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 per WP:SILENCE as there was no opposition. Cerebellum (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category's name is inconsistent. In the rest of the assessment system, the container category root phrase (e.g. "FA-Class") is the same as the root phrase used to construct child categories (e.g. "FA-Class foo articles"). This category's root phrase ("Unassessed-Class") is different from the root phrase of its child categories ("Unassessed" → "Unassessed foo articles"). We should eliminate this inconsistency.
{{Class}} is relevant to this category, as most of the links to related categories are produced through it. I'm currently working on a Lua upgrade, Module:Class, which pulls class definition data (currently spread across {{class}}, {{class/icon}}, and {{class/colour}}) from a single, portable JSON file, currently at Template:Class/definition.json. Right now, Category:Unassessed-Class articles and its child categories require special-casing in both {{class}} and Module:Class to account for the inconsistency; after the move the template could be simplified a touch and the module would just pull "categoryRoot": "Unassessed" from the definition file. In other words, this rename is directly useful.
For context, there are previous CfD discussions associated with these category names:
Thanks for reading this long rationale. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 21:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The one-time costs to such a change are potentially huge – but one time. Thousands of watchlists will light up when the bots run through, and then (I hope) we'll be done. It's not clear to me whether the benefits (e.g., simplified template programming) slightly outweigh the costs, or the other way around. As a result, I feel unable to either support or oppose this. If I had the misfortune of needing to close this, I might be inclined to err on the side of not getting in the way of someone who wants to do something useful with the cats (i.e., accepting Nihiltres' proposal, even though it may trigger a small number of complaints). On a related note, I believe that we've previously postponed re-naming these cats to say something like "Wikipedia articles with unassessed class" (which would be clearer to any non-editors that this is backstage stuff) because of the one-time costs involved in changing thousands of cats. So if we decide that it's worth making this change, then it might be worth considering whether we should make more changes to the cat names at the same time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: Good point about making any other desirable changes at the same time. It's worth considering holding a mini-RfC or something—I'd have no issue if "hold an RfC" were the result of this CfD … well, err, barring some selfish eagerness to implement my improvements. :) On another point, since it's (so far) only the top-level "Unassessed-Class articles" category that would change (its child categories are already using the "Unassessed foo articles" pattern), I don't think there'd be much watchlist impact: Special:Search/insource:"Category:Unassessed-Class articles" produces only 1335 results across all namespaces, with 1279 of those in the category namespace—i.e. its child categories. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 18:28, 27 December 2016 (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:rename. Cerebellum (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- We should be consistent on ENGVAR issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2016 (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 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.
BBC Sports Personalities of the Year winners[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. Cerebellum (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories are not eponymous categories for the awards in general, they categorize the winners of the awards. "Winners" should be added to match the style of Category:BBC Sports Personality of the Year winners. I've no idea if these are defining for the recipients or if the more general principles of WP:OCAWARD would apply. I'm happy for them to just be renamed, but other users might want to propose deletion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 13:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Per WP:OCAWARD. Clicking through these, they are already well-known sports personalities and this award reflects that. These don't seem defining. (If kept, go ahead and rename.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per OCAWARD. I expect here are already ample lists; otherwise listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2016 (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:Women municipal councillors in Lithuania[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: Single-item WP:SMALLCAT with limited prospect of expansion. Municipal councillors, as a rule, do not get Wikipedia articles just for being municipal councillors -- while Vilnius is a large and prominent enough city to potentially qualify as an exception, it's the only city in Lithuania that would, and there's very little evidence that such articles are actually happening (even the one person here, while she was a municipal councillor in Vilnius, primarily has an article for her day job as a theatre director rather than because municipal councillor per se.) So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a reasonable number of articles actually exists to justify it, but this is not a category that needs to exist as soon as there's just one article to file in it -- as of right now, there are just two parallel categories for any other country on earth, and they're both for countries that have hundreds of women municipal councillors with articles rather than just one.
I'm also batching Category:Lithuanian municipal councillors and Category:Lithuanian women in municipal politics, as the former exists solely to parent this and will thus be left empty if this gets deleted, and the latter features only the Category:Women mayors of places in Lithuania subcategory otherwise and thus also won't be needed as an intermediary step. (The women mayors category also may not be necessary, as it's also a single-item SMALLCAT, but since the inclusion standards for mayors are different from the inclusion standards for city councillors it would have to be considered separately from this since the arguments for or against it won't be the same.) Bearcat (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge the first two as nom but also to Category:Lithuanian municipal councillors (which should thus be kept). Local councillors are generally NN and do not get articles, but if they do, it is appropriate to have a category for them. The third parent (Women city councillors - presumably worldwide) feels too broad to be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support entire nomination, the first two categories per nom. For the third category, we currently have 4 biographies in Category:Women municipal councillors in Lithuania, but while reading the four articles it doesn't seem like municipal councillor is a defining characteristic (and I would expect this to be the case in every country not just Lithuania). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2016 (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.
Subcategories of Category:Pubs in London by borough[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:don't rename. The main arguments against renaming were based on perceived ambiguity. ~ Rob13Talk 02:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be more consistent but it's not necessarily easier to use as hotcat automatically lists them alphabetically once you enter "Pubs in the L..." and this alternative structure is harder to work with. There is also the problem that it is not obvious that the proposed new structure is by London borough and we could have lots of new categories created because people think they are missing, e.g. Pubs in Hendon because people don't know that they should be using Barnet. The choice of borough names was controversial and is not necessarily intuitive. It's possible it is the other categories that are wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Philafrenzy: I don't quite follow the first point about HotCat; do you mean that they appear in alphabetical order in Category:Pubs in London by borough without having to add a key? I don't think adding the key is too difficult.
As it's the inconsistency that bothers me I wouldn't mind if all the other category titles were changed to "in the London Borough of..." (etc.); in fact, that would be consistent with Commons. Ham II (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose is more wordy but better for navigation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: Thanks for the very helpful background, which is always necessary for a discussion like this. I get your point although pubs are a poor example because at the moment they are the only exceptions to the rule that "...in the London borough of..." is dropped after the parent category. I'm in favour of the current system, except for the oddity of there being both "...in Wandsworth" and "...from Wandsworth (London borough)" categories. However, I don't mind the whole structure being reconsidered if others think that is necessary. Ham II (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If "Wandsworth (London borough)" is good for people categories and avoids the confusion of Wandsworth with the London Borough of Wandsworth, I don't see why the "(London borough)" formulation shouldn't apply across the board. Ham II (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, "I don't see why the '(London borough)' formulation shouldn't apply across the board for subcategories of Category:London Borough of Foo;" I wasn't proposing that the title of any article should change. Ham II (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose: London boroughs are mostly named after the towns where the Town Hall is situated and can thus would lead to much confusion by changing those category names to those towns. The current categories were named this, for a reason, which provides clarity! On Wikipedia we strive to make navigation intuitive, easy and sensible. Why change something that works? --Aspro (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "London Borough" is redundant information that could conveniently be placed in a headnote. There may be a few where it remains useful: Soho is not a borough; Bloomsbury is part of Camden (I think), whereas Camden refers more specifically to only part of the borough. A wholesale rename may have undesirable results, though I support the principle. Brevity is an advantage in category names, to limit the clutter. Specific details belong in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others - perhaps we should be heading in the other direction. Camden does not mean the same as London Borough of Camden. Johnbod (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are also "Streets in" which omits the borough but shouldn't in my view. I think the whole of London should be divided by borough with subcategories where justified, ie Pubs in Ealing would be a valid subcategory of Pubs in the London Borough of Ealing and likewise Camden. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2016 (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.
Subcategories of Categories of buildings in London by Borough[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. There was consensus that the current category names are ambiguous, but no consensus for piecemeal changes to the existing category conventions. I will launch a wider group nomination to allow editors to decide on whether or not to implement the proposed changes consistently across all London borough categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS In any case, none of the 3 categories had been tagged, so no action woukd have been possible even if there was a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This would bring these categories into line with WC (which may have been second off the starting-block after the creation of WP but has had more time to think about clear taxonomy categorizations). This was brought to our attention by Ham II who pointed out (above) that we 'need' constancy across all the WMF projects. It avoids the confusion between buildings which are not in the principal town but nevertheless are in a London Borough named 'after' the principle town. The WC equivalent categories on WC are:
Recommend that we (on WP) use them too.--Aspro (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This may be a case where the inclusion of "London Borough" is useful, as I think Vauxhall is another focus in the borough. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as previous nom above. Johnbod (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Point is: Not all of these structures are in the town of Lambeth! They exist in the London Borougher of Lambath which is the proper regional name. Don't have to rename them piecemeal. A bot can do it like other cats have been unified before. Think of the WP reader and users rather than the editors that wish oversimplification . Lets avoid sort of issue where Birmingham City Council has admitted sending out leaflets which showed its US namesake's skyline instead. This is why clear and unambiguous categorization is important.--Aspro (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's clearly more support for more specific category titles than for keeping the existing style, so it's due for a change. I agree that there's no point in doing this piecemeal. I think we should start by looking again at the subcats of Category:People from London by borough and decide if we still prefer the Foo in Bar (London borough) format or if we should change it to Foo in the London Borough of Bar. Whichever we decide on as the standard should then be applied to all Foo in Bar and Foo of Bar categories below Category:Categories by London borough. Ham II (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support C2D. Pppery 22:09, 6 February 2017 (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 and delete categories per nom; no consensus on keeping the stub template, so it stays for now. Some manual work may be required, so pinging the participants in case any of them might volunteer to do it. @Marcocapelle, Peterkingiron, Fayenatic london, and BU Rob13:. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to many previous discussions about terminology before (e.g. in here), these categories merely contain an arbitrary selection of articles from within the tree of Category:Economics. The very few items that aren't otherwise in that tree yet may be moved to the top Category:Economics, in particular this applies to: Category:Economics aphorisms/Category:Economics catchphrases. Propose merging the second category, in order to keep these articles in the stubs tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the first to Category:Economics, possibly moving a few elsewhere. On the other hand the stub category contains 94 articles and the parent over 1000. There may be merit in keeping the stub type. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support delete and merge per nomination. I checked a few candidates and all were already in at least one more specific economics or finance category. I can't see any justification for keeping a separate stub category, but I have no objection to keeping the separate stub template rather than redirecting it. – FayenaticLondon 11:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support original nom, including deleting the other stub template (or it will just be eligible for immediately creating another speedy category). ~ Rob13Talk 02:47, 23 January 2017 (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.
