Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 27 October 29 >

October 28[edit]

Category:Neural networks[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: split into Category:Neural circuits and Category:Artificial neural networks‎. Keep Category:Neural networks as a parent category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to the body of this category it is about biological neural networks, however the main article specifies that contemporary use of the term Neural Network usually refers to an Artificial Neural Network, which is causing some confusion when people are categorizing articles about neural networks. Indeed the subcategory Artificial Neural Networks has far more articles then this category.
This category should be renamed to "biological neural networks", and then either
  1. a redirect should be created which points "neural network" to "artificial neural network", or
  2. "Neural networks" should become an invalid category name, or
  3. Neural networks should become a super category containing those two sub categories. Ethanpet113 (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2018 (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:Resort municipalities in Prince Edward Island[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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I apologize if this nom seems aggressive since the category was just created. Hwy43 has been doing a lot of work recently on categorizing municipalities in Prince Edward Island, but this one is unnecessary. There aren't a series of municipalities with this designation, there is just one literally called "Resort Municipality", because it's generally where all the tourist resorts are. It does have "resort municipality" status under provincial law, but that same law also prohibits the creation of future resort municipalities, so this category will only ever have one member. I suppose a future government could change that, but it's unlikely, since this is literally where all the resorts are. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – there are four unique municipality status types in Prince Edward Island – cities, towns, rural municipalities, and resort municipalities. While recognized there is currently only one resort municipality and recently amended legislation does prevent more resort municipalities, where then does this municipality with a unique status type get categorized? I do not see the harm of having a set of subcats below Category:Municipalities in Prince Edward Island that match the province's local government system to a tee, even if one only has and potentially will only ever have one member. It would be awkward if the fourth municipal status type is under the main category when all the others have their own sub-categories. Hwy43 (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, if this gets merged, it brings the PEI municipality category structure out of conformity of the structure applied to all other provinces (except for Quebec) and territories in Canada. See Category:Municipalities in Canada by province or territory. As of this morning, Quebec's system of municipality categories is now the only one in which the new structure has yet to be applied, which will take a significant amount of time with there being well over 1,000 municipalities in that province. This morning's efforts brought PEI's municipalities into conformity of the structure applied to the 11 others. Application of the new structure has been a process over a number of years implemented as Mattximus and I bring forward all 13 municipality list articles to featured list status. We are at 10 with PEI being the 11th to soon be nominated. Hwy43 (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, in addition to Category:Resort municipalities in British Columbia and Category:Resort municipalities in Prince Edward Island, other municipal status type cats with one entry include Category:Indian government districts in British Columbia, Category:Island municipalities in British Columbia‎, Category:Regional municipalities in New Brunswick‎, Category:Cities in the Northwest Territories‎, Category:Villages in the Northwest Territories, Category:Cities in Nunavut‎, and Category:Cities in Yukon‎. Hwy43 (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If kept it would be helpful to have a parent Category:Resort municipalities in Canada so that one quickly finds this structure. Also, with regard to the small size of the categories, merging to that same Category:Resort municipalities in Canada might be an idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestions, and yes on the first one. I coincidentally just thought of creating a parent Category:Resort municipalities in Canada while creating the article for resort municipality, but will wait until the outcome of this (that said, I will add the similarly missing Category:Regional municipalities in Canada parent that I just discovered). Not too fond of the merging idea into such however as it would be inconsistent with Category:Cities in the Northwest Territories‎, Category:Villages in the Northwest Territories, Category:Cities in Nunavut‎, and Category:Cities in Yukon‎. Having subcats for some provinces/territories and not for others is troublesome and counter-intuitive to navigation in the category environment. Hwy43 (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to a question elsewhere, the guideline on categories with few/single members is WP:SMALLCAT. That guideline also suggests that such small categories may nonetheless be useful if they are part of a larger categorization scheme. I'm not sure if that's the case here, or if it would be better to upmerge all of those very specific single-use designations into appropriate parent categories. I'm reminded of the decision to upmerge a similar small PEI category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 12#Category: Prince Edward Island road stubs, which is what I had in mind when I started this discussion, but that was a somewhat different sort of category. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are part of a larger categorization scheme. In AB, all nine unique municipal status types have their own cats. In BC, all eight unique municipal status types have their own cats. In MB, all five have theirs. In NB, all five have theirs. In NL, both types have theirs. In NS, all four have theirs. In unconventional ON, all three tier-based municipal status types have theirs. In SK, all eight have theirs. In the three territories, all available municipal status types that are in use have their cats (town and village status are available in Nunavut but no municipalities have sought either status yet).

Creation of Category:Resort municipalities in Prince Edward Island a couple days ago was to bring the last of Prince Edward Island's four municipal status types into the larger categorization scheme applied across Canada. All that is left to do is apply the scheme to Quebec, which has ~1,100 municipalities across seven types. If there are any other questions respecting the scheme now applied across 12 of Canada's 13 provinces/territories, I can answer as there are complexities, such as municipal group types that contain two or more municipal status types, and there are former municipal status types in Ontario that persist and now act as unofficial sub-types that can be spread across two of the three tier-based status types. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw, which I should have done in my last comment but I guess I never finished my thought, and then to be honest I completely forgot about this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:01, 4 November 2018 (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.

English districts[edit]

I have broken these up since they are being discussed separately. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

High Peak[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. The article name is a problem but can't be resolved here. A new RM then a follow-up CFD to match the article name seems the best way forward. Timrollpickering 11:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:UKDISTRICTS High Peak is ambiguous but the article as at High Peak, Derbyshire. The title "High Peak, Derbyshire" suggests a hill, not a district, there is High Peak, Devon for example. A failed RM at Talk:High Peak, Derbyshire#Requested move 5 August 2018 mainly on the grounds that the hill doesn't yet have an article here, but it does exist. As the category is not supposed to have things for the hill we should indicate that its for the district only. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 20#Category:Craven for a similar example where although the article is at Craven, the term "Craven" can refer to a geographically different area, although its not clear if any part of the Derbyshire part is part of another district. Its likely that the hill will get its own article and the district article moved as such. Proposed name is consistant with the Commons CAT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The main article is High Peak, Derbyshire, which says that "High Peak is a borough in Derbyshire, England". These should be renamed to Category:High Peak, Derbyshire and Category:People from High Peak, Derbyshire. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Which uses "Borough of High Peak" in the infobox, and like Category:Perth, Western Australia/Perth, more clarity is needed for categories than articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The nominator seems to think that the "High Peak" hill deserves an article and category under that name, (even though I am sure it does not exist and that OS link is a mistake - the place it apparently exists is Blackden Moor). I would go with the feeling of the closed Requested Move that High Peak is only used to refer to the borough, not any natural feature, and so the current name with the comma is the best available, what with the plain name being a disambiguation for some other places. Any "Borough of" title is just clunky and against titling guidelines. Rcsprinter123 (yarn) 01:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The hill probably doesn't merit its own category but may merit an article, what's the point in using comma disambiguation when we can use natural disambiguation and avoid confusion with the general area. Out of the hundreds of districts with categories, only this, South Holland and Ashfield use comma disambiguation, the rest use natural disambiguation. See Category:Non-metropolitan districts for example and the guidance of WP:UKDISTRICTS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rcsprinter123: How does using "Borough of..." go against our guidelines, similar to Category:Borough of Chorley. "High Peak, Derbyshire" is less precise, ambiguous and less concise, WP:NATURAL, just like English language (and Category:English language) is not at English (language). Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the article -- Colloquially much of northwest Derbyshire is the Peak District. Another part of it is the White Peak. There was I think an ecclesiastical peculiar of the Peak. I expect there is an article on each. Here we are dealing with a district council and the name used should make that clear. In a similar way we have Wyre Forest and Wyre Forest (district). We might have Category:High Peak (borough) in this case. I am far from sure of the merits of splitting "people from" below county or metropolitan district, but that is what we did and it seems too late to change it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree with renaming the article although there was a RM which noted that there is an area, its just that we don't yet have an article, while our article on Dark Peak suggests its an alternative name for that. This leads to 3 possibilities; what you you think Peterkingiron
High Peak is a separate hill and should have an article at High Peak, Derbyshire (with the district being moved to Borough of High Peak).
High Peak is an alternative name for Dark Peak, so High Peak, Derbyshire should redirect there (with the district being moved to Borough of High Peak).
High Peak is the general name for an area of Derbyshire, but there isn't a hill in its own right. In this case both the general area and the district can be covered in 1 article titled High Peak, Derbyshire, but the category should still be moved to Category:Borough of High Peak to reflect that its only for the district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2018 (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.
North Devon[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. A follow-up nomination of the people category to match the article may be best. Timrollpickering 11:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although the article is at North Devon, the category is only for the North Devon District, not the northern part of Devon of which Torridge is often included in. Huntshaw, Torridge, Weare Giffard, Torridge and thus there is a high risk of users adding pages about the geographical area to the CAT. The article on North Devon is also about the northern part of Devon, similar to the fact that we have an article at South Devon, about the southern part of the county (which is not the name of a district), but South Devon would be unsuitable for a category as it has no definite boundaries, see Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06/Category:North Britain. The Commons CAT is at Commons:Category:North Devon District with Commons:Category:North Devon a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2018 (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.
South Holland[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. A follow-up nomination to rename the people category to match the article may be best. Timrollpickering 11:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although the article is at South Holland, Lincolnshire, the category is only for the South Holland District, not the southern part of Holland, of which the article may include. The Commons category is at Commons:Category:South Holland District although it was moved by me to South Holland, Lincolnshire, I got it moved back. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2018 (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.
Norfolk[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. A follow-up nomination to rename the people categories to match the articles may work but the low discussion here suggests starting anew is best. Timrollpickering 11:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to North Devon. King's Lynn and West Norfolk is also in the northern part of Norfolk. There is also North Norfolk, Connecticut and possibly other places with this name and also it could be the northern area of Norfolk, Virginia among others. Commons:Category:North Norfolk District. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to North Norfolk, there is South Norfolk, Virginia. Commons:Category:South Norfolk District. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2018 (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.
Ashfield[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. An alternative nomination to Ashfield, Nottinghamshire may succeed. Timrollpickering 10:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to High Peak. Ashfield is a DAB following my RM to move it to Ashfield, Nottinghamshire. The current views [[1]] clearly show its not primary. The word "Ashfield" appears to be a local name for the area, such as Sutton-in-Ashfield and Kirkby-in-Ashfield, which is why I didn't propose Ashfield District. But similar to High Peak, this should only be for the district, although it doesn't appear any of the places our outside the current district. Category:Ashfield (and Category:People from Ashfield) should become a {{category ambiguous}} for Category:Ashfield, Massachusetts (and Category:People from Ashfield, Massachusetts) and Category:Ashfield F.C.. Commons:Category:Ashfield District, with Commons:Category:Ashfield a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2018 (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.
Compass directions[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 for North/South/West Somerset; rename the rest. Timrollpickering 11:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As there are so many to list, I'll list them tomorrow, a list can be found at User:Crouch, Swale/Districts#Compass directions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:UKDISTRICTS these districts are named after compass directions (see in particular North Devon above). Although the articles can contain info on both the compass direction, meaning that the article North Somerset can contain info on the northern part of Somerset, the category is only for the local government district. See Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/06/Category:North Britain which was deleted as the definition is unclear. In all cases other than Cheshire East, North Lincolnshire, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire the proposed name matches that of the Commons cat, although all are proposed to use this format.

Although generally the category name matches the article (apart from being plural), this does not necessarily apply if the name is ambiguous. See the CFDs for Category:Perth and Category:Plymouth. Along with BrownHairedGirl's Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 24#Ambiguous Irish towns and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 20#Category:Craven (among others), although this isn't always the case.

The targets are in accordance with WP:UKDISTRICTS, when dealing with districts with local ambiguity and although the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 30#Greater Manchester Metropolitan Boroughs was to use "Foo Borough", at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 21#Metropolitan boroughs and subsequently Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 10#Metropolitan boroughs and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 20#Districts of England this appeared to be local consensus and the NC is "Borough of Foo". See also discussion from Armbrust's CFDS noms. I would've nominated other ambiguous categories like Category:Torbay and Category:Amber Valley but I didn't have time yesterday and will do those at another CFD if this one succeeds. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only feel confident to comment about Category:North Somerset, Category:South Somerset and Category:West Somerset (and their subcats) but I believe some of the comments may apply to others in this list. I do not feel the cats as they currently stand are ambiguous and do not need renaming. In the case of North Somerset the only other area in the north of the county of Somerset is Bath and North East Somerset which has its own category (Category:Bath and North East Somerset) and as a result there is no confusion. The naming of districts may also be inappropriate as North Somerset is not a district (in the UK local government sense) but a unitary authority. The naming may also be temporary. For example West Somerset will cease to exist on 1 April 2019 and will become part of Somerset West and Taunton - which will presumably then need a cat and the appropriate sub cats. For these reasons I oppose the renaming of these categories.— Rod talk 13:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There can be confusion between Category:North Somerset and Category:Bath and North East Somerset, not everyone knows what district each are in, if we included the compass directions then Category:Bath and North East Somerset would probably be a sub cat of Category:North Somerset. A unitary authority area is a type of district, but one that has an independent council from its ceremonial county. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support this heroic effort. We can't assume either readers or editors knows much about districts. Reducing ambiguity is desireable.Rathfelder (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2018 (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/2018_October_28&oldid=868424944"