Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 9 December 11 >

December 10[edit]

Category:Lines[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Fortification lines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lines to Category:Fort lines or Category:Lines of forts
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Lines is ambiguous. The category is for lines of forts. Rename to either of my suggestions, or something similar. No main article to match to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2009 (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:Jacks[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Jacks to Category:Jack flags or Category:Jacks (flag)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Jack is ambiguous; Jacks links directly to the game. There is no main article to match the name to (main article sectiton is here). I suggest either "Jack flags" or "Jacks (flag)", or something similar. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2009 (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.

In or on the Isle of Man[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. While I may not agree with using in here, that appears to be the consensus. What probably needs to happen is a talk page discussion on how to name categories that cover places and things on islands. That discussion is not going to be resolved here. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Towns on the Isle of Man to Category:Towns in the Isle of Man
Propose renaming Category:Villages on the Isle of Man to Category:Villages in the Isle of Man
Propose renaming Category:Communications on the Isle of Man to Category:Communications in the Isle of Man
Propose renaming Category:Transport on the Isle of Man to Category:Transport in the Isle of Man
Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions on the Isle of Man to Category:Visitor attractions in the Isle of Man
Propose renaming Category:Golf clubs and courses on the Isle of Man to Category:Golf clubs and courses in the Isle of Man
Propose renaming Category:Railway stations on the Isle of Man to Category:Railway stations in the Isle of Man
Nominator's rationale: Rename, for consistency within the Isle of Man category structure and per convention for categories of these types. I nominated these for renaming in the speedy section but questions were raised, so I've moved it here. These are the only Isle of Man categories that use "on the Isle of Man" when "in FOO" is the standard for other countries and locales. There are many other categories that already use "in the Isle of Man" when that is the convention, including Category:Settlements in the Isle of Man, which is a parent of the first two; Category:Buildings and structures in the Isle of Man; which is a parent of the last; Category:Public transport in the Isle of Man and Category:Ferry transport in the Isle of Man, which are subcategories of Category:Transport on the Isle of Man; Category:Sport in the Isle of Man, which is a parent of the golf clubs one; and others. A complete list follows. I do not think it's a good idea to mix-and-match "in" with "on" in this way. I don't see that there's anything special about the categories that currently use "on" that would suggest that we should make an exception for them. If we want to use "on" for all or most the Isle of Man categories, that could be understandable, but we'd need to change a bunch of the ones that currently use "in". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isle of Man categories that use "in the Isle of Man"
Copy of discussion at speedy renaming section
  • Support Renames I, for one, grew up "in" New York, but "on" Long Island. I do understand the distinction here, but "in" is the general standard, even if it leaves some awkwardly-named categories if applied globally. Either way, we should use one or the other. Alansohn (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames, for consistency. Technically, I think that "in the IOM" is best when referring to the jurisdiction, and "on the IOM" is best when refering to the geographical entity; but the grammatical infelicity of using "in the IOM" for geographical categories is a much less serious problem than inconsistencies across category series. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renames. Worth noting that, in theory at least, the articles could refer to items on the Calf of Man (even though it's too small top have many of them in reality). As such, it seems to refer to the entire jurisdiction, so "in" makes sense. In any case, the distinction is blurrier for large islands or ones which have some form of geopolitical identity - "in the Isle of Man" is no stranger than my location in the South Island of New Zealand - or than someone living in Tahiti or in Trinidad (none of which are, by themselves, full nations). Grutness...wha? 23:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to strong support. The government of the Isle of Man uses "in" throughout their website ([1]). As such, it seems to be the official local usage. Grutness...wha? 22:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer "on the Isle of Man", as we are speaking of a solitary island, and in keeping with the form used throughout Category:Isle of Wight, and more common within the text of just about all of the articles I checked. The distinction that BHG draws is common (contrast Category:Settlements in Hawaii by island with Category:Neighborhoods in Manhattan), but I'll grant that there are very few cases where both the geographic feature and the political jurisdiction are known as Isle of Foo.- choster 00:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse rename -- It should be the "in" categories that are renamed to "on". I expect that requires a new nomination. The appropriate preposition for an island is "on"; for a city or town it is "in". Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced that it's that clear cut. A google search gives 18 million hits for "in the isle of man" and 15 million hits for "on the isle of man". Since it's essentially a toss-up, we may as well use the Wikipedia standard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • See also my comment above about its use by the IoM legislature. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename per Grutness. Might as well go with the official version if we have to pick one. Jafeluv (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2010 (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:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs men's basketball[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. — ξxplicit 06:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs men's basketball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category now empty. Content had previously been two categories. One moved to a newly created category for LA Tech baseball; the other is at the proper category of Category:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs basketball. "Bulldogs" is used only for the school's men's sports; women's sports uses "Lady Techsters". Dale Arnett (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category is now redundant. Alansohn (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2009 (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:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs men's basketball seasons[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at the December 28 page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs men's basketball seasons to Category:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs basketball seasons
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Louisiana Tech is one of the relatively few schools where men's and women's athletic programs have radically different nicknames. "Bulldogs" is used solely to refer to men's sports; women's sports use "Lady Techsters". See also Louisiana Tech Bulldogs and Lady Techsters. Dale Arnett (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rename to match standard used in Category:College men's basketball teams seasons in the United States. While there are many unique nicknames, we gain little by having some include "men's" while others don't, especially as not all editors will know that the team has a unique nickname for some men's teams. Alansohn (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't "a unique nickname for some men's teams". ALL men's teams are "Bulldogs", and ALL women's teams are "Lady Techsters". — Dale Arnett (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand the confusion and offer the following explanation of my position here. We can have two approaches here for men's basketball teams: 1) only include the word "men's" when it's needed to distinguish between a women's team at the same college that shares the same nickname, or 2) always include "men's". I support option 2 as a general rule. Alansohn (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. Rename. I guess the "men's" is redundant, though I can see why including it for consistency could be desirable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2009 (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:Images of sports competitors[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 both. — ξxplicit 06:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Players of all types of football are grouped under Category:Footballers, and players of cricket are under Category:Cricketers; the children should follow. - choster 21:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2009 (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:Taxation by country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:National taxation articles to Category:Taxation by country. — ξxplicit 06:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Taxation by country to Category:National taxation articles
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The categories are redundant and should be merged clearly. The question is which is the right name. "National taxation articles" is probably more general and would account for situations like the Republic of China (Taiwan) which isn't recognized as a country by most other countries. Taxman Talk 14:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then where do you put the article on Taxation in Taiwan when it is created? - Taxman Talk 14:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Taxation by country as more standard name. Debresser (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • REverse merge as the last few people have said. Any category containing "articles" is questionably named. The format "foo by country" is well-recognised for categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2009 (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.

Belgian Navy categories[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. — ξxplicit 06:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Category:Belgian Naval Component to Category:Belgian Navy
Category:Ships of the Belgian Naval Component to Category:Ships of the Belgian Navy
Category:Frigates of the Belgian Naval Component to Category:Frigates of the Belgian Navy
Category:Mine warfare vessels of the Belgian Naval Component to Category:Mine warfare vessels of the Belgian Navy
Category:Minehunters of the Belgian Naval Component to Category:Minehunters of the Belgian Navy
Category:Minesweepers of the Belgian Naval Component to Category:Minesweepers of the Belgian Navy
Category:Patrol vessels of the Belgian Naval Component to Category:Patrol vessels of the Belgian Navy
Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Belgian Naval Component to Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Belgian Navy
Category:Tripartite class minehunters of the Belgian Naval Component to Category:Tripartite class minehunters of the Belgian Navy
Category:Algerine class minesweepers of the Belgian Naval Component to Category:Algerine class minesweepers of the Belgian Navy
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with main article, Belgian Navy, recently moved after discussion. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator. Surprised the article was under that name at all. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2009 (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:Musical Allusions in James Joyce's 'Ulysses'[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Musical Allusions in James Joyce's 'Ulysses' (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overly narrow categorization. Gilliam (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And it seems to be overfilled with extra-musical entries too: Hamlet? The Tempest? May be a case for a converting to an article list of cultural allusions in Ulysses (at risk of OR). AllyD (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – it is at times like this that we need Otto to list the various parts of OCAT of which this is in breach, and to remove non-allusions (I doubt if any of them qualifies as an allusion, musical or otherwise). Occuli (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, carpet-bomb with high-explosive, launch a nuclear attack on it. etc.
    Regardless of anything that is or is not said in WP:OCAT, this is stunningly bad form of categorisation-by-association. It doesn't matter how significant the allusions to other works are as a part of Ulysses, their significance in Ulysses is not by any stretch of the imagaination a defining characteristic of the works in this category. Letting this sort of category stand would provide a precdent for cluttering up all sorts of articles with categories denoting the fact that they get a mention in some work of fiction, and the resulting clutter would be a serious impediment to navigation. This is alreday covered WP:OCAT#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAT. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2009 (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:Racially motivated violence against First Nations people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated. I trust that users will continue to work on this area of categorization to resolve some of the issues raised. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Racially motivated violence against First Nations people to Category:Violence against Aboriginal women in Canada
Nominator's rationale: I just created Category:Violence against Aboriginal women in Canada. I made it a subcategory of the source category, which has just one entry at present, for Helen Betty Osborne. While the two categories have a lot of overlap they are not identical, of course. While doing Wiki work in this area I felt the violence against women angle was key, while metsfan obviously had a different idea. If the consensus is strongly in favor of a reverse merge, I could live with that, too. I just want to make sure we don't have a cluttered overcat situation here, based on what I just did. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions – are 'First Nations people' and 'Aboriginal people in Canada' the same thing; and how can 'general violence against women' be a subcat of 'a specific violence against people'? There seem to be several issues here, struggling for resolution. Occuli (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can certainly answer the first question: First Nations are one of three Aboriginal peoples in Canada, along with Inuit and Métis people (Canada). So yes, making my cat a subcat of Metsfan's is really problematic in that sense. All of the articles currently in the category probably refer to First Nations women at present but the problem of violence against Aboriginal women in Canada, which I believe is a defining grouping, would include Metis and Inuit victims, too. IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Approve: We should merg the two ..but like Shawn says Aboriginal covers all three groups...if at some point down the line the Category:Violence against Aboriginal women in Canada gets to big we can sub-divide it then..But as it looks now I believe "Aboriginal" should be the wording as we do not wish to exclude anyone or group; and having a Category for just one or two people does not make sense. AS for the comment by Occuli...I think all we can do is categorizes the best we can...and maybe they should fall into multiple cats...But Occuli is right that "Racially motivated violence against First Nations people" is subjective and should be retitled... As for WHY there is 3 groups in Canada is that "First nations" are the first inhabits...Then Inuit migrated to the North area long after First Nations had settled across the country..then we have the Metis That is a 17th century mix race. Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one more thing from me. The new category (mine) would seem to benefit from not advancing any assumptions about the "motivation" for this violence. All the articles in the category to date deal with violence against women; there's at least as much chance that the motivation is misogyny. So I do feel the source category name is a bit POV, in that it makes an assumption about the "motivation" for the violence. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, we need a super category Category:Violence against Aboriginal people in Canada which will have various subcats: Category:Violence against First Nations people, Category:Violence against Aboriginal women in Canada (neither of which includes the other). As for 'Racially motivated', there is Category:Racially motivated violence in the United States but nowhere else, although I seem to recall that there was arguably some in South Africa and indeed elsewhere. I would suggest renaming Category:Racially motivated violence against First Nations people to the more general Category:Violence against First Nations people. (Helen Betty Osborne would then need to be placed in some 'racism' category. 'Victims of racially motivated crimes' or similar, if such exists. As often the category system is a mess.) Occuli (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2009 (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/2009_December_10&oldid=1074801863"