Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 20 December 22 >

December 21[edit]

Category:Islands of Richmond, British Columbia[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Islands of Richmond, British Columbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This was nominated at WP:CFDS for renaming to its present name, but a user has suggested that perhaps it should be deleted. A copy of the previous discussion is in the drop-down box. I have no objection to deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
copy of discussion from WT:CFD

I know this cat's been around since 2007, but I just don't see the point of it. It's true that Richmond is ALL islands, and perhaps unusual in that regard, when you stop to think about it, at least in Canada.....but there's already Category:Islands of the Fraser River and there is no equivalent parallel to be had for classifying islands by municipality. It also sets a bad precedent, as (despite my opposition to using RD categories for landforms etc) someone is going to come along and create, e.g. Category:Islands of the Regional District of Nanaimo (those are already all in Category:Gulf Islands) RDs are technically municipalities, by law, but we don't think of them that way at all....the essential point is this is a lone-wolf category....and I really can't think of another "X landform of Y municipality" category - not any one that should survive anyway (there may be Category:Waterbodies of Burnaby or some such; but it's a different matter when the entire municipality is islands; it's not the same with scattered lakes through a mainland municipality; the Richmond category itself is an islands category. I think it's 19 or 28 major islands, including one (Annacis) which is shared with Delta) and another (Lulu) which is partly in New Wesminster.....and it may be that the in/of naming issue/guideline is in a special case here, because Richmond is made out of these islands - they are Richmond.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can totally see where you are coming from on this, but I think you might answer your own question. Isn't it precisely because Richmond is all islands that is category is especially worthwhile? I realize that Richmond is not an considered archipelago, but it is effectively (albeit not officially) the name for a group of islands. Yes, Category:Islands of the Fraser River, but Islands of Richmond could easily be a subcategory. I'm not determined here, but I'm not sure that eliminating it would be beneficial. Even if you delete this category, all of these articles should surely be included in Category:Richmond, British Columbia - doesn't it make sense for them to have their own category, rather than crowd that municipal category? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the precedent that bothers me. Category:Mountains of Mission, British Columbia (there are in fact about seven or eight, not sure if Blue Mountain's summit is in Mission, Crickmer's is...of for that matter Category:Landforms of Greater Vancouver or Category:Landforms of Abbotsford, British Columbia (about seven, again) and so on. But the workable geo-unit for that is Category:Landforms of the Lower Mainland, which isn't restricted to unnatural and rather abstract geometric boundaries the way municipalities are; Category:Mountains of the Lower Mainland makes a lot of sense; there's also this other issue that the Category:Islands of the Fraser Estuary aren't all in Richmond; some are in Delta, a few are in New West (the distinction between the estuary and the rest of the delta sorta starts at the big bend by New West/Surrey/Coq; the Fraser Delta itself is reckoned to begin up around Agassiz-Rosedale; Douglas I/Barnston I/Pitt confluence aren't in the estuary, even though Pitt Lake is tidal (the tidal bore reaches to the Mission Bridge); Vancouver may have some along the North Arm, I'm not sure, Burnaby may also. My reservations have to do with classifying landforms etc by political units; it's a sorting system......there's some science fiction story somewhere, maybe it's Rollerball, where one of the characters, visiting an archive, complains/explains that nobody writes history or geography any more, they just keep on finding new ways to classify things, and new ways to stack books (figuratively speaking, the books were isolated servers; nobody looked at them anymore, but they were all sorted really well....). There's also Kafka's parable about The Building of the City, which is a propos, but I won't bother dragging this out. Then there's, ahem, Category:Shopping malls on Lulu Island (or would that have to be "of Lulu Island"?). Frankly, what needs to be done with these islands is to write each of tehm up more fully, to do the research on them (there can be quite a bit, if people would look) instead of finding new and better ways to label/sort them....There's a bit of a reflexive-context issue for me here; it sounds to me, knowing what Richmond is, that it would be sorta like Category:Islands of the Islands Trust (again, the Gulf Islands category, pretty much identical (the Islands Trust article has long been in need of doing). And rather than, say, Category:Islands of Greater Victoria be less suitable than Category:Islands of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Category:Islands of Haro Strait (a typical BC usage, by the way, would be "of the Haro Strait" or "of the Haro Straits"); not all are in municipalities, y'see, and while they're offshore from Greater Victoria, are they part of it? Tricky question; easier to stick with the geo-unit. If it survives (I rather like "in Richmond" rather than "of", given the context; it should be explained in the lede of the category page that Richmond is entirely island, though a couple of those islands are shared with other municipalities. And no, this category shouldn't be a subcat of Category:Islands of the British Columbia Coast (that should exist, not sure if it does...yet), as despite a recent discussion, at length, these are not offshore islands, they're estuarial. And they all need more geological/geographic/biome writeups (there's more than are in the category at present; various unwritten articles yet)....Skookum1 (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I totally see where you are coming from precedent-wise, but if I read you correctly, I think you see the value in an exception here. I wish there was a name for the islands.. if there was any precedent to call them "The Richmond Islands" our task would be easy. Whether it's islands in or of Richmond doesn't matter to me. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:54, 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.

Watersheds by political boundaries[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Vermont to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Connecticut to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Kentucky to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Iowa to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Louisiana to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Maryland to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Mississippi to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Missouri to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Virginia to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of West Virginia to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Wisconsin to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Arkansas to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Alabama to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Colorado to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Delaware to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Washington, D.C. to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Illinois to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Indiana to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Minnesota to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Nevada to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of New Jersey to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of New Mexico to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of New York to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Ohio to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Oregon to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Pennsylvania to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Tennessee to Category:Watersheds of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Watersheds are geographic in nature and not based (generally) on political boundaries. Is it defining for the Hudson River Watershed to be categorized in Vermont especially when you consider that only 3% is in Vermont? Or how about in Connecticut where only 1% of the watershed lies. How about the Hudson–Hoosic Watershed where the most important fact seems to be what congressional districts overlay the watershed? I'll be adding more categories as I look at the other contents. Also consider if a watershed enters 33 states, is it defining for any of those states? I could probably make an argument to leave these basins at the continental level, but I suspect that would not fly. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, merging all [cat:watersheds of state xyz] to Category:Watersheds of the United States. Question: also revise with a [Cat:Watersheds/Basins of the Pacific/Atlantic] as applicable to have general continental location/direction ?—Look2See1 t a l k → 05:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think there is support to move all of these to be continental level, go for it. In going through the state categories, I think that there are more state categories then actual watershed categories and articles. This may be a case when you delete the extra levels of categories that you can see what is really there and how best to organize the contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. I think it was agreed here[1] that watersheds should be drainage basins. The proposed category would be better split into east and west coasts e.g. Category:Watersheds of the United States eastern coast, Category:Watersheds of the United States western coast or something. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My understanding from the maps in several articles, File:Basin New.png, is that North America has 3 top level drainage basins. So one logical alternative would be to create the NA category and then subcategories for the major drainages. Once that is done, if there is a need for additional detail, more subcategories can be created. But the current structure is not logical. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We seem then to be talking about two entirely different subjects. See below. Hmains (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. Whether term 'Watersheds' or 'Drainage basins' is used is for more knowledgeable editors than I to determine. Re: Vegaswikian - see value of deleting the extra levels of categories, and see the remains. Perhaps then a limited few [Category:River xyz] can then be used for significant/environmentally sensitive U.S. rivers' watershed components: such as for Category:Columbia River and Category:Colorado River? Re: Twiceuponatime - Would a version of [Cat:W.sheds/D.basins east of Continental Divide] and [Cat:W.s./D.b. west of C.Divide], regardless of endorheic basin or ocean exit, cover east-west location without multitude off micro-child categories? —Look2See1 t a l k → 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major Comment--A WATERSHED is not defined as Geographic by the nominator. A watershed is hydrologic, by definition, and only defined by run-off-(i.e.-geography, water divide, drainage basins, mountain ridge lines, etc.),----- from water/rain/snow-etc brought on by weather events. The resultant is geographic, and consequently a 1 percent in a state is a REALITY, or a NON-reality. (If you put 1 or 3 percent in a state, (one is NIT-picking), and not every person would include it in a category. (and if you worry about 1 per cent, then one has to go further to 1/3 or 1/5th of a percent,etc,etc)
    AND-if you figured out complexities: a Spring could appear in a Watershed, but most of its source water could come underground, (geologic) from source areas beyond a surface, water divide. (it would still be in the "watershed", because it is supplyiing water to the watershed.)--Mmcannis (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a better phrase to use in the introduction? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not change There are many watersheds/drainage basins/whatever in the US that are not connected to any other. Having major watersheds in the US does not mean that others are just a part of the major ones. Many US rivers that are not tributaries of major rivers flow directly to the oceans or lakes. Each of those rivers has a watershed--the land area from which the water collects to form the river. I think the above discussion is getting very confused. When I created these state watershed categories, I moved the articles from the state level landform categories. They are part of the state geography; most are only in one state--not withstanding the Missiissippi and a few other major multi-state rivers and their watersheds. Even those watersheds that are in mutliple states are still in each state and should be accounted for in each state. Readers would expect no less when the look from the state level down. Hmains (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with that approach. State boundaries and the boundaries of geographical entities bear no relation to each other and should not be cross-linked via categories. I do agree that the state articles need to explain where they lie in relation to landform features but that should be in the main text as a direct link for that article. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'That approach' is long-standing among all landforms of the US states and I suppose countries as well. The categories are a reference/navigation inventory of what lies within the state's countries (partial or whole), regardless of the boundary of the landform itself. Thus, a mountain sitting on a state border is categorized in both states' landforms, which means both states' geography. This seems very reasonable on its face as helpful to the reader. We are dealing with categories here, not articles; navigation aids, not content details. Hmains (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information There is a new cfd here which refers to Category:Drainage basins of the Gulf of Mexico – perhaps some of the above should be merged to that category. That category is a sub-cat of Category:Watersheds of North America which probably should be the main category here. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:17, 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:Victims of the French Revolution[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:People killed in the French Revolution.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Victims of the French Revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per the December 13th CFD on Victims of French political repressions, this category should probably be deleted as well. Eldamorie (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That these individuals were killed as part of the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror is a strong defining characteristic of the individuals included and serves as an effective means of navigation across the common articles. Alansohn (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:People killed in the French Revolution. The term "victim" is loaded and brings unwelcome POV baggage, and since most of the articles in the category refer to people killed the simple solution is to use the neutral word "killed" and remove any articles which do not relate to killings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 21 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.

Transport operators[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: withdrawn by nominator. I've put all the "operators" categories in a new Category:Transport operators by country, and given "Transport companies" categories to any which didn't have them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Transport operators to Category:Transport companies
Propose merging Category:Transport operators in London to Category:Transport companies based in London
Propose renaming Category:Transport operators of Germany to Category:Transport companies of Germany
Propose renaming Category:Transport operators of Hong Kong to Category:Transport companies of Hong Kong
Propose renaming Category:Transport operators of Scotland to Category:Transport companies of Scotland
Propose renaming Category:Transport operators of Singapore to Category:Transport companies of Singapore
Propose renaming Category:Transport operators of South Africa to Category:Transport companies of South Africa
Propose merging Category:Transport operators of South Korea to Category:Transport companies of South Korea
Propose renaming Category:Transport operators of Turkey to Category:Transport companies of Turkey
Propose merging Category:Transport operators of the United Kingdom to Category:Transport companies of the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Matching all other country-based subcategories of Category:Transport companies by country. These categories are holdovers from a classification scheme attempted and apparently abandoned in 2006 and 2007. The Category:Transport companies categories are not so overstuffed that they need this confusing layer of middle management. For most locations listed above, there is no equivalent "Transport companies" category, and there should be.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In many parts of Great Britain, buses were run until deregulation in 1986 by local-authority-controlled entities which were not companies. It is misleading and inaccurate to apply the the "companies" label to them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with above comment, which still applies in UK and other urban areas (eg London Transport). Many other countries, similarly, have public transport. Therefore Oppose as non-worldwide, misleading and preventing accurate categorisation. Redheylin (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are two problems with this. First, a 'transport operator' may be organized differently than as a company, for instance as a public agency, which are not normally called companies. Secondly, the term 'transport company' could mean quite of lot of things which are not considered 'operators'. Just take a look at Category:Transport companies, where there are for instance classification societies, leasing companies, ground handling companies, insurance companies, and vehicle manufacturing companies. Category:Transport operators is a subcategory of transport companies. Arsenikk (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge where the target exists. Bus operators are or were frequently public sector organisations which were not "companies". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 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.

Bus transportation in the United States[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, per WP:RETAIN. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 21:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for renaming:

And its subcategories:
  • Reason: Change "transportation" to "transport" per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 29#Category:Transportation. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but... we haven't come to any consensus that USA transportation categories should become transport categories. That may need to be discussed on a more expansive level first.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. To quote from the previous discussion, "For national categories, the appropriate national variety of English is and should continue to be preserved."- choster (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without question, Keep. This nomination shows the folly in allowing the previous rename to happen, and the follow on that was not discussed! Hundreds of categories were renamed to an unnatural form for most Americans. Now we want to continue this by changing the categories that cover the US? It's about time we stop changing category names from one form of English to the other at the higher levels or in mass nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously, per Category:Transportation in the United States. The previous cfd has no bearing on country subcategories, where local usage should prevail, as always. Occuli (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is local US usage. But such nominations should be expected as some editors who continue to try to eliminate American English from the category structure from the top on down. Hmains (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds suspiciously like an assumption of bad faith, Hmains. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which I agree has no place or point here and does not advance the discussion Sorry about that. Hmains (talk) 05:03, 23 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:WikiProject Science Fiction categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Dana boomer (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Science Fiction categories to Category:Category-Class Science Fiction articles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Convention of Category:Category-Class articles, also the category should be applied to the category talk page rather than the category itself. Tim! (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose these are not categories that are processed through the WikiProject banner (otherwise all the contents would be talk pages), it is a category of categories. It does not lie in the Category:Category-Class articles category tree. 65.94.44.124 (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the nomination, I said it should be move to the talk pages. Tim! (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if they are to be bannered into "Category-Class Science Fiction articles" then the wikiproject banner needs to be applied to the various categories, which is not a function of CfD. Indeed, there already exists a Category:Category-Class science fiction articles . 65.94.44.124 (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This category should simply be deleted then. Tim! (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (see below) Delete - It is not populated with WikiProject categories utilized by WikiProject Science Fiction. Rather, it is populated with a random set of article space Science Fiction categories. Its usage is not consistent with the other categories listed at Category:WikiProject Science fiction. No one at the WikiProject has noticed, so I doubt it will be missed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WikiProjects are allowed to have their own categories. No basis has been put forward to change this WikiProject category into a Wikipedia category. It might be poorly used by the WikiProject, but that is a project issue, not a Wikipedia issue. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so WPSF wasn't even notified their category was under discussion?? 65.95.13.158 (talk) 06:25, 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:Shipping authorities[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Shipping authorities to Category:Maritime transport authorities
Nominator's rationale: Shipping refers primarily to transport of any cargo (not just by water), while this category contains agencies solely related to maritime transport. Although "shipping" is sometimes used for ship transport, it is an inaccurate and ambiguous term, while "maritime transport" is accurate and unambiguous. Arsenikk (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ship transport is categorized in the oddly named Category:Water transport. Water can be transported through a hose, a canal, a tunnel, a fire hydrant system, a watering can, a tanker (firetrucks, firefighter air drops), pushing icebergs, tugboats pulling water bags through the water, and a glass or stainless steel or ceramic container for personal drinking usage. Early on, someone created Water transportation (2005) and Water transport (2002) that seemed to attempt to distinguish the two, but water transport long has been redirected to Ship transport. Yea, this whole transport category thing is a mess. A comprehensive overhall is needed. Perhaps a WikiProject could be started to work out the kinks of such an overhall before proposing here at CfD.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (cont. from above) Oppose - The articles now categorized in Category:Shipping authorities are not limited to authority over transportation but include all Maritime aspects. Changing this category to "Maritime transport authorities" would result in the category largely being depopulated. If the nom adequately addresses this, please consider my position as supporting the nom. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2011 (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:Freight[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. The images should be transferred to Commons. I haven't done that, but I have moved them to Category:Rail transport images as suggested, where it will be more likely that someone who knows how will transfer them. Deleting as empty. If anyone has a problem with this solution, let me know. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Freight to Category:Shipping
Nominator's rationale: Category:Freight is completely redundant to Category:Shipping, as freight and shipping are the same [shipping refers to "freight transport", not "ship transport". The nominated category was created this April and contained about ten articles, none of which belonged in the top-level article about shipping/freight, and the category now only contains images. Arsenikk (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Shipping" is only synonymous with "freight" in the USA. In the UK, the BBC bulletin that begins "Attention all shipping" does not refer to freighters but to - shipping ("ships collectively" - Chambers Eng. Dic.) BTW, the word "freight" is barely used outside the USA (ie by the majority of the Anglophonic world) The freight of a ship or aeroplane is called "cargo", a "freight train" is a "goods train" and by road the word "haulage" is most frequently used. Redheylin (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a UK resident "freight" to me is a noun (i.e. the cargo) and not a verb (i.e. the movement of it). All of the contents of the category are images of Dudley Freightliner Terminal (now closed) and probably should be in Category:Disused railway goods stations in the United Kingdom. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Goods may be freighted on a railway truck, a canal barge, or a river-going barge, none of which are "shipping", save in the loosest sense. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment why is a category soley composed of images here in the mainspace instead of in WP Commons (where image collections go)? Hmains (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transfer to Commons "Shipping" is hopelessly ambiguous, and the whole sector should be refactored around "Freight" for all goods transport matters. Open to another term for this too. But the contents here are all of one freight terminal, which is no use to anyone. One could rename to "Images of Dudley Freightliner terminal" or something, but commons is better. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move contents to commons and Delete. There are all images that could be moved. So cleanup and the problem goes away. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The creator of Category:Freight, User:Snow storm in Eastern Asia, was blocked as a compromised account,[2] making it more likely that the above noted confusion was intentional. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recategorized the railway images to Category:Rail transport images and delete empty category. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2011 (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:Clube de Regatas do Flamengo captains[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Clube de Regatas do Flamengo captains to Category:Clube de Regatas do Flamengo players
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The category and its parent holder categories for association football captains were recently discussed. The parents were deleted as overcategorization, but this one was not because the category was not tagged for merging or deletion. I propose upmerging this category for the reasons discussed previously. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per previous discussion. Occuli (talk) 12:57, 21 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:Notable paddleboarders[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) 04:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Notable paddleboarders to Category:Paddleboarders
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I propose dropping the word "Notable". All WP articles are (presumably) about notable topics, so categories omit the term. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:25, 21 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:Musical forms[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 both. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Musical forms to Category:Musical form
Nominator's rationale: This category seems redundant. If anyone can find a good reason for having two separate categories for this, please let me know. Nat682 (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the merging, but please use the plural category as the target (unless form is somehow used as plural). Arsenikk (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Musical form concerns the abstract structures upon which music may be constructed (e.g. "Sonata form" is used for sonatas, symphonies and concerti - see article and citations) It is analogous to "proportion" and "composition" in the visual arts and, likewise, its plural form is more or less meaningless. However it has often been wrongly taken as synonymous with "genres" and "styles", resulting in a mess. The category only exists now because one non-negotiating editor insisted on repopulating it. The "Form" category presently contains all articles on defined musical forms and is in this sense "plural" - without these it would be empty. The category "Forms" is therefore redundant and confusing. Ballet is NOT a definite musical form (it is, like opera, defined by its dramatic or narrative form, which varies from ballet to ballet - similarly plays and novels have no consistent structure) and mistaken categorisations do not affect the matter. Please get rid of it. Redheylin (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the above I refer the user above to the authorities given in the lede of the article Musical form and, further, to the two editors at Talk:List of musical forms who have commented;
  1. "I raise a substantial objection to much of the material in this list. There is a difference between a musical "form" and a musical "type." A "form" describes the structure of a piece or a movement."
  1. "This article erroneously mixes genre and form together. For instance, the term symphony (genre) describes a large, multi-movement work for orchestra but says nothing about the form of each of the movements."

Since these views have not been contradicted and are in line with the mentioned authoritative sources, and since the words "genre" and "style" are in use for non-formal types of musical composition, there is a consensus for the (irrelevant) mentioned move as well as the (relevant) delete and, as I mentioned, the use of the word "forms" can only create confusion in this case. If User:Mangoe can provide authoritative sources for his personal view of things he may post them here and then may proceed to edit the page Musical form. Otherwise I'd like to remind him (once again) that WP:OR has no more place upon this page than elsewhere in Wikipedia and invite him to bring his opinion into line with a definition that has remained the consensus accepted by wikipedia music article editors for some time, for the simple reason that it is accepted by all notable authorities. A !vote based on WP:OR cannot negate or invalidate such a consensus and, therefore, should be disregarded here. Re his particular remarks, a symphony and a concerto are examples of Sonata form, while an Aria is an example of Ternary form. Concerto, symphony and aria are not forms in themselves. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there is no hope for this but to dive into Grove's and cite every last bit of this out. "Genre" here is patently a problematic term, and "solving" the problem by taking one kind of "type" and stuffing it into "genre" is simply going to recreate the problem somewhere else when most of the world understands "genre" to mean something entirely different and in fact rather nontechnical and vague.
Also I can appreciate that some of the "types" now under "forms" do not represent cases of the same. The argument that needs to drive this, though, is not that things are miscategorized, but that "forms" do not exist! Hmmmm.... and while we're at it, here's the 1879 Groves: "The concerto form is founded upon that of the Sonata (which see)[....]" (Vol. I, p. 387). Clearly not the most up-to-date reference, but it does put forth the notion of a form, and includes the concerto within that class. Would you care to cite the current edition? Mangoe (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or Merge: I would like to state that "musical form" and "musical forms" have too similar of names and can lead to confusion. What exactly separates musical form from musical forms? The mere existence of these categories does not establish that. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 07:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both: Redheylin rightly points to the distinction clearly set forth in the lede of the article Musical form, and Occuli's explanation of the standards of Wikipedia category space turn this into a no-brainer. Music theorists make a sharp distinction between "forms" in the sense of well-established and widely used patterns (such as rondo, sonata-allegro, da capo aria, or virelai) and "form" in the sense of the forces within the music that cause these patterns as well as non-standard ones to emerge from that music. But Mangoe has already said this in different words. There is, however, a problem with colloquial usage, as others have pointed out here, but the issue of "genre" (such as the piano trio, anthem, or serenade) or "type" (not a well-defined musical term, BTW) on the one hand versus "form" on the other is not really the issue here, and should be saved for a separate discussion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both, in strong agreement with both Jerome Kohl and Occuli's various comments above—although it seems (on cursory assessment) that both categories will need some attention and recategorization. /ninly(talk) 20:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mangoe; "I can appreciate that some of the "types" now under "forms" do not represent cases of the same." Mangoe - if you had seen that category before the several days' work I spent on it I am sure you'd appreciate much more the confusion historically caused by use of the term "forms" - a confusion that still exists at Category:Song forms to a lesser extent and that is, unfortunately, creeping back into the category under discussion. So, while I appreciate the validity of User:Occuli's explanation, I am more aware of the over-categorisation issue and the potential confusion caused by the term, as highlighted by the proposer, by User:Backtable and the editors I quoted above. Having taken the step of contacting editors involved with music articles I abide by their views and shall seek the necessary discussion proposed by User:Jerome Kohl and try to ensure that the category under discussion, if it survives, does not degenerate once again into a mess of genres and styles without defined formal characteristics, brought about by a colloquial usage that, I think it is true to say, is increasingly deprecated by notable authorities. I appreciate your having recourse to authorities: the case of the concerto is borderline since it has some unique formal character such as the use of Ritornello, which IS a form. I divided Musical form into three formal levels in order to diminish such problems (whereby, if we were to be awkward, each and every piece has a slightly different formal structure) and to confine the concept of musical form to accepted terms for overall structural approaches such as binary, ternary and so forth. This approach has proved remarkably durable - with the exception of the category under discussion! Redheylin (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - Looking through the articles in Category:Musical form, I only noticed a few that were about musical form, the rest were examples of musical forms. Obviously, the actual musical forms should be moved to Category:Musical forms, but should we really have a separate category for just a few articles? --01:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - the average user searching for this type of info.(like a high school kid etc) might appreciate it organized so logically into a category - here is an example of musical forms at yale being organised in such a way. I found an example here: see library.yale.edu/cataloging/music/glossary.htm--Kary247 (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per Jerome Kohl. Some tidying of the categories would be in order, though. Rigaudon (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2011 (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_21&oldid=1138393685"