Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 1 January 3 >

January 2[edit]

Category:Breakthrough albums[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 18:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Breakthrough albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I don't think "broke into the mainstream success" and "became successful (or popular) for the first time" are meaningful metrics or criteria; how does one measure this objectively? Without such an objective metric, entries to this category can be heavily based on POV. Oli Filth(talk) 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Criteria too vague and up to interpretation. Drewcifer (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Highly POV and arguably OR. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, far too subjective. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would almost certainly be deleted as a list and it's worth as a category is even less-so. Lugnuts (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just go ahead and delete it, Wikipedia is not some kind of fan site. Alex (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the last Delete vote was from the category creator. Interesting idea, but it will have to go, as nominated. Speedy close now? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vague and subject to interpretation — for instance, was Sarah McLachlan's "breakthrough album" Solace (her breakthrough in Canada) or Fumbling Towards Ecstasy (her international one)? How about Radiohead? Any of their first four albums could be considered their "breakthrough", depending how you define it. And even if there were objective criteria for inclusion, it doesn't serve as a meaningful or relevant point of comparison between different bands' albums. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Balochistan[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename all but main category, history, and people, with no prejudice toward a rename of those later on. All are in agreement on those to be renamed, and the others can be dealt with when consensus develops.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Balochistan to Category:Balochistan (Pakistan)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Balochistan is a divided region, the article about the province of Pakistan is at Balochistan (Pakistan) and these categories all relate to that meaning of the Balochistan, so for clarity and consistency, a blanket rename seems in order. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom; for clarity and NPOV in a disputed area. Snocrates 02:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarity *maybe*, but how is this NPOV, if the area is disputed? Pahari Sahib 07:37, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
    • To use the governors category as an example, the rename avoids the implication that these people are the one-and-only leaders of all of Balochistan and that there is no other country with possible sovereignty over the area or another close-by area that might also use the name "Balochistan". It makes it clear we are referring to the Balochistan that is governed by Pakistan and no other Balochistan. It's similar to the use of disambiguators to distinguish between Macedonia (region), Macedonia (Greece), and the Republic of Macedonia. Snocrates 08:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much what I meant when I said clarity, I thought you were referring to something else when you mentioned NPOV and disputed area, I do understand the purpose of disambiguators - thanks. Pahari Sahib 09:01, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Comment why can't we retain Category:Balochistan, and make Category:Balochistan (Pakistan) a subcat of that category? I support the rename of the Chief Minister, Cities and towns, Governor, Universities, Districts, geography stub categories, but keep of the History category (as the history of Balochistan predates the modern state of Pakistan). Unsure of how to do with the people cat. ---Soman (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 school ice hockey teams[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:High school ice hockey teams to Category:High school sports in the United States
Nominator's rationale: None of the articles in this category are actually about High school hockey teams, but rather more about the sport of high school hockey in their prospective state. No reason they can't just be in the parent category. Djsasso (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Member of the Artists Rifles[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete per discussion and existing list in article. Kbdank71 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Member of the Artists Rifles to Category:Members of the Artists' Rifles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Pluralisation and correct title of regiment with apostrophe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - first, the article (although located at Artists' Rifles) states that the apostrophe has been officially dropped. If true then it should not be in the category name. Second, Foo members is superior to Members of Foo; not sure if it's widespread enough to be considered a naming convention but it's preferable IMHO and is shorter. Finally, this strikes me as overcategorization by association. A list article would serve here and would allow for proper citation, inclusion of particularly noteworthy aspects of members' service and so forth. Not stating a definite listify and delete opinion yet but am leaning that way unless there's a persuasive reason to keep the category. Also noting the existence of the officers subcat, which should probably be nominated along with this one as the apostrophe issue is the same for both. Otto4711 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need to listify since the main article already includes a list. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The apostrophe was apparently dropped in 1937.[1] Most members significant enough to have articles on Wikipedia were members before that date. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Czech loanwords[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was relisted on jan 9. Kbdank71 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup to the recent deletion of German loanwords from Czech. The category (created together with German loanwords cat) is partly duplicate of the List of English words of Czech origin (an useful list with context). Having an origin in Czech language is hardly a defining feature for robots, pistol may or may not derive from 15th century Czech word and camellia was named after Georg Joseph Kamel, it is not derived from a Czech word. I suggest to delete the category. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, category German loanwords from Czech is a different case. Czech loanwords define only loanwords in English. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Indeed, the other category was a very different case, but delete this anyway. This is categorization by an aspect of name. The origin of the English word for robot is not a defining characteristic of robots. LeSnail (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in the absence of a discussion of the entire Category:English words and phrases of foreign origin structure, which is fairly extensive. Otto4711 (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with LeSnail, but the time has come to debate all the tree as referenced by Otto, and now is as good a time as any. Loan words are encyclopedic, sourced lists of them are great, but as nom says its not a defining feature of the subject of the article any more than the fact that a city was named after some famous person (hence deletion of Category:Eponymous cities and its sub-cats), while the lists of such namings are encyclopedic because they are notable, while categories need cohesion and something that relates them. Here, the loan word categories are problematic for several reasons: (a) it's a categorization based on coincidence of etymology; (b) these things have nothing much together; (c) sourcing/verifiability; (d) the sheer abundance of these were they fully populated would make some of these among the largest categories; (e) are we sure that we are talking real loanwords from Fooish or something of Fooish derivation? our editors seem to gloss over the distinction - so Ecology is claimed to be a German loanword, but German is Ökologie, neither is it Greek for it was coined from Greek roots but alas apparently never existed in Greek before in English; and (f) borrowing a loan word from another language may (or may not) have anything to do with whether the concept originated from that linguistic culture, making the admixture of articles not even relevant on a cultural level: like all the -ology articles claimed to be Greek loanwords; I guess they gave us Scientology as well? On the whole these ought to be deleted - all of them, but we'll use the Czech as a test case and if deleted, nominate the others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining characteristic. As an aside, it's not being applied responsibly, either: pistol is of indeterminate origin per the article, pram (ship) does not even mention etymology, kolache is arguably not a loanword, etc. Maralia (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kolache is loaned from Koláče, why do you think it is not a loanword? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The possible miscategorization of any particular article in the category is not relevant to whether the category itself should be retained. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My argument is that category does not provide sufficient context. For example Calash (undercarriage) is not an obvious Czech loanword. From what I found it is English loanword from French "caleche" from Czech "kolesa" which itself may be based on a German word having Yiddish origin [2].
  • Czech word "prám", according to Czech sources, e.g. [3], derives from a proto-Indoeuropean word. German "Prahm" derives from the Czech. Dutch and English equivalents may (says the linked text) derive as well (and if, then they more likely obtained it from the German rather than from the Czech language). Is a category really the right place to present something as clear truth when the reality has been so complicated?
  • I nominated only the Czech category as this is something I care about. I do not have stamina to deal with the whole category tree. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Traditionalism[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was relisted on jan 9. Kbdank71 18:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Traditionalism to Category:Integral Traditionalism
Nominator's rationale: ambiguous (Traditionalism has any number of meanings). The category's scope is Integral Traditionalism. dab (𒁳) 15:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Articles by source Categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles citing The Cairngorms as a source (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Articles citing Mar Lodge Estate Grampian : An Archaeological Survey as a source (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I don't think there's a need to start categorizing all articles by what their sources are. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. No encylopedic reason to specifically seek out such articles that I can think of. VegaDark (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if these were taking verbatim public domain text, we have repurposed those to talk pages, but this seems broader. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete (yet) - speaking personally (of course) I'd like to be able to find Articles that are subject-related by referencing the same sources. Even if I'm wrong about this - why rush - if these Categories do not grow over the period of a few months - perhaps we could decide then. Letting these stand - does not mean that we 'need to start categorizing all articles by what their sources are' - these sources are both specific to The Cairngorms and Mar Lodge Estate WikiWriter (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some articles have literally hundreds of different sources. Can you imagine looking at the bottom of the page at all the categories such pages would be in if categories like this were allowed? What makes these two categories so special that this won't set precedent to create/keep an infinite number of other similar categories? VegaDark (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sourcing templates—{{source watson}} and {{source dixon-green}}—are already in use for both sources, as (improperly) explained right in the mainspace articles about the sources: The Cairngorms and Mar Lodge Estate Grampian : An Archaeological Survey. What links here on either source template is an equivalently accurate representation of which articles use the sources. If the actual article topics are truly related, a navigational template might be appropriate. A category for source is a can of worms I don't wish to see opened. Maralia (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as already amply explained above. I particularly want to elaborate on what Maralia said about "What links here", as I suspect that WikiWriter probably created these categories precisely because he wasn't aware of What links here.

WikiWriter, if you look on the left-hand side of any article/page you will find a series of links under various headings. Under "Toolbox" there is a link called "What links here". In the case of Template:Source watson, that link takes you to a page called "Pages that link to Template:Source watson". These pages are automatically updated every time another page is linked to the article in question. Hope that helps! Cgingold (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - you've convinced me WikiWriter (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC) the "What links here" argument has convinced me that what I've done is not needed. I still don't think it was a bad idea - but - I am convinced that it's already been done by the "What links here" functionality. Give me a couple of days and I'll undo it all - thanks for your patience and input WikiWriter (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carrying on from what I said yesterday. Is it now OK for me to delete these categories - or should I wait? WikiWriter (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:National parks of Nunavut[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 18:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National parks of Nunavut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - The Government of Nunavut doesn't operate them, they are National Parks of Canada that are in Nunavut. Compare National Parks of Quebec. Kevlar67 (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they should have been in Category:Parks in Nunavut. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Probably not worth categorizing national parks of Canada by provincial/territorial location, which could be done with a rename. Snocrates 03:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Companies based in Alameda County[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 18:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Alameda County to Category:Companies based in Alameda County, California
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match parent cat. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment why not do all the California counties that need it at the same time; see the parent and grandparent categories of this cat. Hmains (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no objection if someone wants to tag and add the others to this nomination. I just ran into this one doing some editing. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as suggested. --216.64.46.66 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Free Catholic Church bishops[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 18:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Free Catholic Church bishops to Category:Bishops of the Free Catholic Church
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the common form in Category:Catholic bishops not in communion with Rome. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Free Catholic Church archbishops[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 18:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Free Catholic Church archbishops to Category:Archbishops of the Free Catholic Church
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To follow the common form in Category:Catholic bishops not in communion with Rome. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Cultural Enthusiasm[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename to Category:Admiration of foreign cultures. Kbdank71 18:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cultural Enthusiasm to Category:?
Nominator's rationale: Rename. While the idea of the category is clear and IMO reasonable, but the name is not good: the term is not very common and, what is worse, not well or uniformly defined. Please people with better command of English suggest another one. `'Míkka>t 03:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Allophilia" is utterly obscure? I knew it right away. I think it was the word of the day once on Sesame Street in my youth. Snocrates 06:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allophilia is not found on Dictionary.com. However, that site quotes Random House's definition of Xenophilia: an attraction to foreign peoples, cultures, or customs, and the American Heritage Dictionary on Xenophile: A person attracted to that which is foreign, especially to foreign peoples, manners, or cultures. Perhaps the Wikipedia articles on those words cover specialist phychology usage rather than common usage. What does CFD precedent suggest for such a case? - Fayenatic (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also considered "Xenophilia", but even though it's not a neologism I rejected it because, like allophilia, it is not a widely-used and understood term. Category names need to be easily understood by the average reader, or they won't find what they're looking for. Cgingold (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Reply: People find a category simply by seeing it at the foot of the article. So, it doesn't need to be predictable. Category names don't need to be found by searching or typing a URL - I still generally find it very hard to get them right that way. In any case, none of the other suggestions so far are predictable either.
  2. So, all it needs to be is comprehensible when they see it. If they are already reading "Francophilia" etc, they will probably guess that it means something along these lines, and may work it out by extension from the better-known Xenophobia. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Fayenatic, you've brought up a crucial point here. Your comments actually illustrate an all-too-common misperception/ misunderstanding regarding the purpose & function of Categories. If their only role was to serve as tags/links at the bottom of articles, I would be less concerned about using an obscure term. What you're overlooking is that they play a crucial role for readers who are browsing or searching through the category structure -- something which your remarks confirm isn't fully appreciated by people who don't happen to make use of categories in that way. In that context, clearly-understood names are vitally important because they may be all a reader has to go by. Cgingold (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought my comments showed that I understood that; I thought people would figure out what it meant. However, I acknowledge that not everybody would, so I withdraw my proposal. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a multitude of category names that are probably unrecognizable to the "average" WP reader. Generally, we name categories after the appropriate term, especially when there is a WP article of the same name. Allophilia meets the bill in that respect, as does Xenophilia to a lesser extent. Categories can be defined in the header. Snocrates 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not forget that the whole purpose of Categories is to help readers to find what they're looking for. So we should always try to choose names that will facilitate that, rather than hinder it. There may be occasions where we have no choice but to use an unfamililar term -- but whenever there's a viable alternative that clearly does a better job of communicating the purpose of a category, we should use the alternative. So, as cool as it would be to use either of these terms if we were the only people using Wikipedia, I think we're obligated to put our personal preferences aside in favor of serving the wider readership. Cgingold (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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/2008_January_2&oldid=1138390350"