Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 16 March 18 >

March 17[edit]

Category:Bahria College Karachi NORE 1 alumni[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:Bahria College Karachi alumni. – Fayenatic London 23:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category created for an article Sidra Batool  sami  talk 23:10, 17 March 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:Crime in Hyderabad, India[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, with the result that the nominated categories be kept, and the parent Category:Hyderabad (which was speedily renamed on 17 March, see [1]) revert to Category:Hyderabad, India. For the record, a few days before that, the Pakistan one Category:Hyderabad, Sindh was at Category:Hyderabad (see [2]), but that name should become a category disambguation page. There was also Category:Hyderabad, Pakistan which was emptied and deleted in April, which I will reinstate as a redirect. – Fayenatic London 21:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Part of the category tree Category:Hyderabad, also matches ultimate parent article Hyderabad. Opposed speedy nom. Depending on outcome of this discussion, I also intent to nominate all categories within the Category:Hyderabad tree. AusLondonder (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder - please check the 1st rename. DexDor (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The problem here is the parent, ambiguously named Category:Hyderabad. The city of Hyderabad in India has been chosen as a primarytopic, but it remains ambiguous with the Pakistani city of Hyderabad, Sindh. The latter is a city of over a million people, and the 4th-largest in Pakistan, so it is a significant place.
    Whatever the merits of choosing a primarytopic in article space, this sort of ambiguity is massively disruptive in categories, creating miscategorisations which cannot be easily monitored.
    So instead of renaming these subcats, we should adopt the principle applied to the city of Birmingham/Category:Birmingham, West Midlands ... which in this case would give us Hyderabad/Category:Hyderabad, India. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is long-standing practice that the category should match the article, @BrownHairedGirl:. No credible reason is being given to diverge from this practice. Category:London is about London not London, Ontario or London, Ohio AusLondonder (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to follow the head category and the main article. Having category names differ than the article names they refer to is far more confusing than having category names that are not 100% unambiguous. There are thousands of place-name categories that are not 100% unambiguous, and on balance there are very few issues with confusion. Any concern that the article is not the primary meaning can be dealt with by discussing a rename of the article. If renamed, the categories could follow. For every Birmingham example that can be cited I can produce at least 10 that go the other way and follow the main article. (Just from the UK, we have Category:London, Category:Swansea, Category:Chester, Category:Manchester, Category:Cambridge, Category:Norwich, Category:Peterborough, Category:St Albans, Category:Oxford, Category:Winchester, Category:Southampton, Category:Bristol, Category:Exeter, Category:Gloucester, Category:Salisbury, Category:Truro, Category:Hereford, Category:Worcester, Category:Bradford, Category:Leeds, Category:Ripon, Category:Sheffield, Category:Wakefield, Category:York ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – agree entirely with BHG. I would also favour the renaming of some of the ambiguous categories listed by GO. Cambridge for instance. Oculi (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Oculi: why not all of them? And if not all of them, what is the method one uses to determine when it's "ambiguous enough" to rename? If we don't follow the main article, isn't deciding when to do it and when not to essentially arbitrary? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. It's no more arbitrary than choosing a primary topic in article space ... just with a higher threshold for categories. Category:Cambridge is an excellent of example of a category name which is unhelpfully ambiguous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not really—from the standpoint of category naming, at least adopting the main article name would be a wholly predictable and consistent act, and not arbitrary in the least. (If your criticism is with article naming—well, that's not what CFD is about at all.) Seriously @Oculi:—once we decide not to follow this as a rule in all cases, how do we decide which ones get disambiguated and which ones do not? Why Cambridge but none of the others, since none of them are 100% unambiguous? No one can ever answer this question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • BHG has just answered this immediately above: how do we decide which articles get disambiguated other than by drawing an arbitrary line between who shouts loudest? There has been a convention at cfd for years that we do disambiguate category names if there is a likelihood of confusion (regardless of the article name). You, GO, are choosing to ignore this for some reason. There is a large city in Pakistan called Hyderabad, another in India with the same name. I can think of 2 large Cambridges. I cannot off-hand think of other large Sheffields. As I have said elsewhere putting something in Pakistan in an Indian category is an error of fact. Getting to the wrong article is not an error of fact. We should avoid errors of fact by being careful about category names. Oculi (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • User:Oculi: Well, that's not really an answer for CFD, since AFD and CFD are two different things. I'm not particularly interested in criticising AFD processes in this forum. Why we think it's a good idea to have two separate discussions for the same name—one in AFD and one in CFD—I do not know, especially if we are convinced that the results of discussions are essentially "arbitary" (I'm not sure I agree with that about AFD). I understand the "categories have to be more clear" argument, but I don't find it particularly convincing based on how I've seen categories work in practice (as opposed to theoretical dangers that are often fretted about). Even more importantly, it's not based on any objective standard. I don't ignore the consensus you have mentioned, I just happen to think it's generally wrong and not nearly as widespread as you might imagine—a fairly weak "consensus" if it exists at all separate from the "match to article" consensus, which I have found to be much more robust in practice and at CFD, especially if one considers the speedy criteria; it's also objective to boot. In other words, at least CFD could be objectively based, even if AFD is not. The suggested standard you have set out appears to be, "can I think of more than one 'large' place by the same name?". OK, at least we have an answer now. Pretty weak, I'd have to say, and woefully subjective. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose exactly per BHG. This kind of "everything must be consistent in the one way I notice or care about" stuff it getting tiresome, Auslondonder. The category namespace has different concerns and different rules. We normalize to the article name if and only if it doesn't cause categorization-related problems, as this obviously would. Things like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC topic and WP:COMMONNAME are article title rules, not category title rules; while they have a strong secondary effect here "by osmosis", that's all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are tired of me, @SMCCandlish:? I'm simply devastated. AusLondonder (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Disagreeing with the article name is fine and best handled in an RM rather than by importing those valid concerns into the CFD discussions. No objection to a speedy renaming when the main article is renamed. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The question of whether the head article should be renamed is a separate one. Categories need a higher threshold of ambiguity.
      Ambiguously-named categories have much more disruptive consequences than ambiguous article titles, because the errors are much harder to detect. Categories are commonly added to articles using WP:HOTCAT, which provides editors with absolutely zero warning that a category name is a primary topic of an ambiguous title. So it's entirely reasonable to have a situation like that of Birmingham, where one item is sufficiently significant to be primary in article space, but not enough to be primary in the more fragile category space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • We just happen to disagree: If the Category name is ambiguous for editors using Hotcat, the article name is identically as ambiguous for readers. We should stop valuing editor time (by not looking at the categories they use with Hotcat) over reader time (by not starting to read an article they're not actually interested in.) RevelationDirect (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @RevelationDirect: that's getting really really silly.
          If a category name is more explicit than you think is needed, that takes trivial extra reader time to read it. The burden on readers is too trivial to matter. OTOH, if an article is miscategorised, the burden on readers is substantial: they may have no idea how to get from that wrong category to the category they really want, in which case they have reached a dead-end.
          As to the idea of making editors to take more time ... are you aware that editor numbers and human edits are in a steady long-term decline? We should be making it easier for editors to categorise quickly and accurately, rather creating avoidable ambiguity and criticising editors for not having more time to resolve the ambiguity which has been intentionally created because some people fetishise cross-namespace-consistency over clarity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Using that standard, there's a good argument to be made that categorization is made more quick and accurate when the category pages that refer to a thing use the same name that the article uses. At least then it becomes predictable what the category name is based solely on a user's knowledge of the article name. Otherwise, if trying to predict the name, we have to think—"hmmm, I wonder if BrownHairedGirl, Oculi, and a consensus of editors at CFD felt that this name was ambiguous enough to differ from the article name?" Or even better—"hmm, I wonder if a single editor felt that this name was ambiguous enough to differ from the article name such that they disambiguated it when they created it, and I wonder further if CFD lacked a consensus to change the category name to match the article name because some editors, though not a consensus, felt that it was ambiguous enough to differ from the article name." In my view, these "burdens"—I hesitate to use that term, as it's not that big of a deal—probably outweigh any corresponding burden that you have set out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BHG. DexDor (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per GOf and per my comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 3#Category:Plymouth, Devon. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for now per RevelationDirect in the sense that I would encourage opponents to start having the article renamed, then the category can follow without much discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is another Hyderabab with over 3 million inhabitants. There is a clear need for disambiguation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Birmingham, West Midlands (and other English cities) have priority over all rivals, but we nevertheless have categories at Birmingham, West Midlands. In this case, Hyderabad, Sindh nor Hyderabad, India is obviously the precursor of the other, so that both should keep a state addition as a disambiguator, even if the Indian city is more important. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:54, 26 March 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:Establishments in Shawnee 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: merge per revised nomination, with no objection to creation of Category:Shawnee populated places. – Fayenatic London 23:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge to North America as there hasn't been a stable territory for Shawnees to live in. As it concerns only one article it can be put immediately in the 1725 year category. (Note that parent Category:Shawnee history becomes empty upon this merge and can hence be deleted.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 17 March 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.

Metrolink (Southern California)[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. MER-C 11:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Some opposed speedies (see copy of discussion below). I propose renaming these categories to match the head category Category:Metrolink (Southern California) and the article Metrolink (Southern California). I don't fully understand the reason the speedy was opposed ("unnecessary over-disambiguation"), given that the head category and main article are already disambiguated. Given that Metrolink is ambiguous and the head category needs disambiguation, I don't see how it would not also be appropriate for the categories for stations or lines or templates. Even the article List of Metrolink (Southern California) stations is disambiguated in this way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
Oppose all. Unnecessary over-disambiguation. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 05:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@James Allison you realize, don't you, that the "Metrolink" in S. Cal. is not the only "Metrolink" in the world? That's why the article and head category for the S. Cal. one are disambiguated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The subcategories do not appear to be ambiguous with other transportation system category trees, and even if they were, they are unambiguous by letter case. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 14:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@James Allison but that's because the other categories that use the name "Metrolink" are already disambiguated! Why do the S. Cal. ones get the undisambiguated form when both the article and the head category are disambiguated? It doesn't make sense according to the usual practices of categorization ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:26, 15 March 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:Head of Punjabi Dept. Punjabi University Patiala[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; place sole article in a new Category:Punjabi University faculty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be pertaining to one particular department of the University.Unclear and very small category. Shyamsunder (talk) 04:27, 17 March 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:Recipients of the Pingat Pentadbiran Awam (Tentera)[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:SMALLCAT
Pingat Pentadbiran Awam (Tentera) is Singapore's 4th highest military award (after Darjah Utama Bakti Cemerlang, Pingat Gagah Perkasa and Pingat Jasa Gemilang). There is only 1 biography article in the category and it mentions the award only in passing. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Jacklee as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Singapore. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:NONDEFINING is inapplicable – it is clear that only biographical articles about people conferred the award belong in the category. There is every possibility that other articles will be added to the category in the future. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 02:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NON-DEFINING. See also essay WP:DNWAUC etc. DexDor (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. This is a bit like having a category for "came in 4th place in the Olympics" or whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:47, 18 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_17&oldid=1074816936"