Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 4: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 29: Line 29:
:*'''Propose deleting''' [[:Category:Sportspeople from Fingal]]
:*'''Propose deleting''' [[:Category:Sportspeople from Fingal]]
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Unnecessary superfluous category for administrative counties who should not have these categories[[User:Finnegas|Finnegas]] ([[User talk:Finnegas|talk]]) 22:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Unnecessary superfluous category for administrative counties who should not have these categories[[User:Finnegas|Finnegas]] ([[User talk:Finnegas|talk]]) 22:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' As nom. I wish to withdraw the nomination to to centeralise the discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland] [[User:Finnegas|Finnegas]] ([[User talk:Finnegas|talk]]) 00:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
*'''keep''', unless the nominator can explain the difference between this county and the others in {{cl|Sportspeople_by_county_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland}}, and why such a difference should matter w.r.t. categorization. --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi|talk]]) 22:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
*'''keep''', unless the nominator can explain the difference between this county and the others in {{cl|Sportspeople_by_county_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland}}, and why such a difference should matter w.r.t. categorization. --[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi|talk]]) 22:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
*'''Comment''', The difference is that their is 26 counties in Ireland. However, the county bondaries have been altered for administrative purposes and Fingal is a recent creation. The [[GAA]] and many others use the traditional 26 even car reg's. People address's still are Co Dublin not Fingal and they would self identify as being from Dublin not Fingal [[User:Finnegas|Finnegas]] ([[User talk:Finnegas|talk]]) 23:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
*'''Comment''', The difference is that their is 26 counties in Ireland. However, the county bondaries have been altered for administrative purposes and Fingal is a recent creation. The [[GAA]] and many others use the traditional 26 even car reg's. People address's still are Co Dublin not Fingal and they would self identify as being from Dublin not Fingal [[User:Finnegas|Finnegas]] ([[User talk:Finnegas|talk]]) 23:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:10, 7 April 2013

April 4

Category:Super Rugby squads

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It's a template category. I also propose using the word "team" to match the category Category:Super Rugby teams. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Major gods

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category is not well defined or otherwise redundant with various categories that list gods by function. Category will see very limited growth outside of its one page by the same name, Major gods which is also up for deletion. Penitence (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Same problem as with article: indiscriminate membership. Mangoe (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete requires original research to determine what is a "major" god. While the list article may prevaricate with various sources disputing each other, that won't work well for categories. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete subjective. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The list article is entirely unsourced, and the definition unclear. Dimadick (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no method of defining inclusion. The one article is unsourced and gives us no guidance on how to limit inclusion. Considering how many deities there are in Hindusim I can see where this category might be deemed neccesary, but I think there are much better ways to cover it. Anyway, it is not clear we would have an article on a god who was not deemed major by someone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hindu gods and its sub-categories have about 150 categories. However Vishnu is the Supreme God, and many Hindus only worship him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it Brahma? I've been told such before. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The single list article will need to be reparented. That article is currently dealing only with the Greek and Aztec pantheons, and possibly that article should also be deleted, in favour of a list of list articles for each religion. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sportspeople from Fingal

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary superfluous category for administrative counties who should not have these categoriesFinnegas (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As nom. I wish to withdraw the nomination to to centeralise the discussion at [1] Finnegas (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, unless the nominator can explain the difference between this county and the others in Category:Sportspeople_by_county_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland, and why such a difference should matter w.r.t. categorization. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, The difference is that their is 26 counties in Ireland. However, the county bondaries have been altered for administrative purposes and Fingal is a recent creation. The GAA and many others use the traditional 26 even car reg's. People address's still are Co Dublin not Fingal and they would self identify as being from Dublin not Fingal Finnegas (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I count 42 cats with fingal in the name, so unless you have a good argument to delete all of them, I don't see any good reason to delete this one. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The nominator is aware, or ought to be aware of the existence of a stable tree structure for certain traditional Irish counties, some of which have been abolished. That structure is that the old, traditional county largely serves a role as a container category with it's sole children being the modern counties into which it is now split. Occasionally, other categories appear with the modern counties. So "Foo in Fingal" / "Foo in South Dublin (county)" / "Foo in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown" / "Foo in Dublin (city)" all have a reporting relationship, among others, to "Foo in County Dublin". Similarly, "Foo in North Tipperary" and "Foo in South Tipperary" all have a reporting relationship, among others, to "Foo in County Tipperary". Ditto for Waterford city, Galway city, Cork city and Limerick city.`
  • Comment The nominator is aware, of the existence of a tree structure largely created by you Laurel Lodged where you created unnecessary admin county categories.Finnegas (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the nominator emptied the category out of process. I was obliged to re-populate it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there are categories Category:People from Fingal and Category:Sportspeople from North Tipperary so appears to form a natural part of the category tree. Tim! (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. County Dublin is no longer an administrative county, and Fingal is one of the 4 sub-divisions which replaced it for administrative purposes. These new counties have clearly defined and stable boundaries, and form an excellent basis for sub-dividing Category:County Dublin. The population of County Dublin is about 25% of the population of the entire state, so subdividing it makes for more manageable categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dublin was a county years before it had a county council and is still a county.County Dublin categories dont need to sub divided via admin counties. Just because it has 20% of the states population does not mean it will an unmanageable amount of individuals. Finnegas (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fingal exists under the 1994 legislation solely and exclusively for the purposes of local government, i.e. housing, planning, rubbish collections, library services and the like. County Dublin under the same Act remains in existence and is the entity with which people actually identify. No-one in Ireland says that they are "from county Fingal"; anyone born within that sub-district of County Dublin is less than 20 years old (self corrected) and is therefore highly unlikely to merit a WP article. Brocach (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Broach is being disingenous in argument. The 2001 legislation revisred the 1994 legislation and made Fingal a county, whatever it was exactly in 1994. Anyway, since we have Category:People from Fingal, this is a broader issue than what is discussed. Fingal is a county, and the article on it clearly indicates this is an ancient and historic name. The 1994 act is neteither the first nor last word on the issue. Also, I am not sure how Brocach can claim that 1994 was less than 10-years ago. Lastly, from does not equal born.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Brocach is not being disingenuous; he is being intentionally misleading. He knows perfectly well that Fingal was created by the Local Government (Dublin) Act 1993, because that has been pointed out to him in several recent discussions on related categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: it is out of order to accuse me of "being intentionally misleading". A bit of civility, BHG. I do not dispute that Fingal came into being on 1 January 1994 as an administrative county under the 1993 Act. My point is that it was created only for local government purposes, and its creation does not mean that County Dublin ceased to exist on that date for anything other than local government purposes. County Dublin is the county that people are "from" because, as I suspect all Irish contributors here know, people just do not identify as being "from" Fingal or "from" Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. I'm sorry for the typo where I referred to 1994 as 10 years ago, have corrected that above; do I need to say again that that was not "being intentionally misleading"? Brocach (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response 2 Fingal is dissed because it "was created only for local government purposes", as opposed to County Dublin which was created for what purpose exactly? The storage of popcorn? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- WE probably need 5 categories, a continuing County Dublin one for pre-1994 entries and as a parent for the rest. In England, we frequently split people categories by district (a subdivision of county) or London Borough, so that I see no reason why the principle should not be applied to split Co Dublin categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Needed as a subcat of the County Dublin category. Also, no matter how many Brocach repeats that Fingal only exists for local government purposes only, he is still wrong, every time! Snappy (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories named after festivals

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Festivals

If necessary, and if Festivals is considered too broad in scope, then create "Category:Individual festivals" or somesuch.

This category though has a name "Wikipedia categories named after ..." and is also tagged as an admin-only category. Both of these are superfluous, for what is still just a content category. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this category contains eponymous categories for festivals not festival articles. Tim! (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's little call to delete this, it's really a question of naming. Yes, there is clearly a need for a content category describing individual notable festivals. This can usefully be made distinct from festivals in general. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we desire a category to contain content on individual festivals – I think we agree that much. So Category:Individual festivals works fine for that. To refute the name as it is:
  • Why should this be a "Wikipedia category"? (whatever that is) This is just a content category, same as nearly every other category. This isn't any sort of maintenance category.
  • Why should this be a metacat, ie a category of categories only? MediaWiki has no such arbitrary distinction, why should we pretend there is one?
  • Why is this thought to be a "maintenance" category?
  • How are readers helped by isolating this category from other content categories?
  • How are readers helped by a convoluted name of "Wikipedia categories about individual festivals" rather than merely "Individual festivals"? Why is the extra flim-flam helpful?
Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not that keen on the form and making the categories hidden, but no one seems to be able to agree quite how eponymous categories should themselves be categorised other than they should not be categorised the same as articles. Tim! (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queens

Propose renaming

"Queens"/"Queens, New York City" to "Queens (borough)"
  • Rationalle: Per parent category, Category:Queens (borough); additionally, a few of these are ambiguous (History, Culture). Armbrust The Homunculus 20:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "Queens, New York City", since the usual format is to use the city name. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Queens (borough) per recent CfD; even if we go back to the old format, prefer "Queens, New York" over "Queens, New York City", as it's also accurate and non-ambiguous. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to something. I don't care which form is used, but whichever form is chosen should be applied consistently. If pushed for a preference, I'd prefer "Queens, New York" as the shortest natural-language form. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Queens, New York.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all, except those which are ambiguous (e.g. history, culture). We only need to add disambiguation when there is a chance of confusion - this nom throws out the baby with the bathwater. Most of these cats are just fine where they are - I'd say most should be renamed to Queens (again, except in cases where there might be ambiguity).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Consistency is a long-standing and well-accepted principle of category names, so much so that we have a speedy renaming criterion (WP:C2C) to achieve it. Obi offers no reason for treating Queens as an exception to C2C, so Obi's proposal really is a radical change to that principle. That would need a much wider consensus than can be achieved in one CFD; it would need an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think in this case, WP:IAR may apply. There are *so* many Queens categories, and anyone looking at them will find them totally unambiguous. There are only a very few that need (and already have) disambiguation - make those all the same (NY, borough, whatever), but wholesale cluttering just for the sake of a few seems to me like misapplication of the principal of consistency. As Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Consistency in category names is not foolish. On the contrary, it is the crucial property which allows editors to categorise articles without having to check the category tree for the name of every single category they apply. Without that consistency, fewer articles will be correctly categorised.
          Consistency also allows the use of , which help readers by adding an extra navigational model. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What naming convention applies to boroughs? While these are in fact a part of NYC, they are also US counties. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename while Queens is on this subject, I think it is too ambiguous for a category name. I would go for Queens, New York. It might not be fully correct in all ways, but it would most reflect actual usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I have no strong view as to what the target should be but Category:Queens would be highly misleading, because it might refer to queens regnant and queens consort. The article for Birmingham is there, but its categories are at Birmingham, West Midlands, to prevent things relating to Birmingham, AL appearing. Certainly as a bare (parent) category, Queens will need a disambiguator, but there is no reason why its subcategories for things "in Queens" should always have to, assuming there are no other significant places called Queens. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose, although in some cases I'd say Strong Oppose - I don't see this gigantic renaming campaign happening with any other borough of New York City. In the case of categories like Category:New York City Subway stations in Queens, adding (borough) as a qualifier is extremely redundant. It's New York City. What other "Queens" could you possibly be referring to here? -------User:DanTD (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons in Romanian rugby union

Propose upmerging:
45 other similar categories
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, Merge all to the appropriate Category:YYYY in Romanian sport or merge the pre-2008–09 categories. (I have not listed the merge targets, because this will need to be done manually).
These malformed categories are part of a series which should be grouped under Category:Seasons in Romanian rugby union, but that categ doesn't exist and these categs are all a mess. They mostly contain only 1 page, and only two of them exceeds 5 pages; none of the pre-2009 categs exceeds 2 pages, which is why I suggest that editors may prefer to delete the pre-2009 categs.
In most cases, the category contains only "YYYY FIRA Trophy " (e.g. 1985–87 FIRA Trophy), and those articles already grouped in Category:FIRA tournaments.
There is no reasonable prospect that these categories will be expanded in the near future, and this huge number of categories simply impedes navigation by providing a useless extra layer.
If editors decide to keep the 2009-onwards categories (or indeed any of the categories), then they will need to fixed and parented under a new Category:Seasons in Romanian rugby union. But do we really need year-country-sport category series for every possible permutation? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Romania has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Rugby union has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be closed to reflect the outcome of the Spanish category, please. Most of the articles relate to participation in an international competition, which feels to me far too like performance by performer. Hence Merge all together. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mystery films by country

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, contains several sub-categories with only one film each. In addition, the handful of sub-categories could all be upmerged to Category:Mystery films. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, films shouldn't be categorized this deep by country. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As part of a bigger scheme of films by genre and country. Why delete just the parent category and not the child categories? What's the rational for keeping Category:American mystery films‎ and not Category:Brazilian mystery films‎? Populate the under-populated categories. If you meant that the under-populated categories should be deleted, you'll need to tag those categories too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, they're just poorly populated. I added a few so all categories at least have more than one article now. Smetanahue (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that I nominated this for deletion because of the under-populated sub-categories, so I officially withdraw my nomination. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note. Ordinarily, a withdrawn nomination is closed. But since there is already a !vote to delete, this one stays open. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be pragmatic. As the !vote hasn't actually cited a policy based reason for their comment, this should be closed, with no problem if that user (or anyone else) wishes to re-nominate it with a sound based rationale. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States proposed federal legislation of the 113th Congress

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Much simpler name. —GoldRingChip 17:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- All the artilces are labelled as "acts". Do they beceome acts until they have passed both houses and the president? In UK, they would be bills, and I tought US also sued the term. The present headnote tries to look back from 2016. I apprecate that WP ties to be timeless, but I would have thought the use of the futuree tense "will" would be more appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who read Isaac Asimov

Nominator's rationale: Overly-narrow Wikipedian category. Comes from these two userboxes. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, having "Science fiction fans" is enough. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not useful in building an encyclopedia and how much Asimov must one have read to be in the category? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Doesn't hurt the project is benign. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sharia

Nominator's rationale: The term sharia by itself is ambiguous. Sharia can mean street. It can mean dispensation. Furthermore, "sharia law" is used by notable academic publishers. This reame is to ensure categorization does not go off-topic. Pass a Method talk 14:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Article is at Sharia, and many discussions led to that. I suggest looking at those previous discussions to understand why the consensus ended up here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Sharia law makes it clear what the scope of the category is meant to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If nom is correct, it is the article that needs renaming. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article is fine as it is because there is no danger of the scope being misdirected at other articles. Pass a Method talk 21:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animal cruelty

Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be a clear example of POV, with people adding this template arbitrarily to a whole mix of articles. This seems to be a way of condemming certain practices whilst circumventing POV and and PROVEIT rules. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 10:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an encyclopedic topic, per the head article Cruelty to animals. The category includes numerous articles which definitely belong here, such as the Cruelty to Animals Act 1849/1835/1876 and California Proposition 6 (1998). It is needed as a grouping for those articles.
    However, the category is also used for articles such as Donkey-baiting, docking (dog), and other topics where there is (sadly) a POV that such things are no cruel. We may need to create a more neutrally-named sub-cat for that sort of topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case, if that's the grouping required, then the category should presumably be 'Animal cruelty legislation', which is much more descriptive, and does not fall foul of POV? OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 14:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see 8 pieces of legislation, which could go into a Category:Animal cruelty legislation, but that should be a sub-cat of Category:Animal cruelty. However, that doesn't resolve the question of what to do with the rest. Deleting the category is not a solution, because most of these articles are clearly defined by their perception as cruel. There are plenty of reliable sources to describe cockfighting etc as cruel, but there are POVs which contest this. What we need is a sub-category with a less prescriptive term, one which respects both points of view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As you've quite rightly pointed out it is a 'perception' of cruel, which will vary from person to person. That makes it inherently POV (and its not just POVs that contest cock fighting being cruel - those who agree that is cruel also have a POV). Don't disagree that a category could be needed, and so a rename might be the right answer. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 20:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Animal protection as the topic concerns protection of animals - whether due to cruelty or greed or "development" and can include endangered species legislation, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems like a good compromise name. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 20:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Cruelty to animals to match article Cruelty to animals. Tim! (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This still seems like POV. Someone needs to decide that there is cruelty, and that is a judgement and POV. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 20:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are there any articles in the category which you think may be inappropriate? Tim! (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or delete: But to a non-POV name, perhaps Category:Animal welfare controversies or something. Montanabw(talk) 20:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to Category:Animal welfare controversies, I like that one. Could also have a subcat for animal cruelty legislation, as the legislation is so named.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that 'animal welfare controversies' sounds like a much better litle. I'd have thought though that the legislation wouldn't then sit comfortably as subcategory, and would be better in its own. Also wondering if that would need a different (neutral) lane like Category:Animal protection legislation - especially as not many countries enact legislation in order to be cruel to animals - they enact it to protect them. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 07:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename of delete - Agree that Category:Animal cruelty is subjective and culture-bound. Category:Animal welfare controversies is better. Star767 22:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Cruelty to animals or Keep Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The nominator's rational is that the category is "subjective", I agree with him, however don't we have Category:Superstitions? Now what is faith and what is superstition? For an atheist all faith is superstition, for a mono-theist, polytheism is superstition, for one who believes in rebirth, the concept of "eternal damnation" is superstition, for many "the fact that God created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh" is superstition, for a non-believer "virgin birth" and "resurrection" is superstition. Another such subjective category that comes to mind is Category:Terrorism, were the acts of killing 200000 humans, children, women, non-combatants, doctors, the invalid: using two bombs, acts of terror? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can Bullfighting which is now categorised as Category:Animal cruelty be categorised by Category:Animal welfare legislation. I opine that a notice be put on all articles that are categorised as Category:Animal Cruelty so as to get an adequate response to this debate. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can animal euthanasia be categorized as aminal cruelty, which it is, as in the subcat Category:Animal killing. Animal welfare is the neutral term and encompasses both things that may be beneficial to animals (protection of endangered species, say - but if we save the whales we also kill the plankton/fish/seals, whatever the whales eat, and animal euthanasia which may spare fido pain and save his owners' some cash...) and that which is clearly of no value to the animals (killing off termites to protect our property, animal sacrifice - assuming that religion is always false, and the like). Lots of POV, like "cruelty". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Saving whales isn't bad for its prey, particularly in waters where it is native, predators play a vital role in preserving ecological balance. There is an editor at talk:Fox hunting who claims that "foxes would suffer a slow death from disease or mange" and tearing them apart using hounds is kindness, predators play a role in controlling prey populations. If you feel that Animal euthanasia is mis-categorised as "Animal cruelty", discuss on the talk page to take that category label off, "don't throw baby with the bath water". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an inherently subjective, Point-of-view pushing name. That we have others does not mean we should have this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at the superstition category, the more I think we should delete it. It shouts out "we are smarter than those dumb people in the past who believed people got sick from night air".John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geocaching in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: This category appears to contain articles about places where geocaching has taken place. Geocaching is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of most/all of those places. Categories like this could lead to a huge amount of category clutter. DexDor (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion per DexDor unless the category can be usefully repurposed. What I mean by this is that in its present form, as DexDor notes, it simply seems to be a list of places. I saw it because it had been added to Angel of the North, where it seems to be wholly without use or significant meaning. By the rationale that put it there, it should be everywhere that geocaching has ever taken place, which is essentially a significant proportion of every notable place in the UK, which means it is without use and is covered perfectly by the first paragraph of the Geocaching article where it says "outdoor recreational activity" then "anywhere in the world". At the moment the category has 10 articles - but it should probably have 10000 or 100000, or rather it should be deleted to avoid this ridiculous occurence. Also, if it exists then it would seem to constitute an argument for categories covering "places you can walk", "places where you can eat sandwiches", "places that have a grid reference", etc. It's a bad bad idea. And when I say "usefully repurposed" I mean, is there some way it can refer to geocaching topics (but not, please not a list of places) such as, I don't know, UK geocaching groups, or UK-specific practice, or something? Is there anything? If so then maybe - carefully described as to its limitations - then it might have some sort of a future; otherwise, I feel it should simply be deleted. Indeed deletion is the easier, more logical and more maintainable option. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (yeah, sorry, I'll shut up soon) - please compare with Category:Caving in the United Kingdom or even Category:British Orienteering Federation, both of which seem to me to be doing the topic-by-country-related job but which do not, thanks be, attempt to list locations at which the activity may be carried out. As I say above and Obi-Wan Kenobi says below, that sort of model could be used if there were anything to put in it ... DBaK (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. This is a recipe for horrendous category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, at least in it's current form (as a list of places). If there were a set of articles about geocaching in the UK I could see a cat, but I don't see such articles for now - so ice it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. The articles in category don't even seem to mention Geocaching. What is the criteria for putting them in a category? Per Wikipedia:Categorization, the reason for the categorization should be noted in the article lead. Star767 15:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tim! (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- It seems to me this category is being used for places where geo-caching has occured. That is in the nature of a performance (geo-caching) by performer (location) category. Some months ago we had a discussion about snooker venues, many of which were places where a tournament had taken place. This raises similar issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian transport-related lists

Nominator's rationale: The convention of Category:Transport-related lists by country is "FOO transport-related lists", where FOO is the name of a country. This rename will also bring the category in line with Category:Australia communications-related lists. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. The category is of the form adjective noun which is correct. The others within the category group are of the form noun noun which is illiterate. Transport-related lists of... may be better, but as it stands the cat I created is correct and all the others are incorrect. We do not have a category Australia people nor, I trust, do we have a category Australia grammarians Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are other categories, one of which is mentioned by the nominator, of equal illiteracy. Most appear to come from the same source and will need dealing with, in due course Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and it gets worse Category:Transport in South America-related lists which would, one imagines, relate to all transport in lists related to South America, would it not? Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. The convention of Category:Transport-related lists by country, and of the wider Category:Lists by topic and country is "[country-noun] [topic]-related lists". This avoids all the variations, ambiguities and other problems of the adjectival format. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Avoid all the problems of the correct form by using an incorrect form? Are we really heading that far downmarket? If anyone can tell me what an Australia transport (to which the lists relate) is, then go right ahead. As an aside a New South Wales transport was a derogatory term once used in South Australia for a convict (great-great-grandad once ended up in court over that one, on the receiving end, even though he was one). Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. "Correct form"? That phrase usually refers to an old-fashioned type of English etiquette, which has long since gone out of fashion.
        A category title is not an essay, not even a sentence; it is a brief label for a collection of articles. Category names need consistency, and should also be brief; that sometimes requires compromises on grammatical perfection. Using the adjectival form is straightforward with Australia, but it creates a bundle of problems with other countries. If you want to change the convention, then make a group nomination of the hundreds of subcats of Category:Lists by topic and country ... but so far you have offered no reason why Australia should be an exception to an established convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Precisely what I intend to do should this one be resolved the way I feel it should be. Illiteracy for the sake of convenience is not something that sits well with me. Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply. If you want to change the convention, then make a proper nomination to change the convention. But you make no case for treating this one as an exception.
            In the meantime, please try to remain civil, and stop claiming that the reasoned arguments of those you disagree with amount to "illiteracy". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former trade unions

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Defunct trade unions. 'Former' implies that the organization ceased to be a union, but not necessarily having been dissolved. Soman (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom tram stops

Nominator's rationale: No parent Category:Tram stops yet, but Tram stops of foo would seem the more normal form. Tim! (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - there are tram stops in other countries as well. If you are renaming, at least put it as Tram stops in the United Kingdom and create the parent category as a separate one. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 14:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why are stops in parking lots or at the top and bottom of mountains notable? Trams have many transportation related meanings. So the stops for an Aerial tramway are still tram stops. If this is needed, it should go up one level to a child of Category:Light rail, say Category:Light rail stops. This avoids the ambiguity as well as regional differences on what the vehicles are called. If that was done, then regional specific names could be used for the lower levels, like Category:Tram stops in the United Kingdom. Also for that one, if Category:United Kingdom metro stations is a valid parent, are these trams different then what I was thinking? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not every tram stop is notable, but some are, or are connected to notable places. For instance you could legitimately put Nottingham railway station, Forest Recreation Ground, Nottingham Royal Theatre and Old Market Square in just for the Nottingham tram, even though they're not all just tram stops. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually messed up this nomination which should have been rename to Category:Tram stops in the United Kingdom. Tim! (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per (revised) nom. Nevertheless, I am very dubious of the value of the whole tree. A tram stop on a system running trams down the street differs little from a bus stop, but a tram route is rather more permanent than a bus route (where we have recently deleted a load of list articles). Other systems are running largely on reserved tracks and are more like railways. A tram stop outside (and named after) a theatre does not deserve an its own article, though the theatre will. A list article of tram stops could usefully link to the theatre article, but the converse of putting the theatre article in a tram stops category is bizarre. The trams stop near the door, not on the stage! Peterkingiron (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories do not need to represent the entirety of an article. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom metro stations

Nominator's rationale: The country subcategories of Category:Rapid transit stations are not consistent but take the form Metro stations of foo or Rapid transit stations of foo, so this UK category should be renamed. Tim! (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or rename per nom -- It shoudl not become "rapid transit", which is a generic term, not used for any aprticular system in UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]