Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 26: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:20, 26 September 2012 editBrocach (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,515 edits →Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in County Londonderry← Previous edit Revision as of 17:28, 26 September 2012 edit undoBrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,942,733 edits →Category:History of women in Kentucky: Keep but prune/re-arrangeNext edit →
Line 114: Line 114:
* '''Keep but prune/re-arrange''', along the lines of ]. Certainly the articles on individual persons should all be removed. ] (]) 10:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC) * '''Keep but prune/re-arrange''', along the lines of ]. Certainly the articles on individual persons should all be removed. ] (]) 10:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
* I am really confused by these statements. This category was first developed by a collaboration between my history students and the librarians here at the University of Kentucky (we were studying the time period 1920-1970, surely you would agree that their work is historical in nature). I feel strongly that the category should not be deleted simply due to an overly exuberant use by others. I see there are two issues under discussion here -- please correct me if I am misunderstanding: (1) the nominator for deleting this category indicates that there is "no clear criterion for inclusion." In my ignorance about the process for developing a new category, I must have neglected to do something to make the criterion more clear, a simple oversight that can be rectified. Please let me know how I can help people understand how to use the category more effectively. (2) In the comments about "pruning" - are you claiming that a biographical entry of a living person is not historical in nature? What are the criterion by which you would become more comfortable regarding the historiocity of an entry? We have agreed in the Women's History WikiProject that these kinds of delimiter can be very subjectively applied given that the field of women's history (similar to men's history) relies so heavily on contemporary issues in order to understand the past. ] (]) 14:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC) * I am really confused by these statements. This category was first developed by a collaboration between my history students and the librarians here at the University of Kentucky (we were studying the time period 1920-1970, surely you would agree that their work is historical in nature). I feel strongly that the category should not be deleted simply due to an overly exuberant use by others. I see there are two issues under discussion here -- please correct me if I am misunderstanding: (1) the nominator for deleting this category indicates that there is "no clear criterion for inclusion." In my ignorance about the process for developing a new category, I must have neglected to do something to make the criterion more clear, a simple oversight that can be rectified. Please let me know how I can help people understand how to use the category more effectively. (2) In the comments about "pruning" - are you claiming that a biographical entry of a living person is not historical in nature? What are the criterion by which you would become more comfortable regarding the historiocity of an entry? We have agreed in the Women's History WikiProject that these kinds of delimiter can be very subjectively applied given that the field of women's history (similar to men's history) relies so heavily on contemporary issues in order to understand the past. ] (]) 14:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
* '''Keep but prune/re-arrange''' per Occuli. This category should be restricted to articles ''about'' the history of women in Kentucky, and not populated with individual women. Any woman from Kentucky on whom we have have a biography is included because they are notable, and they form part of the history of the state. Unless we restrict the category in this way, it will become useless for the historical purposes for which the historians concerned created it. It sounds like they have done great work in documenting this topic on Wikiedia, and creating a list of the women who have been important in the state's history is a valuable step for which they should be commended. However, for all the reasons above, a category is the wrong tool for that job. A ] would solve all the problems with the category, while preserving the scholarly work which has been done here. --] <small>] • (])</small> 17:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


==== Television programs ==== ==== Television programs ====

Revision as of 17:28, 26 September 2012

< September 25 September 27 >

September 26

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Aztec food animal

Nominator's rationale: Delete or at the very least rename to a less awkward title. I favor deletion because this type of categorization scheme would lead to an absurd amount of clutter on things like chicken, turkey, beef, pork and many other animals that are almost universally eaten. Last February, categories for culture-specific ingredients were deleted for the same sort of reason (see here) The best way to handle this content is through a list or simply an appropriately detailed section in the Aztec cuisine article. Pichpich (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and per precedent. Being eaten by Aztecs is not a defining characteristic of some of these animals, because they are widely-eaten around the world. If started categorising turkey (bird) by all the difft nations and ethnic groups which eat it, we would clutter it with several hundred categories, which would be a huge impediment to navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in County Londonderry

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Wholly replaced by Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in County Derry, reflecting the fact that GAA clubs are organised within the GAA county of Derry rather than the obsolete administrative county of Londonderry. Brocach (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Gaelic football competitions are organised within the GAA county of Derry rather than the obsolete administrative county of Londonderry. Brocach (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Note I have merged these categories into one discussion. There is no point in having 3 separate discussions about the same issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Emptied out of process. Please note that these categories listed for deletion have all been emptied out of process by the nominator (in these edits), who is actually seeking ratification of a pre-emptive action. The nominator should revert these moves, so that a consensus can be formed on whether to rename the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Restore emptied categories, delete the new ones, and don't rename. The nominator has mistaken the GAA county with the geographic county. These are geographical categories, part of the category tree under Category:County Londonderry, and they follow the convention for that category. This accords with WP:DERRY (part of WP:IMOS), which provides that we use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county, except where we are referring to an entity which uses one form or the other. In this case, the county GAA club calls itself Derry GAA, so that's the name we use for the club. But the categories refer to a geographical scope, rather than to club, so should follow the geographical convention.
    I appeal to editors not to try to unpick the convention at WP:IMOS. It represents a long-term consensus and has created stable naming to many areas which had been riven with disputes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The GAA county of Derry is a geographical area, almost but not quite coterminous wioth the old administrative county of Londonderry. Derry GAA is not, as BrownHairedGirl appears to think, a 'club', but the administrative organ responbsible for running ] competitions in County Derry. Every GAA club in the county, without exception, refers to its location as County Derry and participates in competitions labelled as County Derry. No GAA entity anywhere uses the term Londonderry. In that sense, to label a club as belonging to "County Londonderry" is pointless, unless the point being made is a political one that belongs outside Misplaced Pages. Brocach (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Telomere

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In accordance with Misplaced Pages guidelines, countable nouns are to be plural in category titles. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:African newspaper journalists

Nominator's rationale: Delete All four journalists in this category are already categorized in the national Namibian or South African categories so this is just creating category clutter in the articles. This might work as a container category for national subcategories but the parent category Category:Newspaper journalists only contains four national subcategories so there's no need to group them by continent. Pichpich (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:African newspaper editors

Nominator's rationale: Delete All four journalists in this category are already categorized in the national Namibian or South African categories so this is just creating category clutter in the articles. This might work as a container category for national subcategories but Category:Newspaper editors by nationality is still of very manageable size and there's no need to isolate the African categories. Pichpich (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Government and politics images

The nomination also includes the subcategories:
Nominator's rationale: It's not clear at first sight that the listed categories contain images included in Misplaced Pages and not articles discussing the copyright possibilities of reproduction of currencies or the contentiousness of depictions of abortion or sth similar. I think it's standard to prepend 'Misplaced Pages' to such categories. Eleassar 11:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I've just discovered there are other such categories in Category:Misplaced Pages images - therefore it would be best to rename them all in this manner. --Eleassar 11:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Japanese miIlitary physicians

Nominator's rationale: The name of the category is obviously misspelled. Björn Knutson (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:WTA Challenger Tour

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is WTA Challenger Series. Armbrust, B.Ed. The Undertaker 20–0 05:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename. WTA Challenger Series is the correct name. Rename is supported by the category creator who invented the current name 19 May where it was uncertain what WTA would call their new tournament series. Many Misplaced Pages mirrors have copied "WTA Challenger Tour" since then but no reliable sources use the name. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS) players

Nominator's rationale: OK, now this one I'm trying to get straightened out because I already have Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC players nominated to be merged and what I'm trying to do with the Vancouver MLS category is to merge it to Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC players pending the nominations below. – Michael (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010)

Nominator's rationale: This is all the same stuff from the Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps from 1986 to 2010 and I think should all be merged to the category that I've nominated for renaming, which you can see below. – Michael (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Alright, you got any suggestions that can sort all of this out, or do I have to start all over? I've been trying to straighten everything out for a couple of hours because there were too many 86ers/Whitecap categories. – Michael (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps (1986–present) players

Nominator's rationale: per Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010). – Michael (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Medalists at the 2007 Winter Universiade

Nominator's rationale: As far as I know, we have no categories breaking medalists by colour at a particular edition of a competition, and it is a tree that well, would create TONS of category clutter if carried forth. Courcelles 02:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Television series set in Oakland, California

Nominator's rationale: categorization with only one article, unlikely to have many more. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:History of women in Kentucky

Nominator's rationale: No clear criterion for inclusion. Seems to include nearly every woman from Kentucky, including people such as Patty Loveless who, while irrefutably notable, have little to do with the state's history. Ten Pound Hammer • 01:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep but prune/re-arrange, along the lines of Category:History of women in Louisiana. Certainly the articles on individual persons should all be removed. Oculi (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I am really confused by these statements. This category was first developed by a collaboration between my history students and the librarians here at the University of Kentucky (we were studying the time period 1920-1970, surely you would agree that their work is historical in nature). I feel strongly that the category should not be deleted simply due to an overly exuberant use by others. I see there are two issues under discussion here -- please correct me if I am misunderstanding: (1) the nominator for deleting this category indicates that there is "no clear criterion for inclusion." In my ignorance about the process for developing a new category, I must have neglected to do something to make the criterion more clear, a simple oversight that can be rectified. Please let me know how I can help people understand how to use the category more effectively. (2) In the comments about "pruning" - are you claiming that a biographical entry of a living person is not historical in nature? What are the criterion by which you would become more comfortable regarding the historiocity of an entry? We have agreed in the Women's History WikiProject that these kinds of delimiter can be very subjectively applied given that the field of women's history (similar to men's history) relies so heavily on contemporary issues in order to understand the past. Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep but prune/re-arrange per Occuli. This category should be restricted to articles about the history of women in Kentucky, and not populated with individual women. Any woman from Kentucky on whom we have have a biography is included because they are notable, and they form part of the history of the state. Unless we restrict the category in this way, it will become useless for the historical purposes for which the historians concerned created it. It sounds like they have done great work in documenting this topic on Wikiedia, and creating a list of the women who have been important in the state's history is a valuable step for which they should be commended. However, for all the reasons above, a category is the wrong tool for that job. A list-style article would solve all the problems with the category, while preserving the scholarly work which has been done here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Television programs

This is to eliminate the ENGVAR issue of programme/program, and also avoids the ENGVAR usage of the word "series".

The full list is here (program) and here (programme) and here (series).

(I would welcome help with the tagging : ) - jc37 01:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Adaptations by Bertolt Brecht

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure why we would group these together. I think the intent was to say "These plays are different because Brecht didn't think of their plots himself," but I'm not aware of anywhere else where we do that.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)