Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 13 September 15 >

September 14[edit]

Category:World Almanac[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) 18:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As a minimum this category needs to be renamed to match its inclusion criteria (something like "Wikipedia articles containing material from the World Almanac"). However, I really don't see the point in these categories (will we end up with an article that uses, say, 50 different sources being in a (albeit hidden) category for each source?) hence I'm proposing that this one (which currently contains just one talk page and one template) be deleted. DexDor (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if Kept to have "Wikipedia" at the beginning of the name. No opinion on whether or not to keep it. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categories for when a certain reference is used are not useful for navigation. I have opened a deletion discussion for the main template in that respect. SFB 22:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This category has a very odd feel to it. I do not think we should be categorising articles by the sources they cite. BTW, is there not a template to be clobbered aw well? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 20 September 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:Railway stations served by First Capital Connect[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 Category:Thameslink railway stations. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect the new franchise holder. Bbb2007 (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the Thameslink alternative. This is a railway line. The line is permanent, the franchisee is likely to change periodically. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 20 September 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:Railway stations served by Greater Anglia[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 Category:Greater Anglia franchise railway stations, noting that there is a desire from an editor that other similar subcats be considered. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the main article. Bbb2007 (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt proposal rename to Category:Greater Anglia franchise railway stations. The franchisee will often change and is thus a temporary characteristic – a more useful method of categorisation is by the line/route. SFB 22:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative which is permanent: operators change. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Peterkingiron: the franchise name is not guaranteed to be permanent, nor are the stations it serves. For example the Greater Anglia franchisee serves stations that were previously part of the independent franchises operated by Anglia Railways, First Great Eastern and WAGN (maybe others too) and from next year some presently-GA stations will move to Crossrail and others to London Overground. Either we categorise by every franchise(e) that has operated the station (could be a long list for some) or only by route. Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Listify - categories should only be used for (more) permanent characteristics (such as which town/county a station is in), not things that are going to change every few years. DexDor (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would assume that the franchise name 'normally' never changes, while the operator will definitely change now and then. For the stations in the category it is a defining characteristic that they are on one of the two Anglia main railway lines, or on a side track of one of them, so I would discourage a plain deletion of this category. Perhaps a split by railway line is an option. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The franchise isn't permanent (on a timescale of decades). The line(s) that a station is on is more permanent and more defining (e.g. if I need to refer unambiguously to one of the railway stations in Yeovil I'm more likely to to say "the station on the Bristol-Weymouth line" than to say "the station managed by First Great Western" - see also the dab page). However, I don't think categorization by line is necessary as a list of stations on a particular line is much better presented as an article (example) than as a category (e.g. an article can clearly indicate which stations have closed). DexDor (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough to have a list. But that doesn't exclude having a category, especially not as we seem to agree that there is a defining characteristic at stake. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The general rule should be that once a article (topic) belongs in a category then it should always be in that category (including subcats) - excluding special cases like BLP and if the category is deleted. I.e. we don't do "current status" categories, although we can shunt articles down into a "former" category. Thus, if we fully categorize stations by operator and a station has had 5 operators (quite possible over a period of 100+ years) then that station would belong in 5 "operated by" categories. However, reality is complicated - e.g. railway companies merge, they change names, they share operation of a station (e.g. Preston) etc. The history of who operated a station could (assuming it's available) be explained in text (although, currently many of the articles just say something like "Since 2012 the station has been operated by ...") and little would be gained by duplicating that information (in a less precise way) in category tags. So, in short, I don't think it's a good characteristic to categorize by. Whether it's considered defining may depend on how you interpret WP:CATDEF etc, but many article leads (example) don't mention it so IMO it isn't defining enough to warrant a whole set of category tags on articles. DexDor (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @DexDor: This is a cat for the TOC which serves the station (their trains stop there), not that which operates it (their staff sell the tickets). A station has typically has only one TOC operating it, and it's usually long-term; but can have many which serve it, which can change whenever the timetable is revised (May and December). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64. Isn't that even more reason to delete this category? If a large station is categorized by every TOC that has ever used it (i.e. had a train stop there) then an article could be in a lot of categories for TOCs that are a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the station. DexDor (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an argument to delete this specific category; per my comment of 09:24, 3 October 2014 (below), this cat should not be discussed out of the context of the category group. Stations like Manchester Piccadilly or York are in as many as six of these cats, but these are the TOCs that currently serve the station, not a complete list of the TOCs that have ever served it. Greater Anglia and Abellio Greater Anglia are the same franchisee, it's just that these days they use the name of the parent group in their marketing material where previously they didn't. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose alternative unless all the other subcats of Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom by train operating company are similarly discussed. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:24, 3 October 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:Aviation accidents and incidents by flight number[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) 01:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary categorization. There are two types of aviation accidents- Ones with flight numbers and ones without. This is like categorizing people articles- Men or Women. ...William 12:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. If we don't create a category because of shared name, I don't think we should sub-divide one on that basis. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not really helpful as most accidents either do or dont have a flight number so has no value as a finding aid. MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 16 September 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:Uyghur 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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Uyghur people" and "Uyghurs" have the same meaning. Unnecessary to keep two categories. Zanhe (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I started Category:Uyghur people. I can understand nominator's rationale, in principle. In practice however Category:Uyghurs is ambiguous enough that it contains over a dozen elements that are NOT people:
  1. Category:Kashgar
  2. Category:Xinjiang
  3. Category:Uyghur Khaganate
  4. Category:Uyghur language
  5. Category:Uyghur music
  6. History of Xinjiang
  7. Uyghur American Association
  8. Kumul Khanate
  9. Uyghur timeline
  10. Turpan
  11. Xinjiangcun
  12. Yarkant County
  13. Old Uyghur language
  14. Western Yugur language
  15. Dervishi
  16. Kokyar
  17. Minfeng Town
  18. Keriya Town

I suggest none of the above belong in a category devoted solely to people. Further more that a dozen of the elements of Category:Uyghurs are devoted to groups, tribes, or associations of Uyghur people. This suggests to me that all individual Uyghur people should be moved back to Category:Uyghur people, all the elements that are tribes or Uyghur associations should be in a category with a name like: Category:Uyghur tribes and groups. Geo Swan (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – agree entirely with Geo Swan. There should be a parent category for articles related to the Uyghurs and a subcategory containing only articles about individuals. There may be better names but a merge is not the answer. (Did we not use 'Fooian Peoples' for the parent category in a similar case?) Oculi (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I understand Geo Swan's reasoning, and agree that individuals should ideally have their own category, separate from culture, history, etc. However, in the English language, Uyghurs = Uyghur people, and Uyghurs is a redirect to Uyghur people. We cannot dictate by fiat that they are different. And as we can see, content creators have ignored the neat distinction, arbitrarily choosing either category (which is how I ended up here). If we want to treat Category:Uyghurs as a container category, it'd be better to rename it to something that reflects that. Any suggestions? -Zanhe (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there seems to be a clear naming convention that ETHNICITY + "people" means individual people in that ethnicity. For instance, see all the members of the Category:Native American people by tribe subject tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no reason that the Uyghurs tree cannot be similar to everyone else's. Under Uyghurs would be history, people, dynasties, etc. Note: we don't categorize cities and towns by the ethnicity of their inhabitants (we've deleted lots of those categories here, so all those articles are/were improperly so categorized. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is standard to use the plural demonym for the entire culture and have a child "Fooian people" for individuals. See Category:Celts, Category:Anatolians, Category:Romani. Happy for this kind of arrangement to be questioned as a group but the proposed category is not an outlier. SFB 22:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative to rename the parent. It seems to me that 'Uyghur-related topics' could work well. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep present structure. "People" is about individual bio-articles. The other is about the ethnic group. This raises a difficulty not found in some other cases, because they do not have a sinlge country. Category:Uyghur-related topics is not really satisfactory but I cannot think of anything better. Perhaps the present name is even better. The scope nees to be described in the headnote: it may be that the "people" cat needs a cross reference: "this category is for individual people of Uyghur ethnicity; for wider matters about the people, their language and culture see Uyghars". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 20 September 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:Wu-Tang Clan affiliated albums[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: speedy delete and salt, WP:G4. – Fayenatic London 12:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Speedy delete. Recreation of deleted material. Cf. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_26#Category:Wu-Tang_Clan_affiliated_albums —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per consensus at previous cfd. Oculi (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "affiliated" is a horrible cat to keep. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:47, 15 September 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_September_14&oldid=1074814057"