Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 3

< February 2February 4 >

February 3

Category:UK Government logos

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: temporarily merge Category:UK Government logos and Category:UK Government agency and department logos to Category:Logos of the United Kingdom Government. There is no consensus for where these should be categorized, but there is complete agreement that there should be only one category. So as a temporary fix, I chose the one with 86 entries rather than the one with 1 and the other with 0, at least after out-of-process removal. We can now open up this single category for renaming if folks like.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Replaced in use by Category:Logos of the United Kingdom Government. Cloudbound (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note. The Category:UK Government logos has been emptied out of process by the nominator, as part of this series of edits. Cloudbound was also the creator of the new category.
    CFD exists to seek prior consensus on the renaming or deletion of categories, because such actions are hard monitor and to reverse. This nomination asks editors to retrospectively rubber-stamp a change which has already been made.
    If there is no consensus for a proposal, the default is to maintain the status quo, which in this case was to categorise the material under Category:UK Government logos. If no consensus is reached, the pages should be restored to the pre-existing category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is also Category:UK Government agency and department logos. There is no established convention within Category:Governmental logos.- choster (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:UK Government agency and department logos into Category:Logos of the United Kingdom Government. I created the new category in December 2012 and included a number of files, not realising that the UK Government logos category already existed. I chose to move all the files I could find into the new category. If consensus for the naming of categories is in favour of "UK Government logos" or "Logos of the United Kingdom Governments", I will support the change. We only need the one category, not potentially three. Cloudbound (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/move Category:Logos of the United Kingdom Government into Category:UK Government agency and department logos. The majority of the logos are departmental or quangos. None appear to be 'Government'. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/move Category:Logos of the United Kingdom Government into Category:UK Government agency and department logos. "Logos of the UK Government" seems to refer to the UK Government as a whole. It's the equivalent of "Logos of Walmart". - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:UK Government agency and department logos, but Category:UK Government department and agency logos might be even better. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:UK Government department and agency logos sounds good. Cloudbound (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should now choose a title and run with it? Cloudbound (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2013 (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.

Sportspeople from

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: administrative close. Users should not use the nomination process to prove a point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE-name as a representative sample, the following categories
Category:Sportspeople from New York to Category:Sportspeople from New York or where a large part of their sports career may have been in New York
Category:Sportspeople from California to Category:Sportspeople from California or where a large part of their sports career may have been in California
Category:Sportspeople from Thurso to Category:Sportspeople from Thurso or where a large part of their sports career may have been in Thurso
Category:Sportspeople from Paris to Category:Sportspeople from Paris or where a large part of their sports career may have been in Paris
Nominator's rationale I have to be honest and admit that I initialy thought that the scope of such categories was limited to notable sportspeople who were born in the town/city/state/country listed. It seems that this is entirely wrong and I must offer thanks to User:BrownHairedGirl for pointing out the error of my ways. For fear of misrepresenting her line of thought, and because of the sheer simplicity of the language employed, I can do no better than to exactly quote her rationale. I'm sure you will find it as persuasive as I did:
In my defence, I should say that I have been unable to find a single "Sportpeople from Foo" article that has a scope definition on top, so I can hardly be blamed for my naive error. Nevertheless, following this unanticipated revelation, it became abundantly clear that the current name is woefuly inadequate to the task. While the proposed name is, I feel, a faithful rendering of the consequences of the doctrine expounded above, I must beg that the honour and glory be given to my muse, BrownHairedGirl.
As a consequence of the re-naming, it's only right that I should highlight some likely consequential changes:
Demba Ba - a soccer player of Senegalese parents who was born in France and who is currently in the ManU first team. He is listed in only 1 sportsperson category - Category:Sportspeople from Paris. He will now also be listed in the "Sportspeople....Manchester" category.
Vijay Mehra (cricketer) - cricketer for the UAE who is listed in only 1 sportsperson category - Category:Sportspeople from New York. He will now also be listed in the "Sportspeople....UAE" category.
Thomas Carey (cricketer) - cricketer for Northhampton who is listed in only 1 sportsperson category -Category:Sportspeople from California. He will now also be listed in the "Sportspeople....Northhampton" category.
Tommy McGee (rugby union) - rugby player who played his his entire career in England who is listed in only 1 sportsperson category - Category:Sportspeople from Thurso. He will now also be listed in the "Sportspeople....England" category.

Assuming these proposals meet with approval, I propose to nominate the entire tree structure for similar mass re-namings. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2013 (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:Burials at Archcathedral Basilica of Sts. Stanisław and Vaclav, Kraków

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 18:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unwieldy name [no Google hits outside WP and its mirrors] to be changed to Wawel Cathedral, which is the title of the cathedral's article. Renata (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2013 (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:Male kings and Category:Female queens

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: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1 as bad joke / attention-seeking / WP:POINTy disruption / whatever. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created to make a rather bad WP:POINT that anyone who believes that there is a difference between male and female actors are part of "a bunch of gender-specific monkeys". Alansohn (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're not at all bitter that I passed you in DYKs when you used to try to create as many as possible. Pretty much anybody else here would understand it is sarcastic humour rather than WP:POINT and an admin would silently delete them with a chuckle. It would be different if it was Female actors and Male actors, but if people are insisting on using the old term actress then the old masculine term "actor" still applies and "male actor" is not need to distinguish. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:00, 3 February 2013 (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.

970s cats

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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These categories have only one entry in each of them, so it would be better just to upmerge them to the parent. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:35, 3 February 2013 (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:Quarters in Istanbul

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Doublet of the long established and structured Category:Neighbourhoods of Istanbul. If necessary, we can rename this one as Quarters of Istanbul. Alex2006 (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Quarter (semt) and neighbourhood (mahalle) are completely different things. Quarters are non-administrative regions, and they don't have certain borders. Neighbourhoods have certain borders and they are represented bu muhtars. This map shows neighbourhoods of Şişli. You can not see quarters of Şişli such as Osmanbey, Nişantaşı, Pangaltı etc. in this map.--Rapsar (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no idea what is the nuance around "in" or "of". As user Rapsar explains above, the neighbourhoods and quarters of/in Istanbul are not exactly the same thing. The "neighbourhoods" have defined borders; so we should better use (I mean prefer) this concept in WP and not so much the not very accurate "quarter". The quarters are there, known and used by people, but as they do not have fixed borders, sometimes not everybody understands the same area by the name of a quarter. Normally even this should not be a problem but the long history of cities like Istanbul and the presence of many controversial attitudes in WP do not leave me to simply ignore this matter; because we have seen and continue to see that formerly used (now only by some Wikipedians) names of parts of the city, like "Galata" or "Pera" are being objects of POV users to try to present them as current demonyms of Turkish places. After all this, I will only say I have confidence in both user:Alessandro57 and user:Rapsar and would normally agree with what they, or other objective users agree on. --E4024 (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that I expressed myself not clearly. The difference between a quarter and a neighborhood in Turkey is clear. What I mean is that the category neighbourhoods of Istanbul is presently mainly populated with quarters, and not neighbourhoods. So the right thing to do is move the category (and subcategories) name from Neighbourhoods of Istanbul to Quarters of Istanbul. Alex2006 (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion; although we now have a proposal to rename that should be discussed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that we have two possible solutions here: either we rename the Category:neighbourhoods of Istanbul and subCats to Category:Quarters of Istanbul (and subcats) and then move the neighbourhoods to a new neighbourhoods cat (with subcats?) or we leave the situation as it is, traversing the existing neighbourhoods subcategories and moving all the quarters in the existing (unstructured) quarters category. This soultion will have the inconvenient of leaving several neighbourhoods subcategories empty (ex: Category:Neighbourhoods of Bakırköy), since at the moment they are populated only with quarters. Alex2006 (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD 2013 January 16 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 3 February 2013 (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:Nishapur Quarter

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. No prejudice against immediate renomination due to lack of consensus. The Bushranger One ping only 03:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We should not be categorizing populated places by their former countries' subdivisions. All the articles in this are properly classified in their current countries/subdivisions, etc. If an article were created describing the extent of Nishapur Quarter it would fully explain what its borders were and what places were included, but categorizing like this would lead to a huge mess where many places would have so many categories of not only their former countries, but every incarnation of subdivisions that such country went through. Category:Populated places in Wessex anyone? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I do not see that the objection is completely valid. The scope of a former subdivision is of historical interest, but I would prefer to see a category of this nature being a container for the modern subdivisions. To apply the nom's analogy, it would be appropriate to have a category Category:Counties of Wessex, with Devon, Hampshire, Berkshire, etc as members. In that case, the extent of the ancient kingdom can be defined from modern county boundaries. I do not know if this applies to the subject here. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which articles, assuming you looked at the category, are subdivisions? None, actually. Moreover, there is no one-to-one correspondence in any event. If it were being used like Category:Louisiana Purchase or Category:Louisiana Territory and Missouri Territory are, fine; but we don't have articles that would go in such a re-purposed category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD 2013 January 16 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 3 February 2013 (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.

Watersports

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 'Water sports in' with tree being grown from there. The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
or renaming:
Nominator's rationale: These two categories appear to be the only categories which contain the word "watersports". There is no Category:Watersports, and each of these categories has only a single parent.
We do have a generic Category:Water sports which is solely a container for types of water sport, so if kept then these categories should be renamed and added to a new subcat of Category:Water sports ... but do we want to start a hierarchy of Category:Water sports by location? It would mostly be a container category for the individual sports (swimming, sailing, diving etc, per the List of water sports), and I'm not aware of other analogous groupings of sports (such as Category:Ball games by country or Category:Ball games by location) — but pls correct me if I have missed something. The closest parallel I can see is Category:Winter sports by country, which is almost empty.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 3 February 2013 (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:Polytheliacs

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 18:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic, WP:OC#TRIVIAL. Nymf talk to me 09:42, 3 February 2013 (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/2013_February_3&oldid=1138397893"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 3, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.