Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 27 January 29 >

January 28[edit]

Alumni by secondary school in 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: Rename per variant 1 (to "School Name alumni"). I find the tertiary institutions precedent persuasive. In addition, this requires only three categories to be renamed to achieve consistency. Ruslik_Zero 15:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Either:
Category:Alumni of King George Secondary School, Vancouver to Category:King George Secondary School alumni
Category:Alumni of Nelson High School to Category:Nelson High School (Ontario) alumni
Category:Alumni of Lakefield College School to Category:Lakefield College School alumni
Or:
Category:Appleby College alumni to Category:Alumni of Appleby College
Category:Athol Murray College of Notre Dame alumni to Category:Alumni of Athol Murray College of Notre Dame
Category:Simcoe Composite School alumni to Category:Alumni of Simcoe Composite School
Category:Upper Canada College alumni to Category:Alumni of Upper Canada College
Category:Alumni of Nelson High School to Category:Alumni of Nelson High School (Ontario)
Category:Alumni of King George Secondary School, Vancouver to Category:Alumni of King George Secondary School
Or else:
Everything to a third format that may be appropriate plus:
Category:Alumni by secondary school in Canada to Category:to be determined by consensus
...if a different term from "alumni" is used.
Nominator's rationale: Currently there are only a small number of Canadian schools categories but they're split down the middle on format and a standard system is desirable before we have too many more. I don't know if "alumni" is the preferred term or not but if not then the parent cat can be renamed as well. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slight amendment. The categories for Nelson High School (Ontario) and King George Secondary School are out of sync with the articles on the school, this can be modified at the same time. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the 'or' option (use 'Alumni of' throughout). ('Athol Murray College of Notre Dame alumni' is unwieldy.) I am assuming 'alumni' is in widespread use in schools in Canada. Occuli (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ending in "Alumni": This format matches the college cats in the United States; see for instance every the cats under Category:Alumni by university or college in Connecticut. If there is a different naming format for high schools or Canadian schools, I'll gladly reconsider the naming format. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to put "alumni" in lower case. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename first group to "(school) alumni." This brings these in line with the closest set of schools, those in the US.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In a discussion for some UK schools, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 24#Old Edwardians, a suggestion of "People educated at (school)" has been made. Cjc13 (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "alumni" is widely used for former school pupils in Canada (it is not in the UK, where it only applies to tertiary institutions) then rename to the "Alumni of Foo" category names, which are less clumsy and look a lot better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that Category:Alumni by university or college in Canada universally uses the "Institution Name alumni" format so my first preference is for the either option. But a standard format either way is far more preferable than inconsistency due to deadlock. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the Candian tertiary institutions precedent I would say that renaming with School Name alumni is best here. I would also point out that these names are not unruly the way some claim, since alumni is always when on the end tacked on to the end of an institution name, so that alumni is always modifying everything before it, we never modify alumni in category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 12 February 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:Wikipedia protected pages with expiry expired[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. All templates that target to the former category have been redirected to the target.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Wikipedia protected pages with expiry expired to Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates
Nominator's rationale: Merge this category with Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates, because the two serve the same function. c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 22:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection from me. I imagine this category is no longer used due to some template rewrite at some point. Can probably be speedied. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:19, 29 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:Military of Hong Kong[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. Since Hong Kong does have some military of its own, the category is legit. But articles herein might be repositioned in another category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Military of Hong Kong to Category:Military in Hong Kong
Nominator's rationale: Also, Category:Military of Hong Kong under British rule.

I don't know if there is a standard of/in nomenclature for military categories, but this one reads wrong as "of" instead of "in". Hong Kong has no military OF it's own, its state (Britain or China) has forces IN the territory. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment HK does have paramilitary units in the police... And the category also contain WWII material, where HK had its own volunteer unit. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 04:57, 30 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:Ambassadors of Pakistan to Bahrain[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. This is part of a major categorization scheme for which this article needs this category. Discussions about whether to impose limitations on it probably should be handled on a global basis..--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ambassadors of Pakistan to Bahrain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We do not normally create categories for ambassadors of one country to another unless there are many notable. in this case there is only one which hardly warrants a category. LibStar (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This may be a situation where "part of an overall scheme" considerations are relevant since there are quite a few by-country subcategories of Category:Ambassadors of Pakistan. Personally, I don't see a problem with full development of such a scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Upmerge A lot of times I don't have a conceptual problem with a category tree but then I look at actual usage. The large majority of subcats under Category:Ambassadors of Pakistan are 1 or 2 articles. I did add notices to both the creator's talk page as well as WikiProject Pakistan to get more opinions though, since I don't work in this topic area. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:25, 31 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:Łódź Ghetto[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: self-close; article was moved to Łódź Ghetto. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Łódź Ghetto to Category:Ghetto Litzmannstadt
Propose renaming Category:People who died in the Łódź Ghetto to Category:People who died in Ghetto Litzmannstadt
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match the main article Ghetto Litzmannstadt. A redirect should remain on the nominated category since it is a valid alternate name. (There was some talk on the discussion page over a year ago about moving this to Lodz Ghetto, but it hasn't come to anything. Article has now been at this name since Feb 2008.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Article name should be changed consistent with all other ghettos. See Category:World War II ghettos.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article appears to have been renamed and renamed again several times over the last five years, though there is very little discussion at Talk:Ghetto Litzmannstadt. "Lodz Ghetto" has more than ten times as many Ghits and follows the more familiar Modern name or common English name + Ghetto format observed by most articles, as noted by BC, so it is the article name that deserves more thorough review.- choster (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for outcome of the move request at the article page, which I've just started.--Kotniski (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nom). Isn't it interesting how no one cares to attempt to move an article until there is a movement to standardize naming across categories and article? Starting a category nom seems to be quite an effective way to get users to make up their minds about where an article belongs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, you're the nominator, and you've found the discrepancies, so why didn't you attempt to move the article? I find it interesting that you haven't attempted to move the articles. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I do not want to be involved in that, mostly because I don't care. Users need to decide one way or the other—I don't care which they choose, but they need to choose. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see how this is any different from putting up a requested move. I also don't see a good reason to choose a bad name over initiating a requested move in the first place. 65.93.12.249 (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you can't tell the difference, I'm not sure I can help you. Quick recap: I don't care what the name of the article is. It was stable for well over a year, so I proposed that the category be renamed to match the article. That's where my involvement began and ended. If users decide that they want the articel moved, that's good for them, but I don't really care one way or the other, as long as in the end the category name matches the article name. I don't propose article renames when I don't care if the article is renamed or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: the discussion of at the article seems to be rejecting Ghetto Litzmannstadt, but now there's a discussion of whether to go for Łódź or Lodz (if the latter is chosen, then the categories will presumably lose the diacritics too).--Kotniski (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article is bizarrely named - it's invariably known as the Łódź Ghetto. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ARTICLE WAS MOVED to Łódź Ghetto, so this can presumably now be closed (no action needed - category is already under the right name).--Kotniski (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed (per Kotniski). Let's close this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:30, 10 February 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:Provinces in coastal area of China[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: speedy delete under G5. — ξxplicit 20:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Provinces in coastal area of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A category with no parent article, which does not appear to correspond to any recognized category tree within Category:Regions of China. The category description reads like WP:OR. If kept surely this would need to be renamed as there is no single coastal "area" along that long coastline, is there? (Oh, and I'm pretty sure this is banned user Mac). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – there is no overall global scheme for coastal regions (other than towns, cities etc), or indeed of landlocked regions. (There are however Category:Countries bordering the South China Sea and Category:Landlocked countries.) Occuli (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are a number of official schemes used by the Chinese government and others to divide Chinese provinces into regions, but putting all coastal provinces into one region is not one of them. I think that this category gives the wrong idea about the level of homogeneity among these disparate provinces.--Danaman5 (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has been confirmed at User_talk:Diamondland#Blocked that this category was created in violation of sockpuppeter User:Mac's indef ban. I have tagged for speedy deletion accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 29 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:Renault Z.E.[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: speedy delete under G5. — ξxplicit 19:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose upmerging Category:Renault Z.E.
Nominator's rationale: Another green car micro-category that I believe was created by a new sock of indef banned user Mac (the case is at SPI now). At any rate, delete per WP:OC#SMALL as the parent article Renault Z.E. shows there is little room for growth. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:35, 28 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:Literary journals[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 nom. It appears that any "careful split" would not be as easy as it looks. Ruslik_Zero 15:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Literary journals to Category:Literary magazines
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate categories. While one could make an argument that the distinction between literary journals and literary magazines is one of the level of sophistication or that journals have more of an academic bent to them, the distinction is so slight as to only create problems as far as categorization goes. The article is at literary magazine and literary journal redirects there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Those journals that also publish studies on literature (as opposed to publishing literature itself) could be categorized in a new category "literature-studies journals". All periodicals publishing exclusively fiction and/or poetry should be categorized as (literary) magazines, as they are not peer-reviewed academic journals (even if they have their roots in some university department). --Crusio (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom/Crusio. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are definitely some of these that feel quite a bit more like journals than magazines. I think I favor a more careful split rather than a merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:03, 11 February 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:Anoxic basins[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. And if the main article is renamed, we'll rename it again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Anoxic basins to Category:Anoxic waters
Nominator's rationale: Rename. A difficult one. This is not about basins per say, but rather bodies of water that contain anoxic waters. Having said that, I'm open to seeing if there is a better name. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that Category:Anoxic bodies of water would be more helpful. Hmains (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that this can exist in pockets within the larger bodies, so while your suggestion is an improvement, it may not fix all of the problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many lakes are anoxic, if you take it that way, since many lakes do not turn over, and have deep layers low in oxygen, are we going to fill this category with thousands of lakes? 65.93.15.80 (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that is a notable feature, why not? In any case, the current category needs renaming. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:32, 29 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:Civil parishes in the Isle of Wight[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. The "administrative rather than geographical" argument is stronger than the "it's surrounded by water" argument.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Civil parishes in the Isle of Wight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:Civil parishes on the Isle of Wight. Good grammar - corresponds to main article. Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 28th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  • Comment CfD 2009/Dec/10 In or on the Isle of Man may be of interest.- choster (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "In" makes more sense when the place is a country unto itself, as with the Isle of Man. For islands that are parts of other countries, as with the Isle of Wight, "on" is probably better. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC) [but only if we are referring to a geographical feature as opposed to an administrative unit, as explained by Mattingbgn below Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)][reply]
  • Comment The Isle of Wight is also a county and "in X" reads better than "on X" when referring to a county IMO. The parishes in question are in effect administrative sub-divisions of the county so it is pretty clear that in this case the category relates to "Isle of Wight" as a county rather than as a geographic feature. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with that. "In" makes more sense if it's a defined administrative unit rather than merely a geographical feature. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "In" is also, IIRC, local usage, and as such should be the one used, surely. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. There are good arguments to be made either way, so either "in" or "on" is fine by me ... but whichever formulation is adopted, please ensure that the other exists as a {{category redirect}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The Isle of Wight is an island, so that its boundaries are the sea. Accordingly "on" is appropriate. "In" should certainly be used for an inland (or coastal) county. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It depends on wether you consider the Isle of White as a land mass or as an administrative region. As a land mass "on" is appropriate, but for an administrative region it sounds plane wrong, you would not say Civil parishes on Cornwall. In this case it the admin region is the most important context so it should remain as "in".--Salix (talk): 23:41, 4 February 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:Former countries in China history[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: Speedily Merged cat was only created when CfD notice was made, only populated by coding oversight in a template. Rich Farmbrough, 01:35, 28th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Propose merging Category:Former countries in China history to Category:Former countries in Chinese history
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Redlink category which closely mirrors another category. Salix (talk): 00:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – this seems to be populated in some very subtle way by {{Infobox Former Country}}, which has source code far beyond my own powers of comprehension. I expect some template guru could tweak the code so it yields 'Former countries in Chinese history'. (This category didn't exist until it was cfd'd.) I agree with the nom that Category:Former countries in Chinese history is a preferable name. Occuli (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename that infobox does or did a fair amount of category population, causing a few little problems here and there. Rich Farmbrough, 01:09, 28th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  • ... Actually this is really a template fix problem rather than a rename. Rich Farmbrough, 01:10, 28th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
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/2011_January_28&oldid=1089914571"