Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 28 April 30 >

April 29[edit]

Category:Arkansas Traveler (honorary title) recipients[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. A matching list already exists in Arkansas Traveler (honorary title). – Fayenatic London 08:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Listify and delete per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 22#Category:Kentucky colonels. Similar reasons apply. This is a state honor given out widely. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't know much about Arkansas Travelers or Kentucky colonels, except that one whose chicken I like , but these sorts of things are handled on Wikipedia through lists, not categories. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Support This is a category that has hundreds of people in it. This list is just the beginning and will be too cumbersome to have on the Arkansas Traveler (honorary title) page. Also, it demonstrates a unique relationship with the state of Arkansas. It's more than merely an honor given by the state.Howard352 (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why wasn't the category for Kentucky colonels kept? It also could have had a lot of entries. There really is no difference here. I can say exactly the same about the honor of being a Kentucky colonel. Besides, if there are enough verified Arkansas Travelers, they can get a "List of..." article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a classic case of WP:OCAWARD, where we do not allow categories. In principle, this could be listified before deletion, which is a common solution to what User:Stevietheman and others may be seeking to achieve. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2017 (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:QWERTY mobile phones[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. ℯxplicit 03:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: “QWERTY” is a specific keyboard layout, not a synonym for “keyboard”. Saying “QWERTY” when you mean “keyboard” (in this case, as opposed to a (telephone) keypad) is like saying “GIF” when you mean “animation”: it is overspecification that confuses something specific with a general concept or category. Not all keyboards use the QWERTY layout; not all animated images use the Graphics Interchange Format and not all images using the Graphics Interchange Format are animated. Brolin Empey 12:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brolin Empey (talk • contribs)
  • Rename per nom. The WP:DEFINING characteristic here is the fact that there is a hardware keyboard at all, not whether it uses the QWERTY layout or not — particularly because mobile phone manufacturers can and do also produce alternate versions of their phone for markets where QWERTY isn't the normal keyboard standard. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think the distinctive point here is an alphabetic keyboard with many buttons, enough for each main letter, rather than just a numeric keypad where keys have to be held down to get more letters. This is a defining characteristic. – Fayenatic London 11:27, 8 May 2017 (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:Christian denominations by denominational family[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 09:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Controversial category. No equivalent Wikipedia article, almost no interwiki links for same reasons. Bordering WP:Original research. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this is a subcat scheme, completely standard and uncontroversial. Oculi (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Any reference to a neutral prevalence of a so called "denominational family" per WP:NPOV, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then a rename to Category:Christian denominations by denomination would be a good idea (it's not tagged so nothing will happen). There is Category:Christian denominational families, which gave rise to a long cfd in 2015. Oculi (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, rather confusing. What's wrong with simply Category:Christian denominations? What is the clear difference between a so called "denomination family", and in fact a denomination, simply? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then another problem would arise: what is a "family of denominations"? Any WP:NPOV reference to what that is, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category was not tagged until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 12:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a background problem of this category consists in an overcomplication of the fact the a domination may be considered part of another denomination - such as Syriac Orthodox Church being part of Oriental Orthodoxy and Syriac Christianity, and Lutheranism being part of Protestantism. That, however, hardly motivates WP:Original research sort categorisation in the category tree. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree that this is the key problem. As implied by my earlier answer, I don't have a good naming solution, while I do think that we should keep the two layers. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly opposing delete as containerisation is very useful for this content. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2017 (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:Middle schools in China[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 12:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To avoid a lack of confusion between the Chinese "zhongxue" (中学) which literally means "middle school" but actually refers to any secondary school, and the American definition of a "middle school" (Which is equivalent to the Chinese "chuzhong" 初中) - The Chinese government has used this terminology on its education official website http://en.people.cn/92824/94785/94788/6454886.html WhisperToMe (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but the category currently contains lots of combined junior- and senior - secondary schools, so the category will need to be reviewed after renaming. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, currently the articles in the category are named Middle school too. If there is any confusion about that term, it would be better to start renaming the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category was not tagged until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 12:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WhisperToMe and PalaceGuard008: Please check the above procedural comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: The problem is that I don't think the articles should necessarily be renamed, only the categories. The official English names may differ depending upon who is doing the translations, and it will seem odd to force an article to be given a certain name even though officially the school uses a different name in English. I believe the articles should use the official English names given by the school, even if those names aren't the best translations, but that the statuses should be clarified within the article. The only consistency will come from the Chinese names. (In China: companies, institutions, schools, etc. often have two sets of names: one in Chinese and one in English. They are separate, and a company can change its English name without a change in its Chinese name, or vice versa) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2017 (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:High schools in China[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 12:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To avoid a lack of confusion between the Chinese "zhongxue" (中学) which literally means "middle school" but actually refers to any secondary school, and the American definition of a "middle school" (Which is equivalent to the Chinese "chuzhong" 初中 - The Chinese Ministry of Education uses "senior secondary school" in English: http://en.moe.gov.cn/Resources/Statistics/edu_stat_2015/2015_en01/201610/t20161012_284488.html - Note that the Chinese word for the American definition of "high school" and the English "sixth-form" would be gaozhong 高中. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but as above the category will need reviewing after renaming to move combined junior- and senior - secondary schools. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PalaceGuard008: If there is a need for a combined cat for full-length secondary schools I wonder what the best terminology is. If the Chinese government uses an English term for combined junior and senior secondary schools that would be good... WhisperToMe (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WhisperToMe:, can we not put them under the parent cat Category:Secondary schools in China? Junior-only and senior-only schools can go under sub-cats. The official name for combined junior-senior secondary schools used in government documents in China seems to be "六年制中等学校" - "six-year secondary schools". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, currently the articles in the category are mostly named High school too. If there is any confusion about that term, it would be better to start renaming the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing my comment after the explanation in the discussion right above. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category page was not correctly tagged until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 12:04, 29 April 2017 (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:Ancient foreign relations of India[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 12:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: other similar category is Category:Foreign relations of Ancient Rome, not sure there is sufficient to say this could be speedied. Parent is Category:Ancient India, so it seems better to use Ancient India in the category title. Tim! (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2017 (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:PBA seasons by team[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:Philippine Basketball Association seasons by year and team, varying the word order in Oculi's suggestion to what I believe is the standard pattern for such contents. – Fayenatic London 12:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This a duplicate of Category:Philippine Basketball Association seasons by team. The only difference is the acronym of this cat. Babymissfortune 03:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep @Babymissfortune: The categories may have had similar names but there was no duplication. The two categories contained different subcategories. You have just created a mess. Plus you should have waited for outcome of discussion before just empyting the category. Djln Djln (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Djln: How is it a mess and what is your proposal to solve it? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: It was a mess but Babymissfortune reverted his edits. However if the consensus is merge than that is fine with me. DjlnDjln (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2017 (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/2017_April_29&oldid=1138410526"