Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 17 November 19 >

November 18[edit]

Category:Progressive Senate Group[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. MER-C 09:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:TOOSOON cluster of new subcategories for a brand-new political development that's still a fluctuating pile of chaos, and hasn't stabilized enough to support categorization yet. The background is that Justin Trudeau's experiment in reforming the Senate of Canada has hinged on filling vacancies with independent, rather than partisan, new senators -- and some, but not all, of those independent senators have been forming their own ad hoc caucuses to work with ideologically like-minded senators. Four days ago, however, one such group collapsed, and the senators associated with it have been hiving off into their own separate corners to start their own smaller new ones -- and even that's in flux, because there have already been senators ping-ponging across the room as they decided they liked one of the other new groups better than the first one they joined. It's been just four days, remember, and yet there are already people who have to be filed in more than one of these subcategories at the same time.
In six months or so, it might become possible and justifiable to recreate categories for whatever new senate caucuses have solidified into relatively permanent groupings -- but given that the landscape is shifting so rapidly that one or more of these could entirely cease to exist tomorrow, I don't think categorizing for them is useful or defining yet. For the moment the lists of associated senators in the articles should suffice, while eponymous categories for the caucus groupings should wait until after things have stabilized. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL. The test for when a category becomes justified is not "we don't know that it won't become X in the future"; it's "we already know that it already has become X as of today". Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat Okay, changed !vote (see below). What about adding the "Political parties formed in YYYY", or do you think that's still a good idea, but should be part of a mass cat sideways merging nomination?--Doug Mehus T·C 18:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned previously, they should be categorized as "organizations" rather than as "political parties". Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, Right, but I wonder, how many political parties get started by year? If it's less than 25, couldn't we just merge those categories into "Organizations formed in YYYY"?Doug Mehus T·C 18:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested that the entire concept of subcategorizing political parties by year of establishment should be comprehensively upmerged to "organizations" categories across the board. I'm proposing that these specific senate caucuses should be categorized as organizations instead of as political parties, on the specific and unique-to-them grounds that they aren't political parties. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat Sorry again for the misunderstanding and subsequent mischaracterization. Doug Mehus T·C 03:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both per nom. Oppose all (was soft support for #1 and oppose #2 and #3). Might've been too soon to create all categories, but I still think Category:Canadian Senators Group and Category:Senate Liberal Caucus have their use cases, per MikkelJSmith2 below and per how we categorize small Canadian parties of MPs. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Bearcat, As the cat creator of these three categories, would it be easier for me to tag these with CSD#G7, or would the upmerge not happen then?Doug Mehus T·C 21:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support except for the Senate Liberal Caucus, since it no longer exists (i.e. the party's category is there for historical purposes, there won't be any movement of Senators to that caucus, which is why I think it should stay. What do you think Bearcat,Dmehus? As for the PSG collapsing, it hasn't really, they are still working as a caucus, they are just not officially recognized. I still support it and the CSG merging to the other category though. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, changing my !vote, since Dmehus has made a compelling argument with his second reply to me. The other changes that were made since this was proposal was made kind of make this not needed anymore - MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MikkelJSmith2, I agree with you on the Senate Liberal Caucus...I'm not changing my !vote yet, officially, but the Senate Liberal Caucus has pre-existed the Independent Senators Group, so I think Bearcat may want to consider withdrawing that nomination. Regarding the other two, yes, things are still in flux, but I see the Canadian Senators Group as here to stay and most likely to grow. If we co-mingle these Senators with Category:Independent Canadian senators, where they're all already currently listed, it'll be more difficult to un-comingle them in a month. I'm having second thoughts here. Thus, I think we should really only delete Category:Progressive Senate Group as WP:TOOSOON.Doug Mehus T·C 11:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MikkelJSmith2, I've had a change of heart. Now that I've unlinked Category:Independent Canadian senators from Category:Canadian senators by political party, which had been a concern of Bearcat, as I recall from our discussions elsewhere, since they're not technically parties, I don't see the rationale for deleting all three of these categories. Since you asked my thoughts, I thought I'd post this update. The only way I'd support deleting all three categories is if Bearcat wanted to delete Independent Senators Group. If we're going to have a category for one group of independent, free-voting senators, why not Canadian Senators Group? They seem likely to stay and I'd note that Category:Independent Senators Group was created only shortly after Independent Senators Group. Doug Mehus T·C 13:20, 19 November 2019 (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:Poly Prep Country Day School 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. MER-C 19:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent article is Poly Prep and we should match the category name to that of the parent article to avoid confusion by editors and readers of the encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is the article name, but if you read the first paragraph, you will see the real name of the school is Poly Prep Country Day School which is why I named the category the way I did. I have no strong opinion one way or another since there are categories for alumni under both University of California, Los Angeles and UCLA and the same for places like USC and I think NYU. BUT, why bother changing it and making the effort to change all the categorizations? It isn’t like there is a typo in the name or some other misleading part of the title. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Postcard Cathy, there are limited exceptions where there are well-known abbreviations or alternate names (such as UCLA, USC and NYU), but as a rule we should match the title of the the category to the the title of the article, not to the "real name of the school". Editors and readers should be able to make the utterly reasonable assumption that the category for the alumni of an article for a school titled Poly Prep is Category:Poly Prep alumni. It was because that category did not exist that I had to search around to find the utterly unguessable Category:Poly Prep Country Day School alumni as my intended target. If the parent article should be renamed, so be it, but if the article should be properly titled "Poly Prep" then the category should match. Poly Prep is not in any way similar to the use of UCLA, USC or NYU in categories related to the fully spelled out titles of these institutions; in the case of Poly Prep, we are using a shorthand common name for the article title and using the full "real name of the school" in the title of the mismatching category. Alansohn (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2019 (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:Categories by Imperial Chinese dynasty[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 1#Category:Categories by Imperial Chinese dynasty

Category:Faculty by university in New Zealand[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 as nominated. MER-C 19:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of the members of this cat are non-University tertiary institutions and there are country-specific distinctions between the classes of institutions (see Wānanga) so renaming seems like the sane option. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wānanga are not collages, at least I've never heard the word college used in their context. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago I joined a discussion about universities and colleges categories. Most participants then felt that "universities and colleges" is supposed to refer to any kind of tertiary education, despite the fact that "college" is an unknown term in many countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Stuartyeates: I also participated in similar category discussions and support inclusion of non university people. I think the term tertiary institutions was thought too technical in a previous discussion, but it may be accepted in Australia and New Zealand: Australia has Australian tertiary institutions‎ rather than Universities and colleges in Australia. I suggest the that related categories should also be discussed:
Extended content
Universities and colleges in New Zealand‎, University and college buildings in New Zealand‎, Defunct universities and colleges in New Zealand‎, Catholic universities and colleges in New Zealand, Roman Catholic universities and colleges in New Zealand (redirect), Engineering universities and colleges in New Zealand, Technical universities and colleges in New Zealand, People by university or college in New Zealand, Heads of universities and colleges in New Zealand‎, Alumni by university or college in New Zealand‎, Wikipedia categories named after universities and colleges in New Zealand‎.
TSventon (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Id prefer "university or college" to "tertiary". It fits better with the wider categorisation system for educational institutions. Failing that, Universities and Wānanga in New Zealand. Rathfelder (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance I would also prefer "university or college". This category includes universities, wānanga, institutes of technology and a polytechnic and a large majority of the faculty are at universities rather than other institutions. TSventon (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tertiary is certainly national usage, as per Tertiary education in New Zealand. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is an issue that needs to be settled by New Zealanders. What I would urge is that a change to this one national category should NOT result in consequent changes in parents, as "university or college" is widely used worldwide. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Stuartyeates: could you ping some other New Zealand editors interested in education to ask if they would like to contribute to the discussion? TSventon (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: @MurielMary: @Giantflightlessbirds: @Ambrosia10: What do you think? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Second attempt at pinging @Schwede66: @MurielMary: @Giantflightlessbirds: @Ambrosia10: TSventon (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping. "College" is a near-meaningless term in New Zealand anyway. Everybody understands what is meant by tertiary institution. As it's all-encompassing, I support the proposal as relevant to New Zealand. Schwede66 17:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yes, "tertiary institution" is inclusive (uni, polytech, wānanga), widely understood, and the term in common use in New Zealand. I see it used in the same context as "universities and colleges" in other countries. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's better than the current name and I can't think of an even better name. Nurg (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on comments by New Zealand editors. @Schwede66: @Giantflightlessbirds: please could you include Support or Oppose in your posts to make this discussion easier to close. @Nurg: I have bolded your support. TSventon (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2019 (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/2019_November_18&oldid=947378145"