Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 23 February 25 >

February 24[edit]

Sports events by country[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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose upmerging Category:Sports events by country to Category:Lists of sport events
Nominator's rationale: Category has only two articles on countries, and they are already in the alternative category and are also be in the list category by country ie Category:Swedish sports-related lists or Category:Taiwanese sports-related lists Hugo999 (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom (as editor who created it) and then delete. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, and populate. There are plenty of highly notable sports events which always happen only in the same country: Wimbledon, Tour de France, the motor-racing Grand Pix, and thousands more. There should be a whole category the underneath this, and I suspect that a lot of the lower-level categorisation already exists and just needs to be tied together by adding a new parent to some existing categories. (WP:DEMOLISH may be relevant). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure on whom the burden of proof rests but can you give evidence of numerous lists of sports events? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not proposing the creation of a lists category, so I feel under no obligation to do that research.
    If you want to create a new Category:Lists of sport events, then you do not need to seek consensus first ... but whether you want to create a new categ or rename an existing one, it would be a good idea for you to check whether there are enough lists to populate the category you want to create. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Upmerge per nominator (changing my !vote). Hugo999's note about the existence of Category:Sports competitions by country has persuaded me to change my mind. "Sports events by country" doesn't entirely duplicate the competitions category, but it comes close enough that there is no need for two of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Populate -- The problem is havcing the contents of the subject in the target (which is rather mixed category). Peterkingiron (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge There are already the categories Category:Sports competitions by country and Category:Sports festivals by country (with festivals a subcategory of competitions), which is one too many already, without adding a third for “sports events by country” ! Hugo999 (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Hugo999's analysis. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:52, 27 February 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:Invitation[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) 21:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Invitation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. I just don't see what this category is supposed to contain beyond wedding invitation. I should note however that I've just removed three articles which I felt did not belong: Party (some parties have invitations, most don't and in any case the link to the category is unclear), Place card (not a type of invitation) and Wedding crashing (which is implicitly linked to the idea of not having an invitation but that's too thin a link). Pichpich (talk) 21:30, 24 February 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.

More obscure or ambiguous Old Fooians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all. Feel free to add cat redirects (afaict, that's already been happening with the previous closures.) - jc37 00:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
In the case of these categories, the problems fall into three groups: ambiguity, obscurity, and both
Obscure (the "Foo" in "Old Fooian" is not part of the school's common name)
Ambiguous (the "Fooian" in "Old Fooian" may refer to other topics)
Obscure and ambiguous (the "Fooian" in "Old Fooian" may refer to other topics, and is not part of the school's common name)
For an extended rationale, see CfD 2012 February 22, where I set out the general problems with this type of category name and linked to the many precedents for renaming this type of category. If you have concerns about the general principles of this renaming, please read that rationale before commenting here! Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion (Old Fooians)[edit]
  • Rename the lot of them (as an Old Fooian myself, for 4 decades). Oculi (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. No way to know what these categories refer to without context.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Context is the important point here. Within the circles of a particular school's alumni, these terms will be familiar and require no explanation. However, readers will encounter them either in a) lists of sub-categories, where all they see is the title, or b) at the bottom of a biographical article, again without explanation. A year-and-a-bit ago, I checked over 300 biographical articles which had been placed "old fooian" in categories, and the "old fooian" term was used in none of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the lot of them. Let us get some consistency now for UK schools. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, obviously many of them are highly ambiguous, further, Fullerians could refer to followers of Buckminster Fuller. do not create category redirects ambiguous redirects just cause categorization problems 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point about Buckminster Fuller. Further ambiguity is caused by the existence of John 'Mad Jack' Fuller, a noted philanthropist, patron of the arts and sciences, and a supporter of slavery; he established the 180-year old Fullerian Professorship at the Royal Institution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname but category redirects should be retained in all cases. I would comment that Beghian is derived from the Latin form of the name of St Bees. Exon is either the Latin for Exeter or an abbreviation of it: the Bishop of Exter signs his name as [John] Exon. St Bees is a public school, probably best regarded as a minor one. I do not think I have heard of the rest. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename with redirects maintained for people who are looking for "Old Fooian". Disclosure; I'm an Old Fooian myself. Still think the categories should have more generic names. Let each one explain its history and commonly used nomenclature on a per case basis. Dino246 (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all previous discussions. I am one of several editors who supports the "Old Fooian" format in principle, where it is used. Any ambiguities can be addressed in the usual way. Categories are not for imparting information but simply for categorizing. Moonraker (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Moonraker, please read WP:CAT#Overview, which says "The central goal of the category system is to provide links to all Wikipedia articles in a hierarchy of categories which readers can browse, knowing essential, defining characteristics of a topic, and quickly find sets of articles on topics that are defined by those characteristics."
    Links and browsing are a navigational function, and it's a great pity that you repeatedly show so little concern for the readers who navigate through these categories. A category with a name they don't understand is an obstacle to navigation, and you seem determined to erect these obstacles in readers' paths. How on earth is a reader confronted with an "Old Foresters" category supposed to know that the defining characteristic in question refers to a school rather than to forestry? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional support - Only acceptable if ALL such articles are renamed, otherwise POV of editors becoming an issue. DiverScout (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The question of whether the category name includes at least part of the English language name of a the school is not a POV issue; it's oibjectivey testable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, given the size of the renaming project that would entail, it can't be done all at once. Opposing on the basis that not all were being done at once would be demolishing the house as it's being built. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not agrreing to change all "old fooian" titles, but only those that editors are not aware of is POV, leaning towards snobbery. Of course this cannot be done all at the same time - but the agreement should be there before this rolls further and people (rightly) start reversing changes that are not being appled evenly. DiverScout (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure you that the question of whether editors recognise the terms is not a relevant factor in my approach to these categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename no question that Wikipedia should embrace common usage and be clear and easy to understand. --Bob Re-born (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity by using the school name rather than a term primarily known only internally, per past CFDs. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all The proposed format is accurate, WP:JARGON-free, non-confusing or -confusable, not ambigiuous in the least, and maintains a consistent category tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename 1/Neutral on rest Old Foresters is crazy ambiguous. No opinion on the rest. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notification spam. Moonraker (talk · contribs) has sent a notice about this and another discussion to 45 editors who took part in a wider discussion in February 2011 about all 387 categories for former pupils of schools in the United Kingdom. The messages sent appear to be neutral, as does the audience selection, but the sheer number of recipients appears to amount to excessive cross-posting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find this over the top. The other side of the coin is that BrownHairedGirl nominated twenty categories for renaming and did not notify the creators of any of those categories, one of whom was me. Moonraker (talk) 12:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all previous discussions. Ericoides (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all for clarity for those that didn't go to that school. --Kbdank71 22:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — there is no specific guidance on this under the WP:COP "By association" section, it is just aWP:POV of the proposer deciding what should be renamed from their point of view of what is "obscure". In addition, there are other standard ways to deal with disambiguation on Wikipedia. WP:MOS says "avoid unnecessarily complex wording", so why make the name more complex by lengthening them unnecessary in this way when there is already an existing term? Where do you draw the line in a way that is not arbitrary depending on your perception? In any case, the general issue of "Old ..." has been discussed a number of times before with no consensus reached. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is quite untrue to say that no consensus has been reached at previous discussions on these topics. That was the case a year ago, but since then dozens of such categories have been renamed (see a list at CfD 2012 February 22), and there is no case in the last 18 months where I am aware of a consensus in favour of any keeping any Old Fooian category.
    As to how disambiguation should be done, one approach is to add a disambiguator, but another is to use a descriptive format (see WP:NDESC). The descriptive format is widely used for categories (see e.g. Category:People from London, rather than Category:Londoners, and there is already a standard descriptive format used by other UK schools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to cure ambiguity, clarity, and jargon issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:36, 28 February 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:Portuguese maritime 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: Rename. If there is an advantage to renaming all of the sibling categories in the tree to follow a different form, then that should be dealt with using a nomination specifically for that purpose. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Portuguese maritime history to Category:Maritime history of Portugal
Nominator's rationale: It is clear to me that the category fits the framework of Category:Maritime history by country, since there are 20 other categories with the "Maritime history of X" format. However, I am earnestly trying to defuse an increasingly ugly situation on my talk page. User:Walrasiad, who created the category previously called Category:Portuguese maritime history, objected to the speedy renaming of the category to this format. Four admins explained to Walrasiad that this was not a valid objection for ignoring the speedy criterion known as C2C ("a rename bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree"). So I closed it on its normal schedule. Walrasiad has been repeatedly demanding I either tell him his objection was frivolous (I told him it was WP:SNOW) or admit I made a mistake. Despite my repeated attempts to give him options (relist, DRV, recreate, nominate the tree, accept the result, go to ANI), he refuses to do anything except hound me for satisfaction. So I'm relisting my original close for review, so that a discussion may be held on the merits of the category.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really necessary in the meantime to clutter everybody elses watchlist with the category being moved back and forth while this is being discussed? SpinningSpark 15:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I felt it necessary to reverse my close rather than nominate this the other direction. That way, should a no consensus result occur, this would stay in Walrasiad's original format.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment: The speedy renaming was contested in good faith by an editor who is (AFAIK) in good standing. WP:CFD/S is quite clear that speedy nominations be removed from the speedy process if contested, and there it seems very perverse to simply proceed with a renaming in the face of a sustained and non-frivolous objection, no matter whether an admin agrees with that objection. In such cases a discussion is needed, and the the place for a discussion is here at CFD, where the discussion can be separated from the mass of other speedy nominations and can be properly advertised.
    I know that Mike is a conscientious and courteous admin, but in this case he made a mistake in overriding the objection. This discussion should now proceed as if the category was still at its previous name Category:Maritime history of Portugal, and the CFD closer should default to that title unless there is a consensus to rename it to the current title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I wasn't clear that the category name was originally "Portuguese maritime history." The category was only renamed to "maritime history of Portugal" by my actions. So what I'm doing is reversing my close and relisting it here so some other editor can make that decision one way or another.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, Mike, I misunderstood the situation. I still think that you erred in proceeding with the speedy reanme, but you have acted quite correctly in reversing your previous actions and bringing the matter here in this way, so I have struck the mistaken part of my comment above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, to match Category:History of Portugal and everything else in Category:Maritime history by country. (There is no Category:Portuguese history.) Oculi (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The form "<subject> history of <country>" not only matches the entries in Maritime history by country but also matches the form in all the subcategories of History by country such as Economic history by country and Natural history by country. SpinningSpark 17:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am leaning towards supporting the renaming proposal, because a) it fits with the existing convention of similar categories (as noted immediately above by Spinningspark), and b) the "Foo of Bar" format for nation-related category names is clearer and more neutral) than the adjectival format "Bar-ian Foo" (not all countries have a consistent, neutral and unambiguous adjectival form for their name). Clear, consistent and unambiguous category names are a Good Thing™, because they help readers to parse category names more easily and they also help editors to categorise articles accurately. However, I will refrain from casting a !vote until Walrasiad posts hir reasons for objecting to the renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname as nom. This primarily concerns the country of Portugal. User:Walrasiad seems to be overly possessive of his own view of what articles relating to Portugal should be called. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Thank you very much for the opportunity to continue the discussion begun previously on this move. I had composed much of the following in reply to some of the points brought up the in the other discussion.

Let me reiterate my sympathy for the need for consistency. Let me also underline that I am not arguing for an exception. I am principally arguing for the removal of this category "Portuguese maritime history" from the "Maritime history by country" tree.

I believe the name style chosen for the category tree is poorly conceived and inadequate for the purpose. Maritime history is not a subset of a history of a country. It is a history of the sea, more precisely seafaring. It refers to a technology, not a geographic location. The point of analogy should be to the history of space exploration and travel. The Category:Space programs by country category lists it duly by adjective - "Soviet space program", "Chinese space program", "Indian space program", etc. And that is how maritime history should be worded here.

As the creator of the "Portugese maritime history" category, and a principal writer of most of the articles contained therein, I would like to reiterate my intent behind the creation of this category. It is not, was not conceived, and is not intended, to be part of the history of Portugal. It was conceived as part of the history of seafaring, and collects articles pertinent to that. "Portuguese maritime history" means the same thing (in my intent) as "Soviet space exploration". That is, the history of the Portuguese at sea, just as the other is the history of the Soviets in space, contributions of the Portuguese to seafaring, just as contributions of the Soviets to space travel.

Whomever came up with this "maritime history of X" tree did not think this through sufficiently, and is imposing a convention that is inadequate to the task. It is not much of a convention anyway - it seems a pretty recent construction, and remains very sparse. Most major contributors to maritime history (Carthaginians, Arabs, Italians, Spanish, Dutch, etc.) are entirely missing. And I wouldn't be surprised if the poor choice of category title is a contributory factor to that sparseness.

Delineating the boundaries of maritime history by country is much more difficult than "land history" (which has more compact and firmer geographic boundaries). Countries are a piece of land, defined by legal jurisdiction, but navigation is much more fluid, and the sea belongs to no one, Mare liberum. So setting the boundaries of where one country's maritime history begins, and another country's maritime history ends, is fraught with difficulty. Indeed, it is counter-intuitive to even try delimiting it - the sea is a cross-country connector, the very point of navigation is go from one country to another.

The "Maritime history of X" makes an already difficult situation even more difficult, because "of X" also implies a specific geographic location, and brings in a secondary meaning (i.e. the history of a geographical area) which introduces a new angle of confusion. "Maritime history of Portugal" brings up connotations of seafaring in Portuguese waters, just as "Space exploration of the Soviet Union" brings up expectations of American spy satellites. It is poorly-chosen wording, clearly inadequate to capture what (I think) it is trying to capture. (although I see from many of the entries in the country-specific categories that in many instances it is precisely used in this geographic fashion, to refer to territorial waters, and not in the maritime history fashion of referring to nationality of ships, so I don't want to second-guess their purpose.)

This introduces conflicts between countries. Cape Bojador is Moroccan territorial waters, and seafaring in those waters, even if undertaken by citizens of other nations, is part of the maritime history of Morocco, not Portugal. The way it is worded it is promising to promote over-categorization and categorization wars between editors to decide whether an article belongs to the maritime histories of which country. Nationalist quarrels are never pleasant things. And if things are moved out or re-categorized, the whole unification purpose of a maritime history category is compromised and lost. It ceases to be about maritime history, and starts being about geographical waters and national turf.

Replying to some of the examples given above: "Economic history of", "Natural history of", etc. work well enough with the "of X" utilization, since it implies geographic containment of events within the boundaries of a territorial land unit defined by a legal jurisdiction; maritime history deals with events in an unbounded, non-territorial sea, with both no legal jurisdiction and crossing multiple legal jurisdictions. "Naval history of" poses no difficulties either, as it refers to the military of a well-defined government, a legal jurisdiction; maritime history is not government-related. "Maritime incidents by country" almost proves my point, since it refers to the territorial waters, not the nationalities, of the navigators or ships. The point of comparison of maritime history - seafaring - should be to technological categories, things like space exploration and travel, thus Category:Space programs by country, which is the closest analogy of seafaring, or even when confined, technological topics like Category:Architecture by country (or if you prefer, Category:Architectural history by country), which use the adjective form.

The adjective "Portuguese" (like "Italian", "Spanish", "Dutch", etc.) cuts through such messes in a jiffy. It implies navigation undertaken by nationals, which is clearer, more flexible and less controversial. It does not carry, like "of X" does, knotty implications about countries, governments or territorial claims. Moreover, it sidesteps issues of historical countries which no longer exist today, e.g. the contributions of, say, Venetians to maritime history are much less like to be objected to as being part of "Italian maritime history" rather than "of Italy". And certain categories, like "Arab maritime history", would be just impossible to transfer to a modern country - Tunisia? Algeria? Italy? Spain?

Categories should say what they mean. And I meant this category to mean history of Portuguese seafaring, which is expansive, and not the history of seafaring in Portugal, which is much narrower.

To those who suggest narrowness has its virtue, or that I shouldn't be putting so many things in this category if they are not narrowly "of Portugal", I disagree. Everything in this category is intimately related to Portuguese maritime history. I constructed this category for a purpose - to collect the articles relevant to Portuguese maritime history. Not those relevant to Portugal or the government or Portugal, or its territories or empire. But those relevant to maritime history. These articles were hitherto partitioned into a myriad of scattered, disconnected categories, often misclassified in an attempt to put them together with others (e.g. cartographers and financiers classified as "explorers", etc.) If someone hopes to get a grip or understanding of Portuguese maritime history, he need not look through a gazillion different scattered categories for associated topics, but can come here. It is useful to have it all in one place. That is why I constructed it. The "of X" label will destroy its unity, restrict it needlessly and split away related topics, depriving this category of any useful or educational function. In short, the category will become worthless.

The "Portuguese maritime history" title was carefully chosen as the one which captures the topic most clearly, the one I could easiest default to, one that could be threaded through all these articles and hold them together, with the least complications or challenges. But I didn't anticipate the category itself would be challenged.

I don't want to see this category amputated to fit in the procrustean bed of a confusing and poorly-thought "convention", I want to be able to continue writing articles on Portuguese maritime history trusting there is a category in which I know it will fit, with articles I know are related, and not have to rack my brains in indecision of how or where to classify it and go back to dismembering the topic, scattering articles across a myriad of categories.

If inconsistency in category titles is impossible to tolerate, then I would ask the community to consider the following alternative options (in order of decreasing preference):

  • #1. I request that "Maritime history by country follow the example of space exploration and travel, and use the national adjective format, "Soviet", "Chinese", "Indian" etc. rather than "of the Soviet Union", "of China", "of India".
  • #2. If that cannot be agreed to, then I respectfully request that the category "Portuguse maritime history" be entirely removed from "Maritime history by country", and left by itself under general maritime history.
  • #3 If others object to leaving the title as is, even outside this tree, then I request that I be permitted to rename this category to something more specific that is sufficiently different, so as not to be confused with this category tree.

If these proposals are rejected and the category is moved as proposed, then I will have to move several articles out of it. Moreover, I will stop adding articles and cease maintaing this category. This is not facetiousness nor petulance nor claim of "ownership", but simply that "of X" will be too narrow, ambiguous and awkward to be able to hold what I hoped it would hold, and I think it should hold. A category constrained in this manner no longer serves the purpose I use it for, nor can I see any other purpose for it. I will also cancel my plans to unify articles in other areas of maritime history I also happen to work in - Arab, Italian, Spanish and Dutch - currently scattered around uncollected in the immensity of Wikipedia.

Portuguese maritime history is only one sliver of a general effort to lift the profile of maritime history as a subject area on Wikipedia. I urge editors to enable a category structure which allows an adequate organization that will enable a proper treatment of the subject, that will allow it to be furthered, rather than slip it into ill-conceived straightjackets inadequate for that end, that will keep it in its current messy state and discourage future development. Walrasiad (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename The fundamental problem with Walrasiad's objection is that the distinction he makes between the two titles is not a distinction that all readers make. I don't think anyone seriously finds it objectionable to categorize Cape Bojador as part of the maritime history of Portugal given that the route around it was found by a Portuguese navigator sent by a Portuguese prince (and that this was a big deal at the time). Cape Bojador is also part of Morocco and I can't imagine any editors lame enough to edit war about those two simple facts. More importantly, if such rabid nationalists were lame enough to edit war over Category:Maritime history of Portugal they would be lame enough to fight over Category:Portuguese maritime history. Clarifying the scope of a category is best achieved by a clear summary at the top of the category page, not by hoping that 100% of our readers share our own view of the fine semantic distinction between two almost identical phrases. Pichpich (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've witnessed enough edit wars over Moroccan, Western Saharan and Indian territorial claims, with particular prickliness over relics of colonialism, that are lamer than you can imagine. I'm not sure what kind of tag you want to place atop your category, as many of the entries currently in "Maritime history of X" country refer to geographical territorial waters, not nationality of the ships, so it would be from the outset an incorrect description of the contents (although if you would be kind enough to draft and present such a summary statement here, it would give me a better idea of what you have in mind). My treatment avoids all this. The phrasing is not identical. Just as "Italian explorers" and "Explorers of Italy" have different connotations, and are not really interchangeable. I am proposing clarity, correctness and facility. Outside the issue of consistency, I would like to ask commentators if they could outline what concrete benefits (specifically, benefits to articles on maritime history) they foresee getting from using the "of X" format rather than the national adjective. A little bit of cost-benefit analysis may go a long way here. I've outlined some of the costs already; I imagine proponents of renaming are able to see some benefits I am not seeing. P.S. - I would also like to request comments on the three alternative proposals I made above, which will help me know how to proceed. Walrasiad (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator.
    Walrasaid, thanks for setting out your reasons for the objection. However, some editors will just say tl;dr. Deletion discussions are a place for brevity, not for prolixity.
    Having read all your long first post, I still couldn't see any topics which wouldn't fit in the renamed category, so the 2.5 screenfuls of text was of little use to me. Your reply to Pichpich was a little more helpful, because it did give me some examples, but I am not persuaded that the problems are real -- they sound more like a problem with edit-warriors than of category scope. However, there may is a case for a wider RFC on how to categorise maritime history outside of national borders. All of the colonial powers pose obvious problems, but there are much wider issues: e.g. the port of Holyhead is a crucial part of Irish maritime history, as the primary passenger port from Britain to England for at least three centuries, and the history off that route goes back 4,000 years; the port of Liverpool has played a similar role for freight. The same goes for Dover & Calais, and countless other ports.
    Rather than making WP:DIVA noises, why not try to build that wider consensus? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
When a category change or deletion promises to put an end to all the work you've done, and prevent your continued work in the future, it is natural to be a little alarmed and take some effort in explaining your case. Not many people work in maritime history, and the critical importance of what seems like a subtle difference may be missed. That is hard to convey to non-specialists in a single sound-bite sentence. My text is long because I sense not many people know what maritime history is or what it encompasses, or have experience in such articles, or even articles on topics which are inherently cross-national and cross-cultural by their nature (since I joined Wikipedia and began developing maritime history, the only people that have really participated or even commented on this topic have been primarily Indians and Africans, so I am not merely "imagining" future problems, but conveying my experience with problems that have already arisen). It is made longer by having to address the erroneous analogies that have been made. I am not being merely deflective, but inviting them also to explain the benefits and consider alternatives that address my concerns while preserving theirs. I am willing to be persuaded and have invited compromise. But someone limiting his comments to merely saying "It ain't so" and cavalierly sweeping those concerns away is dismaying.
I don't know if I sound diva-esque. I am conveying what I need to work with. I need a screwdriver to build what I build. If you take away my screwdriver and insist I use a hammer, don't be surprised if things stop being built. They may both be tools, but they are used differently.
If a larger RfC is warranted, and I believe it is warranted, since this entire category tree name is wrongly-conceived, then can this move be suspended until then or that the process be initiated now? I don't want this category moved and then appear to be WP:POINTY in trying to get it turned back yet again or circumventing it by other means.
P.S. As for your example, Holyhead is just one example that is easily and painlessly resolved by "Irish maritime history" but gets very messy with "of Ireland". Ditto for Calais, Dover, etc. Walrasiad (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see any huge difference between the impact of the two. Considering the Holyhead example, most of the ferry traffic was on UK-owned-and-operated ferries, so I can see a case that it would be better to call it "maritime history of Ireland" than "Irish maritime history".
As to the tl;dr, just try less rhetoric and more examples. It is also unwise to suggest that other editors are aware of the international nature of maritime history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, I had Irish landing grounds of 6th-7th C. Anglesey in mind. UK didn't exist then. But if it is British ships, then it is British seafaring, not Irish. In that sense, you're basically committing the kind of error I have been fearing - confusing the geographic with the technological. It is precisely this that I want to avoid - the very reasoning you provide is the very justification for assigning most of the stuff the Portuguese ships did in Indian waters to the "maritime history of India", not Portugal. Now, I don't want to impose a narrow definition on you, but the expansive one you seem to be using is not the criteria I used to collect the articles in "Portuguese maritime history", and not a workable one by which to handle the topic I seek to unite. And I need that collection to stay together. So I urge again, let me rename and remove it from this category tree.
I didn't say they weren't aware (although some of their national analogies belie it), I said they may not have much experience with such articles. (I added a bunch more more examples of problems, but subsequently edited them out so as not to "clutter" the page with words. I'll add them back in if you'd like).
P.S. - I noticed you yourself noticed the difference between "American pornography" and "Pornography in the United States" and voted against a change to the latter. Can you not notice the same difference here? Walrasiad (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I think most readers would consider "Portuguese FOO" and "FOO of Portugal" to be functionally equivalent. I understand the distinction the category creator is making, but I think it's too fine a distinction to worry about when it comes to category names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're not functionally equivalent, as brown-haired girl demonstrated herself just above. This is not about category names, its about category functionality. "Portuguese FOO" is useful, "FOO of Portugal" is useless. One is likely to be maintained, the other not. Again, I'd like to request commentators to please address my proposal to remove and rename the useful category from this tree, so I can continue using and maintaining it. Or suggest alternative proposals of your own that will allow me to continue contributing to maritime history on Wikipedia. Walrasiad (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said I think most readers would consider them as equivalents. I do understand that you disagree, but I think it's most important that our content reflects what readers would expect and understand, not necessarily what an expert would regard as the way to do it. I also don't think there would be a difference in "maintenance" of the category based solely upon the name, unless you're suggesting that if you don't get your own way on a specific issue you're just going to pick up your ball and go home. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Portuguese maritime history" is pretty clear, not hard to understand nor likely to cause confusion and perfectly fits reader expectations of what will be found there. "Maritime history of Portugal" is unclear, hard to understand and likely to cause confusion. As evidenced above, even commentators here are not sure if they expect articles about territorial waters or articles about seafaring. The two are not the same, and consequent classification where an article fits depends on personal interpretation, which means the content of these categories are not going to be reliable or stable or meet reader expectations. I am suggesting I am "taking the ball" and going home - although that analogy sounds more petulant than I mean. I cannot work with categories where related articles will be shifted out to the wrong place and the topic will be dismembered. It is a useless, pointless category. Screwdrives and hammers may both seem like "tools" to novices, but they have different functions in the hands of a carpenter. Of course I will not use a hammer to drive in a screw, because screws cannot be driven by hammers If you take away the screwdriver, I can't build. And if I can't build, don't be surprised if nothing gets built. Walrasiad (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that threatening to walk away if you don't get your way on a relatively minor point (a category!) is kind of an extreme reaction. But what you do in reaction is your business. WP is a consensus-driven work, not an expert-driven work, which some users have a hard time with. I'm not persuaded by such threats to change my mind on this particular issue, however. I think most people who have commented on this issue understand your concern; they just disagree with it. If things go against you on an issue, I find that it is helpful to do your best to understand where the other side is coming from and to work as you can within the system, even if you don't agree with everything in it. But again, that's your business, and, as the saying goes—no one is irreplaceable, so I'm confident that stuff will continue to be built in this area regardless of what happens in response to this isolated issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it is consensus, which is why I have tried to present the case carefully (although apparently I am told I wrote too much for other editors to bother with...), I have proposed alternative compromises, but nobody has commented on them. I would love to understand where the other side is coming from, I have invited renamers to lay out the positive benefits of their case (beyond mindless "consistency") but they largely haven't tried. I don't think I've been unreasonable in attempting to discuss and reach a resolution. I do not think my concerns as a builder have been addressed, but simply dismissed. I'm simply being outvoted.
I understand it is not driven by experts, but experts do do the building. And if you deprive them of tools, they simply can't. It's not that they're unwilling, it's that they're unable. So please don't make this out to appear to be petulance. If you allowed me to retain a screwdriver, or even addressed the possibility of retaining a chisel, a knife, a saw edge or something else I can drive screws with, I could continue building. But if you insist on a hammer, I simply can't. And if I can't build, I have little choice but to close up shop. As you say, I am not irreplaceable. And I do hope you do find someone with more skill, who knows to use a hammer to drive in a screw. Or maybe you can teach him how to do so, since you seem convinced it is so easy? But that's not me, it's beyond my ability. Walrasiad (talk) 00:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, this is too much melodrama for me! It's beyond your ability to add content to a renamed category? Really? Or is it that you just wouldn't want to? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is beyond my ability. I cannot construct a comprehensive category about Portuguese seafaring, if relevant articles are to be distributed across different categories because of the renaming. I will not have the single most important thing - a unifying category name - to weave them together. Haven't I explained that already? Walrasiad (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Walrasaid, you haven't persuaded any other editor that your concerns will impede categorisation as you suggest, and some of those commenting in this thread have been amongst the most experienced participants at CfD. You have persuaded me that there may be a slight difference between the two names, but it's marginal, and not enough to make a substantial difference. And now, Good Ol'fcatory in right: too many words, too much melodrama. G.O. suggested ways of dealing with the change, and I have suggested that you open an RFC on how to use these categories, but per WP:DIVA that's the end of what I'll say here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before the discussion was moved here, Walrasaid's attitude was "I don't mind losing a case fair and square. But I do mind being cheated." Now, faced with the threat of "losing a case fair and square", the attitude is one of "I [will] have no choice but to close up shop"? This is why I referred to this situation as being way too much ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now hang on there. That is highly unfair. I don't mind losing the case, I am not going to race to complain to other forums nor try to circumvent it. But that has nothing to do with whether or not I am able to work with the results as a builder of these articles. And it is in that capacity that I have spoken. I would appreciate if you refrained from personal aspersions or attempted character assassinations of other editors, and focused on the matter at hand. Walrasiad (talk) 02:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It just doesn't make much sense to me that a renamed category suddenly makes you "unable" to build articles. Why not just say, "well, they chose a name for it that I don't like", and continue on as normal? I'm not trying to assassinate your character, but I am saying that some of your comments appear to be a bit over the top, or at least diva-ish, as has already been said. But I suppose BHG is right and I should just quit making comments here regarding the side-show nature of it all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because the renamed category has different definition, connotations and criteria for inclusion, which implies a different collection of articles will be contained there. Articles on maritime history will not be united, but dispersed and destabilized. The purpose of the category (as I constructed it) was to bring the articles on maritime history together in a unified, stable way. The result of the renaming, will be to make it impossible to keep them together. It's as if a children's physician tried to create a category on "pediatrics", and suddenly found it renamed "podiatrics" and put together with articles about feet, and non-feet articles relevant to pediatrics moved to other categories. He tries to explain the difference, but for some reason he doesn't get through. Everyone thinks "pediatrics" and "podiatrics" sound practically the same. What is there left for a pediatrician to work with? Is he supposed to maintain the resulting podiatrics category?
I'd appreciate it if you guys please backed off the diva business. I know you guys have a lot of experience with categories. But that doesn't mean you're experts on all subjects, or that you know how to classify everything properly. Sometimes, just sometimes, a guy who actually writes on the subject and uses and maintains the category has good reasons for thinking it is not workable, and is not merely throwing a hissy fit.
I don't know the way to go. Unfortunately, my contributions to Wikipedia are limited to simply writing articles on maritime history, not navigating these far more complicated waters. I was already tripped up by one admin. I thought that longer discussion meant this was the place to attempt to make my case and try to build consensus. Now I am told this is not the place and I have been wasting my breath. I am not a patroller of categories, I don't know the rules, procedures or expectations of how these things are supposed to go around here. Maybe brown-haired girl is right, and maybe an RfC should be opened. I don't know the procedures all these things, whether an RfC can be intiated now, who is to write it up, where or how, or if this move can be suspended until the results of that are obtained. I don't want to appear pointy or trying to circumvent procedure. This, I believe, is your point of expertise, so I would appreciate any guidance here. Walrasiad (talk) 04:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this category is renamed, I think the best approach you could take is nominate all of the subcategories of Category:Maritime history by country for naming to the "FOOian maritime history" format using the WP:CFD process. (Essentially, this is what I understand your proposal #1 above to be suggesting.) That way, the concerns about consistency are somewhat neutralized, since even if the proposal is accepted, consistency will still remain. That would make it far more likely that the discussion would focus on what is the appropriate naming format for this class of categories. If you are unsure how to start such a nomination after this one is closed and can't figure out the instructions on WP:CFD (it can be a bit trickier for multiple category nominations), I would be happy to assist you with it if you let me know on my talk page that you need help. I would not be discouraged that your proposals have not been directly addressed here. Typically users kind of consider one proposal at a time for simplicity. There's no reason you can't make a fresh proposal after this one closes, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - there is no reason for this to be an exception to the rest of the Category:Maritime history by country tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You know, I was looking all this over to close it. But after reading quite a bit of background, it appears to me that the whole structure we have is backwards. Part of the problem is the fact that we're using the word "maritime" - a term who's usage goes back literally hundreds of years in multi regional laws and treaties. The cats should not be maritime x by country, because it presupposes maritime history of the country's government. Part of the problem also seems to be that we're conflating at least two things (and it's being done in the articles too). To use the UK for example: The maritime history of events involving people who are from the UK/ships owned by people (which could include royalty and/or governments) from the UK - a location of a person's nationality. And: maritime history of events near the UK - a geographical location. So the issue as I see it, is the name suggests that the events are due to UK govt action, among other things. (I'll spare everyone a digression into language usage and the genitive case : ) - So I would like to see this closed as no consensus and a new nom dealing with the broader structure using "maritime". (consensus not being a vote, yadda yadda, more preaching to the choir : ) - jc37 00:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the current format better. It matches Category:Military history of Portugal, Category:Political history of Portugal, Category:Legal history of Portugal, and other similar social history, natural history, and the like. I see no reason this should be different.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem with your comparisons, is (mostly) use of the word "maritime", which military/political/legal simply do not compare to. - jc37 05:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on jc37's proposal. I would have no objection to a new nomination where the structure of the entire tree is reconsidered. For the time being, however, I don't see the point of closing this as no consensus. Why not just make this change to get all the categories in line, and then we can have a group nomination to change them all? Doing so will resolve the issue of dealing with a "mixed bag" in the group nomination and will make it clear to all that the categories being nominated are all of the same "type" or class. If they have a problem—they will all have the same problem, and that will help focus discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We often have "test noms", so no reason to not do this right, now, and follow it up with the rest? - jc37 05:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, yeah—maybe originally but at this stage I get the impression that everyone who has been involved in this is tired of this issue—at least in the context of this discussion being open. It might be easier to rustle up new input with a new nomination. I'd hate to see it closed as no consensus though in case the new proposal ended as no consensus—that would put us back to stage one, and stage one was pretty painful, at least for Mike it was. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A good analogy is "Diplomatic History of X". This would largely cover things done by that country and its agents outside its boundaries. The same would probably apply to categories like Category:Military history of the United States, Category:Military history of Portugal and related categories. The issue here is not that those involved were neccesarily "Portugese" but that they were acting as agents of Portugal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly the issue. The question of whether acting as agents of portugul, or just events in the territorial waters near portugul. - jc37 21:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adieu[edit]
Adieu @ Good Olfactory, Thanks. Although I had a bit of an epiphany today, so I am not sure that is necessary anymore. Before you roll your eyes and moan *more drama*, let me assert it is a happy epiphany, calmly and rationally weighed, and I am quite comfortable and even delighted with it.
I've only been on Wikipedia for about a year and a half. I registered primarily to improve the coverage of 14th-17th C. maritime history, which was practically non-existant before I arrived. I've been rather spoiled by the fact that no one else was working in that area (and perhaps just as few interested) and thus my work was largely undisrupted. I learned to coordinate my efforts with people working on Moroccan, Indian and African history articles and while there were some occasional difficulties with kooky nationalists, it went rather well in retrospect. So I expanded and deepened my efforts and made sure to cooperate with people in related fields whom I would affect and was affected by.
But events since this January have shaken that little utopia. In quick succession, I have experienced two/three unanticipated and wide-ranging changes from afar, which have been highly disruptive and quite bruising and consuming of my time and effort. Moreover, these disruptions were not from people working in the field, or any related field, with whom I could communicate or coordinate or discuss to reach an accomodation, nor did they seem interested.
I've realized working quietly in a lonely field has its benefits, but also has its costs - not only in lack of feedback, correction and contributions, but also in the sense that when push comes to shove on wide-ranging disruptions that affects that field, there's no one but me to defend it.
So maybe it's about time to call it quits. I was thinking about it already. In the run-up to the 500th anniversary of Amerigo Vespucci last week, I prepared a high-quality, meticulously-researched article which was, frankly, damn good. So good that I was rather reluctant to give it away to Wikipedia and have been toying with the idea of retaining it for myself. I remembered I had also been holding back in-depth articles on Henry the Navigator, the Portuguese discoveries, India armadas, Italian portolan cartography, Italian maritime manuscript collections, navigation rules, Dutch voorcompagnie, etc. And much, much more in an earlier state of development.
The epiphany is that it would probably better serve the public if I created a distinct website on maritime history, rather than try channeling the material through Wikipedia articles. I have done so before on economics and economic history, but I didn't want to do the same for maritime history, sensing I didn't have enough material for a stand-alone site and could probably benefit from the contributions of others. But those contributions haven't really materialized and I realize I have been writing practically all the articles anyway. So I don't really see the benefit of going this route anymore.
Wikipedia is a nice idea, but when it comes to specialist topics, it may not be the best venue to reach and teach the public. My experience in the past two months has taught me there are too many other dimensions, too many people, and too many layers involved, that the earnest task of building content, to inform and to educate, can get bogged down and lost in that. I could count those recent disruptions as exceptions, but I expect such problems to increase in frequency the more I contribute. When measured rationally, the cost far exceeds the benefit. It is probably best to cut my losses now, shoot the white elephant before it grows further.
I don't want you to imagine I am directing this at you or anybody here, nor at Wikipedia itself. It is just that this latest episode finally made me realize that the Wiki model doesn't really work for me, that I need more control of my output, and there is an alternative way to go.
I did a comprehensive rewrite of the article on the Columbus Letter on the First Voyage a few days ago, just before this little crisis erupted. It was a gift, a reaction, to a disgruntled IP reader who stumbled upon it and complained that the existing Wiki article was empty of content. That will probably be my last contribution to Wikipedia. I might stick around to tweak a couple of Moroccan history articles - there are other custodians there - but I am permanently transferring my efforts on maritime history elsewhere.
Thanks for everything. I didn't know where else I should post this. Walrasiad (talk) 04:48, 1 March 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:Noli Me Tangere (novel)[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Noli Me Tangere (novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems like overcategorisation, can't see it holding any more articles than the two it currently does. Jenks24 (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. In any case, the two articles are already well-connected by internal links so the category isn't that useful. Pichpich (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The problem here is what to do with María Clara, the other member of the category, and perhaps Maria Clara gown, named from her (not currently in the category). It looks as if there have eben article on other categories but that they have been merged back to the article on the novel (as is proper). I agree that WP:SMALLCAT applies. It may be sufficient to place a "main" template after the heading about María Clara in the article on the novel and ensure there is a direct reference to the gown on the novel article. If (but only if) these issues are resolved the category could be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Peterkingiron. As a subcat of Category:Novels by José Rizal, it should be just fine for now. - jc37 23:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a way too small category. The Category:Novels by José Rizal is meant for articles on the novels, it is not an excuse to start creating a whole bunch of new categories on each novel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:59, 3 March 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.

I-League 2nd Division football club 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: Delete without prejudice to recreation once there are more articles. Note that only one of these categories has two members (an article and a media file) and the rest have either just one item or nothing at all in them. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aizawl F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Ar-Hima F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Bhawanipore F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Gauhati Town Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Golden Threads F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Green Valley F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Kalighat F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:KGF Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Quartz S.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Basically, single entry eponymous categories of what seems to be a second tier league. Nothing to populate it with as the league hasn't started so no notable players, no completed seasons or championships, and so forth. Cart before the horse categories with no prejudice against recreation should there be articles to populate them with. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for showing how much you know about Indian football. The league started already. Please give me one week so I can get separate articles done. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need to rush. If they get deleted, as long as you have appropriate content to put in them, just recreate them. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:SMALLCAT, without prejudice to re-creating them if any where there are more than 5 articles to populate them. As the nominator noted, this is putting the cart before the horse. Categories should be created to group existing articles, not for articles which an editor intends to create. I'm sure that those intentions are sincere, and if the categories are indeed populated by the time this discussion is closed (in no less than 7 days), then I am sure that closing admin will take that into account. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too small though I can certainly imagine these being recreated later on. I want to note that the nomination is missing two more recent creations Category:Luangmaul F.C. and Category:Simla Youngs F.C.. They should be deleted on the same grounds. Pichpich (talk) 17:50, 27 February 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:2000–01 Horizon League men's basketball season[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:2000–01 Horizon League men's basketball season to Category:2000–01 Midwestern Collegiate Conference men's basketball season
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Horizon League did not adopt its current name until June 2001, after the 2000–01 basketball season. IMHO, the category name should reflect the conference name of that period. Note that Category:Pacific-12 Conference football seasons includes subcats with the names "Pacific Coast Conference", "Pacific-8 Conference", "Pacific-10 Conference", and "Pacific-12 Conference". (The PCC had a separate charter from that of the Pac-12, but the Pac-12 considers the PCC a part of its history.) Dale Arnett (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This is a logical reason for the change. However the parent category should continue to be called "Horizon", applying the precedent for alumni categories that the alumni of renamed or merged colleges are deemed by WP to be alumni of the successor. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — Agree with keeping the parent category as "Horizon League". I had no plans to ask for a change of that one.  :) — Dale Arnett (talk) 01:16, 27 February 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.

Redirecting the empty "Category:Red list" to "Category:Wikipedia red link lists"[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: fixed by using {{category redirect|Wikipedia red link lists}} instead of the #REDIRECT syntax, which doesn't work for category redirects. BencherliteTalk 06:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to redirect categories to other categories without accidentally creating a subcategory in the latter category? The question may be a bit difficult to understand, so here is an example of what I am asking:
"Category:Red list" used to be the name of the category in which all red links were stored, but the name was later changed to "Category:Wikipedia red link lists". However, many people still recognize and link to the "Category:Red list" page, but before I edited that page it only took you to a deleted, empty page. As you can see by visiting the page, I tried to make it redirect to the newly named category, however for some reason this seems to create "Category:Red list" as a subcategory of "Category:Wikipedia red link lists", something that I obviously did not intend. Is there any way to stop this from happening while keeping the redirect?
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this sort of question, as I was referred to here via a Wikipedia IRC channel.
Thanks, Habstinat (talk) 04:03, 24 February 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:Short stories by Olaf Stapledon[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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Short stories by Olaf Stapledon to Category:Works by Olaf Stapledon
Nominator's rationale: Only two entries and it doesn't look like too many of his other short stories are notable enough for their own pages. Upmerge. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – part of Category:Short stories by author. Oculi (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge As Oculi points out, there are plenty of other short story cats but I see the "Works by Foo" cats to be the established structure and sub-cats to be created when the article count justifies it. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:59, 27 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_24&oldid=1074808838"