Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 25: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 38: Line 38:
:::'''Oppose''' [[Metro Vancouver]] lead starts "is the brand name[3] of the political body", whereas [[Greater Vancouver]] lead is a geographic region "roughly coterminous" with GVRD, which is one of the "corporate entities" composing Metro vancouver. It is not clear to me that a brand name for a local governing body, is appropriate as a name for geography or 'in' or 'people from' categories. Also quoting the Metro article: "The name of the physical area governed by the organization remains the Greater Vancouver Regional District." --[[User:Qetuth|Qetuth]] ([[User talk:Qetuth|talk]]) 02:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
:::'''Oppose''' [[Metro Vancouver]] lead starts "is the brand name[3] of the political body", whereas [[Greater Vancouver]] lead is a geographic region "roughly coterminous" with GVRD, which is one of the "corporate entities" composing Metro vancouver. It is not clear to me that a brand name for a local governing body, is appropriate as a name for geography or 'in' or 'people from' categories. Also quoting the Metro article: "The name of the physical area governed by the organization remains the Greater Vancouver Regional District." --[[User:Qetuth|Qetuth]] ([[User talk:Qetuth|talk]]) 02:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse bottom}}
*'''Comment''' we have different articles at [[Greater Vancouver]] and [[Metro Vancouver]] -- [[Special:Contributions/70.24.246.233|70.24.246.233]] ([[User talk:70.24.246.233|talk]]) 14:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


==== Category:Important Plant Areas in the United Kingdom ====
==== Category:Important Plant Areas in the United Kingdom ====

Revision as of 14:42, 26 January 2013

< January 24 January 26 >

January 25

Category:Postal history by country

Nominator's rationale: Merge and redirect. This appears to have been partially set up and then abandoned in favour of the fuller topic. Most sub-cats have only one member and are already nominated for upmerging to all parents. Many more articles "Postage stamps and postal history of Foo" are already in Category:Philately by country. I suggest we leave a category redirect to guide future editors against re-creating this cat. – Fayenatic London 17:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The two are separate topics. Postal history is about the history of the postal service which was in existence long before the the first postage stamp (of 1840). It should be a reverse merge with 'Postal history' being the main topic. Having said that I have looked at the UK tree and that is just a jumble so probably best just to merge unless anyone wants to properly separate the two topics. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Vancouver

Nominator's rationale: The main article of these categories is Metro Vancouver and the main category of this entity is Category:Metro Vancouver. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
copy of discussion from WP:CFDS
Oppose Metro Vancouver lead starts "is the brand name[3] of the political body", whereas Greater Vancouver lead is a geographic region "roughly coterminous" with GVRD, which is one of the "corporate entities" composing Metro vancouver. It is not clear to me that a brand name for a local governing body, is appropriate as a name for geography or 'in' or 'people from' categories. Also quoting the Metro article: "The name of the physical area governed by the organization remains the Greater Vancouver Regional District." --Qetuth (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Important Plant Areas in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: That an organisation thinks an area is important is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that area. This could be listified to the article at Important Plant Areas, but there may be little point as the linked EL has the full list. DexDor (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electronics terminology

Nominator's rationale: This category is currently under Category:Language, but the articles in it are not about language - they're about electronic components, electronic circuit theory etc. Some of the articles may include a bit of etymology or have a poorly worded lead, but very few, if any, of the articles in the category are about a subject with language as a defining characteristic. In effect the category is being used as a miscellaneous category for articles whose titles are terms used in electronics (the category has recently been renamed from "Electronics terms"). I've previously removed several articles (whose titles are terms used in electronics and other areas) from this category as electronics wasn't a defining characteristic. Similar subjects (Category:Optics, Category:Hydraulics etc) don't have a terms/terminology/miscellaneous category (there is Category:Computing terminology, but I think there may be a few articles in that category that are about language). Note: After the upmerge any redundant "Category:Electronics" tags should be removed. DexDor (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aviation terminology

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 G4, and WP:SALT this time as suggested at the previous CFD. I have checked the contents that were recently added by the the editor who re-created the category,[1] and they are are all otherwise categorised within Aviation. – Fayenatic London 18:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: (this category is currently empty) While there are many articles about aviation whose title is a term I've never yet seen an article about a subject that is at the intersection of aviation and language. This category has previously been deleted. DexDor (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2013 (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:Snooker venues

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OC#VENUES. DexDor (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep: WP:OC#VENUES does not apply here, unlike in the Category:2018 Commonwealth Games venues, etc., cases (below) since the snooker category isn't tied to specific events but like the entire Category:Sports venues by sport tree, of thousands of articles, it is based on the purpose (or at least an overwhelmingly notable use) of the venue, consistently over time. Just because the categories have "venues" in their names doesn't mean OC#VENUES automagically applies to them; the actual logic of that guideline has be to examined as it relates to any category to which one might wish to apply it. PS: This category is bigger than it was when I last looked at it, and it's possible some more "venue by specific event" rather than "venue by long-term use/purpose" venues have been added and should be removed. I've added descriptive text to the category to hopefully forestall any additions of that sort in the future. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 10:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The problem isn't the category, the problem is how the category is used. Having a category for snooker venues is perfectly logical for the World Snooker Academy (where the qualifiers are held throughout the year) and South West Snooker Academy (a special purpose snooker arena); I would also say it would be acceptable for venues such as the Crucible Theatre which is best known for hosting the Snooker world championship (which it has done on an annual basis since 1977). It should perhaps be taken off articles such as Blackpool Tower, which hosts a snooker event for just two days a year, and is generally a venue that is more utilised for ballroom dancing. Betty Logan (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as SMcCandlish says. Oculi (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commonwealth Games venues

Nominators rationale: per WP:OC#VENUES. DexDor (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It would be fair if you nominate cats in Category:Summer Olympic venues too for deletion at the same time for wider discussion. Shyamsunder (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with synesthesia

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining trait for the most part. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for the time being. While the people in this category are not famous for the fact of their synaesthesia, it has in many cases certainly contributed to their art and therefore their fame. Happy to hear arguments to tip the balance. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I actually think we should get rid of all the "people with x" categories, they are just inherently problematic. What if someone develops a trait long after they were famous. It would be odd to categorize them by having something they did not have when they were notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images of Olivia Newton-John

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. – Fayenatic London 17:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty container. (Formerly contained Category:Olivia Newton-John album covers.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:05, 25 January 2013 (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:Sneaky Sound System

Nominator's rationale: Only two categories of content (which are interlinked) and one for non-free media--too little content for an eponymous category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian skeptics

Nominator's rationale: Rename. India and Pakistan generally use UK-English spellings as opposed to US-English spellings. I suggest category redirects on the US spellings to assist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Oppose Support "Indian sceptics" "sceptic"(185k)[2](18k) ; Oppose "Pakistani sceptics" "skeptic"(18k) "sceptic"(5k) -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename This is a straightforward WP:ENGVAR issue. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Objection to speedy: It most certainly is not an ENGVAR issue, much less one that goes the way the anon suggests, as I prove below. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 10:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: "Sceptic" is a corruption of "skeptic"; no reason to use it when the original is perfectly intelligible. Better Google stats show that the anon's conclusions above are false, and that the "k" spelling is overwhelmingly preferred in both countries! Even if this were an ENGVAR issue (it isn't), the preference in both cases would be for k not c. The fact that an extremely vague and over-broad Google search turns up results that seem to favor one spelling for one country and the other spelling for the other is one of many examples of why WP:GOOGLE was written - over-reliance on the output of one particular search engine without deeply understanding its limitations and vagaries leads to fallacious conclusions. If you use more specific searches, e.g. "site:.in Indian sceptic" vs. "site:.in Indian skeptic" and "site:.pk Pakistani sceptic" vs "site:.pk Pakistani skeptic", the results are the exact opposite of what the anon above reported and which Kaovf then supported as if it were conclusive. Searching for "site:.in sceptical" and its variants shows that the k spelling leads by about 20% in both India and Pakistan. Swapping in the plural "skeptics" vs. "sceptics" shows about a 40% higher preference for the k version in Pakistan, while India favo[u]rs the k version by a hair short of 300%! The only narrowed case where the c spelling is preferred in "scepticism" vs. "skepticism", for unknown reasons, and it was preferred in both India and Pakistan; this skewed the anon's results – Google does substring matching). Finally, the implied idea that India generally simply not recognize the k spelling is silly. All competent English speakers know both spellings. See http://www.indiansceptic.in/ (note the c), the metadata of which has it show up in Google as "Indian Skeptic" with a k and the homepage of which makes boldfaced reference to Indian Skeptic (with a k again), their print magazine. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 10:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. It is a straightforward WP:ENGVAR issue, the UK spelling being sceptic. (I'm not convinced that one can successfully use google stats to discredit the use of google stats.) Oculi (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator and Oculi. Zia Khan 02:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_25&oldid=534988681"