Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 9 July 11 >

July 10[edit]

Category:Scotswood[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I have no idea what this category refers to. It should be renamed to fit the correct topic from the dab page Scotswood, if applicable. I guess Category:Benwell and Scotswood? That's really just a guess though. --BDD (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree It should be made a sub-category of Category:Districts of Newcastle upon Tyne and then it should be ok. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. I agree with the comment made immediately above.Robertforsythe (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could Scotswood be expanded into a WP:DABCONCEPT or proper article, then? What's the {{cat main}} for this category? --BDD (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the disambiguation page at Scotswood only lists one populated place and two bridges and a railway station in that place, I really don't see that there's any actual ambiguity here. That said, the disambiguation page isn't actually necessary in its current form, because dab pages are for directing users to the correct topic among articles that could potentially have the same title, and not for merely listing every topic that merely happens to have a particular word in its name — so since the only topic here that could potentially be given the page title "Scotswood" is the place itself, there's nothing to disambiguate it from. That said, no other neighbourhood or district within Newcastle upon Tyne has its own dedicated category, and I'm not seeing any particularly strong evidence that this one has anything unique about it that would actually warrant special treatment above any beyond any of its siblings — so I'd actually argue that this should be upmerged to Category:Newcastle upon Tyne. Bearcat (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • My opposition above was to the renaming of the category. It does not need renaming. As Bearcat suggests the Scotswoord category stands all by itself so an upmerge is probably the best solution. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but maybe Scotswood doesn't have to be a dab. Is there a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Categories tend to be named pretty obsessively so there's no ambiguity in their names, such as Category:People from Denver, Colorado or Category:311 (band) songs. --BDD (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category is adequately populated. While I do not know the area the key is in "AND" which clearly indicates Benwell and ?Stockswood originated as separate places, so that there is no reason to change the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:16, 15 July 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:1926 in Namibia[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. I'm leaving the creation of redirects to others. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per South-West Africa, name of what is now Namibia between 1915–1990. Tim! (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin question. Based on the previous close, should these have been a speedy nomination under C2C? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would think yes. When closed, can we get category redirects on the old categories? I don't know why these weren't just nominated with the others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I still think it is better to get this discussed on a wider forum, see what the general consensus is how this is to be categorised (the system is now slowly turning into a mess, with some subjects being doubly categorised, some being renamed, others being merged), and just speedy the whole lot to the one out of consensus. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but query re German South-West Africa; see below, and added tag to decades for above. Hugo999 (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all, simple rename. --Soman (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. Finally we are getting some movement on this issue. I think we need open discussions on this still though. I just created Category:1883 establishments in French Congo, since it was established in 1882. What do we do with Libreville, though, established in 1848 on land that the French controlled, but there was also the Kingdom of Orungu, and since French Congo controlled Gabon as well, and was initially formed in 1880, was Franceville founded in Gabon? On the other hand, do we really want to impose Nigeria onto the Sokoto Caliphate. I am half of the mind we should create a set of Establishments by year by continent, and place things like Libreville directly there. Although, since Where Libreville was founded in 1848 was under the control of France, should it go in category:1848 establishments in France? John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have opened an RFC on the broader question about these. Any consensus there could answer your question. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you provide a link. I am not sure though we are likely to get to that. Most of us just want people to accept to use the clear country, what to do when there is no easy to designate country is another question entirely. Russia, Germany and India are good examples of the former, but what do we do with pre-colonial areas in Africa? I am not sure I want to bring that up before we get a consensus to use countries like Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and other that clearly exist. I think at some level some of these issues will be decided on a case by case basis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The polity was called South-west Africa, certainly by the time of the post-WWI peace treaties. At the other end, the UN had derecognized the South African mandate, but SWAPO was only an insurgency until the Republic of Namibia was established in (I think) 1990. Pre-colonial status is going to be more difficult. These categories are probably not going to be heavily populated, could we split Africa into West, North, East, and south, possibly also central. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The category Category:Regions of Africa has the first level as North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa, then for the latter the subcategories are Central, East, West and Southern plus the Horn of Africa (?). There is just Category:History of North Africa for history by region at present though, apart from Nubia. So there should be scope for categories for histories of various regions of Sub-Saharan Africa? Hugo999 (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you looked at the article on Central Africa. There are multiple conflicting definitions of the term at present. If we go to pre-colonial times, what do we do when much of modern Democratic Republic of the Congo was under Tippu Tip as essentially a vassal state of Zanzibar, with the later clearly East African, and the largely East African language of Swahili still having a large presence in the DRC? This sounds like a receipe for disagreement if I have ever seen one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the open RFC on this general topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:01, 23 July 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:1904 in Namibia[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per German South-West Africa, name of what is now Namibia between 1884–1915. Tim! (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I still think it is better to get this discussed on a wider forum, see what the general consensus is how this is to be categorised (the system is now slowly turning into a mess, with some subjects being doubly categorised, some being renamed, others being merged), and just speedy the whole lot to the one out of consensus. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The years 1904, 1906 & 1907 should all be the same, but another possibility is to rename them all to "Years in South-West Africa:
The term “years in South-West Africa” can cover both German South-West Africa and South African South-West Africa. The de facto transfer was in 1915 in WWI, but the de jure transfer could be as late as 1922 when South-West Africa became a League of Nations mandate. Additionally, 18XX in South-West Africa would apply even before it became a German colony in 1884, to cater for any earlier 19th century events. So I have tagged Category:1906 in German South-West Africa and Category:1907 in German South-West Africa for renaming, so that it can be decided now, rather than having a third round of discussion! There should be some additional year categories for the South-West Africa Campaign of WWI. Hugo999 (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reasonable rename and provides continuity so I would support all of the period using "South-West Africa".Tim! (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Unify all to one name. I am leaning towards Category:1904 in South-West Africa etc. We should also maybe include the establishments sub-cats in these categories. I am still torn about what to do with pre-colonial African things. This is why I have not added to by place categories some things that were established in Gabon before French colonizations, though under French lnfluence, like the creation of Franceville, which I am actually leaning towards putting in Category:1880 establishments in French Congo, but it is still a bit murky to me if Franceville was established in French Congo, or if it was only in French Congo from 1882. We may also have to has out whether it should be Establishments in French Congo/Establishments in the French Congo.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the rest to the format Category:1907 in German South-West Africa, which was the contemporary polity. However the parent should remain a Namibia category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:28, 15 July 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:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy[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: relisted on August 1. The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure why this category structure uses the more wordy past perfect form. We don't have, say, Category:Companies that were established in 2007. I don't think the current form presents a benefit in terms of precision or anything. (P.S. I'd like to have the subcats renamed as well. Please don't make me tag them all (or at least point me towards an automated tool for doing so).) BDD (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea, the 28 subcategories will need to be tagged. However it might be easier to do those as speedies if this one gets consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go with that then. I'll tag them as C2C, unless someone wants to earn a minor barnstar by tagging them all now. --BDD (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. And the categories by year (which only have one parent category at present) should have another parent, eg for Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2012 it would be Category:2012 in the United States (or perhaps Category:2012 disestablishments in the United States?). All year-related categories should be a sub-subcategory of the year eg here Category:2012. Hugo999 (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not all bankruptcies end in disestablishment so that might not be the best upmerge or parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a defining enough characteristic to categorize by. I support the rename, but think we should consider if it is really defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. If the company went defunct after bankruptcy, we have specific categories for that. If Chapter 11 was just part of a radical restructuring, that doesn't seem very defining. We'd never have, say, Category:Companies that changed headquarters. I wouldn't oppose deletion. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - changing just one part of this category's structure will only serve to create inconsistencies. Look at a (small) part of the category tree:
▼ Companies that have filed for bankruptcy in the United States‎ (3 C, 4 P)
► Companies that have filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy‎ (87 P)
▼ Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy‎ (1 C, 231 P)
▼ Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy by year‎ (29 C)
► Companies that have filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy‎ (1 P)

XOttawahitech (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment BDD, this is at least the third time this category has been discussed at wp:CFD - why is this not mentioned? And for the record, as the creator of most (if not all) of the subcats I resent not receiving a notice of this discussion. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this a private conversation or a public area of Wikipedia where all editors are invited to participate? I just noticed that Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy by year has also been tagged, but not by the nominator but rather by another participant. This category Is not mentioned AT ALL in the nomination and was added as an afterthought in the discussion by Hugo999, who did not notify the creator(me) about this discussion. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an obligation to discuss previous CfDs? From what I can see, the first dealt with companies only in Chapter 11, and the second was an unsuccessful nomination for deletion. I'm asking for a rename here. As for the tagging, you can see discussion about that above. Twinkle notified the creator of the main category under discussion here; perhaps you should watch it if you're interested in updates. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is trivial reasons offered to change. Change should not be made unless there is some substance. Hmains (talk) 05:40, 26 July 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:Albums recorded in India[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The country in which an album was recorded in not a defining aspect of the album. Other child categories in Category:Albums by country of recording location are container parent/grandparent categories for albums recorded as specific venues such as Category:Albums recorded at the Tokyo Dome. The articles in this category don't state that they were recorded at a notable studio or venue within India. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is nothing stopping people from adding sub-categories (most likely they will, at some point), but the category is fine without them. It has a coherent and reasonable purpose. Superm401 - Talk 21:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Superm401. If any article is not correctly categorised to this category edit the article why to get the category itself deleted. Shyamsunder (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What difference would it make if Justin Beiber records his next album in the United States or Canada, for example? What makes it defining to Hariharan – Down the Years that it was recorded in India? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:32, 12 July 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:Song recordings produced by Daft Punk[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_20#Category:Albums_produced_by_Daft_Punk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:31, 10 July 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_July_10&oldid=1138398112"