Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 5

< October 4 October 6 >

October 5

Category:Polar Music Prize laureates

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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Polar Music Prize laureates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I suggest deletion: this category has a very limited number of recipients which are already properly placed in a list in the prize article, and WP:OC#Award_recipients supports removal. Hekerui (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is significant enough a prize to merit a category for the prize winners. Cjc13 (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article certainly makes no case that this is prize is of a significance such as to be a defining characteristic of the musician. Resolute 23:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is referred to as "the Nobel Prize of Music".BBC News], Trinity Laban Cjc13 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Ernst von Siemens Music Prize and the Praemium Imperiale are called the same thing, but because it's the most recognizable award name, nothing more. Hekerui (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dubious -- While it covers all kinds of music, it is probably not as significnat as a Nobel prize. Imight have said delete and listify, but the article already has a (nearly complete) list. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm not convinced this is defining for the recipients, so it should be treated as almost all other award categories are. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most award categories are deleted when brought to CFD. That fact doesn't mean that any user can't simply ignore the guideline and create them willy-nilly. If they aren't brought to CFD, obviously they won't be deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few examples would be helpful. As the guideline says, see also Category:Award winners, which seems to indicate a number of exceptions. A comparable discussion was for Royal Philharmonic Society Gold Medallists which simply led to a rename. Cjc13 (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peruse a list of all award nominations at your leisure. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:40, 14 October 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.

Beaufort West

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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Texan Reform rabbis to Category:American Reform rabbis
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Non-defining, non-notable intersection of religion, location and profession.TM 20:10, 5 October 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:Texan rabbis

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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Texan rabbis to Category:American rabbis
Nominator's rationale: Merge as a non-notable intersection by location. Category:American rabbis is not overly large and no proof exists that this boundary has any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics.TM 20:08, 5 October 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:Massachusetts colonial-era clergy

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: Relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 16. Dana boomer (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Massachusetts colonial-era clergy to Category:Massachusetts colonial people
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:OC#narrow "If an article is in "category A" and "category B", it does not follow that a "category A and B" has to be created for this article." Also merge back into American clergy. TM 20:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because any category can be deleted by umerging is no argument to do so. No reason provided for this change. Change without reason needs to be rejected. Hmains (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More rationale: it is too narrow of a category to be useful, which is the point of the policy I cited.--TM 04:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename and repurpose to Category:Clergy in the American colonial era and populate to match other such era-categories in the parent Category:American clergy. Hmains (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (possibly renamed). 19 people is quite enough for a useful category. It might be Category:Massachusetts clergy of the colonial era. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 10 October 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:Governors of Washington (U.S. state)

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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Governors of Washington (U.S. state) to Category:Governors of Washington
Nominator's rationale: There is no reason to specify that Washington is a US state. I can understand distinguishing the state from the city where there is ambiguity (e.g. Category:People from Washington (U.S. state), but in this case there is no reason for it. Owen (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it makes more sense to keep consistent names for places when categorizing than to make this exception.--TM 20:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Washington is often confusing to non-Americans. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You mean it isn't Obama????
  • keep to match nearly every Washington (state) category that currently exists. Please look at the category structure that exists before making one-of nominations for change. Hmains (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose IIRC, Washington DC has had military governors, so this is ambiguous. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Washington (U. S. state) almost invariably has this disambiguator. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 10 October 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:Metal plating

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 as named. Dana boomer (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Metal plating to Category:Metal coatings
Nominator's rationale: I would like to rename this so that non-plating surface finishes can be included, such as black oxide and thermal spraying. Wizard191 (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can not see myself being able to support this. Plating is a very specific type of process. Metal coating is rather open in that it can also include paint and grease. So I'm not sure there is a benefit to the rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Maybe make "metal coating" as the parent category and put "metal plating" in it? That also opens the possibility of subcategories by both process type and function. The metal plating category then could be left as-is or split into subcategories for e.g. "aesthetic coatings", "anticorrosive coatings", etc... Shaddack (talk)
    • Valid suggestion, but is metal coating, taken broadly, ("including paint and grease") sufficiently distinct from coating wood, concrete, plastics etc.? Paint is paint, metal or not. East of Borschov 05:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • But plating is an electrical process which does not apply to wood etc... I agree with Vegaswikian that plating is a very specific process and probably should be kept separate. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm OK with leaving the metal plating cat alone and making category:metal coatings which would be a parent category for metal plating. My goal was to include metal specific coatings that aren't platings (see the examples I gave in the rationale). Wizard191 (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Metal coating other than plating largely involves processes that work on other materials; conversely, plating also can be made to work on non-metals with proper preparation. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The present structure is satisfactory with Category:Metal plating in Category:Coatings. I can see a use for other processes so create Category:Metal coatings as a sub of Category:Coatings; and also add Category:Metal plating as a sub to Category:Metal coatings. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comment - The consensus appears to be that metal plating should remain its own category. However, if the nominator (or any other editor) wishes to create a new category for metal coatings following the process laid out by Twiceuponatime above. Dana boomer (talk) 13:37, 16 October 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:Beaufort West Municipality, Western Cape

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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Beaufort West Municipality, Western Cape to Category:Beaufort West Local Municipality
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To correspond with the main article Beaufort West Local Municipality, and to remove unnecessary disambiguation. htonl (talk) 10:02, 5 October 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:Pataphysicians

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) 08:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pataphysicians to Category:'Pataphysicians
Nominator's rationale: to match parent article 'Pataphysics and per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_24#Category:Pataphysics Lenticel (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Thanks for doing this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I created the category and have no problem with this. Owen (talk) 18:19, 12 October 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:Texas League Hall of Fame inductees

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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Texas League Hall of Fame inductees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A relatively minor hall of fame/award. These are fully listified at Texas League Hall of Fame. Suggest deleting category pursuant to the guidelines on awards. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is essentially an awards category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 10 October 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:Bonkers

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. Dana boomer (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bonkers to Category:Bonkers (compilation)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest disambiguating to match main article Bonkers (compilation). Bonkers alone is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match parent article. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The current name is bonkers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article, as per nomination. - Dravecky (talk) 13:41, 8 October 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.

Chris Brown

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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, Chris Brown (American singer), and to disambiguate from Chris Brown (Canadian singer) and Chris Brown (composer), among others. — ξxplicit 02:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom --Lenticel (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match parent article. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article, as per nomination. - Dravecky (talk) 13:41, 8 October 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.

Korean pop musicians

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: Split. Dana boomer (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose splitting:
Nominator's rationale: According to its description, the category categorizes both Korean pop singers and singers who perform K-pop—it's grouping pop singers by nationality and Korean singers by genre, which only leads to a total mess. For example, Zhou Mi (entertainer) is a Chinese singer, but performs K-pop as a member of the South Korean group Super Junior, so these two characteristics simply do not mesh into one category. Although I don't think Category:Korean pop music groups suffers with the same problem (all the articles in the music groups category do seem to be distinctly relating to South Korean pop music groups), it's best to split the two additional categories now to make this important distinction before they becomes a mess in the future. — ξxplicit 02:49, 5 October 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:Directors-general of the OPCW

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. Dana boomer (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Directors-general of the OPCW to Category:Directors-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest expanding relatively obscure acronym to match the main article Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK with Rename. Thought it would be a bit long for a cat. name, but indeed OPCW is only known to a few... L.tak (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Diplomats. Do we really need a category for 2 entries. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename -- We not like abbreviations: we like to expnad them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 10 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_5&oldid=1074806462"