Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 2 August 4 >

August 3[edit]

Category:Self Winding Clock Company[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category not needed for main article. The only other included article (Western Union) makes no mention of the Self Winding Clock Company. If it did then a simple link would suffice. Tassedethe (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Category not needed for main article.Elecclock (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The fact that the Western Union article does not even clearly belong here shows why these eponymous categories are a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2013 (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:Unincorporated communities in Eau Claire County, Wisconsin[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, at least for now. If you look, we categorize by city, municipality, town, township, unincorporated communities, village, hamlet, borough and probably a few more. Now is that the correct way to do it and if so, how far down the tree should those distinctions be carried? I don't think this discussion is the place to make the decision since it has broader impact and the question needs to be asked in a broader forum. Maybe an RFC? Also, is this a question that just affects the US or is there one answer that covers the entire world? Vegaswikian (talk)
Nominator's rationale: Over-categorization. Orange Mike | Talk 17:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree This category should merger with the parent category-Wkipedia has too many categories right now-Thanks-RFD (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-the unincorporated communities in Wisconsin category is the only category needed. Milwaukee County does not have unincorporated communities because there are no towns in Milwaukee County. One the editors started categories of Iowa unincorporated communities by county and there are only 165-170 Iowa unincorporated communities articles. I became very concerned about too many categories when I put the WP Wisconsin template on the Wisconsin-Milwaukee related categories talk pages so WP Wisconsin and other editors could keep track of the categories. Categories are useful for the reader to navigate to find articles but too many categories can cause problems. Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wisconsin is little or no different than every other state in the United States. Nothing special Hmains (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the parent categories Category:Unincorporated communities in Wisconsin and county populated places categories such as Category:Populated places in Eau Claire County, Wisconsin. If local editors with an interest and knowledge in categories for communities, such as RFD and Orangemike, don't find this degree of categorization useful, where's the useful purpose in insisting that they work with these categories? --Orlady (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So are you saying that every little group of local editors can create or not create any category structure they like because it suits them? WP is not written for the convenience of editors; it is for readers. WP readers would expect to see the same organizational structure for the encyclopedia no matter where they read and not be subjected to the wiles of this or that group of local editors. Hmains (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of us editors are also readers. I enjoy reading articles about various plant, birds, animals as well as different places and people I never heard of before. As for the categories-I have put the WP-Wisconsin template on the category talk pages involving Wisconsin and Milwaukee in order to keep track of them. One of the editors was adding categories about Wisconsin counties so fast that I had to asked that editor to slow down and help get the template on the remaining talk pages of the categories. I then realized there was too many categories. Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a consistent and effective means of grouping those places that are not cities, towns or villages in Wisconsin by a strong defining characteristic, which allows readers to navigate across such communities within a county or across counties in the state. The arguments offered here range from the merely specious to the utterly ridiculous. If "Wkipedia has too many categories right now", why start deleting here to trim down to the maximum possible number? While there are broad similarities across states, we also need to respect local differences that are specific to each state. Reaching out to local WikiProjects (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Wisconsin) and achieving consensus on massive changes (and doing so BEFORE initiating a mass AWB rampage through all articles for all populated places in a state to impose one editor's arbitrary personal views down the throats of all editors of those articles) will be far more likely to go ahead without objections like these being raised. A balance needs to be struck between imposing rigid uniformity and respecting local characteristics and preferences; in this case, the benefits of categorizing by type of government (or non-government) within county outweigh the rather weak countervailing arguments. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side note. We have an editor emptying Category:Unincorporated communities in Pennsylvania by county. I left a warning, but some more eyes would be good. I repopulated some of the empty categories, but have not gotten all of the articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2013 (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:Unincorporated communities in Dunn County, Wisconsin[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, at least for now. If you look, we categorize by city, municipality, town, township, unincorporated communities, village, hamlet, borough and probably a few more. Now is that the correct way to do it and if so, how far down the tree should those distinctions be carried? I don't think this discussion is the place to make the decision since it has broader impact and the question needs to be asked in a broader forum. Maybe an RFC? Also, is this a question that just affects the US or is there one answer that covers the entire world? Vegaswikian (talk)
Nominator's rationale: Over-categorization Orange Mike | Talk 17:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree This category should be mergered with the parent category. Wikipedia has too many categories. Thank you-RFD (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – as above. Oculi (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see above-thank you-RFD (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and populate for all other Wisconsin counties to be placed in Category:Unincorporated communities in Wisconsin by county. The purpose of categories is to help readers navigate to related items. The existence of other tools is not the point; the existence of 'too many categories' is only in the eyes of the beholder--a simple opinion that is not among category retention criteria in WP. Hmains (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see above-thank you-RFD (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Populated places in Dunn County, Wisconsin. Towns in the county should also be merged in. A long time ago we decided that populated places should be categorized as such, so that we do not need a split by the type of government. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments offered in Eau Claire above. Can I suggest that we merge these two discussions, as there are no county-specific issues here (and per all of the "per aboves"). Alansohn (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2013 (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:Gamers[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No inclusion criteria except playing a "game"...? Category:Electronic sports players seems to cover the area already. Otterathome (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2013 (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:Images of Ralph Nader[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. A few issues were not really addressed. Do we need an image category for everyone? The image in question is not of the person, but rather is a movie poster which happens to also include his image. The use of the movie poster is not free, so should it be used in a category like this? Do we categorize every movie poster by the individuals portrayed on the poster? As a movie poster it is not mysteriously named. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent (un-necessary over-categorization). Unlikely to have much content because all free could go to commons. There's only one item in it, and Category:Images of American politicians has lots of "loose" singletons vs more-populated subcats for specific individuals. DMacks (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – what better place for an image of Ralph Nader than Category:Images of Ralph Nader? And what better way to make sense of mysteriously-named files in Category:Images of American politicians than to subcat by politician? (File:Unreasonable man.jpg is hardly over-categorised.) Oculi (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasoning given by Oculi. --Orlady (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. We have only one image, and thus do not need the subcat. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose images should be kept in separate categories from other content, unless we turn off categoryexhibition by default in all categories. Further, images should be available in the file category tree. So if this is upmerged, it shouldn't go into the Ralph Nader category. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Various responses to above: I would support re-cat'ing this image with whatever is appropriate, not necessarily or solely RN himself. I mentioned this as the upmerge target because that parent cat was where I first came across this highly specific subcat, but surely it could also gain tags for being an image (Category:Images of American politicians). My point is that it's an overly specific intersection-cat (so it would be upmerged into multiple parents, sorry for not enumerating them all), and none of them appear to be fully diffused. Wikipedia:Cat#Files.2Fimages specifically blesses the option of files and articles together in a cat. DMacks (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2013 (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:Alumni of the Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design[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: result. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The school appears to have changed its name, and our article on it is now at Central Saint Martins. The proposed title is shorter and clearer. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- assuming the article rename is correct, the alumni category should conform. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match article. It appears that its official name is the longer form, but we follow common names/avoiding ambiguation, and in general the easiest way to figure this out is matching the article name. In fact that was one of the main reasonse why we went with people educated at foo over old fooian categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2013 (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:Current Church of Ireland dioceses in Ireland[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being "still current" (as the category text says) is not a permanent characteristic. DexDor (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Unnecessary layer impeding navigation. Oculi (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Normally we do not allow a current/former distinction. However in the 20th century the number of diocese in the Republic was considerably reduced by amalgamation, following the disestablishment of the church. Either we should merge them all intone category, or (better) keep both or merge (as nom) and rename the "former" category to "historic dioceses" (as a subcategory of the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. With institutions we generally treat defunctness as a distinct characteristic. For example we have Category:Defunct schools in Pennsylvania but not Category:Current schools in Pennsylvania.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2013 (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:Australian Aboriginal place names[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Apart from a couple of lists this category consists of articles about places rather than articles about place names. This is categorizing articles about places by a characteristic of their name (i.e. article title) rather than by a characteristic of the place (i.e. article subject). This is a form of WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. For info: Many of the articles in this category (e.g. Joy Springs Community) make no mention of the origin of the name. The list article should be upmerged to Category:Names of places in Oceania. List of Australian repeated place names shouldn't (strictly speaking) be in this category. For infor: Some examples of previous "categorizing by name" CFDs are this and this. DexDor (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Classic WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Oculi (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I checked several articles. One gave the origin of the name (one sentence), which might justify its inclusion here, but the rest did not. However the list article should survive (with a new Oceania category). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have consistently decided not to categorize a place by the origin of its name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2013 (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:BBC departments based in Greater Manchester[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Where a department is (currently) based is not a permanent WP:DEFINING characteristic of the department. This appears to be an attempt to create a list in category space - a better place for such a list would be somewhere like MediaCityUK#BBC. For info: This category is currently uncategorized. DexDor (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Undefining. Oculi (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Many BBC departments have been moved to Manchester. A couple have for many years been in Bristol. A list with the location of all departments would be better. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2013 (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 beverage businesspeople[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 to Category:American beverage industry businesspeople. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category Backendgaming (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2013 (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/2013_August_3&oldid=1138397679"