Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 6: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:51, 9 October 2012

< October 5	October 7 >

October 6

Category:JYJ albums covers

Propose deleting Category:JYJ albums covers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I created the category but made a spelling mistake. I've already created the category again with correct spelling. Sorry for the trouble. Pancakeysshi (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per {{db-author}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles without infoboxes

Propose renaming Category:Articles without infoboxes to Category:Articles needing an infobox

Nominator's rationale: I would like for this to be a discussion about the best naming convention for the many subcategories of this category. Currently, three naming conventions are in use: Foo articles without infoboxes (~35%), Foo articles needing infoboxes (~50%) and Foo articles needing an infobox (~15%).

I prefer the third option, for two reasons. First, the absence of an infobox is not necessarily a maintenance issue. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles, "[t]he use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article" and hinges on "consensus among the editors at each individual article". In fact, at least one WikiProject (WikiProject Composers) discourages the use of infoboxes in biographical articles. The change from "without" to "needing" emphasizes that this is a maintenance category, and not merely a tracking category. Second, "needing an infobox" is, to my ear, more precise than "needing infoboxes". As a rule, each of the articles in question needs one infobox, not multiple infoboxes.

My core goal is, of course, to promote consistency and reduce duplication within the category tree. To that end, and assuming that this discussion produces a consensus for one of the three options, I intend to nominate the subcategories in a series of follow-up nominations or one mass nomination (depending on how much cleanup is needed along the way). Please note, also, that all (or almost all) of these categories are template-populated, so there will be no widespread disruption to article talk pages or user watchlists. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess to answer your question, there may be another to answer first. Are the infoboxes required or optional? Just because a project creates and encourages the use of an infobox does it make this mandatory? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that, no, they are not mandatory, and the categorization only serves to draw attention to the fact that at least one editor thought that an infobox would be appropriate. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all categories calling attention to the fact that an article is infobox-free. As an alternative, one could complement these categories with other categories and templates for articles with infoboxes encouraging their removal, or at least implying in some obvious way that the presence of the box is a problem. --Hegvald (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The two situations are not directly comparable, in my opinion. Removing an infobox requires no more work than requesting its removal; however, adding an infobox requires considerably more work than requesting its addition. Of course, I sense that your alternative suggestion was a bit tongue-in-cheek. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Category:Foo articles requesting an infobox" - I realize this would be more work (as none use this convention currently) however it seems potentially the clearest. —Quiddity (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting idea. It would, however, introduce an entirely new convention – not just within this category tree but the whole of Category:Wikipedia maintenance. There are thousands of categories that use the "articles needing" vocabulary, but only three video-game-related categories that use "articles requesting". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is, and rename all sub-categories to Foo articles without infoboxes. "Without" a neutral way of noting the lack of an infobox, and avoids taking sides in the arguments about whether or not to have them. Depending on POV, "without" can be read as "needing an infobox" or as "spared the intrusion of an infobox". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing, though: "without" is less clear and, therefore, fails to indicate whether this is merely a needless tracking category or a useful maintenance category. In light of the prevalence of infoboxes, I find it difficult to believe that a simple, non-binding request for an infobox could be overly controversial. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedia articles needing an infobox or Category:Wikipedia articles without infoboxes ; since this is administrative and not content categorization. -- 70.24.247.121 (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree, normally. However, most of the subcategories are part of the category structure of one or more WikiProjects, whose "content" categories (i.e., those that directly contain talk pages) tend to use Foo articles ... rather than Wikipedia foo articles or even WikiProject foo articles. See, for instance, the titles of the subcategories of Category:WikiProject Louisville articles. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That hierarchy is highly misleading, since "X articles" has nothing to do with X, since the scope of the topic X is not the same as the scope of the WikiProject X (some wikiprojects specifically exclude subjects that are part of topic X, others include subjects that are not part of topic X, etc). Further they're all administrative and not content categories, so should all have "WikiProject" prepended to them. -- 70.50.149.56 (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedia requested infoboxes in line with User:Quiddity and Category:Wikipedia requested images. Request is more friendly and collegial than imposing judgement with "needed", and conversely people may feel happier requesting. Rich Farmbrough, 14:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Having said that I'm not totally enamoured of the idea of using a Wikipedia prefix for these types of categories, and would prefer Quiddity's wording except that it implies that the article is doing the requesting. Rich Farmbrough, 14:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

That's a good comparison, I think. Images, like infoboxes, are generally desirable but ultimately optional supplements to an article. How would we approach the subcategory titles, though? Category:Wikipedia requested infoboxes in Asia does not work as well as Category:Wikipedia requested maps in Asia? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Northern Irish MPs

Propose renaming Category:Lists of Northern Irish MPs to Category:Lists of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Northern Irish constituencies

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match the parent category Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Northern Irish constituencies, and to distinguish it from Category:Lists of members of the Parliament of Northern Ireland‎. (The Parliament of Northern Ireland‎ existed from 1921 to 1972, and throughout that time Northern Ireland also returned MPs to the Parliament of the United Kingdom). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer -- Category:Lists of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Northern Ireland constituencies or Category:Lists of UK MPs for Northern Ireland constituencies. The latter is more succinct, and many MP categories are abbreviaated in this way. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Irish as an adjective is usually avoided so suggest Category:Lists of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for constituencies in Northern Ireland. Tim! (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like that title; it's the best option so far. If adopted, we should follow up with a similar renaming for all related categories, such as Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Northern Irish constituencies, Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Candy companies

Propose renaming Category:Candy companies to Category:Confectionery companies

Nominator's rationale: Rename per parent Category:Confectionery and Category:Confectionery companies of the United States, which is currently placed as a parent category, when in fact it should be a national subcat of the nominated category, I believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Calling confectionery "candy" is an Americanism. The term is unusual in British English. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it didn't occur to me that this could be an WP:ENGVAR thing, as I discovered it for a Canadian company article I'd come across (since deleted). But note that we also have Category:American confectionery as the top-level, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as an american, i never noticed the usage issue brought up here. Since candy is not a straightforward synonym, but seems to historically refer mostly to sugar candy, and confectionery seems to include all forms of what we Americans call candy, it seems like we can live with this more global term, and maybe learn something new.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asia and the Pacific 1941–42

Propose (up)merging Category:Asia and the Pacific 1941–42 to Category:Pacific theatre of World War II

Nominator's rationale: This category aims to be a mish-mash of all content related to the years 1941 and 1942 in Asia and the Pacific Ocean; or, to quote the category description, "[t]his category is for non-war pages, for WWII pages, & for concurrent wars' pages for 2 years in the areas within the Pacific Ocean borders, its marginal seas , and within the regions of Asia, e.g., Category:Southeast Asia (1942)." Fully populated, it would be unmanageable. Even in its current state, populated mostly by articles about WWII battles, it is still arbitrary in its choice to split out two particular years of the Pacific War.

After the category is upmerged, its contents can be recategorized into appropriate subcategories of Category:Pacific theatre of World War II. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cmt It looks like the remaining articles in this category belong either in Category:South West Pacific theatre of World War II or Category:South-East Asian theatre of World War II. If agreed, your nomination could be modified accordingly. Hmains (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of exceptions, such as Category:Attack on Pearl Harbor‎ and Battle of Midway, but basically you've hit the nail on its head. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Professorships by university

Propose renaming:

Category:Professorships by Institution to Category:Professorships by university

and sub-categories:

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. The parent Category:Professorships by Institution shoukd follow the format of its parent Category:Academics by university, and the sub-categories should all be renamed to the format "Professorships of Foo", where Foo is the name of the head article on that university. Many of the current titles are ambiguous; there is more than one university in the cities of Glasgow and Dublin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Universities has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the individual institutional categories are concerned, more precise names are a good idea and seem uncontroversial, but I oppose renaming the main category: Not all professorships are located at universities. What about the ones at Gresham College or the Collège de France? I don't know about other countries but here in Sweden some head-of-department positions at museums and other research-oriented public institutions carry the title of "professor". I suspect that exceptions are common enough that the current title for this category is more universally valid. --Hegvald (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REname all for exactness of names. Like the Dublin category (below) the Oxford one is potentially ambiguous, since I presume Oxford Brookes University has professorships. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Professorships

Propose renaming:

Category:Dublin Professorships‎ to Category:Professorships‎ at the University of Dublin or Category:Professorships‎ at Trinity College, Dublin

Nominator's rationale. I have separated this one out of the group nomination above because the terminology is not straightforward. The University of Dublin is a a form of legal fiction, because it is for most purposes synonymous with Trinity College, Dublin. Technically, the University issues degrees and appoints professors, while the college does the teaching and organises the students, but in practice the two bodies are different labels for a single entity.
So, we can either go for technical correctness and reanme to Category:Professorships‎ at the University of Dublin ... or we can go for common usage and choose Category:Professorships‎ at Trinity College, Dublin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject_Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, is it clear enough that there are three universities in Dublin? University College Dublin, University of Dublin and Dublin City University have names that look confusingly much at each other. So avoid confusion, I would opt for the best known name. In this case Trinity College. The Banner _talk 13:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer Category:Professorships‎ at Trinity College, Dublin. AS BHG has said the University of Dublin is in practice synonymous with Trinity college. However technically correct Univ of Dublin may be, for practical purposes it is misleading, since there are two other universities in Dublin. I am making this suggestion having checked that they are in fact all Trinity College professorships (I think); and I suspect there are more that ought to be added. Or is there soemthing else we should be merging it with? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Energy resource facilities in the United States

Propose upmerging Category:Energy in the United States by state to Category: Energy infrastructure in the United States

Nominator's rationale: All the items in this category are already in the “energy infrastructure” category or one of its subcategories, mostly as subcategories. Some oil platform articles are directly in this category, but they are also in Category:Oil platforms off the United States. The main function of this category seems to be as a parent category for the 51 “energy resource facilities by state” subcategories, and these could eventually be renamed to “energy infrastructure by state”, as that is what they contain. This would avoid having two separate and parallel category trees. Hugo999 (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Unnecessary duplication. Beagel (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge This is more complicated than indicated. First, We do not merge state level parents to non-state level parents as that corrupts the US state level tree. Next, Category: Energy resource facilities in the United States's parents are part of a completely different category tree than is Category: Energy infrastructure in the United States. The common point that the parents/grandparents/etc of these trees meet at is the very high level Category:Buildings and structures. A quick change at the US level is not in order. Hmains (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most of the subcategories in Category: Energy resource facilities in the United States by state seem to relate to either infrastructure eg power stations, with some general articles which would have to go into a subcategory on energy in that state. The contents of Category: Energy resource facilities in the United States are intertwined with infrastructure categories at all levels eg power stations in electric power infrastructure, oil fields in oil infrastructure, and natural gas pipelines in transportation infrastructure (although in Europe they are in energy infrastructure). And why is an “energy resource facilities” category not neded outside the US? Hugo999 (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment they are intertwined, but not in a parent-child relationship. Look downward from Category:Energy resource facilities in the United States; then look downward from Category:Energy infrastructure in the United States. There are not common subcats until several levels down and they are certainly not all common. Some commonality is not uncommon, but it is not enough to merge the structures. There is not a fit; it is a misfit. I mostly work on US items and I created both these categories. I expect that other editors will create such categoriees for other countries when they see the need to do so. Most countries do not have anywhere near the number of articles that the US has. Hmains (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of people by university

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. The parent category is Category:People by university or college, which has about 120 national sub-categories using the "university of college" format, grouped in by-continent categories which also follow the same format. This may qualify as a speedy renaming per C2C, per convention of Category:People by university or college. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 *'''Rename to''' [[:Category:Wikipedia articles needing an infobox]] or [[:Category:Wikipedia articles without infoboxes]] ; since this is administrative and not content categorization. -- [[Special:Contributions/70.24.247.121|70.24.247.121]] ([[User talk:70.24.247.121|talk]]) 23:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 *:I'd agree, normally. However, most of the subcategories are part of the category structure of one or more WikiProjects, whose "content" categories (i.e., those that directly contain talk pages) tend to use ''Foo articles ...'' rather than ''Wikipedia foo articles'' or even ''WikiProject foo articles''. See, for instance, the titles of the subcategories of [[:Category:WikiProject Louisville articles]]. -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Black Falcon|talk]])</sup> 17:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
+*::That hierarchy is highly misleading, since "X articles" has nothing to do with X, since the scope of the topic X is not the same as the scope of the WikiProject X (some wikiprojects specifically exclude subjects that are part of topic X, others include subjects that are not part of topic X, etc). Further they're all administrative and not content categories, so should all have "WikiProject" prepended to them. -- [[Special:Contributions/70.50.149.56|70.50.149.56]] ([[User talk:70.50.149.56|talk]]) 05:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 *'''Rename''' to [[:Category:Wikipedia requested infoboxes]] in line with [[User:Quiddity]] and [[:Category:Wikipedia requested images]].  Request is more friendly and collegial than imposing judgement with  "needed", and conversely people may feel happier requesting. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>14:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC).</small><br />
 *:Having said that I'm not totally enamoured of the idea of using a Wikipedia prefix for these types of categories, and would prefer Quiddity's wording except that it implies that the article is doing the requesting. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>14:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC).</small><br />