Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 4 September 6 >

September 5[edit]

Category:Gerald McBoing-Boing[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. (Though strictly not part of the consensus, I've added the parent categories to the two articles as suggested by Occuli). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gerald McBoing-Boing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: cat for two articles. There's no potential for growth. This was a book, some shorts, a one-season cartoon series, and a two-season cartoon series; there's simply not a lot to say about it that merits an entire category. MSJapan (talk) 20:38, 5 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.

Neapolitan/Calabrian-American mobsters[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 and delete as set out by Occuli. Note that two similarly-named subcategories were not nominated and still exist: Category:Murdered Neapolitan-American mobsters and Category:Murdered Calabrian-American mobsters. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply just group with Italian-American mobsters and avoid overcategorisation? Nicknackrussian (talk) 17:54, 5 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:WikiProject Nintendo members[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 (non-admin closure). This should have been placed under Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. MuZemike (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WikiProject Nintendo members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete Memberlist of a now-defunct WikiProject. The task force also keeps track of members on a separate page. In addition, the new userbox of the task force will not categorize users who put the userbox on their pages. MuZemike (talk) 17:39, 5 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:Number-one singles in Brazil[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Number-one singles in Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot100Brasil, this chart was found to be not-notable / questionable / not-legit and was deleted. Therefore there does not seem to be any basis or source for this category. References to Brazil Hot 100/Brazil Singles Chart are being removed from song/album/discography articles, so having this category makes no sense. - eo (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:42, 5 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:Films with an ensemble cast[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; even with the amount of talk here about sourcing, I checked roughly half of the articles, and there was only one I found that had a source that said the movie had an ensemble cast. So by my count, this is about 95% OR. Kbdank71 13:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films with an ensemble cast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose deletion The editor who created this category has given no criteria for the cat and when one views the films added so far one finds small ensemble casts listed with films with huge casts some of which are CGI. MarnetteD | Talk 07:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Well I don't know where to start, Firstly, the nominator has provided no rational as to what he wants done, but suffice to say what he is saying is demonstratively false:
  • "The editor who created this category has given no criteria for the cat". Yes I have, the criteria has been on the page from its inception, thus, "This category is for films containing an ensemble cast i.e. where the principal actors are assigned roughly equal amounts of importance." Looks like criteria to me.
  • "when one views the films added so far one finds small ensemble casts listed with films with huge casts some of which are CGI." Which films are there that are CGI? Lord of the Rings? Star Wars? And here was me thinking that most of those films have primarily REAL ACTORS! And what does it matter that there are films with huge casts and films with small casts listed? That has no bearing on this category. A small film like Reservoir Dogs is a film "where the principal actors are assigned roughly equal amounts of importance", and a huge film LOTR is a film "where the principal actors are assigned roughly equal amounts of importance." I fail to see what the nominator of this discussion is getting at. Speedy close. Deamon138 (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: So, how does one know if there is an ensemble cast in any particular movie? Is this based on sources that say it is an ensemble cast? Surely we're not categorizing these based on WP:OR? My first impression is that this would be a good idea for a list, since that would allow for adequate sourcing. To me, at least, films with an ensemble cast are not necessarily obvious on their face. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is almost completely based on OR. Lets see Gollum and Treebread is there screen time comparable? Are the parts of an ensemble cast? Any number of characters in the Star Wars films are CGI. The criteria of "equal amount of importance" is as POV as it gets. Please compare the screen time of for characters of any of the films in the cat so far for an understanding of how POV this cat will become. MarnetteD | Talk 07:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er Treebeard is not a "principle actor" in LOTR. For a film to be ensemble, it doesn't mean that every single actor in the entire film, extras everyone, has exactly the same amount of time on air down to the last second. You are being overly pedantic. Take 12 Angry Men. The 12 jurors are the ones that make the film an ensemble, because they have equal importance, but the judge, the kid accused etc, they have no bearing on it as they are minor characters. The idea is that there are no complete standout characters. And again I ask you, what does characters being CGI have to do with anything? Does Andy Serkis not count as an actor? And yes there are lots of CGI characters in the Star Wars films, but there are FAR more non-CGI (i.e. real) characters. Deamon138 (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoo doggies. The Judge and the kid accused. Have you watched the film. Neither of these people are even portrayed by actors. They are only referred to in conversation. MarnetteD | Talk 09:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have watched the film. Have you? I don't think so, because you would realise that the first scene is the judge telling the jury what to do, and the accused looking worried. If it doesn't take actors to portray that, then I really really want to know what the hell I was watching. Robots? Deamon138 (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these can be sourced, I am positive of that. There might be the odd one or two that can't be sourced, but then they can be removed if something can't be found. It doesn't have to be OR. Deamon138 (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then start sourcing them. MarnetteD | Talk 09:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since that comment, I went to bed, so I haven't had a chance. I wish you would be civil: why is it up to me to start sourcing this category before you stop wanting the whole thing to be deleted? I am going to start sourcing it, but its been very difficult because you suggested it should be deleted less than two hours after its creation. The reason you wanted it deleted then has been refuted. Then when Good Olfactory asked if it was OR, you jumped on that bandwagon. The fact that an article, list or category might contain original research is not a reason to delete it. It is a reason to dispute the contents of it, but the following hypothetical. Say that the article Earth didn't exist, and then I went and created it saying, "The Earth is the third planet from the Sun" but didn't source it. As an analogy of this category situation here, you would then come along and propose that the article Earth be deleted because it is original research. Well no, because the Earth is notable enough for its own article, and just because an article is badly written, poorly sourced, unsourced or similar, isn't a barrier to it existing. You have judge an article not on what it is, but what it could be. This applies to this category too. Just because it seems like OR, doesn't mean that the topic of the category isn't notable. It is notable. This category was put up for deleting just a few hours after its inception: it hasn't been give a chance. Deamon138 (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I strongly oppose deletion, now that I have something to be for or against. Deamon138 (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the category is not tagged. Please tag the category, otherwise this discussion is invalid. Otto4711 (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Took awhile to get to the Byzantine tag that needed to be applied. The creator of the cat strongly opposes discussion. Nothing new there. So "principle actors" need equal screen time. Treebeard or Gollum? Who is deciding the principle actors? More POV. This is why notable roles disappeared from the infoboxes. How A Bridge Too Far can fit in the same cat as 12 Angry Men shows how little thought has gone into this. MarnetteD | Talk 09:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Byzantine tag? The process for listing a CfD isn't that hard. Most other people manage. I have managed when I have proposed CfDs, and you have been a part of Wikipedia for a lot longer than me. Anyway, you ask, "Who is deciding the principle actors?" The answer is no-one. No-one is deciding who the principle actors are. This is a category, all that is needed is sources saying that they are ensemble films, we don't need to know who the main characters are. In your opinion, Treebeard and Gollm are main characters in LOTR, and whether or not that's true or not (I disagree on Treebeard), it doesn't matter. So long as sources see it as ensemble, then that's all we need to know to list them in this category. Finally, what do you abhor so much about A Bridge Too Far, and 12 Angry Men being in the same category? Deamon138 (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Category:Ensemble cast and Category:TV series with an ensemble cast should be included in this discussion. No vote yet because the discussion really hasn't gone anywhere, but I'd like to see an explanation of 1) how we verify that the actors in these works are "assigned roughly equal amounts of importance" and 2) a rationale as to what is gained by categorizing these together. Are ensemble films or TV series that rare? Most TV series these days seem to have ensemble casts. Postdlf (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to your first question: how we verify that the actors in these works are "assigned roughly equal amounts of importance", the answer is the same way as we verify that someone belongs in any other category: reliable sources. And yes, a fair amount of modern tv shows are ensemble, but there are still many modern shows that aren't ensemble. I don't think it makes sense to see it as a negative for this category that ensemble types shows have become more popular in the recent era. Oh, and you forgot Category:Ensemble comedy, although that one wasn't created by me, and has been around for far longer. Deamon138 (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcatting. I would also suggest someone look in on the wheel-warring going on with respect to the [ensemble cast] article. also LOTR and ensemble returned WP as hit #1 - that's usually not a good sign for RS when the second hit is for screensavers. MSJapan (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when do we decide the applicability of a category on the first three google links? Look beyond the first three. And wheel warring? What wheel warring? I haven't seen any on tat article. Deamon138 (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify if possible, so that adequate sourcing can be included. Or perhaps we could listify, but also keep the category only for articles that are included in the main Ensemble cast article and sourced? I don't know if there's a precedent for that, but I think it would work best. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as subjective and requiring original research. Otto4711 (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the research required seems unworthy of the name. Occuli (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? What is the definition of a "principal actor"? What is th definition of "given roughly equal importance"? Does that refer to billing? Number of scenes? Number of lines? Number of action figures sold? Salary? Otto4711 (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it just requires a reliable source calling the film an ensemble film (or a synonym) same as to categorize Michael Jackson as a musician you need a cite saying he is one. You are merely defining what an ensemble film is. It is not up to us to work out how a source is determining that a film is ensemble, only that it does. For instance, for Category:Actors, it is not up to us to work out what the definition of (from the article Actor) "a person who acts in a dramatic production and who works in film, television, theatre, or radio in that capacity", only that sources are calling potential members of that category actors. Deamon138 (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is now more than two days after its creation and still no definable parameters or reliable resources have been provided for a definition of this category. This is still so POV as to be in the same realm as notable roles which were removed over a year ago. MarnetteD | Talk 09:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually reading any of my replies to you? Seriously? Because I have said several times to you that there is parameters on this cat, look at Category:Films with an ensemble cast, right below the great big deletion tag someone added for you, it says 'This category is for films containing an ensemble cast i.e. where the principal actors are assigned roughly equal amounts of importance." Are those not definable parameters? And no it is not POV. If a reliable source describes it as ensemble, then that is all that is needed. If it says "X is an ensemble film" or "X is a film with an ensemble cast" or a synonym, then what on earth could be the problem with that? Ensemble casts are pretty notable, I mean the tv show Friends has a one, and there's a whole paragraph on it in the article. Sure, that's a tv show, but then the same treatment can be applied to films too. Films with an ensemble cast are a notable type of film, and you haven't provided any reasons why it isn't notable, so why should it be deleted? Deamon138 (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sure you can find plenty of reliable sources describing this or that as "ensemble," but I'm not sure that any such use of the word "ensemble" will mean that "the principal actors are assigned roughly equal amounts of importance" or, even if there is such a uniform definition, that there will be agreement among reliable sources as to what works qualify. What actors are "principal," what constitutes an actor's "importance," and what constitutes "roughly equal" all seem to be too subjective and imprecise to be capable of concrete classification. Postdlf (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but why do people keep raising the point that, "What actors are "principal," what constitutes an actor's "importance," and what constitutes "roughly equal" all seem to be too subjective and imprecise to be capable of concrete classification"? I don't get what that has to do with this. When we categorize something as "ensemble", why do we need to know exactly which actors (and why) are the ones that are part of the ensemble? For the Lord of the Rings films, it was mentioned about Gollum and Treebeard. But we don't need to know if Gollum or Treebeard are part of the ensemble cast or not, only that sources say the films are ensemble. When we categorize an actor like Viggo Mortenson in one of the acting categories, do we need to know exactly which films the sources are using to decide to call him an actor? No. All we need is source(s) saying "Viggo is an actor", we don't need a source saying, "I think Viggo is an actor because he starred in these films X, Y, Z...etc". WHy should the entry to this cat be more strenuous then normal?
  • "I'm sure you can find plenty of reliable sources describing this or that as "ensemble," but I'm not sure that any such use of the word "ensemble" will mean that "the principal actors are assigned roughly equal amounts of importance"" Unfortunately, that would be original research on your part. It is not up to you to disagree with a source when it says something is ensemble. If it does, then the film can be categorized as such. You have to take reliable sources at face value, you can't just go, "But it might not be using the right definition". Without any evidence of that, we go with the most common usage, which would be the correct definition i.e. "the principal actors are assigned roughly equal amounts of importance". If you have any other definitions for "ensemble cast", feel free to source them for me. When we want to categorize a person by their nationality, and we have a US source saying he is English, do we automatically assume that the source is wrong (as some have been with regards to Andy Murray) and that actually the person is Scottish? No we don't. That is the definition of original research. We take the reliable source at face value, categorize the person as English until another source says otherwise.
  • "even if there is such a uniform definition, that there will be agreement among reliable sources as to what works qualify." Well if the sources disagree on a particular film, then we remove that film from the category, as we always do with other categories when they become contentious. But if you can find reliable sources (and I mean sources plural per WP:UNDUE) that disagree that the Lord of the Rings trilogy or Magnolia aren't ensemble, then fine, those would be contentious. But I haven't found a single one, and there are literally many sources that call Magnolia and LOTR ensemble films. There may be some films that are contentious, I agree, but there are plenty that aren't. Do we delete a category because there might be disagreement with a few members? No, not when there are plenty of uncontentious members. Deamon138 (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of the reams of words typed by the creator of this cat we have, as yet, had no parameters set down for it that aren't ambiguous or POV in the extreme. Near as I can tell as long as some critic (reliable source or not) says that a given film has an "ensemble" cast then it fits in this cat. In fact we might as well let betacommandbot apply this cat to every film ever made based on your conflicting justifications for this cat. Please direct us to the "plenty of uncontentious members" comments because it seems that you mean unconcious members - since your definition seems to mean that if that haven't commented here they must agree with you. MarnetteD | Talk 07:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In spite of the reams of words typed by the creator of this cat" What does how much I have typed here have to do with anything? Clearly refuting your baseless arguments too much annoys you.
  • "we have, as yet, had no parameters set down for it that aren't ambiguous or POV in the extreme." This has got to be the nth time I have explained this to you. What part of if a source says something like "X is an ensemble film" or "X has an ensemble cast" then it could be categorized do you not understand? That isn't ambiguous, and not POV if it isn't against Undue Weight (see later bullet).
  • "reliable source or not" No just reliable source(s). Never "or not". I never said that, so stop it with the Straw man.
  • "Near as I can tell as long as some critic...says that a given film has an "ensemble" cast then it fits in this cat." Sort of. That's pretty much how we deal with every other category on the planet. If source(s) are saying that "X is (category)" then it's a good indication that X belongs in the category. But as with all categories, you have to be careful with Undue Weight. If say, it's only one obscure source saying a film's ensemble, then it's probably not wise to categorize that it as ensemble. But if it seems like there are a fair few saying it (and note, there are many, as I showed above, for LOTR and Magnolia), then it wouldn't be bad to categorize as ensemble. Of course, as with all categories, a user of a particular film article may take offense to the film's new category, in which case, those that want to categorize it so provide their sources, and those that don't, provide their sources to the contrary. If it's still up in the air, then the film doesn't belong in, but if there are far more sources for it being an ensemble than against, then it does belong in per WP:UNDUE. Now tell me: how is any of what I have just said in this paragraph different to how one would categorize (for example) Viggo Mortenson as an actor? This is the same process for categorizing any article in any category: if it's verifiable, and the sources are unambiguous about it, then it goes in, if it isn't verifiable, or the sources disagree, then it doesn't go in. Same as normal.
  • "In fact we might as well let betacommandbot apply this cat to every film ever made" Well no, because not every film ever made belongs in. Do you seriously think that every film ever made is an ensemble? I have even told you on the talk page of this cat that four examples of non-ensemble films would be the Die Hard series. If you want many more, how about the 20 James Bond films? Or Austin Powers series? Or Taxi Driver? Lots and lots aren't. If you can find a source that says ensemble films are "every film ever made" I would be very interested to see that.
  • "based on your conflicting justifications for this cat" What conflicting justifications? Where? I haven't given any.
  • "Please direct us to the "plenty of uncontentious members" comments because it seems that you mean unconcious members - since your definition seems to mean that if that haven't commented here they must agree with you." I'm sorry what on Earth are you talking about here? I said "uncontentious members" of the category as in films that there isn't disagreement in the reliable sources that it belongs in this category. I don't know what you are trying to say when you talk about "unconscious members" who "haven't commented here". You do realise that films can't talk? The film Magnolia is not about to jump up and go "Hi, I'm Magnolia and I'm an ensemble film!". I have provided four uncontentious examples for this category. How many more do you want? Here are some googles for related terms: [1] [2] [3] [4]. There are four googles showing the term is notable (and per WP:JNN, it is now up to you to show it isn't notable). Plus there are awards for having an ensemble cast for God's sakes. That's another indication that the concept is notable. I have to ask: how much more evidence do you want that this category is fine? How many more hoops than any other category do you want it to jump through? Deamon138 (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; listify if desired. After asking my initial question and reading through the discussion several times, I'm just not convinced this is a viable category, since it's not at all clear what an "ensemble cast" means. Pretty much all WP can do is reflect situations where the film has been described by others as an ensemble cast. The fact that this is going to require some fairly specific references is pretty much every case makes this quite ideal for a list, though. Postdlf's comments about the potential variability in the definition of "ensemble cast" are also convincing, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 10 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:Albums produced by Robert John "Mutt" Lange[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: Speedy close. The category and the parent article now match, although this was done by moving the article instead of the category (he's almost never known as just "Robert Lange"). There is now no point in renaming the category, so I consider this discussion closed, non-admin style. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Albums produced by Robert John "Mutt" Lange to Category:Albums produced by Robert Lange
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article and category should match. If the article is changed instead that's fine by me. Occuli (talk) 15:03, 6 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.

Victoria (Australia)[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 all per precedent and per main article (EDIT 9-15-08: except Pariament of Victoria (no consensus) --Kbdank71 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC) ). As noted, if the article changes, these can be changed just as easily personally, I love the argument "I don't care what the stupid policy says". Kbdank71 13:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airports in Victoria to Category:Airports in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Amphibians of Victoria to Category:Amphibians of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Biota of Victoria to Category:Biota of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Boarding schools in Victoria to Category:Boarding schools in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Bridges in Victoria to Category:Bridges in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Buildings and structures in Victoria to Category:Buildings and structures in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Cities in Victoria to Category:Cities in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Closed regional railway lines in Victoria to Category:Closed regional railway lines in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Coastal towns in Victoria to Category:Coastal towns in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Counties of Victoria to Category:Counties of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Courts and Tribunals of Victoria to Category:Courts and tribunals of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Crime in Victoria to Category:Crime in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Culture in Victoria to Category:Culture in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Education in Victoria to Category:Education in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Elections in Victoria to Category:Elections in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Electoral districts of Victoria to Category:Electoral districts of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Electoral provinces of Victoria to Category:Electoral provinces of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Emergency services in Victoria to Category:Emergency services in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Escapees from Victoria detention to Category:Escapees from Victoria (Australia) detention
Category:Extinct languages of Victoria to Category:Extinct languages of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Fauna of Victoria to Category:Fauna of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Federal politicians from Victoria to Category:Federal politicians from Victoria (Australia)
Category:Festivals in Victoria to Category:Festivals in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Flora of Victoria to Category:Flora of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Football in Victoria to Category:Football in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Football (soccer) in Victoria to Category:Football (soccer) in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Former Local Government Areas of Victoria to Category:Former Local Government Areas of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Former rail freight terminals in Victoria to Category:Former rail freight terminals in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Freight railway lines in Victoria to Category:Freight railway lines in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Geography of Victoria to Category:Geography of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Government of Victoria to Category:Government of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Governors of Victoria to Category:Governors of Victoria (Australia)
Category:High schools in Victoria to Category:High schools in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Highways in Victoria to Category:Highways in Victoria (Australia)
Category:History of Victoria to Category:History of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Images of railway stations in Victoria to Category:Images of railway stations in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Images of Victoria to Category:Images of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Lakes of Victoria to Category:Lakes of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Local Government Areas of Victoria to Category:Local Government Areas of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Mammals of Victoria to Category:Mammals of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Mayors of places in Victoria to Category:Mayors of places in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Media in Victoria to Category:Media in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Members of Victorian Parliaments by term to Category:Members of Victorian Parliaments (Australia) by term
Category:Metropolitan parks of Victoria to Category:Metropolitan parks of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Mining towns in Victoria to Category:Mining towns in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Mountain ranges of Victoria to Category:Mountain ranges of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Mountains of Victoria to Category:Mountains of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Museums in Victoria to Category:Museums in Victoria (Australia)
Category:National parks of Victoria to Category:National parks of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Newspapers published in Victoria to Category:Newspapers published in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Organisations based in Victoria to Category:Organisations based in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Parliament of Victoria to Category:Parliament of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Penal system in Victoria to Category:Penal system in Victoria (Australia)
Category:People murdered in Victoria to Category:People murdered in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Political office-holders in Victoria to Category:Political office-holders in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Premiers of Victoria to Category:Premiers of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Primary schools in Victoria to Category:Primary schools in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Prisoners who died in Victoria detention to Category:Prisoners who died in Victoria (Australia) detention
Category:Prisons in Victoria to Category:Prisons in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Private schools in Victoria to Category:Private schools in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Protected areas of Victoria to Category:Protected areas of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Public schools in Victoria to Category:Public schools in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Rail freight terminals in Victoria to Category:Rail freight terminals in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Rail trails in Victoria to Category:Rail trails in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Rail transport in Victoria to Category:Rail transport in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Railway lines in Victoria to Category:Railway lines in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Railway stations in Victoria to Category:Railway stations in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Regional railway stations in Victoria to Category:Regional railway stations in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Regions of the Victorian Legislative Council to Category:Regions of the Victorian Legislative Council (Australia)
Category:Regions of Victoria to Category:Regions of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Restaurants in Victoria to Category:Restaurants in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Rivers of Victoria to Category:Rivers of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Schools in Victoria to Category:Schools in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Ski areas and resorts in Victoria to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Sport in Victoria to Category:Sport in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Sports venues in Victoria to Category:Sports venues in Victoria (Australia)
Category:State parks of Victoria to Category:State parks of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Television shows set in Victoria to Category:Television shows set in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Television stations in Victoria to Category:Television stations in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Tourist railways in Victoria to Category:Tourist railways in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Towns in Victoria to Category:Towns in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Transport in Victoria to Category:Transport in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Universities in Victoria to Category:Universities in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Victoria cricketers to Category:Victoria (Australia) cricketers
Category:Victoria law to Category:Victoria (Australia) law
Category:Victoria legislation to Category:Victoria (Australia) legislation
Category:Victoria musical groups to Category:Victoria (Australia) musical groups
Category:Victoria politicians to Category:Victoria (Australia) politicians
Category:Victoria state politicians to Category:Victoria (Australia) state politicians
Category:Victoria tourist railway stations to Category:Victoria (Australia) tourist railway stations
Category:Visitor attractions in Victoria to Category:Visitor attractions in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Wilderness parks of Victoria to Category:Wilderness parks of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Wine regions of Victoria to Category:Wine regions of Victoria (Australia)
Category:Wineries in Victoria to Category:Wineries in Victoria (Australia)
Category:Writers from Victoria to Category:Writers from Victoria (Australia)
Nominator's rationale: Rename all. This is a follow-up nomination to a recent proposal and discussion. This takes the subcategories of Category:Victoria (Australia) and adds the disambiguator "(Australia)" to them so that the categories conform with Category:Victoria (Australia) and the main article Victoria (Australia). These changes are subject to to speedy rename criterion #6, but due to the number of categories involved I have chosen to bring it here because of the predictability of there being opposition for speedy renaming. (As a result of the speedy criterion, note that those opposing need a consensus to prevent the changes.) Note that the nomination also proposes changing Category:Football in Victoria to Category:Australian rules football in Victoria (Australia). Finally, this nomination does not include uses of "Victoria" in some category names when it is part of a proper noun name, as in, e.g., Category:Associated Public Schools of Victoria or Category:Girls Sport Victoria. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The vast majority of this are not in any way ambiguous. Hesperian 01:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not ambiguous? On the contrary, see Victoria (geographical disambiguation). Any of the categories that refer to anything that can be "in" or "of" a geographical location are inherently ambiguous. This is the case with the "vast majority" of these. Then there's the issue of there being a Queen Victoria, which brings another aspect to some of them ... If there's no ambiguity, then there should be no need to disambiguate the main category and the main article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To pick one more or less at random, how is Category:Cities in Victoria ambiguous. Might it mean a city in a queen? A city in a port? A city in a waterfall? A city in the capital city of Seychelles?
      • But to be clear, permit me to add that even if these were all ambiguous, I would oppose on the grounds that your convention is horrible. Category:Victoria (Australia) musical groups? No thanks. Maybe try Category:Musical groups of Victoria, Australia. Hesperian 01:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Was that really "at random"? What about museums, wineries, lakes, schools, organisations based in, festivals in, sports venues in, biota of, state parks in, sport in, people from, images of, football in, political office-holders in etc., etc., etc.? Sure, you can perhaps find some that standing alone perhaps would not justify DAB, but you said the "vast majority" were not ambiguous. The change needs to be made for the vast majority which are ambiguous, and then the speedy convention says all are eligible to conform to the same format. And I didn't create the "convention"; it's a mirror of the pre-existing Category:Victoria (Australia) and the main article Victoria (Australia), not to mention Category:Georgia (country) and Category:Georgia (U.S. state), which were so named to solve a similar problem. The issue goes well beyond what sounds good to editors focused on Australian articles/categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes it was; but in hindsight I'll concede that I got lucky. Hesperian 02:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)'[reply]
            • The Georgia State/Georgia Country is not a valid comparison. Victoria has no subnational division equivalent, the others all being paired with some other distinguisher (like "Victoria Town", etc.) except for the city in Canada. JRG (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is incorrect. There are other subnational divisions that use the name "Victoria". See my comments and examples below. And in any case, the point is that the "vast majority" of the categories could apply to a subnational division or a city, town, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I misread that disambiguation page, and didn't realise the extent of the ambiguity. I agree there needs to be some form of disambiguation. I still don't like the convention but. Hesperian 04:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Seems like overkill—why not just add some explanatory text in the category page? The rename of Category:Football in Victoria to Category:Australian rules football in Victoria (Australia) is a quite different issue and should be struck from this nomination. Moondyne 01:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See previous discussion. This was suggested but rejected, since category names need to be unambiguous. I've changed the nom for the football nomination and will pursue it separately later. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did read the other discussion and happen to disagree, which is exactly why you listed this. Thanks for removing football. Moondyne 02:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clearly the category names are ambiguous. I don't see how anyone can suggest that they are not. There are multiple places called Victoria. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Indeed the category names are ambiguous. I do agree that Category:Victoria (Australia) musical groups is clumsy but Category:Victoria musical groups will not do. (This is US english, eg Category:California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo alumni.) Occuli (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I appreciate this is unwelcome to the residents of Victoria (Australia), but a few of the other places are of some notability. The disambiguator for Category:Georgia (U.S. State) is similarly unwelcome to its residents, but necessary due to Category:Georgia (Country) (to give a classic case). An alrternative might be "Victoria, Australia", but that form is more usually used for towns, not provinces. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Victoria, Australia" but I Oppose "Victoria (Australia)". Bidgee (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you oppose using the name that the main article is under? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just find that Victoria (Australia) is untidy and what would better suit Victoria, Australia like what we have for places located in the state such as Wodonga, Victoria I see that Victoria, Australia would be best to use then Victoria (Australia) and Victoria (Australian state). Bidgee (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the article name were changed, I don't see why the corresponding categories couldn't then be changed to match the article. But that's the thing—you've got to work on getting the article name changed first; until then, debating the alternatives for category names doesn't make much sense. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative suggested by User:Bidgee Mayumashu or 'Victoria (Australian state)' disambiguate (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those options could work, of course, but the problem is that the parent currently uses Category:Victoria (Australia) and the main article is at Victoria (Australia), so there's little sense making all of the subcategories different until the article name changes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. In the long run moving the article to follow the Georgia resolution for subentities, the article should be moved to Victoria (Australian state). But for now, lets cleanup one problem and if and when the main article moves this category can be changed. Not a big deal since the bots do the work. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - let's have some common sense here. This is overkill, panders to non-Australian bias, and some of these categories make more sense without the disambiguation, which, by Wikipedia policy, should only be put in place where it is necessary to distinguish things. If the category doesn't exist elsewhere, then it should not be disambiguated. Victoria is the only subnational division by that name and the renaming of everything would make sense if there was another similar division, or if Victoria was only a city and there were many similar cities. But it is not, and there are plenty of categories for which this will NOT make sense. The comparison to Georgia the country and Georgia US State are not correct because we are comparing completely different things here. "Cities in Victoria", for example as a category is self-explanatory because there is no other subnational division called "Victoria" that contain cities - so it should stay. Other governmental categories should also be removed for this reason. I would be happy to consider some of these on a case by case basis but to just change all is stupid, and I am ashamed at all you supporters for supporting such a nonsensical move without much though given to it. At the very least, someone should remove Category:Parliament of Victoria because that is its official name - it should not be included in the nomination. Let's close this nomination and do it on a more case by case scenario. JRG (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Victoria is the only subnational division by that name and the renaming of everything would make sense if there was another similar division ... there is no other subnational division called 'Victoria' that contain cities". This is not quite right. There are Victoria (electoral district), Victoria (Alberta provincial electoral district), Victoria (Ontario electoral district), Victoria (Alberta electoral district), Victoria (New Brunswick electoral district), Victoria (Nova Scotia electoral district), all of which are or were electoral districts in Canada, which certainly are "subnational divisions" and certainly contain cities. There are also a number of counties named "Victoria" in Canada, the U.S., and Trinidad and Tobago. I also get a bit tired of people throwing out accusations of anti-Australian (or anti-American or anti-Cuban or anti-Irish) bias. There's nothing biased about providing disambiguation for ambiguous names. I find it interesting that people complain about the proposal but no one has bothered to try to get Victoria (Australia) or Category:Victoria (Australia) de-disambiguated as the "primary usage", which needs to happen before categories are allowed to use "Victoria" without disambiguation. It seemingly only becomes an issue when it applies to a category of note to a particular individual. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A minor electoral district is not comparable to a state. Please stop making spurious references and answer my question properly. I'm fed up with people making stupid arguments like that to answer a point that I clearly addressed - an electoral district is NOT a subnational entity. My comparison is that there is no state in Canada or elsewhere called "Victoria", and therefore we should only be disambiguating where it is necessary to do that. There will not be a category called "Cities in the X electoral district" - that is not Wikipedia precedent. Please address the point. JRG (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • ("A minor electoral district is not comparable to a state." That would be a good argument to make in arguing that Victoria (Australia) should be de-disambiguated, but it's not terribly relevant here. My point was to show how silly your argument was. You've picked out one category among the entire nomination and based your argument around it. You want the categories to be addressed one-by-one, but you take the nomination as it comes, not as you'd like it to be. Anyway—the vast majority are inherently ambiguous, regardless of how "stupid" you find the parallel between a state and a district.) Since you are keen on having "the point" addressed, here it is: The speedy criterion (#6) says if the parent category is disambiguated the subcategories that refer to the same term may also be (speedily) renamed. This is the case regardless of whether or not the subcategory would be ambiguous on its own. You need to provide a more compelling argument as to why this convention should be overruled here. So far, all we have is "anti-Australian bias" and that the one category is not ambiguous, and that maybe there are others like this too. But—to repeat—the convention applies whether or not the category is ambiguous by itself, so we're left with "anti-Australian bias". So, it's really you that hasn't addressed "the issue". Give us a good reason the convention/precedent should not be applied here. The default position is that it is applied. In other words, what makes Victoria (Australia) so much more special than Georgia (U.S. state)? Are you aware of any other "Georgias" that have U.S. Highways in them? And yet the category is Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state), not Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia. If you disagree with the name of that category, then we've established that you disagree with the convention, so your efforts should be centred on changing the convention, not on its individual application, as here. If you agree with the name of that category, then you're implicitly approving of the proposed action. Hopefully this answer meets your high standards and won't be considered too stupid or biased against Australian things. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's no need to be so self-righteous. I don't care what the stupid policy says, I'm asking for some common sense to be applied. Is that not unreasonable? I say the precedent should not be applied because there are not going to be categories like cities in Victoria, or Parliaments in Victoria where it is not a subnational state. Rivers, lakes, images, well, yes, but not all of them. It's overkill just to apply them all. I'm not going to argue with you. You don't care about anything else anyone says and there's no point talking to a brick wall. Can I still ask that you remove Parliament of Victoria? It is its proper name. JRG (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think not renaming Category:Parliament of Victoria would be a wise choice at this time. So I'd request that the closer remove this from the other renames. It anyone wants to renominate this later for a separate discussion go ahead. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm certainly open to not renaming the Parliament one on the chance that this is an official name—as I stated in the nom, I excluded other ones that were "official names" of organizations, etc. I wasn't intending on being self-righteous, but perhaps if I was it can be expected when an editor throws out unsubstantiated accusations of anti-Australian bias and repeatedly refers to others' comments as "stupid". You may be sick and tired of others' opinions on WP, but it's not a reason to be uncivil. The fact that you don't care what the convention says pretty much answers the rest of the issues I brought up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is not accepted, can I ask that ALL other references to Victoria are similarly disambiguated to avoid regional bias? JRG (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where is there an example of another category that uses "Victoria" that is not already disambiguated? It seems to me it's being done for all uses except the Australian ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is this alleged 'non-Australian bias'? Georgia is clearly a good precedent. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment added after closure - I retract any allegations of non-Australian bias and accept the apology of Good Olfactory. Just thought I should note this. JRG (talk) 00:20, 13 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_5&oldid=1074801522"