Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 25 April 27 >

April 26[edit]

Category:English District Council elections[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:English district council elections – Fayenatic London 19:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Councils at this level of local government in England are named either district or borough councils, not just district councils (sub-categories include Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council elections and Category:Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council elections). Suggested name is also decapitalised as it is not a proper noun in this case and is therefore in line with Category:English county council elections. Number 57 23:28, 26 April 2014 (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:Redditch District Council elections[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. – Fayenatic London 19:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category was misnamed as the council is Redditch Borough Council (confirmed by their website). As pointed out in response to the speedy request decline, this is in line with the naming convention for these categories (either "Footown Type Council elections" or "Council elections in Footown"). Number 57 22:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
  • Rename per nom -- The content is all for Redditch DC elections. It is the main article that should be renamed. Redditch also contains the parish of Feckenham, but I do not think we need articles on parish council elections, which would be encompassed by the present main article name. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2014 (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:Biophysical Society Awards[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 to Category:Biophysics, also to Category:American science and engineering awards since Category:Awards by subject is more significant and well-developed than Category:Awards by awarding entity. The three awards are already mentioned in the Society article. – Fayenatic London 20:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a category for a scientific society's awards. As such, it's both a sort of eponymous category, and a small-with-limited-potential-for-growth category. Much better to simply list the relevant awards on the Biophysical Society page, and link therefrom. The articles on the awards themselves are best categorized with related awards, rather than segregated in a separate category of their own. Lquilter (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS -- If kept, it needs to be renamed to lowercase "awards", because the category X awards is not itself a proper name. --Lquilter (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. That page refers to "the awards programs" in lowercase. The only reference that's a full proper name references a "Biophysical Society Awards Committee", which is a proper name -- but for a committee, not the collective set of awards. The individual awards are all individually titled, and the articles on the individual awards here are also individually titled. (See below.) It would be pretty unusual for a collective set of awards to be given its own proper name, and I don't see any reason why it would be so here. ... But more importantly, the category shouldn't exist! The list I include below has 9 awards, which is pretty much the definition of "small with limited potential for growth" in WP:OCAT.
  • Anatrace Membrane Protein Award
  • Avanti Award in Lipids
  • Distinguished Service Award
  • Emily M. Gray Award
  • Fellow of the Biophysical Society Award
  • Founders Award
  • Margaret Oakley Dayhoff Award
  • Michael and Kate Bárány Award
  • US Genomics Award
Lquilter (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to Category:Biophysical Society awards. This is not the usual kind of award category: it is a category of awards, not of award winners (which we do not allow). If they are NN awards, the appropriate course is to nominate them for AFD, which if successful will empty the category and lead to its deletion. My guess is that the awards are made by the Society, but the selection is delegated to a committee of the board of the Society. That is not unusual. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PKI, why isn't "small with limited potential for growth" or "eponymous" applicable here? I didn't argue WP:OCAT#Award; as you say, it's not an award (winners) category. --Lquilter (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Small category that is not part of any general scheme. The Dayhoof award is not even notable enough for it to be mentioned on the bio of one of the two winners for whom we have an article. Part of me wonders if it is notable enough to even have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2014 March 25 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still stand by my previous comment. WP#OC:AWARD does not apply because this is a category of awards, not award winners. I agree that it is a small category, but I do not see any other objection. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with Category:Biophysics; everyone in biophysic's awards can go there, don't need to single each out by grantor. The only one arguing keep seems to fundamentally misunderstand the nomination - citing OC:AWARD as a strawman. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2014 (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.

History of the Utah Territory[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 all. Although I was pinged from the last comment, I did not review this but even then consensus is strongly in support of the renaming. A cursory review of Category:Former organized territories of the United States shows that (other than Oregon territory) the 'the' has been removed in large part. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The subcats for decades, years and establishments do not use "the". Nor do the equivalents for Arizona Territory and New Mexico Territory just approved at April 9. – Fayenatic London 19:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for now. I'm inclined to oppose. Having the 'the' in the title seems to be better English and it reads better. I know that there were a bunch that are related that just got renamed, but those may also be wrong. Maybe best to have the question here about the need for 'the' in these titles. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative: if this is rejected, it would be helpful if editors would instead state whether the April 9 close should be changed to insert "the" into the large number of categories for Arizona Territory and New Mexico Territory, as we have not yet updated the templates on those pages. Likewise, a decision to insert "the" into all the sub-cats for Utah Territory decades, years and establishments, without having to start a fresh listing for them all, would save work. – Fayenatic London 07:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all the periodic categories into history. The Territory was too shortlived for us to need centuries and millenia cats (with one subcat). Even the decades can only be a very small category. Rename the rest per nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you mean merge the first four nominated categories, but not all their sub-cats for decades and years. I agree that we could do this quite sensibly, in terms of the Utah Territory hierarchy. However, they do have other parents as part of other structures, and your proposal would remove the sub-cats from e.g. 19th Century in the United States - unless we put the History one into that parent. – Fayenatic London 21:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I'm commenting just on the "the" issue, which is what the nomination seems to be about. From what I have seen and read, either usage is fine and they seem to be used at a roughly equivalent rate. In any situation where it's just as acceptable to omit a "the" prior to a proper name, I would tend to default towards omitting it in a category name, because it will usually be more helpful non-native English speakers. That seems to also be the general approach of Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the comments above. The simply does not read well or sound well on the ear. So the current names are correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I agree with Good Olfactory that these are equally acceptable terms. Kennethaw88 • talk 00:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I have read a lot about Utah Territory, and that is the general form used in most reliable sources as the common reference. On the issue of if these categories are needed, Utah Territory was one of the longest-lived US territories (it lasted over 40 years) and is one of the clearest examples of a colonialist regime, where there were clear and pronounced differences between the majority of the territory residents and the governing officials. The Officialdom of Utah Territory thus were a very different group of people then those who ran Utah after it became a state. There are debates on whether Reconstruction, or US control of the Philipines is the better paradigm, but the later view as advocated by Nathan Oman is the one that currently has accednecy in the historical field. As it stands, if we have categories for any territories, we should have one for Utah Territory. There is also the fact that Utah Territory for its first 15 years was larger than the current boundaries of Utah, exercising effective authority in parts of Nevada and also maybe doing so in far southern Idaho for a time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Equally used, and equally acceptable, do not justify making a change. We abhor a leading "the" in titles, but mid-phrase there is no problem, and it sounds more like fluent English. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is no more "The Utah Territory" than it is "the Utah". Utah Territory is by far the most common name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if it is equally used (which I doubt—I still think omitting the "the" is more common), there is a good reason to change these ones—to conform to the pre-existing standard used in other Utah Territory categories. That's generally been such a persuasive reason that it has been given its own speedy renaming criterion. Regardless of what is done, the worst result would be to have some in one format and some in the other. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is it correct to assume that the use of "the" is more common in speaking language while without "the" is more common in formal language? If that's correct, we shouldn't use "the" in an encyclopedic context. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't think that's necessarily correct. I speak/write about the territory reasonably often in an academic setting and I would never use the "the" in writing or speaking. Occasionally I encounter someone who does, but it seems to be the same people who say "the Sudan" or "the Ukraine", so it may be more of an individualistic stylistic quirk. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On crude measures of frequency of use:
Google Ngram. "of the Utah Territory" versus "of Utah Territory"
Ngram
The 2nd strongly dominates 1850-1990, moderately thereafter.
The first increases steadily from 1930, reaching ~50% of the second, 1993-2008
Gscholar hits. "of utah territory"
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=%22of+utah+territory%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
"about 878 results"
Gscholar hits. "of the utah territory"
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=%22of+the+utah+territory%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
about 345 results
Good Ol’factory's feeling that omitting the "the" is more common is supported. It is more common enough to justify changing things? Barely I suppose. More persuasive to me is the notion of "inconsistencies in the tree". Does this rename proposal mean increasing consistency in the category tree? If yes, I'd support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would mean increasing consistency in the category tree; that is my goal in making the nomination. – Fayenatic London 22:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Support per nom. Consistency is good. Usage is in agreement. I personally don't think worrying about "the" is important, but having made the effort to investigate, I support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: please either approve the renames; or the combination of renaming and merging suggested by Peterkingiron; or approve reverse renaming of the sub-cats for years, establishments etc (adding "the" to those). There is no support for maintaining inconsistency. – Fayenatic London 23:04, 30 June 2014 (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:Four-yearly events[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 C2C. The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match related categories for Annual, Biennial and Triennial events. SFB 10:47, 26 April 2014 (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:Songs about loneliness[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: withdrawn by nominator pending centralised discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
The last 2 categories were originally nominated separately. I have merged the discussions with the nominator's consent per a discussion on my talk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and see Wikipedia:Overcategorization and specifically, WP:DEFINING. "Songs about topic" is a thoroughly-flawed basis for a category, because songs (like poetry) use imagery and metaphor to convey a complex range of ideas and emotions; plenty of songs are not about what they are about. Many members of these categories don't mention what the lyrics are "about" so inclusion must be based of the use of a word in the title. Hardly defining! "Songs about..." categories remain a repository of original research without any redeeming factors. Richhoncho (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now as part of a series under Category:Songs by theme. I entirely agree with the nominator's argument that is silly to try defining a theme to artistic works which use imagery and metaphor, and that many such works are not about what they are about.
    However, I don't agree with cherrypicking one example when the rationale applies to the whole category. That leads to repeated discussions about the same principle, which wastes editors' time and risks inconsistent results.
    The principle which the nominator sets out so well should be pursued through a centralised discussion, either by a CFD of all similar categories, or by an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BHG, I had intended to have a CfD of all similar categories but I messed it up. I realized after the second nomination, so added this one (low fruit etc.) Next time I intend to do it properly, but decided to let these 3 run in any event. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Richhoncho: it would be much much better to have a centralised discussion somewhere about the principle which you set out, rather than going for a "low hanging fruit" strategy. Please please please withdraw these noms to allow that centralised discussion (see WP:MULTI), or at the very least merge the 3 discussions on this page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAW NOMINATIONS for procedural reasons only as noted above. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2014 (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 set in former countries[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 all, the first to Category:Works by country of setting. The rationale is not strong, as articles are categorised according to country of setting, and this is defining for them; the nominated cats are containers only for those country categories, split according to current or former. However, there is a strong enough consensus here to move those country categories up out of Former countries. Only certain things are worth setting apart in Category:Former countries, e.g. Society by country is not; and there is a clear consensus here against keeping works by setting down at that level. – Fayenatic London 11:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Whether the country in which a film is set still exists (or not) is not generally a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the film. Ditto novels etc. For info: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14#Category:Massacres_in_former_countries closed as merge. DexDor (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination changed to merge per comments below (technically, it's not an upmerge though). DexDor (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all (as creator). These categories have not so much a geographical, but a historical perspective: Category:Works set in former countries is an integral part of Category:Works by period of setting, Category:Films set in former countries is part of Category:Historical films, ... Moreover, we have a Category:Works about former countries. Stefanomione (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • upmerge each to appropriate "by country" parent I don't see how the "formerness" is significant. Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge each to appropriate "by country" parent per Mangoe. It seems also difficult to define whether a work is set in a former country or not. Should we define from a real-world or a fictional perspective? The time of setting is defined from a fictional perspective, but from that perspective there are no former countries. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, many fictional works will be written as the narative of a lost civilization. They will open with saying they are the balad of Gilead telling the tall of that great land before it was destroyed in the Goblin Wars. So it is possible to have a fictional work in a fictional former country. The most fun is what if we have a work that purports to be the tale of the fall of the United States, and then tells of people's actions in the United States after its fall (that is essentially what Orson Scott Card's set of short stories Folk of the Fringe is, it is a work set in the former United States, which is now a disorganized, post-nuclear holocaust land lacking any clear order, at least outside of Utah. Much of the narrative takes place in areas that can only be described as "former country lands".John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Mangoe. Kennethaw88 • talk 03:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge This is not really a seperate nature to the works setting. Also, the current name begs the question, were the countries former when the works were created, or do we class a novel written in 1980 set in the Soviet Union in the 1930s in this category or not?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Otiria[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete — Upmerge into Category:People from the Northland Region. Some of the NZ "people from..." categories are small, but most of them at least have a good chance of growing. But Otiria is much too tiny a settlement for this sort of category. It'd be unlikely to ever reach even two articles. FWIW, it's no longer listed as an official census location in New Zealand, and is a farming community close to a town of 1300 people. Older sources suggest it probably has a population of 200 at most. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • upmerge as per nominator's rationale. Schwede66 19:47, 26 April 2014 (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:André Hazes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No real need for an eponymous category for one distinct article in two different subcatgories. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:15, 26 April 2014 (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/2014_April_26&oldid=1138398962"