Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 18: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:25, 19 November 2009

< November 17	November 19 >

November 18

Category:Mixed martial artists from Georgia

Propose renaming Category:Mixed martial artists from Georgia to Category:Mixed martial artists from Georgia (U.S. state)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Speedy rename criterion #6 was eliminated because 2 editors objected to it. Great: now this gets to come to a full nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename and make this a speedy again! Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename and make this a speedy again, speedily. Occuli (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wines

Suggest merging Category:Wines to Category:Wine

Suggest merging Category:Wines by country to Category:Wine by country

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination only, I have no opinion on the merits. I found these categories empty, with category:Wines marked for deletion at C:CSD, and it appears that they have been emptied outside of CFD and the contents merged into Category:Wine and Category:Wine by country respectively. Was this allowed and / or a good idea? As I think that community input would be a good idea, I bring it to CFD. Discuss. (I have notified the editor who seems to have emptied the category and the editor who contested the speedy deletion.) Bencherlite ^Talk 20:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The Wine Project is currently in the midst of tackling our long neglected and messy category hierarchy which User:Tomas e has taken the lead on. Because of this previous neglect, we have a lot of duplicate categories created for the same set of articles. In the above examples we essentially have overlaps of both the plural and singular usage of "wine". I can tell there is no situation where an article would only qualify for one of the categories and not the other, so there is no reason to have this needless duplication. There should be no controversy here as it just simple clean up that has been long overdue. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you discuss the fact that within the category structure categories like Category:Wines and Category:Wine are for containing two different types of material and are not always duplicates? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that both categories' usage in the past has been schizophrenic and non-cohesive but that is, again, due to the long neglect and messy nature of wine categories. Until now, no one has tackled the issue of straightening them out, giving them order and consistent usage. That said, looking at it from a wine perspective, there is no reason while their usage should have ever been different and, thusly, no reason why we should continue having duplicate categories going forward. An individual wine (singular) is not different from wines (plural). There is no organizational benefit in having the wine Chateau Petrus in a different category hierarchy then other Bordeaux wines, etc. Again, looking at the category structure for wine articles, I can not see a valid example where the singular/plural distinction will need to be made in order to properly categorize wine articles. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this issue was one where it could be interesting to WP:WINE to have a record of my thinking, which would be a little to long to include here, I wrote an explanation of the background over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine#Categorization_of_wine_articles.2C_and_the_.22Category:WineS.22_hierarchy. It boils down to articles strictly on "wines" rather than anything else under Category:Wine (such as wineries, wine regions, appellations or grape varieties) being very, very few, and usually not notable. The distinction between wine and wines has seldom been understood by most people who applied the latter to articles, and has caused more confusion. Tomas e (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Category:Wines and its parent category Category:Wine, and place articles in both as appropriate. There are plenty of instances of Category:Foo and Category:Foos throughout wikipedia (eg the admirably organised Category:Opera and Category:Operas). Chateau Petrus is a specific French wine (going in Category:French wines, deleted yesterday via an out-of-process emptying) and Bordeaux is a type of French wine (going in Category:French wine). Voilà; c'est très facile. Occuli (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually...Chateau Petrus is a wine producer who makes a wine that is also named "Chateau Petrus". I think you just stumbled upon a great example of why having this needless plural/singular distinction can lead to a lot of useless confusion. There will never be a separate Chateau Petrus (wine) article that is distinguish from an article on the producer itself. It makes no sense to separate them. Neither does it make sense to have separate Category:Wines (plural) for "specific wines" since almost universally the articles are going to be on the producer and the Category:Wine (singular) they make. I'm not sure how much experience you have dealing with wine articles, but I can assure you that wine is a distinctly different beast than Opera. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB This has been at cfd previously. The matter is specifically addressed at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Special_conventions. Occuli (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oui Keep per Occuli. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useless duplicate cats Just to make my sentiments clear. This is simple housekeeping for the Wine Project, nothing more. As the Chateau Petrus example put forth by Occuli above shows, having duplicate categories create unneeded confusion. While Opera may needed separate categories for individual opera plays to distinguish them from the writers and play houses that produces them, there is simply not the same dichotomy with wine where the individual specific wines are almost universally discussed in the same article as the winery and estate that produces them. We will never have a separate article on the "specific wine" of the 2005 Quilceda Creek Columbia Valley Cabernet Sauvignon that got a rare 100 points from Robert Parker that would be a distinct article apart from the article on the producer Quilceda Creek Vintners. I say "almost universally" because there maybe exceptions but they will be just that, exceptions, and there is little logical sense to have essentially duplicate categories created for what may only be 2 to 5 articles out of thousands that won't need it. I understand the sentiments towards WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, but you can't apply cookie cutter logic to all topics-sometimes the categorization just doesn't make sense for the subject matter. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both per nom. I can see the logic of the argument. I hope the reorganization has a long way to go, as a lot of the categories are very messy indeed. Most of the articles in the head cat of Category:Wine styles don't belong, & a better term is needed for "regions" that are just villages like Pauillac (3,000 acres of vines) etc. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment – it is difficult to discuss the merits of organising Category:Italian wine with a subcat Category:Italian wines (for individual wines) when the latter has been demolished recently by out-of-process edits. To judge from comments here and elsewhere there might be a good case for renaming Category:Italian wines to Category:Italian wine varieties. As it is there are various subcats such as 'wines of Apulia' which are adrift. Occuli (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgia Institute of Technology athletes

Suggest merging Category:Georgia Institute of Technology athletes to Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets athletes

Nominator's rationale: convention for naming university athletes (ie. sportspeople) for American universities is by that (school's sports) team's nickname - see subcategories of Category:Intercollegiate athletes in the United States by team Mayumashu (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mutualism

Propose renaming Category:Mutualism to Category:Mutualism (movement)

Nominator's rationale: In line with the article (to be created) and to not confuse it with Mutualism multichill (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the moment. I agree that something has to be done to move away from the biological term, but this seems premature as the related article does not yet exist, so the respective roles of the several possible categories are unclear. In particular, is Mutualism (movement) proposed to be distinct from Mutualism (economic theory)? Which name should ultimately contain historical and contemporary Proudhonist movements and which should contain historical insurers and contemporary LETS schemes etc? (Depending on proposed content, it may be better to avoid the "-ism (foo)" and opt for "-ist foos" in the article/category naming?) AllyD (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Ireland

Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Ireland - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is only one article (i.e. Dunbrody (2001)) for this category and for its parent category (see below) and they both have the wrong name. There is Category:Museums in the Republic of Ireland, which I have already assigned to the article, and all its subcategories follow this naming. However I find that two categories (even properly named) for just one article are not useful. Hoverfish Talk 06:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transport museums in Ireland - This is its parent category that I also propose for deletion for the same reason. Hoverfish Talk 06:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After the above nomination I did find a National Transport Museum of Ireland and a National Maritime Museum of Ireland under Category:History museums in the Republic of Ireland and Category:Museums in County Dublin. Even so, I don't find them enough to justify renaming the above categories instead of deleting them. Hoverfish Talk 06:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both per WP:OC#SMALL, as part of Category:Maritime museums and museum ships by country and Category:Transport museums by country resp. Occuli (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. The category structure is a mess. The top category is Category:Maritime museums, subcat Category:Museum ships (which is fine). The obvious sub-schemes would be Category:Maritime museums by country and Category:Museum ships by country rather than this bizarre formulation. Occuli (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both per WP:OC#SMALL, per Occuli. The transport museums category has potential for expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if keep, then at least Rename them to the correct country name which would be Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in the Republic of Ireland and Category:Transport museums in the Republic of Ireland. As they are they form a separate "Ireland" country category. Hoverfish Talk 11:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Occuli about restructuring the categories to maritime museums and ship museums. In this case it should be Category:Maritime museums in the Republic of Ireland, Category:Museum ships in the Republic of Ireland and Category:Transport museums in the Republic of Ireland. Hoverfish Talk 11:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral There is not much point in have categories with few entries. Which is another reason to suggest that we leave it at Ireland rather than RoI. The National Maritime Museum of Ireland attempts to represent the island. Although its closed (last special opening 6 Oct for Wikipedia:Meetup/Ireland) other activities such as the commemoration for those lost at sea next Sunday will have Belfast delegations laying wreaths. (btw - all welcome). Although the irish government has paid capital grants there is no regular government funding. ClemMcGann (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Just what is meant by Museum ship? Is it a ship housing a museum? if so then exclude the Dunbrody. Is is a ship which would deserve to be regarded as a museum exhibit in its own right? if so then include the Jeanie Johnston. ClemMcGann (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer A Museum ship is a ship that has been preserved and converted into a museum open to the public, for educational or memorial purposes. If this is not the case with Dunbrody, please remove the category. Hoverfish Talk 17:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would we be better served by deleting Category:Maritime museums and museum ships by country and paired subcategories and just creating Category:Maritime museums by country and Category:Maritime museum ships by country? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was also proposed above by Occuli. I agree with Category:Maritime museums by country but I would name the other as Category:Museum ships by country to fit with Category:Museum ships. Hoverfish Talk 06:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Ireland into Category:Maritime museums in the Republic of Ireland and Category:Museum ships in the Republic of Ireland. Then reparent to Category:Museum ships by country or Category:Maritime museums by country and then cleanup parenting and nominate the other members of Category:Maritime museums and museum ships by country for splitting (or add them to this nomination to save time). Rename Category:Transport museums in Ireland to Category:Transport museums in the Republic of Ireland. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PRC films

Propose renaming Category:PRC films to Category:Producers Releasing Corporation films

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest expanding abbreviation to match main article Producers Releasing Corporation. These are not films about or from the People's Republic of China. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match main article and avoid the obvious possibility for confusion mentioned in the nom. --RL0919 (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ASA films

Propose renaming Category:ASA films to Category:ASA Filmudlejning films

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article ASA Filmudlejning. These are not films about Aspirin. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match main article. --RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murdered children

Propose renaming Category:New Zealand murdered children to Category:Murdered New Zealand children

Propose renaming Category:British murdered children to Category:Murdered British children

Propose renaming Category:Scottish murdered children to Category:Murdered Scottish children

Propose renaming Category:English murdered children to Category:Murdered English children

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All other nationality subcategories of Category:Murdered children phrase the categories "Murdered Fooian children". Suggest renaming these for consistency. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, for consistency. Consistency in the format of category names helps editors to add articles to appropriate categories, and helps readers to find the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, for consistency. It should be "Murdered Fooian children". Occuli (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mark Haddon

Category:Mark Haddon - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category has exactly 1 article, Mark Haddon (so it isn't quite a C1), and that article is also a member of the parent Category:English children's writers. Haddon is the only author in that category to have his own eponymous sub-category. RL0919 (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although there is Category:Novels by Mark Haddon. Occuli (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Failed assassins of Hitler

Propose renaming Category:Failed assassins of Hitler to Category:Failed assassins of Adolf Hitler

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Include full name per main article Adolf Hitler and Category:Adolf Hitler. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency with the main article name, although I doubt anyone will be confused about which Hitler people were trying to assassinate! --RL0919 (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cha Cha Cha films

Propose renaming Category:Cha Cha Cha films to Category:Cha Cha Cha Films films

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Cha Cha Cha Films. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Normally I would support a rename to match the main article, but "Films films" gives me pause. I wonder if this deserves an exception. --RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See a recent discussion for a similar one. I think it's probably just easier to apply the standard rule. If we made an exception for "Film films", why would we not also make exceptions for ones like Category:Touchstone Pictures films, Category:Columbia Pictures films, Category:40 Acres & A Mule Filmworks films, and others? After all, "Pictures films" and "Fimworks films" is just as quote-unquote "redundant"-sounding. I think it's probably easier to just have a standard rather than trying to individualise each one separately. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see your point, but most film companies aren't named "Word Word Word Films". Adding another repeating word just sounds like a joke. I'm not going to formally oppose because my concern is aesthetic and possibly idiosyncratic, but I can't quite bring myself to support either. --RL0919 (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would also be easier to justify an exception if "Cha Cha Cha" was not as ambiguous as it is. The proposed name is quite humorous-sounding, though. We could use Category:Films produced by Cha Cha Cha Films but if we did that I imagine eventually someone would speedy #4 it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC
Rename to Category:Films by Cha Cha Cha Films or a like name. "Films films" is confusing. It is better to give it a good name and risk it will be speedied (#4) to a bad name than to give it a bad name straight-away. I would be fine with them all being changed to "Films by Foo" if others feel that having one standard rule is important. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 05:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 *'''Merge useless duplicate cats''' Just to make my sentiments clear. This is simple housekeeping for the [[WP:WINE|Wine Project]], nothing more. As the [[Chateau Petrus]] example put forth by Occuli above shows, having duplicate categories create unneeded confusion. While Opera may needed separate categories for individual opera plays to distinguish them from the writers and play houses that produces them, there is simply not the same dichotomy with wine where the individual specific wines are almost universally discussed in the same article as the winery and estate that produces them. We will never have a separate article on the "specific wine" of the [[2005 Quilceda Creek Columbia Valley Cabernet Sauvignon]] that got a rare 100 points from Robert Parker that would be a distinct article apart from the article on the producer [[Quilceda Creek Vintners]]. I say "almost universally" because there maybe exceptions but they will be just that, ''exceptions'', and there is little logical sense to have essentially duplicate categories created for what may only be 2 to 5 articles out of thousands that won't need it. I understand the sentiments towards [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST]], but you can't apply cookie cutter logic to all topics-sometimes the categorization just doesn't make sense for the subject matter. [[User:Agne27 |Agne]][[Special:Contributions/Agne27|<sup>Cheese</sup>]]/[[User Talk:Agne27|<sup>Wine</sup>]] 01:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Merge''' both per nom. I can see the logic of the argument. I hope the reorganization has a long way to go, as a lot of the categories are very messy indeed. Most of the articles in the head cat of [[:Category:Wine styles]] don't belong, & a better term is needed for "regions" that are just villages like [[Pauillac]] (3,000 acres of vines) etc. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 03:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
+* '''Further comment''' – it is difficult to discuss the merits of organising [[:Category:Italian wine]] with a subcat [[:Category:Italian wines ]] (for individual wines) when the latter has been demolished recently by [http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:Rmcx6nSuEmQJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Italian_wines+Category:Italian+wines&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk out-of-process edits]. To judge from comments here and elsewhere there might be a good case for renaming [[:Category:Italian wines]] to [[:Category:Italian wine varieties]]. As it is there are various subcats such as 'wines of Apulia' which are adrift. [[User:Occuli|Occuli]] ([[User talk:Occuli|talk]]) 10:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 ==== Category:Georgia Institute of Technology athletes ====