Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 26 November 28 >

November 27[edit]

Category:Tank albums[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:Tank albums to Category:Tank (American singer) albums. --Xdamrtalk 16:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tank albums to Category:Tank (American singer) albums
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, Tank (American singer), and disambiguate from Category:Tank (Taiwanese singer) albums. — ξxplicit 21:23, 27 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.

Super Bowl cities[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 both. — ξxplicit 02:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the Super Bowl having been held in twelve cities, all clearly laid out at Super Bowl and List of Super Bowl champions, I see no need for small individual categories like these. Reywas92Talk 20:55, 27 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:Scottish surnames[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. — ξxplicit 02:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Scottish surnames to Category:Surnames of Scottish origin
Nominator's rationale: to indicate better that what is meant is not that the surnames are used in present-day Scotland, or that they are ones that have been used by Scots of anytime, but are ones whose origin is Scottish (ie. of Scotland) Mayumashu (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Unnecessary. At Wikipedia we use the most commonly used terms. "Surnames of Scottish origin" is not a commonly used term while "Scottish surnames" is a very well understood and widely used term for this subject. Badagnani (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As Badagnani says above. Reliable Sources all use the term "Scottish surnames", rather than the invented term proposed here. We use existing language; we don't make it up. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Does "Scottish surnames" mean surnames that originated in Scotland; or "surnames which are found in Scotland"? There's a difference. Wouldn't it be better to make things as clear as possible? For example, in 1991, Patel was the 24th most common surname in England/Wales [1]. Patel is an Indian name, and i assume has a recent arrival to England/Wales. I'm not sure it'd qualify as being a "Surname of English origin"; but it is obviously an "English surname" as shown by the census figures. I think we need more specific categories.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is based on the principle of WP:RS, and prohibits WP:OR. If, and only if, you can give us a reliable source which characterises Patel as an "English surname" can we accept your "obviously". You may not like the established nomenclature, but that's what we are, rightly, obliged to use. The wikipedia community is not organised in such a way as to allow it to develop new naming schemes, and any attempt to do so will just result in an unholy mess. It's not a question of what "I think we need"; we've got to use what's there. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know man, i get the point. Define what the category means, what is supposed to go in it. Define "Scottish surname" and "English surname". Because the term can seem mean several different things. If it doesn't mean common names in England and Scotland, then what does it mean?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as we're concerned, it means names given in books called "Scottish surnames", of which there is no shortage. In fact, this does correspond to names of Scottish origin. People have been using those words with that meaning for well over a century at least. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Citing sources goes a little deeper than parroting book titles. We need to know what those books actually say within the pages. How do they define "English surname". Common sense says "English surnames" is a catchier title than "Surnames originating in England", and a better title for a book. "English surnames" can mean so many different things. It can mean names originating within the border of England; names used in the country of England today or at some point in history; names currently used in the English language; and names that actually originate from the English language. Neither of these things means the same thing. Some names may have all of these characteristics, some only a few, some only one. A category isn't much help when no one knows what it actually represents, or what is supposed to go in it. Can you see my point?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I haven't been "parroting book titles" as you so charmingly put it. I've been talking about books I've read and in many cases own. You say "We need to know what those books actually say within the pages." No, you need to know; I already do. For example I've just been re-reading the Introduction (40 pages) to P. H. Reaney (revised by R. M.Wilson) (1997). A Dictionary of English Surnames (revised edition). Oxford University Press.. If you haven't read this or some corresponding text, perhaps you should, and leave off from pontificating in wikipedia until after you've done so. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Without getting hysterical, define "English surename". I propose it means something more than only appearing a book titled "English surnames". Does it have to do with the geography of England, the English language, or the English people. Or does it mean something else, the history of England maybe? Can you answer my question and please comment? It's been shown that the term can seem to mean multiple things. Someone has proposed to make this category more specific, so there is no confusion. IMO this is not something to take personally, but something to think about and comment on.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I take your opening words "Without getting hysterical" as an indirect apology for your rudeness. If that's your intention, I'm glad to accept it. The only way I'd wish to define "English surname" for wikipedia is as anything which is described as an English surname in a reliable source on the subject. I'd be happy to describe it further, as a non-baptismal hereditary name formed in England, typically in the "surname period" which was about 1200 to 1400. It would be ideal if there were wikipedia articles on English/Scottish surnames to which we could make reference, but unforunately there aren't, and the general state of the articles in this area is pretty lamentable. I'd have no objection to adding explanatory material into the category heading, but the proposed name change would merely compound the confusion, and not solve any problem at all. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think that you've summed up what most people would equate to "Surnames of English origin" - 'they originated as surnames in England'. It doesn't seem like we'd be guilty of 'original research' if we renamed this cat. If this is really what we intend to put inside this cat, why not rename it to reflect that? Anyways, i'm repeating myself. Whatever the outcome of all of this, i agree that it'd be a help if we had an explanation and some sort of criteria for inclusion.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the so-called establish nomenclature was not overly ambiguous and not problematic then why was Category:English surnames, this category, and others similarly named deleted according to users following WP policy? Several users deemed the naming problematic, that is why. WP:Categorisation says nothing of being obliged to used common nomenclature. These category pages serve not those users who are used to the common nomenclature, ones used to knowing what is meant despite the actual semantics of the terminology used in the naming, but those who are not used to it and take it for it strictly says. And what this says, as User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh says, is either or both 'surnames found in Scotland' and/or 'surnames of Scottish origin', which is not what is intended. The established practice at WP:Cats for discussion is to rename cat pages that are ambiguously named, and this page is a prime example of this kind of occurrence. Mayumashu (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I see no objection in principle to a category of this kind, provided it is about names of indicating that a person is ultimately of Scottish paternal ancestry, including Stuart, Campbell, McTavish, but not White, Smith, Johnson, etc. which are not specifically Scottish. The scope of the category must be defined in a head note. No view on the rename suggestion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that SamuelTheGhost has said that any name actually found in a book titled "English surnames" goes in the category "English surnames". So he would have Campbell, Mactavish, Stuart in this category, since they covered in English Surnames by PH Reaney. What does "English surname" and "Scottish surname" mean?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say that. I made a corresponding statement about Scottish surnames, which is a less ambiguous case. The book by P H Reaney referred to originally had the title A Dictionary of British Surnames, whereas the latest edition is A Dictionary of English Surnames. This is explained in the Preface with the words "As a rule, Scottish, Welsh and Irish names are only included when forms are found for them in English sources, or when they coincide in form with specifically English surnames". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rename as current title is rather standard terminology. Alansohn (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Oppose split. Scottish surnames is fine by me, no-one would expect to find names that clearly originate elsewhere in that cat. To create a second category alongside the current one would be a ludicrous fork which will make maintenance impossible. Sussexonian (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No other category in Category:Surnames by culture is named like that. Debresser (talk) 02:26, 1 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:Amiga Internet Relay Chat clients[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 02:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Amiga Internet Relay Chat clients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Small category that isn't likely to grow. Currently has three articles, only one of which is actually native software for the legacy Amiga. This one article will easily be found in either of the category intersections of Amiga software and IRC clients. Miami33139 (talk) 11:19, 27 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.

Subcategories of Category:Multiple units 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: rename per amended nomination (not renaming withdrawn Turkish ones). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominators rationale: (1) WP:NCCAT suggests that in ‘by country’ categories, it should be “Multiple units of Foo” rather than “Fooian multiple units”; (2) Avoiding the adjectival form of country names is an aid to users for whom English is a foreign language. (3) Parent categories use the form “Rolling stock of XXX”. Iain Bell (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with rename per nom.  Sandstein  11:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Makes sense to me. --DAJF (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per clear and concise nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'multiple unit' 'units' 'electric multiple units' 'diesel multiple units' are a mystery to all. Might these categories be about 'locomotives' or 'trains' or something else regarding railroads? If so, the category names should say so. Don't let readers guess. Hmains (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So are items like Category:Tube stations in Barking & Dagenham. One issue with multiple units, is that it is a very common phrase. The only reasonable options with these is to open a discussion on the main talk page to see if there is a consensus to make all category name self explanatory. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. There is no need at all for these titles to be self explanatory. A user will only be viewing Category:Multiple units of Denmark either having followed a link from an article in the category, or by arriving from a parent category. There is no way to randomly arrive at a multiple unit category without knowing that it relates to railways. The ultimate parent category is Rail vehicles. Sussexonian (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment what this means is that anyone who does a string search on 'locomovies' or 'trains' or whatever a multiple unit is will never find these categories in their search results. Not WP general user friendly; only insider, I-already-know-it friendly. Hmains (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Partially concur. I agree with the overall suggestion as far as it goes. However, the UIC descriptor for this type of rolling stock is "railcar", not "multiple unit". As has been pointed out above, the term "multiple unit" is confusing to many people. It is particularly confusing when applied to a railcar capable of operation on its own. All of these sub-categories, and the category itself, should therefore be renamed in the UIC standard form of wording, ie "Diesel railcars of", or "Electric railcars of". Bahnfrend (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose only Category:Turkish railways diesel multiple units and Category:Turkish railways electric multiple units. They are by railway categories and not country categories. They should be renamed to Category:Turkish State Railways diesel multiple units and Category:Turkish State Railways electric multiple units. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and amendment: An editor (not involved in this discussion, I hasten to add) has created Category:Multiple units of Turkey while this CfD was in progress, so I am withdrawing the two Turkish railway categories from this request. Iain Bell (talk) 23:12, 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:Kant images[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:Images of Immanuel Kant. — ξxplicit 02:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Kant images to Category:Immanuel Kant images
Nominator's rationale: Per main cat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:58, 27 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_27&oldid=1144514497"