Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 5 January 7 >

January 6[edit]

Category:College football bowl seasons[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:American college football bowl seasons. delldot ∇. 00:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category contains only NCAA football bowl seasons. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:02, 6 January 2013 (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.

Years in the Czech Republic before 1993[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 20th century categories as nominated. Rename 10th century categories to "in Bohemia". I see only enough consensus to rename these, not to get rid of the establishments categories. delldot ∇. 00:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Czech Republic is a name only used from 1993. Czech lands maybe a bit ambiguous so alternatively I suggest Bohemia for the very early years. Tim! (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and Rename the first three ones to "Bohemia". - Darwinek (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the 973 and 993 in categories since they only hold the establishment categories. Upmerge Category:973 establishments in the Czech Republic and the 993 category to the general establishments categories for those years. With less than 5 things in the general establishment category it is far too soon to divide by country. I think we should pick a year before which we do not do the establishment by country categories, and I think that the earliest reasonable year would be 1500, and maybe even much more recently than that. Merge all 1929 category and the more recent ones into the Czechoslovakia category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename For the 20th century per presidentman. Merge and Delete the rest per JPL. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename 900s group to Category:973 in Bohemia or Category:973 in Moravia split between these as appropriate. For 20th century categories, we could follow the same principle or merge to Czechoslovakia per nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename per nom. --Marco (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2013 (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:Dope Stars Inc.[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. delldot ∇. 00:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete. 2 articles and a sub-category with 7 articles is quite sufficient that WP:SMALLCAT should not apply. Andrewaskew (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Why is SMALLCAT relevant to keeping? Are you suggesting that any category which could have a subcategory and two articles should be made? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, that's not even close to what I was suggesting. Your stated rationale "too little content" sounds like WP:SMALLCAT (if there is some other way you wish to be read, please advise). My argument is that this category is defining, and WP:SMALLCAT does not apply. It does not follow from my argument that every category of this size is defining. That would be a false syllogism. Andrewaskew (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response We're talking past one another and I still don't understand you. The point that I am making is that there are some 15,000 categories for albums by artist. Are you suggesting that we make 15,000 container categories for all of them? If so, what purpose would that serve? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the point you wish to make ("that there are some 15,000 categories for albums by artist" and you think that this category would be the start of making "container categories for all of them") then kindly make it in your rationale. Other editors can only respond to what you say, not what you mean, and not what you're thinking. Please don't assume we can read your mind. I have replied to your rationale WP:SMALLCAT/"too little content", which is a poor reason to delete this category. But it turns out your rationale does not relate to your reasoning. This sort of discussion goes much smoother if you can provide a concise reason why you feel a particular action ought to be performed. Ideally by either pointing at a policy or precedent, or giving a reason which you feel ought to be policy. In this case I would suggest "we should not have eponymous categories for bands."
I disagree with that reason. Category:Wikipedia categories named after musical groups is well established, and this sort of category is a useful tool for navigation. --Andrewaskew (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response You know that I never assumed that you were psychic—you don't have to be rude and condescending to me. Are you now suggesting that 15,000 container categories is a good idea because it meets some eponymous naming scheme? What about categories that only contain the artists' articles themselves? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my intent to be rude or condescending, I have the deepest respect and WP:WikiLove for your efforts as an editor. But in this instance, I don't think you have conveyed your point well.
To wit, slippery slope arguments like 'if we allow this then we will have 15,000 sister categories in short order' sound allot like WP:ALLORNOTHING. The fact is, we already have a large number of eponymous band categories (over 700 at least), we need to allow them all, argue that all should be deleted, or provide one or more criteria as to why some should be allowed and some not allowed. Ideally we want these criteria to be as objective as possible.
To argue for the deletion of this category, and not for the deletion of its pre-existing sister categories, one needs to provide a criterion; one should demonstrate that this category belongs in the second group (the 'not allowed' group). For my part, I can see no such criterion outlined within this debate, so I still believe that this category should be kept. If someone can demonstrate such a criterion, I will happily reverse my 'vote.'
(My apologies for the long reply. This is a problem within Cfd that I feel strongly on. ☺) --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response First off, thanks so much for your kind words--it's genuinely encouraging. The difference between 700 musician/musical group categories and 15,000 is still quite a bit and although there is not a problem in principle with that many, it's not clear that they are all warranted (in fact, many would not be.) In the past, other editors have used a kind of rule of threes: Category:[Band] can be kept if you have Category:[Band] albums, Category:[Band] members, and Category:[Band] songs (with the main article and possibly [Band] discography, Template:[Band], List of awards received by [Band], etc.) Let me turn it around to you: what do you think is a reasonable minimal standard? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. What you say makes sense. (As a note, I did try to find a policy or precedent, but was unsuccessful. Perhaps it is in the accumulated evidence of dozens of Cfds. (Which is not unreasonable, most legal systems grow that way, for instance.)) In that case, I reverse my 'vote' to delete.
As to what I would declare a minimum standard, I don't think I could sum it up better than you just did. With perhaps a couple of extra notes. At a minimum, an eponymous band category should be avoided unless both of the following are true:
  1. There are at least 3 suitable subcategories or relevant navigation groupings (see WP:CLNT) (i.e: Category:Band albums, Category:Band members, Category:Band songs, Category:Band discography, Template:Band, List of awards received by Band.)
  2. The main article for the band is not a stub.
Thank you. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not need to have eponymous categories for every album category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we don't, but why should this category in particular be singled out for deletion? Andrewaskew (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There has been a long practice of deleting all eponymous categories that fall below a certain threshold. Since the exact number of needed articles has never been agreed upon, we have for quite some time been on a case by case basis considering these categories. We have established a precedent that the parent needs a sufficient number of articles and having sub-categories does not justify the eponymous parent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I concur. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2013 (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:United Kingdom historic house stubs[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. I'm assuming that the concerns of the folks who had comments or objections were addressed by the nom's response to Peterkingiron; even though they didn't come back and say so it seems likely they would be happy with that. delldot ∇. 01:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete both category and template. Historic house is not clearly defined except by membership on a list, which makes this an ambiguous duplicate of Category:United Kingdom listed building stubs. Of the 177 articles in this category, all but 10 are already are in the other category. Of those 10 (scan), I think only 1 actually makes a claim of being especially historic. No merging is required, as all but 4 articles have other stub tags already - those 4 can be manually readded if needed. --Qetuth (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On the face of it the nom is correct, and I expected the remaining 10 not to be in the listed building stub by omission, but on looking closer at some of the 10 remaining, I note that most are actually demolished so they wouldn't be listed buildings. Something should be done with the category, there is no doubt, but whether a straight deletion is the correct answer is another matter. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OCAT. No need for duplicate categories. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge rather than delete. We certainly do not need both. I would invite the nom to purge the 10 that do not fit into the target, by ensuring that we have a suitable stub category. If assured of that, I will be willing to change my vote to delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of the 10 unlisted houses are now in at least one other stub category, and I have also added constructed in, architecture style, demolished in, etc categories where given. So no information lost with a delete except a vague claim of being 'historic'. --Qetuth (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Peterkingiron. --Marco (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2013 (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.

Port settlements[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 and repopulate. The repopulation has already been done, thanks Hmains! delldot ∇. 02:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete? This was apparently emptied out of process as these two showed up in the empty categories for deletion list. Previous discussions on the naming in this area have been rather inconclusive. I think the last one was here. It is interesting when you look at that discussion to see what has been deleted since then. So I guess this is a request to repopulate these categories. Was there a later discussion that I missed? Note that at this point, I'm not advocating deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – there is Category:Port settlements in Washington (state) (renamed via speedy). Hmains seems to be the out-of-process emptier. Oculi (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And there are places like Prudhoe Bay, Alaska which is neither a city or a town, but really a settlement. I'm thinking repopulate and cleanup is the way I'm leaning at this point. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we renamed virtually all "settlements" to "populated places" a while ago. So should this not be Category:Port populated places in the United States?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that was proposed here and did not get the needed traction. So I'm leaning to fix this back to what was in place and then try the populated places rename if there might be traction now. Adding that to this issue could result in no consensus to do anything. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • However that was a move to Populated ports, this is Port populated places. Another possible name is Category:Populated places that are ports. I know it is awkward, but there was a very clear indication that "settlements" has too much negative baggage to be usable at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • But given how long this has been active, is the usage in this case affected by the baggage in the more general case? I guess waiting for others to chime in would be the wise move right now. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. HMains has done this before. Good catch Vegaswikian. I'm happy with the previous name. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • REstore as "Port settlements". I appreciated that we replaced settlements with "populated places", but I find "populated places at ports" and any other combination of the three P words that I can think of too much of a mouthful. CAn an ADMIN please warn Hmains against doing this again. He may think it a good idea, but the proper course is via CFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment No one seems to be paying attention to the overall category structure and all of these suggestions here do not match that. The top level category is Category:Port cities. A subcategory is Category:Port cities and towns by country, which has a mixture of subcats named Category:Port cities and towns in foocountry and Category:Port cities by foocountry. Next subcategory of Category:Port cities is Category:Port cities by continent which includes subcat Category:Port cities and towns in North America with its subcats Category:Port cities and towns in foocountry. The last subcategory of Category:Port cities is Category:Port cities and towns by sea or ocean, which has a mixture of subcats named Category:Port cities and towns in fooseaocean and Category:Port cities towns by fooseaocean. And so on throughout the category tree. The one or two uses of 'settlement' in names in this entire tree are leftovers and should deleted (if empty) or renamed if not. I suggest that all the 'port cities' categories be renamed to 'port cities and towns' to be more inclusive. There is no 'port towns' category structure to deal with. This 'port cities and towns' convention was what was previously agreed so when all other options were rejected during the time that 'settlements' in general were being renamed to 'populated places. P.S. All is restored. Hmains (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for restoring while this is being discussed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using cities and towns is problematic which is part of the reason that we use populated places. Using just cities is ambiguous since it can be taken as including only cities or any kind of populated place with a name. Clearly the city and town construct implies that it excludes all other populated places. This nomination was based on my noticing some empty categories for deletion. I just listed and did not look at the tree so your points about cleaning up may be very valid. If consensus is to retain these two, the followup will need to include renaming or otherwise cleaning up the rest of the tree. On the surface I don't see the port settlements being a tad different as a problem, as long as we are consistent within the tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)o[reply]
      • comment I was one who originally created and populated 'settlement' categories, but that was shot down and replaced with 'populated places'. The reason was that 'settlement' meant, to everyone who argued against it, a 'smallish frontier place'. Based on that, I don't see that settlements can or should be used here for collections of mostly cities, some towns and yes a few smaller places. No one could come up with a combination of 'port' and 'populated place' that was anything other a pure AWB invention having no common English use. I think 'cities and towns' should suffice here even if there are a few smaller places in there that are not cities or towns. The category system is not/cannot be perfect--without making more and more tiny little categories that serve no good navigation purpose or without creating very abstract names that would give users little clue as to what the categories contain. We just have to make things good-enough. Hmains (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom These category names do not fit with the rest of the category tree (as I just mentioned in my above comment). These categories do not serve any present purpose and are just in the way. Hmains (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Strong Keep and Repopulate. These are the names that fit well in this branch of the category tree and from the comments above appear to be the best choice. I did list this for deletion, since it showed up in the list of categories that could have been emptied out of process, that does not mean I favored nomination. I just felt this needed a discussion. As has been pointed out in the discussion Hmains was the editor who emptied these and is by default the proposer. The lack of a perfect system is the reason that these were left and in this case appear to be the best choice. Now if in the future someone can come up with a better solution, bring it forward so it can be considered. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2013 (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:Cancelled Xbox games[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 to rename. delldot ∇. 01:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per MOS:ENGVAR, this should use the American-English spelling "Canceled"; not just because of default, but Xbox is a Microsoft product and Microsoft is unarguably an American topic. Salvidrim! 01:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other video game consoles? N. Harmonik (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The entire Category:Cancelled projects and events tree this is part of has only two canceled categories: Category:Canceled ships of the United States Navy and Category:Television series canceled after one episode, so 'cancelled' is the current status quo there. For consistency, an alternate neutral word is always preferable in ENGVAR cases, which some sections of the cancelled tree use. Unfortunately I think cancel(l)ed simply is the proper word in the case of computer games, as used by official announcements, news sources, etc. 'Unfinished' or 'incomplete' clearly imply something different, 'Abandoned' is closer but I think not as used in the industry. --Qetuth (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – the usual convention is to use whatever the established spelling/usage is for the top category (cf Category:Organizations, Category:Transport, Category:Association football) and then use the correct local spelling/usage in local subcats. So Category:Cancelled military aircraft projects of the United States seems definitely wrong, and it seems logical to use 'canceled' within any general Category:Microsoft subcat such as this one. Oculi (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, with no bias against an expanded nomination. While canceled is the more common spelling in Ameringlish it is not the universal standard, and there are exceptions.1 Were this category in isolation, I think canceled should be prefered, but it is part of the Category:Cancelled projects and events tree. While Oculi alludes to a standard that allows localisation of subcategories, I don't think that standard should be applied here. There is not enough sufficiently distinct about XBox games to make this an exception to the rule as many of the categories within that tree are mostly American. I think this is a case where we need to discuss the whole tree, rather than a piecemeal approach. At a minimum, we should raise the question of Category:Cancelled Xbox 360 games. --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't find the argument very compelling that it must match the cancelled parent category spelling: since it uses a sort key, it doesn't matter how the first word is spelled. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2013 (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/2013_January_6&oldid=1138398074"