From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 9 November 11 >

November 10

Category:Songs produced by The Rolling Stones

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Songs produced by The Rolling Stones ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The songs in this category are also performed by The Rolling Stones - and all come from the same album. Other categories containing only self-produced songs have been recently deleted, namely Songs produced by Tinchy Stryder and Songs produced by B.o.B. These categories of self-produced songs are non-defining. To keep the whole Songs by producer meaningful it is much better to delete categories that only include self-produced songs, don't you think? . Richhoncho ( talk) 22:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply
I don't think a category that only includes self-produced songs is inherently meaningless or necessarily makes the songs by producer category meaningless, any more than a category that only includes self-written songs in meaningless or makes songs by writer meaningless. Although this particular category isn't all that important given that it only represents songs of a single album. Rlendog ( talk) 02:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Response. A production relates to a specific recording whereas songs are often recorded by several artists. Also, Song production is a specific part of music creation, it's not that the artists become producers, its the relationship between the artist and the producer, engineer and record company that changes. This is certainly true of analog recorded songs. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 09:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I think that self-produced song categories are fine and have argued in favor of them before, but songs written by or produced by an aggregate of individuals I don't like--who constituted the Rolling Stones are the persons who produced a track. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Taylor Swift live albums

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Taylor Swift live albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category only houses one album. Nothing wrong with the album being included in the regular album category. At this point its WP:SMALLCAT. Quasy Boy 19:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Camanche class minelayers

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) 01:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The official designation is Auxiliary Minelayer (the "A" in ACM) whereas another, generally larger vessel type is the minelayer, CM designation. Current category conflates two distinct U.S.N. designations, ACM with CM. Further, of the sixteen ACMs, fourteen were ex U.S. Army mineplanters. Six of those Army vessels became Camanche class with eight others (ACM-1 - ACM-3 and ACM-5 - ACM-9) becoming Chimo class (also recommended for change). Palmeira ( talk) 19:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak support - I'm not sure this is necessary, but I'm also not convinced why not, if that makes sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - ship naming conventions state that articles should be titled as simply as possible (so Camanche class minelayer, not Camanche class auxiliary minelayer). There's no reason for the categories to not match the article title. Parsecboy ( talk) 00:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose as per Parsec. A similar situation are the aircraft carriers, which had all sorts of designations, often for the same ship (USS Midway (CVB/CVA/CV-41)) for example. And also have numerous subgroups (auxiliary aircraft carrier, escort carrier, light fleet carrier, supercarrier, etc). Rather than go by difference in hull classification, I think we should stick here to the common practice of applying the simplest designation of their ship type. Benea ( talk) 00:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    Nominator's response:The simple fact is that the organization defining the classifications has defined them: ACM=Auxiliary Mine Layer and MMA=Minelayer, Auxiliary. In all cases as "auxiliary" and, unlike the carrier classification change example above, this case is more kin to deleting the "escort" from escort carriers; an entirely different breed of cat from attack carriers anywhere, anytime. I note there is such a category: "Category:Escort carriers of the United States Navy". Shall we just keep that real simple and make "Casablanca class escort carriers" "Casablanca class carriers‎"? I am not sure a category for every reclassification the Navy has done for similar ships is necessary, but when ships were distinctly different and the Navy classes them in all cases as "auxiliary" or "escort" refusing to follow that convention makes little to no sense. Palmeira ( talk) 04:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- Regardless of the distinction made by 'www.nvr.navy.mil' there doesn't seem to be enough of this particular type of designation/vessel to warrant another category. Should keep categories for ships (and in general) as simple as possible. Gwillhickers ( talk) 12:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Parsecboy and Gwillhickers. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chimo class minelayers

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) 01:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The official designation is Auxiliary Minelayer (the "A" in ACM) whereas another, generally larger vessel type is the minelayer, CM designation. Current category conflates two distinct U.S.N. designations, ACM with CM. Further, of the sixteen ACMs, fourteen were ex U.S. Army mineplanters. Eight of those Army vessels became Chimo class with six others (ACM-11 - ACM-16) becoming Camanche class (also recommended for change). Palmeira ( talk) 19:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak support - I'm not sure this is necessary, but I'm also not convinced why not, if that makes sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - ship naming conventions state that articles should be titled as simply as possible (so Chimo class minelayer, not Chimo class auxiliary minelayer). There's no reason for the categories to not match the article title. Parsecboy ( talk) 00:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose as per Parsec. A similar situation are the aircraft carriers, which had all sorts of designations, often for the same ship (USS Midway (CVB/CVA/CV-41)) for example. And also have numerous subgroups (auxiliary aircraft carrier, escort carrier, light fleet carrier, supercarrier, etc). Rather than go by difference in hull classification, I think we should stick here to the common practice of applying the simplest designation of their ship type. Benea ( talk) 00:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    Nominator's response:The simple fact is that the organization defining the classifications has defined them: ACM=Auxiliary Mine Layer and MMA=Minelayer, Auxiliary. MMA does not apply to the Chimo class because those had been transferred or sold before the MMA reclassification. These were never anything except "auxiliary" and, unlike the carrier classification change example above, this case is more kin to deleting the "escort" from escort carriers; an entirely different breed of cat from attack carriers anywhere, anytime. I note there is such a category: "Category:Escort carriers of the United States Navy". Shall we just keep that real simple and make "Casablanca class escort carriers" "Casablanca class carriers‎"? I am not sure a category for every reclassification the Navy has done for similar ships is necessary, but when ships were distinctly different and the Navy classes them in all cases as "auxiliary" or "escort" refusing to follow that convention makes little to no sense. Palmeira ( talk) 04:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    Well, I'd support a proposal to rename it to 'Casablanca class aircraft carrier', rather than your suggestion of 'Casablanca class carrier', and indeed over the existing 'class escort carrier'. And no, I would not apply the navy's categorisation scheme in this instance to wikipedia, when we already have a working system that says use only the basic form of ship type. Benea ( talk) 23:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
    The difference is that an 'escort carrier' is a distinct type of ship as opposed to a regular carrier, whereas an auxiliary minelayer is a minelayer operated by the auxiliary forces. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- Regardless of the distinction made by 'www.nvr.navy.mil' there doesn't seem to be enough of this particular type of designation/vessel to warrant another category. Should keep categories for ships (and in general) as simple as possible. Gwillhickers ( talk) 13:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppoose per Parsecboy and Gwillhickers. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Massey Medal

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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 23:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Massey Medal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary eponymous category for an award—contains only Massey Medal and the subcategory of recipients. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There's discrepancy between the cat and the article which lists recipients. Anyhow, when it's sorted out, the cat should not exist/is not necessary to exist. Curb Chain ( talk) 07:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete there is no real debate on this one. I even think the recipients category should be deleted. I might nominate it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Legal defense organizations in the United States and Category:Legal defense organizations

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) 01:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Legal defense organizations in the United States and Category:Legal defense organizations

Propose renaming Category:Legal defense organizations in the United States to Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States
Propose renaming Category:Legal defense organizations to Category:Legal advocacy organizations
Nominator's rationale: "Legal defense" is too narrow here - it's actually sort of a misnomer (and could be easily confused with Category:Legal aid). The majority of these organizations defend clients, and initiate suits as plaintiffs, and file amicus briefs, and many also do lobbying or political communications. In addition to being more accurate, it's also more common: "Legal defense organization(s)/group(s)" gets around 642,000 hits, while "Legal advocacy organization(s)/group(s)" gets 1.4 million. Neutrality talk 05:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. Indeed, not only are the vast majority of listed groups legal advocacy groups, but many do political advocacy as well.- choster ( talk) 14:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Real people associated with novels

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. No consensus to stay with the current name. Consensus is to delete, with some concern about upmerge to maintain a relationship with the main character. However some of these are already covered in a navigation template and there is no need to merge those. Even some of the upmerge opinions express reservations about which to upmerge. So feel free to add any articles to the parent category that really should be there since the association is defining. You can use the bot log to see what was removed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Real people associated with novels to Category:People associated with novels
Nominator's rationale: I think 'real' is unnecessary here. In Wikipedia categories, 'people' means real people; fictional people are categorised as 'fictional characters'. It's unlikely anyone would put Dorothy Gale in Category:People associated with Oz by mistake. Renaming would also make this consistent with the other subcategories of Category:People by association. Robofish ( talk) 21:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nomination; "real" is superfluous. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 01:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Support - rationale is sound.--~ T P W 02:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. These are all very vague: unspecified inclusion criteria. Category:Real people associated with the Harry Potter books could include all the actors in all the films. If kept, rename per nom. ('People associated with' is OK if there are tightly defined subcats, but not for random collections of people.) Occuli ( talk) 10:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Weak upmerge to parent categories on Alice in Wonderland, Harry Potter, etc. I can't get past my own subjective dislike of either version of the category name, and Occuli has a point about inclusion criteria. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to main franchise categories and purge. L. Frank Baum, yes; Judy Garland, no. Also removing the translators of the Potter books seems wise.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge/delete per Shawn and Mike and Occuli. These aren't random collections of people, but they are getting pretty close. I would say upmerge and then purge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer ( talk) 00:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Support dropping the real. Aequo ( talk) 11:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete people "associated with" something is about as weasely worded as I can recall in a CFD. I'm associated with several novels as I have them around, like my other associates, right? Maybe we need Category:People associated with sex, where even most virgins (save those conceived by artificial insemination) would fit, as we (almost) all either practice sex or were the result of it, we could put the whole human race in the cat. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the criteria for what constitutes "associated with" is too nebulous. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Populated places in the United States with Asian plurality populations

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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 23:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Populated places in the United States with Asian plurality populations to Category:Populated places in the United States with Asian American plurality populations
Nominator's rationale: Fits the naming convention for the other categories like this one: Category:Populated places in the United States with Asian American majority populations; Category:Populated places in the United States with African American plurality populations; Category:Populated places in the United States with Native American plurality populations. I think that Category:Populated places in the United States with Hispanic plurality populations may also need to be changed, but I'm not really sure if Hispanic American is as common as simply Hispanic. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 08:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all I see no reason for such classifications. Curb Chain ( talk) 17:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I deliberately did not include the "American" in the formulation of this category name. The issue is that the population is of Asian racial origin, as self-identified on the census. There is no reason to presume that the people so identifying are actually "American" in any sense of the word. In some parts of the US, especially college towns, many of these people are foriegn citizens in the US on temporrary (in college towns, student) visas, who in most cases intend on returning to their home countries in the near future. There are clear and distinct ethnic enclaves involved here, but the data we are using with does not lend to subsuming these people as American when in fact the term used on the census is Asian and not Asian American. Thus it is not analogous to the African American issue. On census forms the terms is Hispanic or Latino. Inserting American is even less justified there. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply
They are queried on American censuses? Curb Chain ( talk) 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Yes.- choster ( talk) 14:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment race, and being Hispanic/Latino or not that are queried on the US census, and the results are released. These factors are described for all census designated places, be they cities, towns, villages or just designated places. They are also described for states, counties and townships. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC) reply
As I understand censuses, they only query citizens. Students are not defined as citizens. Curb Chain ( talk) 23:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC) reply
That is not correct. The Census counts people, and has no resources to verify citizenship or alien status.- choster ( talk) 14:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer ( talk) 00:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Move some common sub-categories from Category:Cultures

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: don't move them as proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Cultures ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Move some common sub-categories from that category to upper category - Category:Culture: Category:Arts by culture, Category:Culture by ethnicity, Category:Culture by language, Category:Mythology by culture, Category:Names by culture. I think, the upper category is more preferable place. -- Averaver ( talk) 14:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer ( talk) 00:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If the intent is to simply change the parent category for Category:Culture by ethnicity from Category:Cultures to Category:Culture, then that is something you can do yourself and is not something that requires action here. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Vegaswikian is right that no decision/permission is required here before making such changes. However, it can be helpful to discuss them first, especially if the purpose of/distinction between certain categories is unclear. Since the proposal has been stated here, I oppose it as IMHO it is based on a misunderstanding. Category:Cultures is a head category for different local (etc) cultures, so it is the proper head category for Category:Culture by ethnicity and the others suggested. – Fayenatic (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_10&oldid=1074808035"