Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 17 September 19 >

September 18[edit]

Category:Quad Band GSM phones[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. Kbdank71 16:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Quad Band GSM phones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Pointless category. Almost all GSM phones on the market are quad-band nowadays. Why is this category useful? ANDROS1337 00:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not that quad band phones are commonplace (although they are, or will be in the near future); it's more that this is not an important feature from the perspective of most users. It is much important whether a phone has a camera, and still there is no Category:Camera mobile phones or such. GregorB (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2008 (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:Substance-related disorders[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: relisted on 25th. Kbdank71 16:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Substance-related disorders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete (or possibly rename). This caught my eye to begin with because it's rather oddly-named. But the more I looked at how it's being used, the more I begain to wonder if it really serves a useful purpose. I was expecting to find a fair number of articles about specific disorders, but there's hardly anthing of that sort. I suspect the basic idea was to bring together drug addiction with alcoholism, but that could be dealt with more simply with a horizontal link (such as {{CatRel}}). In any event, as it stands this category is a jumble of articles and sub-cats that are already included in other pertinent categories. I'm not sure what would be left here if it was properly cleaned up/out -- but perhaps someone else can come up with a better name and turn this into a useful/functional category. Category creator stopped editing in September 2005 Cgingold (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2008 (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:Jamaican country music songwriters[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. Kbdank71 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Jamaican country music songwriters to Category:Country music songwriters
Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow categorization; country music isn't very popular in Jamaica, mon, so I don't think there'll be any chance of expansion here. Just like Kostas is the only Greek country songwriter, I imagine that William Layton Nelson is the only Jamaican one. Note that the parent category is up for a renaming, too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of nationality subcatting of Category:Country music songwriters. Number of articles is irrelevant (unless 0). Occuli (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. If there were a larger by nationality scheme than what exists (note that the parent is not Country singers by nationality) then I'd say leave it but with the small scheme and the unlikelihood of expansion, merge it. Otto4711 (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2008 (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:Country music songwriters[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. Kbdank71 16:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Country music songwriters to Category:Country songwriters
Category:English country music songwriters to Category:English country songwriters
Nominator's rationale: All other songwriter cats are "foo" songwriters, not "foo music" songwriters. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the majority of the contents of Category:Country music use the "country music" formulation. These two subcats (there is also Category:Jamaican country music songwriters) should not be considered in isolation. Otto4711 (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am pretty sure that recent changes have been the other way, adding 'music'. 'English country songwriter' sounds like a writer of rural folksongs to me. Occuli (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Country songwriters" could also be confused (albeit primarily by people whose first language isn't English) with the parent category of "Songwriters by country" groupings. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The presnet name is clear. The proposed version is liable to misinterpretation, e.g. folksongs about the countryside. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2008 (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:Austria-Hungary[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. Kbdank71 16:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Austria-Hungary to Category:Austria–Hungary
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per WP:DASH it should be an en-dash (–) and not a hyphen (-) between Austria and Hungary. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 13#Bilateral relations where proper dashes were passed. Note that Austro-Hungarian should not be converted to en-dash. Renata (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other categories affected:

complete list
(hyphen to ndash)
  • Oppose use of non-standard characters in category names which needlessly cause difficulty for readers unfamiliar with WP:DASH. See several recent CFDs here and here which rejected such usage. (oops, forgot to sign) Otto4711 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This cannot be compared with categories for bilateral relations. Austria-Hungary was the name of a single national union, not of two unrelated countries engaged in, say, trade missions. As the nominator says, Austro-Hungarian doesn't use an en or em dash; neither should Austria-Hungary except in cases where it relates to bilateral relations between two separate countries (and none of the changes proposed does). Grutness...wha? 01:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose special characters hurt usability. 70.51.8.158 (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Though typographically correct the need to use of em and en dashes complicates editing, as they do not appear on the standard keyboard. I would only be happy with the nomination if there is a bot permanaently at work to correct hyphens to en-dashes. Indeed, I think the nomination looks as if it uses a hyphen - at least I cannot see the difference. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2008 (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:West End plays[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. Kbdank71 16:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:West End plays to Category:London West End plays
Nominator's rationale: for consistency...see category:London West End musicals emerson7 19:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The name of the category ought to be consistent with West End theatre; I would suggest renaming the category:London West End musicals to Category:West End musicals if there is felt to be a problem with consistency. Are there any other West Ends than London's? I don't think anyone would propose the equivalent "New York City Broadway whatevers". I don't think the proposed new name is grammatically correct either. We might refer to "London's West End" as a noun but not "London West End" as an adjective. The description given on the category for musicals is not a great guide either: although it currently reads "that have appeared in London West End theaters" (US spelling), the link is a redirect to West End of London (a way of describing it consistent with usage in the city), rather than "London West End" (which isn't). "Musicals/Plays in the West End of London" doesn't mean the same thing, so that isn't a feasible alternative. DionysosProteus (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with DionysosProteus that the opposite change ("London West End..." to "West End...") is more appropriate. We wouldn't say "New York Broadway...". AndyJones (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With only 8 members, hardly any of which actually premiered in the West End as such - The National Theatre, or the Mermaid?? - I'd be inclined to delete both this and Category:Broadway plays, which actually has more plays first seen in the West End than here. Nor are any of these what is sometimes called in the biz a "West End/Shaftesbury Avenue play/comedy" Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there are literally hundreds of west end plays that are appropriate for this category...it needs only to be populated. i personally don't care about the permutation...only that they be consistent. --emerson7 13:48, 22 September 2008 (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:Maties[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: relisted on 25th. Kbdank71 16:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Maties to Category:Stellenbosch University alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename per usual naming conventions for Universities. Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2008 (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:History of Freemasonry by country[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: upmerge. Only two cats at this point, history of freemasonry in Belgium and in France. Recreation permissible if other subcats are created. Kbdank71 15:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:History of Freemasonry by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Definite overcatting - lack of expandability aside, when article titles are already "History of Freemasonry in (country)", it is unnecessary to then put it in a category of that name. MSJapan (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:History of Freemasonry - certainly no need for subcats of this. (There is Category:Freemasonry by country.) Occuli (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep due to depopulation of the parent cat, Category:History of Freemasonry, which makes it impossible to assess the utility of this sub-category. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate (or repopulate). I am not in favour of Freemasonry myself, but it is a serious topic. Only then can we tell what the right action would be. There may be a case for having national categories, but this is impossibke to judge if people vandalise the categories before nominating them. The nominator MSJapan appears to take a prejudice against masons, recently nominating for deletion an article with good academic sources, dealing with the alleged influence of a particular lodge on English politics - potentially as to who would be Prime Minister. It seems to me that his behaviour if continued ought to be a case for adminstrative action. In the UK, the influence of the masons is alleged to be pervasive; whehter it is, I am not convinced. But the existence of the allegations make the subject important. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2008 (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:History of Freemasonry[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, it's been populated further. Kbdank71 15:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:History of Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcatting. This, and its subcat (which is also CFDed) were created for the benefit of one article. When there is sufficient need for such a category, it can be recreated, but it is unnecessary now. MSJapan (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Categories should not be emptied before nomination. I find it hard to believe there is only one article fitting this category. The few FM articles I've looked at seem to be about nothing else. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've been through this BS previously with MSJapan. The last time we dealt with Freemasonry categories (a few months back) I distinctly recall explaining to MSJapan that it was not okay to depopulate categories prior to bringing them to CFD. So there's really no excuse for doing it again. Cgingold (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate. Occuli (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - overcategorization as per nom... several people at the Freemasonry Project are working on "Freemasonry in x region" articles, but there are no plans to split these into "by country" articles (experience has shown that there are often not enough reliable sources to support such articles). or to limit the discussion to just history. So... while I could see eventually creating a Freemasonry by region category... we do not yet have enough articles ready to fill it. Suggest that we hold off on creating such categories until there are enough articles written to support them. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a 'by country/region' category; and there is already Category:Freemasonry by country which you might like to cfd while we are at it (I would probably support an upmerge of that). Occuli (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is good reason to believe that this is a valid and useful category. Quite frankly, I do not accept MSJapan's assertion that it was "created for the benefit of one article." Clearly, all of the "history by country" articles belong here, and surely others as well. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... what "history by country" articles? That is the point of the nomination... there are no "history by country" articles. Nor does the Freemasonry Project plan to create any since reliable secondary sources don't exist for most countries. And yes, we should cfd Category:Freemasonry by country or change it to Category:Freemasonry by region since we could probably merge the existing articles into one Freemasonry in Europe article. I do wish people would consult with the wikiproject before they start creating categories for the articles within it. Also, if we are not supposed to delete articles from their current categories until this cfd is over, may I ask that we not create additional ones or tie things to other categories and thus confuse the issue further? Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on MSJapan's comment in the related CFD, "article titles are already "History of Freemasonry in (country)". But since the category was depopulated there's no easy way to verify what s/he was referring to. I did manage to find History of Freemasonry in Belgium -- and I would love to know if there are others. As to adding new parent cats, there's nothing in the least wrong with doing that, Blueboar -- I've done it many times, whenever there's good reason to do so. Cgingold (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, when I said there was just the one, I meant it. The article author basically created a category for his one article on Belgium, and then created another category in which to put his first category. That's egregiously excessive. We can't do History of Freemasonry by country, because it's impossible - many countries have multiple active branches that have nothing to do with one another, so we at best end up with an NPOV problem because we're ignoring one or more branches. History of Freemasonry is more properly tied to the Grand Lodges/Orients/etc. that govern Freemasonry in their jurisdiction. MSJapan (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the creator, can I just add that I am hoping to add / improve Freemasonry in France / History of Freemasonry in France (from translating French Wikipedia), Freemasonry in Germany / History of Freemasonry in Germany etc., so I can put minds at rest that it will forever remain a 'one-article-category'. And as for whether to sort Masonic history by branch or by country, I think Wikipedia can bear treatment of it in both ways. And finally, thank you for a free and healthy debate (though let's stick to the utility or not of the categories and keep it free of POV on the notability or not Masonic history).Neddyseagoon - talk 11:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment... I have to ask that people stop adding inappropriate articles to the category while the cfd is ongoing... I have removed three articles that were just added, none of which deal with an aspect of Masonic history. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly in order to add articles (but not remove articles) during a cfd - indeed previous cfd closers have urged those who say 'populate' to do some populating. There seems to be some WP:OWN going on here. Occuli (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - if articles are appropriate it is encouraged to add them. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve The Masons are , I suppose, interesting to other masons. They are also, however, interesting to historians. In the Gremanies and elsewhere, because the Masons were associated with liberalization in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, studying the history of the Masons is a telling way to track political changes as they happen. The articles on their history need to be kept and expanded with greater attention to the increasing body of academic studies. Histories of the masons in each country are particularly needes.Elan26 (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
  • Keep and populate Per my comments, and those of others above. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate (or repopulate). I am not in favour of Freemasonry myself, but it is a serious topic. The nominator MSJapan appears to take a prejudice against masons, recently nominating for deletion an article with good academic sources, dealing with the alleged influence of a particular lodge on English politics - potentially who would be Prime Minister. It seesm to me that his behaviour if continued ought to be a case for adminstrative action. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2008 (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:Travis[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. Kbdank71 15:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Travis to Category:Travis (band)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:55, 18 September 2008 (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:Athletics[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 to Category:Athletics (track and field). Kbdank71 15:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Athletics to Category:Track and field athletics (and all subcats in the obvious way—some subcats do not contain the word athletics or athletes, or are already disambiguated, and therefore do not need modification).
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The word athletics is problematic. In the States it means competitive sport in general, or sometimes even just strenuous physical activity in general (note that the former meaning is closer to the word's etymology than the track-specific meaning is). The article track and field athletics, which used to be called simply athletics, had a long discussion about this and settled on this name, which I thought was a fine compromise.
The usual principle at WP:ENGVAR is that articles, when not specific to a nation or culture, keep their original variety of English, and this is usually a good principle. But when, as in the current case, a large fraction of English speakers will simply not understand what is intended, some modification is necessary. The name track and field athletics, even if not the most common name among any set of English speakers, will at least be understood by all of them. Trovatore (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support clarity is important in category names 70.51.8.158 (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Track and field" is not a standard international term (e.g. international governing body is called International Association of Athletics Federations). It is more like a description; a bad one too, because road running and cross-country running are strictly speaking neither track nor field. Note that US-related categories such as Category:American track and field coaches are already disambiguated, which is fine and which I'd say is sufficient. GregorB (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I cannot agree that the usage of international sport governing bodies is controlling. Imagine the hue and cry if you wanted to make category:hockey solely about field hockey. I agree that "road running...is strictly speaking neither track nor field", but they are described as "track and field" in the most formal usage of informed practitioners in the States. And competitve swimming, in that usage, is described as "athletics" — I was actually fairly shocked when I discovered, quite recently, that in British usage the term "athletics" excludes such things as swimming. --Trovatore (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, though prefer ALT name below. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Even though Soccer is the most unambiguous term for what is now Association Football on wikipedia, the principles behind that debate also hold here. Athletics, as governed by the IAAF is well-defined, and there should be no confusion about what belongs there. Wikipedia should be consistent within itself, and styling the categories after the sport's governing bodies seems like a good model to follow. Neier (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think association football is just as unambiguous as soccer. However athletics is definitely more ambiguous than track and field athletics. Whether or not there should be confusion, there definitely is confusion — for proof, look down under category:athletics awards and notice that most of the male recipients of the Dial Award were (American) football players. You can remove that article, if you like, but the fact is that from an American perspective it's perfectly natural to put it in a category called athletics awards. --Trovatore (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Category:Athletics (track and field) to match the naming pattern of Category:Football (soccer). Will support the nominated renaming as a second choice as well. Mayumashu (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be better. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm -- the article association football used to be at football (soccer), and I think the current naming is more elegant. I don't buy the argument about international governing bodies; they can call themselves anything they want even if it conflicts with some other usage that we at WP will want to recognize. For example the International Hockey Federation is the governing body of field hockey only, but I hope everyone understands that limiting the use of unmodified hockey, at WP, to field hockey, is a non-starter. However, the disambiguation style foo (bar) where bar is, in context, a synonym of foo, is not so good; if there's a reasonable way around it it should be taken. --Trovatore (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only now I noticed that the athletics article has been renamed, modeled on the line of reasoning for "Association football": 1) can't call it "Football" - ambiguous, 2) can't call it "Soccer" - Americanism, too informal, whatever, 3) can't call it "Football (soccer)" because soccer is not a disambiguation context for football, 4) must call it something else then. And that "something else" is "Association football", or, in our case, "Track and field athletics" - two terms nobody actually uses. If "Athletics" needs to be disambiguated, I'd support only "Athletics (track and field)" - and it would also be a good idea to rename the main article back to its former name. GregorB (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the choices are between unmodified athletics and disambiguated athletics (track and field), I'd certainly go with athletics (track and field), which definitely addresses my main concern here. I just think track and field athletics is a little more graceful. But if it's indeed the case that no one actually uses the term (a point I can neither confirm nor refute) then I agree that that's a serious objection to that formulation. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really say no one uses "track and field athletics" - it's just that it's rather unusual. Google test says "track and field" beats it 70-1, and "athletics" beats it 380-1. Incidentally, as far as Britannica is concerned, it's just athletics. GregorB (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Curiosity: How did you determine how many of the Google hits for "athletics" were about the sense of the word under discussion, rather than for competitive physical sport? (Aside: Yes, of course Britannica uses British English; it's a British institution. At WP on the other hand we have to find occasionally awkward compromises between varieties of English.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I assumed that (more or less) all occurrences of "athletics" refer to "track and field", and not other sports. Could be 90% or so, it's hard to say. But even if it's just 50%, the usage would be still 190-1 against "track and field athletics". Note that the same does not apply to "athlete", where the usage is much more divided (and hence ambiguous), so I believe the case for renaming Category:Athletes is even stronger. GregorB (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that athlete, restricted in this way, is even more problematic than restricting athletics, but I think you underestimate the diffusion of the North American sense of the latter.
Let me put it this way: If you told an American that Michael Phelps and Lance Armstrong aren't athletes, you'd get a blank stare, or your listener would assume you were picking a fight. The apparent plain meaning of your words would seem so out of bounds that the possibility they were meant literally would simply not be considered.
On the other hand, if you said cycling and swimming aren't athletics, you'd get a similar response, but perhaps slightly milder. Slightly. Assuming your listener weren't a swimmer or a cyclist. --Trovatore (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2008 (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:Marquesses of Wharton[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: upmerge (wait, any... oh, never mind, these are brits). Kbdank71 15:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Marquesses of Wharton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Propose upmerge into parent Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of Great Britain. This is the only subcategory, and only contains one article. DH85868993 (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom; there was only him & his son, who was made a Duke. But nb, there should be no objection to sub-cats for say the Marquesses of Salisbury & others with a decent number. On a further point, all the Dukes of Abercorn, who were also Marquesses, are in the parent. This isn't right, surely? We should normally only categorize on the senior British title, no? Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Occuli (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- There are articles on most titles, with lists of all holders of the title. The use of courtesy titles for eldest sons (and eldest grandsons) may occasionally give rise to confusion, but that can probably be cured by adding sons (at least if notable) who died without inheriting to the list article. This is rather like an award category, for whcih the normal solution is to listify and delete. In this case, listifying is unnecessary, since most titles already have a list article. I say delete all categories for individual peerages except royal titles such as "Prince of Wales". Note, I have been working on lists of MPs and diplomats, where the need exists to identify the correct form (often for a redlink): the title articles do this well. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I agree, but when there are many holders with their own articles (Dukes of Norfolk or Devonshire, Marquesses of Salisbury etc) a sub-cat is justified on normal categorization principles just to reduce clutter in the main category, I think. Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2008 (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:Lotus drivers[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/close as already merged (wait, any Australian drivers? Someone else may want to "rename per nom") . Kbdank71 15:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lotus drivers to Category:Lotus Formula One drivers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with other members of Category:Formula One drivers by constructor teams, e.g. Category:Ferrari Formula One drivers, Category:Alfa Romeo Formula One drivers, etc. DH85868993 (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, especially as there are Lotus road cars. Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I was wondering why we had a category for software drivers. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The (new) editor who created the original category has created Category:Lotus Formula One drivers and gone through and moved all the articles from the old category to the new one. I have explained on their talk page that this wasn't the correct procedure. However, since the desired outcome has been achieved, I suggest this discussion can be closed as "overtaken by events" and the original category can be deleted (I don't think its edit history is worth preserving). DH85868993 (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can someone close under WP:SNOW? I was going to and then remembered I participated. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2008 (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:Crime in Australia by state[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. I'll assume that the two members of the WP:AWNB below are sufficient for this rename. If any members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Victoria, Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Territory, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian crime (none of which seem to have been notified, but have categories that would be affected) would like to comment so as to get a stronger consensus (I've been told that 4 people are "weak consensus"), I'll reopen the discussion. Kbdank71 15:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Crime in Australia by state to Category:Crime in Australia by state or territory
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since creation, Category:Crime in the Northern Territory and Category:Crime in the Australian Capital Territory have been added to accompany the "by state" subcategories. NT and ACT are not states, of course. Propose using similar name format that is used for various categories, such as Category:Organisations based in Australia by state or territory. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- no objections here. - Longhair\talk 07:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename brings category into line with its actual contents. Orderinchaos 09:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- makes sense - SatuSuro 09:44, 24 September 2008 (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/2008_September_18&oldid=1074801453"