Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 30

November 30

Category:Caesars Entertainment

Propose renaming Category:Caesars Entertainment to Category:Caesars Entertainment Corp.

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the name of the main article. Note that this category was populated by an out of process move. No sense in undoing that, just move this to the correct name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Italian-language operettas

Category:Italian-language operettas - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization. We already have a well-populated (482) Category:Italian-language operas. Operetta, despite being an Italian word, is a rare genre of opera in Italian and there is only one article in this cat. If every genre of opera was subdivided by language we would have several hundred extra cats, very few of them with significant populations. Kleinzach 22:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – can the nom not gather together these 'foo-language operattas' into a single nom? Is the eventual nom going to be an upmerge of all 'foo-language operattas' into Category:Operettas and 'foo-language operas' or is it more complicated? Occuli (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I did it pragmatically, cat by cat, because at least one of the (unnominated) items in the set looked independently viable. But perhaps you are right and it would be easier to take them all together? In that case, how could we group them? How is that done? --Kleinzach 00:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Gießen

• Propose rename Category:Gießen to Category:Giessen
• Propose rename Category:People from Gießen to Category:People from Giessen

added subsequently:

• Propose rename Category:People from the District of Gießen to Category:People from the District of Giessen

copy of speedy nomination

Category:University of Giessen to Category:University of Gießen — C2C; University of Gießen. Jared Preston (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Question: Should the name of categories or articles on English Wikipedia include characters (other than accents) that do not exist in English grammar? Davshul (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Answer: According to Wikipedia's naming policy, there is no problem with it. ß is simply a Latin alphabet ligature. Jared Preston (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Request Can you please provide a reference to Wikipedia's naming policy regarding the "ß". I could not trace it. Davshul (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Comment. Well, there is this, but it's not an official guideline, just the one often referred to by WikiProject Germany participants. Apart from that I too can find nothing about this issue. Does anyone know where we can find this "naming policy" that has been referred to? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC) How about this? Wikipedia:Article_titles#Foreign_names_and_anglicization to go with the parent Category:Gießen? Jared Preston (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, I think that is on point. What I get from that is basically we should try to follow the most common English-language usage, unless there really aren't any to follow. I find it hard to believe that "Gießen" is preferred over "Giessen" in English-language usages? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC) The university itself uses "Gießen" but "Giessen" in English - see the English language page on their website. The article was at University of Giessen for years until Jared Preston moved it to University of Gießen without any discussion just before making the category nomination. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Well, "Gießen" isn't going to be written with ß in many English texts since most English keyboards don't have the letter. Gießen doesn't have a typically English name either, like München → Munich. Gießen is Gießen, just like Düsseldorf is Düsseldorf and Großräschen is Großräschen. Jared Preston (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC) That's an explanation for the usage, but isn't what this is saying is use "Giessen" if it is most commonly used in English-language sources? It doesn't say anything about analysing why the sources choose the usage they choose. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Object all the "Gießen" renames, this should go to full CfD as it appears that "Giessen" should be used per Good Olfactory. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Category:University of Giessen alumni to Category:University of Gießen alumni — C2C as above. Jared Preston (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Object all the "Gießen" renames, this should go to full CfD as it appears that "Giessen" should be used per Good Olfactory. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Category:University of Giessen faculty to Category:University of Gießen faculty — C2C as above. Jared Preston (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Object all the "Gießen" renames, this should go to full CfD as it appears that "Giessen" should be used per Good Olfactory. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: The original Speedy nomination was to rename three sub-categories in the Gießen category tree, by replacing the "ss" with "ß". This would have been consistent with the parent category Category:Gießen. However, the letter ß is a ligature typically used in the German alphabet in place of a double "s", but is not used in English and is probably unknown to the many (if not a majority) of those using English Wikipedia. Accordingly, it is proposed that the parent category (and a subcategory using the ß ligature) be renamed. Giessen appears to be the accepted spelling of the city in English. Davshul (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added to the list a third category which includes the word Gießen. Davshul (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I think if I had my way I would say we would not use the ß in the English Wikipedia in articles or categories, but I am a little bit concerned here that if we only rename the categories will be creating a difference between what the articles use (Gießen, etc.) and what the category structure uses. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Rename per nom, and replace any occurrences of ß with ss in any names (article or category). An umlaut is OK but not a ß (in English). Occuli (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom and rationale brought up at Speedy for "Giessen" over eszett. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Downtown Core

Propose renaming Category:Downtown Core to something less ambiguous

Nominator's rationale: Rename as ambiguous. Too many areas have a downtown core. Better to rename to Category:Downtown Core Planning Area or Category:Downtown Core (Singapore). The former matches what is used on commons and best describes the name of the area. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Don't we also need to rename the parent article to Downtown Core (Singapore)? Mangoe (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No, but categories have more problems with ambiguous names. But it can be renamed after this if we decide it is needed and then we have two choices for the name. WP:RM is backlogged about 40 days, so a nomination there will take us into next year. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Non-free audio samples

Propose renaming Category:Non-free audio samples to Category:Wikipedia non-free audio files or Category:Wikipedia non-free audio samples

Nominator's rationale: The "Wikipedia" is needed to clearly identify this as a high-level project category which should not contain any mainspace content pages. The top-level parent category for sounds is Category:Wikipedia audio files, so "audio samples" should be changed to "audio files" for consistency unless there is some copyright-related reason to use "samples". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Seems a trivial change and consistancy isn't there for Wikipedia quantifier. The use of Wikipedia was questioned way back in titles like this and, IMO a completely flawed logic of naming conventions (the word "Wikipedia" (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories) was applied. How is is confusing. Non-free audio can never be a content category. This change is also not consistent with Category:Non-free logos for example. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  You are correct that consistency isn't there (yet), but it never will be attained if a present lack of consistency is used as a counter-argument to renaming. Also, considering that the parent category of this page is Wikipedia non-free sounds, whose parent category is Wikipedia audio files, whose parent category is Wikipedia media files ... I think a convention exists in this particular case.

  The change itself may be relatively minor but, then again, performing the change is also a minor/trivial matter. In addition, while the logic behind the convention—"categories used for Wikipedia administration are prefixed with the word "Wikipedia" (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories"—may or may not be flawed (personally, I do not think that it is), it does currently have consensus. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  I hate meaningless disputes like this but note that Category:Wikipedia non-free sounds was originally at Category:Non-free sounds. Can you point me to a rationale for that move? I'm pretty sure the Wikipedia quantifier just stemmed from "Wikipedia maintenance" which obviously couldn't be named "Maintenance". One of the other reasons I'm objecting is because "Wikipedia non-free audio" sounds possessive like the non-free audio belongs to Wikipedia. Personally I think the current is the best option unless you make a Maintenance namespace. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  It's a small world... :) Category:Non-free sounds was renamed because of a discussion (here) that I initiated almost one year ago. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia non-free sounds

Propose merging Category:Wikipedia non-free sounds to Category:Wikipedia audio files and Category:Wikipedia non-free content

Nominator's rationale: This category is an unnecessary layer between Category:Non-free audio samples (nominated for renaming above) and Category:Wikipedia audio files and Category:Wikipedia non-free content, and I think its contents (1 subcategory) should be upmerged. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Correct my if I'm wrong, but in theory all of our free sounds should be on commons, so it should be implied that any such content on Wikipedia is non-free without needing to identify it as such, at least in the title. VegaDark (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  As far as I know, all of our free audio files are on the Commons. However, featured sounds (even though the actual files are on the Commons) are still categorized on Wikipedia. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, forgot about that. Any particular reason we do that? In any case, your proposal seems reasonable. VegaDark (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  I don't know, really, since Portal:Featured sounds contains a comprehensive and much more useful listing. Perhaps it is so that sounds will not be missing from Category:Featured content... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Arabian people of Persian descent

Propose renaming Category:Arabian people of Persian descent to Category:Arab people of Iranian descent

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main categories are Category:Arab people and Category:People of Iranian descent. TM 14:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Rename per nom, to match head article. It is also clear from contents of the category and its sub-categories that it relates to Arab people generally, not just Arabian people (those pertaining to the Arabian peninsula). JackJud (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Possibly delete We do have an article on Iranian Arabs but if I follow it correctly it's actually about Arabs who happen to live in Iran, making the category perhaps "Iranian people of Arabic descent". I also note that judging from some of the entries there is confusion about exactly who ought be in this category. Mangoe (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:University of Alaska alumni

Propose merging Category:University of Alaska alumni to Category:University of Alaska Fairbanks alumni

Nominator's rationale: merge - Parent article redirects to University of Alaska System, an administrative unit. Diplomas pre-1975 may state "University of Alaska," but it's the same institution as the University of Alaska Fairbanks.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep unless the nom can explain what is to be done with Category:University of Alaska Anchorage alumni. Occuli (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

For whatever reason, I was limited from posting a longer explanation. Now that I think about it, this category can be useful as a catch-all. However, it's mostly being used by "lazy" editors for persons who graduated from the University of Alaska Fairbanks pre-1975, before the creation of the University of Alaska Anchorage and University of Alaska Juneau (now Southeast), when the same institution was known as (and the diplomas read) the "University of Alaska." The page "University of Alaska" redirects to University of Alaska System, an adminstrative bureacracy which (to the very best of my knowledge) awards no diplomas. They carry out the administration of statewide public higher education as "ordained" under Sections 2 and 3, Article 7 of the Alaska Constitution.

Not only is UAS not covered by a separate category, but neither is Prince William Sound Community College in Valdez, which is an actual community college and not a branch campus of one of the three main campuses, and enjoys a degree of autonomy as a result. Some graduates could also conceivably not fit in a specific campus category, despite attending those campuses. To keep from you having to take all day to read this, some housekeeping would probably work, though some of it borders on doing other people's jobs for them.RadioKAOS (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Having a general "UofA" category as a parent for the more specific ones is perfectly acceptable way of organising things; a similar setup exists with, for example, Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford and Category:Alumni of the University of London. It may help to put a {{Category diffuse}} tag in this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Alaska State Senators

Propose renaming Category:Alaska State Senators to Category:Members of the Alaska Senate

Nominator's rationale: rename - Parent article changed from Alaska State Senate to Alaska Senate; in line with Category:Members of the Alaska Legislature and Category:Members of the Alaska House of Representatives.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nom - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, unless we're going to change all of the subcategories of Category:State senators of the United States. "FOO State Senators" is the current standard format for each of the 50 categories. That said, I may not be averse to changing all of them, but it would obviously require a broader nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Good Ol’factory, "Foo State Senators" is current convention, and AFAIK it also fits WP:COMMONNAME -- I am not an American, but usage I am familiar with is that "X was a Foo Sate Senator", not "X was a Member of the Alaska Senate". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:French-language operettas

Category:French-language operettas - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This cat was created on 17 October. (Prior to that the articles were in Category:French-language operas.) Operetta is a genre of opera, both as published generally, and as organized on WP.

For French opera, we have a number of specific, creator-defined genre cats (many of them associated with Offenbach's designations, see here). In the case of Category:French-language operettas it's not clear what is included in the cat and what isn't. Are early forms in, or only later works (Hahn/Messager etc)? Is a 'French-language operetta' equivalent to an opérette or applied more widely?

I recommend restoring this particular set of articles to Category:French-language operas and deleting Category:French-language operettas. (An alternative would be to rename it as Category:Opérettes, a cat which might have been created anyway.) Kleinzach 09:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unless someone is willing to go into operetta and remove all references to Jacques Offenbach. We at present more or less define French operetta according to his works, so I have a hard time understanding why Orpheus in the Underworld for instance is by exclusion being claimed not to be an operetta. Mangoe (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Orpheus in the Underworld is an opéra bouffe or opéra féerie in its revised version. (These are early forms of operetta by one definition.) But that's hardly relevant. The problem here is overcategorization. --Kleinzach 23:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Since we identify Opéra bouffe as "a genre of late 19th-century French operetta", why shouldn't these works be categorized as operettas? Mangoe (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:British Whigs

Propose renaming Category:British Whigs to Category:Whig (British political party)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Whig (British political party). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - the category name as-is indicates it contains members of the Whig party, which it does not. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That is true and something I should have pointed out—as it stands, the category is a bit ambiguous and liable to be confused with Category:Whig politicians (UK), which is a subcategory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. My first reaction was to say "rename per nom for clarity", but Whig covers a variety of related topics, from Whig history to Whig (British political party). I can't quite see the solution yet, but the proposed name change would leave us with no proper categ for the likes of King of Clubs (Whig club). We need some sort of wider restructuring, with a parent category ([[:Category:|Category:]]?) containing Category:Whig (British political party) as one sucbcat, and probably Category:Whig history as another. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoalcippe

Category:Pseudoalcippe - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category is a genus of birds. The genus has only one species, so the cat will only have one article. Article can be moved to family cat. Just one of many useless cats automatically created by a bot that started a bunch of species articles. IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:People from Washington, Maine

Propose merging Category:People from Washington, Maine to Category:People from Knox County, Maine

Nominator's rationale: Merge. category for people from a very small town (1,345 people in 2000) with extremely limited potential to grow. TM 06:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep Actually three is a lot from what I have experienced in my rather interesting hobby of late (creating these darned categories). What is there to say that we don't have a few others out there who are from the town but no one has made the connection to either add the brand new category or just place them on the page? There is no harm in letting this category sit there for a few months and come back then and see what arises. Also, for that many people that is quite a lot. I know of a town with over five hundred more and they only produced one famous person. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Three may be a lot for a small town, but it is not useful for Wikipedia. See WP:SMALLCAT.--TM 14:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Cycle types

Propose renaming Category:Cycle types to Category:Cycles

Nominator's rationale: Why we have a category for cycle types but not on cycles is a mystery to me. And, say, why don't we have an article on cycles? I might have to write it. Marcus Qwertyus 05:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually Category:Cycles is not a good name since it is ambiguous. Motor cycles? Solar cycles? Financial cycles? Category names need to be unambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• (e/c)Keep - "Cycles" is ambiguous. Additionally there is already Category:Cycling with an extensive sub-category tree and matching article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:SDLP

Propose renaming Category:SDLP to Category:Social Democratic and Labour Party

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to avoid abbreviation and to match main article Social Democratic and Labour Party. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. JackJud (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Eponymous political party categories

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Each of these eponymous categories for political parties contains exactly one article and one subcategory. In each case, the article is the main articles of the same name and the subcategory is the category for politicians (or in some cases, members) of the party. I've monitored all of these for a number of months now and as far as I can tell nothing else has been added to or taken out of the categories. There are some good reasons to have an eponymous category for a political party; in general have no problem with them existing, but if this is all they include, they act only as a barrier—rather than an aid—to navigation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Union of the Democratic Centre (Spain), aka UCD, Delete the rest. In the case of the UCD, I've added 5 articles to the cat. The party itself was an alliance of convenience formed in the immediate post Franco period. It brought together some 15 to 20 parties and when it splintered 6 years later a similar number of parties where created. If any of the articles on those parties get created they can be added there. Valenciano (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That's fine, if stuff can be added to a category, I'm fine to withdraw the nomination w.r.t. that category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The Spanish ones were created by me, when I created the Valencian Union and Democratic and Social Centre (Spain) ones they included the politicians. Those have now been moved to dedicated cats for the politicians and are now superfluous and can go. I suspect that the same thing has happened with some of the others with them originally including the politicians before those were moved. Valenciano (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      • That is true—I agree that many of them were probably created to hold the politicians, but those have all been moved to politicians categories now. Most of the politicians categories are newer than the eponymous ones. I should also add that these could always be re-created if the need arises in the future. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see how this hinders navigation, since you can navigate the political party category tree with these, if they are removed, you'd have to navigate the politicians category tree. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Trust me—it hinders—at least it has hindered me in the past in the work I've been doing. I've been working with this tree for a few months now, and it's very awkward to have to deal with these small categories. You can still get to the main article through the political party category tree, since of course the article about the party is in the political party tree—and the politicians subcategories are also always linked through the political party category tree: eg: Category:Spanish politicians by party is a subcategory of Category:Political parties in Spain. So you can still get to all the information through the political party tree, but these just add one more intermediate layer to getting there. These add absolutely nothing to the ability to navigate. It also adds inconsistencies to the category tree—if these parties have eponymous categories, why doesn't every party that has a politicians subcategory? One finds an eponymous category expecting to find more, but with these, you just don't get anything additional out of them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I suggest a little caution here.
  Firstly, if the head articles are correctly categorised per WP:EPON, then existence of the eponymous category adds no extra layer to navigation. (And if WP:EPON is not being followed, it should be applied)
  Secondly, deleting these categories leaves us wit no navigational path from the head article to the politician categories: e.g. in the case of Colorado Party (Uruguay) → Category:Colorado Party (Uruguay) → Colorado Party (Uruguay) politicians, this nom would remove the middle link of the chain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Russian language operettas

Category:Russian language operettas - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Similar entries are hyphenated, so this one needs changing, however on reflection I wonder whether it is needed at all. There is only one item in the cat. The genre is really 'operetta' not 'Russian operetta'. Kleinzach 04:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep and add hypen. This is simply a matter of a typo in the category name -- it needs a hyphen to conform to the other subcategories in Category:Operettas. There are numerous operettas in the Russian language (they merely currently lack English Wiki articles), so the category should remain. Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Hungarian-language operettas

Propose renaming Category:Hungarian-language operettas to Category:Hungarian operettas

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Hungarian operettas (i.e. operettas by Hungarians) are not necessarily in Hungarian. Many of them were in German (e.g. Das Veilchen vom Montmartre), and there were also numerous English adaptations. (I was minded to recommend deletion as the recognized genre per se is the 'operetta' irrespective of language. IMO this subject is overcategorized.). Kleinzach 04:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep. This category is for operettas in the Hungarian language. It follows the conventions of the other subcategories of Category:Operettas. Operettas written by Hungarians in other languages are listed in the appropriate language subcategory. It is common for persons of one nationality to compose or write operettas or operas in another language, and as composer and lyricist are often of two different nationalities, language is the only logical way to categorize. Any miscategorization (the one noted was miscategorized by User:Nrswanson in September 2008) can be removed from the category. Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep. "Operettas by Hungarians" is inconsistent with the opera categories, as well as being to my mind much less interesting than a category for Hungarian-language works. Sparafucil (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment There is a category for Hungarian-language works: Category:Hungarian-language operas. (Operettas are just one form of opera.) --Kleinzach 22:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Indian reservations in Montana

Category:Indian reservations in Montana - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale. As a sub-category of Category:American Indian reservations in Montana this category is redundant. Its two entries easily fit into the parent category and there is no distinquishing characteristic between this category (.. Indian reservations in...) and its parent (...American Indian reservations in ...).--Mike Cline (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Upmerge and delete per nom. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Transport disasters by country

Category:Transport disasters by country - Template:Lc1

Move to "Transport incidents by country."

Nominator's rationale. The category suffers from media-like promotion as one moves up from the lowest level. For example, CSX 8888 incident is listed under two Railway Accident categories. The Category:Maritime incidents, along with the previous "Accident" categories are both rolled up into this disaster category. The category far overstates the nature of the reports that are included, resulting in, essentially, "category by media hype." Student7 (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. None of the country-specific subcategories are tagged or included in this CFR, nor is this category's parent, Category:Transport disasters, or its siblings, Category:Transport disasters by continent or Category:Transport disasters by year. That aside, Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by country might provide a good example to follow if "disaster" is considered hyberbolic, but this is also part of a Category:Disasters by country scheme, so I don't know. postdlf (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Transportation accidents and incidents by country, and possibly re-establish a - rather more selective - Category:Transport disasters by country for those that are actually, y'know, disasters as opposed to oh **** moments. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep – this is a subcat scheme for Category:Transport disasters and it makes no sense whatever to rename it. (Nothing is tagged.) Renaming Category:Transport disasters (followed by all subcats and subcat schemes) would make sense. Occuli (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• The parent category is problematic because some of the subcats are "disasterous" (as it were) but many are not. There's no differentiation in the marine or aircraft category trees, for instance, even between fatal incidents and averted catastrophes. Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I've gone back and redefined about 30 categories I was aware of so they wouldn't be upgraded from "incidents" to "disasters." There are perhaps several hundred others that are just beyond my energy level and interest. Someone should have caught this a lot sooner. At least in the aviation categories they had the collective "accidents and incidents" but they, too were "upgraded" to disasters further up in the chain of categorization. Hmph. Student7 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 00:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Relisting note. Category was not properly tagged; done now. — ξ^xplicit 00:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• keep as is The parent categories are Transportation and Country, and all their subcats, none of which are being renamed. 'Disaster' is the proper word here; 'incidents' is the public relations/coverup word. Hmains (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as an appropriate parent for categories grouping by nation. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)