Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 18 December 20 >

December 19[edit]

Category:Canadian television episode lists[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canadian television episode lists to Category:Lists of Canadian television series episodes
Nominator's rationale: Every other cat for television series episode lists is named this way, see parent "by country" category Category:Lists of television series episodes by country or its parent category Category:Lists of television series episodes. Xeworlebi (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. -- Matthew RD 20:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to conform with others. This could probably have been put through speedy renaming. McLerristarr | Mclay1 13:21, 24 December 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:Television 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: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Television seasons to Category:Lists of television series episodes (or sub-categories)
Nominator's rationale: The Television seasons category seems better covered by Category:Lists of television series episodes and it's sub-categories. WOSlinker (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Many season articles are much more than lists of episodes. For example, Parks and Recreation (season 1), Smallville (season 1), and Supernatural (season 1) are all featured articles, not featured lists, because the list of episodes only makes up a portion of the articles. "Lists of television series episodes" also serves a different function than "Television seasons"; articles in the former category serve as the parent articles for the corresponding articles in the latter category. Nothing is gained by combining these categories while much navigational functionality is lost. Neelix (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see what you mean. The membership of those two categories could do with some tidying up though. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:45, 22 December 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:Redirects from brand names[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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Redirects from brand names to Category:Redirects from trademarks
Nominator's rationale: I just created the latter category not realising the former category existed. "Trademark" is more inclusive than "brand name" because not all trademarks are brand names but all brand names are trademarks (I can't think of any exceptions). McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, but someone would have to do an article count. There are also longer-term considerations, not everyone is going to categorize those articles properly. Ng.j (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment to quote from Brand "A legally protected brand name is called a trademark.". So trademark is a subset of brand name. This would indicate that the category structure would be parent Category:Redirects from brand names and child Category:Redirects from trademarks. This is the opposite of what is stated above. Hmains (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's not the only use of trademark. A legally protected slogan or image is also a trademark. I would argue that a brand name that isn't legally protected isn't a brand name. Why would anyone not legally protect their brand? Unless it had a generic name, in which case it wouldn't be a redirect on Wikipedia. McLerristarr | Mclay1 02:34, 27 December 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:Website article topics with .org domain names[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 05:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Website article topics with .org domain names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Top-level domains (such as .org) are non-defining/trivial characteristics of a website. If someone wanted to find all articles containing ".org", a search would be more reliable than a category. If the category is to be kept, it should be renamed to avoid the words "article" and "topic". Stepheng3 (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this is grouping articles together by shared name characteristic. Early on in the web's history this might have made sense as the different domain suffixes was an attempt to separate like websites into like domain names, but that's pretty much fallen by the wayside now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 19 December 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:Watersheds of Alaska[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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Watersheds of Alaska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Watersheds of the Chukchi Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. While watersheds are worthy of categorization, these two categories just duplicate Category:Rivers of Alaska. Now do we want to maintain categories for all rivers based on where there drain into? If we can get articles on important and notable watersheds, then the included rivers would be discussed in the article. At that point we could decide if we need a category. I'll add that I did not check every article, but everyone I checked did not mention watershed. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support These categories are redundant to the river categories; and also redundant to any region/county categories in which landforms, etc might be placed. I see no reason for them whatsoever. The entire hierarchy Category:Watersheds should be done away with.Skookum1 (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete Nomination does not present the story. "These two categories just duplicate Category:Rivers of Alaska". Category:Rivers of Alaska has all 173 or so of the 1000s of Alaska rivers; Category:Watersheds of the Chukchi Sea is a subset of that with those 20 rivers that drain into the Chukchi Sea from Alaska plus those from Russia (such as Ioniveyem River) also draining into the Chukchi Sea. This does not duplicate anything. I created this and other watershed categories based on the existing category structure Category:Watershed (now Category:Drainage basins which includes those rivers training into another body of water, such as a lake, sea or ocean. What else could such categories contain? There are no other articles describing the land area that the river drains--the river articles do that and so they are completely appropriate for this purpose and it is appropriate to categorize them as such. Hmains (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The base problem is that rivers are not watersheds, they are the pipes that drain the drainage basins. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Vegas, the word "watershed" means different things to different people. To some, it means the area drained by a particular channel; to others, it refers to the boundary between two such areas. This confusion seems to be at least partly a Britain-versus-United States thing. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • In this discussion it should be taken to mean drainage basin. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – there is no duplication of the second as Ioniveyem River is not in Alaska. However Ioniveyem River is a river, not a watershed or a drainage basin. A better name would be Category:Rivers draining into the Chukchi Sea ... is the sea into which a river drains a defining characteristic of the river? Surely it is; it would be an incompetent article which omitted this essential detail. I am not sure what is going to be in Category:Watersheds of Alaska ... one would expect to find articles on watersheds (or maybe drainage basins), not rivers. Occuli (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could be. At the lowest level of the Category:Drainage basins category tree, the articles are often the rivers and sometimes basins. One would expect this of rivers since the natural purpose ('defining purpose') of rivers is to transport (drain) water from a higher level to a lower level of elevation, which is into an ocean, sea or lake--given the nature of geography. Hmains (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I added that introduction since there was none. I selected that phrase to try and keep settlements out of the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A WP:Rivers perspective - almost all water features (rivers, lakes, seas, oceans) have a drainage basin, for the most part we've written about those as a subsection of the water feature's article rather than a separate article (except when the article gets long in which case it makes a decent content fork, see Columbia River), so I see no problem with having river articles in a drainage basins category. If somebody created a Wulik River drainage basin I'd recommend turning it into a redirect for Wulik River anyway, so why not just list the river? That still leaves the problem that there is going to be significant overlap with the rivers categories. It's not 100% overlap as features other than rivers have drainage basins as well, but probably is 90-95% overlap - one possible solution is to have the rivers category be a subcat of drainage basins (all rivers have a drainage basin, but not all drainage basins are rivers) rather than listing rivers separately in both. I do recommend replacing "watersheds" with "drainage basins" to reduce ambiguity. For what it's worth I see Category:Rivers draining into the Chukchi Sea as being identical to Category:Drainage basins of the Chukchi Sea so don't have a preference there. As to whether we have Drainage basins by political unit categories at all I don't have a strong opinion, drainage basins by water feature make more sense, but there isn't any particular reason why we couldn't do both. As an aside, for my day job I'm asked to compile drainage basins by political units on a fairly regular basis so it would be useful for somebody. Kmusser (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine these comments would also apply to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 21# Watersheds by political boundaries, which one might want to look at. Hmains (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Drainage basins has non-obvious/conflicting meanings as when a map is presented showing the US contiguous states having only 3 drainage basins: for the Atlantic Ocean/Gulf of Mexico, the Pacfific Ocean and the Great Salt Lake vs each river's watershed land area from which rain and springs flow into the river. Regardless of all that mess, would a set of categories named Category:Rivers draining into the xxx yyy where 'yyy' is 'sea', 'ocean' or 'lake' be useful to WP? If so, I can certainly create them--but not if they are going to be immediately nominated for deletion for some reason or another. Hmains (talk) 19:44, 25 December 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 Vancouver[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 to GVRD or GV equivalent. The asserted difference between the board name and the regional district name seems accurate by my reading. This brings it in line with the others in its parent as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Metro Vancouver to Category:Greater Vancouver Regional District
Nominator's rationale: Contrary to widespread wiki-misconception, "Metro Vancouver" is not the name of this regional district, it is only the name of the RD's board. The legal name remains the Greater Vancouver Regional District, despite "pushed" usage by local media, "Greater Vancouver" is still a more common expression; subordinate bodies like the Water District and Regional Parks Board still use "Greater Vancouver". Incorrect naming is one issue, the other is that the subcats needing changes are inappropriate to classify their contents by regional district, which is "not the way we do things", it's an outside/imposed fiction, so some subcat changes do not need "regional district in the title, and in some cases "Lower Mainland" is more appropriate than "Greater Vancouver" or "Greater Vancouver Regional District"; others need only "Greater Vancouver. NB the old name is currently a redirect category - and should never have been renamed, especially because the rationale was faulty, i.e. "Metro Vancouver" is not the official name of the RD.Skookum1 (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Wikipedia uses the common name where it makes sense rather than the legal name
  2. Most people in the world have no idea what the "Lower Mainland" is. Metro Vancouver is descriptive as the metropolitan area of Vancouver, same as Metro Dallas or any other city. It does not have to be the legal name but rather a description
  3. There has been a CFD about this less than six months ago
  4. You already moved Template:Hospitals in Metro Vancouver to Template:Hospitals in the Lower Mainland without discussion and seeking consensus. This is after an aborted attempt at a speedy delete of a valuable template.
  5. You might not see it, but the way you have gone about this seems very arrogant and uncivil. Almost like you think you are correct and every other editor is wrong.Ng.j (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, you are wrong. On all counts:
    • "Common name to WHO?" is one issue, if you read more than just hte papers you'd know that both "Greater Vancouver" and "Greater Vancouver Regional District/GVRD" are still in wide use.
    • "Metro Vancouver is descriptive of the metropolitan area of Vancouver", and that's the problem with using it as a cat title if it's meant to refer to the regional district; using it for universities, schools, hospitals which are not regulated by the regional district or restricted to its boundaries is just NOT RIGHT. "Lower Mainland" is the correct term for the region which includes what you call the "metropolitan area of Vancouver" as seen by the rest of the world, as Abbotsford, Squamish, Mission etc are seen as part of the metropolitan area but they are NOT part of the GVRD.
    • yes, I moved that template for the very good reason that hospitals are not governed by nor classified by regional district in any real-world usage. Classifying them by regional district is a wiki-affectation.
    • Geez, I finally try and do things by process and by pointing out the gross errors that preceded me as politely as possible, and I get accused of being "arrogant and uncivil". I can't help it if there was a CfD six months ago which reached a wrong conclusion BASED ON FALSE INFORMATION. That CfD was in error because, unlike the rationale used for it and which until I changed it early today was stated on the category's page, Metro Vancouver is NOT the official name of the regional district. The name is official as the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and THAT NAME is still in wide enough use that arguments that "Metro Vancouver" is in fact the common name are utterly specious. That you also, clearly, think that it's not the name of the regional district, official or otherwise, and think it is about the metropolitan area points to the confusing nature of the category title, and of the usage overall.Skookum1 (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment if you wish to refer to the metropolitan region - specifically excluding exurbs like Mission, Abbotsford or Squamish, the long-standing and still prevalent usage is "Greater Vancouver" (though in loose usage especially outside BC it tends to include the rest of the Lower Mainland and, increasingly, Squamish-Whistler). The term "Metro Vancouver" was only adopted by the board of the GVRD in 2007 - less than three years ago, and is NOT in common usage (other than in the media).Skookum1 (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to be open minded, even though your style is rubbing me the wrong way. Can you provide citations to support that GVRD is still the legal name? Everything I have seen so far supports the Metro vancouver name. Ng.j (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a source article here, and have changed my position to neutral. GVRD is the official name and Metro Vancouver is the brand, but I don't live in the region and don't know if Greater Vancouver or Metro Vancouver has become the common name in the last three years. You might think you were being polite, and I am not saying that you were not trying to be, but that is the way you came across. If you had used different phrasing and gone about things differently I might have even supported you from the start. Ng.j (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Greater Vancouver" has been in common use since at least just after WWI, if not before, and it's the source-name for the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which was the ONLY usage from 1966 onwards until 2007. "Metro Vancouver" has only existed as a name since 2007; and the reason the media push it is because the GVRD is one of their main advertisers, they're using the desired brand name of the board....but it can't have become "most common" in a mere three years, despite the "push job"....you're confusing the terms "Greater Vancouver" and "Greater Vancouver Regional District", which are no more contiguous than Greater Victoria and the Capital Regional District, ditto the Fraser Valley and Fraser Valley Regional District. As for taking offense at whateevr you saw in my language starting this, and that you might have supported me from the start if not for your nose feeling out of joint, that's not a very good reason to oppose this; in fact it's the wrong reason. Waht's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong; and using "Metro Vancouver" for category names is very, very wrong, as is confusing it (as you have done) with what the rest of the world (allegedly) calls Vancouver's metropolitan region, and the name of the BOARD of the regional district; the many instances of mis-use of this name in categories and in texts of articles are legion, and t he confusion - evident in our tweaking of the intro to the Metro Vancouver article - isn't helped by pretending that "Metro Vancouver" is either the RD's proper name and/or "in common usage". Three years isn't sufficient to warrant that; NB also the current discussion on Talk:Haida Gwaii re politicized names vs official names.Skookum1 (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not wanting to get into an argument with you over it but, funny thing is, I was less confused before your multitude of corrections! -- Ϫ 12:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support per nom. Volcanoguy 05:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note the previous discussion that created this name. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment yes, I had a look at it when preparing this; the rationale provided was false, as Metro Vancouver is NOT the official name of the regional district. The parallel name change to the CSRD also falsely claims that BCGNIS etc use the dash, which they do not - they use the hyphen. The latter is subject to a revisitation on requested moves at present, which will become a CfD once those are changed to their format. This particular nomination is because the previous change was NOT VALID and based in a false/incorrect reading of the sources, which are very clear that "Greater Vancouver Regional District" remains the name. The "new" name has resulted in all kinds of inappropriate usages and badly-named categories and templates. It's one thing for the board of the RD to give itself a new "style", but at the provincial level the equivalent would be like saying that, because the provincial cabinet is the Executive Council of British Columbia, then the name of the province would be "Executive Council of British Columbia"....Skookum1 (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This may be a case of Render unto Caesar…, messy as it may turn out. Articles associated with the public face of the district should conform with the "Metro" branding (and yes, it is a branding exercise). Articles associated with the corporate entity (GVRD) should be in that category. It certainly doesn't match our model of wiki-conformity. Franamax (talk) 06:50, 24 December 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:Website article topics with .net domain names[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Website article topics with .net domain names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Top-level domains (such as .net) are non-defining/trivial characteristics of a website. If someone wanted to find all articles contining .net, a search would be more reliable than a category. If the category is to be kept, it should be renamed to avoid the words "article" and "topic". —Stepheng3 (talk) 01:24, 19 December 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_December_19&oldid=1086356515"