Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 19 August 21 >

August 20[edit]

Category:Commons category template with no category set[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category with a tremendous number of articles andcategories included has to me no added value. Moreover the suggested action in the category to add the parameter 1 to all the included elementsa of this category is by most users considered as bein useless. --Robby (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - no value and appears to carry incorrect entries for maintenance. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note See category talk for discussion of possible mistake with list and incorrect entries listed for maintenance in this category. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any value for editors. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral Since Keith D (below) finds it useful, my logic for delete is incorrect. I'm not sold that this category is working as intended though. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been using this category for a couple of years to sort out the mess in Commons category linkage. It is useful in conjunction with other tracking categories to quickly work out what the problem is and fix the problem. Especially useful for page moves where pages have been moved but the Commons link has not been adjusted. Keith D (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you give us an example of where you would find a mismatch? I'm honestly interested in understanding this better. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hockley railway station, Essex. See this edit to repair a broken Commons cat link. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The important point was made that when pages are moved the non-parameterized version of {{Commons category}} then points to the wrong category. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • Note: We should as well consider that using the commons category template like this: {{Commons category|{{PAGENAME}}}} has as well the effect of not listing the page in the category suggested for deletion but nevertheless when moving the page the link points to the wrong category.--Robby (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: either the instructions for the use of {{commons category}} is wrong, which says the template can be used standalone as {{commons category}}, or this category shows incorrect items for maintenance, such as highlighted in this discussion here. IMHO, it is not value added in the current state because it is saying all use of the tempate must include {{commons category|catnam}} instead of just {{commons category}}, which goes against the instructions for the template. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The need for this might be removed (or reduced) by making {{Commons category}} fetch the relevant category name from Wikidata. @Alakzi:. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since the parameter has a sane default, there's no reason to believe templates that use it need fixing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: What happens when someone specifies a commons category (parameter 1), but what they specify does not exist? Hyacinth (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Readers would be directed to a non-existent category. There's no way to check if a page on another project exists. Alakzi (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there was media assigned to an uncreated cat in Commons, they would show up at the directed cat link and you could create the cat. However, IMHO it would seem unnecessary to use the template in a Wikipedia article if there was no associated media in commons. If there were media, use the template per the instructions. The problem with this category under discussion is that it appears to force use of the template that goes against the instructions for using the template. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Based on what is written here, I gather that the original rationale for creating the category was so that someone (human or bot) could go through and populate the catnam parameter for all transclusions of {{commons category}}, thereby preventing page moves from breaking commonscat links (is that right @Rich Farmbrough:?) However, as pointed out here, that's not a foolproof method for ensuring that commonscat links will remain unbroken, because commons categories can be renamed (or deleted). So I guess the question is whether this category is still necessary/useful given that the documentation for {{commons category}} says that the catnam parameter doesn't need to be populated. DH85868993 (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's right. I would envisage {{Commons category}} being rapidly populated, then as a separate exercise checking for broken inter-wiki links. In many cases {{Commons}} might be valid where {{Commons category}} isn't. As it is I can't pursue the first half of this project automatically myself, though I have tried to add a parameter 1 where I see it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per above discussion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per rationale listed by myself and others. Useful maintenance category. Avicennasis @ 07:26, 3 Tishrei 5776 / 07:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can easily have AvicBot go over all of these and fix any broken ones. Once that's done, it'd be safe to replace them all with the page name and thus empty the category, if so desired by consensus. I'll start checking on the subcat pages first. Avicennasis @ 08:14, 24 Elul 5775 / 08:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 6,549 subcategories are fine, out of 6,991. Doing an article scan now. Avicennasis @ 10:35, 24 Elul 5775 / 10:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I support the proposal to make AvicBot go over the entire category and proceed as suggested by you. Indeed this would have as a result to have again a useful category. Moreover I suggest to make this bot pass through this category on periodical bases (e.g. once a week) in order to have the category mostof the time reduced to the appropriate articles. --Robby (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have problems with using AvicBot to try and fix these after previous attempts by the bot to fix links have resulted in a bad change and I have had to re-fix the change. Keith D (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide examples? This seems like a very simple, easy task. Check {{Commonscat}} on page Foo for a matching link at commons, and, if found, replace {{commonscat}} with {{commonscat|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}. I can provide lists of pages this would take place on, if you wanted to spot-check for any errors. Avicennasis @ 05:10, 26 Elul 5775 / 05:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This approach seems to propagate the problem with this category as identified on the category talk, and is the reason I support deletion. IMHO, this particular part of the discussion should probably be placed on the talk page as well. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This approach will not propagate this category - it will reduce it significantly. As you found out here, adding the pagename will remove it from this category. And there's no need to break up this discussion across several pages. Avicennasis @ 04:30, 27 Elul 5775 / 04:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The edit and the reason you point out is exactly why this category should be deleted. It is forcing use of the category against the instructions for the category, an issue pointed out in the category talk page. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a useful tracking category that just never had the template documentation added. If your concern is that the documentation doesn't match - I've updated it now. Deleting this category doesn't help anything. The backlog can be worked through in a fairly easy manner, and I think it's a good idea to have this kind of a report. Avicennasis @ 16:39, 1 Tishrei 5776 / 16:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the above change is why this part of discussion should be on the template talk page. The instructions of the template were changed based on a problem with this category instead of the other way around. IMHO, changing the instructions, which impacts the use of template, should have been discussed first in the template talk page. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I fail to see what 'the problem' with this category is. Your concern (as I understand it) was that using the commonscat template (as previously documented) caused an article to show up in this category. The documentation has been changed to eliminate this problem in the future. A bot can process most of these pages to be removed from here. And the updated documentation reflects best practices in regards to linking to commons - As stated above, it future-proofs the links against page-moves. I don't see a reason to delete a helpful category. Avicennasis @ 07:06, 3 Tishrei 5776 / 07:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As Pigsonthewing already hinted, the right solution is neither the one flagged by this maintenance category (pages whose commons category link defaults to the article page name) nor the one being pushed in its place by AvicBot (who is busy replacing unspecified category links by article page names); it is to use a parameterless template here that pulls the matching commons category name from wikidata where in my experience it mostly already exists (probably because some other bot already filled it in from our commonscat templates). Why aren't we doing that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs) 06:43, 17 September 2015‎

I've asked for the bot to be stopped, while this is resolved. I've also asked Alakzi to look at making the template call values from Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This task has been stopped as requested, though I'm not sure why. If this category is deleted, the templates should still have this fix applied, regardless. In my opinion, this maintenance work is not relevant to this categories existence. Avicennasis @ 10:15, 4 Tishrei 5776 / 10:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Struck per response on my talk page. Avicennasis @ 10:16, 4 Tishrei 5776 / 10:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: I've put some code on the sandbox to achieve this. Please see Template talk:Commons category#Use wikidata. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@(MSGJ · talk) I've added a comment on Template talk:Commons category#Use wikidata although this will reduce the number of links to non-existing commons-category see my example on Template talk:Commons category#Use wikidata it will not allow to get rid of them, especially as the category which is discussed here will not help to find these 'bad' commons-category links.--Robby (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an overarching category that does not have the semantics of an error category. Subcategories can include "where Wikidata is set and no local link is present" and "where Wikidata has no category and no local link is present". Unless we think that is overcategorization? --Izno (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In your counterpart examples, the answer cannot be trivially (and usually correctly) inferred from the page. In the vast, vast majority of cases, this is fixing something which isn't broken. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is neither necessary nor desirable. If we can detect things and thus reduce the burden on both authors and maintainers, all the better. Otherwise, these can be fixed on a case-by-case basis when people notice redlinks with far less bureaucratic boilerplate and spilled electrons than the proposed category-bot system. FWIW I aggressively remove such redundancy in articles at present, and am somewhat dismayed that a bot was apparently wasting the time of editors doing likewise without said task having been robustly challenged in advance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2015 (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:Proposed Taipei Metro stations in Taipei[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 to parent categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT (only 2 articles) and WP:NARROWCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The two stations are proposed to open in 2017, which presumably means something is under construction; if so it is not too WP:Crystal-y in character. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual Upmerge It's not only that this lacks growth potential, it will shrink from 2 to zero articles in the next couple years. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2015 (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:Balasuriya[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) 23:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. It's not clear from the articles if and how these people are related. Besides even if they are related it remains a category of pretty small size. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- All the articles seem to be adequately categorised. It seems to relate to people who share a surname, something we do not allow to be the basis of a category, though we sometimes have list articles for those sharing a surname. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2015 (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:Beavercreek Township, Greene County, Ohio[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This individual township doesn't have a significant enough number of articles to warrant a separate category, and we're not likely to see a lot of additional articles any time soon. Note that it's not part of a series; Category:Townships in Greene County, Ohio exists, but its contents are all individual township articles, aside from the Beavercreek Township subcategory. Nyttend (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2015 (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:Meadowbank Thistle F.C.[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.--Aervanath (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Meadowbank Thistle FC was a Scottish football club that relocated from the Meadowbank area of Edinburgh to Livingston in the 1990s and became Livingston FC. Unlike some other examples (e.g. Wimbledon / MK Dons / AFC Wimbledon), Meadowbank and Livingston are generally considered to be the same club; Livingston FC include honours from the "Meadowbank Thistle" period on their list of honours and detail the club's history. It would be consistent with the main article to have categories all under the "Livingston FC" title, rather than having separate categories. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- We apply (or should apply) the same rules to sports teams as to alumni of merged or renamed colleges. The headnote for Livingston will need to explain why the Meadowbank Thistle players, etc appear there. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Make Subcategories This doesn't appear to be common practice with sports teams. Looking at baseball teams that moved in the US, Category:Philadelphia Athletics (old city) is a subcategory of Category:Oakland Athletics (new city) and Category:Brooklyn Dodgers (old city) is a subcategory of Category:Los Angeles Dodgers (new city). These were absolutely the same clubs that moved to different cities so I would make Meadowbank Thistle subcategories of Livingston F.C.. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all The conventions mentioned by @RevelationDirect: are perhaps relevant to American sports where clubs are franchises, but European clubs do not operate as franchises; moves from one city to another are very rare (and in many cases, the clubs keep the same name - e.g. Clyde F.C.) and the club remains the same entity even if it is renamed. Also worth noting that the Meadowbank article is a redirect to the Livingston one. Number 57 15:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all - as above. Please note @RevelationDirect: that we have a 'one-club/franchise, one-article' based approach to football/soccer - including MLS/NASL etc. teams. GiantSnowman 11:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What matters to me for the category is having fans (likely from the old city) being able easily navigate the players/managers/history of the original team, at least for teams with enough articles to justify subcategories. I don't think country and sport is important here but, since I'm in the minority, maybe I'm missing something.RevelationDirect (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per RevelationDirect, because it concerns two different locations there should be two categories that each have a different geographical parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: There are no geographic parent categories for football club player or manager categories beyond the national level (i.e. Category:Footballers in Scotland by club). As the club remained in the same country, this is not an area of concern for the player and manager categories. Plus I don't think there would be an issue with keeping the merged Livington F.C. category in the Football clubs in Edinburgh one, given its history. What would you do in cases where clubs moved but were not renamed (e.g. Clyde F.C.)? Number 57 23:09, 5 September 2015 (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:Aircraftsmen capped by the RAF[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems like overcategorisation and is very non-specific. Capped for what? In any case, it's incorrectly named. An aircraftman is an RAF airman of the lowest rank (equivalent to an army private). "Aircraftsmen", as it appears here, is always incorrect, although many do believe it to be the correct spelling. The generic term for non-commissioned RAF personnel is "airmen". -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The two articles that I looked at did not even mention RAF. "capped" seems to refer to playing Rugby for the national team, but the cap was not awarded by RAF. The two issues appear to be wholly unrelated, so that this is a trivial intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2015 (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:American television series debuts[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. At the time of closing, some of these had already been manually completed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, some of the implementation was done by Billy Liakopoulos, see User_talk:Billy_Liakopoulos#Closing_Categories_for_Discussion. – Fayenatic London 09:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To be consistent with most categories in Category:Television series debuts by country. Timmyshin (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2015 (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-time radio programs[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) 05:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. "Old time" is not actually a genre of radio programming per se, but simply an adjective that's used in contemporary sources to describe any radio program in any genre produced in the United States between the 1920s and 1950s. But since there are already specific Category:American radio programs by decade categories for every decade within that range, this just ends up being an unhelpful duplicate for another time-based category that each program is (or should be) already in anyway. There was a logic to it when it was originally created, as the by-decade categories didn't exist yet at that time — but once they did, this should have been deprecated rather than continuing to sit alongside the by-decade categories. Bearcat (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mixing material from several decades, not specifying country of origin, and leaving unclear the criteria for inclusion. This is truly an ill-conceived category. Dimadick (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2015 (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:LearnedLeague players[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) 23:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No evidence that being a LearnedLeague player is in any way notable. (LearnedLeague is "...a web-based trivia competition"). In a sampling of the category contents I found few articles either mentioned or referenced the person as a player. Delete per WP:OCAT as performer by performance. Tassedethe (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2015 (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/2015_August_20&oldid=1078424801"