Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 3 March 5 >

March 4[edit]

Category:Estonian Army generals[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplication, there are only army generals in both categories so subcategory is pointless and misleading. Staberinde (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Both pages date back to 2011 so there is no need to keep the page history. – Fayenatic London 15:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As more accurate. Shashank5988 (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Does the Estonian air force not also have generals? Even if we have no articles on them yet, if it does then we should retain the category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 11 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:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707)[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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) ミラP 19:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...
Nominator's rationale: There is only one Parliament of England, and we need to be consistent with Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain and Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and its subcategories. ミラP 18:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this name was reached via consensus at cfd in 2012. Adding 'pre-1707' will deter editors from adding later MPS for say Wootton Bassett. It is the new ones that omit 'pre-1707' which should be renamed. Oculi (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. This would create avoidable ambiguity, and lead to miscategorisation. The current category names are only as verbose as is needed to precise, and lack of precision is the enemy of good categorisation. The nominator is of course correct that there has never been a post-1707 English Parliament, but sadly Miraclepine's historical knowledge is not universally shared. Sadly, England's constitutional history is poorly taught even in England, so most of our readers and editors will be unaware that the Parliament of England was abolished in 1707 ... which is why the current names were adopted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 18#Category:Members_of_the_pre-1707_Parliament_of_England.
This confusion is not just a matter of ignorance. for many years, orthodox English scholarship obscured the fact that in 1707 England had abolished its own Parliament. For example, for over 100 years the key reference book on election results in the period after 1707 was Henry Stooks Smith's The Parliaments of England. It is a fine book, and I treasure my copy ... but it is woefully misnamed, because it includes results from Scotland and Wales.
Any disadvantage of the slightly more verbose category names (eleven extra characters! shock!) is massively outweighed by the risk of miscategorisation, which is hard to detect. I don't know why the nominator wants to create this ambiguity, or why they chose not to mention the previous CFD at which the current category names were chosen: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 18#Category:Members_of_the_pre-1707_Parliament_of_England. That omission is very unhelpful, as is the failure to include a copy of the discussion at WP:CFDS and above all the failure to tag the categories either for the speedy nomination or the discussion here. The nominator doesn't even mention that this discussion follows objections to a speedy nom. Those are characteristics of a sneaky attempt to mislead ... and since I AGF that Miraclepine did not intend to mislead, I assume that Miraclepine will remedy these serious problems very promptly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS I am also disappointed to see that most of the by-constituency categories were created by @Miraclepine on 1 March, which is after I raised my concerns about the by-constituency categories as overcategorisation at User talk:Miraclepine/1#Ipswich_MPS_CFD. Sadly, Miraclepine declined further discussion, and instead proceeded to create a flurry of new subcats. That is at best a failure to seek consensus for actions which are known to be controversial, and at worst it looks a bit like WP:Tendentious editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: (edit conflict) Any issue of miscategorization can be remedied by either going to WP:EFR to tag any edit that adds MPoE for Countyshire categories to articles not included in the English MPs 1XXX-1XXX categories or doing one of your "use the new templace which needs no parameters" templates that tell people to distinguish the Parliaments. And yes, I'll terminate creating more of those categories until the discussion ends. ミラP 18:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Miraclepine: that doesn't address the problem. When editors add a category through WP:HOTCAT or by editing the wikicode, no text on the category page is visible; the only way of clarifying the category's purpose is by having an unambiguous title ... which you want to remove. Why do you want to create ambiguity? How does that help anyone?
And no, pleas do not just terminate creating more of those categories until the discussion ends. Please stop it until there has been a discussion establishing a consensus to do so. It is very bad behaviour to simply refuse to discussion an objection and continue as if that objection had never been made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not responding promptly enough to your constituency question, so I went to my UTP and responded. ミラP 18:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's transparently disingenuous rubbish, @Miraclepine:. It is not a matter of not responding promptly enough. You responded within ten hours[1] to announce a refusal to discuss the issue. And now you have posted a rushed reply which misses the point.
That disingenuity plus the multiple procedural flaws in this nomination mean that my ability to AGF is being very rapidly eroded. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I would like to apologize for my mistakes and withdraw this CFD before things goes any further. If you want, BHG, decide on what to do with the categories. i'll request some opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. ミラP 19:09, 4 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:Lists of UK MPs 1974–1979[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: snow keep and withdrawn (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1. Not likely to be more. Already in UK MPs 1974–1979 Rathfelder (talk) 16:06, 4 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:Wikipedians who like Harry Potter[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. MER-C 18:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is placed in Category:Wikipedians by interest in a film series so it's meant to be for Harry Potter (film series). However, Category:Wikipedians interested in the Harry Potter series says the category also includes films as does Template:UBX-hp which populates it. So currently these are not really representing what they are for. Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - perhaps this is what it says on the can, and is Wikipedians who like that specific character. People who like the film series might like Ron and Hermione and think that Harry's a bit of a tosser, or - dare I say it - might be fans of Vol... erm... the guy who can't be named. If so, it simply needs placing in a different parent category. Grutness...wha? 02:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, liking or disliking does not matter for collaboration between editors, what matters is the common interest in a topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:18, 12 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:Islamia College (Lahore) alumni[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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination, following Government Islamia College, Lahore, opposed on Speedy page where one editor preferred a different naming format. – Fayenatic London 11:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion on Speedy page
  • Support - per nom and the article. Oculi (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nominator and the head article Government Islamia College, Lahore. The objector's comments make no sense, and it's a pity that editorial time gets wasted by an objector without a coherent objection. This should have been an uncontroversial C2D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you forget to add the "sigh" emoji? When are you going to abandon the fake ennui and mild condescension in your comments? These ad hominem attacks are a bore for everybody but you BHG. Get over yourself. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LL, what you write was incoherent. Please get over your desire to write incoherent comments at CFD.
And while you're at it, check your facts too. Your ALT proposal below is based on your assertion of a falsehood, namely your claim that the convention is is "alumni of". A quick peek at Category:Alumni by university or college in Pakistan would have shown that the convention is actually "Foo alumni"; the "Alumni of" applies only to Britain and Ireland.
It's a pity that editorial time gets wasted by your failure yet again to a simple check before you make an assertion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is the English-language wiki, it is perhaps unsurprising that the category structure here should be more elegant and freer of linguistic ambiguities. This is an example of a tree structure where linguistic ambiguities are not helpful. I would respectfully suggest that English is not the first language of the original nominator at speedy; that would explain the unhelpful word order. Quite simply, my alternatives allow for the information to be conveyed without the need for clunky disambiguators. The comma, if it is needed at all, is located at the end, permitting the common name of the college to appear as it would in its eponymous article. The nomination as proposed might lead some to conclude that "Lahore alumni" is a town in Pakistan. If my ALT is successful, it naturally follows that the whole Pakistan alumni tree will have to follow suit. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: See Category:Alumni by university or college in Massachusetts and its surrounding tree of categories: the UK and Ireland are the exceptions here, and your statement about "The standard for alumni categories" is not correct. PamD 11:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC
I'd like to see a demonstration of how the usage in Pakistan or Massachusetts is superior to the usage in the UK from the perspective of clarity and navigation. In particular, how is the Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge disambiguated from Category:Cambridge College alumni @PamD: ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for a general discussion on the wider naming conventions, which have been adopted per WP:ENGVAR to reflect variations in usage, rather than for any notion hat one is superior to the other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This forum is exactly the place for discussions on wider naming conventions; if not here, then where else? Contrary to what has been stated above, this forum precisely exists to establish whether one proposal for renaming is superior to the other proposal or the existing one; why else would WP:CFD exist? Each vote must have its merits examined. The only reason that editors like @PamD and Armbrust: have advanced the examples of Pakistan and Massachusetts is because they believe them to be examplars of a superior form. It is insufficient to simply state that opinion, it must be backed up by reasons; hence my invitation for a demonstration. In the absence of such a demonstration, my own ALT must stand as it offers reasons for its superiority, reasons that have not been contradicted by any editor. Neither PamD nor Armbrust has advanced WP:ENGVAR in support of his/her vote. Let BHG not act as their puppet master; I assume that they're more than capable of advancing such arguments if they are minded to do so. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BrownHairedGirl. This discussion isn't the right place to change the format of one category (to against the convention of Category:Alumni by university or college in Pakistan). If you want that convention to change, than you should nominated all of them together. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not claim "superiority" for any version, but pointed out the long-standing agreed convention in Wikipedia that non-UK/Ireland alumni categories are in the form "Foo alumni", and that your statement about "The standard for alumni categories" was plain incorrect. And note that if you want to "ping" someone, you need to add the ping in the same edit as you sign the post, otherwise it doesn't work. I didn't answer your question about Cambridge/Cambridge above because I couldn't understand what you were asking: one is in the US, one in the UK, and the category names reflect this. PamD 08:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Marco. Once the red mist descends, it is difficult for editors to maintain objectivity. We should also consider a mass nomination of the Massachusetts tree and it's parents. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every alumni category except the UK and Ireland uses 'XXX alumni'. Moreover there are predominantly 'XXX people', 'XXX faculty': eg Category:Alumni by medical school in the United States, Category:Faculty by medical school in the United States, Category:People by university or college in New York (state), Category:Faculty by university in Pakistan, Category:People by university or college in Pakistan, Category:Faculty by university in India, Category:People by university or college in India, Category:Alumni by university or college in India. There was a similar rename suggested in 2019 for the University of California, Los Angeles alumni, which was rejected. Oculi (talk) 12:01, 14 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:Kenyan cheeses[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. – Fayenatic London 22:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no cheese varieties native to Kenya, so this is essentially a single-article category that, for the foreseeable future, will only contain the category's parent article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid category which forms part of two existing hierarchies and usefully categorises the article mentioned. There is nothing to be gained by deleting it. PamD 06:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article is not about a particular cheese so it should be mentioned in the category page header as "cat main" or "see also", instead of being a category member. The category is therefore empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only one article about cheese in Kenya. XXX in Fooland is not Fooish XXX, unless all Americans in France (today or ever been) are French-Americans. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge in principle, though I fear this may place an article in a container category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez46, but ensure that the article (Cheese in Kenya) is in non-stub categories for cheese and Kenya. DexDor (talk) 19:57, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_4&oldid=973414269"