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.
Nominator's rationale: Category name is incorrect on its face, as there are no former capitals of Canada (Ottawa has been the capital since the Canadian federation was created in 1867). The category awkwardly tried to cover former colonial capitals in Canada, but none of them were technically capitals of Canada (as the term is currently used), although confusingly some of them were former capitals of the Province of Canada (which is not the same thing as the country we know today as Canada). The former colonial capitals have been moved to Category:Former colonial capitals in Canada. This category should be deleted, as at best it is confusing, and at worst it is an empty category with no potential content. See WP:CANTALK#Category:Former capitals of Canada for the discussion that led to this nomination. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. It's a valid point of categorization in principle, but this was the wrong name for it and the newly renamed category is the right one. Bearcat (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per Skeezix and my own comments on CANTALK recently; I hadn't seen this though I'd had this page bookmarked because of the NDP item below. Just to note, also, I'll remove Fort St. James from the colonial capitals category as New Caledonia was not a colony, but only a fur district.Skookum1 (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2014 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy deleteWP:G6. – FayenaticLondon 15:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There is no need for redirected stub categories. Template has already moved to the new category, thus moving all the articles. Dawynn (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2014 (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:American people of Spanish-Filipino descent[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.
Nominator's rationale: As mentioned in "Filipino people of Spanish ancestry" article, there are many Filipino descent people that claim but with no precise genealogical evidence. Hence, having a category like this is not needed. We already have the "American people of Mestizo descent" category anyways. Masterpeace3 (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Category:American people of Filipino descent. I really do not think we can allow triple ethic intersections. If Spanish descent is provable, those people can also have a Spanish descent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2014 (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.
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.
Agree Since the category is about a Canadian party and its provincial sections, there is no need to add "(Canada)." TFD (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: do you have a guideline that says "articles can be located according to the primary topic, but categories should avoid ambiguity"? The intention I get from WP:CFDS and WP:CATNAME is that to name the category after the article. 117Avenue (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has already been determined at the RM that the Canadian New Democratic Party is the primary topic, and not just in English; category names, as I painfully am aware, are to follow the main articles thereof, and unnecessary disambiguation should be avoided. The Serbian party's name in Serbian is not "New Democratic Party", also, very clearly not. Noting 117Ave's comments about these moves having been done by a now-blocked user, it's very clear what should be done here, and no quibbling about "ambiguity" when there really is none in English names has any relevance here whatsoever.Skookum1 (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fayenatic. It doesn't matter if this is the primary topic, it's way too ambiguous to use as a category name. This will collect all NDPs regardless of what they are (non-Canadian, Canadian provincial, etc), and will require excessive maintenance. Category names should not be ambiguous, category names should not encourage miscategorization. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A different, and vastly more serious, form of miscategorization — the inclusion of articles in categories that don't even exist — occurs if the category name doesn't match the title of the page. That kind of miscategorization is a much higher priority to avoid at all costs than the kind you're alluding to. Bearcat (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is vastly more serious miscategorization, since it is not apparent that it is a miscategorization. There is no way to show in HOTCAT that this is a miscategorization, since there's no indication that it isn't the proper category. Are you volunteering to patrol this category on a regular basis to recategorize miscategorized articles? Missing categorization can be fixed by adding categories. Adding the wrong category that insufficiently identifies the topic for someone from a different topic area will require people checking article inclusions all the time. Not everyone is from Canada, and we shouldn't expect them to know Canada to perform proper categorization if they are from outside of Canada, when they have an article on a non-Canadian NDP, or a provincial NDP. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the use of redlinked non-existent categories is the vastly more serious form of miscategorization, because it completely removes the article from the entire categorization system, and requires vastly more work to detect and repair. As somebody who works regularly with the uncategorized articles toolserver, trust me, I know very well which one is a more serious categorization issue. Bearcat (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a redlink, it's clearly an error, if it's a bluelinked category, and the wrong one, it isn't clearly an error. Indeed, uncategorized pages are much easier to find than wrongly categorized pages. How would you know it was wrongly categorized, without constantly reviewing the entire contents of a category? If an article isn't in the categorization scheme, we have tools that find such articles. What are the tools to find that it appears in the wrong category? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your speech might be more convincing if it weren't for the fact that I personally am the one and only editor on Wikipedia who actually works with the uncategorized article tools on anything approaching a regular basis, and thus I personally am the one who regularly catches the average of 100 articles per day that editors leave sitting in redlinked categories. If I don't touch the tool for a month, there are 1,000 redlink-categorized articles that have been sitting in the tool queue for a month — because nobody else is doing the work. So I'm sorry, but my assessment of which form of miscategorization is more serious carries way more weight than an anonymous IP number's does, because I am that project queue. If it's such an "obvious" error to most people, then why are the 100+ commissions of it per day almost never fixed by anyone who isn't me? Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You fix articles categorized into redlinked categories. Do you also patrol all categories for articles that are placed into the wrong bluelinked categories? A redlink error is easy to spot, how are you going about fixing the bluelink errors? Making one problem go away by making miscategorization into the wrong bluelinked category more common isn't an improvement, it's a much worse problem. Redlink categories merely imply no existing related topics, bluelink miscategorization implies inclusion into a group that the article does not belong. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There are exactly no circumstances under which an article and its associated category should ever be at different levels of disambiguation from each other — if the name is unambiguous enough to be the article title, then it's unambiguous enough to be the category name, and if it's not unambiguous enough to be the category name then it's not unambiguous enough to be the article title either. The confusion created by disambiguating an article and its eponymous category differently from each other is a critical issue which must be avoided at all costs, because it's infinitely more serious than the absolutely insignificant confusion created by following "match to article title". There is never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever a situation where it's ever ever ever ever ever ever ever justified or necessary — in every single situation where it's ever been deemed "necessary" with not a single solitary exception in all of human history, the problem was that incorrect reasoning was being used in one discussion or the other, and not that the situation was actually the correct solution. Bearcat (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This removal of disambiguation will promote miscategorization. While the category can require renaming, it is not the removal of disambiguation that is the fix. With the proposed category name, we will end up with provincial NDP categorized into this category. IT will require constant maintenance. We must avoid at all costs miscategorization we should not promote it. Miscategorization is infinitely more serious than the category name having additional disambiguation than the article, since the disambiguation can be figured out. (though the parent category also poses problems regardless of the name of these categories, since it says "of Canada", and the other federal articles are "of Canada" LPC/CPC/etc; and most Canadians will not tell the difference) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The provincial parties are already categorized, why would anyone change them? All the pages that "could" be miscategorized, are already correctly categorized, there will be no maintenance because no one is going to edit the existing articles. 117Avenue (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uncategorized articles about provincial NDP (such as a provincial politician, leadership convention, etc) can and some probably will, get miscategorized into the new category names. There will be maintenance because new articles appear about topics within the scope of provincial NDPs. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are people who go around fixing categorization as a gnomish task. Given that Category:New Democratic Party doesn't exist, you're treading up barren territory. I don't believe this is an issue, nor will it be a substantial one for the foreseeable future. - Floydianτ¢ 17:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing categories would require reviewing the entire contents of a category (or all categories of an article) to make sure every article (or that article) is categorized properly, than just adding categories, or diffusing categories by using more specific subcategories. Considering that some categorization errors remain for years, until an article or the category comes up for review of some sort, I think miscategorization errors are a bane of Wikipedia. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards support per reasoning for the main articles: other parties with this name are just too insignificant. Though I also understand concerns about ambiguity. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- On occasions categories need a disambiguator where articles do not. This is to prevent the Canadian category inadvertently picking up articles on Grenadine politicians. The classic case is Birmingham, whose categories have to be at Birmingham, West Midlands to exclude articles on Birmingham, AL. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The cause of that situation is not that the article and the category legitimately belong at different levels of disambiguation from each other; it's that the article is at the wrong level and needs to be moved. Which means that it's not a necessary situation; it's what I described in my comment as "incorrect reasoning is being used in one place or the other". Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bearcat. There are very, very, very few situations, if any, where the level of disambiguation for categories should differ than the level of disambiguation for the relevant article. This is definitely not one of the exceptional cases. I also agree with Bearcat on his assessment of the relative priority of the difficulties presented. Either way, a problem is created, but the problem created by having the category name not reflect the article name is more serious. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Categories should always match article titles, as it creates more confusion when they don't. Number57 08:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 117Avenue and Bearcat. Except in rare circumstances, category names should match the related article title. No good reasons have been given here, other than a bit of hand-wringing, to suggest that we deviate from that rule.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Category should match article title. If/when other NDP parties exist, have articles, require categories, and successfully disambiguate the Canadian Party that has existed for 45 odd years, then we can easily discuss shuffling things around... if/when. - Floydianτ¢ 17:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That case already exists. Ontario NDP, Alberta NDP, etc, are called just "New Democratic Party" or "NDP" in common speech, they are not the federal NDP (the subject of this category set) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those meet three of four criteria, but they lack that crucial fourth. It's well known that the provincial counterparts are following in the footsteps of the mandate of the federal party. - Floydianτ¢ 05:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not always. The last iteration of the Quebec NDP was independentiste, with a former FLQ member as its leader. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2014 (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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 17:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is undersized, and even a scan for potential members finds only 44 stubs. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 02:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stub categories group articles by a maintenance state, so it's not necessary for them to be as comprehensively fine-tuned for individual subgenres of music as the real content categories are — I note, for example, that we don't have a Category:Punk rock guitarist stubs (or even a Category:Rock guitarist stubs, for that matter.) Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2014 (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.
