Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:51, 9 December 2010

< December 7	December 9 >

December 8

Category:Chlorine bombings in Iraq

Propose merging Category:Chlorine bombings in Iraq to Category:Terrorist incidents involving chemical weapons

Nominator's rationale: There is not enough material to justify a separate category. Both articles are already categorized in the appropriate Terrorist incidents in Iraq in {Year} category. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorist incidents by responsible parties

Propose renaming Category:Terrorist incidents by responsible parties to Category:Terrorist incidents by perpetrator or Category:Terrorist incidents by responsible party

Nominator's rationale: I was going to list this for speedy renaming to change "responsible parties" to "responsible party", but "perpetrator" is shorter and no less clear. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thee Silver Mt. Zion Memorial Orchestra & Tra-La-La Band members

Propose renaming Category:Thee Silver Mt. Zion Memorial Orchestra & Tra-La-La Band members to Category:Thee Silver Mt. Zion members

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. The band is notorious for constantly changing its name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military equipment by conflict

Propose renaming Category:Second Boer War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Second Boer War

Propose renaming Category:Cold War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Cold War

Propose renaming Category:Falklands War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Falklands War

Propose renaming Category:Gulf War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Gulf War

Propose renaming Category:Iran–Iraq War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Iran–Iraq War

Propose renaming Category:Iraq War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Iraq War

Propose renaming Category:Korean War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Korean War

Propose renaming Category:Kosovo War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Kosovo War

Propose renaming Category:Second Sino-Japanese War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Second Sino-Japanese War

Propose renaming Category:Spanish Civil War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Spanish Civil War

Propose renaming Category:Vietnam War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Vietnam War

Propose renaming Category:War in Afghanistan (2001-present) military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

Propose renaming Category:World War I military equipment to Category:Military equipment of World War I

Propose renaming Category:World War II military equipment to Category:Military equipment of World War II

Proposing a start of a major renaming effort here, to make the categorys "X of Y" compliant - in addition, they look better this way. Child categories can be speedied later. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC) (Make clear if you propose deletion, merging or renaming).[reply]
Rename, but with two modifications per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes: (1) "Sino-Japanese" should use a hyphen, not an en dash, because the prefix "Sino-" lacks lexical independence; and (2) "(2001–present)" should use an en dash, not a hyphen. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaks made. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I'll be adding a function to twinkle to allow ease of making speedy rename requests. Marcus Qwertyus 21:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious sees in the United Kingdom

Propose renaming Category:Religious sees in the United Kingdom to Category:Dioceses in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: The two terms are, practically speaking, homonyms. The articles in the category, without exception, are about the latter. Only the cat on Scotland uses the word "see". Additionally, the adjective "religious" is superfluous. There is no such noun as "see" that is not always a religious see. The parent category reverts to "diocese" (e.g. Category:Dioceses in Europe. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 18:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Neither of these two categories were tagged for renaming, so I'm relisting them. --Kbdank71 18:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious sees

Propose renaming Category:Religious sees to Category:Dioceses

Nominator's rationale: The two terms are homonyms. The adjective "religious" is superfluous. There is no such noun as a see that is not always a religious see. The parent category reverts to "diocese (e.g. Category:Dioceses in Europe. If this re-name is successful, then all children of the category will also need to be re-named by the same rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename There is in fact some slight distinction between an episcopal see and a diocese, but these articles are almost without exception about the latter. The category hierarchy of dioceses could use some additional rationalization. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - they are not always called diocese. Sometimes they are ecclesiastical provinces, archdiocese, eparchies, archeparchies, or exarchates. In fact isn't the generic term "episcopal polity"? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Province" is a special case, in that it lacks a consistent definition across episcopally-organized churches. I question whether we should use it as a category at all. The other cases are all subspecies of dioceses and if we feel so compelled could be made subcategory hierarchies of Category: Dioceses. I suppose the other solution would be to make Category:Religious sees the root and put all the other subspecies directly from it. However there is absolutely no reason to have a "episcopal see" hierarchy with subcategories of "Religious sees in X". Behind all of this is that the hierarchy of dioceses is not especially consistent, as it cannot seem to decided whether to divide up by geography and then by church, or by church and then geography. This is important to the present discussion because the hierarchy within the different churches uses different terms and structures, so that (for instance) in Anglicanism the title of "archbishop" does not correspond to its usage in the Catholic Church (an RC archbishop for instance is more or less at the same level in the hierarchy as an ECUSA diocesan bishop, whereas an Anglican archbishop more closely corresponds to the Pope or to the head of one of the uniate churches). It might make more sense to reorganize the whole tree by church/communion and then establish separate patterns for each. Mangoe (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with user Mangoe's analysis above and Support the suggestion to organise by church/communion rather than by state. Ireland is a prime example where both the RC Church and the Church of Ireland are organised on an all-Ireland basis. The dioceses of each criss-cross the border. It is an entirely artificial device to pretend that they could be compartmentalised by state. Having said that, a continental geographic is probably worthwhile. It's less likely that dioceses would straddle continental divides. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 18:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Neither of these two categories were tagged for renaming, so I'm relisting them. --Kbdank71 18:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computing navbox templates

Category:Computing navbox templates - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of project category Category:Computing templates, much of which is navboxes. Double-listing all the computing-related navboxes here would be much more work than it's worth. Subtopical categories are more useful here (with the exception of Category:Computing infobox templates which I think should be kept to promote reuse). Pnm (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like a reasonable categorization of templates to me. If they are double categorized into templates and navtemplates, just remove the categorization in plain template category. 64.229.101.17 (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Local History

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: speedy delete, C1: category that has been empty for four days. It was added to Hendra Paul Farm on 3 December and removed on 4 December. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Local History - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Empty category with no discernible purpose Stephenb (Talk) 16:48, 8 December 2010 (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:History of Hanukkah

Category:History of Hanukkah - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary overcategorization. Barely any of the articles currently so categorized mention Hanukkah at all, and those that do (except Hanukkah itself) are all part of the subcategory Hasmoneans. Besides, it's misnamed; according to creator IZAK's explanation, it's supposed to be not about the history of Hanukkah, but about the historical background that led to the Maccabean Revolt and, by extension, the institution of Hanukkah. There are already sufficient categories for this purpose, like Category:Maccabees and the aforementioned Category:Hasmoneans, and the less directly related articles, such as Seleucid Empire, shouldn't be categorized at all by what was to them a comparatively minor event. Huon (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boy band members

Category:Boy band members - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Two years ago, we deleted the very similar Category:Members of boy bands, in this nomination. This category's members are typically in subcategories of Category:Musicians by band, and their bands are typically in subcategories of Category:Boy bands. (FYI, I just added a bunch of subcategories to this category, but only in an attempt to categorize the members into subcategories of Category:Musicians by band.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per the previous cfd. The article Boy band states that 'the term "boy band" did not exist until the 1990s' and so a host of the articles categorised are wrong, eg all the Jacksons. Anyway we don't have any other categories of band members by music genre. Occuli (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This category serves to identify a large number of members which are in a similar and unique genre. We can also create categories by genre for Members in punk bands, members in rock bands, members in reggae bands etc -- all these may be as useful to develop as is the present cayegory for members in boy bands. The more such genre memberships are developed the more useful it becomes as some may be in more than one catgeory. Incidentally, these catgeories would be concurrent with category for Category:Musicians by band and eaccentuate its usefulness by extra information. werldwayd (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab people by ethnic or national origin

Category:Arab people by ethnic or national origin - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: The meaning of "Arab people" in this context is ambiguous, but at the moment it is being used to group all the Islamic countries of North Africa and the middle east into a subtree. Category:Arab people gives several definitions, and if we are going to use one of these for "by origin" I think "Arab people" is not a parent to the national categories but gets pushed up to the level of the national categories, and that it in practice will contain only people who cannot be assigned to a national category by reason of timeframe (the vast majority, as most entries would be pre-national) or lack of specific national identity.

The subcategories would be affected as follows:

Category:Arab people of Turkish descent is proposed for renaming below and would have the same pattern of parent cats as other "of Turkish descent" categories.
Category:Arab people of Iranian descent would only contain the current pages (I believe all of them are pre-national). All of the subcategories would be removed from this category; they are all already in Category:People of Iranian descent.
Category:Arab people of Black African descent would be reorganized to create national categories for modern members (e.g. Anwar El Sadat would be moved to Category:Egyptian people of Black African descent). The category would then contain only pre-national members and would lose Category:United Arab Emirati people of Black African descent as a subcategory.

This is an unconventional discussion and it's possible that the titular category might be retained and repurposed, but at this point it doesn't fit the pattern we have for other "nationalities". I welcome any assistance in fixing up this nomination, which I'm sure must have some proecdural faults. Mangoe (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories for redirects based on page history or potential

Category:Wikipedia categories for redirects based on page history or potential - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete – pointless over-categorisation. There is no advantage over grouping its 5 sub-categories rather than including them in Category:Wikipedia redirects. It just makes it more difficult to find the sub-categories of its sub-categories, e.g. Category:Redirects from songs, which you may not expect to find there. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia books on Buddhism

Category:Wikipedia books on Buddhism - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Only one member of the category. Unlikely to be highly populated anytime soon. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – going back to basics, is this a defining characteristic of Book:Buddhism? Occuli (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are less than 2000 Wikipedia Books. Only one is on Buddhism. I checked. Unless someone decides in the near future to create several more books on Buddhism, which seems unlikely, this category will only have one page in it for the foreseeable future. That means it isn't a category at all. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Much of the Wikipedia books category tree is poorly populated for two reasons. First, we have only c. 1,900 pages in the Book: namespace to be categorized in c. 160 Wikipedia books on... categories. Second, many community books are not currently categorized by topic. As the Wikipedia book tool is used more and more, the situation will improve gradually.
In my opinion, it is not worth upmerging poorly populated Wikipedia books on... categories for a topic as broad as Buddhism, where there are enough subtopics for several new books to be created. If there is no consensus to keep, then upmerge to Category:Wikipedia books on Indian religions. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Massachusetts Libertarians

Category:Massachusetts Libertarians - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only two entries in cat, neither of whom fit the larger category of "politicians" as stated (as they have never held an office). Cat is therefore redundant. MSJapan (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks to me that Joseph L. Kennedy is primarily notable for having run as a Libertarian Party candidate in the Mass. U.S. Senate election. How else would one categorize him if not as a "politician"--or, more specifically, a Libertarian Party politician from Massachusetts, which is what this category is for? If the articles need to go to AFD, that is another story. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – someone who runs for political office seems to me to qualify as a politician (and the 2 are certainly 'Massachusetts Libertarians'). If the articles are deleted then the category is empty and is automatically deleted, so it is the cfd that is redundant, not the category. It is also part of Category:Libertarian Party (United States) politicians, which is subcatted by state, so 1 article suffices. Occuli (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fingal

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. The name of this adminstrative county in Ireland is Fingal, and and the parent category is Category:Fingal. The suffix "County" is neither common usage nor official usage: it is a wiki-only artifice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Rename for 1, Support All Others: The local government is called "County Council" so Category:Local councillors in Fingal County should keep the word "County" to be clear. But maybe Category:County councillors in Fingal would be cleaner. Support all other changes because county almost exlusively refers to the local government rather than the area.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree re the councillors: Adding the word "County" as a suffix in this one case adds no clarity, and breaks the convention. I also disagree with a rename to "County Councillors": the convention of Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland is to have by-county sub-cats named "Local councillors in foo'", and the proposed renaming follows that convention. It may in some cases be appropriate to create sub-cats within each county, for particular councils, but that does not remove the need for the catch-all by-county categories.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name of the county is Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. The suffix "County" is neither common usage nor official usage: it is a wiki-only artifice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Rename for 1, Support All Others: The local government is called "County Council" so Category:Local councillors in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County should keep the word "County" to be clear. But maybe Category:County councillors in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown would be cleaner. Support all other changes because county almost exlusively refers to the local government rather than the area.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree re the councillors: Adding the word "County" as a suffix in this one case adds no clarity, and breaks the convention. I also disagree with a rename to "County Councillors": the convention of Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland is to have by-county sub-cats named "Local councillors in foo'", and the proposed renaming follows that convention. It may in some cases be appropriate to create sub-cats within each county, for particular councils, but that does not remove the need for the catch-all by-county categories. In the case of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, there is an added problem with your proposed change: it only became a county council in 1994, so your proposed rename would exclude its use for DunLaoghaire councillors before 1994, as well as Blackrock Urban District Councillors. A sub-category specifically for the post-1994 county-councillors may be a useful addition, but would not remove the need for the wider category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Tipperary

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. The name of the county is North Tipperary, and has been since it was created in 1898. The suffix "County" is neither common usage nor official usage: it is a wiki-only artifice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate Rename for 1, Support All Others: The local government is called "County Council" so Category:Local councillors in North Tipperary County should keep the word "County" to be clear. But maybe Category:County councillors in North Tipperary would be cleaner. Support all other changes because county almost exlusively refers to the local government rather than the area.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree re the councillors: Adding the word "County" as a suffix in this one case adds o clarity, and breaks the convention. I also disagree with a rename to "County Councillors": the convention of Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland is to have by-county sub-cats named "Local councillors in foo'", and the proposed renaming follows that convention. It may in some cases be appropriate to create sub-cats within each county, for particular councils, but that does not remove the need for the catch-all by-county categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Tipperary

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. The name of the county is South Tipperary, and has been since it was created in 1898. The suffix "County" is neither common usage nor official usage: it is a wiki-only artifice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article, as above. Alansohn (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate Rename for 1, Support All Others: The local government is called "County Council" so Category:Local councillors in South Tipperary County should keep the word "County" to be clear. But maybe Category:County councillors in South Tipperary would be cleaner. Support all other changes because county almost exlusively refers to the local government rather than the area.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I generally support removing the "County" as superfluous; however:
- The name was "Tipperary South Riding" until 2001. That fact is actually slightly in favour of the move, since it means that any articles about the period 1838–2001 will be less inaccurate at "South Tipperary" than at "South Tipperary County".
- Category:South Tipperary county councillors is the best name. A supercategory Category:Local councillors in South Tipperary should exist if Wikipedia is interested in Clonmel borough councillors, Carrick on Suir town councillors, etc. The same goes for all the other counties (e.g. Category:Local councillors in County Cork→Cork county councillors) which requires a separate CFD. Indeed I notice Category:Lord Mayors of Cork is a subcat of Category:Local councillors in County Cork even though the county council and the city council/corporation have always been separate. jnestorius^(talk) 14:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the correction re the South Riding nomenclature. However, I disagree re the councillors: the convention of Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland is to have by-county sub-cats named "Local councillors in foo'", and the proposed renaming follows that convention. It may in some cases be appropriate to create sub-cats within each county, for particular councils, but that does not remove the need for the catch-all by-county categories.
    As to Cork, yes the city has always been separate administratively, but geographically it is part of the county, so for navigational convenience it follows the convention other similar categories that Cork City is a sub-cat of County Cork. We do the same with Dublin city and county. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab people of Turkish descent

Propose renaming Category:Arab people of Turkish descent to Category:Saudi Arabian people of Turkish descent

Nominator's rationale: Of the three members, one was a Palestinian politician and has been recategorized. The other two are are/were Saudis. Given the structure of these categories it is more appropriate to categorize them by nationality than by ethnicity. Mangoe (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Domažlice

Propose renaming Category:Domažlice to Category:Domažlice (town) and its only subcategory: Category:People from Domažlice to Category:People from Domažlice (town)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate with Category:Domažlice District Mayumashu (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons by province

Propose renaming Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons by province to Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons by province or territory

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Includes subcategories for each of the 10 provinces and the 3 territories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:River Valley

Propose renaming Category:River Valley to Category:River Valley, Singapore

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article. Also fixes ambiguous category name. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: Per nom.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 :[[:Category:Computing navbox templates]] - {{lc1|Computing navbox templates}}<br />
 :'''Nominator's rationale:''' '''Delete'''. Overcategorization of project category [[:Category:Computing templates]], much of which is navboxes. Double-listing all the computing-related navboxes here would be much more work than it's worth. Subtopical categories are more useful here (with the exception of [[:Category:Computing infobox templates]] which I think should be kept to promote reuse). [[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 16:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' seems like a reasonable categorization of templates to me. If they are double categorized into templates and navtemplates, just remove the categorization in plain template category. [[Special:Contributions/64.229.101.17|64.229.101.17]] ([[User talk:64.229.101.17|talk]]) 05:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 ==== Category:Local History ====