply that the rule hidden inside the guideline-- that any page which is a member of a category must also properly be a member of any supercategory of that category-- is not generally accepted. It looks to me as though the rule that actually is being followed is: "A category should be a subcategory of any category of which its parent article is a member." Insofar as such a rule is observed, there's no use for a separate hierarchy of eponymic categories. Mangoe (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the problem with your position of inclusion is that we would be including multitudes of articles into incorrect article trees. Take the case of a category where one entry is a film and the other 99 articles are about albums and tours and people. Why would it be considered correct to place those 99 categories into films that don't belong in to this tree? Better to under categorize then to over categorize. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily my position; what it does seem to be is a lot of other people's position. What I sense is that there are conflicting theories: a top-down theory, in which subcategories are diffused from a single master category, and thus the subcategories inherit membership from higher up; and a article-like theory, in which the subcategories inherit membership from their parent articles. Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all this is pure self reference; why would anyone look for this in the real world outside the wiki? "Oh, I see that so-and-so has a category named after him/her, I wonder who else in Wikipedia is so honored." Why not a category for biographies of less than a certain size so we can see who Wikipedia honors with real content and which are merely "he/she exists/-ed" Puh-lease. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Carlos's point above is relevant. I have noticed that often more inexperienced users will create an eponymous category for an individual not because the content warrants it, but because they say something like, "well, I saw XXXX had a category, so I thought that surely YYYY should have one too." It's a real problem with these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, but properly categorize the contents first I gave this some thought, and I admit I also don't see the point except for usefulness to CfD, and I think we can get by without these. For most other purposes, a category about a mountain range can just go under the particular "by continent" category, and a category about a musician can just go under the "by nationality" category. Category:Kylie Minogue suggests some of the categories are not under their obvious parents, so we'll need to make sure they all get to the right homes if we go this route.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm a hypocrite. Three years ago, in the same type of nomination, I wrote: "Keep. The ability to go through these types of categories is highly useful for me, especially when we're doing things like subcategorizing Category:Musicians by band. It would be harder to do such things without these, so I'd like them to stay." So I used them for their utility, and it makes no sense for me to argue that other editors should not. I'm withdrawing my comment from before.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - The ones of interest could be listified and put in project or user namespace. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is an eponymous category

Further thinking on this has prompted me to conclude that essentially all categories are in some sense eponymous. Would anyone else like to explain what they think differentiates an eponymous category from some other category? Mangoe (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An eponymous category is a category of articles connected with some topic (where that topic has an article; the categories are called "eponymous" because they tend to have the same name as the article). The other kind are categories of articles about a certain kind of thing. So Category:France is eponymous, Category:French actors is not. --Kotniski (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - try as I might, I can't see any obvious use for these. When does it help to know a category is 'eponymous'? Robofish (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All as an effective means of organizing this structure. Alansohn (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But what to do, for example, with Category:Boeing - which at this point is categorized only as Category:Categories named after vehicle manufacturing companies of the United States (! - also I note that this cat is not listed for deletion; it should be (tree level too far down?)). Presumably, recategorize Boening to whatever categories are present in Boeing, right? Anyway, I blame existence of eponymous categories for this problem; in a proper system, Cat:Boeing would be connected to correct over cats (type of company, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories named after vehicle manufacturing companies of the United States is now added to the list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unless someone has a better way of organizing these. (Certain individual ones might be redundant, I suppose.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The better way to organize them would be to place relevant categories in appropriate parents and not group them just because they happened to be named for a particular thing or person. Categories in the vast majority of instances should be about the person/thing/concept being categorized, not a characteristic of the category itself. Everyone seems to agree that we shouldn't have categories like Category:Schools named after George Washington or Category:Airports named after presidents or Category:Chemical elements named after scientists so how is Category:Categories named after people any different? If "named after Foo" is not defining of anything else, why is it defining of categories? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change "Categories named after Xs" to "X topics" or "Topics based on Xs": See this discussion for reference. A regular category contains only articles about things that share some defining property. For example, Bermuda is a member of Category:Island countries and Category:Islands in the North Atlantic, because Bermuda is a North Atlantic island country. But Bermuda is notable in and of itself, so there's a Category:Bermuda that contains articles about the history, government, geography, and other aspects of Bermuda. These articles are about history, government, and geography, so they can't be members of a category that contains only islands. The articles are related to the topic of Bermuda, but being related to an island isn't the same thing as actually being an island. —Codrdan (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By this reasoning Category:United States can't be in Category:Northern American countries because it contains sub-categories US law, American people and the like. The idea that an island category can't be categorized as an island because it contains articles and sub-cats that aren't specifically about the land mass would taken to its logical extreme cripple our ability to categorize across a huge range of subjects. There's absolutely no reason why Category:Bermuda can't be directly in Category:Island countries just because it contains articles that aren't about physical aspects of the island itself. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

>Category:United States can't be in Category:Northern American countries

Exactly. Category:European countries has the same problem.

>The idea that an island category can't be categorized as an island ... would ... cripple our ability to categorize

We don't really want a category system, we want a navigation system. Categories are only part of that; the other part is topics. This whole discussion is based on a confusion between categories and topics. In addition to Category:Islands for island articles, there should be something like Topic:Islands or Category:Island topics for articles about other subjects that are related to islands.

—Codrdan (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's exactly it. It's not a problem that categories named after countries in Europe are categorized as European countries. The idea that they can't be directly categorized there because two or three or four levels down in the category system there are articles that are about various aspects of the countries is just profoundly and unconscionably silly. It is no barrier to navigation to have Category:Bermuda directly in Category:Island countries. Certainly you would not put the article Bermuda shorts directly in Category:Island countries but the presence of that article in Category:Bermuda is not a barrier to placing that category directly into its logical parent. I agree that we want a navigation system and the current building block that we have for navigating in this fashion is categories. Categorizing on the basis of what categories are named after does not aid in navigation especially if its basis is the counter-intuitive "related articles down the category tree demand uprooting from logical parents". Whether there should or shouldn't be a Topic:Foos navigation scheme in place is not relevant to the discussion because for now there isn't and there can't be. Ultimately every category is named after something. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

>It's not a problem that categories named after countries in Europe are categorized as European countries.

I don't think the word "category" is defined that broadly. The way you're using it, "category" and "topic" are basically synonyms.

The idea ... is just profoundly and unconscionably silly.

This entire conversation is silly if we're going to throw words around without agreeing on their meaning. I define "category" more narrowly as only things that share a defining property. Whatever terminology we use, we need to distinguish between (a) sets of things that share a property and (b) other things that are more generally related.

>Categorizing on the basis of what categories are named after does not aid in navigation

You're right, those categories should be modified. General topic categories would be more useful. There should be an island-related "topic category" that would include everything that has anything to do with islands, in addition to a "set category" of only the islands themselves. Island-related topics would be a superset of Categories named after islands.

>Whether there should or shouldn't be a Topic:Foos navigation scheme in place is not relevant to the discussion

No, of course not. That's a technical issue. But there needs to be some way to isolate sets of things sharing a specific property from subjects that are secondarily related to those things. It's not convenient for readers to have to wade through all sorts of island-related miscellany if all they want is articles about the islands themselves.

—Codrdan (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The related template is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_12#Template:Eponymous_category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some might be redundant and unnecessary, but others are quite useful. Category:Categories_named_after_anime_and_manga_series list all the many categories that are related to the various anime and manga series. You don't find that listed anywhere else. Category:Anime series only list the individual anime series, not all the articles related to them. If you want to find every article concerning anime and manga at all, the only way to do that is to use Category:Categories_named_after_anime_and_manga_series. I found it quite helpful for finding all the categories I needed to export content from over to the manga wikia. Dream Focus 20:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could have a Category:Anime_and_manga_series. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The overall category should be called Category:Anime and manga.~~
I created Category:Japanese pop art to hold overall anime and manga categories.
Assuming "series" is intended to be plural here, a category whose name ends in "series" should contain only articles about the series themselves, not other related subjects as eponymous categories do. I would object to categories-of-categories on the basis of a guideline in WP:CAT#Categorizing pages: "Categorize articles by characteristics of the topic, not characteristics of the article." It's not an exact fit, but maybe it should apply to all pages instead of just articles. —Codrdan (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely oppose this. The current categorization of anime and manga articles is just fine. I've undone all of your re-categorizations because it was done without a discussion or gaining consensus. If you wish to empty out Category:Anime and Category:Manga, then you need to start a separate CfD and notify WP:ANIME. —Farix (t | c) 12:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

>The current categorization of anime and manga articles is just fine.
The current categorization of anime and manga articles is just plain wrong, and if you can't see that, you should do Wikipedia a favor and stay away from the category system altogether. There's already a consensus about how the category system should be organized, and the anime and manga articles obviously don't adhere to it. —Codrdan (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "wrong" with how the anime and manga categories are organized. If you think they are wrong, then perhaps it is YOU who should stay way from the anime and manga category system altogether. —Farix (t | c) 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

>There is nothing "wrong" with ... the anime and manga categories
You have no idea what you're talking about. Please do us all a favor and ask about this on Wikipedia talk:Categorization. —Codrdan (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Above, this will impact alot of wikiprojects and a mass delete like this can only lead to a WP:Trainwreck. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trainwreck in progress This mass nomination is simply bad, in part because the rational is so confusing, but also because not all of these categories are the same. Looking at Categories named after anime and manga series, I've noticed that it was inappropriately renamed from Category:Anime and manga series categories without a discussion or consensus. Now it is wrapped up in this ill-conceived mass nomination. There may be a legitimate argument over the usefulness of a category holding all categories relating to specific anime and manga series, but, I don't think such an argument can be had in a discussion like this. —Farix (t | c) 21:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anything like reverting be done to fix all of this and get a proper consensus done? I really feel like this is a huge mess. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What needs reverting? Nothing has been done yet. Whats wrong with trying to get a consensus here? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Categories were changed names without consensus and as for this deletion discussion there is so much up for deletion that so many discussions on what should and what should not be deleted are taking place at once here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is outside the scope of this CfD. Renaming to a category name that does not include "Categories named after" is fine by me. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*is confused* So ... we are talking about the set of all categories that contain themselves or the category of all sets that are named after themselves? And if so, why is which one an ontological issue? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This CfD is for all the categories with "Categories named after" in their name. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a heads up, there is a current discussion going on reguarding the deletion and possible renaming of the category: Category:Categories named after anime and manga series the discussion can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Anime-and-manga pages are miscategorized. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Oppose/Don't do - Per many good arguments above, Mike Selinker's in particular. - jc37 21:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ones of interest could be listified and put in project or user namespace. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alsn I agree that some of these should most likely go, just be sure they do not impact too much and that people want them gone. As I have seen deletion works better when more people are involved and a discussion is held on everything or most being deleted before the deletion process begins. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the fact that so many editors are confused by the purpose of the category indicates to me that its not a helpful navigational aid. A good navigational aid should be clear to all readers. It also seems to be against the spirt of WP:SELF in that they are based on how wikipedia chooses to categorise things rather than the things themselves. Perhaps making them hidden categories might be an option.--Salix (talk): 08:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The categories aren't unhelpful, they just have stupid names. A category named after an article is just a topic category, and topic categories need to be organized just as much as set categories do. —Codrdan (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All categories are on topics, or sets of topics or lists of topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CAT#The_category_system more carefully, Alan. You're creating a lot of confusion over a misunderstanding of the terminology. Categories aren't "on" anything, and there are two distinct kinds. Eponymous categories are "topic categories" that provide a useful organization of loosely related articles, while categories with plural names are "set categories" that contain only articles about specific classes of things. —Codrdan (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the "Crux of the Problem" right here. The above "topic categories" and "set categories" defines the entire problem. (This Eponymous Category stuff i believe is a little bit bogus). I see now that the "Category: Eponymous laws" (laws, 'maxims', etc, named after an individual was "listified", but I recall they used to be in a Category. The problem as I see it, One, or Wikipedia can list all the Category:Categories named after mountain ranges into a List of mountain ranges with its own category, in other words "listify", but in a table one can add some relevant information. I see that as the only purpose for putting it in a list. As i said (ineloquently) above-(in other scatttered comments), Very few mountain ranges would have a category"... (maybe 5-15 in Arizona, maybe 10 in New Mexico, maybe 40 in USA). I just made Category:Jemez Mountains, and had to change a discussion of the List of mountain ranges of New Mexico, because then.... I better understood what the deal was with Valles Caldera, (the basic center ofJemez Mountains, and (Sierra Nacimien-San Pedro Mountains a redirect to the Nacimiento's). The purpose of the "Category" is so that it can be developed. (As is much of Wikipedia, still)...(And what again is this reference to FOO-?)Mmcannis (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments by Occuli, Good Ol’factory, Mike Selinker etc. Beagel (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Send to centralized discussion It's obvious that there are profound differences here about categorization which need to be addressed. Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like that is a good idea but we should let the CfD run its course first. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, four days ago I saw no sign of this reaching any consensus, and none has developed in the meantime. I'd say it's time to give up on this and take this to a more general level. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please give reasons for keeping. I put these categories up for deletion for a variety of reasons including redundancy, no apparent purpose, clutter, reader confusion, and the need for ongoing maintenance. None of the editors have given a clear reason as to why this series of categories should be kept to assist the reader. To say they are of use is too vague. I want to know what are they useful for to the reader? If they are of use to editors only then they should be shoved in project space or made into hidden categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll use the example that first brought me here, which was Category:Categories named after populated places in Canada, to explain how these may be useful. The parent, Category:Populated places in Canada, is subdivided in a number of ways (by type of populated place, by the province or territory that they're located in, etc.) — so as a diffused category, in its current form it does not provide a way to directly access a one-stop shop for "all populated places in Canada which have their own eponymous categories". If that's what you're looking for, you need Category:Categories named after populated places in Canada, or something which has a different name but is serving the same function. It would not be desirable or navigationally useful for each individual category to be filed directly in Category:Populated places in Canada in addition to Category:Cities in Ontario or Category:Towns in Alberta or whatever, but the comprehensive set is a useful thing to have somewhere else in the category tree.

I do grant that perhaps they might be more useful in project space than in article space, and probably not all of them are necessary even under the reason I've outlined — the test should be "is this category providing access across a set that's already been diffused out of the common parent?", not just "is this just a way to shove these eponymous categories into the back closet?" — but they are useful in certain circumstances. Bearcat (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

>what are they useful for to the reader?

Eponymous categories contain lots of articles that readers might be interested in but don't belong in the set categories that contain the core articles (the ones the eponymous cats are named after). That can be very useful to readers if the core articles themselves don't cover the subjects fully enough. "Categories named after Xs" is not redundant to the category "Xs", because Cat:Xs contains only articles about Xs, while Categories named after Xs contains articles that are related to Xs but are not about the Xs themselves. —Codrdan (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split discussion and give time That simply too big to chew and swallow. Split into as many discussions as necessary and give it time. Just by observing the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Anime-and-manga_pages_are_miscategorized is a good example of my point. This CfD is turning into trench warfare and acrimony is increasing. I should note on a humorous tone that this one is a good opportunity for some editors to unlock the "I have a feud with a whole wiki project" achievement. --KrebMarkt (talk) 07:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very usefull for locating articles. Dimadick (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has a consensus been reached yet on this? This debate has been up for over 3 weeks now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as least awful way to categorize eponymous categories. Pichpich (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, either by upmerging or straight deletion. I was convinced by Jafeluv's argument above: It's logical for Kylie Minogue to be in Category:Australian female singers, but it would make no sense for Category:Kylie Minogue to be a subcategory of Category:Australian female singers since not all articles in Category:Kylie Minogue are Australian female singers. I'm looking at, specifically, Category:Andreanof Islands. It makes no sense for that to be a subcat of Category:Categories named after islands, since not all articles in Category:Andreanof Islands are categories named after islands. All of the articles are islands, not categories. Category:Andreanof Islands should be in Category:Islands. --Kbdank71 18:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are categories such as Category:Kylie Minogue to be deleted as well under the CFD or is it just to be a category without a parent? I'd be fine with all of them being deleted but if they're kept, they need to fit under some sort of categorization scheme, don't they? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2010 (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.

Category:Sustainment brigades of the United States Army and Category:Sustainment Brigades of the United States Army[edit]

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:Sustainment Brigades of the United States Army.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 05:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge to which? Hmains (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Sustainment Brigades of the United States Army - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2010 (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.

Category:Air defense artillery brigades of the United States Army and Category:Air Defense Artillery Brigades of the United States Army[edit]

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:Air Defense Artillery Brigades of the United States Army.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 05:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge to which? Hmains (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2010 (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.

Category:Royal Navy Post-ships and Category:Royal Navy post ships[edit]

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:Royal Navy post ships. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 05:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Royal Navy post ships. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2010 (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.

Category:Korean-language education and Category:Korean language education[edit]

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 Category:Korean language education into Category:Korean-language education. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 05:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge, keep hyphenated. jonkerz ♠ 16:41, 12 August 2010 (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.

Category:Wikipedia Featured Picture contributors and Category:Wikipedia Featured picture contributors[edit]

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:Wikipedia Featured picture contributors. Ruslik_Zero 19:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 05:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge to which? Hmains (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2010 (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.

Category:Subtemplates of Template ft2 to m2 and Category:Subtemplates of Template Ft2 to m2[edit]

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:Subtemplates of Template ft2 to m2 per the related Category:Subtemplates of Template ft to m.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 05:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge to which? Hmains (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2010 (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.

Category:Drag queens[edit]

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: consensus not to rename/merge. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Drag queens to Category:Drag performers

Propose merging or renaming Category:American female impersonators

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "drag queen" carries with it a connotation, which I of course view in no way negative, that the person so described is gay. There are performers in this category (e.g. T. C. Jones, Julian Eltinge, Charles Pierce) who during their lives would have (and in some cases did) object to being labeled a "drag queen". Some performers (e.g. Milton Berle, Barry Humphries) who are very well-known for performing in drag are not included, probably because of the homosexual connotation. Renaming to "performers" neutralizes the POV, is a better descriptor and allows for the appropriate inclusion of some currently absent articles. As for the American subcategory, I'm not persuaded that with a parent category of under 200 that splitting out by nationality is necessary at this time so my first preference is to merge back to the parent. If sub-division is desired then rename to Category:American drag performers per my proposed rename of the parent. Otto4711 (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal - I wonder if Category:Drag artists would be better than performers. The two terms are used interchangeably in the Drag queen article with artist being a redirect. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both categories per nom. The US subcat should be kept, not merely in order to group those articles together but, as always, to make it possible for readers to see which articles are NOT about Americans. Cgingold (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 12 of the 22 articles in the subcat are also in the main cat so the subcat is not being used for this purpose. Otto4711 (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised to hear that, given the radically different category names. And I'm sure there are quite a few in the main cat that should be moved into the subcat. Cgingold (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. 'Drag queen' gets 20 times the hits of 'Drag performer'. Drag queen is in common use and well known. The issue with connotation is addressed in the first paragraph of the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:41, July 18, 2010

So rather than having a name that doesn't carry a connotation we should keep the current name and expect everyone who sees the category at the bottom of an article to navigate to the main article to find the (uncited) sentence that supposedly clears it all up. Otto4711 (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for all of those who do not jump to incorrect conclusions about what a drag queen is. Do we actually know how many readers don't know the correct usage here? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful to frame this discussion a little differently: It's not a question of which term has more ghits, but rather which term yields a more useful category. The real point, I think, is that "drag performers" is a slightly broader and more inclusive term than "drag queens", and is therefore preferable. Cgingold (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would a rename have any effect on Category:Drag kings? Gobonobo ^T ^C 00:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename of category unless consensus determines that Drag queen should also be renamed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no absolute requirement that the names of the category and its main article be identical. Cgingold (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep as is. Connotation is what differentiates the subjects of this category from mere performers. East of Borschov 20:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting what, that only gay men who wear dresses should be included? I don't understand your comment at all. Otto4711 (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this and Category:Drag kings to Category:Drag performers. "Drag queen" does sound like an antiquated and unlikable term to me, anyway.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Drag queen is a term that most of these people wear proudly on their sleeves. They have been through the very difficult process of coming out to the society, and they are not going to hide themselves again behind terms like "drag performers". --Refudiate (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. From the discussion to date, it appears that Category:Drag queens and Category:Drag kings are legitimate sub-categories that should be associated with a parent category such as Category:Gender impersonators or Category:Drag performers (the former implies non-performers could be included while the later is restricted to entertainers of some description). Other sub-categories could then be raised, where appropriate, to cover those articles where the categorisation term Drag queen or Drag king are not appropriate. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mike Selinger's suggestion - merge both Queens and Kings to nominated target Mayumashu (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not certain of the need to conflate/combine anyone who has ever dressed in drag into a single category. That would seem to put this into WP:OC realm of performer by performance. While Drag queen and Drag King would appear to be more than just performer by performance. Perhaps an effort should be made to keep these cats clear? - jc37 21:37, 19 August 2010 (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.