Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 30

< March 29	March 31 >

March 30[edit]

Category:Parallel universes (video games)[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: listify.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Parallel universes (video games) to Category:Video games featuring parallel universes

Nominator's rationale: The name of this category is unclear. From my initial reading, I thought it was supposed to include articles about the parallel universes themselves. As it seems to be used right now, it's about games that include parallel universes. Rename. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, and also rename the following: - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Parallel universe films to Category:Films featuring parallel universes

Propose renaming Category:Parallel universes (comics) to Category:Comics featuring parallel universes

Propose renaming Category:Parallel universes (television episodes) to Category:Televison episodes featuring parallel universes

- Oppose It should be Category:Parallel universes in X. Clearly Earth-Two is not a comic book, it is a parallel universe from comics. And the DC and Marvel multiverse articles aren't comics themselves, they are the fictional setting that comics take place in. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think your suggestion is not mutually exclusive to this one. "Parallel universes in X" would feature the universes themselves, while "X featuring parallel universes" would be the works that incorporate parallel universes as a plot device. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that "X featuring parallel universes" means that the contents of the category are of type X, and not elements of X, since if you substitute "Earth-Two featuring parallel universes" doesn't make sense, but "Superman feature parallel universes" does, so the contents of the category must be articles that are X. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete all as "media by plot device in a work of fiction" (or even just "item of plot"). Further, this is a concept that varies by the work of fiction. It could mean alternate dimensions or even alternate timelines. A list could explain all of these things, and reference each entry. Something not possible in categories. - jc37 22:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete all per jc37. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all with the construction "X featuring/depicting parallel universes" as advised by The Bushranger. I believe that there should be some room for flexibility in the definition of "parallel universe". Furthermore, in certain works of fiction, the concept of a parallel universe or "alternative reality" of some type is central to the plot; "item of plot" strikes me as an unfair trivialisation. Super Mario Man 13:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, I'm not trivialising it at all. I'm saying that this concept is not handled the same in each work of fiction (such as a particular video game), and so these varying types should not be categorised together. (Categories being a grouping, though with the intended purpose of navigation.) A list allows for better explanation, with associated verifiable reliable sources in order to avoid WP:OR. - jc37 19:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete this is a term that has different meanings in different settings, so grouping them together in a category is actually putting together unlike things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2012 (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.

Scottish Old Fooians[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 both - jc37 04:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, and ensures consistency in category titles. The proposed names follow the "People educated at Foo" convention of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom. (After 72 CfD discussions in which 287 "Old Fooian" categories were renamed, these are now the only 2 "Old Fooian" categories in Scotland. About ~30 remain in England).

I held these 2 categories over from previous discussions, because they relate to two of the most prominent schools in Scotland (Glenalmond College and Gordonstoun). Some editors have indicated that they wish to treat prominernt schools differently to others, so it seemed best to have a separate discussion.

Despite the prominence of these schools, I see no evidence that their "Old Fooian" terms are well-known. When I started researching the "old fooian" categories, I had expected to find that the OF terms of the more prominent schools would be widely used, but that turns out to be the case only for a handful of schools.

To check for the usage of these terms, I searched on Google News, rather than a general search, because the News publications are both reliable sources and widely-read. A general Google search is less useful in establishing the currency of a term, because it brings up unreliable sources such as self-published material and web forums, and includes results on pages with tiny readerships.

A search for "Old Etonian(s)" produces 5,450 hits, confirming that "Old Etonian" has entered general usage. However, apart from false positives, neither of these "Old Fooian" terms manages even 0.25% of the usage rate of "Old Etonian".

Articles	Category	School	GNews hits school name	GNews hits "Old Fooian"	GNews hits "Old FooianS"	GNews hits "Old Fooian" OR "Old FooianS"	Notes
63	Old Glenalmond	Glenalmond College	220	9	3	12
39	Old Gordonstounians	Gordonstoun	2270	1	0	1
2442	Old Etonians	Eton College	7930	4290	1210	5450	Included for comparison only
741	Old Harrovians	Harrow School	632^[1]	417	78	527	Included for comparison only

^ Search omits "Harrow School of Art", to avoid false positives

General note

The fundamental problem with this type of collective name was expressed most eloquently by Moonraker in a related discussion: "there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". That's exactly why these "Old Fooian" terms don't work well for category names: they are rarely used, and therefore unknown to the general readership for whom Wikipedia is written. However, even if editors accept the use of "Old Fooian" collective terms for some other schools, these examples of the format confirm Moonraker's observation: they are used so rarely outside of the school's own circles that they fail WP:COMMONNAME.

In some previous discussions, editors wanting to keep the "Old Fooian" category names have asked for evidence of the common usage of each instance of "People educated at Foo". That test is irrelevant, because WP:NDESC says that descriptive titles may be "invented specifically for articles", and that's exactly what has been done here. The descriptive format which is now the convention combines a plain English phrase with the WP:COMMONNAME of the school, which is much more widely used than the "Old Fooian" term. The resulting name is clear to all readers, even if they have no prior knowledge of the school or its inhouse WP:JARGON. Per WP:CAT#Overiew, "the central goal of the category system is to provide links to all Wikipedia articles in a hierarchy of categories which readers can browse, knowing essential, defining characteristics of a topic, and quickly find sets of articles on topics that are defined by those characteristics". That is best achieved by a category name which does exactly what it says on the tin, so that the reader does not have to open up the category to find out what it is for. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Scottish Old Fooians)[edit]

Rename. If kept, would it be renamed to Category:Old Glenalmonds? Or is Glenalmond a singular and a plural, as in "Torquhil and Crispin will become Old Glenalmond in the new year"?--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Although both schools have a higher profile than most, that does not automatically mean the terms carry general recognisability - how often is Lara Croft described as an "Old Gordonstounian" without qualification? Regarding the pluralisation for Glenalmond, the Alumni Relations section of the website doesn't seem to use the term in a way that would answer it - it either talks of "OGs" or uses "Old Glenalmond" as adjective but I'll ask an OG and see. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised by the near-total absence of hits for "Old Gordonstounian", given the school's connections with royalty. The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales were both educated there, as were the children of Princess Anne ... but it seems that those writing about them prefer to use the plain English phrasing rather than Old Fooian jargon.

Good idea to check the pluralisation of "Old Glenalmond". I edited the hatnote in Category:Old Glenalmond to add the term, and if it pluralised with an "s" then the hatnote should be corrected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the states, an OG is something else entirely.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both to the standard, jargon-free, clear, unambiguous, and instantly understandable format. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- I might have opposed the change on Gordonstoun. I assume that its lack of usage is the result of it being too much of a mouthful. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename it is time we moved every People educated at category for all educational instuitutions to that heading. However, I am not going to be the one to propose the change for universities, that will have to be someone else, but I will support it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Mais oui! (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Oculi (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Cures problems of ambiguity, jargon, obscurity, and non-conformance with the now overwhelming majority of similar categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Snappy (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2012 (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:Parents of national leaders[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a tenuous collection of articles that constitutes a trivial intersection in my mind. Certainly, many of these parents are best-known for their offspring, but is anyone really going to navigate through these? Note also that this would include virtually every article on royalty on Wikipedia, creating a massive categorization scheme with little to no encyclopedic purpose in my estimation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the two subcategories have also been tagged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#TRIVIA, and per nominator's comment about the clutter on royalty (which applies also to other forms of hereditary regime, such as North Korea, the Assads in Syria, the Shrubs in Merka, etc). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Wiki notability is about third party references. There are plenty of third party books and articles about this grouping.Americasroof (talk)

Comment - The quoted rationale lumps this into trivia of "Celebrity Gamers, Red haired kings, Bald People, Famous redheads, Age of death." Raising a child who becomes a world leader is an entirely different. WP:NOTE clearly states that third party coverage dictates notability. There is considerable third party coverage of these parents that groups them in this manner. There is considerable interest in this -- hence why family tree articles always pop up on world leaders. Americasroof (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nomiation. This is not a significant classification. Pichpich (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a defining characteristic, as it's essentially irrelevant to whether a person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article or not: a person might be independently notable and happen to also be a parent of a national leader, but the mere fact of being a parent of a national leader does not, by itself, make someone notable enough for an encyclopedia article if they're not already notable for other things besides that. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The degree to which this is populated shows that the category is worth having. The category should certainly not be allowed to include hereditary monarchs (or hereditiary presidencies, e.g. North Korea and Syria). This should be explained in a headnote. Since notability is not inherited, if a person is notable only for being a politician's parent, the articel on him should probably be deleted as a NN person, but that needs to be tackled at an article level, not by deleting the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we categorize based on shared caracteristics, not based on shared relationships. Beyond this, so many national leaders over time have been the children of other national leaders that this category if properly used would come close to being mainly composed of national leaders or their sposes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: almost all of the articles in the category are about people who are notable in their own right, generally as politicians or leaders even in non-hereditary positions. In theory, I could see keeping the category only as a repository for people who do not have notability other than as parents of notable people (eg. Alois and Klara Hitler, Rosa and Alessandro Mussolini, Catherine Coll, Mary Ejercito...), but it would be difficult to maintain. I'm open to changing my vote if someone can argue that the category could be maintained this way. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment since notability is judged by the person, and not by being related to other people, it is unclear that we should even have articles on people who are only notable by relation. Even if there are cases that it works, a category would encorage this is cases where the relative is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In a lot of instances, they're "notable" by WP standards because they have received significant coverage in reliable sources, even if that's only the case because they're related to a famous person. Inherited notability is really an issue of "not notable simply by being related to X," not "ignore significant coverage received because Y is related to X" - but this is a tangent. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This nomination is also trying to take out 54 names in Category:Parents of Presidents of the United States. The process for this nomination has some problems. A nomination was made as subset to delete the category of Parents of President of the United States. This has NEVER been mentioned by name in this discussion. There is significant third party coverage of books that group those parents together. Even if you delete the worldwide category, the subset category is significantly large. 17:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americasroof (talk • contribs)

Response As I explicitly stated above "Note that the two subcategories have also been tagged." Also, the category is tagged with the CfD template--what is the problem, exactly? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - not a significantly defining-as-notability criterion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 6 April 2012 (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:Yes album covers[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Yes album covers to Category:Yes (band) album covers

Nominator's rationale: Per main article/category. Speedy rename was opposed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match parent article.---Lenticel ^(talk) 06:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose redundant rename. There is no other Yes associated with multiple albums. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article. Steam5 (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article. (If we do not, this category should include covers for Yes (Pet Shop Boys album), Yes (Mika Nakashima album), Yes (Morphine album) and so on) Worm^TT · (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article and (more importantly here) parent cat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't disambiguate unless we need to. MediaWiki doesn't require categories to be named with matching names. This is just yet more adminish make-work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The technology does not require it, but maintaining consistency helps both readers and editors. Far from being a make-work, consistency reduces work by saving readers and editors from having to guess the name of the categories related to an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should stop readers having to guess at category names altogether? Couldn't we add links to the page? Possibly links that were clearly named within that context, rather than having to add the discriminator "(band)" to an article page that's already about Yes. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Resistance is futile. You shall be assimilated. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match Yes (band), Category:Yes (band), Category:Yes (band) albums, and everything else in Category:Yes (band) (an obvious speedy). Oculi (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename~~ as "Yes (band) (band) album covers", to avoid ambiguity. Wikipedia has many yeses. A reader compiling the string Yes (band) faces ambiguity after the third character of the "Yes*" string, and this ambiguity cannot be tolerated by some readers. Being based in the USA, Wikipedia must obey the Americans with Disabilities Act, and therefore must reasonably accomodate such intolerance of ambiguity. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: the above user has cast multiple !votes in this discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename~~ as ""Yes (band) (band) (band) album covers", to avoid ambiguity. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Please stop this disruptive pointiness. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bushranger, please read the guideline yourself. In particular, you will find that all the examples deal with edits influencing the main space. Can you find anything remotely close to my two previous edits? Also, please read WP:Disruptive and verify that you misused "disruptive". Finally, do not alter my discussion comments, e.g. by striking through "rename". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - And perhaps you should check before you accuse people of altering your comments? As I did no such thing; they were that way when I came along. However, your spurious !votes above are indeed disruptive, and it is standard procedure in xfds for multiple !votes from one person to be struck, as you are only allowed to !vote once in a discussion. So please strike either your oppose !vote or your rename !votes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Bushranger, First, truly G. OlFactory changed my votes. However, all you administrative-types look the same to me. Second, please acknowledge that you misused "disruptive" in a sense not sanctioned by WP:Disruptive (but perhaps by ordinary use of "disruptive" in a kindergarten, as in "I don't like it" as said by the schoolmarm, or in a recent ArbCom decision, in the ban despite the disclaimer in the evidence...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I used the term "disruptive editing" in the sense that "your edits were intended to disrupt the process of the CfD by making nonsensical proposals/!votes". Would you rather I used the term "bad faith editing"? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom since main article is Yes (band), parent category is ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Yes (band), and all other relevant subcategories are in the format ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Yes (band) FOOs. This is what the speedy criterion is designed for. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, and to be honest I'm surprised at my !vote on this. I fully expected to oppose. (As a teen I often listened to the music of Yes (band), and thought there could be no ambiguity.) However, after reading Worm TT's post (and links), I'm going to have to agree that it should be renamed. I don't think the "because the 'parent' article is named such" is so much the issue, as the titles to other band's single album titles is. — Ched : ? 14:59, 5 April 2012 (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:Physicians of the Ottoman Empire[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Physicians of the Ottoman Empire to Category:Ottoman physicians‎

Nominator's rationale: This is a case of redundant categories; the whole rest of the tree at Category:Physicians by nationality, and the majority of subcats of Category:Ottoman people by occupation, use the "Y X" scheme as well. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom to follow sister and parent cats' name convention.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Lenticel. Steam5 (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I would have thought it ought to be "reverse merge" and "rename siblings". Ottoman was the adjective for the dynasty, not the people, who were Truks, Greeks, Armenians, Arabs, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except the entire rest of the tree uses "Ottoman fooians", as does the rest of the overtree - "Fooian fooians". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment currently we use "of the Ottoman Empire" for those connected with the government in an official category. Is it possible that the proposed to be merged category is supposed to be used for those who were government physicials?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it shouldn't be under either of the categories it's currently a subcategory of. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 30 March 2012 (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.

[1] Search omits "Harrow School of Art", to avoid false positives

[1]