Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 28

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Leerssways (talk | contribs) at 00:47, 8 January 2013 (→‎Category:People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< December 27 December 29 >

December 28

Category:Athletics in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Recently created WP:ENGVAR violation. It duplicates the previously created category Category:Track and field in Canada with a name that is too confusing, since "athletics" means all sports in Canadian English. University athletics departments cover all sports.[1][2][3][4] This category is therefore highly ambiguous, and not usable in the Canadian context, -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Puerto Rican athletes

Category:19th-century church buildings by denomination

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This appears to be the only by century by denomination church building category. Upmerge to match all of the other categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nineteenth Century churches by decade

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Across 2 millennium of church building categories, these are the only by decade categories. For buildings and structures, decades are not normally used since by century categories provide ample navigation. Also the parent category here has a spelling not used and does not follow the MoS. Normally this would be spelled 19th-century. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative target Category:19th-century religious buildings by year. We already have a tree with Category:Religious buildings completed in 1870 and other years. Perhaps we should merge the "church buildings" and "religious buildings" trees. Since most of the content is churches, it might be better to reverse merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian athletes

That's fine by me. I also second the sentiment that we should not just use British English for ambiguous terms just because is a few hundred miles from Britain. Ambiguous terms should not be used unless it is the local ENGVAR usage, since Italy doesn't have an ENGVAR, it should use unambiguous terminology to all varieties of English. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, after doing this you will have to do these Category:Australian athletes, Category:Austrian athletes, Category:Afghan athletes‎, Category:Albanian athletes‎, Category:Algerian athletes‎, Category:American Samoan athletes, Category:Andorran athletes, Category:Angolan athletes‎, Category:Anguillan athletes, Category:Antigua and Barbuda athletes, Category:Argentine athletes‎, Category:Armenian athletes‎, Category:Aruban athletes, Category:Azerbaijani athletes‎ , Category:Belgian athletes‎, Category:Brazilian athletes, Category:Bulgarian athletes‎, Category:Bahamian athletes‎, Category:Bahraini athletes, Category:Bangladeshi athletes, Category:Barbadian athletes, Category:Belarusian athletes‎, Category:Belizean athletes‎, Category:Beninese athletes and other 200. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"American Samoan athletes" has already been nominated.
No, "Australian athletes" (and some of the others you listed) fall under ENGVAR consideration, so would have to be done separate from any non-English locality. All English-speaking/using localities need separate nominations to deal with ENGVAR, which is something you should have considered when you made a hash of American and Canadian categories. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*New Proposal Rename it to Category:Italian athletes (track and field, road and cross country running events). So it would be correct (but perhaps too long). Seriously, it would not be better to leave things as they are for all 226 countries. Do you want to make an exception for Canada and the USA, have it (although for me it is a non-sense), but what's the change today, the "status quo"? --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC) --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Landforms of Queens County, New York

Nominator's rationale: Merge/upmerge No other borough has a "landforms" category and as stated below, Queens County, New York is but a redirect to Queens. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geography of Queens County, New York

Nominator's rationale: Merge Queens County, New York is a redirect to Queens and this category is therefore a duplicate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ukrainian football clubs in European football

Nominator's rationale: Standardisation of categories in Category:Football clubs in European football. C679 15:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Standardisation of categories in Category:Football clubs in European football. C679 15:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israeli football clubs in European football

Nominator's rationale: Standardisation of categories in Category:Football clubs in European football. C679 15:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oranje-Vrijstaat Gouwermentspoorwegen locomotives

Nominator's rationale: For some reason the "Move" option refuses to display today, so I went ahead and created a new category, in English instead of Dutch (and a little shorter). Similarly, the "Nominate for deletion" option is also AWOL, hence I'm doing it the hard way here. I created the Dutch category yesterday, but having slept on it, I realised that the Dutch title is not appropriate on the English Wikipedia.
André Kritzinger 14:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Nederlandsche-Zuid-Afrikaansche Spoorwegmaatschappij locomotives

Nominator's rationale: For some reason the "Move" option refuses to display today, so I went ahead and created a new category, in English instead of Dutch (and a LOT shorter). Similarly, the "Nominate for deletion" option is also AWOL, hence I'm doing it the hard way here. I created the Dutch category yesterday, but having slept on it, I realised that the Dutch title is not appropriate on the English Wikipedia.
André Kritzinger 14:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Communities in Vojvodina with sizable ethnic minorities

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These are strangely named categories, with the criteria set out in the category name itself. Setting the cut-off at 5% is somewhat arbitrary. I'm not sure if these can be otherwise renamed to fit in with some sort of broader categorization scheme of categorizing populated places by ethnic minorities. My first impulse would be to have these be listified instead; but perhaps this is defining for the places so categorized? Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:21, 28 December 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:New Zealand pediatricians

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In New Zealand, paediatrics/paediatrician is usually spelled in the UK English way. See, eg, [5], [6]. If renamed, a category redirect would be appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suicides at MIT

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: upmerge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Category:Suicides in the United States generally breaks down by state, but it hasn't been taken much further than that. Category:Suicides in Cambridge, Massachusetts is a possibility, but narrowing it down to the MIT campus seems to me to be a step too granular. I suggest upmerging to Category:Suicides in Massachusetts, which is not so large that breaking it down further by city or other location would be warranted at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:41, 28 December 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:People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent

Nominator's rationale: Delete? Not sure what to do with these ... we generally don't have categories for people by descent from a particular religious group, though I can understand that this particular one might be considered more of an ethnicity? If kept, perhaps a more succinct name could perhaps be found? The British/Canadian one obviously shouldn't keep Canadian and British people grouped together, since doing so is non-standard in categories. If the first category is kept, the British/Canadian one can be upmerged to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned earlier, to avoid any risk of polemics/confusion for lay readers, this category could be renamed « People of Levantine Greek Orthodox descent» = simply removing the word « Christian »... --B.Andersohn (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It is a consequence of the way the millet system worked in the Ottoman Empire (and perhaps mutual excommunication in the late antique period that Christian denominations in the Middle East became endogamous communities and thus quasi-ethnic. The same will apply to Armenian, Maronite, Assyrian and other eastern Christian denominations. We might drop the word "Christian" from this ethnic description. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Clearly Carlossuarez46 has no clue when it comes to Ottoman history and early 20th century immigration patterns to the United States ! « triple intersection » ?? I agree with Peterkingiron : this is a classic « formerly Ottoman » ethnoreligious group- just like e.g. Armenians, Assyrians or Alawis…. etc.
  • A more complete & more « academic » designation could have been : e.g. « People of Greek Orthodox (pertaining to Antiochite and Jerusalemite Patriarchal tradition) and Melkite Greek Catholic descent » but it’s far too long…. And the « Melkite » MENA Greek Catholic Church is itself an offshhot of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch… Levantine is clearly more elegant + more succinct & geographically clearer
  • Bottom Line : I suggest we keep it unchanged Or, if need be, replace it with « People of Levantine Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholic descent» = adding just « Greek Catholic » + removing « Christian » --B.Andersohn (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have no clue and no manners, dude. These descent categories observe the one drop rule at WP, for better or for worse. There is no reason that someone who - way back when - had some ancestor (prove it - mothers' side only, since parentage on the father's side is ultimately speculation) who was a "Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent" has anything really in common with anyone else so "descended". So someone of Greek Orthodox is different than other Christian living side by side, but is it defining especially when we're not talking about the person's beliefs, but the alleged beliefs of his or her ancestor? C'mon, that's trivial overcategorization. And Greek Orthodox people from the Levant are different than anywhere else in the Greek diaspora, another really odd thing when we're talking about someone'e ancestors. It's trivial and you WP:ILIKEIT too much to see clearly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Dude”: You seem to be quite confused… This category has nothing to do with “religion” (as in “religious credence”) or “theology”: as mentioned by most qualified WP participants in this debate, this is first and foremost an ethno-cultural phenomenon re: the descent from a particular ethno-religious minority- well documented + patrilineal for all members of the category in question. Unfortunately, I’m fairly busy and thus won’t have the required time necessary to correct (where can I start?) your ABYSMAL IGNORANCE of BYZANTINE demographics (focusing specifically on the HATAY province of Southern TURKEY, SYRIA, LEBANON and their subtle palette of ETHNO-CULTURAL minorities), TURKISH-OTTOMAN MILLET LAWS and regulation, US IMMIGRATION PATTERNS at the turn of the 20th century (when the aforementioned provinces/countries were still part of the Ottoman empire) … etc….- not to mention syntax and courtesy. But, then again, you have been clearly out-voted by a rational WP consensus formed in favor of keeping the category in question: “I hold firmly to my original views. After all I am a free thinker.” said François-Marie Arouet. Have a nice day, --B.Andersohn (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned earlier, to avoid any risk of polemics/confusion for lay readers, this category could be renamed « People of Levantine Greek Orthodox descent» = simply removing the word « Christian »... --B.Andersohn (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing showing that mere descent from this group makes any difference TODAY from any other group similarly situated. Your striking your own strawman proves you cannot come up with one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we generally avoid designating people by religious descent. The fact is that many of these people are Eastern Christians of some kind and can be so designated. On the other hand if they are not part of any of the involved Christian denominations, it does not really make sense to categorize them by this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has nothing to do with "religion": it's an ethnoreligious group with roots in the Eastern Mediterranean... 'People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent' is perfectly fine. 'People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox descent' is also good. --M McLuhan (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I second M McLuhan! This ethno-religious group consists of Antiochian Christians as well as Lebanese,Syriac Orthodox ie. (Orthodox Christians of Arabic descent) who have nothing to do with ethnic Greeks, although these people refer to themselves as 'Greek Orthodox' due to the classification made by Ottomans in history. See= Rum Millet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%BBm Evangelidis (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Because the Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian where historically a sub-nation (Millet) into the Ottoman Empire with for example a own Civil Law. Thus this category is not only based on religion, but also on national and cultural identity. A ntv (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I was asked to participate with the assumption that I was knowledgeable about these categories. In reality, I'm not much, but I was persuaded by the argumentation presented here: there is a pretty clearly-defined people group, so it seems worthwhile to have these. Does anyone have other CfDs that were comparable? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's nothing wrong with keeping these categories. George Al-Shami (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Category has to be "People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent" with Christian inside, which is particularly important since the group is formed as a Christian group with Eastern/Greek Orthodox branch of Christianity. Moreover, Greek Orthodox Christian does not imply to be of Greek ethnic descent. For example, Russians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians (Bulgaria and Greece are even neighbours) are all Greek Orthodox Christians but are clearly not ethnic Greeks.

Leerssways (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mentally ill monarchs

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not sure what the criteria are for this category, but some of the monarchs who are included lived quite a long time ago, and it's probaably impossible to know whether certain monarchs who are included were mentally ill or not. Historians and doctors often make educated guesses about these sorts of things, but I don't think that means we should be categorizing by such guesses. There is no broader Category:Mentally ill people, either, since that is such a broad and blunt classification. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:28, 28 December 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.

Speedy rename plant genera

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Despite the comment at WP:CFDS, these look like speediable changes to me. If the applicable main articles are moved at any point, then the category names by all means could also be changed to match. I don't see an exception to C2D having to be made here—we normally just match the category names to the article names as they exist and then the category name is changed as the article name changes. But plans to possibly change some of the article names in the future should not hold up implementation of the convention right now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • 'Strong support clearly these are not the primary topic of their respective names. -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per nominator. The categories should their respective main articles. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose some, support others. Just matching the category to a poorly disambiguated article isn't worthwhile since we'll just have to move the category once more when the page gets moved to the proper title. Why not fix all the problems first? (genus) is a poor disambiguator, some will indeed be the primary topic and need to be moved back. Also, I fail to see how the language in Wikipedia:Categorization#Topic category indicates that we must move these categories in line with the article title. All I see is "usually sharing a name..." - not a mandate if I ever heard one. My view of this is simple: if no other topic from the disambiguation page has a category that could be titled the same, there's no need to disambiguate the category. Why must the category and article be titled the same if there's no other competing category? The guideline doesn't say "always" or "should" or "must" but "usually" and that's precisely the case. When Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#C2D was constructed it didn't allow for exceptions and operates under the assumption that the guideline language reads as a mandate to have all categories match their topic article titles and that's something that should change for the occasional exceptions. Regardless, I argue for getting the appropriate pages disambiguated properly first (away from (genus) or (orchid) or (palm) to (plant)) and resolve at least the one primary topic discussion I thought should happen first on Iris, then discuss the moves so that we don't have to twice as much work on the categories. Makes more sense that way to me, at least. Rkitko (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do it this way? Because users always say they will "fix" all the problems, and one of two things often happens: (1) once they have blocked the category renames, they don't bother, or they forget, or whatever. The changes are never proposed. OR (2) they find that the "fixes" are not as clear-cut as they imagined, and they are unsuccessful in getting the changes made that they envisaged. Other users reject their reasoning and the changes are not made, leaving us exactly where we were in the first place. (For instance, it is far from obvious that your opinion that "(genus)" is "a poor disambiguator" would be be supported by a broad consensus.) That's why it's easier to do it this way. Match the category names to the article names. If users want to attempt to change the article names—go for it. If you are successful, the category names can be speedily renamed to match the article name changes that you were able to implement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The categories should indeed match their respective main articles. (The speedies should have gone through, speedily. Anyone who wants to change the article names should go through the usual options, and subsequent corresponding category name changes would again be speedies.) Oculi (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for Attalea. Although the main article is a dab page, the other article linked from the dab page (Antalya) doesn't even use that spelling - it uses Attalea and Attalia, but not Attalea. Granted, the dab page only exists because I was cautious when I created the article about the genus. But the issue of where the article about the genus actually resides, I see no need to create Category:Attalea (palm) when there's no reasonable expectation that anyone would ever create a category for a orthographic variant of a name no one appears to actually be using. Guettarda (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for Maranta. Although Maranta is also used as a surname (and is the name of a minor Dragonlance character), the genus is clearly the major use, and probably the only use for which we could reasonably have a category at present. Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for Zea. The most widely grown crop plant in the world is clearly the dominant use and, again, is the only one we're likely to have a category for at present. Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for Sequoia; again, this is the primary use. Things listed on the dab page named Sequoia (as opposed to Sequoyah, which is also included) are named after the tree. With this spelling, it's clearly the dominant use, and again, it's the only one like to have a category. Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any case where no other category by this name exists. We don't make article - or category - names any longer than they need to be. Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The cats should match the articles. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose Where a genus is large enough to have a category to itself (not all are), there will be many species articles placed in the category. Narcissus tazetta is part of the genus Narcissus not the genus Narcissus (plant). None of the other uses of "Narcissus" are likely to create categories with as many entries. There is no reason why the article and the category have to have precisely the same names. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blanket renaming. The "Georgia" example used above isn't helpful, because there are numerous other "Georgia" categories, including "Georgia (country)". There isn't one single category that starts "Narcissus...", for example, except for the Genus. If in future, "Narcissus" becomes the name of a U.S. state or a nation with categories, then it could be reconsidered. "Sequoia" is another that I would specifically oppose—because there is so little room for confusing the genus category with the Cherokee Sequoyah or with the few place names—along with Zea, Maranta, and probably others. First Light (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your opinion above goes directly against years of consensus w.r.t. naming categories! That's why the speedy criteria exists. Why do users think they can come along and adjust the conventions to their liking on an isolated set of categories rather than seeking to change the underlying conventions? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like Rkitko above, I'm failing to find where in the conventions it says that the category must be exactly the same as the article title. Common sense makes it obvious that some of these genus names, as categories, will not confuse the readers. Certainly we should give them some credit for intelligence. First Light (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course it doesn't say must—hardly anything in WP does because it's all subject to consensus. But the guideline states: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article." Normally suggests that you need a good reason not to conform to that convention. A good reason would be, for instance, not using Category:Tours for the city in France named Tours, since a category named in that way could be confused with music tours, etc. I haven't seen anyone present a good non-subjective reason not the conform to the guideline. One of the reasons that guideline exists is so that we don't have to debate "disambiguate the category or no?" for each and every case in which we have a disambiguated article that has a corresponding topic category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is a good reason. Organisms are classified in a hierarchy which at present matches the category hierarchy, which aids navigation. If the genus Narcissus is part of the subfamily Amaryllidoideae, then Category:Narcissus should be in Category:Amaryllidoideae, not Category:Narcissus (genus) or whatever. Peter coxhead (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • What hierarchy? Orania is also an animal, so why does the plant get priority? -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also Phoebe is both a plant and animal genus. And Calamus, Gaussia, Arachnis, Eucharis, Hypolepis. Your principal of genera taking undisambiguated names simply does not work, since these are all animal genera, yet you state that the plant genera should remain where they are. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wasn't saying, and don't say, that plants have priority or that no category needs renaming. We are considering a request for a speedy rename on the grounds that the category names don't match article names. I strongly oppose the blanket view that the names must match. Each case needs to be considered on its merits. Clearly where there are animal and plant genera of the same name, then at least one of the categories has to be disambiguated and neither plants nor animals should have priority over one another. However, I think there is a case for organisms using the non-disambiguated name if the other topics involved are inanimate. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • If you strongly disagree with the current convention, it suggests that you could make strong efforts elsewhere to change the convention rather than simply opposing its implementation in isolated cases of application. I disagree that the reason you have provided is a "good reason". In this case, it creates differences in naming between article and category, which is confusing and unhelpful to those who come at the scheme cold. You are proposing a system of naming that is completely new, highly subjective, and for those reasons, I think, has not been implemented elsewhere. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename these to match the articles now, and if the articles get moved, they can be speedy renamed later. Experience says Good Ol'factory is right on the mark with his comment that leaving the categories alone because the articles might be renamed later will as often or not remain for months/years as an unfinished job. Most of these, the article clearly does not belong at the disambiguated title, so the real argument is to delay in case we say move from (genus) to (plant) or something similar. IMO there may be occasional reason to disambiguate a category when the article is not, but there is NO good reason to do the reverse, and have undisambiguated categories for a disambiguated article. --Qetuth (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a good reason. For plants and animals, the category hierarchy matches the classification hierarchy. Category:Narcissus belongs to Category:Amaryllidoideae and so on upwards, just as the genus Narcissus is in the subfamily Amaryllidoideae and so on upwards. None of the other disambiguated articles are involved in a comparable classification hierarchy. Peter coxhead (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's just not true: Check Orania for the first example I found. Anyway, all you are saying is that plant classification heirarchy should take precedence over everything else, including animal classification heirarchy, not to mention long-standing convention. I've still yet to see an actual reason why. --Qetuth (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply opposed to the view that category names must match article names. There are good reasons to try to use non-disambiguated category names for the scientific names of organisms (plants have no priority over others, I just happened to use a plant exampe). All I'm trying to argue is that there should be no blanket decision; each case should be considered on its merits, and where the name of one of the topics needing disambiguation is the scientific name of an organism, there are rational reasons not to disambiguate the category. Whether these should prevail should be decided case-by-case. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are these good reasons? I have just reread this entire argument and the only reason I see is that eg the name of the genus is 'Narcissus', not 'Narcissus (genus)' - an argument which could apply to ANY disambiguated title - there has not, after all, been a film called 'Narcissus (1983 film)' nor a mythological figure called 'Narcissus (mythology)'. The reasons to disambiguate categories, on the other hand, include so that a category is where editors expect it to be based on the article name, and so that a category doesn't collect inappropriate articles and require excess maintenance. These have a history of being seen as valuable reasons by the wider community. (It also, incidentally, helps prevent incorrect use of tags like {{Cat main}} which I notice most of these categories currently have). Another major reason to have such a wide convention is to save having to have the exact same argument over thousands of categories - ie, after it is decided there is no primary topic for articles, ask is there a primary topic for categories. The answer to this, in many cases, will change over time, so we are unneccesarily creating work, for what gain? --Qetuth (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are, for example, some 250-300 species of Iris. WP:PLANTS aims to have articles on every species. When someone writes an article on, say, Iris suaveolens, they would naturally expect to use [[Category:Iris|suaveolens]]. Requiring them instead to use [[Category:Iris (plant)|suaveolens]] makes extra work and increases the chances of errors. All I say is that cases should be decided on their merits. If a genus has few species and another meaning is likely to have more entries into its category, then do it one way. But if a genus has many species and none of the other disambiguated categories is likely to acquire many entries in its category, then do it the other way. I'm against a blanket ban and in favour of deciding each case on its merits. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused as to User:Peter coxhead's argument. Above, it sounded like he supported the convention but was arguing that there was a "good reason" to depart from the usual practice of matching category name to article name. Now here, it sounds like he is against the convention and in favour of deciding each individual case at CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_28&oldid=531872415"