Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 4 October 6 >

October 5[edit]

Category:Roman Catholic Religious Brothers[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: MOS:CAPS and consistency with the other categories such as Category:Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns Elizium23 (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is more like a personal preference of the article editor. In the source that's mentioned in the article, Vocation-Network.org, Brother and brother are being alternated with and without capital. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for pointing out that article. I have corrected it in line with MOS:CAPS. Elizium23 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 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:Prince-Bishops 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two categories have the same purpose, one of the two categories is definitely redundant. Since the Holy Roman Empire is the contemporary country name of the Prince-Bishops era, I would propose to merge Germany to Holy Roman Empire rather than vice versa. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 5 October 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:Wikipedia categories named after states of the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. This might be obvious, but this result means that users should not remove categories named after U.S. states from Category:States of the United States, as they have in past, using the justification that not everything placed in Category:California (for example) is a State of the United States.. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category contains nothing but 8 categories with names of US states; all these categories, as well as the categories of the other 42 states, are its sibling categories in Category:States of the United States. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This serves no administrative purpose and these categories are already grouped in the content structure. (The administrative purpose of the parent are also questionable.) SFB 14:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This category exists as a result of the creation of Category:Eponymous categories, categories that are named after a thing itself ("Category: Steve Jobs" counts (and thus has no parent categories aside from the eponymous tree), "Category:Cities in Bulgaria" doesnt, as its a concept). The rationale/need of such a category tree has been debated repeatedly. I myself dont really see the value, but so far, it seems consensus has been to keep it. if the tree is kept, i dont see how one can argue that particular branches of the tree are not appropriate, while others are. I myself see no administrative, or reader, purpose for the tree, and would be happy to see it go away entirely (and i created this particular category, how passive-aggressive is that?)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that Category:Steve Jobs isn't in the content tree shows that this structure is simply a result of a failure to gain consensus on where such categories should be located. It is blaringly obvious that they should be in the content space and not the administrative space, or defined by the fact Wikipedia has a page on them. I'm all for starting that discussion. SFB 23:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: the argument given (which i feel, as an amateur bibliographic scientist, is wrong), is that the category for steve jobs includes things that are NOT jobs, like his business or his children, or a book by or about him, thus the category should not be put in, say "Category:Insanely great salespeople of the United States", as not all the sub articles are of insanely great salespeople of the United States. The example we are discussing would then NOT be placed in Category:States of the United States, as its not the state itself, but only a category named after a state, and not all the subcategories and articles are of such states. I understand the logic to a degree, but it ends up producing a monster. There are a significant number of powerful, ancient editors here who support this scheme, im surprised we havent woken Smaug by debating this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it is Category:States of the United States which is wrong. This should be a list category of individual pages. California is a US State; Category:California is not a US State at all but merely a Wikipedia category named after a US State. Oculi (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Oculi: Do we really need to define categories by their Wikipedia usage, rather than their real content? You could continue this ad infinitum (Category:Wikipedia categories named as Wikipedia categories?) What's the purpose? SFB 23:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • supposedly to help someone with something. i could never figure out what that was. it definitely helps people with OCD and too much time on their hands stay busy.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Oculi: Question Do you personally use categories like these? If so, what do they give you that the main categories don't. (I don't use them but I'm open to understanding their value.)RevelationDirect (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not convinced this category is needed but, if it is, just stick Category:States of the United States in it and be done. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which other editors will remove from. Category:John Lennon was at one time not in a parent category, due to this tree, see this edit. by the way, its actually a reverse tree, like arteries and veins mirror each other.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete You're right. What are we doing here? I honestly don't know what this adds. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary level, I would guess that most users would expect to see Category:California as a subcat of Category:States of the United States, rather to trying to sniff out this odd construct to navigate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can explain its administrative function within WP as a paretn for hidden categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 13 October 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:Electors of Trier‎[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with Elector_of_Trier#Archbishop-Electors_of_Trier. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 5 October 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:Administrators of Bremen Prince-Archbishopric[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 first option in the case of the Lutheran ones; if nominator implements as planned and these renames are made, including "Roman Catholic" in the first ones will make sense (and will be necessary for clarity) in the overall context of the category tree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To clarify the denomination (for all these categories) and to clarify the function title (in case of Lutheran Prince-Bishops), on behalf of the Category:Bishops by denomination tree. Note that there have been some Lutheran administrators instead of Lutheran Prince-bishops, the question is if you would also include that in the category name since that would make the name quite long. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose adding RC to the first batch, because there was before the Reformation no other church in Germany. I am not clear on the post-reformation position, when it was certainly common for secular princes to hold bishoprics without ordination. I am not clear how this worked: one of the list articles is List of bishops, prince-bishops, and administrators of Verden and describes the post-Reformation holders as "administrators", but I think in common parlance they were called "bishops", so that my preference would be to merge to Category:Prince-Bishops of Verden, etc. without distinguishing denomination, because there was not a RC bishop for any after 1566, except as an interloper appointed by the papacy during the 30 years' war. In England, the Anglican bishops after the Reformation are in the same category as the Catholic ones before. The post-Reformation Catholic recusants only had a vicar-general until about the 1850s. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue with this is is that the Bishops tree in Germany at diocese level is split by denomination (i.e. only Roman Catholic bishops are split up by diocese). Therefore the Lutheran bishops in these dioceses appear in in the Roman Catholic branch. My idea was, in conjunction with the proposed rename, to move the Lutheran cats to the appropriate denomination branch. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 17 October 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:Organization categories to adjust[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) 01:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This appears to be a temporary category created in 2007 that probably (now) serves no purpose. DexDor (talk) 06:29, 5 October 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:Wikipedia featured portals in other languages (French)[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) 01:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If we categorized en wp pages by the class (stub/good/featured etc) of the equivalent page on other wikipedias (of which there are now quite a few) then this would be a lot of (probably out of date) category clutter. For info: This category (and, by the way, it's the only “portals in other languages” category in en wp) has existed since 2005. DexDor (talk) 04:52, 5 October 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:Lists_of_placename_etymologies[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: administrative close: no discussion for over a month, so I assume this issue is either over or has been taken elsewhere. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the wrong place to post this, but I posted it at the category and it errored me here, so if anyone knows where this really goes, please help me out. As was done with x-y relations international articles and multiple other categories, this Category:Lists_of_placename_etymologies category's article names need standardized. I am not partial to one style over any other, but I do believe they should all start with List of... I have cleaned up excessively wordy and clunky names already. Possible models include List of x-ian placenames; List of x+local administrative division etymologies, etc. but I would stay away from the clunkier Origins of x -there is a word for that, and we should use it. In addition, I do not know which is preferred, "place name" and "placename" (no hyphen or space) seem to be used interchangeably, but we should choose one and stick to it. "Toponym" could be used in its stead but that may be too jargony for many readers. Anyway, I invite debate, and hope to see this cleaned up. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some corrections to the way this CFD nomination was formatted. Note: I recommend in future that you use WP:Twinkle for doing any CFD nominations or copy the format of an existing nomination. I think "I have cleaned up ... already" probably refers to these edits[2]. DexDor (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's not clear what exactly you want changed about this category or even whether you want the category changed or its contents changed. DexDor (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said very clearly, the category's article names need standardized. If this is the wrong place, as I asked, tell me where it should go.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you thought about asking Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/Etymology ? If you don't propose to change this category itself then please withdraw this CFD (e.g. by striking out the nomination). DexDor (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely the wrong place to discuss that, sorry. But if you feel that List of... should be the right format (which sounds very reasonable), you can just make the changes yourself. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then per WP:BOLD, I will! :)--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well your BOLD just ignored a recent RM at List of Chinook Jargon place names; your move ignored it well within the "reasonable time lapsed since last RM" principle; I'm going to revert it, and I note the presence of others here who were on the opposing side in the RM that wound up retaining the former name which they had tried to change. Improper conduct by all, and contrary to guidelines in a number of ways; the result is a cumbersome construction which completely fails, without any good reason, WP:CONCISENESS. I'm going to be BOLD and move it back; end-running a recent RM like this I've seen before, and it's one reason I stepped away from Wikipedia. Name-games and title-fiddling out of step with reality, by nobody who's had anything whatsoever to do with the articles being renamed/moved, all b based on very narrow agenda-driven guide interpretations and/or revisions. You also moved this by BOLD when this RM was not closed; and this RM, again, is out of order in the context of the CJ placenames, which was only very recently at RM. Perhaps thinking I had left meant, to you, that my opposition could be ignored. And that kind of blithe arrogance over prior decisions/RMs is yet another reason to me that those who yak about guidelines so much rarely obey all of them and cherry-pick or conflate the bits they like, and don't care about anything or anyone else. (and don't AGF me for that when this is so procedurally out of order as it is). Cumbersome titles of the kind resulting are not useful for readers in any way and definitely do not improve searchability. Not surprising for something so clearly absent of COMMONSENSE>Skookum1 (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as to this whole bulk RM, it was made obstructively clear at the refusal of the first round of indigenous peoples' RMs per Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move that bulk RMs were to be frowned upon, and each case taken on its individual merits, not by bulk justifications. That's extremely true here; all those things moved because of the BOLD move during this unclosed RM should be moved back, but it's this kind of mechanical waste of time that, again, is the result of people using one narrow guideline interpretation to mandate consistency, while ignoring other constistency. And ordinary English. Everything done by the BOLD moves here MUST be reverted as being out of order; and others than the CJ have also had recent RMs which have been completely ignored.Skookum1 (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I see, since this is a CfD then previous RMs don't have to be respected? Is that the illogic going down here?Skookum1 (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've just undone one nonsensical move, Place names in China -> List of China placename etymologies, after looking at this discussion and not seeing and basis for it, but I now see the other moves which seem similarly grounded neither in this discussion or any policy. I don't feel confident reverting them though: a lot of work especially as there's been a little time and subsequent moves, page changes or any edits to the redirect created will make it far harder.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which is why, other than things that can be bot-changed (and he did use bots, which is "BOLDWITHABULLDOZER", the onus should be on him to do all the manual moves-back; but if he's not an admin he can't. Not the first time a BOLDist has made tons of work for others to clean up.Skookum1 (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • For info: I've put a message on his/her talk page. DexDor (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've just moved back List of place names in New England of aboriginal origin as a glaringly out-of-consistency one; the NA/FN/aboriginal terminology is a long-standing convention in Wikipedia when cross-border peoples are involved; even though the list is for New England, many peoples were not defined by any international boundary and so "aboriginal" was used; and mis-application of "Native American" for Alaskan Natives and Canadian FNs is an old shibboleth that some people just don't get...in assuming that USian usage is correct for all, which it is not. There's hundreds of such reverts needed yet with similar problems. His BOLD move, mandated by only Marcocapelle, was to add "List of", NOT to reword titles beyond that; give 'em an inch, they'll take a light-year. And then shrug, when their errors are pointed out. So many moves are out-of-step and changed long-standing titles and added "etymologies" when that's redundant.....I'll have a look at other ones to see if anything in particular stands out; but IMO bulk moves are contrary to so-called policy, or to regular practices anyway, that some means to revert themn ALL AT ONCE should be found/made.Skookum1 (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • also noting in many cases changing, or adding in place of "toponomy", "placename" instead of "place name"...since when is "toponymy" less concise than "place name etymologies" (or "placename etymologies)?Skookum1 (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm not feeling very BOLD. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:05, 11 October 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_October_5&oldid=1074814008"