Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yamanam (talk | contribs) at 09:57, 21 April 2010 (→‎Category:Judaising Jerusalem). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 19 April 21 >

April 20

Category:Pseudonymous album releases

Propose renaming Category:Pseudonymous album releases to Category:Pseudonymous albums
Nominator's rationale: I don't see why "releases" is necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida

Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Duplicate of Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Orlando. Unnecessary expansion of existing category as existing category already covers "Orlando, Florida". Marc Averette (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bearing in mind the deletion nomination below [1] where both of you have already voted to oppose I think this nomination, at this juncture, is a little premature. I suppose both categories could be deleted. Is that what you meant? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At least in my case, deleting this one, and keeping the other ("Greater Orlando") version, is what's intended, since the "in Orlando" clearly falls within "in Greater Orlando". - The Bushranger (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing the other and supporting this are not conflicting opinions. This one fixes the problem identified by the other nomination. But as I comment below, this should not be a delete but a merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And as somebody who has no opinion either way in the result, but assumes good faith in the result, I just think this nomination should have been bundled with the other to create a clear and concise debate. The kindest thing would be for the nominator to withdraw this nomination and restate his opinion below. All in my opinion only. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point. Support Merge per the above then. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This category is already part of a previously submitted CFD proposal on this page. By splitting the CFD campaign into two parts, there will be unresolved conversation and possible conflict with editors monitoring one discussion and not the other. No good resolution can come from having competing CFD campaigns. Resolve the first one before beginning another anew. SpikeJones (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Judaising Jerusalem

Category:Judaising Jerusalem - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Category title clearly not NPOV, no value added Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should be speedily deleted. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Wildly POV. I have removed the two entries: E1 Plan and Judaization of Jerusalem. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the title is not "POV", this is the word used to describe actions of the Israeli government that attempt to change the demographic makeup of Jerusalem. The word "Judaize" was also the literal translation of an official Israeli policy in the Galilee (see Judaization of the Galilee). The main article for this category is Judaization of Jerusalem. The removals of the category from those two articles should also be reverted. nableezy - 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To me, this seems more of an attempt to have the I/P political issues spill over into categorization. The article is one thing, categories another. Is there a category "Islamising Israel"? Joseph's Tomb would be appropriate for that category. My point is that we should leave this to NPOV discussions in articles and rants on other websites, not make wikipedia even more of a battleground than it already is. -- Avi (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avi, if you got sources talking about "Islamising Israel" by all means write that article (though my guess is they would use "Islamification of Palestine"). And if there are articles that fit such a category then by all means make that cat and add those articles. There is scholarly literature about the "Judaization of Jerusalem" and they discuss a number of different actions in that context. That being the case, a category is appropriate to group articles on those actions. nableezy - 23:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Setting aside the appropriateness of the category shouldn't it be called 'Judaizing Jerusalem' ? That gets more far more hits on google scholar e.g. Judaizing + Jerusalem => about 6,760 hits Sean.hoyland - talk 05:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The category Cultural assimilation contains quite of lot things that appear to be superficially analogous to this case if not so spatially precise (although I see that there is a Frenchification of Brussels article in there) and if you ignore the it's not assimilation issue. There aren't analogous categories in there though. There is also a Template:Cultural_assimilation which includes similar links to all sorts of <something>ations including Islamization and Judaization articles. So, who knows what all that indicates is the best approach... It seems to me that there should be cats for all those <something>ations, Africanization · Albanization · Americanization · Anglicization · Arabization etc etc and that a 'Judaization of Jerusalem' cat would have the parent 'Judaization'. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the title is obviously NPOV, could you please explain how it is not NPOV?! Also the added value from this category comes from categorizing and grouping all of the acts that are carried out by the israeli government to change the natural and original characteristics of Jerusalem; those acts and each of them could be a stand-alone article. I think by time those articles will be created and grouped under this category. Yamanam (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Band-centric video games

Propose renaming Category:Band-centric video games to Category:Video games about bands
Nominator's rationale: It seems better to me than a coinage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
  • Comment: I noticed that this category is both a subcategory of and a parent to Category:Musician video games. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject Video games has been notified using Template:Cfd-notify. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although the name of the category does need clarifying, 'video games about bands' doesn't quite get there. A lot of kids' cartoons etc. have 'bands' (I'm thinking things like Bratz etc.), so ideally the title should convey that these are video games based on real musicians/bands. 'Video games featuring non-fictional musicians and singers' or something along those lines would be clearer IMO, if not quite as snappy. Someoneanother 03:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Braniff

Propose renaming Category:Braniff to Category:Braniff International Airways
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Braniff is ambiguous since at least three airlines used this name, see Braniff (disambiguation). If renamed, the two articles on the other airlines would need to be removed from the renamed category. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bolehall Swifts F.C.

Category:Bolehall Swifts F.C. - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Category has no scope for growth per WP:OC#SMALL. Only contains the team article and there is no chance of other Bolehall Swifts related articles being created. BigDom 16:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. – PeeJay 16:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

subcats of Category:People by religion

Propose renaming:
Extended content
Nominator's rationale: for consistency in catting people by group - catting for people by nationality and ethnicity follow, by WP catting convention, the 'Tooian people' and not the 'Toois' pattern Mayumashu (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I think the analogy with nationality (where the majority were 'Fooian people' with a few 'Foos') is false. Here all but 2 of the subcats of Category:People by religion do not include 'people'. Many of the proposed names are awkward and contrived. Occuli (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ones ending in '-ist' do sound a bit awkward, but grammatically they are fine. Again, there really needs to be consistency between these similar categories (by nationality, ethnicity, and religion) - either Fooian people or Foos Mayumashu (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why does there need to be consistency between different subcat schemes? In the other 2 there was a good reason to add 'people' but here there is not. (There are a lot more in Category:Christians by denomination.) Is this going to be extended to say Category:Mathematicians? Occuli (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question. I agree with Occuli that we don't necessarily need consistency between entirely different category schemes. But am I correct in assuming this proposal has its genesis in the recent disputes at speedy rename as to whether it will be "Jews" (religion tree) or "Jewish people" (ethnicity tree)? This seems to be the only real common thread between these two trees. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gangs and Organized crime in Chile

Propose deleting:
Category:Outlaw gangs in Chile
Category:Organized crime groups in Chile
Category:Historical gangs of Chile
Category:Organized crime in Chile
Nominator's rationale: Unless any of these cats can be populated I suggest they be deleted. They currently hold 3 pages: Pincheira brothers, a pair of Spanish royalists during the Chilean War of Independence; and labeling Coordinadora Arauco-Malleco and Mapuche conflict as "organized crime groups" seems fairly POV to me (not to mention the latter is more a movement rather than a group). - Ruodyssey (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Okinawa

Propose renaming Category:People from Okinawa to Category:People from Okinawa Island
Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate from Category:People from Okinawa Prefecture and as per article page Okinawa Island Mayumashu (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a need for both of these? How much does the prefecture include that the island does not- it's not crystal clear from the articles; which give a higher population for the Island than the Prefecture, which is obviously an effect of one number being from 2009 and the other from 2008. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 06:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – there are quite a few people listed in Miyakojima, Okinawa (a city of 50,000) which appears to be part of the Prefecture but not Okinawa Island. Occuli (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Compilations

Propose renaming Category:Compilations to Category:Collections
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most of the subcategories use the term collection rather than compilation. Cjc13 (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rename below would make it 4 out of 6 for collections. I think collection is the more general term, as compilation suggests some rearranging of the material, i.e. a more specific form of collection. In practice, compilation seems to be used mainly for music complilations, whereas collections or anthologies seem to be used for books and other printed material. Cjc13 (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This functions as a collection of like named categories. Delete may well be the best choice. Collection and compilation are as expected dab pages! Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 06:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video game compilations

Propose renaming Category:Video game compilations to Category:Video game collections
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most of the entries use the term collection rather than compilation. Cjc13 (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak not do - parent cat is "compilation" - also new name also suggests the possibility of "personal or museum collections of ..." rather than the "collated releases of ...." which I think is not quite intended.Shortfatlad (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 06:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Student ghettos

Propose renaming Category:Student ghettos to Category:Student quarters
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To meet WP:NPOV and following the articles move for this reason. While the proposed name follows the name of the lead article, I think that Category:Student residential areas is a better name. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - I'm not sure that Category:Student residential areas carries the same implication of predomination. Occuli (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename probably as Occuli (no strong view on how). The present name is perjorative and hence POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Student quarters" could, imo, be mistaken as a category for individual dorm buildings rather than districts: in other words, "living quarters," rather than the "quarter" of a city. So Category:Student residential areas is a clearer and safer bet, perhaps. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom or per Occuli. I proposed the rename of the lead article, and was equivocal about my choice of alternative there, although I could support Student Quarter with dictionary definitions. But yes, rename somehow. - Brunnian (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (leaning to delete). None of the proposed new names is adequate. Both "residential areas" and "quarters" imply some organized settlement, and/or an intentional community (like a purpose-built campus), which is not the case. NVO (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:UCN is "student ghetto" further, "student quarter" was renamed to its current name without anything like consensus. I also don't see why there is a WP:NPOV problem. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do nothing (or alternative name propose) I agree that the name is not contentious, and probably common use. "Student residental areas" is acceptable - but perhaps caling Duck as Duck is better and clearer here - despite the vaguely emotive name.Shortfatlad (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 06:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs with lyrics by Bobby Troup

Propose merging Category:Songs with lyrics by Bobby Troup to Category:Songs written by Bobby Troup
Nominator's rationale: Merge. A songwriter is a person who writes either lyrics and music, Therefore the sole entry in the 'lyrics by' would fit just as snugly in the songwriter category. Richhoncho (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the creator of this category was notified at the time of the initial listing at CfD. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 'A songwriter is a person who writes either lyrics and music' - not always the case. A person who re-writes the lyrics to an old song is not the song writer. I'm not sure if that is the case with Bobby Troup. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to be the case this time. But this does raise points which I shall raise over at the project. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 06:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Financial information

Category:Financial information - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. An undefined category, which makes its meaning kind of vague. Seems to be for sources (newspapers, etc.) in which "financial information" can be found. Since financial information can be found in hundreds of thousands of sources, this probably isn't a good way to categorize. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something (Financial news services? Financial data companies? as a subcat of Category:News agencies and perhaps Category:Financial services companies) matching current content of the category. Companies that specialize in financial data (Bloomberg, Reuters) are clearly different from generalist news agencies. And you have to believe me that no, you cannot "find" their services "in hundreds of thousand of sources". The bulk of financial data never reaches public information channels. NVO (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can find "financial information" in hundreds of thousands of sources, which is what I had originally stated. The current name is so vague as to be essentially meaningless. The category could be renamed to limit its scope, but then it will be something quite different to what exists currently. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- the contents are (mostly at least) a coherent category, but its scope needs to be defined better. Most of the subjects are primary (or near primary) sources of stock market and related data - stock prices, credit rating for company (and government) bonds, news agencies specialising in this. Newspapers will largely be deriving datsa from these or commenting on it, and so are not quite the same: perhaps Financial data primary sources or Financial data providers or Share and bond information sources. Whatever we adopt, a headnote will be needed to define the category, so that companies providing the credit rating for individuals (such as Experian) should not be included. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • leave as is - Financial Information is indeed a category. Please see the page Financial_data_vendor for the industry which services this category. Maybe a headnote can be added to explain the category. There are indeed numerous public avenues for this data, but the vast depth of the data is of little interest to the general public. However, the fact that the data exists is important and should be included in an encyclopaedia which is as much used by experts as by Joe (and Jo) Public!Rgnewbury (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 06:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Steam aircraft

Propose renaming Category:Steam aircraft to Category:Steam-powered aircraft
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to conform with other "________-powered aircraft" categories maintained by WP:AIR. The Bushranger (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This was originally proposed alongside the rename of Category:Nuclear aircraft to Category:Nuclear-powered aircraft.
Both seem OK, as 'nuclear aircraft' could be interpreted in multiple ways (I don't think 'steam aircraft' could in the same way?). It also matches naming conventions at Commons; however, I would oppose extending this to other 'Steam xxx' categories, as terms such as 'Steam locomotive', 'Steam car', 'Steamboat', etc, are widely recognised, and inserting '-powered' is not helpful. By comparison, steam-powered aircraft were pretty rare beasts.
-- EdJogg (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC) NB -- Comment copied from 'CfD/Speedy' here. Not watching this page for responses due to high edit count[reply]
  • Comment is this for steam powered propeller aircraft or steam rocket propelled aircraft, or both? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: It is intended to be for aircraft with a propeller driven by a steam engine. A steam-rocket aircraft would fall under Category:Rocket-powered aircraft. - The Bushranger (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
further comment: More specifically, the category should be for aircraft powered by a steam external combustion engine. And shouldn't include the inventors the category currently does, IMHO. However, a possible Alternative would be to retain Category:Steam Aircraft and have Category:Steam-powered aircraft as a subcategory for the craft themselves, I suppose. - The Bushranger (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Grendizer series characters

Propose merging Category:Grendizer series characters to category:Mazinger series characters
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to category:Mazinger series characters proposed as the category contains only one list article after individual articles were merged together. G.A.Stalk 05:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Orlando

Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Orlando - Template:Lc1
Delete - Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida. Unnecessary expansion of existing category as existing category already covers "Greater Orlando". SpikeJones (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Minor background: topic has come up previously. Please see, for example, conversation posted here User talk:74.163.223.240. SpikeJones (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Most of the attractions are not in the actual city. They are in other places. Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Orlando is an accurate representation of this. The city may need a subcategory, but there is no guarantee that one is actually needed for the city. Merge all of the articles that are in Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida that are not located in the city to Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Orlando. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. For reasons stated by Vegaswikian. Also, all other examples I could find on all the other cities/areas coincide with this. Orlando seems to be the only exception. A category specifically called Orlando, Florida suggests they are within the city, when some of these aren't even in Orange County. Why can't Orlando follow the convention that all the others are using? What is special about Orlando that they should violate the norm? An explanation on the category page that states surrounding area is hardly sufficient, since most users will never see this explanation. Finally, could someone explain why NOT to use Greater Orlando? Is there something I'm missing here? Tampa, South Florida, etc. do this. Why can't Orlando? - Marc Averette (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per the comments above. Lots of the 'Greater Orlando' attractions are in Kissimmee, not Orlando, which is in Osceola County, not Orange.......in fact, one could make a strong case for the deletion of the mentioned Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida as a duplication of this. - The Bushranger (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question only. Is there a place called "Greater Orlando" or is it made up name to satisfy WP categorization? The outcome of this nomination should rely entirely on the answer to the question. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Vegas, I have now looked at Greater Orlando, looks suspiciously like our Greater London, City of London and London, which confuses most Brits. I would strike my question, but I think it is still relevant, but as for coming down for or against, I think I'll pass this time. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search turns up 189,000 hits for "Greater Orlando", most notably the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a casual reader searching for Orlando-area attractions will not type in "Greater Orlando", nor would they necessarily know what that means in the first place. As there now seems to be a parallel discussion going on above regarding a CFD for the matching category, I propose that there may be a conflict that should be looked at further and discussed in more depth to ensure that all interested parties' voices are heard. SpikeJones (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Association football awards

Propose renaming Category:Association football awards to Category:Association football trophies and awards
Propose merging Category:Association football trophies to Category:Association football trophies and awards
Nominator's rationale: There is little reason, in my opinion, to separate categorization of sports trophies from other types of sports awards (see Category:Sports trophies and awards), especially when the trophies category contains only four pages. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, although I am open to some reorganisation.
I accept that "trophies and awards" is a common combination in Wikipedia categories, approximating to "things people can win". However, in team sports, there is a useful distinction between:
  1. competitions contested by teams won on the field of play (Champion's League, European Championship, etc.)
  2. awards won by teams incidental to a competition (most entertaining team, best newcomer, etc)
  3. awards won by individuals (best player, top scorer, etc)
  4. physical objects presented as a symbol of winning any of the preceding types (Jules Rimet Trophy, Henri Delaunay Cup, etc)
At the moment, there are three categories for the four preceding types:
I don't think merging type #4 with types #2 and #3 is conceptually correct. It is true that type #4 has few articles at the moment, and may never be very large. But that's not a reason to lump it in with a larger category that's different in scope.
Of course, by metonymy, there is overlap, with many competitions having the name of their trophy (FA Cup, World Cup, etc), and the relevant article discussing both; but usually the trophy only gets a sentence at most. And in any case, that would be grounds for a merger of type #4 with type #1, not with types #2-3
The Category:Association football trophies is intended to highlight articles which have a more in-depth discussion of the physical object than a mere passing mention. I have attempted to make this clear in the preamble text on the Category pages; perhaps that explanation needs to be improved.
I must admit that subcategories named Category:Brazilian football trophies and awards etc cut against this struture. The underlying problem is that "awards" is ambiguous; in the phrase "trophies and awards" it seems to mean "physical objects similar to trophies, e.g. medals, laurel wreaths, rosettes, certificates, etc." However, in the current Category:Sports trophies and awards and most subcategories, it means the achievement being symbolised rather than the physical symbol. I think that is broken, and needs a broader fix; the present suggested merger, while consistent with the current broken convention, is a step in the wrong direction. jnestorius(talk) 09:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:General style guidelines

Propose merging Category:General style guidelines to Category:Wikipedia style guidelines
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category is redundant, given the existence of Category:Wikipedia style guidelines which is more precise and ten times larger. "General" is also vague, and it would be more efficient to keep it in one category. harej 02:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that Category:General style guidelines has sort of a different purpose, that it is used in conjunction with a generated list of the most highly trafficked style guidelines. A list with a more demonstrative title (say, "Most popular style guidelines") would be better than a category, considering how clustered the Manual of Style already is. harej 04:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't take a position, that's up to others, since it's mostly my work we're talking about at WP:Update/2. Until last month, the theoretical criterion for inclusion in the category was style guidelines not targeted at any one wikiproject or one kind of page, and there were about 27 pages fitting the description for almost two years. With the recent work to merge style guidelines, it became apparent that not all these pages were crucial, so I proposed reducing it to the pages with the most hits here. - Dank (push to talk) 04:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FOOian Singaporeans

Propose upmerging Category:Indian Singaporeans to Category:Singaporean people of Indian descent
Propose upmerging/renaming Category:Chinese Singaporeans and Category:Singaporeans of Chinese descent to Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge/merge/rename. This is another case where we seem to have categories for "FOOian people of BARian descent" for people of partial descent and then a corresponding subcategory for "BARian FOOs" when the people are of full descent. As I discussed at the nominations for the similar Canadian tree, I don't think we should attempt to make this fairly subtle distinction in categories for a number of reasons, which include concerns about original research, overcategorization, and the transitory nature of some of the statuses. In the speedy rename section there was a short discussion about this and there was some suggestion that we need to distinguish between what is a "distinct ethnic group" and what is not, but I don't agree with this approach as far as categories go: An analogy was drawn with Category:African American people, but that is not really on point because we don't have Category:African American people AND Category:American people of Black African descent—we just have one or the other. I certainly do not see any reason to have both types of categories there, and the same logic applies for these. (For the Chinese descent ones, I'm also proposing a rename to the standard category format for these types of categories.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
For it to make sense, there needs to be certain distinctions made. We could go the route of 'no distinctions' but that would mean changing Category:African American people to Category:American people of Black African descent, and I m quite sure most contributors would object. Moreover, there are certain groups who are obvious of an ethnicity and not an ethnic descent - Kurds, Basques, certainly certain groups of Armenians, Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine, and even Chinese first language Canadians and Americans. What we have achieved in changing 'Irish American' to 'American of Irish descent' is in emphasising that 'Irish Americans' are not an ethnicity by an ancestry (or 'ethnic descent') (as Irish Americans, as a group, fully speak American English in the exact way as Americans of other ancestries). We can t fully avoid having to make rather subtle distinctions, based on evidence, in a few cases, no matter where we draw the line. Mayumashu (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for explaining. I do see how the difference in wording could emphasize different identities (Singaporean people who happen to be of Indian descent versus Singaporean Indian people), but I share GOF's concern about the use of categories to establish or maintain distinctions as subtle, impermanent, and personal as this one. I realize that there are many categories like this one and so do not object to the proposed rename in this case, but I think most or all of these categories should be merged to their parents. Of course, that will require one more full CfDs. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I'm not trying to argue that these distinctions do not exist in fact. What I am saying is that the category system is probably not the way to slice these out in WP. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Adult-oriented cartoons

Category:Adult-oriented cartoons - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I understand the idea, but I'm afraid it's too subjective for categorization. What determines that a cartoon is placed in this category? The intent of the creators?; the actual identity of the audience?; the TV rating it receives in a particular country? A subjective judgment as to whether a good parent would let their kids watch it? I like Spongebob but it's not included here, and I'm an adult. What's going on? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NF-Board football teams

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: The first change is from NF-Board to N.F.-Board, which is speedy-able per N.F.-Board. The reason I did not nominate this at WP:CFD/S is to request discussion concerning the second, optional change, which is from N.F.-Board football teams to N.F.-Board teams. In light of the fact that the N.F.-Board is a football association, it is necessary or useful to specify the type of team (i.e., "football teams") in the category titles? -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – N.F.-Board is very obscure and I personally think we need to specify 'association football'. Occuli (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Patricians

Propose renaming Category:Patricians to Category:Former students of St Patrick's High School, Karachi or Category:Patricians (Pakistan)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Patricians is ambiguous, and this is not the primary meaning. The name either needs to be expanded or disambiguated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Climate Feedbacks

Category:Climate Feedbacks - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category, with no criteria for inclusion. If there is a use for it, it should be deleted and recreated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If anyone finds that the Category:Climate Feedbacks should be named differently, I would be interested in their suggestion and any supporting reasons. The value of Category:Climate Feedbacks would be in that it puts links for this subject area on one page and enables the reader to explore the various aspects of the subject. Climate forcings and feedbacks are closely related within the subject of climate change. Since Category:Climate forcing already exists it seems sensible for Category:Climate Feedbacks to exists. What say you? Id447 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Climate forcing requires some edits, to make it clear that it refers to the general concept of climate forcing, not our article at radiative forcing. Still, there's no distinction between articles which should rationally be in Category:Climate feedback (note the correct name) and Category:Climate forcing.
  • Reply

The best definition of the differences between forcing and feedback that I've been able to find has been incorporated into Climate change feedback page.

Feedback is a process in which changing one quantity changes a second quantity, and the change in the second quantity in turn changes the first. Positive feedback amplifies the change in the first quantity while negative feedback reduces it. Feedback is important in the study of global warming because it may amplify or diminish the effect of a particular forcing. A process can be both forcing and feedback.[1]


Forcings determine the if the climate is warming or cooling. Feedbacks determine the how much and how fast the climate changes. [2]

Id447 (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who said that ([2]) is not a scientist. It makes no sense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the articles from the category which do not reflect any plausible definition of "Feedback", although Cryosphere might fit under forcing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. ^ Hansen, James: Storms Of My Grandchildren, page 67. Bloomsbury USA, 2009.
  2. ^ Hansen, James: Storms Of My Grandchildren, page 42. Bloomsbury USA, 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_20&oldid=357379303"