Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 5 September 7 >

September 6[edit]

Category:Coats of arms of Nigeria[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, without prejudice for a discussion on the broader issue mentioned by the IP. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 14:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed speedy. I think the discussion copied below covers the issues. This rename is to bring the category in conformity with the "FOOian coats of arms" standard of Category:Coats of arms by country. "Nigerian" is the correct FOOian here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Comment I say in the interests of not having incorrect content categorized into the wrong categories, that demonyms should not be used for categories involving Nigeria, Niger, Democratic Republic of Congo (Kinshasa), Republic of Congo (Brazzaville), Dominican Republic, Dominica; since there are too many overlapping demonyms used in the world at large. In the instance here, we are using "Nigerien" for Niger, while "Nigerian" for Nigeria, but this is not always the case in the world at large, where "Nigerian" is also used for Niger. Not just Nigerian, but "Nigerien" is used for Nigeria in some bad sources (usually poorly translated ones). -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, "Nigerian" is currently used for categories involving Nigeria, so your proposal is probably much broader than this isolated nomination can address. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency reasons, though I do understand the concerns about possible confusion i.e. I doubt if I would support keeping the Nigerian name in a broader nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this Nomiation/Open to Broader This example is clear and should be renamed. I'm open to hearing a broader discussion of "Nigerian" though. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as some of these demonym issues might start to be cleared up if their proper use is enforced. —烏Γ (kaw), 09:53, 18 September 2015 (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:History of the Batavian Republic[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per unclear distinction. The Batavian Republic is history, so a separate History subcategory does not specify anything. This applies similarly to the other two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, though this is a sort of standard name so I don't think a rename is urgent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2015 (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:British Scrabble 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: keep. For the sake of consistency, any proposals to rename the category should be proposed/considered for Category:Scrabble players and all of its by-nationality subcategories. Alternatively, explanatory headers can be added. (I'm not sure this is a unique issue, however—we have Category:British swimmers, but I don't think anyone assumes that any British person who swims recreationally should go in the category. Categories for people do (or are at least supposed to) come with a built-in understanding that this characteristic is defining for the individuals included.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING Fuddle (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't seem to be a category for every single person who's known to casually play Scrabble as a personal hobby — of the seven people in here, every single one was an active competitor in the organized circuit of professional Scrabble tournaments. Five of the seven, further, are notable only for that, and wouldn't have articles at all otherwise — and one of the other two passes WP:AUTHOR as a writer of books about Scrabble, so his notability is still entirely tied specifically to Scrabble. And even the one who actually has any non-Scrabble-dependent notability claim at all was still a competitive Scrabble tournament player too. So essentially it is defining, as six of the seven people in here wouldn't even have articles for anything unrelated to Scrabble — you could certainly raise a debate about whether Gyles Brandreth warrants inclusion or not, since it may not be specifically defining of him, but it's the crux of why anybody else in the category even has an article in the first place. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I came in via Brandreth so that my have colored my opinion. Perhaps a note defining the category is needed? Or a more specific name? Fuddle (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I suspected as much (*grin*). A usage note might be the easiest solution here, but in my experience people tend not to pay much attention to them — renaming to make its scope clearer might ultimately be the better option, but it would have to be done as a batch discussion on the entire Category:Scrabble players tree rather than being unique to this category alone. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2015 (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:Burgundian Circle[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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT. According to the headnote of the both categories they should be the same, and the contents is indeed more or less the same. The merge direction is proposed this way because I think the term "Seventeen Provinces" is better known than "Burgundian Circle"; also Category:Seventeen Provinces is the slightly older category. I would suggest to leave a soft redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw proposal as it appears that the Free County of Burgundy is a member of the Burgundian Circle but not of the Seventeen Provinces. I'll revise the headers of the categories accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2015 (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:1985 Livingston Open[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating for merging-
Category:1984 Livingston Open
Category:1986 Livingston Open
Category:1987 Livingston Open
Category:1988 Livingston Open
Nominator's rationale: All categories with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for clarity, each of the years under discussion here also has separate spinoff articles for its singles and doubles sections, in addition to the main article on the event itself — but in each case, those subarticles have just been left directly in Category:Livingston Open, and not recatted to the year-specific category yet. I'm still not certain that three articles per category, with no likely growth potential beyond that, would escape WP:SMALLCAT perdition — but it's still worth being aware that in reality we're talking about three-entry categories rather than one-entry categories. No opinion otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- single article categories are not useful, even if they potentially have sub-articles that are at present redirects. If substantive sub-articles are in fact created in sufficient numbers we can re-create them. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Further to Bearcat's comment, I've moved the other articles into the appropriate by-year subcategory so that users can see what we're dealing with here. Each category has three articles in it presently. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Not single entry categories (any longer). This is a standard setup for 1000+ tennis tournament articles and as such qualifies as "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".--Wolbo (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2015 (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:The Dark Side of the Moon[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one subcat and other articles are easily interlinked by a navbox. Similar categories for famous albums (like Sgt Pepper's...) have been deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Sgt Pepper nomination indicated that the only thing in the category was the songs. This category has 6 legitimate articles plus a sub-category, none of which are the individual songs from the album. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and as creation of sockpuppet. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this is one of those cases in which a navbox works best, and the contents here are best simply categorized by their topic (album, tour, film, etc.) --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:06, 10 September 2015 (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:Boardwalk Hall Auditorium Organ[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category is for one specific organ in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Both articles are already cross-linked so no navigation would be lost and I see no growth potential here. (Note that I was the one who added both the Music of NJ and Culture of AC parents to this category.)RevelationDirect (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NoteNotified Tompw as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Pipe Organ. – RevelationDirect (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. This single organ doesn't need its own category. kennethaw88 • talk 01:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously Upmerge -- no scope for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2015 (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/2015_September_6&oldid=1138409425"