Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 30 September 1 >

August 31[edit]

Category:Asteroids named as an award[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. -- Tavix (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC, WP:NONDEFINING and the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME
A student named Hannah Olivia Cevasco won a national science competition and, in addition to a plaque and a scholarship, part of her prize was having an asteroid named after her (source). This category only contains that one article (31641 Cevasco) but the intent is to group the other asteroids named as part of a prize. I don't see how a middle school science project on the healing power of honey or the like is defining for an actual object in space though. I already added the article to the existing list article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The notified Fotaun as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Astronomy. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't question that this category could be well populated. WP:SMALLCAT is not an issue here. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Beatles minor planet category is nominated for deletion here. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the name of an asteroid is a trivial characteristic, not a defining one. Oculi (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial and non-defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is unhelpful when off-topic editors vote on this issue without being aware in what context this category is actually embedded in. For a full categorization of all named minor planets this trivial category is, in its renamed form, absolutely needed. If you argue that the name of an asteroid shouldn't be used in any categorization, then I need to point out that, a) it's about minor planets (MPs), not just asteroids, and b) there are dozens of these name-based MP-object categories on wikipedia for many years. It is a perfectly fine and absolutely useful criteria for those actually working within WPSS. I ping @Jorvis:, @Exoplanetaryscience:, @Praemonitus:, @Kheider:, @Huntster:, asking for support. Tom and I need it to thoroughly implement a complete and consistent category structure on minor planet objects in general, and on the named ones in particular. Rfassbind – talk 12:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename as above. While nominator would normally be correct that such a category would usually fail WP:OCASSOC and WP:NONDEFINING, in this situation I would argue that the minor planet's name influence is a defining characteristic of its name, and so would not fail in this situation. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing/Note to Closer The non-netural notice above tags specific editors with the explicit intention of WP:Votestacking. Please consider this when closing this nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The usual principle that we don't categorize things by characteristics of their name(s) should (for consistency etc) apply - we don't have, for example, categories for chemical elements named after people, people named after relatives, towns named after rivers, roads named after places, companies whose name is an abbreviation etc. The categorization system is for categorizing articles in this encyclopedia (by their topic); not for creating a database (containing mainly redirects to list entries) - Cf Wikidata (and probably other websites). Where there is an article about a planet etc it can mention how the planet etc was named, but that doesn't need a category (see essay WP:DNWAUC). Regarding the proposal to rename this and place it under Category:Minor planets by source of name: that would be likely to lead to articles being categorized both for being named as a contest prize and for being named after a person. Huntster's comment - "the minor planet's name influence is a defining characteristic of its name" (my emphasis) rather makes the point that this is categorizing the/a name, not the astronomical body itself. See also previous CFDs (e.g. this and this).DexDor (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AST is, to my knowledge, in a somewhat unique position of dealing with mass bot-created stubs (now mostly #Rs). Sub-categorizing (though not ad nauseum, I agree) helps manage them, and allows us to more-easily confirm completeness/double check/etc. based on internal and external lists of minor planets. Usually, the usual principles don't apply here (within reason, of course).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if that might be a valid reason, I don't think that creating a subcategory with 2 articles and 1 redirect helps in tackling this problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read the first few votes, you'll find that the category will be more populated in the near future.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway I'm not convinced of arguments to keep the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This shared name issue has come up before with city names, organization names and biography categorization. This CFD discussion links to those earlier nominations. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a great category for collected asteroids named as awards, which is encyclopedic. Fotaun (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not defining to the asteroids. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so we do not categoize things by what their name is. For example, if I went out tomorrow and convinced enough people to change the name of Mars to Szeczszchalbitosky, it should remain in all the cateogies it is at present, if there is any category that the planet mars fits in but the planet Szeczszchalbitosky would not fit in, it is aflawed category that should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting in an attempt to dilute the effects of votestacking.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The particular way an object was assigned its name is not a defining property of the object. Nothing about the object itself changes when the name is changed. We do not have categories like this for cities or anything else. If this fits with an overall schema of the categorization of asteroids, than our categorization schema for such is flawed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't notice I had already voted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Seems to me to be a pretty clear example of categorizing by shared naming characteristic, which is generally avoided in category names per the cited guidelines. I'd have no objection against some sort of list if users really think that this information is "encyclopedic". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2016 (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:Proto-prog albums[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) 06:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Proto-prog is a redirect. If the sub-genre can merit an article based on the sources, then we can recreate it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is nothing in WP:OVERCAT that prohibits categories where the main article is a redirect. There is a section devoted to the topic at Progressive music#Proto-prog, and there are more than enough sources to support the genre's notability. Even the fact that there are currently only a few pages for the category is not enough for deletion:
Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time. (WP:SMALLCAT)
If this same logic were imposed on other categories, we wouldn't have Category:Dairy farmers (no Dairy farmer article), Category:Chess people (no Chess person article), etc. The only reason proto-prog doesn't have its own article is chiefly due to WP:HASTE.
--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The analogies aren't really the best ones because they are intersection categories (articles Dairy and Farmer do exist) but nevertheless Proto-prog may be a notable topic. @Ilovetopaint: Would you be willing to make a start on this article in the next few weeks? If you would, we may keep this discussion open for a bit longer than usual and when the article passes notability test we can keep the category as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since progressive music is a broad concept article, two paragraphs on "proto-prog" are needed to provide enough background information and context. Making a new article right now would present WP:OVERLAP. It is obviously a notable topic, it just works better as a section redirect for now:
"When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic." (WP:PAGEDECIDE).
--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too much overlap with existing categories, and your definition of what is "proto-something" may not be mine, so it is best avoided. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Ritchie333 Mlpearc (open channel) 17:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there any reason why the album category was the only one nominated? From the rationale, it seems as if Category:Proto-prog and its first-level subcats is what should be nominated, instead of just the albums. -- Tavix (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting so that my question can be addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oculi: Proto-prog isn't progressive rock. Proto-prog designates the advanced music from the 1960s that predates prog rock. This constitutes artists as disparate as the Beach Boys, Jimi Hendrix, Procol Harum, the Moody Blues, and Pink Floyd. "We don't need a subcat because I don't care about the distinction" is not a valid rationale for deletion. It exists and is supported by many sources, which is enough.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Proto-punk is not at cfd. I would certainly support 'delete' for that too. You don't seem to be getting the point that there are many distinct and various qualities possessed by (or attributed to) a band but most of them are not defining and do not support a category. Particularly if bands as disparate as the Beach Boys, Jimi Hendrix, Procol Harum, the Moody Blues, and Pink Floyd are all held to possess this nebulous quality. (Needless to say, the Jimi Hendrix article makes no mention of his proto-progness, and neither does the Procol Harum article (except in the infobox). Classic cases of undefining.) Oculi (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oculi: "Various qualities", "most of them are not defining"? We're only talking about one quality: whether they're "proto-prog". WP:NON-DEFINING:
a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject..
Question: What is common to every article listed at Category:Proto-prog musicians?
Answer: The articles, all of which list a musical band, contain a reliable source that states they play in the "proto-prog" genre.
So... "Nebulous"? Really? This rationale doesn't work either. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2016 (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:Lords of Parliament[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Current title is ambiguous. Lord of Parliament is the lowest rank in the Peerage of Scotland (equivalent to baron in the peerages of England, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom), but it can also be a more general term for someone who is in Parliament by virtue of being a lord. For example, the standing orders of the House of Lords state that the Lords Spiritual "are not peers but are Lords of Parliament". The proposed title would also be consistent with Category:Dukes in the Peerage of Scotland, Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of Scotland, Category:Earls in the Peerage of Scotland and Category:Viscounts in the Peerage of Scotland. Opera hat (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. After @BrownHairedGirl:'s comments below I have reconsidered. The category should match the article (Lord of Parliament) as much as possible. Mattlore (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scotland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as per nom. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I was open-minded about this one as I did my homework on it, but have found that any ambiguity is far too minimal to require such disambiguation. The general principle of category names is that they should conform to the name of the head article (see WP:Categorization#General_conventions and speedy criterion WP:C2D), which this one currently does. I dislike ambiguity in category names, but in this case my research shows that ambiguity lies only in obscure and largely obselete usage.
    The nominator @Opera hat is correct to assert that "Lords of Parliament" can also be a more general term for someone who is in Parliament by virtue of being a lord ... but having done some research, I find that in practice, that usage is very rare, and essentially obselete.
    I had not encountered the term "Lord(s) of Parliament" for anything other than the Scottish titles, and I note that the UK Parliament website's glossary entry for Lord of Parliament describes the term solely in the Scottish context. If even Parliament feels no need to mention any other usage, we should be very cautious about assuming that there is significant ambiguity.
    The Standing Orders of the House of Lords relating to Public Business makes 4 uses of "Lords of Parliament" (§6, §12, §15, §75), and one of the singular "Lord of Parliament" (§82), but in that document, members are overwhelmingly referred to as "lords" or "peers". So I was unpersuaded by that evidence.
    A Gbooks search for "Lord of Parliament" -Scotland gives 145 hits, which is a little more persuasive. I spotted that a lot of the hits seemed to be 18th- or 19th-century books, so I tried restricting the search to 21st-century only. That produced only 8 hits, all of which appear to be reprints of older material. A 20th-century search threw up only 12 hits, but that includes several hits in a 1964 edition of Erskine May, apparently quoting the Lords standing orders.
    A Gnews search for "Lord of Parliament" -Scotland throws up only 2 hits, neither of which is relevant. The plural "Lords of Parliament" -Scotland threw up 3 hits of marginal relevance.
    So although the HoL Standing Orders appears to have used the phrase "Lord(s) of Parliament" in a non-Scottish context for hundreds of years, I am not persuaded that the broader (non-Scottish) usage has gained any significant traction outside of that internal document. Furthermore the head article for the Scottish usage remains at Lord of Parliament, and there is no equivalent article for the broader usage — which in any case, would be difficult to write (and especially to establish notability for), given the dearth of non-primary sources.
    And crucially, in those searches I spotted zero instances of the therm "lord of parliament" being applied to any individual other than in the Scottish context. All of the uses I found were conceptual, rather than descriptive, so I did a direct Gbooks search for "was a Lord of Parliament" -Scotland -Scottish. That threw up only 17 results, all from the 18th and 19th centuries.
    It occurred to me along the way that the 1999 removal of most hereditary peers from the House of Lords has created a need for a new terminology, because while the word "peer" used to refer overwhelmingly to peers who had a seat in the Lords, that is no longer the case, as nearly half of the living peers are hereditaries. When I have needed to make the distinction, I have simply used "members of the House of Lords". I see that en.wp has an article at Members of the House of Lords, and a Category:Members of the British House of Lords. This is not just a piece of en.wp terminology; there are 390 Gnews hits for "members of the House of Lords", and 276 Gbooks hits for "members of the House of Lords".
    This minimal ambiguity could be resolved by hatnotes, without any need to create a verbose new category name ... and I note that although the head article Lord of Parliament has existed for over 11 years, it has never carried any hatnote until now. That is further evidence that any ambiguity here is too obscure to be a pratical concern.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Drchriswilliams and Mattlore: does my comment above change your stance? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for such a detailed response! But what about WP:CONSISTENCY with the other "[rank]s in the Peerage of Scotland" categories? Opera hat (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Opera hat: I did think about that. But
  1. the other "[rank]s in the Peerage of Scotland" categs match their head articles, which this one would no longer do if renamed per your proposal
  2. the other "[rank]s in the Peerage of Scotland" categs use the format "[ambiguous-single-word] in the Peerage of Scotland", whereas your proposal is to create "Categ:[near-as-dammit-unambiguous-multi-word-phrase] in the Peerage of Scotland".
So I think that consistency arguments point against the rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that consistency with the article is more important than consistency with the other categories. Mattlore (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2016 (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.

Beverages[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 all. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming subcategories of Category:Drinks to use 'drinks' rather than 'beverages'.
268 more using 'beverages'
Nominator's rationale: The recent cfd on 19 Aug showed a clear preference for 'drinks' over 'beverages'. The article is at Drink and the parent category at Category:Drinks. Oculi (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (beverages)[edit]
  • Support as nom. Oculi (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The main article is at drink, and per WP:EPON, there is no reason for the categories to not be consistent with that article. Furthermore, there are many problems with the word 'beverage', which have been described at the previous CfD. Namely, it is an unnecessary Latin word beautification of the Germanic 'drink' (the shorter and more recognisable 'drink' is more WP:CONCISE), and that major dictionaries label it as 'chiefly commercial'. A search through Ngrams further proved that 'beverage' is a chiefly American usage, largely rooted in said commercialism, whereas 'drink' is universal, and should be chosen per WP:COMMONALITY. RGloucester — ☎ 14:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to follow the recent precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no reason not to have them consistent with the article. Mattlore (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - indeed, I thought this was the outcome of the previous discussion, and I have already been renaming the cats. I thought the tags on the cats were leftover from the previous discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous discussion tagged (and nominated) only the few (7 or so) 'drinks' categories. Oculi (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Makes sense. Clearest common meaning. Orderinchaos 16:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support absolutely, let's have all of them using the simple, strong, familiar word. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2016 (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:Barons in the Peerage of Scotland[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Barons in Scotland are not part of the Peerage of Scotland. Opera hat (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: and remove the category from Category:Peers of Scotland. Mattlore (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because that title is ambiguous - it could be taken to refer to Scotsmen like Michael Martin, Baron Martin of Springburn who are barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom but who do not hold a Scottish feudal barony. The article Barons in Scotland was moved to that title from Scottish feudal barony on 18 July 2014. Opera hat (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2016 (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:Sherman family[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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Leaning delete, if not rename since there are multiple "Sherman families" at List of United States political families (S)#The Shermans. The problem I'm having with this category is that I can't seem to figure out how the membership is derived. There used to be an article on the family, but it was deleted and subsequently userfied at User:Yellowdesk/Baldwin,_Hoar and Sherman family. -- Tavix (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – membership of a category should be clear from sourced info within the categorised article, not from some external list. Oculi (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without the main article, this category is unmoored and likley non-defining RevelationDirect (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2016 (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/2016_August_31&oldid=1218374676"