Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 24

< March 23	March 25 >

March 24

Category:Stories set in future now past

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. the wub "?!" 11:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Apparently, this category is for stories set in what was (at the time of their publication) "the future", but now (in 2008 and counting) is "the past". Here are some examples:

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. Published in 1986. Set in 2006. 2006 is now gone, therefore it is "future now past".
Strange Days. Released in 1995. Set in 1999. 1999 is now gone, therefore it is "future now past".
Nineteen Eighty-Four. Published in 1949. Set in 1984. 1984 is now gone, therefore it is "future now past".

At is rate, the category will include every work of fiction ever made. Nohansen (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not all fiction has a definite date stated or even implied in that text. —Scouter Sig 23:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and only a small fraction of fiction is set in the future. And much of that that is is set in the far distant future. This is hardly going to contain every work of fiction ever made. Having said that, I suspect that listifying this would be better than keeping it as a category, since date of publication and date of setting could then easily be listed alongside the titles. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least listify, though some inclusions seem questionable - Terminator 2: Judgment Day has scenes set in 2029, I think (date from article) but the bulk is in a tweaked 1992 present. I don't think "just like now but with an evil President/plague/monster coroporation" scenarios count. Johnbod (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure trivia.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article-ize - if it can be done without original research, a great article could be written comparing the world of the fiction to the world as it existed at the actual time. Other examples include Wild Palms (aired in 1993, set in the far-flung future year 2007), Things to Come (a 1936 film that predicted a world war starting in 1940) and Just Imagine (a 1930 film examining life amongst the flying cars of 1980). Otto4711 (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also just added the 1970s-made, 1980s-set UFO (TV series) to the category. There are a lot more which could be added, I'm sure. Grutness...wha? 22:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No different than having categories for fiction set in World War II, Ancient Rome, alternate histories, post-apocalyptic scenarios, etc. Kuralyov (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List / article-ize per Otto, but as a category it's too trivial, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify - Mildly interesting, but hardly worthy of a category. Cgingold (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and listify per Johnbod and Cgingold. The content is interesting, and could be useful information, but is not, as Cgingold says, "worthy of a category." ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I very much think that this is a legit category. Studying past visions of the future is a legitimate line of inquiry, and this category could be a useful means towards that end. KConWiki (talk)
Keep per Kuralyov, or possibly rename to Category:Stories set in a future now past. Lugnuts (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that sounds like a good name. —Scouter Sig 20:29, 30 March 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.

Phoenix, Arizona categories

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 all. As with other like discussions, adding the state simply means "the phoenix in arizona". It does not mean, "and also restrict to phoenix city limits". If these categories included articles "in and around phoenix", that will not change. It will just limit it to "in and around phoenix, arizona". I understand the concerns of Vegaswikian, but I think he is trying to deal with a problem that may not exist. Kbdank71 13:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Phoenix‎ to Category:Transportation in Phoenix‎, Arizona

Propose renaming Category:Sports in Phoenix‎ to Category:Sports in Phoenix‎, Arizona

Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Phoenix‎ to Category:Television stations in Phoenix‎, Arizona

Propose renaming Category:History of Phoenix‎ to Category:History of Phoenix‎, Arizona

Propose renaming Category:Neighborhoods in Phoenix‎ to Category:Neighborhoods in Phoenix‎, Arizona

Propose renaming Category:Geography of Phoenix‎ to Category:Geography of Phoenix‎, Arizona

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Phoenix‎ to Category:Companies based in Phoenix‎, Arizona

Propose renaming Category:Sports venues in Phoenix‎ to Category:Sports venues in Phoenix‎, Arizona

Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Phoenix‎ to Category:Skyscrapers in Phoenix‎, Arizona

Propose renaming Category:Museums in Phoenix‎ to Category:Museums in Phoenix‎, Arizona

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Phoenix‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Phoenix‎, Arizona

Nominator's rationale: Standardizing category names city by city. For this one, the main article is at Phoenix, Arizona, the parent category is at Category:Phoenix, Arizona, and many of the sub-cats are allready at the "Foo in Phoenix, Arizona" pattern, so I do hope that this will not be as contentious as my previous ones. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Even though the Chicago nomination failed, the trend is definitely going this direction..--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom to match main article formatting. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose these group nominations, unless someone actually looks at these categories and sees how they are populated. In the case of the television stations, it even includes one in Winslow, Arizona. So clearly these are not all in the city of Phoenix which is the alleged main article. Understand that I don't oppose renames that are free of problems. Just fix the problems before the nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also add that if you look at a category like Category:Transportation in Phoenix‎, it is clear that this is best kept at the area level. How many of the state highways or Interstates are only in one city? Do the rail and bus lines service one city or the area? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Category:Sports in Phoenix‎ to Category:Sports in the Phoenix metropolitan area

Category:Transportation in Phoenix‎ to Category:Transportation in the Phoenix metropolitan area

Category:Television stations in Phoenix‎ to Category:Television stations in the Phoenix metropolitan area or Category:Television stations in the Phoenix Arbitron market

Category:Neighborhoods in Phoenix‎ to Category:Neighborhoods in Phoenix‎, Arizona

Category:History of Phoenix‎ to Category:History of Phoenix‎, Arizona

Category:Companies based in Phoenix‎ to Category:Companies based in Phoenix‎, Arizona noting that the main article, a list, covers the metro area.

Category:Sports venues in Phoenix‎ to Category:Sports venues in the Phoenix metropolitan area

Category:Skyscrapers in Phoenix‎ to Category:Skyscrapers in Phoenix‎, Arizona

Category:Museums in Phoenix‎ to Category:Museums in the Phoenix metropolitan area

Category:Buildings and structures in Phoenix‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Phoenix‎, Arizona

Category:Geography of Phoenix‎ to Category:Geography of Phoenix‎, Arizona
since these already cover the metro area and for the most part or are clearly city specific. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the view that keeps recurring in these debates that, e.g., "Phoenix, Arizona" refers to things limited to the city boundaries itself but that "Phoenix" refers to things involving the surrounding metropolitan area seems artificial and non-intuitive to me. Would the average reader make such a distinction? Where does this idea come from? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous consensus was that the city categories, no matter what the name, included the surrounding areas. This view has changed, probability since it was considered ambiguous or 'artificial and non-intuitive' to use your words. Once you argue that the name should match the name for the city article and that you should remove everything not in the city, as some editors have opined, you really need to consider what is the correct name and contents for each category. As I have supported, some renames for the ones in this nomination are clearly related to the area and some are clearly for the city proper. Radio and TV are really organized by Arbitron market and not an area defined by city or community areas. You can't fix an issue with ambiguous names by renaming to something that does not reflect the contents. We need a clear understanding on how to move forward to support the current consensus in a way that does not cause other problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the explanation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:03, 26 March 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:Band logos

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: renamed. the wub "?!" 11:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Band logos to Category:Musical artist logos

Nominator's rationale: Musical artist" is a more inclusive term, as not all musical acts with logos are bands. This reflects the more inclusive terminology for musical artists used in other areas of Wikipedia such as WikiProject Musicians and the musical artist infobox. IllaZilla (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Nom makes sense in terms of inclusion, and would be relatively easy to implement. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since there were no objections, the category has been renamed and all pages properly categorized under the new nomenclature. Category:Band logos is now empty and may be speedily deleted. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:43, 31 March 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:Former cities in Georgia

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. — CharlotteWebb 20:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former cities in Georgia to Category:Former cities in Georgia (country)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To distinguish from the U.S. state of Georgia using the usual disambiguation. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per nom. 70.51.8.129 (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:41, 29 March 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:Event (computing)

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. the wub "?!" 11:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Event (computing) to Category:Events (computing)

Nominator's rationale: Merge, The same thing, plural seems the better title. Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 08:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The Event category has 19 articles vs 4 for the events category (3 of the 4 having the singular in their own title). The general term is Event so it seems preferable and less potentially ambiguous than Events, so the merge should be in the opposite direction? AllyD (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since most articles are event-related rather than about singular events, I guess it can be considered a topical category, in which case singular is the standard. I don't oppose a reverse merge. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 12:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Categories normally use the plural and aticles are usually singular. Also, the number of articles in either category is not a determing factor for which category is the correct choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the categories do not pertain to a specific event, per se. — CharlotteWebb 20:20, 30 March 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:Lee Brice songs

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. the wub "?!" 11:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Misleading category, as it's a subcat of Category:Songs by artist. Although Lee Brice did indeed co-write "More Than a Memory", there's no proof that he ever recorded it himself. Renaming it Category:Songs written by Lee Brice would probably be too narrow, as he currently holds no other writing credits (save for his own two singles, neither of which appear notable enough for their own pages). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't know why "More Than a Memory" ended up in Category:Lee Brice songs, but since the article for "Happy Endings" was deleted, so too should the category that was created to contain it. Eric444 (talk) 03:44, 25 March 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:Presbyterianism by nationality

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. the wub "?!" 11:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Presbyterianism by nationality to Category:Presbyterianism by country

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Subcategories are named "Presbyerianism in Foo", not "Fooian Presbyterianism". There is an article called Korean Presbyterianism, but it seems to be the exception and not the rule. The parents are also called Category:Protestantism by country and Category:Christianity by country, which are subcategories of Category:Religion by country. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:37, 29 March 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.