Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 19 March 21 >

March 20[edit]

Category:Nuneaton Borough F.C. managers[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Club has been known as Nuneaton Town F.C. since 2008. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article. This is a Conference club, so that a proliferation of categories should not be encouraged. The headnote needs to be amended to explain that it includes those managing the club under earlier names; and a category redirect should be retained; otherwise someone will re-create it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename As the creator of this article, I agree it should be renamed to Town. Jonesy702 (talk) 13:25, 22 March 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.

Rebbes of Chabad[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: Merged to Category:Rebbes of Chabad DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2-3 existed of each, and these dynasties are dead, so no growth is to be expected. All articles in these categories fit in old category Category:Chabad Rebbes. These categories were created today by Hasirpad without discussion or much forethought, if I may say so. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: (As creator) The structure of the Chabad dynasty, like that of all older dynasties, is quite complex, and I think the sub-categorization makes navigation and recognizing the branching structure easier. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Debresser: I would like to make my point clearer. I agree that Chabad in itself does not necessarily need subcategories: Alfasi lists only 26 rebbes in the extended Chabad dynasty (excluding Strashelye), with one main dynasty and several short, extinct subdynasties. Take Zlotshov, however, with 5 or 6 branches (including or excluding Stepin) and 97 rebbes by Alfasi's incomplete count, or Chernobyl—8 branches and over 120 rebbes! Surely these will require subcategories, and, if only for consistency, Chabad could use them as well. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you rather convincingly explained your agreement with my argument for deletion. Debresser (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Debresser: I don't quite follow—per WP:SMALLCAT, analogy is a valid reason for creating small categories. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SMALLCAT is precisely why this should be deleted! The exception is only for "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", which these are not. Category:Chabad Rebbes is good enough for that. Debresser (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but what about Category:Rebbes of Lubavitch? Eight rebbes is still very few for a subcategory; Kopust had four, after all—where should the line be drawn? (Kopust et al. also meet the "potential for growth" criterion more easily...). (Note that the placement of the first rebbe of Chabad in the Lubavitch subcategory seems inappropriate.) In fact, the Hebrew category corresponding to Rebbes of Chabad has no subcategories, as with most top-level dynasties. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hasirpad 8 is better than 2-3-4, especially since there are also 3 subcategories. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 22 March 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:New Jersey County Clerks[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: consistent with others / unnecessary capitalization Greg Bard (talk) 18:48, 20 March 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:Chabad Rebbes[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with all other subcategories of Category:Hasidic rebbes. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(This is different from my previous proposed speedy rename, opposed by Armbrust. Note the different target category. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Support per consistency argument. Debresser (talk) 03:28, 21 March 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:Silent Western film 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, merging contents to Category:Western (genre) film stubs and Category:Pre-1910 film stubs, as appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not enough articles to populate this category, since most of them fall into Category:1910s Western (genre) film stubs‎. If deleted, the 10 articles that are affected can be upmerged to Category:Western (genre) film stubs and Category:Pre-1910 film stubs. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:09, 20 March 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:Manchester United supporters[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 to Category:Wikipedian Manchester United F.C. fans. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Vanity category created for one user. Mosmof (talk) 14:25, 20 March 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:Sports festivals by country[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, though modified to "...hosted by..." due to the discussion, which also had weight due to existing categorisation. Noting that while I did consider the 2 "per nom" "votes" in regards to the question of whether to rename, I treated them as as neutral to the question of "...in..." vs "...hosted by...", as they didn't specify. - jc37 21:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term "Sports festival" has long been used for categorisation on wikipedia as a term roughly analogous with "International sports competitions". What constitutes a "Sports festival" has never been defined - there is no parent Category:Sports festival and no such article exists for Sports festival. Essentially it is an ambiguous term. I propose renaming this category to Category:International sports competitions by country (which by no coincidence does not exist) and also renaming all sports festivals categories as International sports competitions ones (e.g. Category:Sports festivals in Albania --> Category:International sports competitions in Albania. SFB 12:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Country categories
  • Comment – these are not all international, eg Country Senior High Schools Carnival (Western Australia), so what is the plan for non-international sports festivals in Foo? Oculi (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will go through these one by one and upmerge to the main "sports competitions in X" categories. This is actually the prime issue with the current wording as there is little rationale between what qualifies as a "sports festival" and what is just a "sports competition". SFB 11:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and appropriately categorise under current parents Category:International sports competitions and Category:Multi-sport events by country. Each Sports festivals in Foo Category should probably be split/renamed to International sport competitions in Foo and Multi-sport events in Foo. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second this suggestion as it was what I was planning to do if this move was successful. The only things shaking out of the category with my suggested change are (a) sub-national multi-sport events, and (b) gatherings involving sports where the focus is not on competition. The multi-sport events categories will certainly be useful ones, but I creating this structure while "Sports festivals" is intact will lead to quite a bit of confusion hierarchy-wise. SFB 13:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split per Paul_012. The method I would suggest would be to recategorise all single-sport events and then merge/rename the remaining contents to Multi-sport events. There is no clear definition of a "sports festival" but the page sports festival has long been redirected to that meaning. (I had been meaning to get round to this one day – thanks, SFB, for picking it up.) – Fayenatic London 12:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the contents are not multi-sport events so it is not very logical to use the current structure. I'm more than happy to build a multi-sport event structure if this is renamed. SFB 22:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In some countries' categories, most of the contents are multi-sport. Anyway, thanks for your willingness to sort this out. The multi-sports categories already exist; it's the international sports competitions by country/host that are needed. – Fayenatic London 07:57, 29 March 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:Fictional Georgian people[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The category should follow the convention used of Category:People from Georgia (country). Georgian is too ambiguous. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speed nomination
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:National Games by country[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: Redirected DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Replaced by Category:National multi-sport events SFB 12:11, 20 March 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:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways, Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways in Germany, Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways in Hong Kong[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: Renamed DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: The metric system is used in all locations within the categories, Germany and Hong Kong, and the ⅜ symbol is not well supported and should not be used per MOS:FRAC. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 09:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed proposal into MOS:UNIT: use space in 1432 mm, not 1432mm. No material effect for the discussion below. -DePiep (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • not sure there are many other fractions used in the parent of train lines by imperial gauge. How is gauge of a train track decided, since we have both imperial and metric. Is there a trains WikiProject that should be informed?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just informed the trains project.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but we could use a source for that gauge definition. Through {{RailGauge}} (see its documentation), we know some 250 rail gauges used in this wiki. Whenever possible, we use the unit (mm or ft,in) it was defined in (the other unit is mentioned in brackets). The tempalte knows 1432mm: 1,432 mm (4 ft 8+3⁄8 in). The ft,in input is not available, nor is it requested by editors to be made available in the template. So the only use is metric. What would be better is if we have a source that shows it was defined in metric. That would finish every doubt.
For this situation, I am convinced (without source) that it was defined and used in metric. So the move would be according to the definition.
About WP:FRAC: that does not say we cannot use fractions in titles. So no argument from there. -DePiep (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal change. Per WP:UNIT, there always should be a space between number and unit. So we should write Category:1432 mm gauge railways etc. I assume nominator Jc86035 can change the proposal into MOS without problem. -DePiep (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done boldly. -DePiep (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Updated the templates on the category pages. Thanks for fixing the names. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 07:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't know if there were any links or anchors connected to that by some bot, so I left those alone. -DePiep (talk) 07:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Oppose the conversion of imperial measurements to metric for categorisation purposes. It is not necessary and illogical. Most of the world's railways were built in imperial gauges. For those that were built in metric gauges (60cm, 750, 760 and 900mm, metre gauge etc), we cater for with metric categories. Mjroots (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Germany and Hong Kong both use metric units. It was them who converted to metric (unless you have a source that says they still use ft,in for gauges, e.g. in stock ordering). Since they use metric, we do too in the article. And since the articles use metric, the category name follows and be metric. We do not convert for the category. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what they used at the time of construction? Were was the rolling stock first used from? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I asked for sources earlier. I know The HK airport island was created in the 1990's, metric. They would use ftin for the new rail then? Any reason to use a historical unit at all? Simpel: we use today's unit, their todays unit. Unless they use archaic units themselves. Outside of a dedicated historical section, we want to describe the measure of the gauge, not it's cultural history. (Amsterdam city was build pre-metric, in the era of "voet", Amsterdam voet, that is). -DePiep (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to Hong Kong units of measurement the conversion to metric started in 1976, while the Kwun Tong Line (the oldest line in the category) was under construction (opened 1979). Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 08:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning oppose The whole track gauge grouping is something of a mess, and it seems to me that they should be grouped according to how they are specified. The other issue, however, is whether there is a meaningful split-off here from standard gauge. The actual track gauge of the DC Metro is actually a quarter inch smaller than true standard gauge, but everyone classifies it as a standard gauge system because the equipment is (or at least was originally) gauged out to full standard gauge in order to reduce the play between the wheels and the track. I have to wonder if this is not also the case in these systems given that an eighth of an inch difference at this scale is only 0.2% of the whole gauge. Mangoe (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with that "mess", it is hard to get overview. I hope the new this is an improvement. In general, gauges are defined in two units (on enwiki, because we must accept both units; how easy for the German, French wikis). We'll have to live with this. About s.g. merging: if it is defined different size, we must treat it as different. However, if it was a deviation from s.g., we could group the categories (same with early gauge variants in Iberian and Russian). Still, that would leave us with the question of this category title. -DePiep (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that we do have to treat it as "different". I'm having some serious troubles in all of this because the Hong Kong example is cited to an extremely summary article and the Nuremberg statement isn't cited at all; in the latter case the system is old enough to where a non-metric specification is plausible. But the other issue is that we're creating the impression that an 1/8"/3 mm difference is significant when we already have information that twice that much isn't significant. Mangoe (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To make it simple: this CfD is about the three category names. A merge should be discussed at WT:TRAINS, right? (If you convince others there, the categories will disappear. Whichever name they have). -DePiep (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:TSC we should not use untypable characters that is not supported by all font sets for no particular reason. "3/8" or ".375" works just as well. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per DePiep. Makes no sense to apply imperial units to metric systems. The units used when the system was first constructed should not be determinative of the modern classification. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:43, 21 March 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:Electropop 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 result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Electropop redirects to synthpop, and says they are essentially the same genre. It doesn't make sense to have two categories. Adabow (talk) 09:03, 20 March 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:East Khasi Hills[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no town or district by name of 'East Khasi Hills'. It should therefore be merged into Category:East Khasi Hills district. Shyamsunder (talk) 04:53, 20 March 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:People of the 2014 Crimean crisis[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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Arbitrary association. In this way Vladimir Putin or Barack Obama will collect hundreds of categories. - Altenmann >t 03:40, 20 March 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:Schneersohn dynasty[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is not about a "dynasty" in any of the usual senses, but about the Schneersohn family. The Schneersohn family includes most leaders of the Chabad Hasidic group, but Category:Chabad-Lubavitch (Hasidic dynasty) and related categories exist for that purpose; this category includes notable members of the same family that neither held positions of power in the Chabad movement nor were followers of the movement. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the name of the parallel category in the Hebrew Wikipedia is named "he:קטגוריה:משפחת שניאורסון" ("Schneersohn family"). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:18, 20 March 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_March_20&oldid=1090391945"