Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 14 June 16 >

June 15[edit]

Category:First Nations radio stations in British Columbia[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. ℯxplicit 02:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just two radio stations, with no potential further entries. British Columbia does not have a large number of First Nations radio stations, unlike a few other provinces — it has just two such stations, which serve much of the province via rebroadcaster networks. Canadian radio station categories are not always comprehensively broken down by province or territory as a matter of course; that can be done if the number of stations to file in the province-specific subcategory warrants one, but if it doesn't then the stations just stay in the parent categories. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 15 June 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:Les Fleurs du mal[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 27#Category:Les Fleurs du mal. ℯxplicit 02:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one of the items in this category (Les Litanies de Satan) is a part of the original collection of poems. The rest are items that are either inspired by or get their title from the poems. Opencooper (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, seems pointless. All the articles fit into the category. The renamed category will just have slightly less content. Smetanahue (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category names are supposed to be representative. A majority of the articles in this category are not part of Les Fleurs du mal but merely inspired by them. That is not a strong enough relation to bundle them together as part of the original work. Opencooper (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we need this category at all (on which I have No view), it should haver the present name, which will cover both the original and its derivatives. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that those "derivatives" aren't really strongly related to it. Just slightly inspired by. It makes no sense to group them together with the original work like that, Opencooper (talk) 04:28, 19 June 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:Dutch constellations[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. ℯxplicit 02:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, it largely overlaps with Category:Constellations listed by Petrus Plancius and a category scheme of constellations by nationality doesn't seem very meaningful. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 15 June 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:Dutch East Indies templates[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. ℯxplicit 02:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to one parent per WP:SMALLCAT. The second parent is a questionable target since not only Indonesia had VOC governors but also e.g. South Africa and Sri Lanka. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 15 June 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:Organisations designated as terrorist by Canada[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TIES, should use Canadian spelling. AusLondonder (talk) 04:36, 15 June 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.

Organizations based in the Republic of Macedonia[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 using Option B. There is consensus to rename consistently but this could have gone either way. I find none of the arguments compelling. In the end I conclude that Marcocapelle's arguments point in the opposite direction, as Greece and France have been closed to use -z- spelling. If the rest of the Balkans end up using -s- then this close should be reversed, but I doubt that will happen. I suggest that the remaining cases like this should favour -z- except where there has been a strong British connection. – Fayenatic London 06:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming under one of the following options:

Option A - "Organizations" to "Organisations"
Option B - "Organisations" to "Organizations"
Rationale: These categories all have the same national scope, so they should have the same ENGVAR usage. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussions have been opened to handle similar issues for other countries
  • Brazil - closed as Organisations
  • Greece - closed as Organizations
  • Iran - closed as Organisations
  • Poland - closed as Organisations
  • Israel - closed as Organizations
  • Puerto Rico - closed as Organizations
  • France - closed as Organizations
  • Angola - still open
  • Turkey - closed as Organizations
  • Bolivia - closed as Organizations
Oops, thanks for that @Oculi: AusLondonder (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Option A It's on the eastern Atlantic and so within the English sphere of influence. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your assertions about "English spheres of influence" does not carry much weight under category naming policies. AusLondonder (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase was half joke, half metaphor. Nevertheless, it's a useful device for splitting the English spelling of places that are non English speaking. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A, in line with my comment in the Bolivia discussion it may make sense to use 's' in all European countries for consistency in Europe. I have my doubts whether there is much British 'sphere of influence' in the Balkans but it would just be confusing if two neighbo(u)ring European countries would use a different spelling. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should we standardise spelling for Canada and the United States to avoid "confusion"? AusLondonder (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's obviously different, US and Canada each have their own English spelling rules, while non-English speaking countries don't have their own English spelling rules. All these English spelling discussions for non-English speaking countries are a kind of ghost discussions and the best we can reach is some level of consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we could achieve consistency by applying WP:RETAIN. Editors should simply copy whatever has been established in the 'country' parent and not introduce unilateral inconsistencies. Oculi (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. WP:RETAIN is for when there's clearly an existing standard and no pages deviate (i.e. don't create a deviation) or when just a few pages deviate (i.e. fix the deviations). Here, both options are used a good deal; we can't decide that one's dominating the other. Since Macedonia doesn't have its own significant use of English, and since en:gb is more common in Europe, let's use the British spelling. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 22 June 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:Racine Belles 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: split and disambiguate as nominated and to Category:Racine Belles (1943–1950) players. – Fayenatic London 07:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Despite the usage note indicating that the category is intended for the men's Bi-State League team of 1909-1915, the category is actually being significantly misused for women who played for the All-American Girls League team of the 1940s. But for a variety of reasons, the women's team have a much stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title: they won their league championship twice; most of their roster have standalone articles for which the Belles are the notability claim (whereas men who played for the minor league team generally only have articles if they later made it to MLB); the women's team's article has the undisambiguated title while the men's team has a dab; the women's team have a long, substantial and well-sourced article while the men's team just have a completely unreferenced stub that's literally hovering on the edge of being outright speedy-deletable if one wanted to be ornery about it; and the kicker is that the women's team were depicted as the opponents in the 1992 film A League of Their Own, so if nothing else they're significantly more famous. So the men in here should be shifted to a disambiguated category (or alternatively just removed on the grounds that it's not WP:DEFINING), while the undisambiguated category should properly be for the women's team. Bearcat (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the re-naming of the categories as proposed.. the men should not be removed though as all minor league teams have similar categories... shift them into the re-named category. Spanneraol (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split but I wonder whether the 1940s women's cat should not also have a disambiguator, with the present name becoming a a dab-category, which should prevent mis-categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A disambiguator for both new categories sounds like a good idea indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:12, 24 June 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_June_15&oldid=1074283101"