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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Only two categories which do not appear to form part of a larger tree. Brands are introduced rather than established. Tim! (talk) 21:42, 17 September 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category has been nominated for deletion twice before. Being the creator of {{GIJoe-stub}}, I have always advocated for retaining this category, because all the G.I. Joe stub articles don't necessarily fall into the same categories. However, I now feel that this stub category has outlived its usefulness, since almost all the G.I. Joe stub articles have either been merged or updated. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, merging the category would defeat the purpose of the nomination. The one article still using {{GIJoe-stub}} is not animated at all, it is an online video short, and I just couldn't find a more appropriate stub tag. My point is, the category was created because not all the G.I. Joe stubs fit into the same categories. However, since almost all of them have either been merged or updated, I think that the category should be deleted, in order to avoid any confusion. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both template and category They have served their purpose. The remaining article can be restubbed with...actually, I'm surprised it hasn't been marked for deletion itself. --Qetuth (talk) 09:23, 19 September 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete It's an interesting fact but it is not a defining characteristic and the link between the articles is therefore tenuous. This would be best handled using the list List of first class commuter transport services which could provide more details such as what "first class" means, what it costs and so on. Pichpich (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- This is in the nature of a performance by performer category. It is a category for commuter rail services that have a first class not a category of articles about them. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 17 September 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.
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.
Procedural relisting. This a relisting of a set of categories which were listed at WP:CFD/S for speedy renaming. I implemented the moves without checking that they were all properly tagged, and it was pointed out afterwards that most of them were not. (I had only spot-checked another one in the same list, which was tagged. Sorry; I'll do complete checks in future)
Once the moves were implemented, some Australian editors objected, and eventually discovered the procedural failing. This is an important failing, because it deprived editors of the opportunity to oppose the speedy moves. If objections had been made, the categories would have been taken to a full discussion here.
Rather than revert the moves, have the discussion, and then possibly revert the reverts, I have listed them all here. It is important that although the categories are now at the rename target, the closing admin should note they were moved there outside of procedure ... so unless there is an explicit consensus to support these moves, the categories be renamed back to the status quo ante. (I have not restored the status quo before the discussions, because category moves involve a lot of edits, which will not be needed if the proposal is upheld).
Note that the nominator's rationale appears to be well-founded. The convention of Category:Country templates (and the continent templates etc) and their many subcats is to use the noun for country name, rather than the adjectival form. So for example we have Australia templates (not Australian), Ireland templates (not Irish), Japan templates (not Japanese), Europe templates (not European). I recall reading (but can't find where the documentation is) that this is to facilitate categorisation, by allowing the name of the country to be used instead of also having to enter the adjective. This is particularly useful when a template is created through another template. Since speedy criterion C2C refers to "a rename bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree", and I approved these speedies because they clearly meet those criteria. Please note that these are project categories, not mainspace categories. They are used only for maintenance purposes, to categorise the templates used by editors, rather than the articles and other pages read by our readers. Editors may wish to review this convention, or to consider arguments for making these categories an exception, but I am satisfied that the nomination did seek to apply a well-established and stable convention. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While there is some small merit to the convention, conventions aren't hard and fast rules, they're simply agreements and, on the whole this one lacks common sense, at least for the subcats. There are certain countries where the adjectival form is the same as the noun ("United States" is one) but this naming fails to follow the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME because we simply don't speak, or write that way. "Japan whaling ships were chased by Godzilla" is wrong, "Japanese whaling ships were chased by Gozdilla" is correct. The claim that "this is to facilitate categorisation, by allowing the name of the country to be used instead of also having to enter the adjective" doesn't make sense. Somebody is far more likely to search for "European television navigational boxes" than "Europe television navigational boxes" (which should really be "Europe television navigation boxes" if you apply the convention properly) so using the noun just makes things more difficult for the average editor and our readers will have no hope at all of finding what they want. I can see some benefit in using the noun for the main cat (what are the adjectival forms of "Botsawana" or "Burkina Faso"?) but where there is a well-established, common method of reference used by the 6 billion people who don't use Wikipedia (Australian, Irish, European, English, Japanese etc), we should be using those per WP:COMMONNAME. I must admit to being disappointed at BrownHairedGirl's refusal to reverse the moves, even as a token of good faith. In the event that an article is prodded and deleted it can be easily restored simply by requesting that, because the deletion is obviously not "uncontested". In this case, five categories were nominated but not a single related project was notified. Had they been, the nomination would likely have failed; the move is clearly contested - there is no consensus for these moves so they should have been restored and then relisted for a move. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aussie, I have set out in the nomination why reversing the moves at this stage would be a bad idea, and is un-necessary. Reverting the move or speedy deletion of an article requires only one edit, but with a category it may require dozens of edits. There is nothing to be gained by having all that done twice (if the renames are upheld), and there is no harm in a 7-day delay if they are not upheld.
Your complaint about lack of notifications is a general criticism of speedy processes as a whole, not of these moves. Please raise it elsewhere.
On the substance, you say that "our readers will have no hope at all of finding what they want". However, you appear to have missed the point that these categories are not for readers. They are an internal administrative tool for organising pages which are used only by editors, and the 6 billion people out there are are a red herring. In any case, categories are a navigational tool designed to be navigated rather than searched for, so search-based concerns are barely relevant. If editors do want to search for categories, they will find that a category search for australian template brings up all the "australia templates", so there is no actual impediment.
Using the adjectival form merely makes it less likely that templates will be correctly categorised, and that is a far greater impediment to readers than the difficulty which some editors may have in understanding that an indexing system may use nouns instead of adjectives. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Your complaint about lack of notifications is a general criticism of speedy processes as a whole, not of these moves. Please raise it elsewhere." - Where exactly? This is a problem that nobody seems able to fix and is widespread. The Australian project is continually frustrated by failure of editors to advise the project of changes that directly affect the project. The only way to get the message out seems to be to make mention of it whenever it happens in the hope that the message will spread, even if one editor at a time.
I haven't missed the point that these categories are not for readers. However, readers do use them, so it is relevant. I did say "so using the noun just makes things more difficult for the average editor". It's important to include all likely eventualities, just as we have to take pains to ensure compliance with MOS:ACCESS, even though the number of visually impaired editors and readers is miniscule compared to the number of editors and readers who aren't. If categories are indeed "designed to be navigated rather than searched for", why would 'also having to enter the adjective" be necessary? One or the other is needed, not both. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the design of the speedy CFD process, raise it at WT:CFD. Start an RFC if you want to, or raise it at the village pump. There are mechanisms to propose changes; please use them, both to avoid disrupting this process and to get a wider audience for your concerns.
You misunderstand my point about having to enter the category name twice. When a meta-template is used to create a country-specific template, it can use the country name to categorise the country-specific template. Using the adjectival form breaks that mechanism, increasing the likelihood of the template being uncategorised. If it's not categorised, you won't find through the category system, whatever the category name format.
FYI, I have been horrified at the disruptiveness of the CfD process. I attempted to introduce a notification requirement for all CfDs earlier this year. However I was immediately set upon by some of the regular CfD patrollers here; it seems they did not like the idea of having to make an effort to get representative consensus. I warn you, though, I was treated most uncivilly for having the audacity to make such a suggestion, even though one editor stated: There is general agreement here that notification of WikiProjects is usually a Good Thing before explaining why it is too hard to achieve. Ephebi (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ephebi, you were not "set upon" for your proposal; but you were heavily criticised for accusing other editors of sneakiness, abusing the process etc. A bit of AGF would have got a more sympathetic hearing for your substantive points, and it would also have been nice to see a fairer representation of what I posted in the comment you linked.
It's in the nature of categories that they effect a lot of articles. That means that controversial category decisions can have a much wider impact than AFD decisions.
I try to notify relevant WikiProjects for nominations I make, but it is a cumbersome process. Sadly, it very rarely has much impact on the number of editors participating in a discussion. See for example [nominations from yesterday], all notified to the WikiProject, but almost no response. I wish that all editors would do such notifications, but I can see why too many editors don't bother.
As I noted in the comment linked by Ephebi, the best mechanism by far is Article alerts, which allows Wikiprojects to opt in to all sorts of notifications. It does requiring systematic tagging of articles and categories, but AWB or bots can do that.
However, article alerts is no use when a category is not tagged for CFD, as turned out to be the case with these speedies. So as soon as I was made aware that I had missed that problem, I brought the categories to a full discussion.
Some of the abuse which was directed at me since clearly relates to a dissatisfaction with the design of the CFD speedy renaming process. It may be that the criteria needs to be narrowed, as they were when my proposal was accepted here.
In the case of this set of speedies, it has been disappointing to see that a number of editors have not been interested in the fact that these renamings clearly met C2C. That's a pity, not just because it led to abuse being directed at me, but more importantly because it diverts energy away from a review of the speedy criteria. I the speedy criteria do not reflect current consensus, they should be changed ... but so long as they stay, admins will assess speedy noms against those criteria. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Oppose: Nominator demonstrates zero understanding of the subtleties of the term "Chinese", in particular that "Chinese television" can (and often does) refer to "Chinese(-language )television", which is why {{Television in the Republic of China}} is included despite the moves of the main articles on the PRC and ROC. GotRTalk18:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A little civility would make for a more productive discussion. If the scope of the category is "Chinese(-language )television", then it should be renamed to "Chinese-language television navigational boxes. If the scope just covers both PRC and RoC, then put in it in both of those categories. However, please don't be rude to other editors who have failed to infer things which the category creator chose not to clarify on the category page. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've sat back watching this and at almost every single editor you've accused them of not assuming good faith but I'm sorry to say this but clearly the pot calling the kettle black. I see nothing wrong with Guerrilla's comment, they're questioning your norm and it isn't going the way you want it. Bidgee (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move/Keep current form: Australia and China and Europe are being used as adjectives. The correct grammar is to leave these words in their adjective form, which is Australian, Chinese, European. Beyond that, I see no compelling reason for a name change. --LauraHale (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose - keep original names. We should not break the rules of English grammar just because it makes it easier for some automated process. Fix the process, don't mangle the English language. These category names clearly require the adjectival form of the country names, in other words Australian, Chinese, European, Japanese etc. If the wrong thing has been done with other categories that does not justify doing it wrong again here. On the issue of failing to revert the move before re-listing here, I find BHG's reasoning to be completely flawed. The rules are there for a reason and just because it is inconvenient or difficult or time consuming there is no justification not to follow the spirit and letter of the law, especially when compounded by an admitted failure to ensure compliance with the rules in the first place. Since this move was obviously going to be contested it would have showed good faith for the move to be reversed first. The refusal to do that, especially after being specifically asked to do so, comes across as somewhat contemptuous. I am sure that was not the intention, but it certainly is the appearance. - Nick Thornetalk22:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the moves obviously going to be contested, I didn't leave it to others to do the listing. I set opened this discussion myself. If that's contemptuous, I'm a banana.
I was the one who opened a thread at ANI, and I explained exactly how I proposed to remedy this and why. If that's contemptuous, I'm a banana.
An univolved admin closed the discussion as resolved. If you have outstanding procedural concerns, please raise them at ANI where they can be considered. But leave off the sniping.
I'll tell you what I find contemptuous. It's the the repeated sniping and assumptions of bad faith from a few Australian editors, which follow on from a barrage of personal abuse in 4 different locations, including at WP:AWNB. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, are you saying that you are above criticism? I understand that you don't like what you are being told. However, your actions speak far louder than your words. You dismiss the legitimate complaints about the way you processed this move, and absolutely fail to understand the substance of those criticisms. It is not some minor point that you are talking about and I find raising WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY in this case highly offensive. I get it that you don't understand the depth of feeling others have to the cavalier attitude demonstrated by your actions. You then, I assume unintentionally, rub salt into the wound by your attacks on those who want have this fixed. Whilst I disagree with those who seem to think that the Admins around here are the root of all evil, it is unfortunate cases like this that give credence to that POV. I will leave off the sniping as you call it when you acknowledged that your actions have caused it all in the first place - none of this would have happened had you been more vigilant. You seek to justify the failure to revert your improperly processed moves because it would be a lot of edits. Well to use the vernacular, suck it up princess, if you had done your job properly in the first place you would not have needed to do all that work. You have no one to blame but yourself. Now, it looks like this proposal to move is going to be lost, so perhaps its time you got started moving the categories back to their previously stable names as you should have done when this move was first objected to. - Nick Thornetalk07:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, there were 2 things which caused this. 1) the failure of the nominator to tag the category; 2) my failure to spot that omission. People make mistakes; what matters is fixing them, and I have taken all the steps needed to ensure that this is resolved.
Keep the original names, largely in agreement with those above. I have seen this convention around but have never seen the point of it, and having categories at "Australia television shows" makes zero sense. Having said that, I understand why BHG has chosen to leave them here for the time being - it's only a week, it's not the end of the world, and it'll save a bunch of edits. Frickeg (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the original names. "Australian" is clearly the adjective. The use of "Australia" as an adjective grates here. This does seem to have great support from Australian editors. This is in spite of the clear fact that we Australians mangle the English language more than most by using nouns as verbs (e,g "he medalled at the 2012 Olympics), nouns as adjectives and so on -:) --Bduke(Discussion)02:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (i.e. reverse merge/rename). For a country e.g. Turkey, Turkey is the subject, so "Turkey navigation boxes" fits; for its television, "Turkish television" is the subject. – FayenaticLondon18:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change to something unambiguous Fairly clearly "China templates" are not made of china, and "Turkish templates" are not written in Turkish. Laying aside these types of suggestion, there is a more serious concern that templates may pertain to China or china, to Turkey or the Turkish language or indeed the Turkish people. While ambiguity is not the major problem it might at first appear, when category names are involved, Category:Television navigational templates relating to China (or Category:Television navigational templates - China}is at least unambiguous in making it clear that we are talking about a proper noun, hence in this case a geographical area. Should we wish to be more consistent we can use the ISO country names. RichFarmbrough, 21:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep the original names. "Australian..." "European...", etc. as that is clearly grammatically correct. Also 'speedy' reset the categories; the previous move has been admitted to be simply a human error. 13:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Admin Note: some participants in this discussion, who shall remain nameless for now, are starting to push at the boundaries of civility. Please concentrate on the topic at hand, rather than accusing other editors of bad faith. Lankiveil(speak to me)12:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Clear consensus but no Admin has bothered to close and revert BrownHairedGirl's actions (which she should do since she created this mess). Bidgee (talk) 14:59, 1 October 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Vaguely defined category — and, accordingly, even though the category was created five years ago, only one article had ever been placed in the category (Xu Shouhui). I don't see any particular use for it. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is probably trying to be Rebel Emperors of China (which does not need to be defined by modern boundaries. I expect we already have such a category somewhere. Perhaps it shouyld be a merge with that. There is currently only one article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 17 September 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.
