Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 20

< January 19	January 21 >

January 20

Lists of Irish monarchs

Propose merging Category:Lists of Irish monarchs to Category:Irish kings

Nominator's rationale. Contain almost identical articles or have the potential to do so. The target category is better populated. However, I would not be totally happy with the name. I'd prefer something more inclusive (in a gender sense) like "Monarchs of Ireland". However, one step at a time. For the moment I'll content myself with this merger. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both – these are completely different - the first one comprises lists and the 2nd one articles on specific kings; and a list of kings is not a king. Eg Kings of Ailech is a list and not a king; Eógan mac Néill is a king and not a list. (IMO Category:Lists of Irish monarchs is not a subcat of Category:Irish kings and {{catseealso}} is the only legitimate link between the 2.) Occuli (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Opposition against Islam in North America

Propose renaming Category:Opposition against Islam in North America to Category:Opposition to Islam in North America

Nominator's rationale: One is opposed to something not against it, "oppostion against" is incorrect. ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should perhaps add Category:Oppositoin against Islam in Europe, Category:Opposition against Islam in Asia and Category:Opposition against Islam to this nom. At any rate, I support renaming this, and the other three if they should be added. However, I'm also not sure why we need opposition categories in the first place, as it seems they would fit just as easily in the parent Islam in foo categories. Reso lute 20:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Period films

Propose merging Category:Period films to Category:Historical films

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There appears to be nothing that really distinguishes between these two categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. Period films is rather nebulous term. Some see/hear the term and think only of films set in the 1700's. The merge would also allow for subcats covering specific eras. MarnetteD | Talk 19:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Historical films" says it is for historical dramas. The article List of historical drama films says it is about famous events. Period films does not have any of that restriction. A 1970's period comedy film would not be a historical film under the definitions in use on Wikipedia. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theistic science theories

Category:Theistic science theories - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Consensus on WP:FT/N is this shouldn't be a catagory, since the terms theistic and theory may be inherently contradictory, and (mostly because) it's a POV and somewhat neologistic term coined for items already filed under Category:Intelligent design, but intended as a sub-cat of Category:Scientific theories. No other use (as far as articles needing this category) has been identified so far. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and discussions at FTN. "Theories" are testable hypotheses supported by a wealth of experimental evidence. There are none in this area. The category amounts to advocacy to create a subject area that doesn't actually exist. Guettarda (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've fleshed out my argument in much further detail here. In short: this cat is neither useful nor encyclopedic, but the topic of "theistic science" may be worth fleshing out as a section of Theistic realism (or, maybe, a standalone article). — Scientizzle 17:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV category, created for purposes of advocacy and drama. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV pushing, not science and, mutatis mutandis, per WP:BOLLOCKS. – ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this category is oxymoronic. Raul654 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in accordance with the reasons presented in the nomination. POV and misleading, of minimal notability and utility. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as violating NPOV and POINT. And I cannot resist pointing out that it really should be a sub-category of Category:Oxymorons. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this category is meaningless and enough time has been wasted already on its talk page - get rid of it and let us get back to building the encyclopedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm don't really understand the level of animosity on display here or the allegations of bad faith involved the creation of the category. I'll just remind everyone that the category's defintion was cited at creation, said cite being subsequently removed. Also, a list of sources was presented to show that it is a real term. Anyway, while I have the floor, I'd like to remind the regulars at the ID article to focus on the discussion and be a little less quick to personalize debates and disagreements and to tone down the hostility. Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does not help discussion that this category is now empty. Could someone list what articles were in it? --Bduke (Discussion) 00:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Design, Natural-law argument, Creation Science, and Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts. I agree that it isn't very helpful to remove the content from a page right before it's nominated for deletion. Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Use dmy dates

Category:Use dmy dates - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: I understand that this hidden category is used to track articles that use one of the two possible date formats per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Full date formatting. (The other variant does not seem to have a category.) I do not however see the point of tracking articles by style variant. In the event that the style variant to be used in any particular article is disputed, that dispute can be resolved by looking at the article content and history, and having an invisible category for one of two variants does not help. Moreover, if we start adding categories for every possible style variant (UK/US English?) we create a huge maintenance overhead with no clear benefit. Sandstein 10:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. For clarity, this nomination also applies to the dated subcategories. Sandstein 10:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's not just used to track... but used in maintaining WP:MOSNUM compliance as articles evolve. There is a category for mdy dates too, but it's not so well populated now. As Wikipedia is a work in progress, whether an article has adopted dmy or mdy actually matters. It is not always immediately apparent which date format has adopted, and impossible for a bot; even using AWB, significant processing time is necessary to create such a list by scanning the database before a list can be compiled. Article tagging is always done manually, to avoid classification errors (insofar as possible); the template+cat allows future periodic maintenance to take place by programmed bot action. Removal of the category (with or without deleting the template, which I guess would be the next logical step) would be unhelpful. Without the cats, future maintenance will have to be done manually, extremely time-consuming. Alternatively, the category would need to be recreated each time a bot run is planned, so there is little point in deleting. Oh, and I was afraid Sandstein is also putting the Category:Use_British_English under scrutiny; same rationale would apply to not deleting those. :-( --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand why it is important to "maintain WP:MOSNUM compliance as articles evolve", and what that means. I suppose this category could be used as a basis for bot error reports, but a bot only needs to detect that an article uses inconsistent date formats, not necessarily what is supposed to be the "correct" date format. The editor who fixes the inconsistency will still need to determine that on their own, as the category may not be correct. This still looks like a solution in search of a problem to me. Sandstein 10:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles evolve and grow. People add content, text, tables, citations, all of which may contain dates. You may not have noticed that editors adding same don't necessarily observe the prevailing date format being used when adding context. That explains why there are thousands of articles with a mixture of date formats, in violation to MOSNUM, and their numbers would grow without the sort of effort I and others are putting in. This is exactly the sort of clean-up that is very repetitive and time-consuming. Tagging is the fastidious first step. Once a given article has been tagged through conscious 'decision', enter the bot – these rely on the categories you are seeking to have deleted. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are these categories actually used by any bots for approved tasks? If yes, I'll withdraw the nomination. Sandstein 21:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. There's still much work to tag articles. I plan to make a submission within 2 months. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – These categories are useful for defining the dating styles used in articles. Incorrect tagging is always a problem. A referenced sentenced could have the reference replace by {{Citation needed}} by a vandal but if no one notices, a careless editor may come along and delete the sentence without checking for a source. That's not a reason to delete Category:Articles with unsourced statements though. However, if this category is deleted, the American and ISO dating format categories should be deleted as well, but the templates should be kept because we need some way of letting editors know the style used on a particular page. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This a maintenance category used by a bot which does valuable work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which bot? Sandstein 21:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Craven

Propose renaming Category:Craven to Category:Craven (district)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to disambiguate from the other uses of the term "Craven", as listed at Craven (disambiguation). This category refers to the local government district of Craven in North Yorkshire, England. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The eponymous article is at Craven. If the article does not need disambiguating, then neither does the category. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – the category certainly needs disambiguating. I would say the article does as well, but this is not a matter for cfd.

78.151.68.178 (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - agree with the above. Category and article both need renaming to make them more distinct. The district is not sufficiently notable within the context of other uses of Craven. Rimmer1993 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Depictions of Nero on plays

Propose renaming Category:Depictions of Nero on plays to Category:Depictions of Nero in plays

Nominator's rationale: Rename - this is not an English expression. The preposition should be "in". See also my comments under Category:Depictions of Nero on Comics. Voceditenore (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Depictions of Nero on Operas

Propose renaming Category:Depictions of Nero on Operas to Category:Depictions of Nero in opera

Nominator's rationale: Rename Apart from the obvious capitalization error, this is not an English expression. The art-form, "opera", should be singular and the preposition should be "in". Voceditenore (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Depictions of Nero on Comics

Propose renaming Category:Depictions of Nero on Comics to Category:Depictions of Nero in comics

Nominator's rationale: Rename Apart from the obvious capitalization error, this is not an English expression. The preposition should be "in" Voceditenore (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm wondering if this category should even exist. It has only one entry (Armageddon: The Alien Agenda) and the only connection is that it is partly set in "Emperor Nero (54-68 AD) era Rome.". The article is unreferenced, but there is no indication that Nero himself is actually depicted. The same user is currently creating many categories like this [1] and several of them are badly named, e.g. Category:Depictions of Nero on plays with improperly categorized members, e.g. Henry VI, Part 1. Not sure if these should all be under one discussion section. Voceditenore (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional flippists

Category:Fictional flippists - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous category in which every character who has taken a decision based on luck seems to fit. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Arbitrarily-defined overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Basins by country

Propose renaming Category:Basins by country to Category:Structural basins by country

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Basins is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Union songs

Propose renaming Category:Union songs to Category:Trade union songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category name is ambiguous—it's not clear from the name whether it is for trade unions, the Union Army, or some other union. Renaming will match the parent category Category:Trade unions, and the article is trade union. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to clarify scope. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Reason is perfectly apt, as I saw this in the table of contents and somehow expected it to be about Union Army songs. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Watersheds of the West Coast (U.S.)

Propose merging Category:Watersheds of the West Coast (U.S.) to Category:Geography of the West Coast (U.S.)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Currently has only two entries. While more may be included over time, it is not clear that we need to break this out at this level at this time. I'm thinking about including in Category:Watersheds of the Pacific Ocean (subject of another rename) and ~~Category:Drainage basins of North America~~ (which is already in the parent's tree) in addition to the current category which should be ample categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are more articles around, some of which are in Category:Watersheds of the United States and its tree. The whole structure needs tidying up. My personal view is that this area should start at Category:Drainage basins of North America then be split by coast (north, east, south, and west). I would prefer not to have any countries/states recorded - these are structural features not political features. And they should be drainage basins NOT watersheds. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geography of the West Coast (U.S.)

Propose renaming Category:Geography of the West Coast (U.S.) to Category:Geography of the West Coast of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article. While there is a main article, I find this category somewhat misleading since it covers far more then the west coast of the US. If deletion is the consensus, I can support that. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Seems a clumsily-named category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "West Coast (U.S.)" is used for most of the other subcategories of Category:West Coast of the United States.- choster (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Volcanic fields of the Columbia Plateau

Propose merging Category:Volcanic fields of the Columbia Plateau to Category:Volcanic fields of the western United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single entry category with unknown growth potential. Another one from Hike. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Karst

Propose renaming Category:Karst to Category:Karst topography

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the generic name because Karst actually redirects to Karst topography. I'm not sure why it isn't just plain used as the article name, because I don't believe the region which is now called Kras is comparably as well known as the term it gave rise to. Certainly it doesn't make sense for Kras articles to be put in a category called "Karst", there should be no confusion there. That disambiguation is left over since 2004/2005. It could just be cleaned up fully nowadays IMHO. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed the mismatch and did the normal nomination. If leaving is the better choice, you can !vote that way and the article could also be moved to match. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway turntables in the United States

Propose merging Category:Railway turntables in the United States to all parents

Nominator's rationale: UpMerge to all 3 parents. One of the problems in the entire tree is the lack of articles about turntables. They are generally mentioned as a feature of some other rail related article. So deletion is clearly an option. If there were more articles, I would not object to keeping. However, the lack of articles makes the case for keeping this category and some of the parents problematic. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge and delete per nom. The only article in the cat isn't even about a railway turntable. Can be recreated if we ever do acquire an article about one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emirati people of Sri Lankan descent

Propose renaming Category:Emirati people of Sri Lankan descent to Category:United Arab Emirati people of Sri Lankan descent

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was nominated at the speedy section on the grounds that it was conforming the category name to others in the category tree. The nomination was opposed (see copy of discussion below). The opposer said that "Emirati" was the correct demonym and that all the categories that use "United Arab Emirati" should be changed to "Emirati". The current situation is that all of them use "United Arab Emirati" (see Category:United Arab Emirati people, Category:United Arab Emirati people by ethnic or national origin, etc.). It's possible they all could be changed to "Emirati", but creating one category that is different than all the others is not the way to go about it. The way to go about it would be to nominate either Category:United Arab Emirati people as a test case or nominate all the applicable categories for renaming. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copy of speedy discussion

Category:Emirati people of Sri Lankan descent to Category:United Arab Emirati people of Sri Lankan descent — C2B Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The deonym for UAE citizens is "Emirati". If thus is to align it with other categories, they are the cats that should be moved. oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think expert attention is needed. However, I don't think saying just Emirati will cause any confusion. --Deryck C. 14:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not, but the point of this discussion is not to choose which is correct. That would require a broader discussion. This is just one isolated category out-of-step with the others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic missions in Dublin

Re-name Category:Diplomatic missions in Dublin to Category:Diplomatic missions in Dublin (city).

Nominator's rationale Per discussion at Dublin here a few days ago where the decision was to disambiguate Dublin. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As the capital of Ireland, any diplomatic mission to Dublin is obviously going to be to the city instead of the county. This is taking disambiguation too far. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency with other categories relating to the city of Dublin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]