Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 8 April 10 >

April 9[edit]

Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the Rocky Mountains Region[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: Split into appropriate subcategories of Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the United States by state. Jafeluv (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the Rocky Mountains Region to To be decided
Nominator's rationale: Rename or Delete or Split. We tend to avoid classifying by regions in the US since the definitions are variable. In this case, the best fitting article is probably Intermountain West. Not sure of what action is right in this case. If there is no other suggestion, the default should be to upmerge to Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the United States. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 9 April 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:Rugby league governing bodies[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge Category:Rugby league governing bodies in the United Kingdom to Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe. If someone wants to nominate Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe for upmerging, this should be permitted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategorising: I have recently started Category: Rugby league governing bodies in the United Kingdom as a subcategory of Category:Rugby league governing bodies, Category: Sports governing bodies of the United Kingdom and Category: Rugby league in the United Kingdom in line with Wikipedia: Be bold.
Nominator's rationale: Lumping all the governing bodies of a sport into a single category is sloppy. Makes sense to subcategorise by geography. Another editor has objected to Wales Rugby League being placed in above cat and keeps removing it. Last time I checked Wales was still in the UK. Thought it would make sense to discuss it here. Djln--Djln (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: editor has since inappropriaely emptied above category without waiting for or entering into a discussion here. Djln--Djln (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the other editor (User:Daicaregos) should present here at cfd a rationale for dismantling the structure created by Djln. It is certainly not unusual to form country subcats. In the absence of a counter-proposal, it will be 'keep and repopulate'. Occuli (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My subcategorising here has recieved support see Category talk:Rugby league governing bodies in Australia for example.Djln--Djln (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Separating the governing bodies out so much seems like it would be extra work to find all of these articles, especially all the national governing bodies. I don't see the advantage of putting the Russian RL in a new Russian category and the Fiji RL in a Fiji RL governing body folder. LunarLander // talk // 18:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They have'nt been. They are in cats for Europe and Oceania. It just happens there are more governing bodies in the UK then there are in Fiji and Russia. Djln--Djln (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI would like first to comment on the above:
  • I am admonished for not having brought the discussion to CFD. However, I asked Djln why it had been moved (here) and was advised the move was per Wikipedia:Be bold. As I disagreed with the move I reverted per WP:BRD, a perfectly normal move, precipitating discussion on the article Talk page, which I did. Discussion was not enjoined, however, rather an edit war initiated, instead. This action is, according to Djln, means that I keep removing it.
  • I note also that in the edit summary reverting my move back to the stable version, Occuli says here “The process is to join the debate at cfd, not remove articles.” My last revert was at 16:41, whereas the CFD was not opened until 17:03.
  • Djln says here “My subcategorising here has recieved support see Category talk:Rugby league governing bodies in Australia for example.” The linked Talk page contains no support for any proposal.
  • Djln says here “editor [me] has since inappropriaely [sic] emptied above category without waiting for or entering into a discussion here.” There seems to have been no comment that Djln had inappropriately emptied a category without waiting for or entering into a discussion in the first place. And noting his Talk page (including a recent blanking of a block here for "repeatedly depopulating categories despite being warned to seek consensus at WP:CFD.“), it would not be for the first time.

Back to the categories: Category:Rugby league governing bodies in the United Kingdom has four constituents. What is the point? Categories exist to allow readers to navigate easily around related articles. A reader interested in finding rugby league governing bodies would find it more, rather than less, difficult to discover the article Wales Rugby League hidden within the new Category:Rugby league governing bodies in the United Kingdom; which rather defeats its purpose. Re: Category: Sports governing bodies of the United Kingdom: they should relate to the governing bodies of the UK. The UK governing bodies have no jurisdiction over the governing bodies of the countries of the United Kingdom, such as Wales Rugby League. Consequently, it would be inappropriate to place them in that category and, it would also lead to it becoming more, rather than less, difficult to find. Daicaregos (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I did not engage in any edit war. I started this discussion to avoid one. Support for my recategorising has been shown by another editor placing Wiki project template on various talk pages which clearly state "The category on Rugby league governing bodies in …. is supported by the WikiProject on Rugby league" . I have not emptied any category on this occasion just recategorised. Only person emptying categories here is User:Daicaregos which he continued doing despite being politely asked not to. Your arguement over jurisdiction is irrelevant. The article was previously in Category:Rugby league in the United Kingdom and the same argument would apply there. Wales Rugby League is a Rugby league governing body and it is in the United Kingdom. Just as the category says. The argument that nobody would be able to find it is ridiculous as User:Daicaregos managed to find it. Djln --Djln (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm the one that added the Wiki project template to these categories but merely because while they exist and are used they are within the purview of that project. LunarLander // talk // 02:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As rugby league has its own politics that might not conform to those of world politics, some level of upmerging, as Occuli has suggested, might be preferable. The RFL, for example, has responsibility for professional rugby in Great Britain and Ireland (Bye-law 2.6 (iv)) and Wales RL is a member of the RFL (page 26, Articles of Association of RFL. LunarLander // talk // 02:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Support upmerging, in effect Rugby League is played in a limited set of two geographies. Its questionable if it needs more than one, two at most --Snowded TALK 06:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Against Upmerging but really can't be bothered wasting any more time with this pointless arguement. Categories for Aus, NZ and Europe should defo be kept as they are well populated, perhaps merging UK into Europe might be a compromise or is Wales now going to leave Europe as well. I really think the birthplace of rugby league should have its own cat. Djln--Djln (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The snide comment about Wales does you little credit there and failing to follow WP:BRD is not acceptable behaviour. Its a simple fact that Rugby League is confined to two geographies namely Europe (UK&France) and Australasia. Yes there are other governing bodies but they are minor and attached to one of the main groupings. Sometimes people can too easily be carried away with creating two many nested categories and it just confuses readers.--Snowded TALK 12:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creating and populating categories is nothing to do with WP:BRD. The process is cfd, not reverting. Anyone, however timid, can create and populate a subcat without seeking any permission and anyone can file a cfd. Occuli (talk) 14:03, 10 April 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:Metro Toronto[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:Metropolitan Toronto. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Metro Toronto to Category:Metropolitan Toronto (former municipality)
Nominator's rationale: for greater clarity, especially for those not familiar with Toronto. Mayumashu (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But people who aren't familiar with Toronto may not realize that Metro Toronto isn't the same thing as the GTA. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could say the same thing for Metropolitan Toronto... so Category:Metro Toronto (former administrative region) or somesuch would preserve the common name... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, as someone who has never been within 1000km of Toronto and wouldn't know it from a bar of soap, "Metro Toronto" sounds like a subway system rather than an urban area. "Metro Toronto" might be common lingo in the city, but presumably a lot of the people looking up the articles here won't be so well informed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How so? It adds clarity that the category is not about a subway system and that the municipality is a former one Mayumashu (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose disambiguator attached to the name. It should be renamed to Category:Metropolitan Toronto instead, and the category should contain text, as it does now, explaining that this is about the former municipality (with possible clarification that it is part of, but not the same as, the GTA). If there's potential confusion with a metro/subway system, we can also point readers to Category:Toronto Transit Commission. Mindmatrix 18:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not Wikipedia practice to attach unnecessary disambiguators to names that we decide people might not immediately understand; we attach disambiguators to titles that are actually in conflict with other topics for their natural title. I'm not strictly opposed to renaming this to Category:Metropolitan Toronto, if necessary, but the question of whether to disambiguate the title or not rests on whether there are other "Metro Torontos" to distinguish this one from, not on whether people might be mistaken about what the topic comprises just because one word in its name might mean something different in another context than it does in this one. Oppose move as nominated; if there's consensus that a move is necessary, then support Category:Metropolitan Toronto instead. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 15 April 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:United Nations Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) members[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United Nations Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) members to Category:United Nations Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions members
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In category names, we usually don't include an abbreviated acronym in parentheses unless it is formally part of the actual name of the entity in question. In this case it is not, and including it just makes an already long name longer, so it can be omitted. The abbreviation could be include in the category definition if it adds some clarity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 9 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_9&oldid=1136463187"