Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 18 December 20 >

December 19[edit]

Category:Brujeria (band) songs[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 results of the discussions were: delete. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category contains one redirect only. The redirect redirects back to the band. Richhoncho (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No navigational benefit. SFB 16:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Carcass (band) songs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category contains one redirect, so it leads nowhere the albums by category does it do much better. Richhoncho (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No navigational benefit. SFB 16:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting both of these. Nyttend (talk) 20:53, 31 December 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:Members of the CPPCC National Committee[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: relist at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 5. – Fayenatic London 00:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It's long, but I think we should expand the abbreviation. The relevant article is at Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and the parent category is Category:Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. The Hong Kong members subcategory can be named in the same format while eliminating "of the People's Republic of China" as unnecessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The target is an awful mouthful. For British MP categories we use abbreviations. I think this is an exception where abbreviations are acceptable. The expansion should be given in a head note. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't have to say it—readers just have to read it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • And in any case, there's little sense in keeping the two nominated categories in the different formats they are currently in. "of the People's Republic of China" is redundant. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:15, 30 December 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:Members of the The Hague Guild of Saint Luke[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 12:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Was proposed at speedy but opposed based on an invalid appeal to the Manual of Style (see copied discussion below). Even if the issue is not addressed by the MOS (and it appears that it is not), it does makes sense to me to eliminate the first "the" in this case, if only for ease of reading and per what I think is probably the predominant usage, notwithstanding counterexamples being available. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Category:Members of the The Hague Guild of Saint Luke to Category:Members of The Hague Guild of Saint Luke - CB2 per MoS on the, specifically "the The" and "The Hague". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC).
    The MOS doesn't seem to have any guidance on "the The"[1], and the capitalization of The Hague is already present. Whether this construction is wanted on Wikipedia or not is not clear to me, it certainly is in use in the real world[2]. But I don't think a rename should be done "per MoS" when the MoS doesn't give any guidance on this. Fram (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes it quite clear we don't say "the The Lord of The Rings" or "the The Hague". We don't even say "the The The" unless we want to be funny. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC).
    That page doesn't says anything about "the The" at all. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. "Public transport in the Amsterdam" would be nonsensical, so the example of "Public transport in The Hague" doesn't help us here. Fram (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per consistency (all others are "members of the City Name guild of Saint Luke", and the City Name in this case is The Hague) and because it isn't wrong (both systems seem to be used, I can't really see much difference in prevalence in comparable situations). Fram (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The preceding "the" is not required. We don't precede many other place names with "the" unless they typically are presented as so (a notable absence is that The Hague article doesn't start with "The The Hague" - while the Dominican Republic does so). For groups we wouldn't create things like "Members of the The Beatles" either. Stylistically the rename is preferable and causes no issue in legibility. SFB 10:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't get your example of the The Hague article. No (or very few) city articles will start with a "the" before the name of the city, just take a look at Amsterdam, Paris, Antwerp or Los Angeles. So why would you expect The Hague to be different? The comparison with the Dominican Republic is incorrect, as there you have a name which is also an adjective - noun combination, where it isn't weird to start the article with an additional "the". But city articles are never (well, in the few examples I gave) started with a "the", so the fact that The Hague doesn't start with an additional "the" is meaningless. Fram (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Fram: Well we do have The Forks, Maine and The Bronx, the latter Category:The Bronx shows precedent for avoiding "the The Bronx". What is the benefit of the additional "the"? Given your examples, I'm not sure how your comment supports the status quo. I read your argument as "The Hague is different and not like other city names, therefore we should use 'the The'". SFB 11:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see nothing in The Forks, Maine that has any bearing on this discussion (either option). There is nothing in that article that would make a choice between "The Forks" and "the The Forks" even necessary. The Category:The Bronx is a lot more relevant, and supports moving this The Hague category. Still, I don't see it as compelling. As for my comment, and the reference to other cities, they were not meant as support for my position, but as an indication that your previous reason for opposition was meaningless: if cities without "the" don't get a "the" at the start of their article, then the lack of a double "the" at the start of the The Hague article (I hope you'll agree that at least here, the double "the" is necessary?) can not be used as supporting evidence for your position, just like your example here of The Forks doesn't add anything to support either position. Like I said, you The Bronx category example is a much stronger and dierctly relevant argument. Fram (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While it makes the tree slightly non-standard from a strict structural sense ("Members of the"+[City Name]+"Guild of Saint Luke"), it will be clearer to average reader. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- haveing a double "The" is nonsense. One should absorb the other. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:32, 23 December 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:Unreleased horror films[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 after upmerging. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The genre of horror does not contain a higher amount of unreleased films than any other genre. JDDJS (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator....William 14:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted after upmerging. Personally, I think this an unhelpful move: if you want an unreleased horror film, you now have to filter through 163 articles instead of going through 7. However, closing administrators aren't dictators, and consensus is clear here. Nyttend (talk) 20:52, 31 December 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:Articles containing video clips[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notice left for participants of the category talk and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wiki Makes Video — xaosflux Talk 14:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is unbounded, and as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 37 shows is anticipated to contain in excess of 7,000 articles today. When it was created 6 years ago it may have been useful, but as the number of video clips increases its benefit is reduced. — xaosflux Talk 04:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC) — xaosflux Talk 04:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, I'm not really opposed with the idea of some sort of categorization but want to get community feedback if this should be otherwise organized prior to bulk populating the category. — xaosflux Talk 14:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose; though I welcome the discussion. I would actually like to see this become a parent category for subdivisions -- perhaps by type of article (astronomy articles with video clips, etc). I think this could be useful for curated collections as well as editing efforts in the nascent effort to add more video to articles. (And yes I realize Commons is categorizing videos too, but that's a parallel effort). A category with 7,000 is smaller than most of our maintenance categories. If we start have tens or hundreds of thousands of videos in articles (which will probably happen eventually), we can reconsider. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    additional comment: if there's a better way than a parent category to track video usage in Wikipedia it would be great to figure that out. There's the tool that I got the list from in the first place, but that seems even more unwieldy (as well as not being able to search by category intersection etc.) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree with phoebe here, on all points. --Atlasowa (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No wait, i don't agree with the category subdivisions, that is not needed (no faceted categories, please). I really hope that we can replace this category-tracking with something else later, maybe when commons is wikidatafied (automatic video-file categories). Until then, lets keep this category. --Atlasowa (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if Kept If this category is useful, it should be renamed "Category:Wikipedia articles containing video clips" and possibly moved to the Talk pages. (No opinion on whether this category is usuful or whether it should be deleted.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a good tracking category, especially since 7000 is such a tiny proportion of our articles. RevelationDirect wants a name change, but I don't care about the name, so "keep" only means "don't delete". Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is in use by VWA. We already begged for help and again, but even after I managed to find TMg to code this great tool no bot-owner wanted to. But go ahead, destroy our work and help hiding the few articles+video we have yet even more - WMF does it, so you can, too. --.js (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@.js: I believe this CfD was started because a bot owner wanted to help (me!) - see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 37. If you could please explain how the German WikiProject VWA uses the category on the English Wikipedia, it may help keep the category from being deleted. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@.js:, though I'm the nominator I am mostly concerned with ensuring that there is a sufficient consensus for this category to exist as is, or complete any quick-fixes prior to having it become bot populated. To the editor closing this discussion: please do not consider my nomination a !vote. — xaosflux Talk 03:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: If it is decided that this category should be kept, it would be possible to turn it into a tracking category - where every time someone edits a page, mediawiki checks if it currently has a video on it, and adds it to the category if so. Please let me know if such a functionality would be desired, and I can work on making the changes to MediaWiki (It wouldn't be very hard). In case its useful, I also have a big list of all articles with videos on them that's updated once a week at https://tools.wmflabs.org/bawolff/usedVideos.htm . Bawolff (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bawolff: that sounds great, thanks! Also there is a list here, I don't know if that's helpful for it. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a good reason for keeping it can be found and the anomalies it causes (e.g. placing articles that are not about video in Category:Video) can be resolved. Having (for example) the Elephant article categorized under Category:Digital media is the sort of thing that hinders category intersection. If kept then rename as proposed above. DexDor (talk) 07:29, 31 December 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:Streets in San Antonio, Texas[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 after upmerging. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one article in the category so it doesn't aid navigation. There is no overall scheme to categorize every street by municipality that would pass WP:SMALLCAT. I have no objection to recreating this category later if additional articles are created later. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Little content that benefits from navigation at this time. No opposition to recreation should more such articles be created. SFB 10:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:SMALLCAT
  • Upmerged and category deleted. I'll add the close template if I can figure it out. Nyttend (talk) 20:44, 31 December 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:Parliament of Italy[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 12:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Was proposed at speedy but opposed by a user who was not happy with the article being at Italian Parliament. Since then, no attempts have been made to change the article name, and it is reasonably stable, having been at its current name for over two years. As per usual practice, the categories should match the name of the article. If the article name ever changes, so too should the categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Category:Parliament of Italy to Category:Italian Parliament – see main article, also French Parliament as format. Gryffindor (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Speedy The official name according to the constitution (as quoted by the Italian article seems to be just Parliament (Parlamento), not Italian Parliament. There does not seem to be a most common form in this case in Category:Parliaments by country, either for articles or categories. I suggest you either ask for the renaming of the article in sth like Parliament (Italy) or Parliament of Italy, or start a discussion towards a convention for naming bodies called just Parliament in their native language without any qualifier. Place Clichy (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The official name is not particularly relevant when determining what the article name should be. What is more relevant is the common name. But this nomination is not about changing the article name. It is about conforming the category names to the article name. Any discussion of the article name takes place on the article talk page. If you want to propose changing it, of course you can, but it won't happen through discussion here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy-esque Support per WP:C2D. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support speedy Article name is stable so this is reasonable. No opposition to a rename should the article be successfully moved. SFB 10:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; this shouldn't have been opposed. Nyttend (talk) 18:55, 20 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_19&oldid=1090391662"