Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 19

< January 18January 20 >

January 19

Category:Hotel chains of 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: Delete:
--Xdamrtalk 04:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hotel chains of Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Hotel chains in China
Nominator's rationale: Delete. OC for the single entry. If you look in Category:Hotel chains, the main parent, attempts to this point to split out the contents have centered on the type of hotel chain rather then where the chain operates or is based. Starting to split out these companies by where they are based would not be an aid to navigation. Consider this a test case for the two other related categories. If kept, it should probably be renamed to Category:Hotel chains based in Syria. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 19 January 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:HC Milano Saima players

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. --Xdamrtalk 04:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:HC Milano Saima players to Category:HC Milano players
Nominator's rationale: according to http://www.eurohockey.net/, these two apparently different clubs are the same Mayumashu (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I didn t expect there to be an article (my presumptiveness). According to eurohockey.net, the WP article contents would seem to be correct, but incomplete. There seems to have been two incarnations of a club by this (exact) name, one from the 1920s to the 1956 (although it was named 'Inter Milan' during the 1950s, as the WP article page says) and another from the mid 1980s till 2008. The Milano club now is called Hockey Milano Rossoblu [1]. Eurohockey.net does not list any HC Milano Saima per se and the players listed on the HC Milano Saima players WP category page played for HC Milano according to Eurohockey.net Mayumashu (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:04, 19 January 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:WikiProject Anime and manga redirects

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. --Xdamrtalk 04:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Anime and manga redirects to Category:Redirect-Class anime and manga articles
Changed to oppose rename for now. Maybe it is possible to resolve the issues I mentioned below elsewhere. G.A.Stalk 04:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Move proposed as the abovementioned category is used as an "quality assessment" category but does not currently fall within the standard naming scheme, breaking templates such as {{cat class}} and showing as unassessed on WP1.0. The category is only populated by {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}. G.A.Stalk 16:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. However, this sort of category should be populated only by the categories generated through the template {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}. Once the template is fixed, the Category:WikiProject Anime and manga redirects should depopulate automatically over the course of a few days as the template is purged, at which point the category can be speedily deleted as empty. I suggest asking Happy-melon (talk · contribs) for help in converting the project banner to use {{WPBannerMeta}}, which simplifies and standardises project banners. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to fit the usual assessment scheme, and follow BHG's advice. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latter was decided against (see below) as the existing template has functionality not currently in {{WPBannerMeta}}, and is maintained by the project (WPBannerMeta was created due to projects not updating their templates (i.e. when C-class was enrolled), yet the Anime banner was updated before C-class was announced (but after it was approved). Its display is also more customizable (In terms of CSS) as WPBannerMeta, uses better wording, etc. G.A.Stalk 13:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Because redirects are not a quality assessment class (FA, FL, GA, A, B, C, Start, Sub). Redirects are a type of page that are outside of assessment, much like disambiguation, templates, files, and ect. It is also consistant with the naming scheme of other project categories, such as Category:WikiProject Anime and manga articles, Category:WikiProject Anime and manga categories, Category:WikiProject Anime and manga files, Category:WikiProject Anime and manga portal pages, Category:WikiProject Anime and manga project pages, and Category:WikiProject Anime and manga templates And frankly, a wikiproject should have discretion over the naming schemes of its project categories. If someone want to change the project's naming scheme, than they should take it up with the wikiproject instead. However, this CfD is an end run around that discussion. And citing that other wikiprojects are use a different naming scheme, when most of them where forced without discussion, has created a fait accompli. On top of that, when the project declined converting to {{WPBannerMeta}}, we were assured by WPBannerMeta's developers that we would not be forced to use the meta template or change the project's category scheme. (Previous discussion on the conversion to WPBannerMeta and the so-called "standard" naming scheme.) —Farix (t | c) 21:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Consistency is generally given a high priority at CFD for category names, and while Farix has reasons for opposing it, none of them seems strong enough to break the convention. (Editors may wish to review the convention, bit that's another matter). It's also notable that atthe discussion to which Fanix linked, there was no evidence of any consensus at that wikiproject non-standard category names: AFAICS, Fanix was the only editor arguing in favour of the non-standard scheme. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The categories name is consistent with other WikiProject Anime project categories. And as I said before, the "convention" that was "enforced" on other wikiproject without discussions at all. (fait accompli) And I do think it is absurd to categorize non-articles into a category that claims that they are articles. Redirects are not articles, so it's stupid to categorize them under redirect-class artices. And Category:WikiProject Anime and manga redirects is a far less ambiguous name than Category:Redirect-Class anime and manga articles,which is actually miss-named for the reasons I've just pointed out. —Farix (t | c) 21:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may be consistent with WikiProject Anime project categories, but it's not consistent with the hundreds of other wikipedia categories for redirects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see how the naming schemes of other wikiprojects for non-assessment categories really matters here. Thoughtless consistency does not improve Wikipedia, especially when that "standard " is a rather dumb, ambiguous, and arbitrary to begin with. The fact that it was created and enforced by about four or five editors when they converted project banner to {{WPBannerMeta}} doesn't make it a standard to begin with. —Farix (t | c) 23:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Describing something you disagree with as "thoughtless" and "dumb" doesn't help anyone. You may disagree with the category name, but the reason for using that one is that it fits the same format as the other by-quality categories. As to how this consistency was reached, that isn't particularly relevant: what matters is that the convention for such category names gas been stable for a long time, and I am not aware of any demand to change it (other than from you). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's pretty clear that the naming scheme you are advocating was not actually thought-out and in hindsight was pretty dumb. However, most editors have decided to let sleeping dog lie. But since a couple of editors want to enforce the scheme, perhaps it's time to wake up those dogs and correct the mistakes. But back to the primary topic. Redirects are not an "assessment quality" nor are they articles. So they shouldn't be pigeonholed into something that they are not. If all you are going to say is, "it's the standard", than you need to make an argument as to why the "standard" scheme is better than the alternative. —Farix (t | c) 00:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, consistency is more important than perfection. By all means start a discussion to change to change the convention, but it the meantime it's more important to keep the categories conistent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Consistency for the take of consistency, especially when you won't even defend the problems with the consistency you are arguing for, is an extremely poor argument. But it is already consistent with the other WP-AM categories. —Farix (t | c) 23:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuild WPBANNERMETA and make it so that it always uses "WikiProject xxx yyy-class pages" "WikiProject xxx yyy-importance pages" 70.29.211.138 (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • reasoning: These are related to specific wikiprojects, the current naming scheme used by WPBANNERMETA doesn't make an ounce of sense, it doesn't indicate that it is related to wikiprojects at all, but to a general subject, which many of the pages being categorized don't fit under, since wikiproject coverage differs from the name that they chose to name themselves, sometimes significantly. Further, redirects, categories, templates, articles, portals, etc, are all pages. (usually the WPP covers a broader topic area) 70.29.211.138 (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I seem to recall that there was a consensus established that Wikiproject based categories were required to have "WikiProject" as part of their category name, to make them distinct from encyclopedic categories, and separate from other sorts of maintenance categories. Did WPBANNERMETA crew override or ignore that? 70.29.211.138 (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the record, the maintainers of WPBM have stated that they are also not particularly fond of the current assessment/quality category naming scheme, and would support on principle a proposal to correct/update it. I have had such a proposal drafted for half a year now (but have never taken the time to polish it up) at User:Dinoguy1000/Assessment category RfC, and I would prefer to hold off on changing any part of the scheme until the proposal is finished and presented to the community for discussion. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 72.251.164.58 (talk) 04:05, 28 January 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.

Cricketers by century

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete, for much the same reasons as the rugby footballers nomination below. There are still largely unpopulated categories which seem to be one the latest descendants of Category:People by occupation and century. Whatever the merits of these categories in other parts of the category tree, it's a bad idea with cricket, for a number of reasons:
  1. cricket players are already categorised by team, which groups players who had some connection with each other
  2. if fully populated, these categories will be huge; too huge to be useful for navigation
  3. splitting them further either requires creating a huge collection of triple or quadruple intersections such "20th century bowlers from India". That will be a maintenance nightmare
  4. Even if split as above, many of the categories will still be too big to be useful. One solution is to split them by decades creating for example "1960s bowlers from Pakistan" ... but sportspeople's careers don't fit neatly into decades, so most players would end up in two or more by-decades categories, creating category clutter
I can't see any way of making these categories work, and it seems best to delete them now before someone goes to a lot of work populating them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it makes very little sense to nom a category for deletion, and say simultaneously that it is underpopulated and that it might become too large. If it does grow as it ought, it can be subdivided, as any other category, by any of several possible criteria. (I agree with BHG that decade does not seem sensible for exactly the reason she gives) This is the sort of articles that people are very likely to want to browse. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would make more sense, DGG if you actually read the nomination. I did not say that the categories are "underpopulated"; I said that they are "largely unpopulated". In my view, these categories are not capable of being underpopulated, the fewer articles cluttered with these categories, the better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All as an effective means of navigation across a set of defining characteristics. Alansohn (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm starting to think that division of people by century is a tad arbitrary when it comes to things like this. I'm not clear with what navigational purpose such a scheme would serve. I could understand if they were holding subcategories for decades or years, but obviously they can't. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 15 January 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 09:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see how it is useful to have a category containing (say) an English cricketer who played from 1885 to 1901 and a Zimbabwean cricketer who played from 1999 to 2007 and moreover I don't see how any subcat scheme can remedy the problem. Occuli (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete those categories relating to the 20th and 21st centuries and ".......by century" (no pun intended). Clearly, if fully populated, the 20th and 21st century categories would become too large to be meaningful. However, I am not certain that this applies to Category:19th-century cricketers, which is unlikely to become too conjested and, if populated, may be a useful historical tool. If retained, it should become a direct subcategory of Category:Cricketers. Davshul (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally dislike century categories for people, this one included. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 21 January 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:Confederate states (1861-1865)

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:States of the Confederate States of America. NW (Talk) 16:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Confederate states (1861-1865) to Category:Confederate states (1861–1865)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use an ndash in a year range. Rjwilmsi 18:44, 24 December 2009 (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 09:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind what we rename it to provided we drop the year range without the endash. I don't have specific knowledge of the affected articles' content to have a preferred new name from those mentioned above. Rjwilmsi 13:39, 19 January 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:Biosciences

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) 02:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Biosciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The term is synonymous with biology. Currently the only contents (unchanged by me) are the page Biology, which is already categorized as Category:Biology, and Category:Homeopathy, which is already categorized as, well, itself. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:29, 19 January 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:Libraries in Oxford

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 as moot per nominator's comments. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Libraries in Oxford to Category:Libraries of the University of Oxford
Propose renaming Category:Libraries in Cambridge to Category:Libraries of the University of Cambridge
Nominator's rationale: Rename both since in each case the libraries mentioned are libraries of the university, rather than of the city. BencherliteTalk 01:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominations withdrawn as moot In the light of the discussion, this didn't need a CFD, I now realise, just creation of a sub-category in the existing category and editorial discretion to move from parent to subcat. The university libraries have been moved to the subcats, so there's nothing left to discuss. Would somebody care to tidy up the paperwork here, please? Thanks. BencherliteTalk 22:50, 19 January 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:Musical artist logos licensed under Creative Commons

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:  Relisted at today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Musical artist logos licensed under Creative Commons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty category. Seems like any appropriate images should be on Commons and the category should be there too. Prezbo (talk) 00:39, 19 January 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:Sculptures by Donatello

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 match the structure of the parent category. Anyone displeased with that structure can make a broader nomination to change it. Jafeluv (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sculptures by Donatello to Category:Donatello sculptures
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the common form used in Category:Sculptures by artist. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 19 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_19&oldid=1144513707"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 19, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.