Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 20 August 22 >

August 21[edit]

Category:Y Combinator Portfolio[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Y Combinator Portfolio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category groups companies that have been supported by a fairly minor venture capital organisation. This is non-defining characteristic and bordering on advertising. Boissière (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2011 (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:Court cases involving Hawaii[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Court cases involving Hawaii to Category:Legal history of Hawaii
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is the only U.S. state with a Court case involving category; the other states' Legal history of categories contain cases in which they were involved. Tim! (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge While Hawai'i having been an indepdendent country unlike 49 other states (Texas was also an indepdendent country, but for a much shorter time frame) might justify different categories in some cases. However in this case the target category can adequately include these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2011 (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:Vice Chancellors of KNUST[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: Speedy rename C2A/D. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Vice Chancellors of KNUST to Category:Vice-Chancellors of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology
Nominator's rationale: Rename At the very least, the hyphen should be there but it also seems like a good idea to avoid the acronym. It's consistent with the corresponding article and it's good for readers unfamiliar with KNUST to at least get a sense that it's some university somewhere. Pichpich (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2011 (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:Foster the People[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Foster the People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The songs and albums in this article are already properly categorized under Category:Foster the People songs and Category:Foster the People albums, respectively. This is overcategorization per WP:OC#Eponymous. Previous consensus has determined that an eponymous category is not necessary with only albums/songs artist categories. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is normal for bands to have a category named after them. I believe in short order there will be pages named for the group members, subsequent albums, etc., etc. By the above users own logic, Green Day should not have the Green Day cat, Eminem should not have the Eminem cat, etc. Both of those pages also use other relevant cats, it should be no different with Foster the People. AlaskaMike (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Green Day and Eminem only had songs and albums to be categorized, that would be overcategorization by adding an eponymous category, but because both of those artists have many more articles related to them then just their albums and songs, the eponymous category is warranted. When Foster the People have their own broadway show or animated series then I'd agree with you. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually it isn't normal for bands to have a category named for them; that's done only in exceptional cases where a band or artist has achieved a stratum of notability so rarefied that their influence extends well beyond the standard scheme of having only "albums" and/or "songs" categories. Nothing inherently against Foster the People, but they just ain't there yet; normally, such categories are deleted as WP:OCAT#EPONYMOUS. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Bearcat. This seems not to be one of the exceptional cases where an eponymous category would be justified for a band. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2011 (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.

Transport(ation) in Mexico[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 Option 1 Transportation. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming according to one of the following options:

Rationalle: Each country should be consistant in terms of ENGVAR usage, except where regional ENGVAR issues exist. Preference to option 2, as Mexico isn't an English speaking country, so we should probably go with the general Wikipedia words. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support consistency but I'm fine with either of the two options. I'm not sure this is what Od Mishehu is saying but given Category:Transport, there is some value to the argument that "transport" should be the default choice. Pichpich (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename using option 1: transportation 'Transportation', not 'transport'. Transporation is the word of choice (American English); there is little/no connection between the United Kingdom with its British English and Mexico, while the US and Mexico are inseparable. Hmains (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to option 2. I think "transport" is the default given that the main category is Category:Transport. If English is not a major language in the country, we should simply have a default to fall back upon rather than assess the relative connections between the country and other English-speaking countries. Otherwise we get into the mess of assessing "global language spheres". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 per User:Hmains comments Mayumashu (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 The many people in Mexico who do use English will almost universally use the form "transportation".John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Further, looking at other sub-categories of Category:Mexico, all I saw was American English spelling other than the few out-of-sync UK English items listed in this nomination. Option 2 is nothing less than part of the effort to convert all spelling in WP to non-US English except those about the US itself. Hmains (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt that is the nominator's intent (he offered both options, after all!) and it would be helpful if we could avoid both suggestions of ill intent in this case as well as inflammatory suggestions of some sort of WP-wide effort or conspiracy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main article is at Transportation in Mexico. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename using option 1 to retain consistency with established usage as supported by Category:Transportation in Mexico and Transportation in Mexico and as pointed out in the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2011 (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:Lists of fishes[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lists of fishes to Category:Lists of fish
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_14#Fishes_-.3E_Fish.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unchanged - Although it may sound weird to some, "fishes" is actually correct when talking about species. Other categories should be changed accordingly. --Melanochromis (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2011 (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:Burma (Myanmar) templates[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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Burma (Myanmar) templates to Category:Burma templates
Nominator's rationale: Per Burma/Myanmar. If this passes, subcats. can be speedy renamed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. A nice attempt at splitting the baby, but we should pick one and use it and for the other form use redirects. Right now the accepted form is "Burma" per Category:Burma and Burma. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2011 (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:Serial killers sentenced in 2011[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Serial killers sentenced in 2011
Nominator's rationale: The category Category:Serial killers sentenced in 2010 was deleted after discussion on 12 May, (see [1]) but the equivalent category for 2011 was overlooked. Hugo999 (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2011 (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.

Rail transport in the United States[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

and its subcategories

Rationalle: Per ENGVAR - these are all categories about the United States, so thwey should all use the American English names. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Keep consistency with all the other subcategories of Category:Rail transport by country. Slambo (Speak) 11:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Needless over-complexity. "Tranport" is short, simple and internationally understood. There's also a minor benefit, per Slambo, of consistency with others. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm happy to leave this to North Americans to decide; however I suggest there needs to be consistency with the proposal below which is going the other way. If both are approved that would be a nonsense. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the nominator of both, I don't see any consistancy issues here. This one is specificly about the United States, and the other one is about a bigger area, which includes Canada. In the first case, ENGVAR clearly says we should use English as spoken in the United States; and the second one, Canada has equal "rights" as the United States does. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename all per nom to match US spelling use--which is supposed to be the controlling factor for US category names--unless you have something against the US or its language Hmains (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main article is Rail transport in the United States even though the grandparent category is Category:Transportation in the United States. It may be best to sort out the article location first. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per ENGVAR. And to note what Tim said, we do need to move the main article and others so named; they too are incorrect in American usage. oknazevad (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to retain consistency with the US usage as established with Category:Transportation in the United States and Transportation in the United States and general usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2011 (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:Transportation in North America[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Transportation in North America to Category:Transport in North America
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current stansard for this category tree is to use "transport", not "transportation". While this doesn't apply to the categories of the United States (per ENGVAR), it seems to be accurate for the rest of the tree of this category, including the Canada categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. While the US and Mexico categories all use "Transportation," the majority of North American country categories use "Transport," as do all other subcategories of Category:Transport by continent.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. "Transport" should be the default when in doubt given that the ultimate parent is Category:Transport. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The vast majority of North America's population uses the term "transportation" and if we cahnge it we would be involved in imposing an outside form of English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency across all categories. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, that is not going to happen unless the various forms of English merge into one. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm happy to leave this to North Americans to decide; however I suggest there needs to be consistency with the proposal above which is going the other way. If both are approved that would be a nonsense. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Transport is not natural to those on this side of the pond. While there is some mixing of transport and transportation, the latter is clearly preferred. What drives the opinion above, that the majority use transport? Is it a count of the number of countries or a count of the populations involved? Clearly the population should be the prime consideration and not a count of small countries. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The word "transport" isn't even commonly used as a noun in American English, only as a verb, so I have always disliked the use of "transport" for categories that largely or entirely concern US subjects, despite my having an appreciation for consistency. Although I'm American, I read a lot of British magazines and books (and have even written for a few small-circulation British magazines), so I am well-accustomed to hearing "transport" used as a noun, but it always sounds very British to my American ears. Outside of Wikipedia, hardly any native speaker of American English uses "transport" as a noun, in my experience, so its usage really seems out of place for categories concerning US or North American subjects. In 2011, there are far more native speakers of American English than British English, but no one is suggesting changing all categories to American English on that basis (and I never would do that). However, given the other points I just mentioned, I believe the arguments strongly favor (or favour!) retaining "Transportation" for this category. SJ Morg (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep There are good cases to be made for changing or keeping. The strongest "change" argument, it seems to me, is that American readers who go to the category page and many all readers who see the link to it on the bottom of a U.S. page the Transportation in North America page (the only article directly linking to this category) would be thinking about international transportation, so "transport" is not inappropriate -- anyone who goes to the category page to search out transportation articles related to Canada or the Carribean would be encountering the word "transport" soon enough. The case for "keep" is, I think, slightly stronger. When we're talking WP:ENGVAR, I think the point is to prefer usage that most readers with strong national ties to a topic are used to reading, and the U.S. has a population of 312 million, Canada has 34 million, the Carribean, roughly 6 million English speakers. Keep head scratching over language variations to a minimum so that readers can keep their minds on the subjects they're really interested in. Keeping the name as is will inconvenience the smallest number of readers possible. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)revised second sentence JohnWBarber (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2011 (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:Studio One albums[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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Studio One albums to Category:Studio One (record label) albums
Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:30, 21 August 2011 (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/2011_August_21&oldid=1074807007"