Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 20

< April 19	April 21 >

April 20[edit]

Category:Portal box templates using obsolete parameters[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. It was always supposed to be a temporary category about two years ago! Possibly due to a template merge? I have cleaned up the pages that where in it that needed obsolete parameters removed. The remaining pages in the category are of no consequence or do not belong in it (because they have valid parameters). See also Template_talk:Portal#Obsolete_parameters. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:45, 20 April 2012 (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:Santiago, Chile[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Santiago, Chile to Category:Santiago

Nominator's rationale: To match the parent article, Santiago, which has uncontroversially been the primary topic since mid-2010. I put this up at CFDS, but there were concerns that a category that had been renamed at CfD shouldn't go through CFDS, even though the rationale for renaming last time was to match the parent article (at the time at "Santiago, Chile"). The subcats are currently a mish-mash of "Santiago" and "Santiago, Chile", so whatever the result here is it should apply to the subcats as well. Jenks24 (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of speedy discussion

Category:History of Santiago, Chile to Category:History of Santiago – C2D: per Santiago. Jenks24 (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Santiago, Chile to Category:Santiago – C2D: per Santiago. Jenks24 (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural comment. Since the current name was selected in a full CFD here, it should probably go back to a full CFD to propose changing the name back. Right now Category:Santiago is a disambiguation category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did notice that, but the only argument at that CfD to use "Santiago, Chile" was because that's what the article was titled. The article has been stable at simply "Santiago" since mid-2010 now, so I didn't think a full discussion would be necessary. Jenks24 (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK. That discussion was before the creation of criterion C2D, IIRC. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't like the idea of a speedy overturning of a previous CfD. I can see that it may be appropriate in cases where the only issue is renamed head article, but the June 2010 CfD, did raise issues of ambiguity ... so another full discussion is needed for both Category:Santiago, Chile and Category:History of Santiago, Chile. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note that the move to the current title was done without a move discussion. It appears to have been uncontroversial, and has been stable since then, but a full CFD discussion gives an opportunity for any issues to be raised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rename both~~ per nominator. I was the objector to the speedy proposal, but my objection was procedural, and I am happy to support the renaming unless someone offers persuasive reasons to oppose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Santiago de Chile and Category:History of Santiago de Chile. Santiago de Cuba is a fairly large city, so disambiguation preferable, and the "city de country" naming pattern is standard for Spanish-language named cities. Mayumashu (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I agree with you. The Chilean city is the country's capital city and the largest city in the country with a population of 7 million. The Cuban city is not a capital and only has a population of 400,000. I think the Chilean city is far more prominent and that when a reader goes to Category:Santiago they would expect it to it to be about the Chilean city, e.g. the first page of my Google search for "Santiago" gives only results for the Chilean city. Jenks24 (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right - the difference here is likely more comparable to that between London and London, Ontario than Birmingham, West Midlands and Birmingham, Alabama Mayumashu (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose whatever the primarity of the article, it is clearly ambiguous, since Santiago_(disambiguation). The category should not be so ambiguous, cleanup is a function required for ambiguous categories. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a poor argument. Should we rename Category:London and Category:Paris just because London (disambiguation) and Paris (disambiguation) exist? Obviously not. Jenks24 (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – it is clearly ambiguous, so Category:Santiago will not do for the category name (cf Category:Birmingham and Birmingham; and quite a few other examples). Oculi (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I've no problem with matching the category name to the article name, despite the potential ambiguity. For every case where this has not been done (Birmingham, etc.) there are half a dozen cases where it is done despite potential ambiguity (Paris, London, etc.). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Birmingham precedent, where the categories have to be at "Birmingham, West Midlands" to keep Alabama articles out of it. Rename to Category:Santiago de Chile, perhaps. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I don't agree that this is similar to the Birmingham issue. Santiago is a capital city and has a metro population of 7 mil, while the Cuban Santiago is not a capital and has a population of only 400,000. Compare this to the Birmingham precedent, where the English Birmingham has a metro population of 3.5 mil and Birmingham, Alabama has a metro population of 1 million (and neither are capitals). That said, if the consensus is disambiguate, I agree with you and Mayumashu that we should use "Santiago de Chile". Jenks24 (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Match with article. 210.17.196.24 (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support If you don't like the amgiguity the article name creates (and I don't either), take it up in the article space. Although I'm convinced the naming is vague, I don't see how it's uniquely vague to the category space. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the Birmingham example, categories can and are named differently from articlespace, especially in cases of ambiguity, where more primarity is needed for category names than article names. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. A category and its head article never need to be located at different levels of disambiguation from each other — if there's ever a compelling reason to do so, then that's not a sign that the standard practice of matching a category to the name of its primary article needs to be deviated from; it's a sign that one thing or the other is at an incorrect level of disambiguation and needs to be revisited. The need to match the two is still absolute and non-negotiable — you're certainly free to put forward an alternate proposal that the article be redisambiguated to match the category name instead if you wish, but either way the names must match up at the same disambiguation level, with no exceptions ever. Birmingham is a problem that needs fixing, not an example to emulate. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the past practice of CFD, that's certainly a different viewpoint, since many times in the past, CFD has taken the opposite view, that the category should be named at a more disambiguated form, because categories are not articles, and have different concerns than articles. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then CFD is wrong. Categories do not have different concerns than articles do when it comes to naming; if an article and its associated category can't be at the same level of disambiguation at each other, then that's a sign that one of them is sitting at an incorrect level of disambiguation, not a sign that categories and articles don't correctly belong at the same names as each other. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (changing my !vote). "Santiago" is not as extreme a case of ambiguity as the two Birminghams, but nonetheless it is a case of ambiguity between two cities. Using the ambiguous name creates a risk of miscategorisation, and fixing that requires a lot of manual patrolling which doesn't always happen.
Bearcat's attempt to draw an "absolute and non-negotiable" line doesn't fit with Wikipedia's general principle that policies and guidelines permit the occasional exception, Wikipedia:Category names#General_conventions doesn't attempt to create an absolute rule; it just says they should "normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article". That reflects the practice in recent years, where a disambiguator is sometimes added to a category name in situations like this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions need to have compelling reasons behind them; the fact that exceptions are allowable doesn't mean we can just go around making exceptions willy-nilly. If Santiago is sufficiently unambiguous to be the title of the article about the place in Chile, then it's sufficiently unambiguous to be the category name; if Birmingham is not sufficiently unambiguous to be the category name in its case, then it's not sufficiently unambiguous to be the article title either. (The British wikicontingent has always relied a little too strongly on the "but ours had the name first" argument, even in some cases where a later-named place had clearly surpassed the actual real-world notability of the first one, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.) It's not good enough to say that we should make an exception just because Wikipedia rules allow for the existence of exceptions; there has to be a specific and compelling reason why this situation is a special case that needs an exception. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the discussion and the fact that Santiago is ambiguous. Categories have a problem with bad population since ambiguous named ones can all too easily receive misplaced articles which are not easy to detect. There is no requirement that categories and articles share an identical name. Having said that, it is an extremely desirable trait. So when we need to have an unambiguous category name that is the correct solution. If that causes a move of the article as well, then we don't have a problem. The fact that certain groups may protect some badly named articles is not a reason to not act correctly here. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are assuming in the basic form that people are even sure the category is about a place. This is an unjustified assumption.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2012 (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:Booker Prize[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Booker Prize to Category:Man Booker Prize for Fiction

Propose renaming Category:Booker Prize winners to Category:Man Booker Prize for Fiction winners

Nominator's rationale: Since 2002, the Man Booker Prize has been sponsored by the Man Group. We tend to go by the modern name of any award; for example, we recently changed Category:Whitbread Awards to Category:Costa Book Awards.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Speedy discussion

Category:Booker Prize to Category:Man Booker Prize – C2D per Man Booker Prize Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Booker Prize winners to Category:Man Booker Prize winners

Oppose both for anachronistic reasons. Most of these writers have never won the "Man Booker Prize" since it has only been in existence for about 8 years. Many of them had died before the "Man Booker Prize" even came into existence. MaybeMan Booker Prize should be moved to Booker Prize as well since it has been known as this throughout its existence and is still commonly known as this today? Note that Wikipedia has Mercury Prize, not Barclaycard Mercury Prize, and FA Cup, not FA Cup with Budweiser as these, also English-based, events are currently known but have not been known throughout their history.

I sort of agree with the above. The name has been stable for a few years but it's still a sponsorship so it's inherently volatile. Moving an article as sponsorship shifts might make sense since it's likely to become the common search term but I prefer keeping the category at a title which is not era-dependent. Creating a category redirect might make sense (and might also make everyone happy). Pichpich (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. (I was the original speedy nominator.) With award categories, we generally go with the current name and make it the same as the article name, which is Man Booker Prize. This does set up "anachronisms" of a sort, but it's better than having multiple categories with different names for the same award. Already one of the subcategories is Category:Man Booker Prize for Fiction winning works‎. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the winners category. We generally do not categorize people by award won, it leads to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, using current name, Man Booker Prize, of article. This is a major national award in the UK covered for days if not weeks in all the media. Oculi (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming, to avoid anachronistic categorisation. Keep winners category, because this is one of the major prizes in literary fiction, and a win is definitely a defining characteristic of its winners. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the Man thing. Simply change them / keep them as Booker Prize, Category:Booker Prize and Category:Booker Prize winners. With regard to the title, what about the above examples of Mercury Prize and FA Cup? Most of the people in the category have never won the Man Booker Prize because it did not exist untila few years ago. But it has been commonly known as the Booker Prize throughout its existence (note that it is not now called the Man Group Prize and that the "Booker" bit is retained.) The example given by the nominator of Category:Whitbread Awards > Category:Costa Book Awards does not apply to the Booker Prize - it is not now known as the Costa Whitbread Award, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.34 (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The similarity of "Booker" and "Book" has no doubt encouraged the retention of the name long after Booker McConnell ceased to be the sponsor. I suppose this is an imprtant enough award for us to allow an award winners category to be retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; even the article Man Booker Prize refers repeatedly to "The Booker". Instead, nominate sub-cat Category:Man Booker Prize for Fiction winning works for renaming without "Man". – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support renaming Category:Man Booker Prize for Fiction winning works to remove the "man", but that should be done in a separate nomination. It's too late to add it to this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:33, 28 April 2012 (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:Archipelagoes of the Republic of China[edit]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_6#Category:Archipelagoes_of_the_Republic_of_China. - jc37 02:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]