Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 2

< October 1	October 3 >

October 2

Category:Gum

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gum to Category:Chewing gum

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The subject of the category is called "chewing gum" in practically every place other than the actual category. The main article is chewing gum and the Commons category link goes to Category:Chewing gum. Also "gum" is too broad a concept, gum can be used for different things than chewing too. The article gum even is a disambiguation page. JIP | Talk 19:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per main article. This is Speedyable.Curb Chain (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nom. bd2412 T 02:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

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.

Royal Navy categories

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: Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 17. Courcelles 04:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Constested speedy. "X of Y" is the preferred category name format, and, currently, the Royal Navy subcategories are a mis-mash of "X of Y" format names and the older "Y X" names like these. These would standardise the category names on the preferred format, which is both preferred per WP:NCCAT and looks much better as well. Note that the "X of Y" format also is used by the pages these categories have as their "Main" links, i.e. List of survey vessels of the Royal Navy, List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy, etc.. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is semantic rubbish. These names are perfectly satisfacotry, perhpas it is the Y of X categories that need to be renamed to conform to these. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm...these are the "Y of X" categories. And "X of Y" is strongly reccomended to be followed per WP:NCCAT. Quoting from there: Categories of topics usually in the domain of the state are named "... of country". The "Y X" categories are non-conforming to the consensus naming convention, and are to be renamed to match it whenever possible: in fact, according to NCCAT, Non-conformance to these naming conventions shall be treated as a criterion for "speedy category renaming" as defined on WP:CFD.. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Long overdue. I think the reason that you're not getting much response here is because this is dull house keeping. More power to your elbow. Shem (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the example of Category:Ships of the Royal Navy etc. (In the last one 'ships' has also been changed to 'vessels' (also in the 'survey ships' one). This seems to need a different rationale.) Occuli (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the case of 'survey ships' vs 'survey vessels', that one was changed to 'vessels' because the catmain for the category is at List of survey vessels of the Royal Navy. The 'salvage' one, because 'salvage vessel' seems to be the more widely used term - note its subcategory, Category:King Salvor class salvage vessel - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current names are consistent with those for the United States, see Category:United States Navy, and other countries. Most of these Royal Navy categories are merely subcategories of Category:Royal Navy and the current names help identify them with that category. For instance, Category:Royal Navy bases seems much clearer than Category:Bases of the Royal Navy. Cjc13 (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The current names are consistent with those for the United States, see Category:United States Navy, and other countries. Yes...because those other pages have yet to be renamed to meet Wikipedia's standards for category naming. As you can see by the number of categories here, there are too many to do all at once, and speedy-ing them gets objected despite the fact WP:NCCAT explictly says they should be speedied. So they have to be done one nation at a time - objecting to them because the rest haven't been done yet smacks of WP:DEMOLISH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NCCAT says they should be speedied only when a convention has been established. In this case the convention you suggest does not seem to have been established. If you are going to start with one country why not start with the United States which would seem to be the most significant country in these matters. Are thses really state-based or navy-based categories? They appear to be navy-based categories so the convention for categories relating to states does not necessarily apply. The current names are concise and accurate. Cjc13 (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Note that Category:Military by country and Category:Military equipment by country are among the specific examples cited in WP:NCCAT's "...by state" section. And Category:Military by country -> Category:Military of the United Kingdom -> Category:Royal Navy -> these categories. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consistency whatever in Category:United States Navy: it is about 50:50 at the top level and Category:Ships of the United States Navy is also about 50:50. Moreover Ships by navy were renamed at cfd unanimously to the 'of Foo Navy' formulation. This is exactly the sort of hotchpotch which The Bushranger is endeavouring to clear up, the speedier the better IMO. Occuli (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is 50:50 then the change could be made either way. It does seem odd to have Category:Ships of the United States Navy, when the articles for the ships use USS in the title. As I say above some of the names are clearer in their current form such as Category:Royal Navy bases, otherwise you have to use Category:Naval bases of the Royal Navy which seems clumsy. I also think the Royal Navy may be a special case as it does not include a geographical reference. Cjc13 (talk) 16:03, 6 October 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:Redirects from non-English language terms

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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I don't know what's going on here... This seems entirely redundant to its parent Category:Redirects from alternative languages and contains categories like Category:Redirects from Chinese language terms, which is fine, I guess but the parent category contains Category:Redirects from Chinese-language terms (which is currently nominated for speedy deletion for being empty.) Why are there redundantly-named categories here and why does this category exist at all when it essentially duplicates is parent...? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There was recently a change in {{R from alternative language}} which changed how this category is organized. The redundancy exists because the recategorization is not complete.

The new structure, once it is done, will have Category:Redirects from alternative languages at the top, containing only two subcategories, Category:Redirects from non-English language terms and Category:Redirects to non-English language terms. Each of those has subcategories for different languages. If a redirect is from or to a non-English language but the editor does not know which language it is, they can put it directly in Category:Redirects from non-English language terms and Category:Redirects to non-English language terms.

The only reason Category:Redirects from alternative languages has any articles in it is because they have not yet been sorted by language.

Every category in this system has a distinct purpose. There is no duplication. Gorobay (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No permanent duplication for reasons stated, just a temporary overlap. S a g a C i t y (talk) 15:23, 11 October 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:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Example

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: Withdrawn=Keep. nomination withdrawn in good faith and no contrary arguments. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: User:Example does not have, nor will "he" ever have sockpuppets--it's just an example account. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Like the category says: "This example category is used by several templates and documentation pages (see what links here) and should not be deleted." Currently over 200 pages link to this category. Many of the templates automatically detect if this category exists and the documentation examples will no longer show correctly if it is deleted. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 18:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Yes, it's "just an example account" - that's exactly the point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I guess I wasn't paying attention. Sorry for the interruption... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:02, 3 October 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:Entertainment districts in Tijuana

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:Entertainment districts in Mexico.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I'm not an expert in the place, grant you, but how many entertainment districts can there possibly be in the city of Tijuana? The main article doesn't give the impression that there can ever be enough to meet the basic requirement of WP:SMALLCAT. Upmerge Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subjective. Should we start creating cats based on metropolises and their entertainment districts, which need to be define anyhow.Curb Chain (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Entertainment districts in Baja California - None of the subcategories are in reference to cities but states. Not to mention numerous others can be added with the scope increase.08OceanBeach^S.D. 00:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Entertainment districts in Mexico, which would be a good place to start. Occuli (talk) 14:25, 14 October 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:Endangered Altaic languages

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 to Category:Endangered languages - there's nothing which needs to be moved to Category:Altaic languages, as all articles in this category are also elsewhere in the Category:Altaic languages tree. The question of the whole Category:Endangered languages tree still needs to be discussed, but even if it's kept - thisd category should clearly be deleted based on this discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Subjective and arbitrary inclusion criterion, as well as a trivial intersection, because the idea of an Altaic language superfamily is controversial, and what should be included even more so. Additionally, there is "no definite threshold for identifying a language as endangered". "Endangered X languages" where X is a demonstrated language family might be more useful. Quigley (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unproven/controversial/unreferenced subjective inclusion criteria and nom. "Endangered X languages" would IMO be useless still.Curb Chain (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Altaic languages. This is highly subjective - how endangered does it have to be to qualify? Peterkingiron (talk) 01:30, 3 October 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:AfC submissions declined as lacking reliable sources

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) 11:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:AfC submissions declined as lacking reliable sources to Category:AfC submissions declined as lacking reliable third-party sources

Nominator's rationale: Submission in this category are often decline, because the sources are not third party, but reliable. For example: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tree-Fu Tom. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 14:35, 2 October 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.

Users by service award

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:Wikipedia (X)" equivalents. While these may be extraordinarily precious, there is no shortage of categories for editors naming themselves things that define their editorial relationship to each other or the project (c.f. Category:Wikipedian WikiGnomes). The key is that they label themselves as such, and so I've picked what I think is the least impactful proposal for that. I've also created Category: Wikipedians by service award as a container so that those offended by the presence of Labutnums and Looshpahs don't have to see them as often.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deleting:

Category:Signators
Category:Burbas
Category:Novatos
Category:Grognards
Category:Grognard Extraordinaires
Category:Grognard Mirabilaires
Category:Tutnums
Category:Grand Tutnums
Category:Most Perfect Tutnums
Category:Tutnum of the Encyclopedias
Category:Labutnums
Category:Most Pluperfect Labutnums
Category:Labutnum of the Encyclopedias
Category:Illustrious Looshpahs
Category:Auspicious Looshpahs
Category:Redoubtable Tognemes

Rationalle: I fail to see how this information is important enough for coordination and collaboration between users. Additionally, if not deleted, the categories should all be renamed to prefix the word "Wikipedia". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedia:Illustrious Looshpahs per Wikipedia:Illustrious Looshpah etc, or delete. (There was also this related recent cfd.) Occuli (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We definitely don't want a double prefix (Category:Wikipedia:anything). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then the articles should be renamed. Occuli (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The awards are obnoxious. Failing deleting the userboxes/tags themselves, this should be a minimum.Curb Chain (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Foo users or Category:Foo Wikipedians where "Foo" stands for the cutesy made-up title in question. I have nothing against the awards, but the category names should make it clear that this is Wikipedia meta-information, not real-world information. JIP | Talk 19:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per JIP's suggestion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all / Rename all - To think of all the trouble involved with previous discussions on Category:Old Fooians, which was allegedly "impenetrable" to modern youth but which at least had a basis in reality (having been used for several hundred years in several cases), compared with this list, which varies between WP:HUMOR at best and WP:OR at worst (assuming the terms mean something, which I doubt) Ian Cairns (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The page WP:SVC explains that the terms from Signator to Grognard mean something, the ones after that are meaningless made-up names. JIP | Talk 17:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Please , let's try to make this site a more serious and fully trustworthy place.Jorgen W (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Should this question be decided without notifying the hundreds of people who chose to put the userboxes on their user pages? RockMagnetist (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category: Wikipedia Foo , where Foo is the synonym for each title (e.g., "Journeyman Editor" for "Grognard"). RockMagnetist (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or chop, don't really care - just removed the rhodium star thingy from my page ... didn't even notice the category it added ... Illustrious Looshpahs good grief! sounds like a pompous drunk. Vsmith (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also agree that the users affected should be notified of this. Vsmith (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per JIP. JonC ^Talk 20:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per RockMagnetist. The made up names should never have been used for the categories. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:26, 13 October 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:Standard gauge railway lines by country etc

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) 11:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting

Category:Standard gauge in the United Kingdom
Category:Standard gauge railway lines by country
Category:Standard gauge by country
Category:Standard gauge

Nominator's rationale:

The deletion of the above categories will bring the structure of the “Standard gauge” category into line (pun) with that of the “Narrow gauge” category. The usual for gauges “by country” is “railways in” not “railway lines in” eg Category:Standard gauge railways in Japan or Category:Narrow gauge railways in Australia, and they are subcategories of the “Rail transport” category eg Category:Rail transport in Japan. Hugo999 (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to Category:Standard gauge railways in the United Kingdom, Category:Standard gauge railways by country, Category:Standard gauge railways. Occuli (talk) 12:57, 2 October 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:History of Serbia by time

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:History of Serbia by time to Category:History of Serbia by period

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Non-standard and doesn't seem to be any disctinction between the two. Tim! (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nom. A time distinction is not used anywhere else and is of little use in the literature.Curb Chain (talk) 19:08, 2 October 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.

Muslim scholars of Islam

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Muslim scholars of Islam into Category:Muslim scholars.
Merge Category:Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam into Category:Sunni Muslim scholars.
Merge Category:Shi'a Muslim scholars of Islam into Category:Shi'a Muslim scholars.

Nominator's rationale:: I don't see the point of having those extra levels. I think the intention was to have Muslim scholars specializing in fields other than Islam be part of the parent category, and only include religious scholars in the subcategory. This arrangement however, is confusing and unnecessary. It's not even followed as far as I can tell. Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting organizational chart on the category page, though. I've never seen that before. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I don't see anything confusing or unnecessary about the scheme. Eg Tahir Amin is a Muslim scholar but not of Islam. Pervez Hoodbhoy is another. Occuli (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep all Part of a thought out category structure, as shown in the diagram on the category pages. It is very clear what these categories represent. To delete these categories would create confusion, not the reverse, for an area of knowledge which is relatively obscure to Western, English-language readers. If articles are in the wrong category, then experts need to fix that fact. Hmains (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a "Muslim scholar" could be a scholar of just about anything. "of Islam" is a very important dismabiguation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Alternatively drop "Muslim" from the category names e.g Category:Sunni scholars of Islam. Muslim scholars of Islam should perhaps be kept anyway to keep out of it Category:Christian scholars of Islam, probably a small category, but I expect there are a few. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed – there is Category:Non-Muslim Islamic scholars. Occuli (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep presumably Muslim scholars can be scholars of botany who happen to be Muslim, given that we love to categorize people by religion and such. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:00, 3 October 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.