Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 7

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 05:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming:
  • Category:Former municipalities of the canton of Bern to Category:Former municipalities of Bern

• Strong support per discussion quoted. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support bur did I not see an open discussion in the opposite direction? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is now closed, and thank you for your support! – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 00:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This would make these categories out-of-synch with all of the other categories that refer to things in or of the cantons of Switzerland. For instance, the immediate parent of Category:Former municipalities of the canton of Bern is Category:Municipalities of the canton of Bern, and the ultimate parent/article are Category:Canton of Bern/Canton of Bern. All of the subcategories of Category:Canton of Bern use "canton of Bern" in the name. I don't think it really matters that "only cantons have municipalities", nor do I think the current category names are too long. The previous nomination was the correct one, and I'm sorry I didn't see it before it was closed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an other-stuff-exists argument, isn't it? There are also many categories without "canton of" in the name, by the way. See for example the tree of Category:Valais. But the question really is whether "canton of" is needed in the category name at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, not really, I don't think. It's more of an argument based on the category naming guidelines, which are reflected in speedy criteria C2B and C2C. If these categories were renamed, they would be eligible for renaming back to the current names (if we ignore the fact that the renames were made in a full discussion, that is). "Canton of" is certainly needed in many of the core names, since there are cities that share the same name. The Canton of Bern and Bern are not the same thing, and likewise Category:Canton of Bern and Category:Bern each contain subcategories named after the pattern of the ultimate parent. Category:Valais and its subcategories are also correctly named because the article is at Valais. In that sense, the proposal to rename Category:Former municipalities of Valais it in the previous discussion was not correct, and I withdraw that comment. As far as I can see, everything is currently named correctly.
• Category naming practices usually regard it as irrelevant that a part of the name is superfluous; ie, the argument that we don't need "canton of" in the category names because only cantons are divided into municipalities should not be determinative. It's the same reason we have Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state) rather than Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia—while a solid argument can be made that the "(U.S. state)" is superfluous (there are no U.S. Highways in the country of Georgia), we use the disambiguator because the parent Category:Georgia (U.S. state) uses it. The same reasons apply here.
• Ultimately, I think the base issue here is that there is a perceived need by the nominator to have all of the subcategories of Category:Former municipalities of Switzerland by canton follow the same format ("canton of" vs. no "canton of"). I don't think this is desirable or needed, though, simply because out of the need or lack of need of disambiguation the parent categories and parent articles are not all in the same format in this regard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe that's why Cydebot stopped where it did back three years ago? – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 03:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's probably true. Cydebot only does what users tell it to do, so it must have been renaming some of the categories speedily to match the parent category formats. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keeping everything as is seems to be the best solution indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 17 February 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.

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 NE Ent 10:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming {{StLouisCityMO-geo-stub}} to {{StLouis-geo-stub}}
• Rationalle: The article is at St. Louis, not at St. Louis City or at St. Louis City, Missouri. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 23:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose stub type is for the city, not county, and that in Missouri, not Minnesota, so or elsewhere, so renaming it will collect all forms of StLouis not related to the city in Missouri -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet do we get similar issues with {{London-stub}} (in addition to the city in England, there are 10 in the US, 1 in Canada, and 1 in Frnace, based on London (disambiguation))? With {{Berlin-stub}}? With {{Warsaw-stub}}? {{Toronto-stub}}? In all these cases, the stub tag matches the city article's name, despite the existance of other cities by the same name; it also should for St. Louis. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also like to point out that I have recently created stub categories for 3 other US cities - the article names for which are Little Rock, Arkansas, Miami, and Sacramento, California - and the stub tags for them are {{LittleRockAR-stub}}, {{Miami-stub}}, and {{SacramentoCA-stub}} - which agrees with my point. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. The risk of this being mistaken to refer to places other than the city in Missouri is fanciful, I think. For a stub, we are safe matching the name to Saint Louis St. Louis (changed per below). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean St. Louis (the article about the city), not Saint Louis (the disambiguation page) - note that the stub tag name matches this detail. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, yes—yes of course! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:05, 17 February 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.

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) 00:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Paleontologist taskforce articles by quality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Paleontologist articles by quality Hza a 9 (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Note: The category is currently empty (and has no parent categories) so maybe speedy. DexDor (talk) 13:46, 8 February 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.

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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Treatment of depression to Category:Management of depression

Nominator's rationale: Renaming this topic category to match its eponymous article, Management of depression. Per Wikipedia:Categorization#Topic category, "Topic categories are named after a topic (usually sharing a name with the Wikipedia article on that topic)".

This is also supported by criterion for speedy renaming C2D, "renaming a topic category to match its eponymous article".

That said, I nominated this for discussion rather than speedy renaming because a rename of the category would cause a title mismatch with Category:Treatment of bipolar disorder. (That category's title does match that of its main article.)

Which is more important, keeping a topic category's name uniform with that of its main article, or keeping topic categories' names matched with each other? cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Query. The parent category is Category:Treatment by psychiatric diagnosis; are there any topics that should be categorized as "management...", but not categorized as "treatment..." ? DexDor (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, on the basis that 'Management' means something very similar to 'Treatment' in this case. There's no hard and fast rule that category names match exactly to an article name. It may be a better solution to question the name of the Management of depression article, though I understand why it is named this way (people don't necessarily recover from depression, but simply learn how to manage the symptoms, in contrast to psychotic illnesses where the sufferer is unaware they are ill so wouldn't be in a position to 'manage' their own illness). Sionk (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Depression, like any behavioural condition, is managed not treated (like cancer, or the flu). This better encapsulates its position in relation to medicine and better covers material such as Behavioral theories of depression. If anything, the parent should be changed to reflect this. Category:Treatment and management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder already seems to have understood this well. I'd be very happy for the scope of this nomination to expand to the similar topics in the parent category. SFB 19:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Treatment and management of ..." is a bit wordy for category names. Could we get away just the t-word or just the m-word, but with some category text explaining the scope of the category ? DexDor (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - as above. Neutrality^talk 01:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match article. The place to decide the treatment v. management issue is in the article talk page, where people with more knowledge of that subject are more likely to show up and notifications are done better, not here in the categories discussion. We should follow the lead of the article on that issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 7 March 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Roman and pre-Roman Hispania to Category:Ancient history of the Iberian Peninsula

Nominator's rationale: Hispania is a Roman name of (part of) the Iberian Peninsula, so it is anachronistic to speak of "pre-Roman Hispania". Note that Category:Hispania is a child category of the nominated category, which is very strange in the current set-up, but after renaming this parent-child relationship will make more sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support captures the essence of the category better than the current title. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:47, 9 February 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.

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. There appears to be agreement. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Geography of Roman Italy to Category:Roman Italy

Nominator's rationale: The category is not about geographical topics, it's about places in current Italy that played an important role in Roman history. A possible alternative rename is Category:History of Roman Italy though I don't think this is really necessary because the adjective Roman makes the historical character of the category clear enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is thoroughly covered at Category:Ancient Roman geography and serves no useful navigational purpose. General geographical features should not be categorised under old political units. An attempt to do so would mean numerous categories on many geographical articles with little value. Something like this is better done in an article, where the importance and relevance of the place can be discussed in context (e.g. like the prose at Alban Hills). SFB 18:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand your point and sympathize with it as well, though I'm a bit hesitant on the best next step. Should we entirely delete the category or merge it to Category:Ancient Roman geography?> Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• However, the child categories contain names of geographical regions that are no longer in use, they were only used by the ancient Romans. For that purpose I think we need to keep this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sillyfolkboy: Could you perhaps have another look? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: So this is just focusing on the Italy part of the Ancient Roman empire? On that basis it makes sense to keep, as say a counterpart to geography of Roman Greece‎. SFB 07:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Right! Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 11 February 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Travel and communications in ancient Rome to Category:Transport in ancient Rome

Nominator's rationale: C2C to parent Category:History of transport. Note that I've parented the nominated category to the beforementioned parent only just now, so I don't think that a speedy rename request would be appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Better matches the scope of the gathered material as well. SFB 18:53, 7 February 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.

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. There was no real discussion of issue addressed by the nomination, but the parent category is Category:Ancient city of Rome, so the nomination satisfies speedy criterion C2B and I think is safe to carry out. If users want to pursue any of the other issues discussed, the new category can be nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Topography of ancient Rome to Category:Topography of the ancient city of Rome

Nominator's rationale: Proposed name more clearly indicates that this category is neither about the Roman kingdom, nor about the Roman republic nor about the Roman empire, but it is really about the city. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Topography doesn't seem the right choice here, in that we are documenting mainly (only?) the man-made structures of the city. Surely something like Category:Buildings and structures in Ancient Rome is more descriptive and better fits in with the navigational tree? SFB 18:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures in Rome‎ is already a child category of the nominated category. On top of that, there is also e.g. a child category with the famous 7 hills, which obviously aren't buildings and structures. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Meanwhile I purged the nominated category, buildings and structures have now been moved away to its child category Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures in Rome‎. Which leaves us with other places (areas, districts, a cave, a square, etc.) in ancient Rome plus some articles about topography of ancient Rome as an academic specialization. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There hasn't been a discussion yet about the nomination, i.e. about whether or not "city of" should be inserted in the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 11 February 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.

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) 00:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jetboil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too narrow inclusion criteria with no real prospect of population. Otterathome (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete two of the images are very dubious under fair use (pictures of saucepans) leaving one, hardly needing a category. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 8 February 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.

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) 00:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Anti-Americanists

Nominator's rationale: Completely biased. Only has one page. Plus, we don't have "Racists" or "Antisemites". Jackninja5 (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We already have Category:Anti-Americanism so it makes sense to also have the nominated category if sufficient content is available. The latter is the bigger question, I guess. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also noted that we don't have a category called "Racists". Jackninja5 (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Likewise, we could have Category:Racists as a child category of Category:Racism if sufficient content would be available. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, this is premature; it is a new category and may become populated over time. Afwaaja (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Also subjective inclusion criteria; the existence of this category potentially invites the inclusion of even American people who get deemed, for WP:POV reasons by some Fox News personality, as "unpatriotic". (I was actually surprised that the one existing entry was actually a foreigner and not an "unpatriotic" American citizen.) Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 9 February 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.

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; there was discussion about renaming Category:Free software. That should be proposed in a new nomination since the category was not tagged for discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Libre software to Category:Free software

Nominator's rationale: This appears to just be a category of unrelated software projects that use the prefix libre. PaleAqua (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the problem is "free software", since "free" is highly ambiguous, meaning, "libre" or "gratis". The explaination given at the category description for "Free software" is also rather bad, since even libre software does not mean it will meet the definition of the FSF. We should instead use "libre software" as the category name, which would also free it from any implication of FSF-Stallman requirements, which many "free" software do not meet but which are still "free" as in libre. (to to mention the sticky "Open software" which does not mean free, since there are "open" software which is neither gratis nor libre) -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Libre software currently redirects to Free software. If libre is actually the commonly used term for this, it would be best to start renaming the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the redirect. The terms "libre software" and "software libre" and "free software" (in the FSF sense) are synonymous.
  Is it possible to redirect a category? --K (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The suggested Category:Free software (libre) works for me. The category description however needs to be scrubbed, since not all free/libre-software actually meets Stallman's definition, but are still considered libre/free. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Free software as in gratis appears to be covered at freeware, where free software as in libre appears to be covered by Free software. Probably best to align with the articles, though I'm not opposed to changing Free software to Category:Free software (libre) to mark the distinction if required. SFB 19:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a good suggestion (changing Category:Free software to Category:Free software (libre)). Another possibility is to create Category:Libre (possible main in preparation) and make Category:Free software or preferably Category:Free software (libre) a sub-category of Category:Libre. --K (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @PaleAqua: the category page hasn't been tagged yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, I should have checked that WP:Twinkle did everything it was supposed to when I used it to tag the page. PaleAqua (talk) 16:03, 8 February 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.