Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 21 June 23 >

June 22[edit]

Category:Tragedies (events)[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not convinced that there's a particularly neutral measure of the emotional power of an event to guide inclusion/exclusion here. It is not difficult to imagine that this category will lead to more of this sort of disagreement: [1] j⚛e deckertalk 23:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As this cat is currently populated it's a mix of murderers, reproductive abuse and a type of poisonings.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As it's currently used, this is a trash category. However, see separate comment.
  • Comment. This category could be marginally useful if it had some clear and specific inclusion criteria; there is a spectrum of events given the name "The X Tragedy". If the category were renamed "Incidents Labelled as Tragedies" and placed as a subset of Mass Casualty Incidents, then I'd support doing that. On the other hand it would be just as easy at this point to simply create that category and delete this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getheren (talk • contribs) 05:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete one mans' tragedy is another's opportunity. too subjective to be useful.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete -- Inclusion is a question of POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:51, 26 June 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:West Coast Region[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 "West Coast, New Zealand". There's no consensus for in vs on so retain the current formulation in each relevant category. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed speedy. The relevant article was recently named West Coast, New Zealand by consensus (which was unanimous). The category names should naturally follow. I disagree that the name is ambiguous, as argued; this is clearly the common name of the region and the is the primary meaning of "West Coast, New Zealand". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy nomination
Support renaming per Good Ol'factory. In reply to @Grutness:, yes, Aucklanders refer to the beaches to the West as the West Coast, but it is rarely ambiguous. Usually the local area is referred to as "West Coast beaches". If a local friend said to me "I'm moving to the West Coast" I would assume they meant the South Island. If they were moving to one of the beaches they would have said "I'm moving to Piha" (or another specific beach) instead. If they ask "Want to come on a ride to the West Coast this morning" I would assume the opposite, as I'm not likely to go a ride which would take several days without some notice.-gadfium 00:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get this right... you're saying it's unambiguous, then giving an example of how the same person can use it to mean two different things which can only be distinguished by context. If that's the case, then it means that simply using the term "West Coast, New Zealand" means it IS ambiguous, since the context is absent, and is clearly necessary. Grutness...wha? 10:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that using "West Coast, New Zealand" to mean the west coast region of the South Island is the overwhelming primary meaning of the term. "Paris" is not 100 per cent unambiguous either, but it doesn't stop us from having Category:Paris, to match Paris. Same principle here—we're simply matching the category name to the article name, which has been adopted by consensus. But in any case, I think the conversation is overlooking one important point—the encylopedia is written, not spoken, so capitalisation is becomes relevant. Other "west coast"s in NZ might occasionally be referred to by sources, but never as the "West Coast". When it's capitalised, it's always a reference to the South Island region in question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a further problem which requires discussion, too. When talking about the West Coast Region as The West Coast, local usage is to refer to things being "on", not "in" the coast. All the categories above which talk about something being "Foo in the West Coast, New Zealand" should at the very least be "Foo on the West Coast, New Zealand". Grutness...wha? 10:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine if we use "in" for all the categories, per the conventions. If there's a real desire to change them we could discuss it in a follow-up discussion, but every discussion I have seen on that issue has determined to use "in" per the convention, even when locals might say "on". This often arises in the case of islands. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the discussions that determined to use "in". At present I can support the changes, except for the use of "in", but I'm open to seeing the arguments for "in". Nurg (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one for the Isle of Man and one for the Isle of Wight. (I could probably track down others if needed, though it is difficult for me to remember the exact details of what to search for, as most of them were well over a year ago.) Some of them now go through speedy renaming. Much of the discussion often focuses on whether the place in question is an administrative region vs. a geographical landmass. If it's an administrative region, "in" seems preferred. If merely a geographical landmass, then "on" can be acceptable. The West Coast is an administrative region. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I ran some google searches limited to .nz domain names. "in the West Coast" gave me 6.6m hits; "on the West Coast" gave me 6.5m. So it doesn't look to me like there is a dominant usage either way. In such a case, we typically default to the Wikipedia convention, which is "in". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For NZ sites (including those without the .nz domain) it's 8.5m to 8.3m, but tis is a case where a ghitsearch doesn't really help. A large number of nationwide sites, such as eventfinder, have a standardised "Upcoming events in (X Region)" header, yet talk about things "on the west Coast" in their general text. Over 1 million of those ghits are actually "interested in the West Coast...", and a further quarter of a million are "...in the West Coast Region". Another half million are "in the west coast's foo" - rivers, pubs, other things which would automatically require "in". Take those out and you're down to 6.7m to 8.3m. The results are also quite likely heavily skewed by websites in Auckland and other places which may not understand local usages. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a very rough indication that neither is the overwhelmingly preferred usage. I think we'd need something much stronger and a lot less dependent on conjecture to depart from the usual Wikipedia practice. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The West Coast is both a geographical area and an administrative region. But the name of the article has just changed from the name of the administrative region ("West Coast Region", as per an Order in Council published in the NZ Gazette) to the name of the geographical area ("West Coast"). So the article is now foremost about the geographical area, which is appropriate as the West Coast Region has only existed as such since 1989, and the article covers the geographical area that has existed from time immemorial.
Regarding usage:
Google Scholar:
"in the west coast of new zealand" 27
"on the west coast of new zealand" 743
Auckland Public Libraries Combined database search:
22 available (with 0 duplicates) for "keyword contains "in the west coast of new zealand"" (30 total)
89 available (with 14 duplicates) for "keyword contains "on the west coast of new zealand"" (315 total)
However, all the search counts are dodgy, because the grammatical usages vary, and some instances refer to the whole west coast, not just the West Coast. Personal experience tells me that predominant usage is "on". Proving either case may not be easy. Nurg (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One reason it's good to have a standard or convention is so that we don't have to go through this in every single case, when, as you say, proof is difficult in such matters. It also helps users who are unfamiliar with the ins and outs of local usage to know under what name to expect a category to exist. I think common usage should govern the name of articles, but I think categories can be more flexible and adhere to overall conventions, since they are not the main focus of the encyclopedia and really just a tool to using and organizing it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What convention? And what other cases are you concerned we might have to go through this again for? Nurg (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The convention that WP uses "FOO in BAR" for categories in a particular place for things such as buildings, settlements, sport, transport, visitor attractions, and so forth. For natural features, such as lakes, rivers, and mountains, the convention is to use "FOO of BAR". See Wikipedia:Category names. The convention specifically addresses countries, but the same principles have been taken and applied to administrative subdivisions, cities, regions, etc. If the conventions didn't exist, we could potentially go through this debate for every category tree that categorizes things by a particular place, as we are doing here. There are thousands of such places/trees categorized on Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, Wikipedia:Category names says "Standard article naming conventions apply", and a relevant principle of Wikipedia:Article titles is "Naturalness ... Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English". The "in country" policy for category names is exactly that - relating to countries. I don't see why it should be extrapolated to non-country regions in cases where it runs contrary to usage, ie, "what the subject is actually called in English". Nurg (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it probably shouldn't—in cases where usage is very clear and unambiguous. But when usage is unclear or ambiguous, we typically default to the convention, and I see this as being a wise practice and one that promotes predictability and least amount of chaos in the category system. I don't see clear evidence here either way—in fact, I see a lot of evidence that both ways are used and are common—so I don't see a compelling reason to depart from standard practice. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This will match lead article and is clearer to a casual encyclopedia reader. No preference for which pronoun to use.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:18, 25 June 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:1949 in Formula One[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subcategory of Category:Formula One seasons. Formula One is trade mark now. There was no season in 1949. It was Category:1949 in Grand Prix racing. NickSt (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Convert to cat-redirect, to prevent re-creation. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected by subsequent contributors. Keep both. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Proposer is incorrect. Formula One began in 1946, and Formula One races existed from that point. Simply reading Formula One will tell you that. The World Drivers' Championship began in 1950, but the WDC and Formula One were not synonymous at that time, and this remained the case until the 1980s. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. There were Formula One races (i.e. races held to Formula One regulations) held in 1949, therefore the categories are valid. DH85868993 (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Rationale is faulty - there was a formula one season in 1949 with races held across Europe. What there was not was a World Championship for drivers or constructors, but World Championship and Formula One did not come to mean exactly the same thing until 1984. We shouldn't re-write history to match the way things work now. 4u1e (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Rationale is factually inaccurate. Formula One is not limited to the world championship era. Very basic error in knowledge and/or lack of research. --Falcadore (talk) 17:29, 26 June 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.

Undersized US state airport 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: merge Nevada and New Jersey, no consensus on Arizona (which currently has more, at 49). – Fayenatic London 20:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale: All of these categories are undersized - all are below 50, and the scans show that there aren't enough stubs to bring any of them above. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I thought there was a dispensation to allow the stub-sorters to do this kind of thing on an ad-hoc basis. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC).
  • My choices:
    Oppose - Kansas and Michigan, both of which or now close to or over 60.
    Weak Oppose - North Carolina and Arizona -- both floating around 50.
    Support - Nevada and New Jersey.
  • Dawynn (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed Kansas, Michigan and North Carolina; I see that Arizona is still below 50, and that's after your tagging of previously completely un-stub-tagged articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all after the mass adding of content. I really do hate stub tagging for the sole purpose of adding content in cases like this. Much of what was tagged is subjective and could have well been left as untagged without any real issues. Since the groups are now so close, it is unclear that a merge is called for. If I get back to creating some of these like I did in the past, they will appear as stubs and that would mean we need the categories again. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support remaining nominations based on count.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 25 June 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.

History of Utah Territory[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/upmerge the top 4, except that the merge target should be Category:Utah Territory as it is a History category anyway; keep the year categories. – Fayenatic London 13:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Like so many other date based schemes, this one has run away with itself. There are more categories than articles I would hazard. (Actually 62 categories for 132 articles.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC).

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_June_22&oldid=1090391855"