Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 29

April 29

Yacht racers

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. – Fayenatic London 14:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yacht racers by different countries
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category tree related to sailing of all its forms (professional, competitive, recreational et cetera) lacks a bit of structure, some articles happens to be Category:Sailing, some in Category:Sailing (sport) and some in Category:Yachting. Of people involved in racing with sailboats, some are in Category:Sailors and some in Category:Yacht racers. One reason to why this has happened is probably that all sailors don’t race yachts, but dinghies or keelboats.
Category:Sailors is a category for all types of sailors ("This is the category of all persons who have spent part of their life as recreational or commercial sailors, meaning as crew on a sailing vessel or other vessel. It is not for sailors who have that title as members of a naval force."), while, Category:Yacht racers is a "Worldwide index of famous sailboat racers. Includes Crew Members and Skippers etc". Category:Yacht racers replaced category Category:Sailboat racers in 2008.
There is a benefit of categorising all competitors of the sport sailing together since the competitors are all competing under the same rules and many competitors are both yacht racers and racers of other types of sailboats. Category:Sailors (sport) would include competitors regardless what type of boat they compete in (yacht, dinghy, et cetera).
Further on, 'sailor' is the definition used by ISAF (the sailing governing body) for its competitors ([1]), hence preferable before yacht racers. Sailors (sport) also matches Category:Sailing (sport) better than Category:Yacht racers. Smartskaft (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The start of Yacht is dubious, isn't it? "Yachting refers to using water vessels, called yachts, for sporting purposes. If the vessels are sailboats, it's known as sailing, and if the vessels are motorboats, it's known as powerboating. A yacht /ˈjɒt/ is a recreational boat or ship." Much of the rest of the article explicitly covers sailing stuff. Personally I think most of Category:Yachting should be merged to the sailing tree, though categories such as Category:Individual yachts should probably keep the present name. How you deal with the sail/power ambiguity, I'm not sure. Johnbod (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Yachting could also be upmerged to Category:Boating (same category description) with sailing categories moved to Category:Sailing or Category:Sailing (sport). Smartskaft (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2015 (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:Reportedly haunted locations in Montreal

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. MER-C 11:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining and unencyclopedic -- none of the four articles in this category make any mention of being 'reportedly haunted'. The larger category structure that Grutness has created for 'reportedly haunted' places in Quebec needs to be pruned to cases where it's properly referenced, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2015 (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:Common oxide glass components

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. MER-C 11:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That an oxide (e.g. Iron(III) oxide or Sulfur dioxide) is commonly (subjective?) used as a component of glass is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the chemical. This could be listified, but many/most of the articles in this category don't mention glass and there's Glass#Ingredients (which, incidentally, mentions several oxides that aren't in this category). Category:Oxides shows that the main categorization of oxides is by what they are an oxide of - which is very defining. DexDor (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is in the nature of a performance category - in the sense of one of a number of uses made of the material. "Common" introduces a POV element to the category - how common? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think that we need to cite a "performance by chemical compound" to justify deletion. Simply, the fact that some chemical compound may be used as an ingredient in the manufacture of glass is not a defining characteristic of the compound. Alansohn (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2015 (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 pre-1707 Scottish Parliament

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. MER-C 13:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: per head article Parliament of Scotland, parent Category:Parliament of Scotland, and many siblings such as Category:Members of the Parliament of Scotland 1612‎ &c BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 29 April 2015 (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:Pre-Conquest castles

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:Castles in England built before 1066. MER-C 11:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Pre-Conquest castles to Category:Pre-Conquest Norman castles in England
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is insufficiently specific. There was no consensus at a recent discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_2#Category:Pre-Conquest_castles, so I thought I would try a different suggestion. – Fayenatic London 07:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative Rename to Category:Pre-Norman conquest castles in England to match the Norman conquest of England article. The Normans were the conquerors and the Anglo-Saxons were the conquered but I'm not sure the proposed name makes that clear. 2 of the 4 Castles were built by orders of ethnic Normans under Anglo-Saxon rule so I'm reluctant to call these "Anglo-Saxon" castles since those may be, design wise, Norman architecture. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Nearly) any rename would be better than having the discussion end again in 'no consensus'. I think "English castles built before the Norman conquest" would be the clearest though. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I strongly support either your rename or Fayenatic's over what is there now. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Pre-Norman conquest castles in England since the nom's choice doesn't match the intent of the category (it's not about Norman castles in Normandy from before 1066; nor the castles in Normandy before 1450 when it was reacquired by France; it's about those in England prior to 1066) The current category name makes no sense, since this is the English-language Wikipedia, not the England Wikipedia. There are conquests all over the place. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – these are not "Pre-Norman conquest castles in England" as this would include far more castles. They are specifically "Castles in the Norman style built in England before 1066". The nom's suggested name of Category:Pre-Conquest Norman castles in England covers the points perfectly well (unlike the alternatives suggested, which I oppose). Oculi (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3 of the 4 articles indicated that these castles were built at the direction or were financed by Normans officials in pre-conquest England. But they were likely built largely by Anglo-Saxon labor and the articles give no hint as to what architectural style they used. I'm not saying you aren't right and they weren't Norman styled architecture, but the current articles don't make that clear. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might we avoid the whole issue through a rename like Category:Castles built in England before 1066? Neutralitytalk 23:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a similar thought, see above, and I think a solution like this would be the most appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Absolutely Anything Every single one of the suggestions here is far better than the current category name. If the closing administrator doesn't see a clear consensus around which new name to use, I encourage him/her to use their judgment and pick their personal favorite from the above options. That outcome would match the consensus here much more closely than leaving Category:Pre-Conquest castles in place again. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Castles built in England before 1066. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, better. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2015 (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:Historical Chinatowns in British Columbia

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 Category:Historical Chinatowns in British Columbia, and add only the article Historical Chinatowns in Nanaimo into Category:Chinatowns in Canada. – Fayenatic London 14:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category groups articles about whole towns in BC that once had a Chinese neighborhoods. Some articles have a paragraph about the local Chinatown (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) while others make no reference to a Chinatown at all (6, 7 8, 9, 10, 11, 12). Mostly, these town articles have a single sentence about Chinese residents in the history section which doesn't seem defining. Since Chinese immigrants played such a crucial role in development across B.C., having a small Chinese population at some point in the town's history wouldn't be unusual. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Skookum1 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge per nom. The current scheme is overcategorization by one trait that is not defining for the city as a whole. I would hate to see how many categories Detroit, Michigan would end up in if we categorized by all ethnic groups that had defined localized presences in the city at one point (Chinese, Chaldean, Appalachian White, Mexican, African-American, Maltese, Belgian, Greek, Irish, Polish, Hungarian, Italian, Hmong, and I have not exhausted the list.)John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2015 (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/2015_April_29&oldid=1074814262"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 29, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.