Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 17 November 19 >

November 18[edit]

Category:Mixed martial artists from Georgia[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 Category:Mixed martial artists from Georgia to Category:Mixed martial artists from Georgia (U.S. state) per WP:SNOW, WP:IAR, etc, etc. --Xdamrtalk 23:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mixed martial artists from Georgia to Category:Mixed martial artists from Georgia (U.S. state)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Speedy rename criterion #6 was eliminated because 2 editors objected to it. Great: now this gets to come to a full nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename and make this a speedy again! Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename and make this a speedy again, speedily. Occuli (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename and "Speedy edit" to re-include this criterion. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with my fellow editors. Debresser (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename with speediness. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are MMA people being subdivided by the state where they are from, which is not necessarily the state where they actually compete? Are certain states special breeding grounds for mixed martial artists? In the case of this category, it has only one entry, whose article doesn't mention Georgia apart from it being his birthplace. postdlf (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to have been created by a user with limited experience in categories. Originally, he created Category:Mixed Martial Artists from SD and the like, so the fact that we've got correct capitalization and expansion of abbreviations is a big improvement! But I agree there is probably no need to subdivide... Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 22 November 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:Wines[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:
Firstly, WP:WINE are to be applauded for taking this area of the category tree in hand. A thankless task, without huge glory, but nonetheless important.
This voluminous debate can helpfully be reduced to two opposing positions. In the corner for retention we have WP:NCCAT#Special conventions. Per that guideline, these two categories are not in contradiction or in confusion - Wine generally should be in Category:Wine, individual wines should be in Category:Wines. For merger, the issue boils down to the argument that these singular/plural categories amount to unnecessary and confusing duplication. That the wine/wines distinction, though it may have a theoretical basis, is/was not observed in practice. Add to this the fact that there are relatively few articles on individual wines there is even less case for adhering to the WP:NCCAT#Special conventions guideline in this area.
Guidelines, while not policy, have a definite weight - they will not be lightly departed from. It has been difficult to judge this case, owing to the fact that the categories in question have been depopulated (in good faith, I hasten to add), however it is clear from the debate that the weight of numbers do not favour retaining the wine/wines distinction in this area. This, combined with my assessment of wp's coverage of 'wine' and 'wines', leads me to conclude that there is a strong case for setting aside the guideline. I also note that there is currently active discussion around the area of wine categorisation. This point tips the balance so far as I am concerned. I am prepared to grant considerable latitude to editors in an area where there is active and ongoing development. Editors opposed to the elimination of Category:Wines have an opportunity, should they wish, to involve themselves in shaping this scheme of categorisation. The door is not yet closed to there being an eventual category tree for 'Wines', but I would suggest that such arguments would, for the present, be most usefully made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Category tree or similar venue.
--Xdamrtalk 17:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Wines to Category:Wine
Suggest merging Category:Wines by country to Category:Wine by country
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination only, I have no opinion on the merits. I found these categories empty, with category:Wines marked for deletion at C:CSD, and it appears that they have been emptied outside of CFD and the contents merged into Category:Wine and Category:Wine by country respectively. Was this allowed and / or a good idea? As I think that community input would be a good idea, I bring it to CFD. Discuss. (I have notified the editor who seems to have emptied the category and the editor who contested the speedy deletion.) BencherliteTalk 20:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The Wine Project is currently in the midst of tackling our long neglected and messy category hierarchy which User:Tomas e has taken the lead on. Because of this previous neglect, we have a lot of duplicate categories created for the same set of articles. In the above examples we essentially have overlaps of both the plural and singular usage of "wine". I can tell there is no situation where an article would only qualify for one of the categories and not the other, so there is no reason to have this needless duplication. There should be no controversy here as it just simple clean up that has been long overdue. AgneCheese/Wine 21:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you discuss the fact that within the category structure categories like Category:Wines and Category:Wine are for containing two different types of material and are not always duplicates? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit that both categories' usage in the past has been schizophrenic and non-cohesive but that is, again, due to the long neglect and messy nature of wine categories. Until now, no one has tackled the issue of straightening them out, giving them order and consistent usage. That said, looking at it from a wine perspective, there is no reason while their usage should have ever been different and, thusly, no reason why we should continue having duplicate categories going forward. An individual wine (singular) is not different from wines (plural). There is no organizational benefit in having the wine Chateau Petrus in a different category hierarchy then other Bordeaux wines, etc. Again, looking at the category structure for wine articles, I can not see a valid example where the singular/plural distinction will need to be made in order to properly categorize wine articles. AgneCheese/Wine 22:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually...Chateau Petrus is a wine producer who makes a wine that is also named "Chateau Petrus". I think you just stumbled upon a great example of why having this needless plural/singular distinction can lead to a lot of useless confusion. There will never be a separate Chateau Petrus (wine) article that is distinguish from an article on the producer itself. It makes no sense to separate them. Neither does it make sense to have separate Category:Wines (plural) for "specific wines" since almost universally the articles are going to be on the producer and the Category:Wine (singular) they make. I'm not sure how much experience you have dealing with wine articles, but I can assure you that wine is a distinctly different beast than Opera. AgneCheese/Wine 01:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oui Keep per Occuli. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge useless duplicate cats Just to make my sentiments clear. This is simple housekeeping for the Wine Project, nothing more. As the Chateau Petrus example put forth by Occuli above shows, having duplicate categories create unneeded confusion. While Opera may needed separate categories for individual opera plays to distinguish them from the writers and play houses that produces them, there is simply not the same dichotomy with wine where the individual specific wines are almost universally discussed in the same article as the winery and estate that produces them. We will never have a separate article on the "specific wine" of the 2005 Quilceda Creek Columbia Valley Cabernet Sauvignon that got a rare 100 points from Robert Parker that would be a distinct article apart from the article on the producer Quilceda Creek Vintners. I say "almost universally" because there maybe exceptions but they will be just that, exceptions, and there is little logical sense to have essentially duplicate categories created for what may only be 2 to 5 articles out of thousands that won't need it. I understand the sentiments towards WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, but you can't apply cookie cutter logic to all topics-sometimes the categorization just doesn't make sense for the subject matter. AgneCheese/Wine 01:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both per nom. I can see the logic of the argument. I hope the reorganization has a long way to go, as a lot of the categories are very messy indeed. Most of the articles in the head cat of Category:Wine styles don't belong, & a better term is needed for "regions" that are just villages like Pauillac (3,000 acres of vines) etc. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment – it is difficult to discuss the merits of organising Category:Italian wine with a subcat Category:Italian wines (for individual wines) when the latter has been demolished recently by out-of-process edits. To judge from comments here and elsewhere there might be a good case for renaming Category:Italian wines to Category:Italian wine varieties. As it is there are various subcats such as 'wines of Apulia' which are adrift. Occuli (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Varieties" implies grape varieties in wine, which in Italy tend to be mixed in complicated groups in most traditional types of wine. The project's argument that we in fact, and rightly, have very few articles on "individual wines", strictly defined, seems a good one to me. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod is correct in that "varieties" is completely wrong terminology to use. And again, why are are you arguing for a useless category for "individual wines" when there are not going to be separate articles on them? You are arguing for a category to be kept for an article for things like the 1998 Ornellaia that won Wine Spectator's wine of the year award in 2001. This is a very notable "individual wine" but we're never going to have a separate article on the wine apart from the article on the winery Ornellaia. AgneCheese/Wine 15:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do note that Occuli hasn't explained why he wants to keeps useless categories for individual wines that are not going to have separate articles apart the main winery articles. Perhaps you could better defend this position? AgneCheese/Wine 15:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wines was created in 2004 so it has been found useful for 5 years (and useless for about 7 days). Johnbod found it useful in the previous discussion. It has been emptied without any regard for due process. "Ostuni Ottavianello is an Italian red wine from the Province of Brindisi in Puglia" - why then cannot it be categorised within 'Category:Italian wines' in line with everywhere else in Wikipedia where the statement 'X is a foo' entitles one without any controversy or specialist knowledge to add 'Category:Foos' to the article? Italian wikipedia has it:Categoria:Vino and subcat it:Categoria:Vini - I know no Italian but expect one is singular and the other plural. Category:Wine is a topic category, Category:Wines is a list category, per the usual convention. Occuli (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wine categories have been an utter and complete mess since at least 2004. That is simply because no one has taken the time to fix them. If an old car has had a cracked windshield for 6 years, it doesn't mean that having a cracked windshield was useful. Also, you are again incorrect in distinguishing among specific wines and wine designations. Ostuni Ottavianello is a DOC designation that should be categorized in Category:Italian DOCs under the parent cat of Category:Italian wine. It is not an "individual specific wine" like the opera Prisoner of the Caucasus (opera) is an individual specific opera and should not be categorized as such. An individual specific wine would be the 2002 Primi Piatti Ostuni Rosso which, while tasty, is probably not notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. AgneCheese/Wine 18:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian categories are too much of a mess to take as a model! "Vino" contains 'Dom Pérignon (vino)' and 'Prosecco di Valdobbiadene e Conegliano', while "Vini" contains the sub-cat "Categoria:Da fare - vini" - ie winemaking, and in the head cat 'Sommelier', 'Tastevin' (little silver object), 'Syrah' (a grape), 'Strade del vino' (wine road) etc. Only 8 articles in "Categoria:Vini francesi" (French wines), I'm amused to see. The French WP has only categories for "Vin", and the Germans only for "Weinbau". Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both as per nom. Duplication leads to unnecessary confusion. Cleanup is urgently required. --BodegasAmbite (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly how are they duplicates if they should contain and categorize different articles? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it strikes me, as an obvious example, that the grape variety Nebbiolo (known in Valchiavenna and particularly in Valtellina as Chiavennasca) should certainly be filed under some sort of Italian wine category. But it is not an Italian wine like those (Barolo, Barbaresco, Gattinara (wine), etc) which are made from it and should not fall within the identical category. Nor (as johnbod implies above) would it make much sense to have those individual and distinctly notable wines merely as subcats of Category:Italian-wine-thingy-articles->Italian grape varieties->Nebbiolo. My feeling is that Category:Italian wine should include rather broad articles on the history, economics, etc. of winemaking in Italy, notable characters who produced ampelographies, or introduced transalpine techniques of vine pruning or barrelling into Piedmont, etc., and that its subcats should include the wines (not all EU-styled DOCGs DOCs and IGTs, but also earlier ones) and the native and traditional grape varieties. In short: it seems to me that the opera/operas analogy is not impertinent. Ian Spackman (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is saying that there should not be a category for Italian grape varieties. The trouble is that, as the project have discovered, and perhaps less so in Italy than most places, "wines" tend in fact to be either wine areas (of whatever size) as usually in France and almost entirely in Germany, and also on another level very often wine producers, as in Bordeaux chateaux & American or Australian wineries. On a strict interpretation, only two bottles of the same type of wine from the same producer and the same year are the same wine, not just any two bottles of say chianti. And we have very few articles on "wines" so defined, but loads on area-defined types of wine and producers. Having a tree of Category:Wine by country leaves open the possibility, already partly in place, of national sub-cats for grapes, legally denominated areas (a.c., d.o.c. etc) & other types of article. Keeping "wine" and "wines" apart at the top levels makes this harder, or more complicated. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as per nominator. If one was to use the test of whether an "ordinary, reasonable person" would understand the logic of some of the justifications put forward for keeping the categories — one would be inclined, most probably, to say "no". There is no way that having the confusing existing categories in any way 'educates', or improves the understanding of the reader. --Pkravchenko (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily think it is their logic that is faulty but rather it looks like some of the Keep voters are having difficulties distinguishing what is the difference between "individual specific wines" (which Occuli and other are advocating these categories be kept for) and wine regions, quality level designations and wine producers. I can't fault people for being confused since wine is not like root beer and is such a complex and in depth subject. But I do have to ask, if you don't understand the difference between a wine, region, quality level designation and producer-are you really in the best position to know how to properly categorize them? AgneCheese/Wine 18:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One might alternatively ask if people who manifestly have not grasped the essentials of categories should be taking chainsaws to whole trees (set up presumably by fellow wine-buffs rather than by the ignorant beer-quaffers who frequent cfd), by-passing the cfd process set up for this purpose (and canvassing to boot, although I see that the infallible Cgingold has now been notified 24 hrs later, but he unfortunately has withdrawn from cfd debates). Category:American wines (8 P), Category:Australian wines (25 P), Category:Austrian wines (21 P), Category:Bulgarian wines (3 P), Category:Canadian wines (1 C), Category:Croatian wines (8 P), Category:French wines (193 P), Category:German wines (18 P), Category:Greek wines (8 P), Category:Hungarian wines (18 P), Category:Italian wines (7 C, 47 P), Category:Macedonian wines (4 P), Category:Portuguese wines (1 C, 19 P), Category:Romanian wines (5 P), Category:Serbian wines (1 P), Category:Slovak wines (2 P), Category:Slovenian wines (5 P), Category:South African wines (7 P), Category:Spanish wines (1 C, 20 P), Category:Turkish wines (5 P) have all been emptied and deleted out of process since 11 Nov, and their articles dispersed from a specific list-category to a general topic-category where they are mixed up with various wine-related articles about things which are not potable. Some evidence of contrition would be appropriate. These categories should all be restored so that a proper debate can be held. Eg why is Noilly Prat now jostling uncomfortably with various classifications and diseases rather than sitting in a list category accompanied by the likes of Anjou wine (which is categorised mysteriously as a region, in Category:Wine regions of France - an absurd collection mostly of non-regions, Corsica wine having been converted by a simple tweak from a French wine to a region). These are risible changes. Occuli (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noilly Prat, is a vermouth, made with wine, but not wine itself. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As noted before, the categorization of wine articles are a complete and utter mess which is why the Wine Project is attempting to clean house and bring some semblance of consistency to the structure. Though in the midst of the Wine Project trying to clean up this mess, you cried foul so efforts have essentially stopped and are in that "half-ass" stage of things. We would certainly like to get back on track and continue cleaning up this mess! All of the categories that were emptied were ones that simply did not belong on the articles they were attached to. And YES! Anjou wine and Corsica wine are both Category:Wine regions of France. They are regional overview articles. They are not "individual specific wines" and such shouldn't be categorized under Category:French wines as if they were. This seems to be your fundamental flaw in that you are not bothering to take the time to learn what is the difference between specific wines, regions and quality classifications. The type of "individual specific wines" that should go in categories like Category:French wines would be things like 2005 Domaine Jo Pithon Anjou Les Pepinieres or Domaine Maestracci Vin de Corse Blanc de Blancs. HOWEVER, the chances of those articles being created in the future are very slim. We are more likely to create articles on the producers themselves--and producers are not "French wines" either. Since we are not going to have articles on "individual specific French wines"-why do we need a Category:French wines? And why, OH WHY, would we want to put articles on wine regions, producers or quality level designations in such a category? Please answer that simple question. AgneCheese/Wine 21:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that black and white. The definition of "wines", like "regions" is subjective, and could be treated in various ways. Personally I can accept the definition of "wines" you are currently using, but "regions" remain in a mess. The term should not be used for village-type areas, as mentioned above. It would help if a planned overall scheme could be pointed to by the project. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the project is in the midst of drafting such a planned overall scheme at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Category tree. And yes, we will certainly be getting to sorting the wine region categorization out as soon as we are allowed to continuing cleaning up this categorization mess. This CfD, and the efforts of Occuli in consistently re-adding incorrect cats (while this CfD is running no less!) has obviously hindered the Wine Project. Everything is in a sort of "half ass" stage right now until this is settled. AgneCheese/Wine 16:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note Occuli's behavior of continually adding disputed cats [1] [2] [3] to categories and articles while this CfD is going on. Putting aside the fact that these cats are inappropriate and incorrect (as Occuli has repeatedly been informed of), I would think most people would agree such behavior is uncalled for. Other editors have expressed concerns about the bureaucracy of CfD, but I would have thought that a group so keen on following policy and process would at least wait till the CfD is done before the acted with such blatant disregard for any other viewpoint but their own. AgneCheese/Wine 17:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Occuli is right to re-add it. The category concerned is under discussion for merger here, and people need to see as much as possible the old structure before deciding whether to remove it. If the nomination succeeds that cat will drop away. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point. But I think it would be more fruitful for Occuli to present his examples here-give a cat and a list of 2 to 5 articles that he believes would be appropriate to include in that cat and explain why. Right now, going around adding cats just enhances the "half ass" look and feel of the wine categories which I don't think helps either side, really. AgneCheese/Wine 17:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (and delete wines). For the semantic distinction, and several practical reasons, this merge is a good idea and ought to be followed through by similar needed fixes so a sound, all-round structure may be achieved. None of the arguments to keep "wines" are compelling, and inherently reveal that the overdue cleanup should proceed. MURGH disc. 12:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete the plural cats. This sort of categorization introduces unnecessarily confusing distinctions. older ≠ wiser 21:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No point to argue since everyone seams to agree that the policy WP:NCCAT applies.
This means that individual specific wines should go into the wines category and other stuff goes into the wine category, as have been shown numerous times above most articles that are in the wines category is wrongly placed and they should be moved to the correct category, IF there is anything left in the wines category when it have been checked we can keep it!! But since that is very unlikely and none of the keep votes have been able to show a SINGLE example that actually fits in the wines category it will probably be deleted in due course. Oviously this will be a non consensus closure, but that does not matter since there is no disagrement, just drama and not knowing the topic. --Stefan talk 02:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There really isn't much need for a "wines" category, the articles in question are all about concepts,regions, and producers of wines rather than individual wines themselves. Unless it can be shown that there is a need for a category for these specific wines themselves, I think the categories should be merged, and the plural be removed. The Bethling(Talk) 18:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This argument is ridiculous. Merge the duplicate forms, fix the affected articles accordingly, and be done with it. I agree, there is no need for many of the plural categories. The "keep" proponents have a logical view about categories in general, but in the case of wines, this view is irrelevant if there are no examples of articles to fit that view. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Occuli. As noted, there are many examples of Foo (about foo) and Foos (specific foos). --Kbdank71 17:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is denying those examples. However, the parallel of Foos for individual specific wines are articles like 2005 Quilceda Creek Columbia Valley Cabernet Sauvignon that very rarely exist. Instead of being applied to articles on individual specific wines the Wine Foos were being applied to articles on producers, wine regions and quality designation, so the Wine Project removed the inappropriate cat. This, of course, lead to the Wine Foos cats being emptied since (again) articles on individual specific wines very rarely exist. So why keep a Foos category when the chances of Wine Foos articles are exceedingly rare? As noted by several editors, none of the "Keep" people have been able to provide that justification much less provide examples of articles where the Wine Foos cats would be appropriate. AgneCheese/Wine 18:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Wines is not merely for 'individual specific wines' (where did this wretched phrase come from?), but for any article about 'a wine' rather than about wine in general. (I was wondering when the year would be tossed in. We'll be hearing about 'south-facing slopes' soon.) Look at the exemplary Category:Bridges - there are articles on various sorts of bridges at the top, and deeper down articles on individual bridges. The wine lobby have not been able to provide any justification for dismantling the usual category set-up; if their views prevail there should be links to the Italian and Portuguese wikis which have nicely set up categories for vini and vinhos, for readers who prefer their wines to be categorised properly. (Eg it:Categoria:Vini del Chianti is much more useful than anything in the mess that is now Category:Wine.) Occuli (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no ambiguitity about what a singular "bridge" is. All the arguments you want have been given above, and at the linked discussions. It has also been pointed out that the French and German WPs do not have categories with these distinctions - frankly rather stronger models. Just because categories can be arranged one way does not mean that all should be. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note From my point of view there is no problem having wines in the wine category. The problem occurs when the reverse is done, and "things to do with foo" are put in the "foos" category - so for example digging down the "cities towns and villages of Foo" you end up with articles on people associated with Bar, a village of Foo. Glancing at the category structure this seems to not be a problem with this hierarchy. Rich Farmbrough, 06:23, 3 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:Georgia Institute of Technology athletes[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:Georgia Institute of Technology athletes to Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets athletes. --Xdamrtalk 23:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Georgia Institute of Technology athletes to Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets athletes
Nominator's rationale: convention for naming university athletes (ie. sportspeople) for American universities is by that (school's sports) team's nickname - see subcategories of Category:Intercollegiate athletes in the United States by team Mayumashu (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • question: Is it standard to call college sportspeople "athletes"? Elsewhere in the categorization system, "athletes" means people who participate in athletics, i.e., track and field. I realise American usage is somewhat different, but why not call these "FOO sportspeople" to lessen the confusion for non-U.S. readers? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been and is acceptable, I argue, as the supracategory pages say explicity that the pages listed refer just to those for American 'colleges', eg. Category:Intercollegiate athletes in the United States. Without the 'in the United States' athletes should be changed to sportspeople and intercollegiate, interuniversity, but with in spelled out in the name, I, for one, think 'athlete' is the more appropriate term. Renaming these to sportspeople would mean Category:English footballers should be Category:English football (soccer) players too. I think where a cat applies exclusively to one place, then language use of that place is preferable. We have football (soccer) now only for those places that use both - Australia, South Africa and N.Z., Japan, and likely South Korea should also be thus renamed. (I would prefer Category:Canadian (ice) hockey players to what we have now actually too, to be consistent, but don t seeing pursuing that as necessary, at least for now) Mayumashu (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I see now that you seem to be in favour of using one naming for all and not going with local usage, GOF. (the discussion to change football (soccer) in London to football in London or association football in London). That it is a minority view does not bears much upon the actual appropriateness of it, but it would be a lot of work to realise. I am sympathetic - I (would) like for there to be a universal agreed upon form - but do not see the work involved to realise this change as being worth it at this point. Mayumashu (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If this is how it's done right now I'm willing to support the rename for now for the sake of consistency. I don't particularly like it though and don't think it's a good idea in general. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:13, 24 November 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:Mutualism[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.

Relisted for further discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_26#Category:Mutualism. --Xdamrtalk 23:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mutualism to Category:Mutualism (movement)
Nominator's rationale: In line with the article (to be created) and to not confuse it with Mutualism multichill (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the moment. I agree that something has to be done to move away from the biological term, but this seems premature as the related article does not yet exist, so the respective roles of the several possible categories are unclear. In particular, is Mutualism (movement) proposed to be distinct from Mutualism (economic theory)? Which name should ultimately contain historical and contemporary Proudhonist movements and which should contain historical insurers and contemporary LETS schemes etc? (Depending on proposed content, it may be better to avoid the "-ism (foo)" and opt for "-ist foos" in the article/category naming?) AllyD (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The parent article should be established first. This category collects together a group largely of weak and stub class articles that collectively with this category constitute original research. I have little doubt that this is a worthy subject, and a categorisable subject, but we need to building this encyclopedia starting with good sources first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 21 November 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:Maritime museums and museum ships in Ireland[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:

Merge:

Rename:

--Xdamrtalk 19:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is only one article (i.e. Dunbrody (2001)) for this category and for its parent category (see below) and they both have the wrong name. There is Category:Museums in the Republic of Ireland, which I have already assigned to the article, and all its subcategories follow this naming. However I find that two categories (even properly named) for just one article are not useful. Hoverfish Talk 06:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Transport museums in Ireland - This is its parent category that I also propose for deletion for the same reason. Hoverfish Talk 06:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In view of the developments of this discussion, I have removed my nomination for this category. Hoverfish Talk 00:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded nomination, as suggested by Vegaswikian

Propose splitting:

Category:Maritime museums and museum ships by country into Category:Maritime museums by country and Category:Museum ships by country
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Greece into Category:Maritime museums in Greece and Category:Museum ships in Greece
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in India into Category:Maritime museums in India and Category:Museum ships in India

Propose renaming:

Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Germany to Category:Museum ships in Germany (currently a category redirect; all members are museum ships)
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Japan to Category:Maritime museums in Japan (all member are maritime museums)
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in the Netherlands to Category:Maritime museums in the Netherlands (all member are maritime museums)
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in South Africa to Category:Maritime museums in South Africa (all member are maritime museums)
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in the United States to Category:Maritime museums in the United States and reparent Category:Museum ships in the United States and all of its subcategories (if necessary?)
List of 36 more categories

Propose deletion (these three contain only the respective "Category:Museums ships in [state]"):

Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Illinois
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Louisiana
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Oklahoma

Propose renaming:

Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Alabama to Category:Maritime museums in Alabama
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Arkansas to Category:Maritime museums in Arkansas
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in California to Category:Maritime museums in California
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Connecticut to Category:Maritime museums in Connecticut
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Florida to Category:Maritime museums in Florida
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Maritime museums in Georgia (U.S. state)
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Hawaii to Category:Maritime museums in Hawaii
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Indiana to Category:Maritime museums in Indiana
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Iowa to Category:Maritime museums in Iowa
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Maine to Category:Maritime museums in Maine
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Maryland to Category:Maritime museums in Maryland
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Massachusetts to Category:Maritime museums in Massachusetts
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Michigan to Category:Maritime museums in Michigan
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Minnesota to Category:Maritime museums in Minnesota
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Mississippi to Category:Maritime museums in Mississippi
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Missouri to Category:Maritime museums in Missouri
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Nebraska to Category:Maritime museums in Nebraska
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in New Hampshire to Category:Maritime museums in New Hampshire
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in New Jersey to Category:Maritime museums in New Jersey
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in New York to Category:Maritime museums in New York
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in North Carolina to Category:Maritime museums in North Carolina
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Ohio to Category:Maritime museums in Ohio
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Oregon to Category:Maritime museums in Oregon
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Pennsylvania to Category:Maritime museums in Pennsylvania
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Rhode Island to Category:Maritime museums in Rhode Island
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in South Carolina to Category:Maritime museums in South Carolina
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Tennessee to Category:Maritime museums in Tennessee
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Texas to Category:Maritime museums in Texas
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Vermont to Category:Maritime museums in Vermont
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Virginia to Category:Maritime museums in Virginia
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Washington (U.S. state) to Category:Maritime museums in Washington (U.S. state)
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Washington, D.C. to Category:Maritime museums in Washington, D.C.
Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Wisconsin to Category:Maritime museums in Wisconsin

Comment - After the above nomination I did find a National Transport Museum of Ireland and a National Maritime Museum of Ireland under Category:History museums in the Republic of Ireland and Category:Museums in County Dublin. Even so, I don't find them enough to justify renaming the above categories instead of deleting them. Hoverfish Talk 06:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is one in Killybegs in Donegal (Maritime) if anyone has a little material to write an article, the Maritime and Heratige Center Killybegs. ~ R.T.G 21:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is one in a ship in Wexford, Wexford Maritime Museum, Kilmore Quay, Wexford. One in Duncannon, Duncannon fort. The Maritime Institute of Ireland has one in Dun Laoghaire called The Mariners' Church. The Titanic signature project is one in construction at the Titanic Quarter, Belfast (it's like Dubai or something [4]). There is a Albert Dock Maritime Museum which is in Liverpool but is a memorial of The Great Famine. For Waterford, Limerick and Cork city I can't find anything. They are incorporated I guess. ~ R.T.G 22:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment other than the United States, which country has 'museum ships'? All I can find in looking around seem to just be 'maritime museums' Hmains (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many countries have museum ships, though not all may currently have articles on WP or be properly categorized. (I suspect that there are more than quite a few in other countries that have been just dumped into Category:Museum ships.) But for one example, take a look at Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Germany: all the members of that category are museum ships. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see I did not read enough facts. Something I share with an unfortunate number of the editors making comments on this nominiation. Hmains (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps an Irish museum ship has slipped my mind, but I can only recall the Guillemot - and it does not have an article (yet). I fail to see the point of a category for one red-link. ClemMcGann (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Common sense would seem to dictate that if the split of any "Maritime museums and museum ships of [place]" resulted in what would be an empty category—as you suggest is the case for Ireland—that such an empty category would not be created in the first place. But should any empty category be created, a {{db-c1}} tag can be placed on it for speedy deletion. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, depending on the scope of the Irish category/ies—the island of Ireland or just the Republic of Ireland—SS Nomadic and possibly HMS Caroline (1914), both located in Belfast and included in List of museum ships, might fit. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • My understanding is that SS Nomadic and HMS Caroline (1914) are being preserved as heritage ships but will not actualy house a museum and therefore would not qualify as a member of category "museum ship" - or am I mistaken? ClemMcGann (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see a museum ship as being a ship that's no longer in active service and on display—whether on land or afloat; whether open for tours or only available for external viewing. I'm not from the UK, so I'm not entirely clear on the exact meaning of "heritage ship", but would guess that it would be essentially the same as my definition of a museum ship. I don't think that museum ship means only vessels that house a museum. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming this category worldwide, without more discussion. Changing Museum cats should involve discussion at WP:Museums as well. Several of us are normalizing these categories across the US. As far as splitting out the museums and ships from the combined category, they are usually so closely tied together it makes sense to keep them as one cat. dm (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Michigan is an example of what this looks like when we're done splitting it out. I believe we should follow this pattern. dm (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are not all six articles maritime museums? Museum ships is already separate. The result of the split would simply have Lighthouse museum, Museum ships and Maritime museums as subcategories of Transport museums. At least this is how I understand it and it seems quite a logical and practical categorization. I don't quite understand where you see a possible problem. Also I was doing this normalizing work for WP Museums when I nominated the Irish category (which has been bypassed). Hoverfish Talk 19:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or are you suggesting that Lighthouse museums and Museum ships should become subcategories of Maritime Museums? Hoverfish Talk 20:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not speaking for dm However I am of the opinion that there are few museum ships and less lighthouse museums (and a lightvessel museum). There being so few, they don't merit a category. I suggest that they are all maritime museums ClemMcGann (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that as we subcategorize by location we end up having very few items for each specific category, but then if we were to mix them all, it would be very hard to find ALL Museum ships or ALL Lighthouse museums in one place. And this is an important consideration. Hoverfish Talk 22:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that WP:OC#SMALL, referenced above by Occuli and BrownHairedGirl, addresses this issue. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel that museums ships and lighthouse museums are subcats of maritime museums. There are 28 museums ships in California and even inland states have a fair number of "river museums", submarines in Chicago, etc. dm (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the instigator, if you will, of the expanded nom, I have no problem whatsoever with "Museum ships of Foo" being a subcat of "Maritime museums of Foo". It seems silly, though, to have a "A and B of Foo" and then have a separate "B of Foo" in the same category. If consensus is that "B" is a type of "A", then "B" doesn't need to be listed in the parent category's title. We don't have Category:American scientists and physicists as a parent of Category:American physicists, for example (no disparagement of physicists intended). — Bellhalla (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I was trying to say. Whatever is decided about Ireland, or WP:OC#SMALL, "A and B of Foo" categories need to go. I don't believe there's a precedent for category names like that. Katr67 (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone agrees that Museum ships are subcategory of Maritime museums, then what we are talking about is simply renaming Category:Maritime museums and museum ships to Category:Maritime museums along with all their subcategories. Any ship articles that were too few to justify a category will continue to be under the renamed category, and all that were ship subcategories will continue to be subcategories. Hoverfish Talk 21:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK by me ClemMcGann (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the Category:Museum ships category tree is ready to handle any name change or no name change in the martime category names. Hmains (talk) 21:15, 26 November 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:PRC films[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 Category:PRC films to Category:Producers Releasing Corporation films. --Xdamrtalk 20:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:PRC films to Category:Producers Releasing Corporation films
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest expanding abbreviation to match main article Producers Releasing Corporation. These are not films about or from the People's Republic of China. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article and avoid the obvious possibility for confusion mentioned in the nom. --RL0919 (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 14:31, 19 November 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:ASA films[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 Category:ASA films to Category:ASA Filmudlejning films. --Xdamrtalk 20:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ASA films to Category:ASA Filmudlejning films
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article ASA Filmudlejning. These are not films about Aspirin. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:01, 18 November 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.

Murdered children[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 rename per nom - WP:CSD#C2 No.4. --Xdamrtalk 23:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:New Zealand murdered children to Category:Murdered New Zealand children
Propose renaming Category:British murdered children to Category:Murdered British children
Propose renaming Category:Scottish murdered children to Category:Murdered Scottish children
Propose renaming Category:English murdered children to Category:Murdered English children
Nominator's rationale: Rename. All other nationality subcategories of Category:Murdered children phrase the categories "Murdered Fooian children". Suggest renaming these for consistency. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, for consistency. Consistency in the format of category names helps editors to add articles to appropriate categories, and helps readers to find the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, for consistency. It should be "Murdered Fooian children". Occuli (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, for clarity; currently it is unclear what "New Zealand" or "British" are modifying—the nationality of the murderer? (and rename for consistency too.) postdlf (talk) 13:12, 21 November 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:Mark Haddon[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 10:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mark Haddon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category has exactly 1 article, Mark Haddon (so it isn't quite a C1), and that article is also a member of the parent Category:English children's writers. Haddon is the only author in that category to have his own eponymous sub-category. RL0919 (talk) 03:29, 18 November 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:Failed assassins of Hitler[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 Category:Failed assassins of Hitler to Category:Failed assassins of Adolf Hitler. --Xdamrtalk 20:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Failed assassins of Hitler to Category:Failed assassins of Adolf Hitler
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Include full name per main article Adolf Hitler and Category:Adolf Hitler. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 18 November 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:Cha Cha Cha films[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 Category:Cha Cha Cha films to Category:Cha Cha Cha Films films. --Xdamrtalk 23:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cha Cha Cha films to Category:Cha Cha Cha Films films
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Cha Cha Cha Films. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Normally I would support a rename to match the main article, but "Films films" gives me pause. I wonder if this deserves an exception. --RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Films by Cha Cha Cha Films or a like name. "Films films" is confusing. It is better to give it a good name and risk it will be speedied (#4) to a bad name than to give it a bad name straight-away. I would be fine with them all being changed to "Films by Foo" if others feel that having one standard rule is important. Carlaude:Talk 05:48, 19 November 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_November_18&oldid=1144513685"