Login
Login

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 19#Category:Germany in space

width = "100%"
style="width:50%; text-align:left;" | < June 18

! style="width:50%; text-align:right;" | June 20 >

{{PAGENAME}}

= June 19 =

== Category:Songs about days of the week ==

: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. This does not prove a point about :Category:Songs by theme, as the case is strongly made here that these songs are generally not about the days of the week, and even for those that are, this is not defining. This case is less solid for, say, :Category:Songs about drugs. Also, I'm not going to rule on a list; if you want one, make one, and then AFD can deal with it. --Mike Selinker (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Songs about days of the week}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Most of the songs in the category are not "about" days of the week. The category is defined as "songs featuring a day of the week in the title", and indeed, that seems to have been the inclusionary criterion that was applied. This makes the category overcategorization by shared name. I'm not sure if this can be salvaged by somehow limiting it to songs that are truly "about" days of the week, but how many songs really are "about" the day of the week itself? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Even if we limited this category to songs that are actually about days of the week, I don't see how this is a defining song topic for categorization. szyslak (t) 12:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I sense a great disturbance in the force of common sense as if millions of categories suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. {{smiley}} This nomination logically ends with removing the entire :Category:Songs by theme hierarchy. It would be WP:OR to start analysing whether songs are actually about things mentioned in their title or lyrics, but I don't think anyone would remove that whole category tree. For instance, "California Dreamin'" is actually about somebody in a cold place (it was written in NY), but it is sufficient that California is prominently mentioned in the lyrics and/or the title for it to be included in {{cl|Songs about California}}. At least some of the songs in the nominated category are about days of the week, and IMHO it is fine to include others named likewise. As for WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES, take it as a wise and generally-helpful principle rather than a law. It is aimed at ruling out trivial and unencyclopedic connections, but IMHO this category is non-trivial and a valid encyclopedic navigational option. At the very least, listify rather than lose the info. – Fayenatic London 21:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • That's kind of like saying, "I know this category violates the guidelines as it is applied, but so do all these other categories that we have created, so let's keep it." But on the merits of the category's application, how anyone could say that, for instance, "Wednesday Morning, 3 A.M." is "about" that day of the week, I'm unsure. In other words, I think you've exactly hit on a major problem with {{cat|Songs by theme}} that some of us have been trying to point out for some time now, but users just keep creating and creating and creating these. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • That sounds a weighty analysis, but I see it this way: if a song mentions something in the title, that is sufficient to count it as being a "song about" that theme, and it is neither required nor desirable to have to investigate further. It might be more precise to rename all the "songs about" categories as "songs about or named after" but IMHO (currently) that would be unnecessary. – Fayenatic London 16:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Your standard sounds an awful lot like what WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES is getting at. It just so happens that every song with a specific word in its title is not necessarily "about" that word topic. Some artists, such as Bob Dylan, are notorious for giving songs titles that have nothing to do with what the song is about. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and hopefully one day the whole songs by theme will follow suit. The category is called, "Songs about days of the week" and yet, for example the following songs are including which are specifically not about days of the week, Ruby Tuesday (song), A Roller Skating Jam Named "Saturdays", I Don't Have to Be Me ('til Monday). I conclude that the category should have be called :Category:Songs with a day of the week in the title.

:At what point does using a single word in a song or a song title be considered defining? Unless it is set out in the lead of the article with WP:V, it is NOT defining. WP:OR applies when a song is added to a category without supporting text and reference.The idea of categorization is to unite articles with a defining categoristic - see Wikipedia:Overcategorization and specifically, WP:DEFINING.

:Songs, and song titles, use Simile, Metaphor, Analogy, Allegory, Parable, Figure of Speech and every other linquistic known, but this category (and all others by theme) denies most lyricists and songwriters the ability to use english, or any other language, when writing lyrics.

:It should also be noted that fiction/novels are not categorised by this sort of category. However, there are a few lists by theme at :Category:Lists of novels.--Richhoncho (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete Pointless Brad7777 (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: although it would be a matter for discussion at AfD, it would be helpful if the closing admin would comment on whether making a similar list is viewed with any favour. A list could be more informative with sections on songs that are about the days, perhaps followed by a concise list of songs that merely mention the days in the title. – Fayenatic London 19:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete and listify after purging those that just use the name, instead of being about. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete I am not convinced that we need to categorize songs by subject, especially such a narrow subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

----

: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:Construction projects in Canada ==

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Construction projects in Canada to :Category:Buildings and structures under construction in Canada

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. After removing the ones that were completed, looks like the remaining ones are under construction so this should be renamed to follow the more established :Category:Buildings and structures under construction tree. I'll finish checking what remains later today to make sure I did not miss any that should be moved to :Category:Proposed buildings and structures in Canada. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong support following similar categories for other locations. – Fayenatic London 21:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as nom Brad7777 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

----

: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:Victoria Cougars players ==

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2B. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Victoria Cougars players to :Category:Victoria Cougars (1911–1926) players

:Nominator's rationale: Adding the years because there are two teams with this name. This one is under Victoria Cougars. The other is a juniors team under Victoria Cougars (WHL) that played from 1971–1994 under this name. It is nominated for a different kind of renaming here. When we differentiate teams with the same names in categories, we either use the league name or the years. Here, surprisingly enough, both Cougars were in a (different) league called the WHL, so I think the years is the right call.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. This is the standard dabbing convention in such instances. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

----

: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:Winnipeg Warriors players ==

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2B. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Winnipeg Warriors players to :Category:Winnipeg Warriors (1955–1961) players

:Nominator's rationale: Adding the years because there are two teams with this name. This one is under Winnipeg Warriors (minor pro). The other is a juniors team under Winnipeg Warriors that played from 1980–1984 under this name. It is nominated for a different kind of renaming here. When we differentiate teams with the same names in categories, we either use the league name or the years. Here, surprisingly enough, both Warriors were in a (different) league called the WHL, so I think the years is the right call.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. This is the standard dabbing convention in such instances. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

----

: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:Development projects in Shanghai ==

: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. Louisville category was split to by country category as there are no appropriate state-level categories, and to appropriate Louisville categories as appropriate. FL shanghaied for the other... - The Bushranger One ping only 21:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Development projects in Shanghai to multiple categories.

:* Propose renaming :Category:Development projects in Louisville, Kentucky to multiple categories.

:Nominator's rationale: Split to {{cl|Buildings and structures under construction‎ in Shanghai}}, {{cl|Proposed buildings and structures in Shanghai}} and, if needed, "Unbuilt" and/or "Unfinished buildings and structures in Shanghai". Following the merger of :Category:Development projects in the United Arab Emirates to the relevant "Buildings and structures", this should follow. (By all means notify me to implement this after closure if agreed.) – Fayenatic London 21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support and I have added the one for Louisville, Kentucky. That should be merged to city categories like proposed above if they already exist. If they don't exist merge to the state categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

----

: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:Germany in space ==

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Germany in space to :Category:German space programme

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think the best thing to do with this category would be to make it a subcategory of :Category:Space programs and to follow the naming convention used there. Tim! (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

----

: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:Angel video games ==

: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:Video games about angels and :Category:Films about angels.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Angel video games to :Category:Video games featuring angels

:* Propose renaming :Category:Angel films to :Category:Films featuring angels

:Nominator's rationale: Significent enough a change not to qualify for speedy, I believe; "Angels in video games", the speedyable choice, would imply characters, not the games themselves. This category has a somewhat awkward name, and one that is badly ambiguous; I clicked on it expecting it to have video games relating to Angel (TV series). The film category has the same problems... The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

----

: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:Pacific Wharf ==

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2B. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Pacific Wharf to :Category:Pacific Wharf (Disney California Adventure Park)

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is about the section of Disney California Adventure Park; it is not about Pacific Wharf Company. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

----

: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:Future World ==

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2B. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Future World to :Category:Future World (Epcot)

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. Future World alone is ambiguous. This category refers to the Future World part of Epcot. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

----

: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:Sparkle ==

: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:Sparkle (film series) and :Category:Songs from Sparkle (film series).--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Sparkle to :Category:Sparkle (film) or :Category:Sparkle (films)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Songs from Sparkle to :Category:Songs from Sparkle (film) or :Category:Songs from Sparkle (films)

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. :Sparkle alone is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

----

: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.

==Films by studio and films by producer==

: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: move categories as described.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that the two categories :Category:Films by studio and :Category:Films by producer cover a very similar subject and think that these may need to be re-organised. The main issue I see is that in the Films by producer category, this lists people as well as production companies, whilst the films by studio category only lists production companies.

I think the best solution for this is to have two categories, one category for production companies/studios and one category for film producers (people). The easiest way to achieve this is to move all the production company categories in "Films by producer" e.g. Category:Film4 Productions films into the "Films by studio category", leaving only film producers (people) in the "Films by producer" category. This way we will have two categories, one for companies and one for people:

  • Films by producer should contain people such as "Films produced by James L. Brooks"
  • Films by studio should contain companies such as "20th Century Fox films" - 0800abc123 (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 13:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

::::The credit goes to 0800abc123. – Fayenatic London

:::Is there an easy way of moving multiple categories from "Films by producer" to "Films by studio"? I'd do it myself but haven't really got the time to do it for that many pages. - 0800abc123 (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

::::I would imagine that using AWB to sort the films into their respective companies and producers by using the search feature would speed things up. Take all the films on the page and search for just the ones who list Brooks as producer, and then add (not replace) his cat, and then repeat for the next big producer. Do the same process for companies--again, adding, not replacing. To keep it easy, don't remove the original cat until you've worked through both the companies and the individuals—otherwise you really will be making it time-consuming. Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::Make it simple: let a bot move the whole lot, then use WP:HOTCAT to move back the small minority that are named after people. – Fayenatic London 08:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

----

: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.