Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 21 March 23 >

March 22[edit]

Category:Trinidad and Tobago Wikipedia administration[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) 07:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Trinidad and Tobago Wikipedia administration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Covered by WikiProject Trinidad and Tobago. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:23, 22 March 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:Shortened Space Shuttle missions[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: Listify & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Shortened Space Shuttle missions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC - this isn't significantly defining enough to merit a categorisation, I believe. The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Missions in the most significant space programs in history that were adjusted for safety and equipment failure reasons is sufficiently defining and well documented as well.--RadioFan (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I don't think this fails as over categorization. Over categorization would be "Space Shuttle missions shortened due to {problem}". This category is very generic, and maybe even could be a little more specific.--NavyBlue84 03:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The topic is that sort of thing that is covered in articles. Categories are for clear cut occurrences. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete. A shortnened mission is not necessarily a clear-cut issue, so a category such as this raises subjectivity issues (see WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE). This sort of information is much better conveyed through a list-style article, which can explain why the mission was shortened, by how much etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:11, 30 March 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:Tier One[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 per nom; revisit if main article is moved. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tier One to Category:Scaled Composites Tier One program
Nominator's rationale: The proposed renaming here both applies consistency with the other subcategories of Category:Human spaceflight programmes, conforms more closely to the main article, and avoids ambiguity with the "Tier foo" black UAV projects that the U.S. Military has run - which was, in fact, what I expected when I clicked on the category in question - along with all the other "Tier Ones". The Bushranger One ping only 21:29, 22 March 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:Canadian defamation litigants[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) 07:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Canadian defamation litigants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American defamation litigants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added 2012-03-26 04:39 UTC)
Category:Australian defamation litigants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added 2012-03-26 04:39 UTC)
Category:Defamation litigants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added 2012-03-26 04:39 UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Defined as "Canadians who are party in a defamation lawsuit", and currently includes Canadian corporations. (It also includes the Church of Scientology and Gordon Ramsay—neither of which is Canadian—so presumably the category is meant to categorize "litigants in Canadian defamation lawsuits"; i.e., the lawsuits are ones that were in Canadian courts, and the litigants were not necessarily Canadian.) To me this is overcategorization by non-defining characteristic. The fact that the Toronto Star has been sued for defamation at least once seems unsurprising and far from the core of what makes it a notable newspaper. Similarly, involvement in a defamation lawsuit is not central to the notability of any of the people included int he category. I think we should generally avoid a "litigants by type of civil lawsuit" category scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete anyone in the public eye is potentially named in any number of civil cases. Being a defendant is not generally defining for them; for anyone for whom their main claim to fame is being a defendant I think that WP:1E would likely apply. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Every major newspaper will suffer defamation (or Libel) suits regularly, so that we might as well put them all in (which would in fact not be helpful). On the other hand, for individual claimants, being defamed is hardly defining. If kept it should be renamed to Category:Defamation litigants in Canada, which resolves the issue of whether the litigants are Canadian nationals. Nevertheless, I do not think we need it at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categorizing by type of litigant isn't workable.RevelationDirect (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nom). I have added some similar categories that were created after this nomination was begun. The same basic rationale applies for each. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peterkingiron. Much better to categorise the litigation (if notable) rather than the parties. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They look like they are intended to track current affairs (of litigation), and as such are very unlikely to be maintained accurately. Keeping the encyclopedia up to date, up to the minute, is great, in the prose of articles, but categories are too clumsy to use this way. If it is intended to categories all that ever were litigants, then delete as a non-defining. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:16, 29 March 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:World War II rocket-powered aircraft of Germany[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) 07:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:World War II rocket-powered aircraft of Germany to Category:World War II fighter aircraft of Germany and Category:Rocket-powered aircraft
Nominator's rationale: This is the only by-nation subcategory of Category:Rocket-powered aircraft, and the only subcategory of Category:World War II aircraft of Germany that is by propulsion, not role. While the the nation of origin is defining, the era is defining, and the propulsion is defining, the nation+propulsion+era intersection here is not defining, and this is a WP:SMALLCAT that is (a) not part of an established category tree, and (b) a Category:World War II rocket-powered aircraft tree is unlikely to be created or be sustainable. Propose upmerge to the parent RPA category, and to the fighter subcategory of the WWIIAoG parent cat, as all three articles in this category are fighter aircraft. The Bushranger One ping only 20:57, 22 March 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:Noli Me Tangere (novel)[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) 21:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Noli Me Tangere (novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Lieftingtalk - contribs) 19:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: was discussed recently and closed as "no consensus". Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • oops. I normally check. Should I withdraw it or let it run its course? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank if you were the one who informed me about this deletion. Please withdraw. I neglected this but there used to be many articles. The novel is a critical awakening point for nationalism in the Philippines and there should be many cateories.Jondel (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Alan Liefting—I think it's OK for it to run it's course, given that it was closed "no consensus". Had it been closed as "keep" I might suggest waiting some period of time, but it's not necessary here I don't think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A very small category that will never grow any larger. That it recently had a discussion that was closed as "no consensus" is not a reason to withdraw this one, as we are still trying to find consensus (this would be completely different if the last outcome had been "keep", of course). Jenks24 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, I've improved the cats at the Maria Clara article so that it won't be affected much once this cat is deleted. The other two articles are sufficiently categorized anyways.--Lenticel (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've would've gladly voted Keep had the articles for the adaptations of the novel have been created. --Lenticel (talk) 02:19, 23 March 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:White dwarfs[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) 07:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:White dwarfs to Category:White dwarf stars
Nominator's rationale: While the article name is White dwarf, and should remain so, this is a case where I believe the category name should deviate from the article name. The article name is clear and unambiguous, but just seeing "Category:White dwarves", somebody might think it referred to Caucasians with dwarfism. More importantly, this is the only subcat of Category:Stars by luminosity class that does not have the "foo stars" format (the others proposed for renaming away from it, appear to be getting no traction). Maintaining consistency there by unifying the naming format of its subcats would be a good thing without introducing any ambiguity or confusion. The Bushranger One ping only 17:26, 22 March 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.

Republic of China & Taiwan[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. Despite the decision in article space to treat the Republic of China as being synonymous with Taiwan, there is no consensus to apply the same logic to the related categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose splitting Category:Republic of China to Category:Taiwan and Category:Taiwan (island)
Propose splitting Category:Taiwan to Category:Taiwan and Category:Taiwan (island)
Nominator's rationale: Following this Requested Move, the Republic of China articles has been moved to Taiwan and the previous Taiwan article has been moved to Taiwan (island). The categories need to be changed accordingly and also need a general tidy because the state/island split hasn't really been followed, as shown by the entries. Once the main categories are sorted the individual subcategories can be renamed to match. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - Esc2003 (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are many topics related to the ROC which are not related to Taiwan at all. This is exactly the mess that was anticipated in the article RM discussion. (But sadly such concerns were ignored in the RM discussion, since most editors participated don't actually edit in this area and resisted to understand it.) Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, I can agree with keeping Taiwan or moving Taiwan to Taiwan (island). But Republic of China should be kept and must be kept. No splitting is necessary at all. Jeffrey (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Republic of China is ambiguous as it can refer to the pre-1947 mainland or the post-1945 Taiwan. This has been a long-running issue, and I am glad to see it reaching a conclusion. Following the derecognition of Taiwan by many states in favour of PRC, the common name for the polity is Taiwan. However, the closing admin cannot be expected to undertake these changes. It may be that we need to start by merging the ROC category to Taiwan, purging it of any pre-1947 mainland articles, after which appropriate articles might be moved to the island category. Category:Republic of China should be re-created as DAB category to prevent its use. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many topics that span across the pre-Taiwan and Taiwan era of the ROC, such as the presidency, the constitution, its laws, its armed force, the flag, and therefore only a category titled "Republic of China" would be appropriate for these topics. (What'd happened in 1947, by the way? The ROC actually relocated its capital to Taipei in 1949 and lost almost all of the Chinese mainland in the mid-1950s.) Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I have my date wrong: I mean the date when the Nationalist Government left the mainland. I clearly mean 1949. I had not realised that PRC was as slow as you suggest in gaining control of the whole mainland: are you sure? My point is that we should have categories for the mainland RoC 1912-49 and other categories (called "Taiwan") for the post-1949 polity. Any RoC categories containing pre-1949 material need to be split to separate the mainland from the island state. I appreciate that this is going to be messy. I think we know where we need to end off (apart from some dissenters), but how do we get there? CFD rules preclude emptying categories; we cannot expect the closing admin to do the split: I suppose the answer is to leave this discussion opening (and pending), so that the replacemetn categories can be added to all articles, after which the source ones can be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were battles along the southeast coast until 1955, and in the southwest until the 1960s. Further, the ROC held the China seat in the UN until 1971, and maintained, as China, full diplomatic ties with the US until 1978. It isn't possible to have a clear cut-off year. In addition to that, many articles can't be split, e.g., President of the Republic of China, Republic of China Army, Flag of the Republic of China, Central Bank of China. I raised such concern in the RM discussion, but no one seemed to be interested by then. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They had Hainan till 1950, and parts of Chekiang until 1955. The insurgency in southwestern China and northern Burma lasted until the 1960s as far as I know. But, as I've mentioned, it isn't only about geography, but also recognition internationally. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am personally opposed to PRC content being named "China" and ROC content being named "Taiwan", but if that's where the main articles are, then everything else should follow suit. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • General oppose, without a clearer explanation of what is going to result. Clearly this is a mess in the making. I agree with Jeffrey that somewhere along the line, we will need a category to house things about the political entity called the "Republic of China" that has existed both prior to and after the 1940s. For instance, Category:People executed by the Republic of China contains people executed both by "Taiwan" and by pre-1940s "China". It would be nonsensical to rename this subcategory to Category:People executed by Taiwan, and it also doesn't make much sense to include it as a subcategory of Category:Taiwan. So what would its parent category be? Why not Category:Republic of China? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Exactly. While it's much less difficult to rename Category:Taiwan to Category:Taiwan (island), it's going to be a big mess to rename Category:ROC as Category:Taiwan. We got a category for the presidents of the ROC. We also got many categories for the political office holders of the ROC. These categories do not belong to Cat:Taiwan. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Because popular media in the US calls doesn't use the phrase "Republic of China". China is 1 country with 2 governments both of which claim the entire geographic area and whose territorial control has shifted over time. These nuances were raised during the article naming discussion but USA Today's third grade writers call it "Taiwan" and that means we have to dumb down our site per WP:COMMONNAME. There's no way to make this make sense at the category level since it is nonsense at the article level; just close your eyes and embrace the madness. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the media Taiwan is portrayed like an independent country, a country which achieved its own independence after four years of post-war trusteeship under China. On Wikipedia, the decision was to equate Taiwan and the ROC, from the latter's founding 100 years ago to 2012. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No wonder you were opposed to the move if you think it meant equating Taiwan and ROC for each of their histories Jeffrey; and same for you RD if you really believe that China is a country with two governments in common understanding today. All the move acknowleged is that the rump ROC state is today universally known by the mainstream, including by most serious, authoritative sources - not simply by "USA Today's third grade writers" or "dumb[ed] down" Wikipedians - as Taiwan. How we deal with the fall out in terms of categories might get complicated. That doesn't mean the basic move decision was wrong or that people need to keep refighting it or talking about "madness" and "nonsense". The same principles that led to the change in terms of our calling things what they are called in the real world should also ensure we don't name or categorise things in ways that they are or were not called in the real world. N-HH talk/edits 06:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to generalize on either side of that discussion because there were so many different comments, many of them not constructive on both sides. The large majority of comments I read were shallow on both sides (e.g. rename because American newspapers well beyond USA Today call it that, keep the name because current guidelines at the time said so) and lacked any of the nuance you're describing. Although I would prefer that the two Chinese governments recognize each other as separate countries and quit pretending otherwise (as most US newspapers have alrady done in your real world), both continue the claim that there is 1 country with 2 governments in my real world. To use popular misunderstandings to rename articles under WP:COMMONNAME does more harm in the category space because we are left to group with names that are not factually accurate, even if they are commonly used. Unlike most other editors here, I'm swallowing the consensus; it's a bit much to ask me to say it tastes good though. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is going to be even more confusing and unhelpful to readers. Jeffrey (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. For a start, there shouldn't be anything in the current Category:Republic of China that would need to move from a new Category:Taiwan to Category:Taiwan (island) (those that possibly wouldn't fit in Category:Taiwan wouldn't fit in Category:Taiwan (island) either). If there is, then normal editing should move it to the current Category:Taiwan. Dealing with it requires more discussion, as noted above. However, I'd support moving Category:Taiwan to Category:Taiwan (island), following its main page. CMD (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Support The decision to regroup the China articles was profoundly misguided. Commonname was applied even though common perceptions about the legal status of PRC and ROC are frankly incorrect and that will become painfully obvious as we intentionally miscagtegorize items. But, since that mistake was made at the article level, we should go full steam ahead and apply the nonsensical decision to the categories. Hopefully we can at least undermine the usability of the categories with more civility than occured along the way with the articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have to agree with you RevelationDirect, albeit very reluctantly. Since the community has decided to equate Taiwan and the Republic of China (Yes it's ridiculous and unthoughtful, but that's indeed was the decision!), we shall proceed to call Sun Yat-Sen the founding father and a former president of Taiwan, the Second Sino-Japanese War as the Taiwanese-Japanese War, the Peiyang Government of the ROC as the Peiyang Government of Taiwan, and the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty as the Taiwanese-American Mutual Defense Treaty. This is necessary to maintain consistency across different articles and categories. The same is done with President of the United States (and Category:Presidents of the United States, instead of "President of the United States of America"). These titles have to match with the name of the country article. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly can't tell if you're mocking me or not! (Since I'm supporting a ridiculous position, I'm fine with it either way.) I guess we could dig in our heels and say "most of the contributors to the discussion about renaming the articles were clearly idiots sincere but mistaken and we're not going to take this abuse in the category space". There are worse places than this to take a firm stand. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less of the "idiots" please and the talk about taking "a stand" as if this the Chinese Civil War still being fought. Of course the things listed abaove are not going to change, if they are the common and accurate names for them, which they presumably are in most cases; just as things are not going to be put into categories where they do not fit. Sarcastic strawmanning and rehashing discredited anti-move arguments is not helpful. N-HH talk/edits 06:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Civility Fair point on my civility, especially after I hoped this discussion wouldn't go negative; I've edited my comments above to make them more appropriate. Speaking of straw men though, the losing side on the article renames wasn't "discredited," just outvoted in favor of a different approach and I'm advocating going along with that consensus in the category space. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Islands of the Republic of China contains islands that are currently ROC-controlled in Taiwan and Fujian provinces while the Category:Islands of Taiwan subcategory includes only those in Taiwan Province. Should we downmerge to Category:Islands of Taiwan, rename to Category:Islands of Taiwan and Fujian provinces, reverse the hierachy to create a Category Islands of Fujian Province, Republic of China underneath Category:Islands of Taiwan, rename/recombine some other way, or leave as is? RevelationDirect (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bite sized chunks is a good idea. I say we just merge everything into Category:Islands of Taiwan, there aren't enough entries to make subcategorising by province necessary, especially since many are already in archipelago subcategories. Perhaps we should close this category discussion for now and open new CfDs for others? CMD (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't close this nomination but it seems to lack a consensus at this point so I'm starting with that less ambitious category. (It may not be the perfect starting point as I thought it was because of some pre-existing category clutter, but close enough. We actually disagree slightly on the structure but I think it will be more of a concrete discussion than this philosphy-fest.RevelationDirect (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generalization Maybe we'll have to make some generalization like that. The territorial shifts in ROC control complicate matters, not only post 1949 (as detailed above) but also before with Japanese puppet states and Mao's rebels. It does seem odd to me that the ROC categories will end in 1949 but but the ROC didn't. Maybe the Taiwan categories can be sub-categories of the ROC categories to better reflect the transition you're describing. What to do with Taiwan from 1895-1945 is probably much less controversial but the Japanese Occupation was met with resistance and still claimed by some as a Chinese province under foreign occupation for 50 years. Those articles are currently under Category:Taiwan under Japanese rule which is placed under multiple Taiwan and Japanese categories. These "Taiwan" cats refer to the island and province, not to the Republic of China (obviously)RevelationDirect (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Category:Republic of China and Category:Taiwan do not overlap. Plenty of content in Category:Republic of China predates 1949 and has nothing to do with Taiwan. To place such articles in Category:Taiwan would be grossly misleading and anachronistic.--Jiang (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm having a feeling that life will be much easier if we call everything about the ROC as Taiwan (and everything about the PRC as China). After all the article RM discussion was closed based upon the notion that average readers and editors don't understand, don't care and don't bother. Jeffrey (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, no, the move of the main article put an end to the idea that one or two anonymous WP editors were somehow being much cleverer and more accurate than the rest of the world and merely brought WP into line with far more serious reference sources when it comes to the simple question of name, while fully acknowledging the complicated history and politics behind the situation; which is something that can be, should be and is explained in article text, and will be properly reflected in other article titles and categories. It was neither "dumbing down" nor was it "based on the notion that the average readers and editors don't understand, don't care and don't bother". If either of you still really believe those things, it might help explain some of the opposition, but it doesn't reflect the reality of the move debate or the move rationale. N-HH talk/edits 14:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. And probably the only logical way out is to apply the same dumbed-down arrangement uniformly to categories, iff that's what Wiki means. Jeffrey (talk) 14:41, 2 April 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:Palea[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 C2B. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Palea to Category:Palea (genus)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is for the genus Palea (no article but Wattle-necked softshell turtle). Palea is about a city, so the category needs a different name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:48, 22 March 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:Gekkonidae[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 as duplicates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Gekkonidae to Category:Geckos
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Currently the target category is a subcategory of the nominated category, and the nominated category is a subcategory of the target category, which sets up an unhelpful category loop. Gekkonidae redirects to Gecko. I don't think we need both categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The category should not be a sub category of itself and can easily be fixed. I see the need for both the gecko and Gekkonidae categories as part of a wider system of separating common and scientific names ( they should be interlinked however) The gecko category is to collect gecko articles and categories that don't form part of the phylogenetic tree. The gecko category does need cleaning out if my proposal is to be accepted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:02, 24 March 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:Georgian Azeris[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) 07:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Georgian Azeris to Category:Georgian Azerbaijanis
Nominator's rationale: Need of standardization. Because, this people priority name is "Azerbaijanis". Esc2003 (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: Wouldn't Category:Azerbaijani Georgians be the preferred format? - The Bushranger One ping only 17:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer: Would be wrong. Because They are Georgian people of Azerbaijani descent. Yes, Azeri name is being used. But Azerbaijani name is being used mostly. This use is more appropriate. And the articles already named with this name. Esc2003 (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I thought long ago we established that categories of this type would be renamed to the format "FOOian people of BARian descent" to overcome the endless disputes over whether the correct format is "FOOian BARs" or "BARian FOOs". So I would say just rename it to Category:Georgian people of Azerbaijani descent, or barring that, Category:Georgian people of Azeri descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Azeri is the term used for the ethnic group, while Azerbaijanis refers to nationals of the nation Azerbaijan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true. (Look: Azerbaijani people) -- Esc2003 (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment many of these people are not "of Azerbaijanian descent". They are ethnic Azeris, thus part of the Azeri coulture. They do not neccesarily have ancestors who ever lived in Azerbaijan. The "of x descent" works in places like the United States, but fails in Georgia. Anyway, the fact that Category:American Métis people exists shows that even in the United States the "x descent" categories have not won out universally. Category:American Jews is arguably another case, although since that is an ethno-lingusitic designation it is even more complexed. Azeri-ness is closely related to being Muslim, so it may also be an ethno-lingusitic designation in some sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -baijan is not country suffix. Azeri name also used widespread. But this is false. Esc2003 (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the Azeri/Azerbaijani distinction helps us make it clear which group is which. Azeri is never used as a nationality marker, only an ethnic one. We need to find a way to distinguish these groups, and this method works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename There is a Turkic people Azerbaijanis. Generally only Turks name them "Azeris". Azeri is the name of an old Persian dialect.--Melikov Memmed (talk) 05:27, 31 March 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:Old Houses in the Philippines[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: Downmerge & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Old Houses in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Does not have a defining characteristic and it is not an official designation by the National Historical Institute. The subcat is already categorised so there is no upmerge needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:53, 22 March 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.

Two more Old Fooians[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 both - jc37 03:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename both, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which combines a plain English descriptive phrase with the WP:COMMONNAME title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
In each case, the purpose of the category is more clearly conveyed by the descriptive format. No information will be lost to the reader, because the school's own terminology is explained in a hatnote in each category.
The proposed name follows the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom. A total of 272 "Old Fooian" categories have now been renamed to a desriptive format, at 67 separate CfDs, and the "People educated at" format is now used by all except about 35 of the ~1000 by-school sub-categories of Cat:People educated by school in the United Kingdom. (Note that there seems to be some cacheing of toolserver queries, so the list in that link currently includes about 20 categories which have already been renamed).
Since this is now the established convention for this category tree, I will omit the general arguments for the descriptive format, and just note that:
  1. Neither the Kimbolton School nor Queen Margaret's School, York appear to have produced many notable alumni: there are only 8 articles in each category.
  2. Neither school is listed amongst the various groupings of top public schools in the UK: the Eton Group, Rugby Group, and Clarendon Group.
  3. "Old Margaretians" is highly ambiguous. There is another Queen Margaret's School in Canada, and lots of St Margaret's School/College/Academys, including 6 in the United Kingdom and a further 5 in former British colonies
  4. Neither term is in common usage, as shown by these Google News searches:
Articles Category School GNews hits
school name		 GNews hits
"Old Fooian"		 GNews hits
"Old FooianS"
8 Old Kimboltonians Kimbolton School 312 0 1
8 Old Margaretians Queen Margaret's School, York 57 0 0
I believe that these renamings meet speedy criterion C2.C: "a rename bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree", so I suggest that this should be speedied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy As someone who has been mostly neutral in your crusade to standardize alumni categories, at this point there seems to be a clear name format established. I think these should be speedies going forward. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I originally was against speedy, then for it, now against it again. Let's proceed in due course.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename Oculi (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename -- Esc2003 (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per much recent precedent. I do not think it can (or should) be speedied. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename - The Bushranger One ping only 17:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I'm not opposed to have the consistent opposers state their opposition again. It does get a little repetitive, but I don't mind, and there is no rush. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename By the way how do Old Margaretians relate to Old houses (be they in the Phillipines or elsewhere? Maybe I should figure out what Margaretians are. How old do they have to be to be categoriezed as "old"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:Commonname. If Old Edwardians makes sense in Sierra Leone as former pupils of St. Edward's Secondary School, as indicated by having a Premier League team named Old Edwardians F.C. that was formed by former pupils of the school, then a reader in Wikipedia should cope with categories with names such as Old Margaretians. I do not expect an encyclopedia to only consist of things that I already know. I expect things to be called by their actual name so that I can learn what they are actually called in the wider world. Cjc13 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Although Sierra Leone is a wonderful place, 99% of Wikipedia's readers do not live there, so the term "old edwardians" is useless as a category name, as agreed at both CfD 2011 Jan 24 and cfd 2012 Feb 25. It also sounds like a very poor choice of name for a list of ppl educated at St. Edward's Secondary School, but that's not a CfD decision.
    As to what things are called in the wider world, the evidence above is that "old Margaretians" is a term not used in the wider world. Categories exist for navigation, not as a device to teach the reader new terminology. If you want to learn what terminology is used in the inhouse WP:JARGON of the schools, you will find it both in a hatnote in the category and in the article.
    So the renaming gives us a win-win outcome. You learn the new words you wanted to learn, and everybody can see what the category is for, regardless of whether they already know the jargon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Cjc13 you seem to have not noticed the discussion above. Evidently the "old foos" formation is not clear enough to only refer to people educated at a given place to make it so "Old Houses" follow this format.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:JARGON, per nom and recent CFDs. It's now clearly at the stage where the proposed names are the standard and the case needs to be made for an individual category to vary from that standard. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and recent CFDs. Snappy (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--- Please close or relist: The consensus seems to be for a rename. There is a great deal of recent prcedent on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a significant backlog of unclosed CfDs. I have left several requests at WP:AN#CFD_Backlog for admins to help clear it, but without any success so far :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 10 April 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.

More constellation disambiguation[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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: Rename. None of the nominated categories currently match the main article for the category. In each case, the article is at an undisambiguated name. However, I am not suggesting that the categories be renamed to match the articles. This is because for each one, I think that there are at least arguable reasons to keep the category in a disambiguated form. Some of these reasons (which I have provided above for each one) are better than others. Anyway, I am suggesting here that for each of these categories the word "constellation" be (bracketed) in the name so that they match the other disambiguated subcategories of Category:Constellations (which were recently renamed by adding parentheses to match the applicable disambiguated articles). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all – rather than agonising over possible ambiguities for each one, just adopt the 'foo (constellation)' format throughout. Oculi (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - the reasons for including the disambiguation are compelling, and there is no reason not to use the standard Wikipedia format for disambiguating. (I've also never heard "the Orion constellation" used, also; it's either "Orion, the constellation", or "the constellation Orion".) - The Bushranger One ping only 17:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Good job.--Lenticel (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and per The Bushranger, for clarity and consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all – These astronomy category revisions are causing issues with editors trying to edit articles belonging to those categories. Please just get this done, be consistent throughout, then get out of the way. Thank you!!! Regards, RJH (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy going forward A clear name consensus has been established. Please proceed with all the rest. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:09, 23 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_22&oldid=1142605998"