Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 2 February 4 >

February 3

[edit]

Category:Trudeau family

[edit]
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: rename to Category:Trudeau political family. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just want to be sure about this. Created by me several years ago, this has to date been a category for the Canadian political family -- which now includes two prime ministers, Pierre and Justin, along with siblings, spouses and grandparents. I've just had to remove unrelated bio articles for Zénon Trudeau and Edward Livingston Trudeau (great grand-father of the Doonesbury creator). I think some of disambiguation is in order to avoid this problem cropping up again, and I've used a sibling category Category:Cannon family of Canada as a guide. This look right to people, or do editors feel that a qualifier is not required, just a category description (which I've just added). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use "political" as standard naming for these things in Wikipedia -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – of course the present name has to be changed. Category:Trudeau political family would be my preference. An alternative would be to argue that one is not defined by one's relatives and delete the lot of them. Oculi (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usage notes are rarely sufficient, in and of themselves, to solve an ambiguity issue — lots of people just add the categories that they think are applicable, and then walk away without ever actually checking the category page to verify whether the category was actually meant for that purpose or not. (For example, even with a usage note on Category:Biography clarifying that it's for articles about the subject of biography and not for biographical articles about people, I still have to clean it up at least twice a month for the inclusion of three, four or five new biographical articles about people.) That said, there are sources out there which claim that Garry and Edward are distantly related to the Pierre-and-Justin clan (it's claimed, frex, on Garry's IMDb page) — but (a) we would need much better sourcing than that before we could assert it here, (b) I can't find any similar confirmation on Zénon, and (c) even if it is true for any of them, the relationship is far too distant and contextually irrelevant to justify adding them to a category that's meant specifically for the Canadian political family. So a rename is in order — I'm inclined more toward Category:Trudeau political family, and would also support renaming the Cannons that way as well. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- Prefer Category:Trudeau political family. We cannot have the present name as it is likely to pick up anyone with the surname. They may well be related, but 10th or 15th cousin is a NN link. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – unless there is a competing category (another Trudeau family with a category), renaming is unnecessary and premature. There are plenty of categories for political or business families that are just "surname family", e.g. Category:Kennedy family, Category:Obama family, Category:Vanderbilt family, Category:Gates family, Category:Trump family. There isn't a good reason to rename all the categories and even if they are renamed someone is bound to find an unrelated individual with the surname who is also a [whatever descriptor used, e.g. politician, Canadian]. 15zulu (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The name is clear. Just because some people do not think before categorizing does not mean we should make needlessly long names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem being that bad categorization ends up having to be cleaned up by somebody after the fact — and by definition, even that can only happen if somebody notices the bad categorization, meaning articles can be left sitting in inappropriate categories for months. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2016 (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.

Oil by country

[edit]
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: procedural close. No categories were tagged, no clear rationale was offered, and there is no sign of any consensus emerging from discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased:

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:Ukrainian writers by nationality

[edit]
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Badly constituted category tree of uncertain value. Firstly, and most importantly, this was created as a direct subcategory of Category:Ukrainian writers — but that category is for writers who are personally from Ukraine, and not for writers from other countries who had ancestors from Ukraine. So this doesn't belong there. Secondly, "X writers of Y descent" are permitted for broad groupings like Asian Americans or Jews or African Americans — but every individual country where a person might have ethnic roots does not constitute a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that writer in and of itself, especially as an intersection with the country they're actually from. And thirdly, most of the subcategories are WP:SMALLCATs. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2016 (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:Yale University alumni, 1971-1980

[edit]
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. (The category creator also asked for the category to be deleted via a message left on the category page, declaring that it was just an "experiment"). Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not yet populated, I don't see us using by-decade groupings for alumni other major universities, nor is that how categories for people per organization really tend to work, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2016 (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 associated with adoption

[edit]
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: merge. MER-C 07:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC. I see no reason why we shoul;d group Category:Adoptees‎ and Category:Adoption workers‎ in a single category like this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:48, 3 February 2016 (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:Video games on Steam

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Irrelevant category. This is simply going to be added to all PC & Mac games sold on the Steam (software) platform. Since almost every PC game released is released on Steam this category is a little like adding 'Books sold by Amazon' to most book related articles. Since technically Steam, in this instance, is referring to it as a store, it's the equivalent of putting categories for every store chain that sells video games and adding them to the games. E.g. Video games sold by EB Games, Video games sold by Gamestop, Video games sold by Best Buy etc. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not even sure that games that require Steam is that interesting anymore. A large percentage of games now require Steam as the main running and distribution platform. Even many games sold in physical format are basically just codes and access to Steam to install there. Canterbury Tail talk 15:20, 3 February 2016 (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:Tavistock, Devon

[edit]
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: rename. MER-C 07:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Rationalle: Article was recently moved as uncontroversial per rationale of ":Tavistock, Devon is the primary topic. Tavistock, Ontario is a village merged into East Zorra-Tavistock and Tavistock, New Jersey has a population of five people." Ineligible at speedy requests, since it was recently moved. Jolly Ω Janner 12:08, 3 February 2016 (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:Plymouth, Devon

[edit]
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: No consensus, kept by default. - Beland 15:09, 16 April 2016‎

Propose renaming:

Rationalle: This was originally requested at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy based on C2D "Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous article", however speedy cannot over rule the previous discussion on 2 December 2008. The previous discussion did not seem to acknowledge policy guidelines and was a collection of opinions on what is ambiguous, which ended in essentially a straw-poll-based consensus. I believe after reviewing our own policies, this should not have been moved back in 2008. Per Wikipedia:Categorization "Standard article naming conventions apply;" which suggests it should follow the naming of the article it is based on. Plymouth has retained its title since its creation in 2001 and there have been discussions about it, so this would suggest long-lasting stability. Unless Plymouth is moved or there is policy which suggests categories need the bar raised for what is a "primary topic", I see no policy-based grounds for this to differ from the article's title. Jolly Ω Janner 12:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have read some of the opposing arguments and one that is consistent is the potential for Category:Plymouth to pick up articles and categories that are related to Plymouth, MA or the car maker. While it is unlikely (especially since the article titles are disambiguated), I guess it is certainly possible for an inexperienced user to make this mistake. On the other hand, what is the likelihood of someone incorrectly categorising an article related to Plymouth, Devon into the Plymouth category (don't forget that the article holds the Plymouth title)? Are there measures in place to ensure articles and categories do not end up in disambiguation categories? If, not the incorrect categorisation argument may be null, since it could occur at either title. Jolly Ω Janner 20:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We draw the line where it makes sense, where the competing cities have some claim to notability on equal status with the parent city. That is 100% true in the case of Birmingham, Alabama. It is also true in the case of Plymouth, Massachusetts especially in light of the Plymouth Colony. No Paris or London comes close to the standing of to cities in France and England.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. While I'd favor to add disambiguators in city names more often than we currently have (like in this case), in the end I have to admit that it has to start with the article name and it's no use to have different criteria for disambiguators in category names than in article names. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Editors that use article titles to choose category assignments would use Category:Plymouth rather than further DAB'ing it. Zangar (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose other Plymouths (such as Plymouth, Massachusetts) are too prominent for this to be able to be unambiguous for a place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are other Plymouth's that do not at present have a category such as Plymouth, Michigan, but are big enough to have their own minor-league sports teams among other things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Plymouth, Massachusetts category has over 250 articles in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This rename would create no benefit to readers or editors. However, it would create ambiguity, increasing the risk of miscategorisations which are hard to detect, and highly disruptive to readers.
    I am aware that the article name has been selected as a primarytopic, but I see no logical reason why categories should not adopt a higher threshold for primacy ... and in cases such as this, very good reasons to set a higher threshold. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename For every Category:Birmingham, West Midlands (a seriously awful title reflecting a usage only found with badly programmed online address forms) there are many such cases as Category:Worcester or Category:Cambridge. This "higher category bar" seems to be defined only as cases where some users added a disambiguation tag and managed to resist matching the article title. Not matching the article title creates problems for both readers and editors, not having random excessive disambiguation is of only benefit to some editors who would still have the problem with the complete lack of a standard. Additionally different standards mean CFD risks duplicating some of the longer and more intense RMs for no benefit. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2016 (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 associated with Tiananmen Square protests of 1989

[edit]
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: rename to Category:Tiananmen Square protesters of 1989 and purege. – Fayenatic London 15:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename and purge - Mere association with a particular set of protests isn't a good grouping - see WP:OCASSOC. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:30, 3 February 2016 (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:Charlie Puth

[edit]
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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A bit premature for an eponymous category. Precedent and WP:OCEPON have determined that an individual requires more than just articles and categories about their works, which are already categorized by a specific topic under the individual's name. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:55, 3 February 2016 (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:Fictional United States Army Military Police Corps personnel

[edit]
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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT
There is only one article in the category and the narrow scope seems unlikely to grow quickly. (No objection to recreating though if we can get up to 5 or so articles.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Omanyd as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Fictional characters. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2016 (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:American Chemical Society academic journals

[edit]
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: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The publishing arm of the American Chemical Society is called ACS Publications. The category should be renamed accordingly, similar to how we have Category:IOP Publishing academic journals for journals published by IOP Publishing, the publishing arm of the Institute of Physics. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That we don't have a dedicated article on ACS Publications is no argument for using the incorrect name of the publisher. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not incorrect, they are academic journals from the ACS, although it is a little less specific that what you propose. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_3&oldid=1138409734"