Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 13

< November 12	November 14 >

November 13[edit]

Organi(z/s)ations[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 per Davshul's research. Dana boomer (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original nominator's suggestions:

Propose merging Category:Organisations based in Austria to Category:Organizations based in Austria ("s"-category was created first)
Propose merging Category:Organisations based in Kazakhstan to Category:Organizations based in Kazakhstan ("s"-category was created first)
Propose merging Category:Organisations based in Togo to Category:Organizations based in Togo ("s"-category was created first)
Propose merging Category:Organisations based in Paraguay to Category:Organizations based in Paraguay ("z"-category was created first)
Propose merging Category:Organisations based in Poland to Category:Organizations based in Poland ("z"-category was created first)

New suggestions:

Propose merging Category:Organisations based in Andorra to Category:Organizations based in Andorra ("z"-category was created first)

copy of speedy nomination

Category:Organisations based in Togo to Category:Organizations based in Togo — C2A. — Tjmoel^bicara 11:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Organisations based in Paraguay to Category:Organizations based in Paraguay — C2A. — Tjmoel^bicara 11:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Organisations based in Poland to Category:Organizations based in Poland — C2A. — Tjmoel^bicara 11:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Organisations based in Kazakhstan to Category:Organizations based in Kazakhstan — C2A. — Tjmoel^bicara 11:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Organisations based in Austria to Category:Organizations based in Austria — C2A. — Tjmoel^bicara 11:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do these meet the criteria? For Togo at least, I haven't checked the others, I would certainly spell the word "organisation," not with the "z." --Kleopatra (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree with appropriateness of speedy on these categories without justification that it is not appropriate local usage. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly one should be merged into the other in all cases, but which direction should certainly be discussed. If date of category creation is the tie-breaker, then Category:Organisations based in Togo, Category:Organizations based in Paraguay, Category:Organizations based in Poland, Category:Organisations based in Kazakhstan, and Category:Organisations based in Austria would get to survive.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why should they be merged? The general consensus is to not merge when the different names are a reflection of local usage, and that may be the case with at least some of these: "This criterion will not apply in cases where the category tree observes distinctions in local usage (e.g. Category:Transportation in the United States and Category:Transport in the United Kingdom)." --Kleopatra (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm saying we should pick one (not saying which one) for each category, because we don't need two categories for organizations/organisations in Togo. My suggestion is to figure out if any of them have a national preference for one spelling or the other, and if not, then default to whichever of the two country-specific categories was created first. I don't care if there are different spellings in the category tree, but I do care if there are pointless duplications, as there are here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a moved version of User:Tjmoel's Speedy nomination, which focuses on the fact that "organizations/organisations" is one of the category trees where we accept different spellings. Right now there are two categories each for these countries. Since, as far as I can tell, none of these countries would have a reason to pick one spelling of the word over the other, we could favor the one that was created first ("s" for Austria, Kazakhstan, and Togo; "z" for Poland and Paraguay). But regardless of which gets selected, we can't leave two nearly identical categories for the same content.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge all to first-born name per nom. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Select appropriate local use where possible and merge. It is directly against the policies to merge to first use where local use trumps, and it serves no purpose to not go with local use. I think that Austria, Poland, and Togo can go with "s," but I don't know. Maybe some of the wiki linguists can help out? --Kleopatra (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly true. If any evidence can be found about, say, what the Togolese prefer, I'm in favor of seeing it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to first-born name – none of the listed countries has English as an official language (Togo was French) so I doubt if local usage comes into the equation. Occuli (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in French, "s" is used... 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as we normally do in cases like this. Match the name of the parent Category:Organizations by country unless there is a different established spelling. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would also be fine.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Added Andorra, where the "z"-category was created first.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/reverse merge "s" is British preferred spelling; "z" is American preferred spelling. The US spelling may be appropriate for the Americas, and former US colonies such as Liberia and Phillippines. Elsewhere English spelling will be appropriate. Which happens to have been created first is a purely random criterion. Keep merged versions as category redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at each on its merits and endeavor to establish some consistency of approach as regards the merging:

Austria – the other significant German speaking countries, Germany and Switzerland use an “s”, and 35 of the 42 articles (as well as all of the Austrian subcategories, including five with the spelling “organisation”) are listed under “organisation. Accordingly, “organisation” appears preferable.

Paraguay – all but two of the countries of South America use an “s”, and accordingly, “organisation” appears preferable. (By contrast all the Latin American countries of Central America and the Caribbean use the “z”, presumably as a result of a closer relationship with the United States)

Togo – of the 20 African Francophone countries listed in the series, all but 4 use the “s”. Accordingly, “organisation” appears preferable.

Andorra – both Spain and Portugal use the “s”. Although not as conclusive as those above, “organisation” appears preferable.

Kazakhstan – this appears to go the other way. Of the countries with the closest historical or linguistic ties, Russia, Soviet Union, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkey use the “z”. (Only Kyrgyzstan uses an “s”.) Accordingly “organization” appears preferable.

Poland – most of the other Slavic countries, Russia, Belarus, Czechoslovakia, Czech Republic, Bulgaria and states of former Yugoslavia (though not currently Slovakia and Ukraine) use the "z". Furthermore, all but one of the 32 articles and all of the Polish subcategories (including 3 with the word “organization) are listed under the “organization” category. Accordingly “organization” appears preferable.

Davshul (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment What would be nicer than to have a single MOS-type place where each country is listed along with the brand of English to be used for all its articles, categories, etc? Then all discussions of English brands could be carried out there and all main space edits or changes can be justified just by reference to that list. As things are now, there are just piecemeal discussions here and there. And first-born name is completely non-relevant. Hmains (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment but the UK is also supposed to use "z" according to the Oxford English Dictionary... 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UK used to use both (see Oxford spelling) but now uses 's' in all major publications (BBC, Times etc). I'm a little surprised to see comments about 'first-born irrelevant' when the wiki-wide-standard is to respect the choice of the creating editor unless there are compelling reasons not to do so (WP:Retain). Occuli (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Austria, Paraguay, Togo & Andorra to "Organisation", Kazakhstan & Poland to Organization per Davshul's findings of actual usage above. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like the best solution to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another look at each on its merits : This issue is which critria is the one to go by. Matching the form of countries with historical or linguistic ties to the given country is quite unconvincing to me. For example, countries of South America might mostly use an "s" only because it was one Brit that created most of them.

*[Created first] = Keep the first made subcategory – per User:Johnbod, etc.

*[Parent category] = Match the parent category and use "z" – per User:Vegaswikian

*[Like countries] = Match the subcategory names of countries with historical or linguistic ties to this country – per User:Davshul

Andorra, Austria, and Togo –

Pro-s: [Created first], [Like countries]

Pro-z: [Parent category]

Kazakhstan –

Pro-s: [Created first]

Pro-z: [Parent category], [Like countries]

Paraguay –

Pro-s: [Like countries]

Pro-z: [Created first], [Parent category]

Poland –

Pro-s: none

Pro-z: [Created first], [Parent category], [Like countries]

I myself am favoring Vegaswikian's straight forward match-the-parent-category and use "z" reasoning-- unless real evidence of a partiular local uses are forthcoming. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 23:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The suggesstion by şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ:, to support the "z" spelling in the case of Paraguay that "the countries of South America might mostly use an "s" only because it was one Brit that created most of them", is simply not borne out by the facts. Of the 9 other Latin American countries of South America, there were 7 different users creating these categories. In fact th eopposite is the case - the user who created the "z" category for Paraquay is the same user who created one of the two only other South American categories that use the "z" spelling (Uruguay). Furthermore, the use of the "s" spelling for South America is of much longer standing, the categories having been created in 2006 and 2007, whereas the Uruguay and Paraguay "s" categories were created in late 2008. According, I believe that the "s" spelling in the case of Paraguay is clearly the strongest. Davshul (talk) 06:46, 21 November 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:History of civil rights in Iran[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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:History of civil rights in Iran to Category:History of civil rights and liberties in Iran

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent category. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:50, 20 November 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:Civil rights history of Canada[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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 22. Dana boomer (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Civil rights history of Canada to Category:History of civil rights and liberties in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent category. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Canadian English rarely uses the words "civil rights" or "liberties" which sound suspiciously American to Canadian ears. We talk instead about "human rights" and "fundamental freedoms", see Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I counter-propose Category:History of human rights in Canada. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 07:25, 16 November 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:Worst Actor Golden Raspberry Award winners[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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 22. Dana boomer (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A good example of Wikipedia:OC#Award recipients, compare the deletion discussions for award categories that are either similar in style or more prestigious (and not ironic/humorous): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The recipients are all already in article lists. Hekerui (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you read List of people who accepted Golden Raspberry Awards you will see multiple notable people appreciate this award and show up to receive it themselves. :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at Jean-Claude Van Damme's categories they all look like defining characteristics, but the Raspberry Award sticks out like a sore thumb, because it is a joke and meant as such (I like the award itself). Yes, it's nice that some people get the joke and show up but that doesn't make this an Oscar. Besides, it humour comes in when a user can check out what people got the award for and when, because there are recipients (Halle Berry comes to mind) that are generally considered good actors, and this is accomplished by the lists that exist. Hekerui (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And imagine the category clutter that would result if we allowed a category for every award merely if a certain percentage of recipients "appreciate [it] and show up to receive it"! That's not the standard for keeping an awards category, nor should it be! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable award and the lists/categories go hand-in-hand, per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category." sounds quite reasonable and this humourous award is not a good exception. Hekerui (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The awards are notable enough to warrant categories, regardless of the fact that they come across as "humorous". Tom Green for example didn't find his winning of one humorous, as you can read from his reaction. DrNegative (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So these awards are more deserving of categories than the awards I cited as precedent in the nomination, and others like the Soul Train Award and the Polar Music Prize? Hekerui (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you were to assume that the outcome of those decisions set a blanket-statement for the outcome of all future discussions related to similar topics such as this one. On a case by case basis however, I still stand by my original comment to the notability of these awards. I also feel that your nomination is very close to becoming a snowball clause and I recommend you withdraw it. Good luck though and I wish you the best in your pursuit of bettering this encyclopedia. DrNegative (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In very few cases (Faye Dunaway, Donald Trump come to mind) the category is, indeed, not defining for the person. But it's spot on for all the others; the majority of these faux "actors" and their disposable shows outweighs the few exceptions. I mean, who the hell were Halle Berry or Tom Green? I wouldn't even know if it wasn't for this CFD! East of Borschov 21:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely defining in quite a few cases. (Though, East of Borschov... Halle Berry? She won a Best Actress Oscar for Monster's Ball.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify then delete. (That is, delete and create list articles where they don't presently exist.) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST are not reasons to delete, but Time Persons of the Year are certainly more notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify then delete -- This is what we invariably do with award categories, except Nobel Prizes and a few more: see WP:OC#Award recipients. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a defining characteristic of the award "winners". Alansohn (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete: Notable, but not defining. This is the standard treatment for all but the most defining awards. These do not rise to that level. Most of the "keep" comments above have not distinguished between the two standards of "defining" vs. "notable", and the higher standard generally applies to categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - strangely, the real life Hollywood community really does discuss these "awards". I have seen CAA cover letters from agents which would describe the work as being that of a Golden Raspberry winning director. Obviously in jest, but they are semi important nonetheless.Donmike10 (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete As someone who has created a number of awards categories himself and has since seen the error of his ways, even I can't imagine creating these. As noted above, these are often mentioned "in jest." With Oscar and Nobel winners offered as a model of what should be categorized at WP:OC#Award recipients, the nominated categories fall far below that standard. We look back on the lives of actors and remember them as Oscar winners. Ditto for Nobel winners. Can one say the same for the Razzies? No. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Golden Raspberry Award winners. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:51, 20 November 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:Great Basin section[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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I started looking to see what was in the category. After deleting a few articles that don't even mention this, I decided that the best solution may be deletion. If you look in the master article, United States physiographic region, for these physiographic regions, the main article is listed simply as Great Basin and not Great Basin section. What remains is correctly categorized in other places. This was created by a banned user who has created a mess to be cleaned up. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:51, 20 November 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.