Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 October 17

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

October 17[edit]

Category:Industrial relations education 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 and merge subcat, as described in the alternative proposal. ~ Rob13Talk 07:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge in the spirit of WP:SMALLCAT, there is no point in having a container category that contains only one child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 17 October 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:Professorships in industrial relations[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:Industrial relations education as per the alternative proposal. ~ Rob13Talk 07:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 17 October 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:Television series created by Barbara Hall (TV producer)[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. – Fayenatic London 13:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a common sense move because the disambiguator isn't necessary here. It's obvious from the context "television series created by..." that it's referring to a TV producer and not anyone else listed at Barbara Hall. See also: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 18#Category:Television series created by Dan Schneider -- Tavix (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it is much more straightforward simply to use the same format as the article rather than agonising over whether any other Barbara Halls might have created TV series. Oculi (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why there'd be any agony over it. A category redirect from the current title should solve any confusion. -- Tavix (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming the other way (to match the article) satisfies the speedy criterion C2D: WP:CFDS. Eg Category:Compositions_by_Don_Davis is at present a speedy in exactly the opposite direction. One thinks something is at last sorted out and then confusion is introduced. Oculi (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don Davis is a different situation. There are several Don Davis' who worked in that field, so the disambiguator is necessary there. In this case, you're not going to see "Television series created by Barbara Hall" and think "Hmm, I wonder if these series were created by the politician, the crossword puzzle editor, or the TV producer." It's obvious by the context that we're referring to the TV producer. There's no need to be redundant with the additional disambiguator at the end. -- Tavix (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname -- While it is desirable for categories to match articles. Barbara Hall is a dabpage, also leading to a Canadian politician and a crossword editor, neither of whom is likely to have created TV series. Accordingly an exception can be made and the fact that this relates to Barbara Hall (TV producer) can be relegated to the headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the reasons covered by Peterkingiron. Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename. I can see the nominator's point that this is not a big deal, but I do prefer to keep names within categories the same as the corresponding article name. This seems to be the general practice, even when the disambiguator does not serve to provide necessary disambiguation in the category the same way that it functions in article space. And Oculi is correct that this is the type of change (adding the disambiguator to the category) that would be routinely approved at WP:CFDS. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The main article of the category is Barbara Hall (TV producer). Armbrust The Homunculus 14:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: stale discussion from September 7, which is deadlocked but unlikely to attract any new input there.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. For clarity's sake, a category name should always match the dab level of its associated head article. And furthermore, while in this particular instance it happens to be true that the one who's dabbed as a TV producer is the only one who actually created television series, it's not something that's automatically self-evident without reading the articles first to be sure. Politicians can and do create television programs as well — see Ford Nation, see Al Gore's second post-Florida-recount career as a film producer and owner of a television channel — so the fact that Barbara Hall (politician)'s notability derives primarily from politics doesn't preclude her also having created television programs. (And there are 35 million Canadians who would see the undisambiguated name "Barbara Hall" and jump straight to "the former mayor of Toronto created television series? Whaaaaaaat?" — which certainly doesn't make her WP:PRIMARYTOPIC worldwide, but that's still a lot of readers who would get the wrong impression.) Cartoonists can create television programs, which should be especially obvious given that we're currently living in a time when prime-time programming on the US networks is crammed to overflowing with adaptations of comic books. The crossword editor worked as a journalist before taking the crossword job, so nothing precludes her from having been the creator of a newsmagazine show or a talk/interview series — and even the crossword job doesn't inherently rule out participating in the creation of a word-based game show like Scrabble or Boggle or Wheel of Fortune. And because it's not at all abnormal for a famous person to use a different name when they're delving into a field other than their primary notability domain (e.g. a famous actor using an alternate stage name when he decides to dabble in music, a journalist using a pen name when she writes a novel, etc.), the category name doesn't actually preclude Barbara Feldon, née Hall, from being included in the "who is this referring to?" mix either. The fact that none of the other Barbara Halls actually did create television series doesn't make it inherently obvious to the uninitiated that none of them could have — which is why the category name still needs to be as specific as possible. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a related nomination, however for renaming the other way around, is here. Similar to this discussion, the votes are mixed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 18 October 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:Buddhist temples of the Thai Forest Tradition[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 the nominated category to Category:Buddhist temples and monasteries of the Thai Forest Tradition and Category:Thai Theravada Buddhist temples to Category:Thai Theravada Buddhist temples and monasteries. -- Tavix (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: After creating and populating the category, I realised (a bit too late) that most articles use the term monastery. Now I'm not quite sure what the distinction between Buddhist temple and monastery is, as they all refer to wat in Thai. I've placed the category under both Category:Theravada Buddhist temples and Category:Theravada Buddhist monasteries (via Category:Thai Theravada Buddhist temples), since I don't think it's a distinction worth making at this level, but the category name could benefit from following the common term used by member articles. Paul_012 (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the modificatin suggestion JarrahTree 08:26, 30 October 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:Warrants issued in Hong Kong Stock Exchange[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) 00:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overategorization. Most of the entry in the cat already covered by Category:Companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. The cat was contained Euro and Australian dollars (which i removed as they were not mentioned in the main article they were traded (or have derivatives and warrants) in HK Stock Exchange also). If the cat want to refer to shares subscription warrants, they must be already covered by Companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. As well as it is not notable to categorize company's secondly financial instruments. Matthew_hk tc 13:36, 17 October 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:Front Palaces[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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Front Palace" is a royal title, and this category contains biographical articles of people who once held that title. However, the current name might be confusing to those unfamiliar with the title. I'm open to alternative suggestions. Paul_012 (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - According to the article the title refers to the "second king" of Thailand, until replaced by "Crown Prince" in the 19th century. It refer both to the holder of the title and his residence. There were also "Rear Palaces" who were the "third king". One answer might be to merge to Category:Crown Prince of Thailand, on the basis that this is essentially the same office under a different name. The headnote would need to explain the various titles employed. I would suggest that the category should be limited to crown princes who did not (or have not yet) succeeded, so that the category is not cluttered with bios of kings. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd oppose grouping the historical post and the modern title under the same category, as they're much more different than that. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original nomination to avoid confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I understand the rationale, but I don't see why we should rename something just because the name is unfamiliar or confusing unless there is a plausible chance that the name could be confused as meaning something else that would be incorrect. I don't see that here – what are we worried that people will think "Front Palaces" means? I think it's far more likely that if a person is confused by the name, they will just be confused and not know what to think rather than be under a misapprehension of meaning. In such cases, clicking on Front Palace is an easy solution for the reader. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could be confused with the physical buildings that the persons with the Front Palace title resided in, but granted, we don't have separate articles for those on Wikipedia yet. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS I'm okay with leaving this as is until the need arises for disambiguation. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:03, 7 November 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:Iron mines in Australia[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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match typical Australian terminology for such mines, which may differ from other countries. See also the previous opposed proposal to rename Category:Iron ore mines in Western Australia to Category:Iron mines in Western Australia (under https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy&oldid=744728559#Opposed_nominations). Mitch Ames (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Local usage appears to include 'ore'. Oculi (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. To be honest, I'm not even sure this is strictly a "local usage" issue per se — "iron ore mine" actually appears to be the standard usage almost everywhere as far as I can tell. If I Google the phrase "iron mine", even enclosed in quotes, it seems to appear that way only in reference to video game mining in Minecraft or Shipwrecked — on the relatively rare occasion that a real-world iron mine shows up in the search results at all, it invariably uses the phrase "iron ore mine" in the body text. I'm accordingly inclined to believe that the whole tree should be similarly renamed. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I concur with Bearcat, in that a discussion should be had about amending/renaming the whole tree. Dan arndt (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support obviously. Even Minecraft knows that you have to smelt the iron ore before it becomes iron. --99of9 (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically that's always true of any metal — but in actual usage, we do tend to just say "nickel mine" instead of "nickel ore mine", "copper mine" instead of "copper ore mine" and "gold mine" instead of "gold ore mine", yet "iron ore mine" instead of "iron mine". Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Iron ores are rocks and minerals from which metallic iron can be economically extracted." Iron#Occurrence: "Metallic or native iron is rarely found on the surface of the Earth because it tends to oxidize, but its oxides are pervasive and represent the primary ores." --Scott Davis Talk 06:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is definitely the term used in Australia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support JarrahTree 11:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Iron does not occur on the earth's surface as a native metal. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As a guy who lives in Australia, I can say that we call it "iron ore". The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 07:50, 24 October 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_October_17&oldid=1138410366"