Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 2

< August 1	August 3 >

August 2

Category:Iona albums

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. Courcelles 06:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Iona albums to Category:Iona (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Iona is an island, IONA is something else, Iona (band) is the band. Occuli (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2010 (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:Kit vehicles

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. I also put this under Category:Do it yourself.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Kit vehicles to Category:Kit cars

Nominator's rationale: Merge or the reverse. Kit vehicles is a redirect to kit cars. While there is one in the category is there much chance for growth? Presents an interesting question. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The text implies that the single article currently in this category is in fact a car anyway. However, Autogyro#US certification refers to "kit-built aircraft", so this category has scope to be populated. Miracle (dinghy) and other boats could probably populate a new sub-cat. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea read the article again and did not see that this was car. Looking at the external link and the picture there says it is a car so I moved it to the more specific category. Removing this does not impact the points you are raising about the possibility of more subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 23:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are kit planes and kit motorbikes as well; and according to Mythbusters, there're kit jetpacks. There's a very famous kit plane, called the Long-EZ. For some reason our kit planes are categorized under Category:Homebuilt aircraft at the moment. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which makes me wonder if Category:kit vehicles is the best name. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "kit plane" gets 200k ghits, "homebuilt aircraft" only gets 15k ghits, beats me why it's named thusly. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2010 (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:Kokomo

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: Phoenix, Arizona all the way to Tacoma, Philadelphia, Atlanta, delete. Courcelles 19:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by by shared name. The category is defined as "Locations that the song 'Kokomo' by The Beach Boys may be referring too [sic]." (Add to WP:DAFT while we're at it.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should be a disambig page instead, indeed Kokomo is. Every disambig page does not get its own category. W Nowicki (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with it being a disambiguation category, but the only other category by that name is currently Category:Kokomo, Indiana, so there are not 2 or more categories to disambiguate to at this stage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. What next, Category:I've Been Everywhere!! -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2010 (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:Electricity generators of the United Kingdom

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/merge as nominated. Courcelles 03:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Electricity generators of the United Kingdom to Category:Power companies of the United Kingdom

Propose renaming Category:Electricity generators of Northern Ireland to Category:Power companies of Northern Ireland

Propose renaming Category:Former electricity generators of the United Kingdom to Category:Defunct power companies of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Merge Category:Electricity generators of the United Kingdom to Category:Power companies of the United Kingdom. Overlapping categories. No clear criteria for inclusion for this category and division between this category and category:Power companies of the United Kingdom. Other similar categories of other countries are named 'Power companies of X'. Same applies to the Northern Ireland category and former generators category. Beagel (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support the first is a poorly named duplicate of the much better named target cat. The other two are simply better names, clearing up the confusion that these are for individual generating units by country of manufacture. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - just a thought though Category:Former power companies of the United Kingdom sounds better than Category:Defunct power companies of the United Kingdom don't you think ? Codf1977 (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Defunct companies of the United Kingdom is the parent. We ought to reflect that where possible. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, just commenting that one reads better than the other. Codf1977 (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2010 (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:Ancient Syria

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) 01:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ancient Syria to Category:Archaeology of Syria

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Category:Ancient Syria was recently created but does not cover anything more than Category:Archaeology of Syria, where necessary combined with the subcats Category:Archaeological sites in Syria and Category:History of Syria, already did. It seems to me to be a clear case of overcategorization. Zoeperkoe (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2010 (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:IONA debating competitions

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; because somehow, this category is totally empty. Courcelles 03:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The term IONA is really only used in debating, and see no real reason to keep this category. Promote the two subcategories (Category:British debating competitions and Category:Debating competitions in Ireland) to Category:European debating competitions and add the two articles in this category ( ESU Schools Mace and John Smith Memorial Mace) to both the exiting subcategories. Codf1977 (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that, given the issue relating the term British Isles I have notified Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples of my intention to propose this and that I have done it. Codf1977 (talk)

Upmerge Category:IONA debating competitions to Category:European debating competitions. (There is no problem with the use of British as in Category:British debating competitions. British Isles is a different issue.) Occuli (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know there was no problem with the use of British - it was the removal of IONA that was the reason for notification as that is often seen as "a more politically acceptable alternative to British Isles" so to be on the safe side thought it prudent to mention it there. Codf1977 (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard of IONA ... thanks for the link. (IONA seems to be 'Islands of the north atlantic except the ones that are not in the British Isles'.) Definitely upmerge. Occuli (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge has nothing to do with Greenland or Iceland, or Long Island, New York, or the Canary Islands, etc... 76.66.193.119 (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2010 (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:Frontier rebellion 1897-1899

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. Courcelles 19:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Frontier rebellion 1897-1899 to Category:Tirah Campaign

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I believe the main article is Tirah Campaign. (There is presently no article or redirect of the same name as this category.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. The present category name might refer to anywhere. If kept, a geographic description such as "Indian" ought to be added. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2010 (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.

Alberta municipal districts

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/merge all. Courcelles 03:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed renaming Category:Kneehill County to Category:Kneehill County, Alberta

Proposed renaming Category:Rocky View County to Category:Rocky View County, Alberta

Proposed merge Category:Foothills, Alberta to Category:Foothills No. 31, Alberta

Proposed merge Category:Lac St. Anne County, Alberta to Category:Lac Ste. Anne County, Alberta

Nominator's rationale: To conform with the names of the corresponding articles, and the naming conventions for municipal districts in Alberta. 117Avenue (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all but propose the last two be changed to Category:Foothills No. 31 and Category:Lac Ste. Anne County. Adding "Alberta" to these categories is unnecessary disambiguation and if the article names do not match the category, then the article names need to change per WP:AT and WP:DISAMBIG. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't need to be disambiguated, then about 57 categories and articles will have to be moved the other way to conform. 117Avenue (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my preference. See my reply to Backspace below. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. This is the usual way of referring to Alberta municipal districts, both within WP and in the real world. It would be quite unusual to have them without the "Alberta", in my opinion. In this sense Canadian municipal districts are (and should be, I think) treated differently than Canadian cities and towns. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Kneehill and Rocky View be the only counties in Canada or the United States that do not have the state or province appended after their category names? If it were just a matter of being unambiguous, half of the counties in the US or Canada could probably drop the state/province affix, but then few would know what state or province the category belonged to. In this matter, being consistent is much more important. Nobody outside of Alberta (and probably half the Albertans) knows where these counties are anyway, but they can automatically tell where any of the other county categories are. Backspace (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but I don't think 'any counties in the US or Canada should have the state or province appended to their name unless needed for disambiguation purposes. The only job a title should do is unambiguously and precisely identify the topic. They should only be as precise as needed and as concise as possible. Any other information on the topic (i.e. where it is located) should be provided in the text (or category tree in the case of cats) and not smuggled in via the title. Given that the names above are unique, why should they be disambiguated? Disambiguation is a necessary evil not a positive good and certainly not a crutch for editors to use to make their life easier. Accuracy should be our primary aim on Wikipedia in everything we do, not enforcing an artificial consistency. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And being consistent absolutely does not make something less accurate. Backspace (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it does, of course. The name of the district is "Kneehill County" and not "Kneehill County, Alberta". Every time we disambiguate like this we sacrifice a little accuracy and conciseness for a little bit of preciseness. What mandatory disambiguation does is sacrifice the accuracy and conciseness for no gain in preciseness, and it is all so unnecessary.

They are just like any other municipal status, according to MOS:CA#Places all places (except for cities,) need to be followed by the province name. All the villages and towns in Alberta are followed by the province, and all the neighbourhoods in Edmonton and Calgary are followed by the city, even if they don't need to be. 117Avenue (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is against the letter and the spirit of WP:AT and at odds with the general consensus across the rest of the encyclopedia, with the exceptions of Australia (and this may change soon) and the US. What is so special about populated places in Aust, Canada and the US that requires mandatory disambiguation when every other topic in this encyclopedia copes just fine without it? We don't add state or province names to mountains, rivers, lakes, bays etc. German, British, French and Indian populated places cope just fine without forcing disambiguation. What does it actually achieve? Anyway, I am digressing now. Accept my opinion for what it is or take it up with me on my talk page. In any case, I am not likely to win the day in this discussion anyway. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some (not necessarily all) of the instances you refer to, it may have to do with how the place is often referred to in sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Move. Makes sense to have an uniform naming pattern, and disambiguation is absolutely needed for some of the municipal districts/counties. --Qyd (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having a consistent pattern that results in too much disambiguation is much preferable to having no pattern that results in no need for disambiguation. There is only one place called the "City and County of San Francisco", yet we seem to disambiguate the heck out of the place in order to get there. I thought that Wikipedia's mission was to impart knowledge. Significant knowledge is gained by someone first seeing "Kneehill County, Alberta", who will immediately think "Aha, it's way up there!" (No, I am not a Canadian, but one grandfather was.), as opposed to someone who first sees "Kneehill County", whose first thought would be "Where the heck is that?" Backspace (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as proposed. Consistency first then fry the bigger fish (unecessary disambiguation of most or all) if necessary at a later date if someone feels so inclined. Let reasonability and consistency prevail in the meantime. Hwy43 (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2010 (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:Electric vehicle motors

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 to Category:Wheel hub motors (adding an "s" to the suggested target).--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging Category:Electric vehicle motors.

Nominator's rationale: A poorly named category for Wheel hub motors: the main article as well as two articles on specific kinds. Upmerge to parents per WP:SMALLCAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The category name is so far from the actual contents, I wonder if hasn't been partially depopulated by someone POV-pushing wheel hub motors only, for some absurd reason. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably rename to Category:Wheel hub motor. The category (in its current state) is clearly defined; and is capable of expansion. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2010 (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:Sherwood Pictures

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. — ξ ^xplicit 21:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sherwood Pictures to Category:Sherwood Pictures productions

Nominator's rationale: Rename - the category appears to be for productions by the studio, not the studio itself. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this. If consensus is reached either way, I'll go with it. To play devil's advocate, however, the category isn't just productions by the company. It includes Alex Kendrick and Stephen Kendrick (co-founders), Sherwood Baptist Church (owner) and The Love Dare (spin-off book). Although adding "productions" somewhat makes sense, I'm not sure if it's needed or fitting. American Eagle (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 01:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move films into category:Sherwood Pictures films.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do what Mike Selinker suggests. category:Sherwood Pictures films is the standard format. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and create category:Sherwood Pictures films for films per Mike Selinker. Beagel (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2010 (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:Songs with a Bo Diddley Beat

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization—we don't categorize songs by beat or what instruments or singers are featured in it, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: What is this, Jango? CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete ...what? Bo Diddley beat? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite distinctive... "shave-and-a-haircut, six bits" --Redrose64 (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2010 (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.