Pages/Articles including recorded pronunciations[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 all the sub-cats, which were manually added rather than through a template. Note that some language-specific subcats may have been partly populated by a template until this edit last month, when the template was changed to merge those member pages up to the parent. For the record, diffs showing former members are here and here. – FayenaticLondon 23:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Currently these categories are added automatically by {{Audio-IPA}} and {{IPAc-en}} and sporadically by hand. I've thought of expanding this categorization scheme and incorporating it into the numerous other language-specific IPA templates (see this conversation from a year ago), but now I'm wondering why we have these in the first place. Are they of any use? If they are for template maintenance, it can now be done by regex search. Although WP:Overcategorization doesn't cover maintenance categories much so I'm at a loss what the relevant policy/guideline is, I find these to be too trivial. Failing blanket deletion, I think we should at least delete/move the "Articles" ones in favor of "Pages..." and remove manual additions. Pinging BrownHairedGirl and Dreamy Jazz who were in the aforementioned discussion. Nardog (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My only involvement is that I created at least of them when I them as redlinked categories at Special:WantedCategories (or my own fork thereof), and since a redlinked category is always an error per WP:REDNOT, I created the cat pages as tracking categories since that was what the seemed to be.
As I noted at that January 2019 discussion on my talk, I'd support renaming them as "pages" unless editors want to track articles separately. The current set of categories is an incoherent mix of "articles including" and "pages including", and as Nardog notes, of manual and automatic categorisation. It includes e.g. over 200 porta-space pages, plus some user pages.
I tend to take a strong line against WP:Overcategorization, but also take a relaxed view of maintenance categories. Maintenance cats aren't visible to readers, and if help editors to maintain or improve Wikipedia, then unless they are leading to obscene clutter on articles, I tend to say keep. So it seems to me that the key question here is whether and to what extent these are actually used for maintenance. I can't find any WikiProject relating to IPA, but I suggest that the nominator post a friendly note at Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet and Help talk:IPA/English asking for input. If we don't find editors who actually use these cats, then I'd support deleting them; but let's see what arrives. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep parent cat as a useful maintenance category. Page backlinks can be a mess, and categories are useful for bots and scripts. If we ever did need a maintenance cat for this, because of the template's high use, it could take days for the change to propogate. Neutral on subcats since they're likely to be less useful than the main one and because of the number of languages those kinds of categories can quickly explode and become a mess. Let me know if the templates need updated at the end of the discussion. — Wug·a·po·des 19:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: By "parent cat" I assume you mean Category:Pages including recorded pronunciations, which I wouldn't mind consolidating the rest into. But useful how? Can you name some situations in which you think the categorie(s) would come in handy? (You make an excellent point about the potential growth of the number of categories needed, which reinforces my initial proposal.) Nardog (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nardog: Yes, I mean Category:Pages including recorded pronunciations, and maybe Category:Articles including recorded pronunciations just to keep mainspace pages separate from others. I don't have any exact uses in mind; I'm mostly concerned with the opportunity cost. If a list of pages that have recorded pronunciations were to be needed, having this (these) categories would make maintenance easier since the maintainer wouldn't need to construct a regex or sort through backlinks to get started on the project (or to the degree that they would need to sort, it wouldn't need to be as complex since they've been presorted). Having a lot of maintenance cats for such an eventuality wouldn't be useful, but keeping one or two around in case we need it shouldn't place too much of a burden on us and in the long run could "pay for itself". If I were forced to think of an example, it would be an editor trying to add or modify the functionality of {{IPAc-en}}. If the change would impact the behavior of |audio=, having a list of pages which use that parameter or which have audio pronunciations would be useful for understanding how to implement the change with minimal disruption. (As a partial answer to BrownHairedGirl's question below) It would probably be better to have these cats only populated by templates.With that in mind, it might be more useful to keep Category:Pages including recorded pronunciations and have it contain two children: Category:Pages including recorded pronunciations from IPAc-qqq templates (qqq is an ISO 639 code reserved for internal use; in this case we are using it as a stand-in for any language code) and Category:Pages including recorded pronunciations from Audio-IPA. This way we can separate the manual additions from the template additions which would be helpful for editors who want to replace hard-coded audio with one of these templates. It would also help maintain these two templates by not muddling their uses together. — Wug·a·po·des 22:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose splitting categories by templates. It is inconsistent IPAc-en is currently the only language-specific IPA template that adds these categories, but filling that gap would just as easily blow up the number of categories. If one wants to look for particular uses of a template parameter one can always search for incategory:"Pages including recorded pronunciations" hastemplate:Audio-IPA etc. I don't see use in keeping "Articles" either as Special:Search is better equipped at handling namespaces than our woefully outdated category interface. Nardog (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: Trying to improve the templates is precisely why I made this CfD, because it's a goddamned hassle to make sure they add the right categories in the right namespaces, btw. Nardog (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's partly a larger problem too though; {{Audio-IPA}} uses |lang= to determine what category to place the page in, but doesn't check if the value is an ISO 639 code or a language name. Whether a template uses language names or ISO codes is pretty arbitrary and is generally a mess. This one is just slightly more of a mess than the others. It could probably be resolved by using Module:Lang though obviously not sorting by languages would be an easier fix! — Wug·a·po·des 23:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Wugapodes: that consolidation seems wise. Do you think it should be populated by templates only? Or keep the manual categorisations? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think having it only populated by templates is ideal, but see my second paragraph above. — Wug·a·po·des 22:36, 27 January 2020 (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.
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. MER-C 16:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unencyclopedic category added directly by hand, not through a template. It is not even clear what word or phrase an audio pronunciation is requested of. The Pronunciation task force the category page mentions has been inactive for years and is now labeled defunct. If someone wants to know the pronunciation of a term, they can tag it with {{Pronunciation needed}}. Nardog (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete. I tend to take a strong line against WP:Overcategorization, but also take a relaxed view of maintenance categories. Maintenance cats aren't visible to readers, and if help editors to maintain or improve Wikipedia, then unless they are leading to obscene clutter on articles, I tend to say keep. So it seems to me that the key question here is whether and to what extent these are actually used for maintenance.
If they are used, then a template should be crated and applied. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If these are used, it would be better to have a centralized page similar to WP:TREX or WP:GL which will be more visible. It's hard to know when pages get added to a category, and so request for X categories in general aren't the best solution to the problem. — Wug·a·po·des 07:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm lenient with maintenance categories, but these simply aren't helpful. They're redundant to {{Pronunciation needed}}, but worse since they're not inline but at the bottom of the article making it difficult to know what needs a pronunciation. If possible convert to {{Pronunciation needed}}, else just delete. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2020 (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 articles with nonstandard pronunciation[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.
Delete In the event that those templates want a maintenance cat, it should probably be titled something other than this. — Wug·a·po·des 07:42, 28 January 2020 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles, looks like it should be upmerged to all four categories. TTN (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Yes, this fails WP:SMALLCAT, but that's a guideline, and all guidelines are subject to some exceptions. In this case, replacing one category with four seems unhelpful to both maintenance and navigation, so I prefer to treat this as a useful exception which aids both maintenance and navigation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support quadruple upmerge per nom, and in response to User:BrownHairedGirl even after this merge these two articles will not be in an awful lot of categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2020 (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.
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:Listify & deleteTimrollpickering (Talk) 20:06, 23 March 2020 (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 associated with Richard Trevithick[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. MER-C 16:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename. I created this category, and it is not entirely based on the article Richard Trevithick; I was also using another publication. I recently created the article Edward Bull, a business associate of his. Some time ago I wrote about William Reynolds (industrialist), who at a different time worked with Trevithick; he is not mentioned in the Trevithick article. Trevithick's career as an engineer is long and episodic, and he worked with various people. More may be identified, not necessarily by relying on the WP article about him. Perhaps the category should be renamed "People who worked with Richard Trevithick" or "Business associates of Richard Trevithick". AtticTapestry (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"People who worked with" and "Business associates" are not WP:DEFINING characteristics. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2020 (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.
