Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 28 March 1 >

February 29[edit]

Category:Wikipedia books on eukaryotes[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer. DexDor (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - As the category's creator, I sort of agree... I created this in 2010, when the Book: namespace was vibrant and people thought most high-level topic categories should have a corresponding Wikipedia books on... subcategory. Now, the Book: namespace is dying and, frankly, I am not sure what should happen. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it's the 'eukaryotes' bit which is unnecessary. Oculi (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Agree that this is unnecessary. Even if Category:Wikipedia books on algae ( 0 ), Category:Wikipedia books on fungi ( 0 ), and so on were created the category would not be big enough. Merge up to Category:Wikipedia books on organisms ( 0 ). --awkwafaba (📥) 17:06, 2 March 2020 (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:Black characters in television[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These already black characters which is Category:Fictional African-American people. Happypillsjr ✉ 20:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black isn't equivalent to African-American for Black people who aren't American. Plus "fictional African American people" needs more subcats anyways. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess:there is Category:Fictional black people -- Happypillsjr ✉ 21:51, 1 March 2020 (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:Shakespearean scholars[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_9#Category:Shakespearean_scholars (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All other subcategories of Category:Literary scholars by writer ([edit:] except Category:Homeric scholars, though I'd make the same case about that one) use the bare name of the author, not an adjective based on that name. "Shakespearean" is not in widespread use in academia and has a bit of an old-fashioned, pretentious feel. All of this also applies to Category:Shakespearean scholarship. blameless 19:54, 29 February 2020 (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:Saigyō[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCEPON, there is currently only one article next to the eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I removed this category from Ugetsu Monogatari, since it is not in fact by Saigyō. blameless 19:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to see here. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:16, 7 March 2020 (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.

Television task forces[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 per option A. Thank you User:Fayenatic london for offering your help in implementing this. Also, no objections have been raised against allowing editors to move existing assessment categories accordingly under WP:G6 without further tagging or listing (while all participants in the discussion have been pinged and had the chance to raise objections if they wanted to), so this should be allowed. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming with all sub-cats, either according to Option A or Option B:
Option A – Match part of task force name
Option B – Avoid unnecessary plurals and capitals
Note 1: in option A, I have added plurals to the ones nominated by Ricky to match the format in the earlier nominations by Gonnym.
Note 2: I have not listed all the sub-cats here, as I judged that a short selection would be clearer. – Fayenatic London 16:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping. Support option A. There seems to be a bit of confusion regarding this naming style. First, there was an argument raised before that "television" or "episode" are not proper names. I agree. However, that wasn't what was proposed. What was proposed is a proper name. The task force are called "Television game shows" and "Episode coverage". The "task force" is the descriptive part of it. Can a better naming style be used? Sure. If the tasks forced used a consistent style of "<task force&ght; task force" as in "Category:NA-Class Television stations task force articles" that would be much better. However, that isn't proposed and it also isn't used by WP:TV or almost any other task force. Using the name as proposed in option 1 is also found in other task forces of other WPs such as Category:NA-Class Abandoned Drafts articles, Category:NA-Class Abortion articles and Category:NA-Class Academic Journal articles and many many others. Meaning the style proposed is also WP:CONSISTENT with one of the styles used. Using the lowercase version would make the category tree also inconsistent with the parent categories. Especially in the case of lowercase + singular. There is a reason why C2C exists and that is because it makes working with categories easier. --Gonnym (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A (!vote changed below) per Gonnym and per WP:CONSISTENT.
Consistency isn't just a neatness principle. It's also an organisational principle, because templates and other tools rely on consistent naming. In this case, the WikiProject templates which populate the categories and the header templates which create the categories all use the project/task force name to make the categories. If the task force name and the category name are not aligned, that just makes life harder for the editors who create these categories. (Those editors are those like Le Deluge who plug away at Special:WantedCategories, doing a vital but largely un-noticed task of maintenance. Please don't make their life harder).
I usually agree with Fayenatic and often agree with Armbrust, but in this case I think that they have misplaced priorities. Yes, grammar supports their preference for option B ... but grammatical perfection is a low priority for these categories. These are not reader-facing cats; they are project cats, whose purpose is solely to assist WikiProjects. Editors who monitor and maintain the articles within a project's scope will be much better served by consistency of naming than by grammatical perfection.
It's a pity that these simple WP:C2C renamings have not been speedied. It is unhelpful to the WikiProjects for this to be delayed for at last 7 days until this discussion closes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (changing my !vote) Option A as first choice. Otherwise Option D, per Fayenatic's proposal below. I am not entirely sure that the Option D principle of including the words "task force" is needed, but if that path is needed to reach agreement on a name, then I'll go with it. @Gonnym: can you accept Option D as a fallback?--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but only if we forgo the bureaucracy and just add all the other task forces straight into the bot queue, without the needless speedy nomination progress. I know I'm not going to waste my time tagging all those categories again and there really is no reason to. --Gonnym (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for the mechanism, a one-off fix to the WikiProject template changes the name used in the assessment categories. (In these cases, {{WikiProject Television}} was updated to use the target names in Option A for all the sub-categories, in advance of the Speedy nomination. That's why all the nominated "NA-" categories are already empty. Such timing is generally undesirable as it makes it harder to look at examples of the categories in use.) It is no skin off a task force's nose for the category names to be only a partial match with the task force itself. – Fayenatic London 08:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic, I think you're missing the main problem with the inconsistency. Sure, one edit to the project banner changes the name ... but that project banner populates up to two dozen categories, which is where the work lies. So for each task force, that's up to two dozen categories where you want to create an inconsistency between the task force name and the category name.
    What exactly is the benefit to anyone from creating this inconsistency? If these categories were descriptive titles, then would be a case for natural English ... but the whole purpose of these categories is that they relate to a task force, so they should use the proper name of the task force. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl: what is the extra work? Using an unusual assessment in the banner creates a red-linked category, OK; why would it be more difficult to create a page for that category if it does not exactly match the task force name? – Fayenatic London 11:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Fayenatic london: because the editor creating the category has to ferret around to find out the precise name of the taskforce, in order to link it from the category. Much easier to have the same name for both taskforce and category.
This may seem like a trivial issue, but many thousands of such categories appear on Special:WantedCategories every year, and there is only a small number of editors who do the tedious work of creating them. It's a tedious slog, and it's mighty irritating to have that job made harder. It may only take a minute or two to ferret out the taskforce name, but a minute or two times several thousand adds up to a lot of editorial time. The number of active editors is declining, so we should be making maintenance easier, not creating rods for each others' backs.
So I ask again: what exactly is the perceived gain to offset the downside of making the job harder? I really struggle to see any advantage to mean or beast in creating this discrepancy and breaching WP:C2C. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining why names that do not fully match the task force adds to manual workload. Has the tedious work of creating assessment categories been considered as a request for a new bot task, like the monthly maintenance categories that are automatically created?
As for C2C, in case anyone misreads this nomination, it is not intended to make the "NA-Class" categories inconsistent in any way with those of other classes within their WikiProject/task force. I just picked one class's sub-cats to make a concise nomination, and chose NA-Class because they are well-populated. If consistency is best, then why not use Option D: Category:Reality television task force articles by quality, Category:NA-Class Reality television task force articles etc? I would have no objection to that, and they would be consistent with the parents e.g. Category:Reality television task force articles which all include "task force" in the category names. I am not going to ask for the many series-related task force sub-categories to be renamed to include "task force", but it would be helpful for these non-series topic-related categories to refer to the full proper noun (a specific task force; they currently only refer to it indirectly by using only selected words of the task force name). – Fayenatic London 14:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed the best title naming-wise, however a comment and a caveat. That naming style is not consistent at all with how almost all of the other categories in wikipedia are titled. Some are like option A, others like option B and a very small minority does neither (which include this style). However, if the majority agree that that concern in itself should not cause an issue, than I'm fine with the addition of a caveat, that this naming style should be applied to all other TV task forces (found in Category:WikiProject Television task forces). The project at the very least should be consistent within itself. --Gonnym (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic, I'm not aware of any bot request for this task. I don't think that a bot is feasible, because there are too many variables involved. The monthly maintenance categories are an easy bot job because a) the bot can just create the page with a single parameterless template: {{Monthly clean-up category}}, so no assessment is required; b) the bot is supplied with a list of which types of category to create; c) the condition for creation is the start of a new month. None of those factors applies here.
Making these assessment categories fully consistent with the parent project or task force seems like a good idea in principle. But if that is to be done, then the most of the benefits of simplifying templates would follow only if was applied to all projects and task forces, so that for example:
In principle, I like that idea, because it should in theory allow the category-header templates to be simplified towards a parameterless state ... but I think there may be some cases where that could get complicated. I guesstimate that there are about 50,000 project assessment categories, so any such proposal should be discussed at some central location, and then formulated as a proposal for a RFC.
For now, I don't see any harm in applying it just to the television task forces. But that's without seeing exactly what's involved, so I withhold final judgement on Option-D until someone sets out a full list of the changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, the subcategories are mostly empty. Is this task force still active at all? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option A. As to the setup, there is no point in discussing what the categories should be if we don't make the template Template:WikiProject Television capable of creating it. This discussion belongs at the template talk page. As noted above, WantedCategories is an annoying and frustrating task and the act of figuring out how the template operates and categorizing and preparing these massively annoying speedy requests (just done to get the template-pointed categories fixed) is clearly not worth my time. In the future, the people who changed the template should be the ones to ask for the speedy renaming as they broke it but I see why no one bothers to do this kind of administrative follow-up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Option D, i.e. option A + the words "task force". If I understand correctly, the category name stem for each task force is determined separately in {{WikiProject Television}}. (Some may also be generated by other project banners, e.g. Scottish Television from WP Scotland, but again each one can be named anything in the banner template.) Options B/C are therefore feasible, but it has now been explained that they would result in more work when setting up new cats, so I relent from pursuing them. Option D uses the full proper noun for the task force, so that would justify using the capital letters and plurals. The advantage of Option D is that an editor stumbling across these categories, e.g. via a search or in HotCat, gets more help in figuring out what they are for. I dimly remember that it took me a long time to see the connection between assessment categories and WikiProjects. Newbies sometimes currently add new articles straight into inappropriate cats, e.g. see TV3 Mentor, and hopefully they would do this less if the category name included "task force".
As for the other (series-related) task forces, whose assessment categories Gonnym suggests should be renamed likewise with "task force", I propose that if consensus for Option D can be reached here, then Gonnym or other interested editors should be permitted to move assessment category pages directly, under WP:G6. Any such actions should still observe the checks recommended at WP:CFDAI, especially checking backlinks to the old name. – Fayenatic London 23:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 10:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Could you explain why you relisted this? There is a clear majority in favor of Option A, with only one opposing it. Option D could also have a majority if the stipulations I presented are accepted. This really does not need to be relisted and again put in queue for over a week. This group of categories does not attract editors and I doubt we'll gain anything from this except keeping prolonging this pointless C2D issue even more. --Gonnym (talk) 10:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gonnym: both option A and D seem to be good candidates but in the end only one of the two can be implemented. For anyone to close this discussion it would be helpful to have a clearer consensus on the choice between A and D. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I am v disappointed that this has been relisted. The whole discussion is an attempt to polish something which doesn't need to be polished, and in the meantime there are about 150 categories cluttering up Special:WantedCategories and about 49,000 TV-task-force-tagged pages cluttering up my query at https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/30916, which I use for monitoring various tasks.
I agree with Gonnym: there is a clear consensus, with 3 editors preferring A, and only one preferring D. No benefit will be derived from cluttering up the cleanup lists for another week. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A - let clutter be banished. Oculi (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK then, most editors support Option A, i.e. follow the WikiProject or Task Force name with capitals/plurals and without "WikiProject" or "task force" even when the resulting names are not self-explanatory, such as "Episode coverage articles". One more thing, then: can we agree to allow editors to move existing assessment categories accordingly under WP:G6 without further tagging or listing? – Fayenatic London 09:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london and Marcocapelle: Can this finally be closed now? --Gonnym (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: (fixed ping) --Gonnym (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Gonnym, it's turned out that I've slowed you down for nothing. There is not even support for simplifying the process (using G6 for assessment categories) – it seems that you will have to go on tagging and listing categories at the Speedy page. Well, it needs an uninvolved editor to close it now. I will list it at WP:Requests for closure. – Fayenatic London 08:25, 8 March 2020 (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:Stub-Class Universities articles[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems that WP:WikiProject Universities was moved to WP:WikiProject Higher Education. However, none of the categories got moved (all of them are those red links at Template:WikiProject Higher Education). I don't think I should nominate all of the categories to be moved as it is redundant, but all of them should be updated. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 04:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbhotch: these can all be speedily renamed per WP:C2D. Please can you withdraw this nom, so that i can list all the categories at WP:CFDS? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Yes (I withdraw it). I didn't know CFDS existed. Thanks. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 17:43, 29 February 2020 (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/2020_February_29&oldid=945592562"