Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 18

< January 17	January 19 >

January 18[edit]

Category:British civil servants to Ceylon[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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 1. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British civil servants to Ceylon to Category:Administrators in British Ceylon

Nominator's rationale: Per parent category Category:People of British Ceylon, and similar categ Category:Administrators in British India. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Sri Lanka has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected capitalization within the name of the target category: 'In' → 'in'. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- Category:British civil servants in Ceylon. I am not clear why the Indian category is administrators, rahter than civil servant. It may be so as to include pre-1857 officers of HEIC, who were servants of the company, bit civil servants of the crown; or perhpas so as to include residents who were notionally ambassadors to princely states but often in fact ran them. However the preposition should be "in" not "to". These were people engaged in ruling, not in the nature of ambassadors. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are you sure that it it is technically correct to refer to such colonial officers as "civil servants"? It seems to me to be better to use the broader term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. "Civil servant" may be an anachronism here, I'm not sure. Better not to use it if we can avoid it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 27 January 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.

Āstika and nāstika[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: self-withdraw for now per discussion below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Astika to Category:Āstika and nāstika

Propose merging Category:Nastika to Category:Āstika and nāstika

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The article Āstika and nāstika covers these together so I think we should have a category that combines both as well. I suggest merging both in to a new category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose -- They mean the opposite of each other, and refer to totally different schools of thought. One is orthodox, and the other heterodox. The article should be split, the category shouldn't be merged. Merging the two totally defeats the purpose of the organization of the main categories of Category:Indian philosophy. Certainly I would support a rename reflecting the proper use of diacritical marks, but in two separate categories. Please reconsider. Greg Bard (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That would make a lot of sense if the article is split. It doesn't seem to me that there's much of a case to not discuss them together in the same article, though. I think perhaps I'll withdraw this and just rename them speedily with the diacritics. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:43, 18 January 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.

Category:Australian military personnel killed at Anzac Cove on 25 April 1915[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 Category:Australian military personnel killed at Anzac Cove on 25 April 1915 to Category:Australian military personnel killed in World War I. Listification is apparently already done by cat creator. - jc37 05:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian military personnel killed at Anzac Cove on 25 April 1915 to Category:Australian military personnel killed at the landing at Anzac Cove

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest simplifying this name to match the article about this event, which is landing at Anzac Cove. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose: The reason I created this category was specifically to isolate those individuals who died on 25 April 1915, rather than on any other occasion. Those who died on 25 April 1915 occupy a significantly different space in history from those others who died, in the Dardanelles, on other dates (many of whose death occurred as they were "landing" at "Anzac Cove" on dates other than 25 April) Lindsay658 (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain why the category system should isolate those who died on a particular date? With categories, broader is usually preferred to narrower, especially when no such broad category yet exists. I understand the significance of the operation, but it seems silly to exclude someone who died at 12:00am on 26 April. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Thank you for explaining your position.

(2) In my view, the "category system", in this case, must "isolate those who died on [this] particular date" — for the simple and highly significant reason that, to the majority of Australians, that specific day, 25 April 1915, is the single-most important day in the entire military history of Australia.

(3) Also, to quite a number of Australians, it is also considered to be the most important day in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia (being, to those that assert such a thing, the day that Australia "came of age").

(4) With respect, it is also very important for you to understand that although your "protest" (relating to "someone who died at 12:00am on 26 April") has a certain vague intellectual interest, it has no "real world" value at all; simply because there is no "notable person" listed in the entire Wikipedia, who was also serving in the "Australian military", who is listed as dying in the Dardanelles on 26 April.

(5) Apart from those who died in the process of making the landing on 25 April 1915, the next "notable individual" who died, in the Dardanelles, in Australian service, was a man who had landed at Anzac Cove quite "safe and sound" on 25 April, and was shot by a Turkish sniper on 27 April 1915 (two days later): Brigadier General Henry Normand MacLaurin.

(6) Consequently, I argue, my categorization should stand. Best to you. — Lindsay658 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I suggest that Lindsay658 overstates the case. Yes, 25 April is an important date and it is now a public holiday in Australia, but all the stuff about "coming of age" and so on is about the whole Dardanelles campaign. Categories should match article names. Note too that it is the only sub-category of Category:Australian military personnel killed in World War I. Any sub-category should be wider than those killed on one day. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree that those killed on 25 April 1915 are a particularly notable group of those Australians killed in WW1. Geographically limiting deaths to those on Anzac Cove would be pretty pointless as it would be an obscure subset of all the Australians killed in the Dardanelles throughout the campaign. Many Australians were killed elsewhere within the perimeter at Anzac and they were also killed elsewhere on the peninsula and at sea. It is not a trivial subcategory, and I believe it should stand. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Australian military personnel killed in World War I (1st preference) or merge as nominated (2nd preference). I will not question the significance of dying on 25 April 1915 versus any other day in the Dardanelles Campaign, or World War I in general, but I maintain that categorization is not the appropriate tool for what's being attempted here. This is plainly a case of overcategorization: a small category with limited potential for growth that is, furthermore, an extremely narrow intersection of five characteristics – nationality (Australian), occupation (military personnel), death (killed), place of death (Anzac Cove) and date of death (25 April 1915). The information that this category attempts to express is better suited for the main article, Landing at Anzac Cove. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as per Black Falcon. I appreciate the sentiment but this is not a correct use of categorisation. Leaving it at the level of nationality and conflict is adequate as is done for all other participant nationalities in the First World War - see Category:Military personnel killed in World War I. I go there I see a list of countries and only need to know the nationality of my chosen subject not a very specific where, date which makes searching vry difficult. NtheP (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). I think two things are coming clear to me: (1) there are some who wish to have a grouping of those Australians killed at Anzac Cove on this particular date, and (2) such a narrow category is very much out of the norm for WP and it should probably be upmerged as Black Falcon suggests. In light of this, I think upmerging the category with creation of a list article would be a reasonable compromise. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Black Falcon. It sounds like a fascinating article but drives a squadron of horses and carriages through WP:OCAT. Oculi (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as per Black Falcon. Whilst I understand the sentiment behind the category for Australian Mihist, I'd rather see this a list which could effectively group the men by unit, rank, place of birth etc. Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rejoinder: Notwithstanding all of the above, please allow me to make my point another way, that I believe is more attuned to the overall enterprise of the Wikipedia (rather than the more narrow enterprise of the Australian aspect of the military history "project"). It seems that the majority of the responses (above) are based upon one or more of three views:

(a) the categorization embodied within the group that I have suggested represents an extremely minute sub-ordinate sub-set that is so far removed from its immediately super-ordinate set that it has no right to exist within the greater Wikipedia taxonomical system (and, to greatly exaggerate my point here, it seems that I have been accused of creating a specific category for Monocle wearing Australian military personnel of World War I with at least one undescended testicle who only drank their tea from a left-handed moustache cup), or

(b) that there are many other brave men who died on other days, and that, therefore, to place any stress upon the (estimated 650) men who died at that location, on 25 April 1915 is an act of distorting their military contribution such that it appears to be being given a higher value than all of the other war dead, or

(c) they would prefer to see some other category instead (which seems rather odd, as there is no necessity for it to be a case of “some other category instead”, it could always be “another category as well").

My simple point is this:

(1) Wikipedia is there to be used by everyone, and many of those who are relying on it more and more for their information are far from the level of sophisticated understanding displayed by those taking part in the above discussion.

(2) The fact that a particular individual took part in the landing on 25 April 1915, rather than any other day, is a matter of great interest to the average person.

(3) The fact that a particular individual died in the process of the landing on 25 April 1915, rather than any other day, is a matter of even greater interest to the average person.

(4) If you were to conduct a marketing survey amongst the public, I’m sure that you would find that all of them would immediately identify the usefulness (from their point of view) of this category – as, more or less, they would also find it useful as an entry in a book’s index.

(5) The taxon “Australian military personnel killed at Anzac Cove on 25 April 1915” is not some artificial construct, it is an easily recognized, universally accepted, and immediately understood “natural kind.

And, because of this, I genuinely believe that the opposition expressed above, is not a case of people “discussing” the “issue”, it is a case of people talking past each other, and I still assert that the category should stand. Lindsay658 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about a list article at this stage as a type of compromise? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as per Black Falcon. The detailed reasoning against it by Lindsay658 raises interesting points, but fails to address the issue that this is developing the categorization system on wikipedia in a whole new direction. There are better ways within the existing structure of wikipedia to disseminate the information, such as listifying, and these appear to be being discussed intelligently, without people talking past each other, except to the extent that they are taking a different view to the opposer. Benea (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to list -- on the basis of quiet reflection, and a careful re-reading of WP:OCAT,I am now convinced by Good Ol’factory's suggestion that it be made into a list; and that the list should have the title List of Australian military personnel killed at Anzac Cove on 25 April 1915‎. If there is an agreement, I am prepared to construct the list, and I will set it up in a similar fashion to the list at List of Victorian Football League players who died in active service. I thought that it would be useful to have the following columns:

Name (this would show their full name, with a "piped link" (Wikipedia:Piped link) back to the title of their Wikipedia article,
Occupation on enlistment,
Age at death (I think that this would be far more useful than date of birth),
Rank held at time of death,
Service number, and
Military awards (including those posthumously bestowed).

(1) is there a general agreement? (2) Any other suggestions for the list? -- Lindsay658 (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this sounds like a good plan - I'd also add place of birth and unit Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see List of Australian military personnel killed at Anzac Cove on 25 April 1915; I imagine that, if an article ever appeared that spoke of an individual who, later, died of woulds received at the landing on 25 April, it may also be listed here. However, with the best search that I am able to perform, I have not been able to locate an article on an individual who died of wounds received during the landing on 25 April 1915. (also, can someone please deal with the removal of the category, because I don't know how that is done). Lindsay658 (talk) 01:24, 22 January 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.

Airline categories with no main article[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. These are clearly part of a well-maintained category tree, and as the recently started Moscow Airways article shows, it's likely that the others will gain airline articles eventually.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Given that there are no articles about these airlines yet, it seems premature and not terribly useful to have a category named after the airline. Each category contains only a subcategory about "accidents and incidents". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator- William 02:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. None of these categories are empty, and the sub-categories are all in Category:Airliner accidents and incidents by airline. The vast majority of subcats of Airliner accidents and incidents by airline are children of an airline category, so the navigational path of Categ:X airline → Categ:X airline accidents and incidents is well-established. Retaining Categ:X airline allows navigation to the accident category via Category:Airlines by country etc.
The fact that a head article has not yet been written about these articles seems to me to be an answer to the wrong question. Would be a little more persuadable if there was a case that no encyclopedic article could be written about these airlines, tho I don't think that would be a sufficient reason to delete ... and in any case the phenomenon of small-airline-whose-plane-crashes tends to generate a lot of coverage of that airline, so I doubt that the airlines themselves would fail WP:GNG if proper research was done on the sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Delete Subcats Keep thse cats and delete all the "accidents and incidents" sub-cats. These are empty parent cats to house sub-cats that are themselves non meaningful RevelationDirect (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all unless it is decided to delete all Category:Airliner accidents and incidents by airline not just the ones without an article on the airline. Otherwise the above are required for the acidents category tree Hugo999 (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would they be "required" to hold the accidents subcats? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not in favor of deleteing all accident and incident cats by airline. For larger airlines with a lot of articles or ones with multiple accidents, I find them very useful. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That didn't really answer my question of why we need a category named after the airline just to hold a category that contains accidents the airline has had. It would be possible to have the accidents category without the category named after the airline. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Create the missing articles even if only as stubs. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and create stubs. --Codrin.B (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close and renominate individually – Eponymous category for airlines should be treated no differently than eponymous categories for musicians, films or television series – i.e., we should have them only if there is sufficient content to justify them. A single article about the airline and a subcategory that is part of a better-established categorization scheme is not enough, just as a biography and a Foo songs category is not enough to justify an eponymous category for a musician. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I am in the process of creating a stub about Moscow Airways and am researching the others. However, for some, such as Spair Airlines, there is an almost total lack of information in accessible online English-language reliable sources, and what information there is usually is about the accident and, therefore, only tangentially related to the airline. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Moscow Airways, which I'll attempt to expand some more tomorrow. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:55, 2 February 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.

Category:Works about the Gettysburg Battlefield[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) 00:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Works about the Gettysburg Battlefield to Category:American Civil War books

Nominator's rationale: Another User:Target for Today micro-category. The sole entry (which I think is of dubious notability anyway) was originally categorized as a work of history, but since its subject is ghosts, I think a different categorization is called for. Mangoe (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on some contents I see in the Gettysburg disambig page and template, I think there could be enough for a "works about..." category. But not two. Yes, in addition to creating the nominated category, he also created Category:Works about the Battle of Gettysburg back in October. Bizarre. This has got to stop. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. From what I see, the editor who created the new category may be attempting to disambiguate between the battle itself and the battlefield; in other words, between the action and the location. But I see no need for that, since the only article in this category is about the supposed ghosts of victims of the battle and not about the location itself. --NellieBly (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. There may be enough works for a Battle cat, but I agree this is an attempt at a battlefield cat. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge obviously. Can some one threaten User:Target for Today with being blocked (or partly blocked) if he does not stop creating unnecessary categories? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an ANI discussion about that well underway at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Target_for_Today_and_category_churning. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Dedicating a category for a single article doesn't make much sense. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge obviously. Oculi (talk) 00:18, 23 January 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.