Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 11

August 11

Category:German Communists opposed to the Third Reich

Category:German Communists opposed to the Third Reich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Red Orchestra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Communists in the German Resistance and Category:Red Orchestra (espionage), respectively. When I first saw Category:German Communists opposed to the Third Reich, I thought to myself, "Why would we need such a category -- surely, ALL German Communists were opposed to the Third Reich?!" So this category really only makes sense if it's for people who were in the Resistance. As for the sub-cat, Category:Red Orchestra, the rename will be consistent with the name of the main article, Red Orchestra (espionage). Cgingold (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Robot categories

Category:Ecological robots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete Category:Ecological robots - This is an extremely narrow category with only a single article and little if any potential for growth.
  

Rename the following categories:
Category:Biomimetic robots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Therapeutic robots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Robot caused deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Artistic robots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Category:Biomimetic robots to Category:Animalian robots - The term "biomimetic" is slightly misused here, and does not fully convey what sorts of robots these are; it's not commonly used in any event.
• Category:Therapeutic robots to Category:Medical and therapeutic robots - I think it would be more useful to expand this fairly narrow category to a wider range of robots, which also can then serve as a parent cat for Category:Surgical robots.
• Category:Robot caused deaths to Category:Deaths caused by robotic machinery - The current name is somewhat inelegant, and the proposed name uses the more apt term "robotic machinery".
• Category:Artistic robots to Category:To be determined - I added a new parent cat, Category:Musical performers, to this category, as both of these robots perform music. Possible names are Category:Performing robots or Category:Musical performance robots.

Cgingold (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose all - most of the categories within Category:Robots are named according to the corresponding subfield of robotics, such as the categories under discussion here. The renaming proposed do not appear to have wide acceptance within robotics literature. Specifically -
• The use of "biomimetic" is well established, while "animalian" is not (see [1] and [2], for example). Furthermore, biomimetic robotics deal with robots with roots in humans, animals, and insects, and this new category name unnecessarily restricts the scope to just animals.

• To begin with, Wiki Category names are not restricted to the sometimes overly jargonistic names that may be in use in particular academic or technical fields. "Biomimetics" is not at this point a commonly understood term for non-specialists, and more importantly, I also think that it doesn't adequately convey the salient characteristic of the sorts of robots in the category: namely that they all resemble animals. They are, thus, "Animalian" -- a term which encompasses humans and insects, as well as other animals. Cgingold (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• There are two kinds of medical robots: Category:Therapeutic robots and Category:Surgical robots. "medical" is implied here in the individual categories, and the addition is unnecessary. Again - there is no wide acceptance of the phrase "Medical and therapeutic robots".

"*Again, Wiki Category names are not restricted to the exact names or phrases that may be in use in particular academic or technical fields. Other factors are also important -- in this case, I think it would be very useful to expand the category as I've proposed, especially since Category:Therapeutic robots is rather small. Alternatively, we could I suppose set up a Category:Medical robots as a parent for both of Category:Therapeutic robots and Category:Surgical robots -- but I think this would make more sense if there are other potential sub-cats that could be added. Cgingold (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Artistic robots - this category includes more than just music performing robots. Drawing, dancing, etc.
• Ecological robotics is an recent but active subfield of robotics. See [3], for example. There are not that many real-life robots (because frankly, people don't create radiation environments just to test robots), but the theoretic background is substantial. Any robot that draws power from its environment can be considered in this category - think solar or radioisotope thermoelectric generator based planetary rovers.
• Robotic machinery implies industrial robots, where this categories potentially includes future "self-aware" robot caused deaths (under investigation by roboethics). "machinery" is simply unnecessary. I don't mind renaming "Robot caused deaths" to "Deaths caused by robots", but is that necessary?

Robotics is an academic field, and the decisions here should consider the vast literature involved. While I appreciate the efforts of the nominator to improve robotics-related categories (WP:ROBO desperately needs active actors), I don't think the changes suggested here follow this general principle. --Jiuguang (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - topic announced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics to solicit expert opinions. --Jiuguang (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing that, Jiuguang - you beat me to it. Cgingold (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:UK SCUBA diving sites

Propose renaming Category:UK SCUBA diving sites to Category:Underwater diving sites in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parent category is Category:Underwater diving sites, and presumably these sites can be used for forms of diving other than scuba. (? not that I'm an expert on this subject, though ?) Also use the full name of the location. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Files that are public domain in the United States but not public domain in country of origin and that must not be hosted on Wikimedia Commons

Propose renaming Category:Files that are public domain in the United States but not public domain in country of origin and that must not be hosted on Wikimedia Commons to Category:Files that are not in the Public Domain in their country of origin

Nominator's rationale: Current name is wayyyyyyy too long, rivals Longcat maybe, but we should be more concise with these things. ViperSnake151 20:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Districts of the United States

Category:Districts of the United States - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: There is only one district in the United States. Category is nonsensical. epicAdam (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: What about Category:Districts of American Samoa, which is currently a subcategory? This is in United States territory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Districts of American Samoa can be left as their own category if it's really necessary (there are only three), but I can't see how the overarching category is needed as there are no first-order districts of the United States besides Washington, D.C. There is also a separate category, Category:Subdivisions of the United States, that is all-encompassing and makes the need for a separate category just for "districts" unnecessary. -epicAdam (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete; I think I can go along with this. Category:Subdivisions of the United States is probably a better parent and organizing by "district" seems to be a type of overcategorization by shared name, since (at least I think) the districts in A.S. are not the same type of jurisdictional body as the District of Columbia. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Persons who have been cloned

Propose merging Category:Persons who have been cloned to Category:Cloning

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation - small with little or no potential for growth, at least for the next few months/years. If kept, consider renaming to the shorter title of Category:Cloned humans. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Benjamin Zephaniah

Category:Benjamin Zephaniah - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation for a person (see Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous categories for people). All of the material (the main article and two articles about publications) is adequately interlinked from the main article and via {{Benjamin Zephaniah}}. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Politics about the military

Propose renaming Category:Politics about the military to Category:Military sociology

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Renaming_of_Category:Politics_about_the_military. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia-related categories

• • Category:Olympic beach volleyball players of Georgia to Category:Olympic beach volleyball players of Georgia (country)
  • Category:Olympic shooters of Georgia to Category:Olympic shooters of Georgia (country)
  • Category:Georgia at the Olympics to Category:Georgia (country) at the Olympics
  • Category:Olympic competitors for Georgia to Category:Olympic competitors for Georgia (country)
  • Category:Olympic medalists for Georgia to Category:Olympic medalists for Georgia (country)
  • Category:Olympic bronze medalists for Georgia to Category:Olympic bronze medalists for Georgia (country)
  • Category:Olympic silver medalists for Georgia to Category:Olympic silver medalists for Georgia (country)
  • Category:Olympic gold medalists for Georgia to Category:Olympic gold medalists for Georgia (country)
  • Category:Olympic judoka of Georgia to Category:Olympic judoka of Georgia (country)
  • Category:Olympic wrestlers of Georgia to Category:Olympic wrestlers of Georgia (country)
  • Category:Olympic weightlifters of Georgia to Category:Olympic weightlifters of Georgia (country)
  • Category:Olympic archers of Georgia to Category:Olympic archers of Georgia (country)
  • Category:Olympic figure skaters of Georgia to Category:Olympic figure skaters of Georgia (country)
  • Category:Olympic boxers of Georgia to Category:Olympic boxers of Georgia (country)
  • Category:Kings of Georgia to Category:Kings of Georgia (country)
  • Category:Monarchs of Georgia to Category:Monarchs of Georgia (country)
  • Category:Prime Ministers of Georgia to Category:Prime Ministers of Georgia (country)
  • Category:World Heritage Sites in Georgia to Category:World Heritage Sites in Georgia (country)
  • Category:Catholicoses and Patriarchs of Georgia to Category:Catholicoses and Patriarchs of Georgia (country)
  • Category:Presidents of Georgia to Category:Presidents of Georgia (country) — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All categories mentioned above don't need (country) suffix, because all are unique and can be applied only for the country of Georgia. This critertion no6 is a shiny example of U.S.-centrism and a shiny example of bureaucratic conduct going against the common sense. - Darwinek (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Should be moved to normal CFR and discussed there. - Darwinek (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
      • You have to nominate them. With the criterion #6, the onus is on those opposing the addition of the suffix to gain a consensus for not including it. (No "World Heritage Sites" in the U.S. state of Georgia? Really? That may be a surprise to those who live there.) Otherwise, they can be speedy renamed per the criterion. And please don't throw out the old canard of "U.S.-centrism" where none exists; the criterion applies just as equally to unambiguated uses of "Georgia" when the U.S. state is the entity being referred to. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved from WP:CFDS at this point.

• • To oppose it point by point:

1. U.S. states don't compete at the Olympic Games. There is a Georgia at the Olympics article.
2. UNESCO designates World Heritage Sites for countries, not for U.S. states. Our categorisation scheme follows this.
3. U.S. state of Georgia doesn't have monarchs, kings, presidents, nor prime ministers.
4. Same applies for Catholicoses and Patriarchs, or have you seen Georgian Orthodox Church in the U.S. state of Georgia (sic!)?

--Darwinek (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree entirely with rationale provided by Darwinek above. No possibility of confusion between Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state) in these instances, so renaming superfluous, over-pedantic, and cumbersome. Think about what the outside reader is going to type in the search field. Incidentally, I would think that the umpteen separate "Olympic" articles for Georgia could be usefully merged into one. --Zlerman (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Re specific arguments above. Re #1: U.S. states don't compete at the Olympic Games, but an American from Georgia who participates in the Olympic Games could plausibly be described as an Olympian of or from Georgia. The potential for some confusion exists, especially on the part of the uninitiated who are unaware of the finer details of Olympic teams and participation. Re #2: So you're suggesting that it's impossible for a UNESCO World Heritage Site to be "in" the U.S. state of Georgia? I find that fantastic and obviously nonsensical. Re #3: actually, in the history of the area we call Georgia in America, there have been monarchs and kings that have ruled over the territory. Categories are not temporally limited to the current state of affairs. Re #4: The Georgian Orthodox Church is not the only church body that uses the terminology of "patriarchs" and "catholicoses", and yes, some of these churches exist in the U.S. state of Georgia. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a person could be a "patriarch of" the U.S. state of Georgia. Re in general: I'm also not aware of any U.S. highways in the country of Georgia, and yet we have Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state). There's quite a body of consensus where it's been agreed we just use the disambiguating term for the placename "Georgia", regardless. Otherwise we have endless debates like this in which there are plausible arugments on either side. It's easier just to have a standard rule, in my opinion, which is what criterion #6 has accomplished. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As for now you are the only one supporting this move. Let the community decide this nomination. Personally I think U.S. Highways category that you mentioned, should be renamed too. - Darwinek (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is ample precedent to back up my position, and speedy criterion #6 supports my position. In other words, I don't have to demonstrate consensus the rename; you (or the community, I should say) have to provide a strong consensus to not follow criterion #6. Right now it's the default naming pattern when "Georgia" is used in a category name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think will be good, if all categories about Georgia has same name. All categories name must be Georgia, or Georgia (country), not some Georgia and some Georgia (country).--Ventusa (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Rename all per nom for clarity and consistency. Cgingold (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Question: I just noticed that some of the Olympics categories (medallists, etc.) use "for", while the majority use "of". Is there really any reason not to use "of" for all of them? Cgingold (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a naming convention that is in use for all countries competing at the Olympic Games. - Darwinek (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Rename all per nom - we've discussed this plenty of times and have decided never to leave Georgia unaccompanied (whether it is the state or country). Occuli (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Rename all - for consistency and because at least some of the categories have the potential for ambiguity (especially since the Olympics have been held in Georgia (U.S. state). Otto4711 (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Darwinek. I see no confusion here and consistency is not a requirement.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. This just adds more confusion to the category names. To be honest, just because the nominator didn't realize that Georgia was the country not the state doesn't mean that everyone else didn't either. Editors have to take these in context, and I'm fairly certain that when one links to this category, one knows full well what he's getting. Jared (t)  15:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, I did realise what was being referred to. I was implementing a convention. Let's not make any unwarranted assumptions about motivations, hm? But I fail to see how a disambiguating term adds more confusion. That would be counterproductive, not to mention counterintuitive. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Kashrut

Suggest merging Category:Kashrut to Category:Kosher food

Nominator's rationale: Merge, "Kashrut" is a lesser-known (to non-Hebrew speakers) term for kosher observance. --Eliyak T·C 09:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per nom - these categories are essentially redundant, and Kosher is the better-known term. Cgingold (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• No, Kashrut is not "lesser known". In fact Kosher redirects to it. — CharlotteWebb 15:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. "Kashrut" gets 373,000 ghits. "Kosher food" gets 870,000. "Kosher" alone gets more than 20 million (though of course the term can be used colloquially when not speaking specifically of food). I think that's a fairly clear indication of which is more commonly used. By the way, Kosher foods is an independent article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)